Anyone see this?

**randallFlaggfan1** · November 16th, 2010

I saw the re-make shortly after it originally aired (around 2004, I think,) and I really did not care for it...

**MelissaConstantReader** · June 10th, 2011

Wow, I didn't even know there was a remake. Have to check it out.....

**Lily Sawyer** · August 30th, 2011

I much prefer the re-make over the original. David Soul is so awful, he makes me squirm and cringe when I watch him onscreen. I also didn't care much for Mason as who-zee-what's. Meh.

Lowe, Braugher, and Cromwell were great. Samantha Mathis was soooooooooo not right for Susan. Rutger Hauer played tired.

Now they need

John Cusack - Ben Mears
Angie Harmon - Susan Norton
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Straker
Tim Daly - Barlow
Melissa Leo - Eva Miller
Shia LeBoeuf - Mike Ryerson
Gary Dourdan - Matt Burke
Dennis Haysbert - Father Callahan

**Seb Shaw** · November 4th, 2011

Ok saw this the other night, Much of it was great in places. I could go along with the changes... and then ...

Show Spoiler

I thought the way they brought it up to modern times was good though...

**Stormseye** · January 5th, 2012

I've never seen the new one, and it's been years since I saw the original. Just reread Salem's Lot, first time since high school (20ish years). Which of the movies is most true to the book? I liked the original Shining movie, but the new one was better to me because it was closer to the story I knew. Same thing here? I don't mean comparing the new movie to the old one (some of the earlier comments seemed to be more along those lines), but rather either to the book.

Unregistered · June 6th, 2012

i remember the original from wayback
truly did not care for it
the acting was mostly terrible
especially david soul and his old teacher
they lift whole sectionof dialogue form the book
but it never quite gelled together
i was left wondering even as a little tike how mears came to the vampire conclusion so quick?
a total failure of adaptation
the remake did have its faults
mark petrie especailly
all the updates were mostly good
even mears not being a fiction writer anymore
the acting was superb from a top rate cast
did kinda think of the buffy movie
when rutger hauer appeared but it soon wore off
and did recognise several actors from
austrailian soap operas doing american accents
but over all a 110 percent better than the abomination of the original
and i even liked the new ending

**Deb From London** · August 9th, 2012

Hiya,

Must admit I like both versions and as you've said the newer one is closer to the book. I couldn't get my head around Rutger Hauer as Barlow though...........maybe it's because I've always though he was gorgeous.

One image that haunted me to my boots when I was younger was those Glick boys scratching on the window in the David Soul version, how scary was that in the early 80's?

**bryantburnette** · October 29th, 2012

The remake has a few decent ideas in it, but it's mostly not very good. Very cheaply made (or feels it, at least), and too many pointless changes to the novel that would be okay if they led anywhere. They lead nowhere, which is less okay.

All in all, I'll take the original ever day of the week.

There's still a GREAT movie (or a miniseries) waiting to be made from the excellent novel. It hasn't happened yet, though.

**guido tkp** · November 6th, 2012

hmmm...just agreed w/the B on the other page, do so again...

about that sequel...wouldn't it be cool of they did it as a two part theatrical release
; the first part would take the books title, ' 'salems lot'...

...and the second part would have to be 'second coming'

just sayin'

**bryantburnette** · November 7th, 2012

Originally Posted by guido tkp

hmmm...just agreed w/the B on the other page, do so again...

about that sequel...wouldn't it be cool of they did it as a two part theatrical release
; the first part would take the books title, ' 'salems lot'...

...and the second part would have to be 'second coming'

just sayin'

That's a damn fine idea, right there.