This takes a bit to get going but persevere and you will be treated to oodles of atmosphere, creepiness and tension galore, a great score and a stellar cast with Donald Sutherland providing some light relief. I do prefer the original but this is definitely one of the better remakes out there. Also the part when Floyd was squeezing through that teeny vent in the jail is just downright disturbing!

"This movie is literally worse than that time Rob Lowe filmed himself fucking children" - Chris Traeger.

Absolutely dreadful. A three hour endurance test of terrible acting, bad effects, and none of the charm of the novel or the Tobe Hooper version to be found.

I rarely outright hate movies but this really pushed me to the brink. One star for a campy Donald Sutherland but nothing else.

Tonally much closer to kings novel than the 70's version but still a mess. If you could combine the two movies into one maybe all the pieces would be there?

My problem with Salem's Lot comes from the fact I am an avid fan of the book. King packed so many characters and moved so slow in his story it's hard to convey that even in 3 hours, this fucker deserved a tv series. So what you get here is an attempt to pack as much of the story as possible into 3 hours and thus everything feels rushed, despite how slow the movie moves. And I don't know if it was the fact this was a made for TV movie or what, but nothing in this is remotely frightening unlike the tobe hooper version.

interesting

This TV-version of Stephen Kings "All American Bram Stokers Dracula" is kind of a mixed bag. The script is solid and the miniseries as a whole never boring, but some scenes look like a cheesy 90ies TV show and while almost everybody else looks and acts fitting to the characters, Rob Lowe is just hopelessly miscast as the lead Ben Mears (don't get me started on that terribly narrated voice over).

Could have been better, could have been worse.

A pretty mixed bag: great cast (Hauer is superb), some really excellent moments in isolation, better character work than the '79 version (don't @ me) -- but then there's Rob Lowe, generally poor direction, and some really botched scenes. I might like this better as an adaptation ('04 is just way more brutal, which I think is crucial), but '79 is probably a better work overall.

Adaptación correcta de una de mis novelas favoritas.

For a story that balances so many characters, it’s pace is way too slow. Sometimes you don’t recognize a characters name because it’s been awhile since you’ve seen them. The characters were fine but the performances were bland. It was shot in an uninspiring, bland way and didn’t capture my attention in a great way. James Cromwell tho, that guy is awesome.

Wie schon die erste Verfilmung haben wir hier eine Miniserie aka einen 3-Stundenfilm und bekommt die wohl beste Verfilmung.

Sehr gut an die heutige Zeit angepasst und manche Figurenzeichnung ist sogar besser als in der Buchvorlage.

Leidet ein wenig unter der Länge und dem gelegentlich auffallendem Tv-Look, trotzdem kann man sehr mit zufrieden sein.

Donald mach mir den Ziegenfratze!!!

Action-packed and yet some how boring.

Do yourself a kind favor and watch the 1979 movie instead of this tripe. For those that have seen the 1979 movie, remember that creepy vampire boy well in this 2004 movie he's an awful CGI vampire boy - laughable, not scary at all.

Something about the way this 2004 movie is filmed looses all the dark foreboding dread that looms over the town; the town is way to bright and cheery looking to scare anyone.

90% of this cast is terrible. The characters are completely unappealing - unlike the original movie.

OK I'm going to quit my bashing of this film here - it's not worth it. Be kind to yourself and watch the original 1979 - it might be a bit dated but it's a heck of a lot better looking and scarier over all.

1/10