Salem's Lot

Stephen King Mad-libs: "Evil has come to a (location) exposing the (adjective) nature within everyone's (body part). Only (has-been actor) can save humanity from the impending threat of (monster type) and rescue the townsfolk of (location) from a fate worse than (something worse than death)". There ya go. Where's my Emmy?

3 hours of mediocrity [or worse] at every single moment.

Give me back the 3 hours!! !!

70s version is much better

Doesn't have the atmosphere of the '79 mini series and isn't able to delve deep into each character as the book did but still reasonably fun none the less. The film has a low budget and most of the characters don't get the chance to be fleshed out. This certainly has the feel of a lower budget TV movie and has some poor directing choices as well as some shoddy CGI. If you have the time give it a watch you just might like it.

Iread the book

Starts well, then diverges from the book in idiotic ways

as long as the original and as boring. Rutger Hauer (spelling is wrong I think) was good as the Vampire but overall a poor attempt to remake a poor film.

Quite a bit better than the original Salem's Lot movie, thanks to the presence of Rob Lowe and Donald Sutherland. Goes downhill eventually, but it's definitely got its moments.

Very faithful to the novel -- maybe way too faithful and kind of lackluster because of it. But the cast is good and we've got Hauer and Sutherland being weird in their scenes, not to mention the small-town creepy vibe that actually delivers a chilling atmosphere. Not without its charm.

More faithful to the book does not always equal better as a film. Mick Garris proved this with The Shining, and the same holds true with this one. Stick to the Tobe Hooper mini-series.

I've started this a few times but have never managed to make it past the midpoint. Does anything happen?