Salem's Lot (2004)

[Bub]

Salem's Lot



This is a very good remake. I was suprised by the originality and thankful that it was different than the original. Some cool action scenes add to the excitment plus one nasty scene involving a saw.......

Acting: Overall great in this category. Rob Lowe is convincing and very likeable as the author haunted by the past. Donald Sutherland gives a good performance, but he's more hammy and isn't nearly as creepy as James Mason. James Cromwell is also very good as the priest. The big letdown here is Rutger Hauer. I understand the whole normal guy image they tried to create for Barlow, but it kills his intimidation and fear. Reggie Nalder is much scarier in the original. That guy that played the Doctor was good.

Special FX: Good here. Mostly CGI, but not as overt or annoying as other films. Nice action as well.

Directing: This category was very bland. Some good angles here and there but it was mostly ordinary.

Overall: A good remake, but it doesn't beat the subtle, creepy tone of the original. But really good nonetheless.

Rating: 8/10

[Freddywise]

Again One nice review by bub. I like better Tobe Hooper's Barlow.A 1000000 times better.

[Bub]

Hauer had NO INTIMIDATION. He was basically bum that kills 1 person. I liked that Dudd character.

[RumbleWolf4]

dang! I only saw part one, it ended when that one guy was crawling through the air duct towards Mears in the jail cell.

[doomedbloodwork]

It saddens me to hear that there is a lot of CGI in this new remake. It is the biggest beef I have with a lot of today's horror films. Whatever happened to genuine make-up and gore effects (OK, the remake of DAWN OF THE DEAD has them in spades).

The reason I say this is that when Kubrick made THE SHINING, a lot of the sequences were impossible to do because of the lack of fx techniques to bring them to life, but that didn't stop Dick Smith when he did THE EXORCIST and SCANNERS.

I just wish that we went back to the basics of horror film making and approached new material in the same manner as they did HALLOWEEN, FRIDAY THE 13TH, TCM1 and 2 etc (and I do like scripts with intelligence and logic in them, for those who may have misread this post...)

[Bub]

RumbleWolf4 said:

dang! I only saw part one, it ended when that one guy was crawling through the air duct towards Mears in the jail cell.

In part 2, the action revs up.

[gorefan1428]

just got threw watching it . i like your review of this bub . i would only give it about a 6 though, the way the vamps died sucked and the vamps were fast at the begining of the movie but at the end they started moving like zombies. overall ok but nothing as good as the origional

[Bub]

I agree. I also thought it was stupid when they were in the basement of the house and they kill all the vampires (including one of the kids) and they get to Mears' girlfriend and he stops them from killing her. He says that if they kill the master that might kill them all. Hello? What about all those other vampires you killed? What makes her so special?

[gorefan1428]

it was just the little stupid thing like that plus them making barlow like they did that kept me from realy enjoying this movie more. the acting was great and the plot was good .

[Bub]

Barlow was horrible in the remake. I couldn't believe what they did to him.

[gorefan1428]

Bub said:

Barlow was horrible in the remake. I couldn't believe what they did to him.

yea barlow was the worst thing about the movie. i guss the cgi crap and the few other mistakes could be forgeven. but barlow killed this remake

[Bub]

Yeah. And we're talking about YOU, Rutger Hauer!