Salem's Lot

This scared the shit out of me when I saw it as a young child. We had a window that opened out like where the little shit tries to get in. Awful memories. As an adult its merely ho hum and you might as well read the book instead.

Easy to see why this is so fondly remembered. Although it's marred by tv-movie pacing, plotholes (why didn't the vamp do this decades ago?) & contrivance (why is the lock to his bolt hole on the outside?), this is filled w/ things slashers gave up: great performances & dialogue (esp between the cop & Mason), characters who don't exist solely to be killed, memorable imagery & some great direction from Hooper. Bedelia's entry into the house is a masterclass in suspense, music cues & sound design.

Familiar faces but soooo slooooow.

*shrug* The book is way better. Believe it or not, the two-hour cutdown of the miniseries that was theatrically released in Europe is actually much better than this. (I'd rate that thing a 60, if you care.) The series as it stands comes across as "The Brady Bunch with vampires", and is further evidence that "horror television" is an oxymoron

While some shortcuts work -- Susan showing up pregnant in time to be killed by Ben, way less characters and some others amalgamated (Cody and Susan's dad) --, the fact that Tobe worked under a very restricted PG-13 condition supressed a lot of makes the book a masterpiece -- the gore, ultraviolent and edgy elements are gone and the family ties easily destructed by the vampires, such as the McDougalls. Still good for Tobe's skillful visual solutions and the cosy neo-gothic atmosphere.

As with most King adaptations this takes scenes from the book but doesn't develop a sense of cohesion; the book is about this community slowly turning to vampires and how the various characters are affected. Yes it's a movie and you need to cut things for time, but it's 3 hours long! Not only that but some arcs begin and don't finish, others end in unsatisfying ways, and the entire thing is paced SO SLOWLY. The effects are cheap but still creepy, but that's all this movie has going for it.

Reasonably enjoyable reworking of the King story, with some very memorable moments. Of the various versions I've seen, the shorter European version is probably paced best, but completists might prefer the bulkier mini-series cut. Takes a few liberties with the source material, which I guess is to be expected; the re-styling of Barlow is a significant change, but it works. The cast is fine; if Soul and Kerwin are a bit dry and earnest, Mason's playing is a lot more fun.

Definately would've benefited from a Starsky-style hood slide or two.

It's hokey but what do you expect from a 1979 tv movie? It wasn't scary but it had some great atmosphere at times and some of the scenes - kids in the window, last fight in the house - are pretty great. The fact that something this old and small scale kept my interest through 3 hours is a huge deal.

Obviously the floating vampire kid outside the window/Barlow scenes are strong, and Mason is a delight, but it suffers from the typical King adaptation bloat. Best experienced if you saw this on TV way too young in the 80's/90's, which I sadly did not do.

Just ridiculously overlong and slow.

A small town drama with a mystery about a house that a writer slowly investigates. It doesn't have much horror, at least in the first part as not much happens. It's slow, country-side looking, and not particularly interesting. The characters are weaker than other Stephen King series. If King wrote this then he could have injected more flair into the characters. As he doesn't, they feel a bit rote, but more flair wouldn't have saved this miniseries anyway. Dropped after the first part. Bored.

Didn't age well. Really dull. Maybe I shouldn't have watched it all at once since it's supposed to be a TV mini-series.

Hooper really nails the surburban paranoia of foreign intruders. Where everyone new is a suspect in the crimes. I also read an interpretation of this film that said it was an attack on small town views on homosexuality, which I can definitely see. As usual Hooper cares more about aesthetics than really frightening you and even packaged inside of a TV movie he is able to pull it off(those clear cut to commercial moments are a little grating, but you get used to it). It's a real slow burn of a fil

(3 hr cut): Hooper's slow burn made for TV horror has atmosphere to spare, but it probably takes too long to get going, especially as the characters are not particularly interesting apart from Mason's. It's certainly a product of the 70s, and the medium's formal traits of the time occasionally interfere with the mood (e.g. the constant fades to black). The acting isn't great--only Mason really seems to relish his role--but there are a handful of frightening moments, and Barlow is still creepy.

The 2004 version was better.

Great vampire movie overall.

Adapted from a decent early Stephen King novel, this movie has a cheesy TV-movie quality to it that really kills the complexity of the source material.

Don't get the hate at all. This is mostly amazing stuff. It takes the feel of classical horror films and tosses in that late 70's charm. Hooper really knows his colour schemes. lol at Fred Willard . James Mason was an excellent casting choice as well.

Quality adaption of a great King novel. Feels a bit overlong yet is still worth a view.

75.500

For such a long movie, the action seems to escalate extremely quickly, to the point that it's out of control before you even know it. Though I seem to remember the book having very similar pacing.

Tobe Hooper plus Stephen King would be hard to not satisfy to some degree. Luckily they have a creepy vampire to help.

This rating is for the exhausting 3 hour version. Some nice shots and some quality creepy moments made this bearable.

Pretty good.

69.875

Boring, period.

Actually sat and watched the uncut version of this. Three hours of my life wasted. The only thing horrific about it is the boredom it induces. It's Tobe Hooper's first serious misstep.

Such a slow, slow burn itd never hold up to repeat viewings, but i enjoyed the immersion and it allowed the creepy bits to hit harder when they came. James mason was perfect.

Hooptober is a great catalyst for starting movies previously collecting dust in the watch list. The 3-hour runtime is what made Salem's Lot one of these films, but I am glad I finally watched it. The small town and characters within were treated with the perfect amount of depth. It's nods to Nosferatu were endearing. Being from Maine, I had a lot of fun hearing some of the actors try their best at a Mainer accent. Thankfully only the side characters chose to talk like this so it never turned

Scared the bejesus out of me when I was 8 (the dead-eyed child absently scratching at his friend's window stayed with me for years)..not so much anymore. But the reveal of "Barlow" remains a truly shocking moment and James Mason as Straker is hilariously smarmy and evil. "Throw down your cross, holy man! Face the Master! Your faith against his faith!!!"

Dated, but with some unsettling images.

Some charm, surprises, and iconic images rise out of this overlong, plodding movie. There is not enough here to recommend it, and the runtime kills the rewatchability factor.