Anyone see this?

[apebraKisparp]

I was browsing in a Target today. I noticed that they are stacking the tippy-top shelves all the way to the ceiling, so BF is definitely approaching. We have way too many Little People toys in our basement already, but it looked to me like there were an awful lot of Little People Barns and Little People Busy Day Homes... BF items? Maybe. But thats not an especially great prediction; those things are on sale for BF almost every year it seems.

[aeroplane]

Parts of the 2004 version I liked. For the most part, I thought all the roles were well cast. The only one I really disliked was Donald Sutherland. And it's nothing against Sutherland himself, whom I love as an actor. But the way he played Straker struck me as more of a "dirty old man" rather than the cunning keeper of the novel.

My biggest complaint of the 2004 version were the changes to the story. Mark Petrie's character, Matt Burke, Straker, Dud Rogers, and especially Father Callahan, whom the screenwriters COMPLETELY misunderstood. I don't mind movies making changes to adapt a story to the screen, but so many of the story changes to the 2004 version were complete reworkings of the characters. I didn't like that at all.

Don't forget the wholesale changes to Larry Crockett. He became a single father who molests his daughter (Ruthie), tries to kill himself and meets the most peculiar end of any character in the 2004 movie.

[Tinks]

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.

Pretty spot on with my thoughts too. I really liked James Cromwell as Calahan but wished they'd not changed the character's end, maybe the script was set and they couldn't change it when Wolves of the Calla was released. On its own it's still good.

I'd put the kids crawling in the school bus as a decent second to Ralph Glick at his brother's window in the original. I remember watching the original on RTE in Ireland as a kid and being very scared! That night my cousin David came home from the pub and climbed up the drainpipe to knock on the bedroom window for me to let him in as he'd forgotten his keys. No joke, I was terrified. Didn't watch the second episode that year but did the following Summer when it was repeated.

[Kayle Everett]

someone may have already asked this, but I heard they changed the ending or something...They killed off the priest? Is that true?

[SharonC]

The re-make was very well done, I thought. Two things I didn't like were the complete change of Father Callahan's character, and

Show Spoiler

the fact that Ben Mears died at the end

. James Cromwell was good as Callahan. I have always liked his acting, but in my mind's eye I have always pictured Colm Meaney (Chief O'Brien from Star Trek Deep Space Nine, for your non-trekkies) as Father Callahan.

I still have a soft spot in my heart for the original though, and still watch it occasionally.

[atropos]

i had mixed feelings also about this remake. I dont like when they take liberties with the original story--the original story can stand on its own.The opening scene almost made me turn it off but i gave it a chance.

[GNTLGNT]

I just have a soft spot on my head SharonC...

[SharonC]

I just have a soft spot on my head SharonC...

I always thought that soft spot grew over with age. If it comes back again, then I guess I'm in trouble.

[osirisalot]

yeah the acting was great, the only thing that I did not like was the effect when the vampires were staked, it had to much sparkle

[Sehestedt]

I didn't care for it. The casting was good for the most part, but the changes made to the story just didn't work.

My biggest disappointment in casting was probably Donald Sutherland and Rutger Hauer. Both are actors I love, but they just never shone in these roles. In the book (and even in the original TV movie), Straker was a malevolent force of nature. Donald Sutherland came across more as the neighborhood dirty old man. And Hauer seemed more like a bitter college professor than an ancient, primal force of evil.

The script changes made to Mark Petrie and Father Callahan ruined the characters. Same with Matt and Cody.

I understand that sometimes changes have to be made to a story when adapting a novel to a movie. But the changes made to the story in this version seemed arbitrary and contrary to the spirit of the characters.