Is Salem's Lot The SCARIEST Stephen King Movie? - Salem's Lot (2024) Review

[@56chrsbri]

Because you guys weren't around in the 70's when the book came out. You're never going to really feel that scariness. In the 70s "s when the book came out, it was unique, different, and really scary. The TV makes of the book don't have all the information and events and the creepiness and shocking horror. Here, I will make it make sense. Suppose you watched the classic" Invaders From Mars" from the 1940's or 1950's. And then watched, umm, say like "Alien." Do you see the difference in shock volume? When watching horror from the 1940s and 1950, when most were in black and white and highly edited, there is no comparison to the '70s. And of course, the book was very explanative and shocking and gory. But very dark and creepy. Now you got it

[@geoffjoffy]

True

[@56chrsbri]

@@geoffjoffy Read the book on dark winter cold nights.

[@56chrsbri]

@@geoffjoffy Yeah, in the book, the kids are getting eaten, too. The conniving trailer park mom of the baby wakes up to go and feed him, and he's been drained by you know who.

[@xusiaxod6255]

The definitive version is the 1979 version. I can rewatch that Tobe Hooper version but the other versions, including this new one, i fell asleep.

[@paulwee1924dus]

Read this: Mess of a movie. Steve Urkel can be seen in the film. Why are those vampires sitting in the trunks of their cars as a coffin. But what if you drove a VW Beetle as a pre-vampire? Marlyn Manson also had a nice role.

[@splattercastpod]

🤣💯❤️

[@flibber123]

I think the '79 miniseries has some great and creepy moments, but I wouldn't call it scary overall. The kid scratching at the window? That's a peak moment. Mike in the rocking chair saying "Look at me"? That's a peak moment. One of the scarier SK movie adaptations in my opinion is 1408. Once the plot is set up, that movie grabs me and doesn't let go.

[@sidneysalcido9314]

I think you are correct. Those scenes (and even the hospital scene where the lady is animated) were the brilliant parts of the original. Also, I have to give it to the original for the drive back to Salem's Lot when the large crate was moving on it's own, which was also a scary moment. But the acting really wasn't that good in the first one. Even David Soul's acting, was sub-par. The romantic relationship between him and Susan was better played in the new one, for the first one with Soul was superficial and had very little chemistry. The worst part of the original, also, is the scene when Barlow "killed" Mark's parents, which to me was silly, even as a kid when I saw it originally on TV. The second worst part was how Soul killed Barlow. Barlow pops up and Soul just easily pushes him down like a doll. It was so disappointing thinking Barlow was a powerful character. I was pleased the new film had a stronger Barlow.

[@madahad9]

I got to see Salem's Lot in '79 when it first aired. A younger generation may find it a little slow going but I think it's an admirable adaptation, even though it takes liberties with the novel, namely with Mr. Barlow who is turned into a speechless Nosferatu type vampire. The only good thing that I can say about the terrible 2004 remake is Rutger Hauer as Barlow. He was much closer to how he's described in the novel. But Barlow in the '79 version is still pretty damn scary. I still love it 45 years later. The cast is excellent and it retains the menace of the novel. It's among the better Stephen King adaptations, especially those made-for-tv types which were usually a bit on the cheap side. With Tobe Hooper as director it was in good hands. When I was a kid I'd cut short trick or treating if it aired on Halloween night. Since it usually only aired once a year I would sacrifice candy for a viewing of the film. The shortened version should be avoided and watch the full-length one.

[@ah-hx2uc]

How can you slate the master from 1979 !! Barlow’s make up is based on Nosferatu !! Absolutely mind boggling!

[@ah-hx2uc]

How can you not like Hoopers Salem lot !

[@bekindrewind335]

Because it’s overlong, dull and has a surplus of superfluous subplots and side characters that go absolutely nowhere? Not to mention the vampire effects look a little silly, even by 70’s standards, and the way the actors tilt their heads so the actors playing vampires can bite their necks is just too funny.

[@skeksilthechamberlain1479]

Because it's not scary and it drags on forever. And the scary scenes are more comedic than anything.

[@dav7444]

I genuinely feel that no modern audience has a clue as how great and scary the 1979 version was. Modern audiences have seen too much since.

[@PhilipRogers-q8d]

Watch boogieman Ben review he has seen it on a screener given it 10 out of ten worth a watch

[@tindal38]

Watch and LEARN from Boogeymen Ben. HE is the best Horror Channel on KZbin.

[@EDDIETRUJILLO-q8p]

The doctor is the worlds hero. She had the cure for vampirism and nobody cared.

[@johnbleakley4125]

I'd have loved to have seen the Dud Rogers character in the new one. He's the custodian of the Jerusalem's Lot town dump in the source material. He likes to shoot rats and lusts after Ruthie Crockett, Larry Crocketts daughter, whose a highschool kid. Nor is Larry Crockett himself in the new one, to the best of my knowledge. Someone told me a certain Michael Costello had been cast in the role, but I looked the actor up and saw nothing to connect him to Salem's Lot or the Larry Crockett role. And I've seen no casting for him. Larry's daughter, Ruthie, does appear in the new movie, played by the gorgeous Avery Beaderman. Brendan Cowell's is fabulous as Dud Rogers in Mikael Solomon's 2OO4 version. And the young lady who plays Ruthie Crockett in that particular adaptation is also very good. I've also seen no casting for Bonnie Sawyer in the new movie (referred to as Boom Boom Bonnie in the Hooper version). She was played by the lovley Julie Cobb in that particular version. Nor does Reggie Sawyer appear in the new movie, to the best of my knowledge. For some reason his name has been changed to Cullie Sawyer in the Hooper version, played by George Dezunza.

[@shaftomite007]

Wow, your knowledge of the teenage girls who play bit parts in the adaptations of Salem's Lot is legendary

[@sammyp-s2s]

also the teleplay Storm of the Century.... but I get the feeling this salutes and pays some homage to the 1975 book and the gold standard of vampire movies for many of us growing up in the 1970's the Tobe Hooper Salem's Lot two part miniseries....hopeful!!!

[@outpost31737]

Anyone who slates the original and Barlows make up is not worthy of my attention. I'm out.

[@gregthomas1346]

Me too ,couple of nerds

[@kellyhill6414]

Dam I thought I was the only one thinking like you guys these 2 guys are duuuuuumb. Every critic I watched has said that the old salems lot and the new one is excellent and exceeds expectations. I would not listen to the 2 guys at all they sound like they like love story movies to me. They voices tells all. 🥱

[@rachaelhogan7850]

The original,is fantastic and for 79 it’s STILL THE BEST and that’s with the dodgy make up you can go back to your moms basement now

[@jimbrown2688]

This latest film adaptation is the equivalent of cinematic excrement. It's completely without merit and the studio should be ashamed and embarrassed by this.

[@rachaelhogan7850]

ITS A LOAD OF GARBAGE STICK WITH THE 79 TOBE HOOPER MINI SERIES.

[@davidm113]

Differences of opinion there’s a lot of differences from in this I’ve seen so let’s start with the Drive tru. And Danny Glick clawing at the blood bag, Ralphy Glick ending up is a sacrifice for Barlow entry into the town. Vampire Mike Ryersen on the freaking roof. Starring down at Mears with those glowing demon eyes. Far more terrifying than those in the 2004 adaptation.

[@56chrsbri]

I did like in the 2004 6 changed it from the novel. Where the trailer park family who blackmailed the doctor. The baby, I think, in the novel in 1979 or so, the name was Randy. And the doctor Dave's him in the 2004 version. Whilst in the 1979 TV version, this part is cut out. Along with the children vampires. While in the novel, the baby is eaten by Danny Glick. See for you younger generations the book 8ntroduces all the people and builds or develops a character of and around there lives. So when something happens it's jolting and scary. So far neither the 1979 or 2004 TV series doesn't do this And since there are many more characters in the book. And back in the 1970s, when it was released, it was good horrific with a dreadley and disastrous looming of events that shocked you and made your weary of night in dark rural areas.

[@geoffjoffy]

Having not read the book but seen the 1979 mini series movie, I did not know Danny Glick eats a baby. That is truly gruesome.

[@jamesdorsey5503]

Am I the only one who enjoyed the Rob Lowe adaptation

[@boogiewoogit5597]

Yes

[@peterconlon8234]

As a long time King/Lot fan (1976), I've been keeping my eye on this one. Started, years ago, with high hopes...but those have dwindled thru those years due to everything that's happened to this production, everything I've heard. Your reviews both seem spot on with all the rumors and all the reviews popping up today. Not having Max, I won't kill myself trying to find a way to watch this but I figure once I do, it'll be an OK pastiche of the great novel. Since I'm still hyped to see a great 'adaption' of one of my favorite books...I think I'll go watch Midnight Mass again, instead.

[@Yetis-o3z]

Midnight mass would be a horrible alternative to salems lot.

[@robertenleed-q3r]

I have seen the movie yesterday and I was F****G surprised. it's a 9/10. Everything is good about this movie, the choice of the plot, the actors, the acting, what they say, the action, the special effects, the house on the hill, simply put....I am glad I have seen it. A rarely in 2024, a good movie that is. The glowing crosses was a genius idea (about time). It was refreshingly new in many ways compared to the previous movies. Saying it was not scary is wrong. The action was just 'tight' and We actually feel for the actors. Very good acting btw. Those who think it's not good, they simply do not know what a good movie is.

[@sidneysalcido9314]

As a big fan of the original, I also was pleasantly surprised by this new one. The acting was better, the love story was more genuine between Ben and Susan (the first film was very superficial), Barlow was a bit more like I thought a true vampire would be (fast, strong, much harder to kill), and they did a decent job at bringing in some elements to bring a new scare factor in. But, the vampires of the original were still scarier than the ones in the new film. Even comparing them from today's tech advances, the make-up and contacts made the original vampires so scary, even rewatching it. Also, no matter what one can say, NOTHING beats the window scratching moments in the first film. It was done so well, and the heart beating score used to bring on the vampires out of the fog, were just downright scarier than anything in that time, and the new films (2004 included) just couldn't beat them. One other thing is the switch with the role of the doctor (Bill Norton) from Ed Flanders to the black lady Alfre Woodard (now, Dr. Cody) did not work as well, and in the original, Mike Reyerson was played splendidly by Geoffrey Lewis and was much better than the guy in the new one. Finally, having them be in the trunk of cars at the end was interesting, but it was sure creepier having them all laying around in that little room in the Marsten House, especially when they were all starting to crawl toward the door in the original (that one freaked me out). By having them in the trunks of cars, they were EXTREMELY vulnerable, because one just has to open all the trunks in the middle of the day and burn the living daylights out of them. But, it was a nice try to change it up a bit. Just not as powerful.

[@pjtarheel]

I feel like I watched a totally different movie. This was as silly as a bad episode of Goosebumps. So bad. 🫤

[@greglavers]

Do you think this would have made a better stand alone Vampire movie? Different character names of course and not tied to Stephen King's Salem's lot 1979 version.

[@sidneysalcido9314]

I think it would have been better as a three-part (or four part) series. That way you could really develop the story and have some cliffhangers at the end of each episode. By having it just as a two-hour movie, you miss a lot of important details and character development (which makes you care about the characters).

[@bekindrewind335]

The original Salem’s Lot miniseries is incredibly overrated. It’s overlong and has too many unnecessary characters and uninteresting subplots that go absolutely nowhere. The special effects are pretty silly (even by 70’s standards) and don’t hold up. The little boy floating through the window always looked awkward to me, and the way the actors tilt their heads so the actors playing the vampires can bite them on the neck is hilarious. It’s also pretty obvious that the vampire actors can’t see a thing through the contact lenses and watching it with this in mind is pretty funny. Don’t get me wrong. I love 70’s horror and I make plenty of excuses for elements that have aged poorly if they are part of great films. The Exorcist, Halloween, Black Christmas, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Omen, Jaws, Carrie, Alien - all modern classics that deserve the praise they receive. Salem’s Lot? Not so much.

[@TonyPaulazzo]

Could have been good if they had focused on just a couple of characters 'cause it just felt rushed. There's no character development for why Ben has come back to Salems Lot, his connection to the Marsten house and his interest in the idea of evil. None of that was shown in the film. Even if maybe they had just focused on the kid and just cut Ben and Sue etc out it could've told an interesting and scary story.

[@drewchase6577]

I enjoyed Salem's lot, (i expected worst).... yes, it plays like salem's lot greatest hits. It's strongest when it veers away from source material (finale). The characters are underdeveloped but if you've seen any of the Salem's Lots (70s, or early 2000s) you can mentally fill in the blank and make this an enjoyable watch.

[@a_Cynthia_Main]

Maybe they should've stayed with the miniseries format for this source material. I haven't read the book, but loved the 70's miniseries. there was enough character development and creepy ass moments that it really freaked me out when I was younger. But with this version, wasn't it supposed to get a theatrical release? That's probably why they condensed it down to 2 hours. I'll watch it regardless, but expectations aren't too high.

[@RobbnCO]

... or done it like the other Stephen King HBO series The Outsider ??

[@brendan722002]

Agreed. They could have done something like Midnight Mass.

[@Yetis-o3z]

@@brendan722002midnight mass dragged so bad.

[@nerdjournal]

@@Yetis-o3z You are like one of 5 people who didn't like midnight mass.

[@ashg7219]

I watched it last night and I really kind of liked it other than yeah, the CGI. The last scene of Barlow...holy shit that was bad.

[@seanowens1073]

No lawnmower man is scarier

[@pjtarheel]

This was terrible 🫤. Played like a bad episode of Goosebumps. Entirely too silly to be “scary”.

[@suzettegordon564]

Just to add it's JORDAN PRESTON CARTER...

[@bekindrewind335]

The Black Phone was pretty terrible.

[@elryo2268]

Just watched it today and honestly it was pretty good very brutal but super cool

[@Maxx________]

I’ll personally still give the scariest Stephen King film adaptation to Pet Sematary (1989)

[@tindal38]

First and Last time viewer. You guys are NOT true Horror fans. The fact that you haven’t even read the book or count the original Salems Lot as a favorite speaks volumes. WOW 😮

[@bekindrewind335]

I didn’t realize you were the gatekeeper at the Altar of Horror.

[@leep027lp]

The Stand was great.. that should be the blueprint for all his adapts

[@sigurd2873]

Meh. Give me 79/04.

[@Dex2024]

It was 💩 just watch the real one from the 70's

[@BlackMarketIII]

Jesus…quit saying “uuum”.

[@iyona14granturismogt6gtspo7]

Blah blah blah no film footage

[@splattercastpod]

😂

[@judyremar2735]

Salem's Lot was very disappointing in every aspect. I'll never understand why they remove a ton from the books then add new stuff. Ben and Susan have no chemistry, Straker acts like he's doing Shakespear in the park. Even William Shatner would've said he was chewing scenery. They cut 80 percent of the characters, and we only follow about 5. Even focusing on just them the movie felt rushed. I was looking forward to this when it was announced years ago. This adaptation is on par with the Pet Semetary prequel, and that is not a compliment. The original movie is so much better. Hell, the 2004 remake is far better as well