Salem's Lot Reviews

• Effective Vampire Thriller

  
  By A3MSQL0L4DM98Q on 2000-10-16
  SALEM'S LOT is without a doubt the best miniseries adaptation of a Stephen King novel, and it rivals studio films like CARRIE, CUJO and THE SHINING. While not necessarily a fan of King's fiction, I appreciate that he weaves intricate relationships between key players into the fabric of his stories and builds characters with depth instead of just presenting one-dimensional folks dealing with scares. The best film adaptations of his work, those mentioned above, preserve these little details and SALEM'S LOT is no exception. With this in mind, consider only the definitive 183-minute version available on double VHS or DVD, as nearly every second of the film is essential and alternate VHS versions rob the viewer of nearly 70 minutes of film.
  
  SALEM'S LOT is an exceptional triumph in that it doesn't really tell a new story, but it keeps the viewer's attention for a full three hours. The plot is basically the old standard: a vampire has settled in Salem's Lot and is quickly infecting the entire town. A brave few hunt the vampire and his minions down. The final confrontation between our hero, Ben Mears and Barlow made me wonder why people always try to stake a vampire in his coffin just as sunlight is waning - why don't they do it first thing in the morning with hours of daylight to spare? The dramatic tension is the obvious answer, and it works well in this film. In addition, the vampire make-up was remarkably well-done and James Mason deserves special mention for his incredibly evil performance as Barlow's henchman, Straker. A fine supporting cast is composed of TV actors as well as Hollywood names like Elisha Cook and Marie Windsor.
  
  As cinema, the film has a deliberate, steady pace. Tobe Hooper's direction is not particularly innovative, but he does manage to create an eerie atmosphere throughout and provide more than a few real scares, despite the limitations imposed by the television format. The only drawbacks are necessary full screen presentation and the obvious commercial breaks which sometimes disrupt climactic points in the film. These minor irritations aside, SALEM'S LOT has a true cinematic feel.
  
  All in all, one of the better vampire films I've seen. Highly recommended for purchase on DVD - you'll not get a better vampire film for your money.
  
  

• You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you...

  
  By A3VV4GUGLUVUP1 on 2001-06-13
  Directed by Tobe Hooper (who would go on to helm "Poltergeist"), "Salem's Lot" is a better-than-adequate condensing of Stephen King's classic horror novel. It's made all the more effective when you consider this is material originally shown on network television.

  David Soul ("Starsky and Hutch") plays Ben Mears, a writer who returns to his hometown to write a novel about the local haunted house, and ends up dating Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia, future star of "Heart Like a Wheel"). Then evil James Mason comes to town, and pretty soon 70s character actors like Fred Willard, Geoffery Lewis and Elisha Cook, Jr. are dropping dead due to... mysterious circumstances. Okay, enough phony suspense. It's a vampire movie. Vampires... in modern-day Maine. And it works better than it has a right to.

  Soul's not exactly tortured enough, and Lance Kerwin's a little too old to play a monster-obsessed youth, but the supporting cast, which includes Ed Flanders ("St. Elsewhere"), Lew Ayres (Paul, from the classic 1930 "All Quiet on the Western Front"), Kenneth McMillan ("Ragtime," and "Dune") and George Dzundza (everything else) more than make up for it. They're sincere, and that counts for a lot. James Mason makes a perfectly urbane villain; he's suave and dangerous, and much smarter than his undead master, who's something of a disappointment in the chills department when finally revealed.

  This disk contains the entire miniseries, which manages to maintain a level of suitable creepiness, despite some dated sexual innuendo and a some "made-for-tv" scenes that aren't quite as menacing as they could be. Still, a few sequences are effectively chilling, and it's well worth your time, especially around Halloween.
  
  

• THE MOST EERIE MINI-SERIES TO EVER BE SHOWN ON TV

  
  By on 1999-08-20
  First of all, don't be fooled-only watch the full length mini-series. The "cut-to-shreds" movie version is not worth the blank video it was taped on. I first watched "Salem's Lot" as a kid of about 9. I then bought the video 3 years ago and I was just as terrified watching it as a 20-year-old as I was 11 years previous.

  What makes "Salem's Lot" different from many horror 'classics' is that it doesn't have to rely on blood and gore to scare the wits out of the viewer. The eerie tenseness of the presence of Straker, Mears' return to THAT house and the ultimate battle with the elusive Mr.Barker results in a constant shiver down your spine. My favourire scene, though, is one that freaked me out as a kid - when Danny Glick is visited for the first time by his now vampire brother, hovering in a cloud of smoke at his bedroom window. Believe me, you'll be checking behind the curtains of every window in the house for weeks to come, especially if it's a foggy night!!!

  Living in Ireland, I bought the UK release of "SALEM'S LOT THE MINI-SERIES" which, I believe, contains a few additional scenes not included in the American 'full- length version.' Everyone should see this mini-series at least once in their life-time....it's something that you will never forget!!!!
  
  

• Solid adaption a bit dated

  
  By AQP1VPK16SVWM on 2003-07-20
  Based on Stephen King's second published novel, Salem's Lot is a variation on Dracula. King subverts the story by making the gradual takeover of the town by vampires the focus of his story. Ben Mears (David Soul) is a writer who left Salem's Lot shortly after high school. He's haunted by a single image--the image of a man who committed suicide in a haunted house. He returns to Salem's Lot to write a novel based on his experience. In the process he falls in love with a local high school teacher (nicely played by a young and beautiful Bonnie Bedila)After the arrival of an antique's dealer (James Mason), children disappear and creepy things begin to happen in the town.

  It's one of King's most accomplished early works. Originally meant to be directed as a feature film by George Romero (Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead), once Universal announced its remake of Dracula, the production company put the project on track as a television miniseries. Director Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Poltergist, Lifeforce) stepped in as director. While Hooper's direction is sharp particularly during the second half of the miniseries, his unusual restraint due to the constraints of television work against him. The best sequences (particularly during the last hour)capture all of the creepiness missing from the early part of the miniseries. Paul Monash's teleplay captures the best elements of King's novel. While it's a bit lacking in terms of creepiness during the early part of the production, Monash's script does manage to capture the small town atmosphere very well.

  David Soul gives a thoughtful performance as Mears. Bonnie Bedelia is marvelous as Susan the high school teacher that captures his heart. The film is filled out with a great cast of strong character actors including Fred Willard, Elisha Cook, Jnr., Lew Ayres and Ed Flaunders. The production design and art direction doesn't betray the television roots of the miniseries like most projects from the same time frame (most notably the awful version of The Martian Chronicles). Part of this is due to the smalltown Maine Setting.

  While it's nice to have this on DVD, the print is in awful shape. There's a huge amount of analog artifacts. There's dust, dirt and lots of other problems with the print. This looks like the print that was used for the videotape version. The picture is frequently soft and is missing a lot of detail. The colors haven't been balanced correctly as well and they frequently bleed. Although the outside of the disc states it's a duallayer disc, it doesn't look it. The only plus here is that the entire miniseries is included on one disc.

  The mono sound is flat and doesn't have any dynamic range. While I realize it's too much to expect a 5.1 or stereo remix, the least Warner could have done was to try and find a better source for the print and soundtrack. The only extra included is a "theatrical trailer" which I don't recall being broadcast when the miniseries originally aired. Perhaps it was created for the theatrical version of the film. The theatrical trailer actually looks better than much of the print used for this transfer.

  Sadly, Salem's Lot, like a lot of early DVD's issued by Warner, looks like it was haphazardly slapped together. It's a pity as there was a missed opportunity here. While it isn't the best miniseries, it's an early classic of the horror miniseries that were created for television during the late 70's. The film would have benefited from a commentary from director Hooper, star Soul and Bedila. I'm sure there must be documentary or behind the scenes footage that could have been included as well. Like a lot of Warner "product" (Horror of Dracula comes to mind), too little effort and not enough thought or care was put into this reissue. I'm sorry to say that this is a very disappointing DVD.
  
  

• "Ah, yes, well, I can assure you that people will find Mr. Barlow well worth the wait." -Straker

  
  By A3FUBUJAIGM87T on 2006-10-03
  About this time every year, I always like to think of the greatest horror movies of all-time, and watch them during the month of October, to celebrate my favorite holiday which is Halloween of course. One of the first two or three movies that always comes to my mind every single time is Tobe Hooper's adaptation of the Stephen King vampire novel called "Salem's Lot". Ironically enough, "Salem's Lot" is a made for T.V. movie, which is unique for horror movies because most people erroneously believe that you have to have all of this blood and gore in a horror movie to create a truly scary movie. Those of us sophisticated and intelligent horror movie fans that appreciate really scary movies know that this is not the case. Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot" is a perfect example of a perfect piece of cinematic horror in every sense of the term, and yet there is minimal to zero blood in it. How can this be? How is this possible? Well, the short answer is that you do not need a lot of blood and gore to make a scary movie. In other words, the special effects are not what makes a movie scary, but it is the atmosphere, mood and the story itself that creates a pure horror movie that is really scary.
  
  Thus, the reason "Salem's Lot" is such a great horror movie is because of the atmosphere created in this movie, the setting, the mood and theme, the scary music, the terrifying looking vampires that are in this movie (whomever did the make-up job on these vampires really did do a fantastic job when you think about it), and the way the movie really draws the viewer into the world that is "Salem's Lot" and shows the audience the unspeakable evil that resides in the Marsten House. Salem's Lot is just like any other small town in America...it is small, the air is filled with petty rumors of infidelity, it has small-town people, and it has its haunted house. What a great setting for a horror movie!
  
  "Salem's Lot" is about a writer named Ben Mears, who grew up in Salem's Lot (short for Jerusalem's Lot), who returns to his home town to write a book. Mears, played quite well by David Soul, is an accomplished writer, but he has a dark secret, a deep-seated fear, the origin of which lies in Marsten House. It is Mears' obsession with this fear and evil that resides in the Marsten House that drives Mears' character throughout the movie. The small town of Salem's Lot is not used to strangers, and Mears is not the only stranger in town. Another stranger by the name of Straker, played brilliantly by James Mason, is truly a stranger in every sense of the word. Moreover, there is something dark about Straker and his mysterious partner Mr. Barlow, something unspeakably evil.
  
  In the interest of not giving the movie away, it is sufficient to point out that Salem's Lot is in for a rude awakening, an awakening of pure evil that grips the town with terror, and it is this same terror that captures the audience and grips the audience with fear. The audience is able to empathize and/or step into the shoes of the characters in this movie, and experience the same fears along with the characters. "Salems' Lot" is a simple yet brilliant movie about darkness versus light and good versus evil. The darkness and evil which is so inherent and rooted in the Marsten House spreads like wildfire throughout the town of Salem's Lot. The question is whether Ben Mears, Dr. Norton, Jason Burke and a boy named Mark can stop this evil from taking over Salem's Lot, and destroying life as they know it.
  
  Tobe Hooper employs great acting, a terrifying story, a very scary atmosphere and absolutely horrifying looking vampires to draw the audience into the dark world that is "Salem's Lot". True, so much of what happens in Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot" involves what the audience does not see, and it is this method that Hooper utilizes to perfection to haunt the imaginations of his audience. There are so many great scenes in this movie that I do not even want to discuss them in this review because the viewer should see these scenes without any warning. Suffice it to say that the vampires in this movie really are quite morbid, deathly, and absolutely horrifying. The mannerisms of the vampires in this movie are absolutely as you would expect such a demon/creature of the night would have. These are not rock n' roll vampires...these vampires are creatures of death, evil, and spawns of Satan himself from the very pits of Hell. Pure evil is what we are talking about here folks, and one look at Barlow's face will impress upon you what a vampire would really look like. Barlowe is a monster, he is not interested in romance, but he is evil incarnate, an unnatural creature symbolic of evil itself. The terror that Barlowe inspires upon the audience by his mere presence is incredible and much more than you could ever hope to garner from all of the blood, gore and guts of tasteless and spiritless horror movies of today. "Salem's Lot" gets you where the fear is...it penetrates your mind and sucks you in to a realm of the unknown, a realm of darkness, and it allows the viewer's imagination to run rampart into the fear that is "Salem's Lot".
  
  As a final note on this great movie, I would like to take time out to warn all horror movie fans to STAY AWAY from the re-make of "Salem's Lot" starring Rob Lowe. In short, the remake of "Salem's Lot" (which first aired on TNT) is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life, and that is no exaggeration. Also, not to take anything away from Stephen King who is a great horror novelist but, like Stanley Kubrick's adaptation of "The Shining", Tobe Hooper's adaptation of "Salem's Lot" is clearly superior in every way to Stephen King's novel. And, yes, I have read both of these books. While both are good, Tobe Hooper and Stanley Kubrick revise, refine and simply give "Salem's Lot" and "The Shining" something more that accentuates the horror to audience to utmost degree that the novels simply are unable to do.
  
  The direction, acting, production values, special effects or lack thereof in Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot" are all carefully calculated and presented to the audience to bring you the ultimate in terror, the ultimate in horror, the ultimate scary movie experience. You will NOT watch this movie in an unfamiliar and dark two story house by yourself with the lights off on Halloween night. You would not be able to do it without being scared. This movie is the embodiment of what every horror movie should strive to be, a truly scary experience for the viewer, and Tobe Hooper's vampire masterpiece in "Salem's Lot" is one of the top two or three scariest movies of all-time and garners HorrorMan's HIGHEST RECOMMENDATION as one of the very greatest horror movies ever made!!
  
  As an interesting piece of hodge-podge, Lew Ayres played Jason Burke in this film...Ayres also starred in another great horror movie called "Damien: The Omen II" and he also starred in the the 1930 World War I classic, "All Quiet on the Western Front"...interesting selection of movies there!
  
  
  
• AMONG THE SCARIEST VAMPIRE FILMS EVER!
  By A3OYHMD7KWGE6L on 2000-05-29
  I remember seeing this film as a young boy. It frightened me that much I couldnt sleep for months if the light wasnt on in my bedroom. Although there are two versions of Salems Lot (The Movie & The mini series) I will only suggest the Mini series. The Movie version is modified beyond recognision and should be avoided in my opinion. The mini series gives you a better idea of the plot and builds up greater suspense. Reggie Nalder plays a terrifying Nosferatu vampire named Kurt Barlow whom infects the town of Salems Lot with his unending thirst for blood. With help from his day time guard Mr Straker (James Mason) soon the town of Salems Lot becomes a haven of evil as more residents rise to hunger the blood of the living. A young boy Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin), and a writer Ben Mears (David Soul) who returned to Salems Lot after spending his childhood there, attempt to put an end to the evil that is manifest within the Marsten House... When you watch this movie, you will find it extremely difficult to look out your bedroom window at night again.
  
  
• Classic
  By AJKWF4W7QD4NS on 2005-01-20
  Everything clicked on this ratings smash mini-series adapted from Stephen King's visionary novel. The purposely slow and steady direction of Texas Chainsaw Massacre director Tobe Hooper the original, and best, Salem's Lot, in which Ben Mears (David Soul) returns to his childhood home, and soon finds that a powerful vampire has taken up residence and is preying on the town. What helps make Salem's Lot so effective is the same formula that helped make Hooper's original Chainsaw movie so great: giving the atmosphere an intense sense of dread and fear, almost without having to shed a single drop of blood. Not to mention that the cast does terriffic work, including a creepy James Mason as the mysterious Straker who serves as the vamp's henchman. With knowing nods to classic films of the genre, including the classic german silent film Nosferatu, the original Salem's Lot is lightyears beyond the recent TNT remake, and is by far the best Stephen King adapted TV mini-series of all time.
  
  
• WHAT A MASTERPIECE!
  By AV1KYJXHOWPMD on 2006-07-11
  Stay away from the piece of crap remake and stick with this classic Stephen King horror. This movie to me, is scarier than the book which was also very good. This was made back in the days when C.G.I. had not really been in use, yet the effects really looked real. This is Tobe Hooper's best film along with Poltergeist. Do not even bother with his Texas Chainsaw Massacre movies, because they are total crap. Just watch Poltergeist and this great Stephen King vampire story. Oh, and on a side note, Stephen King liked this film as well.
  
  
• Quite Interesting, Time Consuming TV Movie
  By AOG4OAJE74M95 on 2000-04-10
  After purchasing "Salem's Lot: The Movie" for 9.99 a few years back (without watching it first), I felt cheated. I felt as if there was something missing. When I looked into it, I discovered that this had been a television mini-series that aired in 1979. I found out that the film was originally released as a 2-parter at approximately 200 minutes. It was, then, later cut to about 150 minutes. Due to it's success, Warner Bros. decided to release it as a theatrical film overseas and trimmed it considerably. (They cut approximiately 1 hour and 11 minutes of footage.) The finished product was the 112 minute, "butchered" version of the mini-series. Well, when I found out that Warner had released the full mini-series on DVD, I had to scoop it up to get the whole story.

  And, man, what a change! While the European theatrical version runs 112 minutes, the DVD runs 183 minutes. It fleshes out the characters and restores, what I think, is vital information that was missing from the 112 minute version, making it illogical and confusing. So, by all means, avoid the 112 minute version and watch this one. Although, it is fun to watch the short one first to see what changes there are.

  This DVD is presented very well. The sound is crisp and the colors have a much "browner" feel to it than the VHS version. Warner Bros. has only put a international trailer on the disc in the special features department, but probably because there wasn't much else that existed.

  The only reason this one didn't get 5-stars is because the film is not perfect and is extremely dated. But, if you are a Stephen King or a Tobe Hooper fan, by all means, watch this one at least once!
  
  

• Believe It Or Not But This is More Faithful To The Book Then The Remake!
  By on 2006-01-21
  First off I want to warn some reviewers that my review has a spoiler so if you haven't read the book or seen this movie then you may not want to read this review!!.. Okay so this movie isn't 100 percent faithful to the book and isn't as good as the book but it's still a good movie and very scary! Ignore reviews that say the remake is more faithful to the book. While the remake is an okay movie it isn't as good as the 1979 version and despite what fans say isn't really all that faithful to Stephen King's book and I find it hard to believe that people who said the remake was more faithful actually even read the book! This 1979 version may have made changes, like having Bonnie Sawyer having an extra marital affair with her boss Larry Crocket when in the book she was having the affair with a young guy about 18 years old but despite that this is still a good movie and very faithful in spirit to the book and it's not like the remake didn't make changes too, like combining the cheating Bonnie Sawyer with Sandy MacDougal, the character who was physically abusing her baby and making Sandy have an affair with the doctor which didn't happen in the book at all and was even more untrue to the book and also in the remake they had Ben Mears kill Father Callahan and then Ben Mears is shot by the police and dies at the end of the movie. These two characters do not die in the book or this movie and that's my main problem with the remake so that's why I reccommend the book and this 1979 movie instead of the remake!
  
  
• Come home to Salem's Lot!
  By A2UQIIJ2CD8REE on 2001-02-01
  Ben Mears is a novelist who has come back to his hometown of Salem's Lot (formerly known as Jerusalem's Lot) to write about the old, abandoned Marsten place, an eerie construction at the top of a hill which once housed a deranged child killer. When enquiring however, he finds that the house is newly inhabited; sold to two men from Europe who intend to open an antique shop in town. One of the men is a Mr. Straker; a very well-mannered, well-dressed, well-educated, and highly suspicious fellow. He speaks to everyone with an air of superiority that hardly seems as friendly as he thinks. The other man is a Mr. Kurt Barlow, whom no one has ever seen. Oh well, Ben probably didn't want to actually stay in that house anyway. He finds a room at the local boarding house, and in no time is dating one of the town's most beloved daughters, the lovely but constantly spaced out Susan Norton. Before we know it, the two are in love. But all is not well in Salem's Lot. A local boy has turned up missing, and everyone is getting very nervous. The boy's brother becomes suddenly anemic, and dies shortly after. Soon, others begin to get sick. It seems as though the town is falling into the grips of a plague, but in fact, things are much, much worse.
  
  In case you didn't know, Salem's Lot is a vampire movie. Not just a vampire movie, one of the very best, and probably the scariest to date. Yes, I know it was made for TV in 1979, but this is truly one of the scariest movies out there, and that's because they chose to make a vampire that actually looks like a vampire. The "Master" in Salem's Lot is a blue version of Count Orlok from "Nosferatu," and that's scary, man! But the horror doesn't stop there. All the lesser vampires are scary too! I'm talking SCARY! There are some scenes in this film you will never forget, like the summoning at the window, or the "Look at me, teacher!" scene. You may scoff if you watch this with friends, but I warn you not to try watching it alone! For the most part the cast is perfect (not making a comparison with the book, that is), especially those great old 70's/80's staples like Geoffrey Lewis and Fred Willard. James Mason is his usual, creepy self, and that's very creepy, but not as creepy as Reggie Nalder who played the horrific Mr. Barlow. The least stunning cast members were the two starring lovebirds, David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia. David was adequate, but not that inspiring, while Bonnie seemed anesthetized most of the time. On the other hand, Lance Kerwin did an excellent job as the magic and monster obsessed teen, Mark Petrie. I have to disagree with reviewers who felt he was too old to play as a kid interested in monsters and magic. They sound just like the boy's father asking, "When are you going to grow out of this stuff?" If he's truly interested in such things, he's not going to grow out of it. Where do you think magicians and movie effects guys come from? Anyway, Director Toby Hooper outdid himself again with this modern masterpiece; easily one of the all-time scariest movies out there, complete with great effects and a haunting score, despite being a TV miniseries from the 70s. This DVD keeps the entire two-nighter intact, along with one bonus feature: the foreign theatrical trailer. "Salem's Lot" was the first DVD I bought when I got my DVD player, and I'm glad of that. It's A LOT of entertainment for a VERY reasonable price! Definitely one of the best Stephen King films, alongside Silver Bullet, The Shining, and Carrie.
  
  
  
  
• the best version
  By A8ZP6CFIPWUYN on 2004-08-30
  this is the only salems lot to buy dont waste time with that new mini series it wasnt scary and the acting bordered on pro wrestling anyways salems lot is the story about a writer returning to his small hometown called salems lot to write a new book when he was young him and some kids thought they saw somebody hanging in an old house thats supposed to be haunted while back in his town he notices all the people that have dissapeared or died and he suspects the old house and is curious about its new owner an antique dealer named mr straker and his partner who never seems to be around mr barlow this movies 1 of my top 10 vampire films alltime its truly scary unlike many vampire films these are more traditional vampires of folklore not models in 3 piece suits like in ann rices movie these vampires tear into you and when u die you are cursed to roam the countryside as 1 of these ghastly spectors this movie has great makeup and good effects making these vampires much more sinister than the ann rice age crowd is accustomed to buy this today it belongs in your collection
  
  
• I'd really like to see this remade...
  By A1TWTULVD6F22O on 2002-05-21
  I had some positive thoughts about this adaptation of Stephen King's novel, going back to when I saw the mini-series on TV. I knew that I would enjoy the DVD, and was prepared for it to be "dated" in terms of special effects (and it was!), which usually leaves a sort of "campy" feeling in films.

  Watching the miniseries again on DVD, I determined that, special effects aside, it was just bad. James Mason and Bonnie Bedelia, along with some quirky character actors (Fred Willard!) make it viewable, but just. David Soul and Lance Kerwin are bad. Really bad. No wonder they have disappeared from view. It was as though they were cast for the same "look"....blond stoic, without regard to whether or not they could make the film believable.

  There are a few scares, but too few. The book was so frightening, it is hard to believe that no one will try to film it again, with better graphics and visual effects, and please, please, better actors. Tobe Hooper redeemed himself a little with "Poltergeist", but it is obvious that he was trapped in a TV production with too little budget to bring the book to life.
  One last note....the score is atrocious!

  Please, Mr. King....have this one remade!
  
  

• A bit dated, but it still works well...
  By A25ZVI6RH1KA5L on 2003-10-15
  I vaguely remember when this TV miniseries came out way back in 1979, although I have a vivid recollection of a commercial shown for this movie. They used a scene where a boy, who was turned into a vampire, was floating outside the room he once shared with his brother and he was tapping on the glass, trying to get his brother to open the window. That visual really freaked me out, along with the scene where the gravedigger opens the coffin and gets attacked by the recently dead little boy. Maybe it was the thought that someone within my peer group could be turned into a vampire. It seems pretty rare that young children are portrayed as victims in horror movies, so when it does happen, it can be unsettling. Salem's Lot, directed by Tobe Hooper, stars David (Don't Give Up On Us, Baby) Soul, James (Mandingo) Mason, and Bonnie (Diehard) Bedelia. Some other recognizable faces are Elisha Cook Jr., George Dzundza, Fred Willard, and Ed Flanders.
  
  The story starts out with novelist Ben Mears (Soul) returning to his hometown, Salem's Lot, with the premise of his writing a book about a creepy old house which was the source for bits of nastiness in the past. The question he ponders is whether or not some places are magnets for evil, that evil can be a sort of tangible force that can infect a structure. He attempts to rent the house, which has been vacant for 25 years, but finds it has already been bought by a man named Straker (Mason). The exterior of the house did appear formidable, menacing and I think Soul did a good job conveying his own sense of fear whenever he observed the house, and later on when he actually entered the house. Seems Straker and his unseen partner, Kurt Barlow, purchased the house and intend on opening an antique store in the town. Mason does well putting forth a face of normalcy, but one that is hiding a sinister secret. As people start becoming sick with a rare sort of anemia, the secret is slowly revealed, and the terror begins.
  
  Bonnie Bedilia plays Susan Norton, the love interest to Ben. Their developing relationship seemed to fit in nicely with the story, but the presentation of her background felt a little clunky. I know it was presented to make us feel sort of sympathetic when she falls for Mears over a local man she had been seeing, and not make her seem like a tramp, but it felt a little forced. See, she was a college-educated professional who worked in the big city until she got laid off. Having to give up the excitement of big city livin' to return home with her tail between her legs, it made sense that she would become enamored with this fairly popular author over the local population of yokels. I did enjoy this movie, despite it's three hour run time. Having read Stephen King's original novel, I noticed a lot of care was taken by the director and screenwriters to try and remain true to the book. The pacing is slow at times, but it served well to build the suspense. And the comparison of the vampire in this movie to the classic German silent movie Nosferatu is unmistakable. Some of the actors didn't fit very well (Lance Kerwin who played Mark Petrie seemed a little too old for the part), while others seemed perfect (Kenneth McMillan as Constable Gillespie and Fred Willard as real estate agent/philanderer Larry Crockett). The house itself was truly intimidating, especially the interiors. As with The Amityville Horror, the house becomes a character in the movie, playing its' role very well. Being released as a TV miniseries, there is little to no gore, but I didn't mind as I think it forced more to go into other aspects of the movie. I can't help wonder if Hooper felt hamstringed by having to appease TV censors given the nature of his previous feature work, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974).
  
  The overall quality of the DVD is lacking, as the picture isn't as crisp and clear as I hoped it would be, and the audio is less than perfect. No real extras except commercial spots, which, like trailers, I don't count as being extras anymore, at least on DVDs.
  
  Cookieman108
  
  
• One of Tobe Hoppers better horror movies
  By AD0J5KK4WQXNS on 2003-12-31
  First of all Salems Lot has not aged that well and certainly it will create a divide in newcomers looking to see what all the fuss is about. The truth is that Salems Lot is a "generation" movie. If you remember this two-part film from 1979 when it played as a miniseries on television then you will lap it up on DVD. If you are of the new teen-horror-movie-goer type, then I have only one recommendation for you - get to know your 70s and 80s horror movies and learn as much as you can about horror that was made in these two striking decades. If you can get into these horror movies then Salems Lot shines through for what it is worth - i.e. extremely frightening for its time.... and this is why it still frightens some us today. However, newcomers will probably not like it, unless they try to settle into the period in which it was made.

  The premise is actually complex. A writer moves to the town of Salem's Lot to write a book about the Marstin house where he once had a ghostly encounter. A new owner has bought the house and runs an antique store in town. People there are eagerly awaiting the opening and the arrival of the owner's strange business partner - Mr. Barlow. Two local yobs are given the task of picking up a strange delivery and after that the townsfolk begin to experience a change, as weird dreams and visions of the undead take their toll on the people. The writer finds out that a vampire is slowly converting the town into a haven for nosferatu and joins forces with some of the locals to find and kill the source of the evil.

  The film is actually 3 hours long and is broken into two parts. There are very many sub-plots and lots of various things going on in the background but nearly everything and everyone is fleshed out. I have never seen a film with so many characters all having an important role to play and this is one of the reasons why this is a great horror film. Although it may not play exactly along the lines of King's book it is certainly one of the best adaptations of his horror literature to date when compared to others. The film is also very eerie and is top-notch on the suspense. In short, Salems Lot is one of the best horror films ever made and is certainly watchable again and again. I probably watch this film at least once a year and it never grows old. A must for any horror fan's collection, but even mainstream viewers will find lots of other things here to keep themselves fixed on the screen.

  If you are old enough to remember Starsky and Hutch then go for it! If the first horror film you ever saw was The Blair Witch Project then maybe you should prepare for twenty-four years of aging here before you get it.
  
  

• One of the best creepiest films out there
  By A20DZX38KRBIT8 on 2007-05-09
  This is everything a horror film should be, great combo of Stephan King & Tobi Hooper, doesen't get any better than this. All the true aspects of horror and natural fear are here, very well done one of the best.
  
  
• Terrible
  By A2NRLV2K06H7PU on 2000-02-23
  'Salems Lot is my favorite King book but this mini-series is terrible. I know this is an old movie, but it is as cheesy as "The Blob" or "The Wolfman" or something like that. The vampire in the movie has a blue head and never says a word. In the book, the vampire is intelligent and has conversations with people (Like Bram Stokers Dracula). The movie gets everything out of order and combines characters. It's so corny it reminds me of the old Batman show where the BAF! BOOM! and WHAM! clouds appear when they hit someone. DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY!
  
  
• Salem's Lot. A nice place to visit but....
  By AQ99RS0Y7N8T on 2000-01-22
  This is one of the best horror films made. I'll never get tired of watching it! But please, stay away from the hacked up " movie " version and check out the miniseries instead. No one would want to miss a minuet of this shockfest. David Soul, James Mason, Geoffrey Lewis, and especially Reggie Nalder as the vampire lord Barlow make for a top notch cast and it all adds up to a terrifying story that does'nt have to rely on gore. You might find it difficult to leave a window open in your house again after watching some of the scenes in this movie. The movie starts a little slow, but be patient! It will be worth it! This movie is highly recommended to all.
  
  
• So scared I couldn't finish it...and I'm 33
  By A12D28OFK944JS on 2002-01-05
  I too am one of the viewers who originally saw the mini-series as a pre teenager. It was shown on two consecutive saturdays and I was totally horrified watching both episodes. I actually walked in on the scene where the Glick boy floated in from thefog tapping at his brother's window. I thought the movie was some ghost made for tv movie. That is until I horrfyingly watched this apparition hover over his bro' and take a chunk out of his neck! I was glued and repulsed ever since.

  To me this has to be the greatest or perhapsone of the greatest horror movies ever. Why? I think mainly because so much of the horror comes from the unsaid in this film. David Soul's sense of dread of the Marsden House, and James Mason's brilliant performance as Mr. Barlow's keeper are two awsome example of how actors can portray so much feeling and dread without going overthe top with unending screams. I love Mason's line, "Mr. Barlow is so looking forward to meet you." OOOOO! gives me chills.
  I recently began watching the dvd version and I couldn't finish watching it because of the sense of dread and fear bulding up within me!
  Don't bother with the mutilated movie version. I bought the movie version thinking it was going to add scenes not suitable for tv and boy was I fooled!
  I too have read the novel of the same name and I was frightened by the book as well. In fact it was the first SK book I had read and I was surprised that I enjoyed his work so much.
  If you love movies in general this one you cannot afford to miss!
  
  

• Near-Classic, Worth Watching Again & Again
  By on 2002-01-25
  Hard to believe NBC actually took David Soul and cast him in a series based on Bogart's "Casablanca" rather than building a series based on this well-made TV movie. "Salem's Lot" was superior to most theatrical releases back in its '79 release. David Soul's typical lack of expression & intensity is not noticed here because so many things happen around him and to him. Interesting period piece, with the elderly teacher's wide '70s necktie, the doomed realtor (Crockett) in his Plymouth Volare wagon (remember, no minivans back then), earth tone colors in some interior shots. Notice how Soul was mixing collarless shirts with sportcoats *5* years before Don Johnson supposedly started that style on Miami Vice.
  Good suspense that is rarely approached in today's special effects-driven productions. Easily worth watching a couple of times a year. James Mason excellent (as he was in "Bloodline" from the early '80s). A best buy!
  
  
• More Than It Could Chew
  By ACIBQ6BQ6AWEV on 2002-10-11
  Stephen King's bestseller SALEM'S LOT is a surprisingly complicated novel that first presents a detailed portrait of normal life in a small New England town--normal life that is gradually perverted when the town becomes infested by the undead. And with a cast that includes such memorable performers as James Mason, Lew Ayres, Elisha Cook Jr., and Marie Windsor, this 1979 two-part television special seemed to a great deal going for it. Unfortunately, however, director Tobe Hooper and his screenwriters are unable to find a way to streamline the novel's numerous characters and subplots into any dramatic whole, and the result is a film that constantly references a host of characters, events, and ideas but seldom to any real effect.

  Even so, the film does have its charms. Chief among them is James Mason in one of his final performances, offering a brilliant, sinister, and wickedly witty performance as Mr. Straker, the servant of the vampire. Ayres and Bedelia are also extremely good, and although Cook and Windsor are largely wasted they are nontheless entertaining to watch. And the film does offer a few "jump in your seat" thrills: the scenes of child vampires floating outside bedroom windows are truly creepy, and the great vampire himself harkens back to the silent film NOSFERATU in a most effective way.

  Still, most viewers will find the film fairly tame. David Soul was not a memorable actor, the script is incredibly talky, and there are too many lose ends for the story to be satisfying. It will be of most interest to fans of King's work who would like to see how television handled this, one of his most successful novels. A word of warning: there are two versions of this film. The single video version is a condensation of the original, and it is virtually unwatchable. Stick with the full-length, two-tape version.
  
  

• Come Home to Salem's Lot
  By A2UQIIJ2CD8REE on 2004-06-25
  Ben Mears is a novelist who has come back to his hometown of Salem's Lot (formerly known as Jerusalem's Lot) to write about the old, abandoned Marsten place, an eerie construction at the top of a hill which once housed a deranged child killer. When enquiring however, he finds that the house is newly inhabited; sold to two men from Europe who intend to open an antique shop in town. One of the men is a Mr. Straker; a very well-mannered, well-dressed, well-educated, and highly suspicious fellow. He speaks to everyone with an air of superiority that hardly seems as friendly as he thinks. The other man is a Mr. Kurt Barlow, whom no one has ever seen. Oh well, Ben probably didn't want to actually stay in that house anyway. He finds a room at the local boarding house, and in no time is dating one of the town's most beloved daughters, the lovely but constantly spaced out Susan Norton. Before we know it, the two are in love. But all is not well in Salem's Lot. A local boy has turned up missing, and everyone is getting very nervous. The boy's brother becomes suddenly anemic, and dies shortly after. Soon, others begin to get sick. It seems as though the town is falling into the grips of a plague, but in fact, things are much, much worse.

  In case you didn't know, Salem's Lot is a vampire movie. Not just a vampire movie, one of the very best, and probably the scariest to date. Yes, I know it was made for TV in 1979, but this is truly one of the scariest movies out there, and that's because they chose to make a vampire that actually looks like a vampire. The "Master" in Salem's Lot is a blue version of Count Orlok from "Nosferatu," and that's scary, man! But the horror doesn't stop there. All the lesser vampires are scary too! I'm talking SCARY! There are some scenes in this film you will never forget, like the summoning at the window, or the "Look at me, teacher!" scene. You may scoff if you watch this with friends, but I warn you not to try watching it alone! For the most part the cast is perfect (not making a comparison with the book, that is), especially those great old 70's/80's staples like Geoffrey Lewis and Fred Willard. James Mason is his usual, creepy self, and that's very creepy, but not as creepy as Reggie Nalder who played the horrific Mr. Barlow. The least stunning cast members were the two starring lovebirds, David Soul and Bonnie Bedelia. David was adequate, but not that inspiring, while Bonnie seemed anesthetized most of the time. On the other hand, Lance Kerwin did an excellent job as the magic and monster obsessed teen, Mark Petrie. I have to disagree with reviewers who felt he was too old to play as a kid interested in monsters and magic. They sound just like the boy's father asking, "When are you going to grow out of this stuff?" If he's truly interested in such things, he's not going to grow out of it. Where do you think magicians and movie effects guys come from? Anyway, Director Toby Hooper outdid himself again with this modern masterpiece; easily one of the all-time scariest movies out there, complete with great effects and a haunting score, despite being a TV miniseries from the 70s. This DVD keeps the entire two-nighter intact, along with one bonus feature: the foreign theatrical trailer. "Salem's Lot" was the first DVD I bought when I got my DVD player, and I'm glad of that. It's A LOT of entertainment for a VERY reasonable price! Definitely one of the best Stephen King films, alongside Silver Bullet, The Shining, and Carrie.
  
  

• Mason shines in this one
  By A32MGX6RYUF598 on 2004-06-29
  "Salem's Lot" is one of the better Stephen King-based films, though it suffers from excessive length (three hours in the original TV version) and a lead performance by David Soul that brings new meaning to the word "limp." Soul virtually sleepwalks through his role of middle-class fiction writer who returns to his home town to investigate the "haunted house" of his childhood, and finds, instead of ghosts, a mysterious antique dealer and his Nosferatu-like colleague. The devious and clandestine exploits of the latter gradually lead to an outbreak of vampirism that threatens to bring the entire town within its clutches.

  The film boasts a good seasoning of veteran actors in supporting roles, several of whom ---- Elijah Wood, Jr., Lew Ayres, and Marie Windsor ----- appeared in a number of film noir classics of the forties and fifties. (For a treat, see Windsor in the 1952 version of "The Narrow Margin"). But while it's fascinating to see these old pros in their various roles, it's James Mason who truly impresses.

  Indeed, "impressive" may be too mild a word for Mason, who plays the recently-arrived antique dealer with such impeccable style that he single-handedly transforms "Salem's Lot" from an overextended B movie into something worth remembering. Observe his reactions, for example, when informally interrogated by the town constable as suspect in the killing of a small child. Or later, when he meets Soul during a gathering in his antique shop and the former broaches the question of "evil." Says Soul: "Do you believe a house can be evil in its very boards and windows? In its stone foundations? Evil?" "Oh, you're the writer," answers Mason with mocking insouciance --- the words are neutral, but his entire manner and inflection create a devastating put-down. Here is an embodiment of "cool" that would do justice to any jazz musician, but Mason does it quietly, slowly, with the limitless patience of a man who knows he can do anything.

  The other outstanding element in "Salem's Lot" is Reggie Nalder as the vampire under Mason's control (though just how this control came about, and how it is sustained ---- is never explained). Some older fans of the Karloff-hosted "Thriller" series may recognize Nalder from that TV anthology, most notably in the episode, "Terror in Teakwood," where he played the sinister "Kaffke." Here, by contrast, his face is half-buried in makeup, but Nalder's cadaverous bone structure assists the illusion and makes his image of the vampire "Barlow" one of the most frightening since Max Shreck. He's not on-screen more than a few minutes, but, as Mason's character amusingly prophesizes in an early scene: "I'm sure you'll enjoy Mr. Barlow. And he'll enjoy you. Oh yes. Oh yes."

  "Salem's Lot" is not a great horror movie, since, along with the problems mentioned, it's burdened by lack of originality. Some scenes are atmospheric, such as those where child vampires are shown floating and beckoning through moonlit windows ---- hackneyed, but effective. These are offset by many sequences that are silly or adventitious (e.g., the one where students are acting out a historical play, so poorly directed it recalls Ed Wood or Bert I. Gordon). The film could have been better with a good lead actor, as well as more conviction from the supporting cast generally. Otherwise, it's more than worth watching for the tour-de-force performance of James Mason and the sheer scare-value of Nalder.
  
  

• Nothing Compared to the Book!
  By A14VKKQKBNBFVM on 2005-08-28
  This movie fails as a horror movie for the following reasons:
  
  1) Every time something "scary" is supposed to happen they take as long as they possibly can to do something to try and build up the suspense. By the time they do get to the "scary" part you find yourself saying "well, I knew that was coming" or just laughing.
  
  2) One of the best parts of early on in the book was done terribly in the movie. When Ben is describing what happened to him the first time he went into the Marsten house, it was so eerie in the book. In the movie you just see him sitting there talking about it.
  
  3) The part that I most anticipated to be scary, wasn't scary at all. The part where the vampire kid scratches at the window was apperently a "moment of pure terror" even though it, well was laughable like most of the other scenes with vampires.
  
  4) Most importantly, it was boring! Horror movies are supposed to keep your heart racing. Well this one was so long and slow and didn't get good until the last 35 minutes. But the movie was over 3 hours long so 35 minutes wasn't going to save it.
  
  But it wasn't all bad...
  For a made-for-cable movie, the acting was surprisingly good and for 1979 the visuals and makeup were outstanding! and one part made me jump!
  
  Well, I guess it is true that Tobe Hooper hasn't done much good other than POLTERGEIST and TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE!
  
  
• This is a review of the movie, not the book. Keep that in mind.
  By A2ZZULCTI40V3A on 2005-10-07
  I remember seeing this movie in 2 parts on TV in the 1970's. It scared the hell out of us. I have never read the book so I have no complaints about what made it to the screen and what characters said what. All I know was the movie works well as a horror movie, David Soul was so believable in the starring role, a huge stretch from his "Hutch" character that made him famous. A lot going on with a "Nosferatu" like vampire trying to take over the town with some help from James Mason who was so good at acting so evil. Greatest scene is with Soul trying to kill the vampire in his coffin, that thing's eyes haunted me for months! I have no intention of reading the book, the movie worked very well at scaring the (...) out of me back then is head and shoulders above the remake. Buy or rent for a Hallowwen evening. Watch with the lights out but with someone close to by your side. You will need them and vice versa. This and "Fright Night" are 2 classic vampire movies that send shivers up and down your spine. For those purists out there, stop whining, it is a very good movie.
  
  
• AWESOME VAMPIRE MOVIE!
  By on 2006-01-09
  I'm a huge fan of vampire movies, but when I saw SALEM'S LOT (1979), I knew I'd seen the best. I've never read the novel by Stephen King, but the film itself was excellent. There are a lot of great actors in this movie, like David Soul as the hero, Ben Mears. James Mason was really good as Straker, the Arch vampire's henchman. Reggie Nalder plays Barlow, a truly hideous vampire that takes over the small town of Salem's Lot.
  Don't listen to those guys who says who say the 2004 miniseries is better. I can't say I've watched it myself, but you can't beat the classics. The whole movie was scary--I even had vauge dreams about meeting Barlow. But I liked it so much I bought the DVD made by Warner Bros. The movie quality is great, but there weren't that many special features. If you are a fan of vampire films, you MUST see SALEM'S LOT (1979).
  "You'll enjoy Mr. Barlow, and he'll enjoy you."
  
  --(...)
  
  
• Excellent scares
  By A2OZBD4CYEPYGR on 2007-07-07
  Thanks to Tobe Hooper, this TV vehicle is more cinematic than not, and laced with true, prolonged hair-raising moments. With a healthy dose of sensuality as well, thanks to Bonnie Bedelia. I've never seen a more lovely vampire. I think David Soul puts in an excellent performance as well. Overall, it's not perfect, just a little creaky in places, but it sure tempts the hell out of me. The house interiors alone will make your skin crawl, and the first appearances of 'the Master' are shocking. The kids clawing at the windows will cost you some sleep.
  
  
• Will make you wonder about your neighbors even more!
  By A3AKPY4LXIC24O on 2000-06-15
  First of all 'Salem's Lot is a fantastic book, Stephen King's follow up to Carrie, the book cemented his status as a blockbuster novelist, and well, the rest is history. However, for many Stephen King fans his let downs have come in the form of movie adaptations. But with 'Salem's Lot the film is so much a complimentary companion piece that it's almost like watching the novel, almost. The movie was unfortunately made for television and therefore limited what could be shown on screen. Director Tobe Hooper (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Poltergeist) more than adequately compensated for these limitations by distilling much of the overt violence in the novel down to menacing atmospheric techniques and subtle implications. Which for some reason is scary as hell. There are some scenes that should be down right laughable (the hospital scene for instance) but instead provoke a jump from the viewer, and yes, I'll admit it, even a scream. For all the horror movies I've seen this was the first to make me sleep with the lights on (of course I don't recommend letting an eight year old watch this movie, thanks Mom). I saw this before I read the novel and although I would have to say hands down that the novel is above and beyond better in the depth of its description and characterization, the movie can stand alone as a masterpiece. The only other vampire movie that can even come close to the scare factor of 'Salem's Lot is the original 1922 Nosferatu starring Max Schreck (and that's a silent film folks). If you like horror movies and you haven't seen this yet you've been kidding yourself. True horror fans know how great this movie is, Stephen King fans couldn't be more appreciative. One of the top 10 horror movies of all time. It will make you wonder about your neighbors more than you already do. Perfect for Halloween viewing and any old time you would dare question the existence of the supernatural!
  
  
• AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
  By A11MEOGS457YCN on 2000-01-03
  This is the scariest movie I've ever seen (That's the mini-series, not the director's cut). The first part is more suspense, but the second part has a very simelar feel to The Exorcist and chills you to the bone. The scariest part is where a man goes upstairs to his bedroom to find a pale-faced man with yellow eyes, sitting on a rocking chair and whispering "Look at me!" Although this film is visually dated, it is a terrifying movie. It seems that the early 70's to the early 80's was a great time for horror films, whereas 'nowerdays movies are spoiled by needless special effects. If you like scary movies, watch this!
  
  
• Bad adaption, bad movie
  By A921NKW10LKI2 on 2002-01-25
  the movie was so slow paced. the makeup was lousy. most of the acting [wasn't good] (for instance when ben mears puts the cross on mrs glick's forehead and she starts screaming). the filming was also poorly done. the plot was not explained at all(why did people open up the vampires' coffins or open their windows for them) and unless you knew about vampires(or read the book) it was impossible to follow. if you DID read the book youll just sit there saying that this is not how i thought it should be. i have more critisism but i'll say one good thing. if you're not hoping to watch salems lot and you dont think too much, but are just interested in seeing a tv show, you could enjoy it because it is scary at some points
  
  

• Stephen King's It
• Salem's Lot - The Miniseries
• Stephen King's Storm of the Century
• Stephen King's The Shining (Two Disc Special Edition)
• Stephen King Gift Set (The Langoliers / The Stand / Golden Years)