PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Rio Hayward All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

dcarsonhagy Just watched this (believe it not) for the first time. There was disappointment around just about every bend. This particular adaptation (because the first was done in 1979) was weak in story, characterizations, and acting. I read with some amazement another reviewer's take on this and could not believe his/her reasoning. He tried to say this particular version wasn't trying to be scary...and at least he got something correct.The book was one of the most frightening novels I have ever read, and the first miniseries managed to capture the horror; well, at least until the vampire was finally introduced. That went down hill quickly after that point, but up to that point, was pretty much a by-the- book film.I will let each viewer decide what they think. Check out the first one, which stars David Soul, James Mason, and others. Then check the "updated" one--complete with cell phones. It isn't even close.Suggested for mature audiences, this one has some language and very minimal violence.

Paul Magne Haakonsen Oddly enough I never read the book upon which this mini-series is based, so how true it stays to the source I have no idea about. But as such, without having anything to compare it to, then I can say that it was actually entertaining.The story is about a writer returning to his hometown of Jerusalem's Lot, or Salem's Lot as the locals call it. Here he is forced to confront the haunts of his troubled past as well as the force of evil that now resides in the shunned Marsten house.They had some nice talents on the cast list, including Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, Donald Sutherland, James Cromwell and Rutger Hauer. Personally I think that it was a shame that Sutherland and Hauer didn't have more time on the screen than they did, but they served as bait to draw in the viewers. The cast did a good job with their given roles.This is an entertaining mini-series, and even watched in one sitting the 174 minutes just fly by in no time.This 2004 version of "Salem's Lot" is well-worth watching and it is rather entertaining.

lathe-of-heaven I've pretty much given up trying to understand what people here consider good films or find entertaining. Seriously...I was not expecting much because the original 1979 version is a bit of a minor classic in a way. And truthfully, MOST Stephen King adaptations are pretty poorly done. BUT... I was quite amazed at how involving and engaged I was with the way they did the story. It was not done in the same traditional mold as the original mini-series, and it was somewhat 'updated' in some ways which some may consider unnecessary. But, even so, the quality of the writing, acting, and direction were quite good, really. And most surprising was ol' Rob Lowe did a pretty decent job!At first I was kind of put off by both Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer playing the parts of Straker and Barlow (mainly because of strong images of James mason and 'Nosferatu' from the original) But, after reflecting on it, I do feel that using them DID work in this updated version, making them seem a bit more contemporary as opposed to the traditional feel of the original version - and I really DO like Rutger Hauer anyway : )So, if you can buy into the updating of the story, mood, and look of the film and you appreciate good writing, acting and execution of the story (which happens RARELY with Stephen King) then you should indeed enjoy this gripping, updated version of the classic story!

lourdesmeinhold Wow...What an atrocious movie! Doesn't hold a candle to the original made for TV movie directed by Tobe Hooper. This new version of Salem's Lot is poorly written, badly acted & terrible special f/x. What a waste of time but glad I was able to see it so that I could be subjective. Don't waste your time on that drivel; find a copy of the original Salem's Lot starring David Soul as Ben Mears. That version has some truly scary scenes that involve Danny Glick appearing at Mark's window and of course who can forget the great character actor Geoffrey Lewis rocking back & forth in Matt Burke's spare bedroom. Yikes! The best scene though is when Marjorie Glick come to life on the mortician's table. Unlike the 2004 film (which actually plays for campy comic relief) the original SL is waaaaaay scarier. That movie still frightens the hell out of me to this day.