Anyone see this?

**KJ Norrbotten** · August 27th, 2009

I think "the magic" was lost, since they changed too many things, and that special 70's feel was not present, obviously.
The original was actually pretty scary, while the remake tries to be too witty. The Marsten house, however was much more impressive on the new version.

**aeroplane** · September 7th, 2009

My overall opinion of 2004 Salem's Lot, just in a nutshell, is identical to the original.....Some things were done pretty well but there were also a lot of flaws.

Various observations.

1. I am glad this version introduced a few more minor characters from the book like Dud Rogers and Ruth Crockett.

2. Larry Crockett comes across as more of a slime ball in the remake than he does in the original, which I see as a plus.

3. On that note, I was a little disturbed by the implied Crockett incest. Also didn't like the new storyline where Dr. Cody has an affair and is blackmailed.

4. It is pretty hard to have sympathy for Mark Petrie in this version. This version of Mark is very unlikable compared to the book and the original miniseries.

5. Mike Ryerson was very well done here, which was also the case in the original.

6. Didn't like what they did with Father Callahan here. Sure made for a confusing opening, to boot.

**LauraJo** · September 18th, 2009

I saw it, thought Rob Lowe was good, but I just didn't find it very....creepy?

**It'sNineInTheAfternoon** · September 25th, 2009

My Dad says it's way less cheezy than the original. He hated the original because it didnt really do the story justice. I've seen neither, but I'd trust him. He's a pretty hardcore fan.

**aeroplane** · September 28th, 2009

Originally Posted by It'sNineInTheAfternoon

My Dad says it's way less cheezy than the original. He hated the original because it didnt really do the story justice. I've seen neither, but I'd trust him. He's a pretty hardcore fan.

I'd say the vampire deaths are a lot cheesier in the remake. But otherwise I'd agree your pop is right.

**karend3** · September 29th, 2009

The Acting was much better, the first one didn't do anything to me, parts of the remake actually made my heart skip a beat.

**bryantburnette** · October 5th, 2009

Not bad. I prefer the Tobe Hooper version, which has a great, slow-paced creepy mood to it that almost makes up for the many flaws. I still try and watch that one around Halloween every second or third year.

**Ben Mears** · October 5th, 2009

I saw it on tv and then I went and bought it. Though it followed book quite well it missed something that's my opinion. Yes it tried to be scary but didn't quite make it. Rob Lowe was okay but in my mind he was too happy if that's the word we can use.
Still I will recommend it.

**liya** · October 6th, 2009

I thought it was pretty good, even with Sodapop Curtis.

**Smikes** · October 8th, 2009

Talk about your unnecessary remakes...look, Barlow (although a Nosferatu rip) in the original MFTVM was truly horrifying. I've always liked Hauer, but they really should/could have done something to make him look scarier. Seeing a blandly humanoid version of The Master instead of something that ought to scare the Bejezus out of me was a letdown. On a side note, I'm of the opinion that Sutherland's just as good if not a better actor than James Mason, but Mason's performance was far creepier and more memorable- sometimes the better actor isn't always the right choice (Michael Caine as "Hoagie" in 'Jaws the Revenge', anyone?).

Live, love, laugh & be happy,
Smikes