Television Miniseries Examination: Salem's Lot (1979) (Unedited version!)

The ultimate in terror might actually be true this time!

Well, I'm back again for another punishing October Nights review series. And this October I get to start with a movie I've already (kind of) reviewed! Salem's Lot was a movie I reviewed about four years ago now. And I remember saying in that review how I thought I had seen the movie before. Well, I had, but it was the full version of the film, not the edited down confusing jumble that I saw for that review. I say that in retrospect after I saw this full version finally. I have definitely seen all of the content in it before, but probably years before I knew what reviewing for the internet even was.

While this movie is substantially longer than the edited theatrical version, it has weirdly dissimilar content. It feels like the two versions are never equal. With this version explaining and introducing much more of the story of 'Salem's Lot and its townsfolk, but also not having scenes that are in the theatrical version. I wish I could find a list of the differences between the version. While I have the unedited version now, the edited version I reviewed before has been misplaced somewhere. So, in going off memory alone, I know there are substantial differences, and I also know that I prefer the unedited version so much more, even if there are extra scenes for some reason in the theatrical version. I wish all the scenes could be added together to make one full and complete Salem's Lot (1979), but that's nothing more than a hope and a dream.

At least I finally learn the fate of Larry Crockett, four years after I asked the question of his fate. He was turned into a vampire or something when he was somehow left in a (his?) car after another car drove him and the car he was found in to the lake where Susan and Ben were canoodling. And then he was a vampire after that. So, I asked and this version told me what happened, so I guess I received what I needed in the form of some sort of conclusion.

This movie in general shows a great deal more about the town. Ben and Mark are concentrated on much less as a whole. The town really seems to be the focus here, and I will admit that makes the entire story and movie in general much stronger. The concentration on Ben and Mark only heightens their inability to completely carry the story on their own. They are mostly bland characters thrust into prominent roles by fate rather than by winning personalities. Putting them at the forefront just made the edited version unlikable. Putting them as just another character in town really adds to the tension and atmosphere of the story, and makes it seem like the town's death story rather than the Ben Mears and Mark Petrie mediocre character hour.

The movie as a whole looks much better than the edited version I saw. It has a great deal better pacing and atmosphere, and those are things that shouldn't be compromised in a horror story. This version actually made me turn around my feelings on this movie. I actually think I like it. More than that I think it's the absolutely superior movie of the adaptations of 'Salem's Lot. I don't have much else to say except that I enjoyed this movie quite a bit despite the length (almost three hours long!) and some of the acting issues that I mentioned in the first review. Those issues are still there, but with better pacing and more characters those issues are better hidden.

And that's about it. If you want a slow-paced creepy seventies vampire horror movie, this is probably a decent one to check out. I still think it has some of the best vampires and one of the creepiest scenes of vampire horror movies ever. The scene with Burke and the vampire still gets to me, as does the child vampire scratching at the window. both are completely unsettling and incredibly well done. They haven't been matched in any other movie I've seen to date. So, yes, this is the superior version of this movie, and the best adaptation of the source material. I recommend it as a very fun and creepy watch.

This is a wonderful start to October.


Let's hope it lasts.



[Oh, and if you want my exact thoughts on pieces of the movie, just read my other review. I'm not going to reiterate the story, characters, or plot here. I've said it all already. I mostly wanted to talk about the differences of quality in versions.]

Radio Drama Review: Salem's Lot (1995)

Well, here is a radio drama review finally. I say finally because I've been reviewing things for almost four years and have never actually reviewed an audio drama. Shame on me. They're actually worth a lot if done correctly, and this is one of the best I've heard. Anyway, before getting into this, I should welcome you all to yet another horror-filled month of reviews and enjoyment! October Nights are here, and these reviews are for you, dear reader, so much more than they are for me. I say that because every year I literally kill myself to get these reviews done for the amusement of the masses. I enjoy the hell out of writing them, but reviewing 31 horror-related things in 31 nights is often a little insane, even for me.

This is my forth annual October Nights, and as I mentioned in the post leading up to this first post, I think it will be a fascinating month of reviews. The last several years I've started the October month out with a Salem's Lot review, and I'm doing the exact same thing every year until I run out of adaptations to review. Anyway, this year is the radio drama adaptation by the BBC, and, honestly, it is by far the best adaptation I've had the pleasure of enjoying.

It literally hits most of the major points in the novel without missing a beat. And it's incredibly enjoyable to hear those scenes from the novel done incredibly effectively in an audio format. While both miniseries are enjoyable and fun in their own right, both make some pretty huge mistakes in the end. I spoke of both of the miniseries before here and here. (I also reviewed a sequel and the book itself if you want the story of what's happening, which I'm not going to get into here.) The miniseries alter and change characters and the ultimate fate of characters so much that it does affect some of my enjoyment of them. While both adaptation are actually quite good in their own right as adaptations or simply as standalone stories, both do suffer a little from their departure from certain parts of the novel's narrative.

This is one of the few books that I think is seriously near-perfect, which is why the changes of the adaptations actually bother me at all. Changing Callahan's character in the most recent miniseries was a grievous mistake on the creators' part, especially when Father Callahan would have such a pivotal part to play in The Dark Tower series after the events of 'Salem's Lot. And in the first television movie, the fact that characters are omitted (especially Dr. Cody) has always bothered me.

Now, speaking of this radio drama, most of the book is there. Yes, some parts (like the side-stories of characters who are not main characters) are either completely omitted or mentioned in an off-handed way by more main characters. The plot mostly focuses on just the core five or six characters of the narrative, barely mentioning the side-characters at all unless they become important to the main plot. While the purist in me loves the entire novel, filler and all, the writer in me loves how the audio drama accomplishes what it does. Of course some things need to be taken out of the narrative. I'm mostly glad that the characters and their stories aren't changed at all really. And I'm glad that the story unfolds basically how it does in the novel. While there are some big changes, like the bookends of the episodes of the radio drama involving Ben and Mark telling their story to a Mexican priest, most are cosmetic changes and omissions, something I cannot see a problem with.

Honestly, the focus on the main characters works incredibly well, especially backed up by fantastic vocal work by the voice actors all around. Mark is the only character who even sounds a little off, but most of the characters sound exactly like they should with Straker and Barlow (played by Doug Bradley of Hellraiser fame) being literally incredible voices in their own rights.

The production is creepy, especially as a vampire story. It works every bit as well as Dracula or some of the other more macabre vampire stories out there (of which there are far too few for my liking). Some of the scenes work very well, especially any scene involving Barlow, who has singularly jumped up my list of terrifying villains in fiction to basically take the top spot. Of special note is Matt Burke (played by Gavin Muir), whose voice is a pleasure to listen to. The acting is especially good all around, and you'll find yourself literally having goosebumps if you listen to this late at night.

I had the special circumstance to not only be in a small New England town on the day I listened to this, but also to be out and about on an overcast fall day as I listened. My job gives me the ability to listen to many audiobooks and audio dramas and such, and I took advantage of it on the perfect day to do so. I know that not everybody out there lives or works in a small New England town much like the titular 'Salem's Lot, but if that chance comes up, this is perfect listening in situations like that.

I wholly throw my support behind this adaptation of one of my favorite books. I recommend this completely, unlike last years debacle with the terrible A Return to Salem's Lot. Check it out if you get the chance. I doubt you'll be disappointed. Also, here's a website and podcast that you can download it from, just because I'm a great guy.

The only negatives that I can think of are Mark (who sounds funny to my ears) and some of the acting which can be slightly overdone. Also, at times, the action moments can sound very confusing. But as an audio adaptation, I would put this up there with some of the greats. Give it a listen if you want a spooky time, just make sure you have three-and-a-half hours to spare to listen to it.

Movie Appraisal: A Return to Salem's Lot (1987)

This may in fact be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It certainly is an insult to 'Salem's Lot and every adaptation of that wonderful Stephen King book. I could say a ton about how much this movie gets wrong. I could say just how much this insults me as a fan of the original story and the original miniseries, both of which I really enjoyed. I could say a lot of things, and I will, don't you worry, but I'll also say that as bad as this movie is, it does have some decent parts... but none of them have anything to do with the original story or characters. Hell, this movie doesn't even deserve to have "Salem's Lot" in it's title. Besides this movie taking place in the town, it has very little (read: nothing) to do with "Salem's Lot" to the point where I have no idea how this movie even comes to pass as a sequel to the events from the 1979 miniseries.

For a year or more now I've been waiting to watch and review this movie. I knew it would probably be bad, but what I didn't expect was just how bad it would be. It's not that I personally dislike it because it's not the perfect sequel to Salem's Lot that I wanted. It's terrible because almost every aspect of this film is a total and complete failure. The editing is terrible and choppy. The film somehow looks worse than its black-and-white predecessor from eight years prior. The acting is at times astoundingly bad. The direction is awful, just awful. The scenery is cheap and looks terrible. And the plot makes no sense and doesn't work in any sense of that word. And that's not even scratching the surface as to how wholly abominable this movie actually is.

For one, that tagline up on that poster: "Based on characters created by Stephen King." makes absolutely no sense. There are no characters based on Stephen King's stories. There is a town that is wholly different than what King wrote. There are vampires that are totally different than what King wrote. There is a non-burned down 'Salem's Lot, which makes no sense since 'Salem's Lot always burns down when Ben and Mark light the town on fire at the end of any version of 'Salem's Lot. So, why is this town intact? Why no burn marks? Why is it burnt down all over again at this end of this film?

See, the problem here is that this movie is no sequel to 'Salem's Lot or Salem's Lot. It is instead a completely different canon. It simultaneously a remake of the miniseries with different characters and its own story entirely. And that's where I found myself confused. Why didn't they just call this movie something completely different? It has nothing to do with Salem's Lot as a town or a book or a movie. The vampires are wholly different, no longer the shambling zombies they are in the book- they instead are humans with fangs and a hatred of light. The only vampire in 'Salem's Lot who was intelligent and coherent was Barlow, but here that whole aspect is thrown away in favor of talking vampires for some reason. This cuts away all of the horror while also taking away the point of 'Salem's Lot, the message of a charismatic and powerful person taking away the will to think of an entire populace.

I can keep going on about how the plot is ridiculous and the acting is pretty awful. I can keep saying how this movie seems pointless and kind of insulting. I can keep ripping apart every aspect of the film, from the pointless and antipathetic characters to TWO ridiculous "romance" plots... and all the way to some terrible fight sequences... terrible cinematography... terrible editing... terrible direction of almost every sequence. I just found this entire movie disheartening and incredibly insulting. I didn't like it and would never recommend it... but... but there were some okay things in the movie, and although I find the flick wholly reprehensible, I'd like to focus on the more positive aspects of the movie (the few that there are) because I find that there is no point in tearing the terrible and forgotten movie apart. It's already out of the public's memory. I think that speaks volumes about how terrible this movie actually is.

The opening of the movie is actually kind of fun, with a kicking opening tune and a psychedelic LSD vision. I enjoy a good strange opening and this one worked for me, getting me pumped up for a much better film than this one turned out to be. The music in general for this movie is pretty good actually, being one of the few redeeming features to an otherwise completely unremarkable film. The scene with the natives and Michael Moriarty's character, Joe, filming a ritual of one of the native's getting his heart pulled out is pretty good. I had no idea what was going on, but the effects were pretty decent. It had me believing this movie might actually look kind of interesting. In my mind, Cannibal Holocaust kept running through my head... and I guess I must have thought maybe I would get a movie more in line with that kind of film. It would have been a whole hell of a lot better than what there is.

The special effects sure are "special," especially when none of them seem to look good until the very end of the movie. Even then- they don't look good... it's probably more that I actually saw something that didn't make my eyes bleed which was better than this movie had been doing to me. And even though there are scary monster faces sometimes, the movie is mostly boring. There is no horror here, no tension. The vampires show up quickly and do nothing else. Yes, people are bitten with some terrible blood effects, but mostly the vampires stand and talk... and then stand and talk some more. Every once in a while they- wait for it- SIT and talk. WOW. Wow. Oscar calibre performances, people. There is overacting galore, although the kid, Ricky Addison Reed, and Michael Moriarity to a pretty good job at keeping cool. If "keeping cool" is swearing constantly and at the weirdest and most inappropriate times. I can't blame the actors for the odd lines though. The script seemed to be the real culprit here.

So, this is Tara Reid'd first role... if that interests you at all. Doesn't really mean much to me, I have to say. Knowing what movies that girl would be in- well, I'm not surprised this is where she started. Kind of fitting in a way. And kind of sad too. She is easily the worst actor here... and that's saying a ton. I seriously wanted her to stop talking every time she opened here mouth. Her "death?" scene was also painful to watch. I can't believe that that was the take they decided to go with. Did they even know what a good performance was? The sad thing is, they really must have because one actor really shines and rises this movie above absolute garbage. Oh, he's not really even introduced until two-thirds of the way through the movie or so... after you go catatonic because it's that bad... but once Samuel Fuller enters the flick as Van Meer, the Nazi Killer, the movie takes a turn to getting a lot more interesting. Samuel Fuller is wonderful here and seems to be having a great time. The man takes the performance and sells it for all its worth. He easily outshines everybody else. He is the only likable character as well as the only one worth cheering for. He chews the scenery up at times, but he is such a joy to watch that he alone makes the movie a little bearable. For the twenty or thirty minutes he decides to grace the screen with his kooky hair and bad dude stance, he is the greatest thing around. Hell, I would love more stories based on his character alone. Again, he's the only good character here in this movie.

So, the biggest thing that bothers me is the departure from the established lore of the freaking franchise that this movie is a sequel to. How do these vampires know their own history with both Straker and Barlow dead? Didn't Straker and Barlow come from Austria and England (basically Europe) too? Why are these vampires American and like 300 years old? Why are they here when all the vampires here were supposedly made by Barlow? Did they take over the town after Mark Petrie and Ben Mears from 'Salem's Lot burned the whole town down? Did they rebuild it? Or were they always there, these vampires, as Barlow made the whole town under his thrall? Because that would have been stupid. This is one of the big reasons this movie has to be its ow separate canon. It would make no sense otherwise. Why does Axel say that he's 300 years old? What is the point of that? Is it supposed to make him scarier? Or is it some kind of convenient way of saying, "Dude, this vampire's hardcore!" Well, it doesn't work. The line is awful; it doesn't make him more intimidating, it makes him seem like a petty bastard. Barlow was the first vampire there, but he's totally forgotten... well, except for the art of him on the box and poster. Yeah, that's definitely Barlow from the Salem's Lot miniseries. So, these seem to be in canon with one another... which would only really be possible if nothing made any sense any more. They would have to be implying that this town already had vampires in it. Or that they came later? I mean, is this movie saying that it takes place in the far-flung future of 2287? What? What? WHAT? What? I keep saying "what" so often it doesn't even sound like a word anymore...

The vampires were mindless like zombies in the movie, the book, and the canon, not like this... except for Barlow. It was scarier that way and so much more effective. This is just stupid. And then somehow the town name keeps changing between Jerusalem's Lot and 'Salem's Lot... when it's been established that the town name was officially changed to 'Salem's Lot. It's in the book. What am I even saying? They didn't read the book. Why would I give them the credit of reading the book? I must be insane. EVEN THINKING that these numbskulls would have considered reading the book... or (HA HA) watching the movie that this movie was a sequel too. Because they didn't watch that movie either. They didn't care about stupid things like consistency... or canon... or anything established. Hell, how is this even based off of anything Stephen King did? I mean, sure some of the plot is ripped off wholesome from the book... but calling this a sequel is like calling me a sane and smiling person. It's just not true and nobody should ever say things that they can't take back like that.

Oh, at least we get to see breasts... said Saquarry dryly. His face was likened to a rock. Breasts were not going to help this movie. They were just going to tell how bad a movie this was. Trying to distract with breasts was never going to work. There is so little of substance here and... this movie is entirely classless. And clueless. Why even include a scene like this? Are you establishing a romance? No, not really. Are you establishing how it might be difficult for Joe to hurt his beloved? No, not really. Oh, it's mentioned once, but never amounts to anything. The romance and the sex scenes are pointless. These are pointless breasts that make the entire movie worse because they have no point. I'm not saying that naked women are wonderful in movies, but they are usually meant to establish something (or for pure fanservice), and this movie doesn't seem to be doing either. These are breasts for the sake of breasts and there's just no point beyond that... and the shots aren't even good. They don't try to make the act of sex look vicious or terrible or sweet or sexy... the directing does NOTHING AT ALL. This is a terrible movie. This is such a terrible film. 

Wow, it turned daylight very very quickly towards the end of the movie. BAM. Night to day. There we go. That's how the sun comes up. No gradual rise. No tension. Nope. One second as dark as the dead of night and the next it is noontime. Wonderful. I get the feeling nobody associated with this movie has ever seen a sunrise...

Look, let me reason with you, the reader, here. Do not watch this movie. Do not seek it out. Do not think that you should watch this movie in any way. Despite a good performance by Samuel Fuller and a pretty good film score, this movie is a waste of time to watch. It has nothing to do with 'Salem's Lot as the town, the book, or the movie except in name. It has nothing to do with Stephen King either except for stealing some of his plot-points much worse than he ever wrote them. Some of the effects towards the end of the film also look okay, but no better than any other movie out there. Avoid this movie at all costs. This is The Reaping level of bad, and I'm not taking that back. So, I guess this October starts off wonderful... hopefully the next thirty nights go better than this one did or else I'm going to be a very unhappy fella.

Movie Appraisal: Salem's Lot (2004)

'Salem's Lot, as I've mentioned before, is my favorite Stephen King novel. It has a fantastic story, kind of obviously taken from Dracula, one of my favorite books ever, and it really works in my opinion, not only as a vampire story, but also as a good horror story in general.

That being said, this television miniseries movie is not the best Stephen King movie that there ever was. It has a great cast and decent writing, but there are downsides and I will get to them, don't you worry your little anonymous reader head. Trust me on this, I am going to rip this movie apart by the freaking seams. The cast those, like I mentioned, is very good, with Rob Lowe starring. Now, Rob Lowe had also been in the miniseries adaptation of The Stand as well, and honestly... well, although he has a good name, the character of Ben Mears is a fairly bland and uninteresting character. Donald Sutherland also stars as Richard Straker, a new man who comes to the town of 'Salem's Lot to open an antique store with his business partner, Kurt Barlow, who is played by Rutger Hauer.

Let me say that those two actors, although in my opinion very fine actors, seem to have such odd performances in this. Donald Sutherland plays a character who in the novel is mentioned many times as being "hairless" and "smooth" as evil snarky Santa Claus, which is such a strange way to play that role. James Mason, in the previous version of the movie, did such a better job as Straker. Rutger Hauer, on the other hand, plays Barlow, the sadistic vampire, as an incredibly suave gentleman vampire. Now, in the novel he is a monster and in the previous movie he was a Nosferatu type of vampire, but here he is simply Rutger Hauer... and he isn't bad, but it is a little inexplicable the way he plays the evil vampire.

Also, James Cromwell plays Father Callahan and I'll have a lot to say about his performance and the writing surrounding it later on in the review.

Now, I have reviewed the 1979 movie and the novel, so you can tell that this story is close to my heart. I love vampires, I love what vampires used to be. I Am Legend, the novel, not the 2007 movie starring Will Smith, is a fantastic novel which makes me so happy. Dracula by Bram Stoker is my second favorite book of all time. Amazingly well written and full of a whole bunch of great scenes and characters, but I digress... this is not a review of vampires or of Dracula. I guess what I'm saying is that old-style vampires are close to my heart, so this movie becomes both incredibly awesome and incredibly disappointing.

So, besides the actors I mentioned, most of the characters and actors are incredibly tough to watch. The acting is certainly not amazing. There may be a gem of a performance here and there, but for the most part the movie is fairly rough around the edges. It really tries very hard to show the scope of the novel and succeeds in the first half of the miniseries. It has a great build-up to everything in much the same way that the novel has. There is a lot thrown in about the movie being set up to be a haunted house story, just like the novel, and then throwing that aside and becoming crazy vampiric midway through. And this is all good. There are a lot of good things to this movie too. It does have some legitimately frightening parts (as frightening as a television miniseries can get), and really gets the setting right, which I applaud.

The problems arise because of miscasting and strange performances. This can mostly be seen through Donald Sutherland, Rutger Hauer, and James Cromwell. I love these actors, but for one, in the original novel Father Callahan is not a bad guy... ever. This even creates a problem when 'Salem's Lot connects to The Dark Tower series in which Father Callahan, the alcoholic Catholic priest, is one of the biggest heroes of the series. As for Hauer and Sutherland, why weren't their roles just swapped? The ancient vampire of Barlow was much more suited for someone of Sutherland's talents and experiences, while Hauer playing Straker would have been amazing... because simply looking at Rutger Hauer, you can easily become a little unnerved.

Now, some of the scenes are fairly well done and compare favorably to the 1979 version and fit well with the novel as well. Danny Glick coming to Mark Petrie's window comes to mind as well as some of the later vampires. Now, one character I haven't mentioned is Doctor James Cody who is my favorite character in the novel and is... well, partially amazing here and partially a terrible human being. His character is also changed from the novel and it is for the worst unsurprisingly. I think the actor who plays him, Robert Mammone, is absolutely fantastic in the role, but had to deal with a less than stellar script. I was so excited to see Jimmy Cody's name attached to a Salem's Lot movie, but in the end it was more disappointing than surprising.

The plot follows the same one I've written twice over in two other reviews, with the only difference coming in actual characters that appear (This miniseries has a lot more characters than the 1979 movie, and much better acting besides as well.), and the framing device used in the miniseries, that was also used in the novel, but in a very different way. In the novel it was used as, I think, an homage to Dracula. Here it is used to showcase the villainy of Father Callahan and the characters of Mark Petrie and Ben Mears.

The main two characters, and the main female too, are still as bland as they have always been, and out of the main cast of characters only Andre Braugher's performance of Matt Burke had any real impact on me. I thought casting him to play a character that in the last adaptation and in the novel was white, was a great move. I thought he added real acting talent and a surprising addition to a story with, and I hate to say it like this, very little diversity. Now, I could care less about diversity. Whatever floats people's boats, but I think it was a ballsy move that a ton of people probably didn't like, but I thought it was excellent casting. It really seemed to me that they were casting out of the character himself rather than out of preconceptions... and I really like that. I'll be talking about Andre Braugher again in an upcoming review, again praising his performance. He is an incredibly underrated actor.

Anyway, I like this movie because of the source material... I mean, hey, I own it and everything. But on it's own merits, it really isn't very good. Some of the acting and scares are decently well done, but in the second half the acting starts falling very flat and the choices of how the plots moves just seem confusing and nonsensical to me, a fan of the original work. I wouldn't recommend it over the 1979 version unless you are looking for better acting or cinematography, which you very well might, and you'll find those things here. But besides that, you should probably avoid this less than stellar television miniseries.

Movie Appraisal: Salem's Lot (1979)

So, I have a VHS copy of the 1979 television miniseries movie of Salem's Lot. I look at the box as I'm putting the movie in to watch it. The box tells me that this movie is:

The ultimate in terror!

Well, I'm excited. I've always wanted to see the ultimate in terror. Now, wait... I'm not entirely certain what that's supposed to mean though. "The ultimate in terror"? The "ultimate" what in terror? Ultimate is an adjective, not a noun, it literally makes no sense... I mean, ultimate can mean a lot of things too. Sure, it can mean something as simple as "the best", but more often than not it would mean something as simple as the highest, or the last... which absolutely makes no sense... maybe I'm just reading into it a little too much, but this movie makes me curious. Telling me that this movie is "The ultimate in terror!" is putting my expectations pretty high. If I watch this movie and am not rocking back and forth crying out of pure manly fear sucking my thumb and praying to whatever deity will hold me close to save me from the terrifying movie, then I think this movie wouldn't have lived up to expectations, I'll be disappointed.

So, I'll watch this movie and see what happens...

Well, this is interesting, I think, as I start watching this movie. I’ve seen it before, years and years ago, but years and years ago is not now. I barely remember it. As the competent horror movie score rises from the depths of my television and the nighttime shot of a mansion turns into a daytimes shot of a mansion, the credits role and I see that James Mason and Elisha Cook Jr. are in this production. Wow, I think, that’s pretty awesome. I've always gotten excited to see James Mason in anything... I'm really not sure why...

Anyway, the first thing I notice is the washed out color of the movie. I'm uncertain whether this is the movie itself and how it was filmed (I suspect that's what it is.) or maybe the VHS is old and faded... but I'll be watching this. I find it interesting that yellow in this movie doesn't look yellow, it looks... vaguely white kind of.

Well, the movie rolls, and if I didn't know the story of 'Salem's Lot I'd be very confused. Sure, I see that a lot of scenes from the novel by Stephen King are in here, but most of them make no sense and are very disjointed. The scenes fluctuate rapidly from our hero Ben Mears (played by David Soul) to other random people. I barely have time to figure out their names as the scenes keep changing from one group of people to another.

Mr. Straker (played by James Mason) is a particular oddity. His introductory scene makes absolutely no sense in context with Ben Mears randomly appearing in the dead of night at Mr. Straker's doorstep (at the Marsten House, which is the town of Salem's Lot's haunted house) and then they both kind of fade off. I'm very confused.

As the movie goes by the structure does seem to find a nice flow, but the beginning of the movie seems to have no real pacing at all, and it confuses and worries me. I wonder if an editor actually sat down to look at this mess. I wonder if he noticed how many plot threads are never tied up or how some characters are literally just forgotten about over the course of the movie.

One particularly glaring character that just kind of disappears less than halfway through the movie is Larry Crockett, the real estate agent. He has a role fairly early on, then has a... a really weird scene involving a shotgun in his mouth (Don't ask, it's all fairly disturbing and not in the "ULTIMATE IN TERROR!" kind of way, but rather in the, "Oh, man, I don't want to see this at all." kind of way.), and then he's gone and never to appear again to my knowledge in the whole film. I think he's attacked or something, but the rest of the characters who are attacked show up later, but I don't remember seeing him.

Also, and I do have to complain about this, two characters have earned my ire by being played by absolutely terrible actors. Mark Petrie (Lance Kerwin), the teenage boy hero foil to Ben Mears' manly hero persona, and Ben Mears' love interest Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia). A scene of particular interest is their one scene together in which they seem to be very close to either forgetting their lines or bursting out laughing. I couldn't tell, but in such a supposed-to-be-tense scene, it was very disappointing.

Now, getting to the scary parts, which is what I'm in this for. Well, there aren't many I could even consider scary. Actually there aren't many scenes that a scared seven-year-old girl who is terrified of the dark would be afraid of, which is disappointing, but not unexpected, but the box did lie to me. This is not "THE ULTIMATE IN TERROR!" No, box... I don't care what definition you were using for ultimate, this will never be the ultimate of terror, not ever. I'm sorry, but you're wrong and you've lied to me. I would tell you off if I could, but I see you trying so hard and I just don't have the heart.

There are a few genuinely creepy parts, mostly involving the vampires coming after the main characters. Oh, I didn't mention this is a vampire movie? Well, the movie seems to have forgotten as well until the halfway point or so... So, I was in no rush to spoil the vampires if the movie was in no rush to spoil it either. This is actually and seriously a pacing point that I like. It is also in the original novel and I think it works nicely, although it was handled much better in the novel and the second television miniseries that came in 2004. The whole point is a bit of a bait-and-switch. 'Salem's Lot is supposed to start out kind of seeming like it's going to be a haunted house movie and then BAM, nope, vampires. I think it's an interesting way of doing things and if this film were competent it would have worked nicely, but the film isn't competent and it works about as well as being slapped in the face repeatedly by a refrigerator.

So, now I'm actually going to tell about the creepy parts rather than interrupting myself again. The teenage boy vampire hovering at Mark Petrie's window is a particularly poignant scene and works very well. It was creepy, but fits rather poorly with the rest of the film since it is a fairly competent scene. Another scene of note (and in my opinion the best of the movie) is when the teacher Mr. Jason Burke (Lew Ayres) is confronted by a vampire in his own house because he had unwittingly invited the man into his house before the man was a vampire. So, this vampire sits in a rocking chair as Burke comes into the room and the creepiness level of this scene is awesome. Burke sweats and is obviously terrified, as the vampire (in some great makeup, I have to say) walks slowly towards him saying,

Look at me… Look at me, teacher… Look… Look… Look… Look at me… Look at me… Look…

with such an awesome raspy voice that it was hard not to take the guy seriously. Burke, one of the best character in my opinion, gets awesome and attacks the vampire with a crucifix and then has a heart attack and is never heard from again for the rest of the movie.

Now, in terms of the main bad guy in this film, Mr. Barlow, the Dracula type of character of this story... he's... well, a Nosferatu type of vampire... and it doesn't work. He just looks silly. Mr. Straker is a much more believable (human) villain who is terrifying in some respects especially as he carries the doctor who has been helping Ben Mears with the vampires, Mr. Bill Norton, Susan's father, to his death of being impaled by antlers attached to a wall. It's pretty awesome.

Now, as for a few other things I liked, but felt fell very short by the end were the Constable (Kenneth McMillan), who is absolutely awesome in all of his scenes except for his last, and the two scene wonder of the priest, Father Callahan as his crucifix is taken by Barlow. Both characters were very well done albeit fairly small characters, but their characters end poorly because of the lack of actual development for them.

The last scene of Ben and Mark killing Barlow is all right, I suppose, but the actual staking of Barlow is overshadowed by the younger vampiric townspeople stalking out of the root-cellar behind Mark to dine on fresh blood... Having them come to life out of focus behind Mark was beautiful. It actual gave a little tension to the movie that had had little real tension.

Now, I know I barely mentioned the main love interest, Susan... well, the movie seems to forget her, so why should I remember her? She goes into the Marsten House with Mark at one point and just kind of disappears, never to be seen again... I'm guessing she was turned into a vampire or something, but there's never a resolution there and it ends on kind of "huh?" note. And what ever happened to the priest, Father Callahan? His crucifix was thrown aside, but he never shows up again. And what about Susan's mother? Does she die because of the blaze Ben Mears starts at the end of the movie, or does she leave town like she was supposed to? And what about Burke who just seems to have been forgotten? Did he recover from his heart attack or tragically pass away? I have no idea and I kind of want to know... but nope, I never will.

So, Salem's Lot was a bit of a disjointed disappointment. I had wished for a lot more from a great vampire horror story and in the end I did not watch "The ultimate in terror!", what I saw was a movie trying desperately to be the original novel and failing quite badly in almost every way. The movie is worth watching, I suppose, if you like the source material, vampires in general, or mediocre TV movies from the late 1970's, but if you don't, I'd advise you to not waste your time with this "ultimate in terror!"