Salem's Lot (2004)

A thoroughly enjoyable mini-series. [19 June 2004, p.E01]

All in all, Salem's Lot is a serious, elegant piece of work that provides plenty of shocks and creep- out moments without lingering over brutality and gore - which makes it feel less like a contemporary horror picture than a lost treasure from the 1940s or '50s, when filmmakers had to find imaginative ways to suggest what they weren't allowed to show. It's a feast of horror you can sink your teeth into. [19 June 2004, p.9]

I was pleasantly surprised when the new two-part Salem's Lot, based on the Stephen King best-seller about a town of vampires, spooked me. And it did it the old-fashioned way, with genuine scares and classic horror elements. [18 June 2004, p.D17]

What makes all of that work so well here is a combination of credible acting, suspenseful filming and special effects that, especially in the second part, go beyond what you'd expect from the small screen. [17 June 2004]

This Salem's Lot is a significant improvement on the undistinguished 1979 mini-series starring David Soul, and it ought to please the many fans of Mr. King's 1975 novel.

This version, 25 years after a first and relatively well-regarded mini-series, more than justifies the considerable effort that went into making it. It's a tale of soullessness with a remarkable depth of soul, of bloodsucking that's pulsing with red blood cells. [19 June 2004]

The remake isn't first-rate King because it saves most of the terror and special effects for the second half. More than 500 effects decorate the program, and the eerie cinematography helps transform Melbourne, Australia, into New England...In the lavish visuals, acrobatic vampires prowl ceilings and expire with ferocious flourishes. These bloodsuckers have different but very splashy ways of exiting the planet...Those images should satisfy moviegoers who can't get enough visual magic at the multiplex. But great acting serves the show better in the long run. [20 June 2004]

Even though I didn’t approach it with a genre fan’s enthusiasm, I will allow that this remake offers its share of scares.

TNT's four-hour miniseries boasts fine performances, exceptional photography and all the other bells and whistles that mark a great show...All is in place, except for the scary bits. There's nary a fright to be found.

Gross and engrossing, TNT’s two-parter that begins Sunday night is downright spooky. It’s also more than a little hokey. Be prepared to wince at lines like “literature has become elitist, like black-light photography” and “she’s dead, or undead.” But fine performances from Rob Lowe as the tortured writer, Andre Braugher as the high school teacher with secrets, and Donald Sutherland as the creepy antique dealer in the big mansion serve up a heap of horror. In lesser hands “Salem’s Lot” could quickly get campy.

Salem's Lot is hardly bad. It's just that certain unpersuasive special effects, unruly performances and subplots undermine the best of intentions, a fate with which fans of King's oeuvre are no doubt familiar. [19 June 2004]

Die-hards may be disappointed that some subplots are relegated to a tossed-off line of conversation; others may approve of the streamlining of the at-times wordy novel.

The new, two-part movie is definitely worse than the original. It's just not particularly scary. Which is a problem for what's supposed to be a horror film.

It's got a creepy moment or two, and fleeting glimpses of solid performances from supporting players James Cromwell and Andre Braugher, but most of it just plods along. [18 June 2004, p.150]

According to folklore, vampires can't enter your domain unless you invite them in. By the middle of the new four-hour version of Stephen King's "Salem's Lot," , I was ready to invite them in -- in hopes they could end my suffering.