The Salem's Lot Remakes Are CURSED!! - Explained
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 окт 2024
- Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @nocturnalcritic
Let's recap the events of the recent Salem's Lot film and discuss why the Salem's Lot remake adaptations have been cursed since the original.
When author Ben Mears comes back to his childhood home in search for some inspiration for his next book, he discovers that people in his home town are mysteriously turning into blood-sucking vampires.
Release date: October 3, 2024 (USA)
Director: Gary Dauberman
Distributed by: Warner Bros. Pictures
Adapted from: 'Salem's Lot
Music by: Nathan Barr; Lisbeth Scott
Produced by: James Wan; Michael Clear; Roy Lee; Mark Wolper
► FIND ME:
TWITTER: @NocturnoCritic
INSTAGRAM: nocturnalcritic
DISCLAIMER:
This video is not sponsored. Images and clips are under fair use, and are copyright material of their respective owners.
"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."
#salemslot
#stephenking
#horrorstories
![BRASIL vs. PERÚ [4-0] | RESUMEN | ELIMINATORIAS SUDAMERICANAS | FECHA 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tbyOJKXfQnI/mqdefault.jpg)
Nothing beats the Originals... Salem's Lot...still watching it from time to time
Then the kid did the double tap on Straker I said "finally* because there's so many movies where the character hits the person/monster once and then runs away while they're knocked out. Why do they do this so much in movies?
I cheered when he did that lmao
@@MalBeats in the novel, Mark didn't finish him off. Barlow comes up, sees all the blood, and can't help himself from draining Straker.
Yes! that was one smart kid.
@@morecowbell69 the would have been much more interesting. Especially if he was clinging to life begging his former master to spare his life
Tobe’s classic was and will always be a classic, an amazing cast and sinister atmospheric horror.
Let's face it! The 2024 (2022) remake was terrible with little to NO character development. I will never suffer through this film adaptation ever again, instead I'll just stick to the mini-series.
good call. I totally regret watching this last one.
@@jjphoenix4055 I was really looking forward to this film coming out. Like yourself I was disappointed. It's a great shame because there wont be another stab at it for a long time if ever.
This "movie" needed to be longer... it was to fast paced. Like "It"... the movie allowed time to get to know the characters without somehow being 3hrs. Maybe give the movie another 30-45 mins to flesh it out and build the world a bit.
If the vampires need someplace big enough for the whole town, how about...the whole town? The one full of buildings to hide in.
I actually liked the all hiding in the designated third place. The drive in was awesome for a small town in the seventies. It is the only change I appreciated.
The best way to describe this movie is pure cringe from everyone almost instantly believing in vampires, to a kid committing murder and shrugging it off like it was nothing, to the inconsistency of when the cross works, to the pure stupidity of the characters
Pros of this movie :
It looks good
The vampires look like Skyrim vampires with the eye glow
Cons:
Acting isn't good its like a highschool acting project
Writing is terrible
The script is terrible
Characters are unrealistic even for an unrealistic circumstance with vampires
Everyone is dumb mostly
Decisions characters make are unrealistic
In summary this movie would be better watching under the influence of some sort I give it a 4/10
Looks good? This shit looks so “photoshopped”
@@alejandromolinac lol maybe cuz it reminds me of Skyrim
Nothing comes close to the original one!
Or the book.
The OG Salem's Lot is also on Max. The first time I watched it, it scared the 💩out of me. This remake was a mess.
The movie was OK for what it was, but fell way short because of lack of film time and lack of atmosphere. Does anyone wonder how Susan got into the concessions stand? Or if Mark's parents were vampires. 6.5 out of 10 for a stand alone type of movie but comes up way short for a Salem's Lot adaptation. Even 30 more minutes of run time could have made a decent difference in the movie.
@@2005Aztek if u think this was even decent your in need for a mental check up my friend
It was decent for a straight to video movie. To each their own, I dug it.
Agreed. It has the same problem a lot of movies have where scenes are just a bunch of exposition dumping, a lot of which could have been shown better than told, because they're in a hurry to rush to the next set piece. Idk if it's done deliberately to try to hold onto goldfish attention spans or if it's just bad writing that has become more and more common over the last decade, but I don't like it. It was either badly paced or there were definitely far too many scenes edited out of the film that should've been there.
@caleblaws2533 it's not very good, but there are definitely good things to like about it. It's not all or nothing. There is a good movie in there somewhere. It just doesn't fully come together in execution as a whole.
@2005Aztek yeah, I was surprised to find out this wasn't a miniseries. All adaptations of Salem's Lot have been miniseries giving them an average runtime of 3 hours. So when I found out this was 1hr34m, I was not hopeful cuz the miniseries' runtime allowed for a lot of stuff this movie lacks, mainly connections and slow dread. The 2004 version was more creepy and tragic, and that was made for TV as well. How a movie made for streaming could do less well I blame on runtime. Lots of intricate parts get cut out on top of the cuts in adapting the work & you're just just hitting major plot points & cool kills.
This one should go "straight to video". Which was a curse back in the day to any movie that was in a theater. Total "B" movie garbage.
Father Callahan dying violates greater Stephen King universe lore, because he shows up in the Dark Tower books in his disgraced post Salem's Lot version.
For real, whose gonna convince Roland to help stop the wolves of Calla Bryn Sturgis now. All those poor, roont, children.
@@Razalkarp Yes.
Then again, I forgot that there are thousands of years between the two books, so he could have gone to the Dark Tower world through dying, like Jake Chambers did.
@@TrangleC That absolutely makes sense in the setting of DT.
I watched it today. They should have gone with their plan to get a tax cut. It was SO boring.
The camp counselors at Crystal Lake received better character development than this. I'd love to see this cast in a better Salem's Lot.
I saw this yesterday, not even realizing there was a recent remake. I HATED it. How dare they make such huge changes, especially the one about Father Callahan. This movie sucked and should never have been made
The new film isn't a real film. It makes no sense. It's like there's about an hour, maybe more, missing from the film. Characters have knowledge they couldn't have, people behave completely illogically based on what we see in the film, plot threads are dropped with zero explanation, nobody has any character development, it's like a series of scenes with no connective tissue.
Either they never shot those scenes, or they cut them - but it's not a real film.
The first 15min are ok, then it's downhill, fast. This "film" must have been shot a while ago because Homelander's son is still quite young. I don't know the actor's name, but he plays HL's kid in "The Boys'.
Apparently, you don't have to be drained of blood by a vampire to become one. Just bitten. That's new. Barlow looked like an Orc from Middle Earth with really bad teeth. You can't beat Reggie Nalders version of Barlow. And the way the vampires die really sucked too. The glow in their eyes just fades away and their fangs retract. How lame. At least in the 2004 TNT version Mike Ryerson woke up after he was staked, howled and then spun up into the air bursting into sawdust.
Very bad acting, the script was horrible, just everything was bad about this movie
The only way to properly adapt Salem's lot is with a 10 episodes mini series. That being said I really liked a few things about this movie and hated a few things too. The highlight was the Mark Pettry actor and character.
Trunk of a car for a coffin ⚰️....ya okay 😂😂
Honestly, the 2004 remake is much better than this remake by comparison.
Great review, watched it last night and I agree, wasn’t better than the original but it was still fun. Didn’t see the 2004 miniseries so I’ll have to look for that. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you, and I appreciate you watching!
@@lmorgandiaz 2004 remake was crap 💩
@@paulhudson1931Your comment has deeply offended me; unless you apologise, I’m gonna get Barlow to use his fangs to burst your fart 😡
@@lmorgandiaz I enjoyed the 2004. The OG left too many questions unanswered. Last we saw of the townsfolk was that they were having sleep dreams 😑
Ugh, this movie fell flat for me. I mean yah, they got right to the point, but they could've fleshed out the characters more. I didn't care who died, which is my own red flag lol.
The reason Pullman was so gushing about the movie, is because it was so different when it was originally made. Warner made them cut about an hour out of the new film
@@tonyyoung_wry that makes sense seemed really badly edited
Really? It definitely felt badly paced/edited, so it's nice to get confirmation. It really felt like there were some important things missing. I have no idea why the studio felt the need to cut so much out if it was going to streaming anyway. I thought the benefit of streaming releases was that you aren't limited to a lot of the same runtime constraints that you're more pressured to have for a theatrical release. Such a waste because the run time definitely hurt the movie.
@@Tyler_W yeah Dauberman confirmed he gave them a 3hr film. It’s why it misses the young Ben and Marsten who are all in the end credits of this movie still! Bit of a mess really
Time to start demanding a directors cut :)
This movie was good I really liked it
So did I 👍
@@tyronecarson9625 if you haven't read the book or seen the 1979 movie I guess people would like it. Otherwise this movie is a hot mess. 95% of the book and original film are thrown out. I understand why this was shelved
Liked it too!
@@67psychout I agree 100% as a huge fan of the book, It's not a patch on the amount of horror within the book but for new fans or indeed people who havent read the classic book themselves, then it's a standard 2hr modern horror including all the predictable modern horror mistakes.....the OG movie was far far bettter
It was good but really just a reminder of how brilliant the original series was
I just watched and thought it was a B movie that tried to be scary. But, ending up funny. Original is still the best.
The changes to the lore drastically reduced the horror, replacing it with bland action-tropes. In the novel, sunlight doesn't kill vampires, so you have to stake them, and the sternum isn't made of wet tissue paper in the novel, so you really need to pound those stakes into the struggling vampire. That gives the horror story a strong feeling of, y'know, actual horror.
Instead you just get action-movie tropes where the sun can slaughter an army of vampires, and the sternum is made of wet paper so you can kill a vampire with a quick stab from an action hero. I found it unbearably bland.
Novel Barlow is elegant and cunning. You can feel his intelligence in both the way he writes, and in the scene versus the Priest. In this movie, he's just a goofy monster who dies like an anticlimactic Steven Seagal mook.
Everything that makes the vampires horrifying, and makes Barlow terrifying and intriguing is replaced with action-movie tropes. Bleh!
This is a middle tier vamp movie. I've seen better and I've seen worse.
No film can touch the book because you can't place every book detail in a movie. Also, your imagination comes into play when you read a book. This makes a story more enjoyable.
Mr. Barlow's appearance was creepy, but it could've been better. However, I enjoyed hearing him speak.
Alot of people don't know there was conflict taking place during the filming. This film suffered from the back and forth.
CGI? No problem with it. Nobody complained about CGI being used in those Underworld films. Mind you, some of them were crappy and pointless.
The guy stalking the brothers in the woods gave me the chills. The best? No! Fun to watch? I say yes.
Couldn't agree more about Straker stalking the kids. In spite of its faults, there's no denying that it had some very effective horror imagery. There's a really good movie in there somewhere, it's just doesn't quite come together in execution. If the studio didn't make them edit a bunch of the movie out, the only major complaint I'd have is its attempts at humor when it's supposed to he scary.
@@Tyler_W I agree 100%..Let's cross our fingers for a uncut version to be released.
Straker abducting Ralphie was one of the scariest parts of the film for me and the lighting in that scene was artistic and creepy at the same time, the CGI used on the vampires made the film feel cheap though
The original was the best but this one was definitely better than the Rob Lowe remake. I didn’t like the ending. Making kids the smartest and bravest people in movies doesn’t work for me.
What a terrible movie. I mean i was laughing more than anything. Even the 2004 was better.
I liked it, but i felt it could have been better. I think it should have been a mini series. It would have had more time to flash out the characters. I like the Rob Lowe one too.
it's weird seeing homelanders boy become young again after seeing him grow up in season 4
Mostly because they're baaaad! Especially the last one. And the Tobe Hooper masterpiece would NEVER be beaten by any new crappy remake.
This recent remake is a shit show, hate it, just crap. The 79' version is the only version. New remakes have no Soul...literally.
Marlow himself is not affected by the rule of not entering a house uninvited.
I like this remake. In my opinion, I think this is better than the O.G. Also Barlow is immune to the "Must be invited into a house to enter" rule. Hes a Type 1 vampire. That's why he was able to enter Mark's home without an invitation. Do your research, old timers. And quit insulting the new stuff that some people, possibly younger people, might have a taste in. I hate critics.
I really liked it, some color grading was weird but some shots like when the kids are walking through the woods in the background is pretty cool, but i enjoyed it, not the best ever but it put me in the Halloween mood
The original Salem's Lot and the TV show the Strain are great examples of virtually perfect adaptations of books about vampires.
I wish they made it like a series ...burt l loved the illuminated crosses...tho...
Liked the first two adaptations, warts and all. I was really just bored with the latest. Wish they’d do something epic like a bunch of series slowly linked. They could do Salems Lot and Dark Tower separate first and then bring them together down the road. Oh well I’m not running things.
that's disappointing. I had hoped MAX might go for even a 6ep short series, just to even TRY what King was going for in the book - to show the town as a strange place that attracts and corrupts people, that the mobster murder suicide ritual at the Marston House in the late 40s was a spell to attract his occult correspondent, Barlow the Vampire. None of the adaptations give much time to the monsters who are the regular people of Salems Lot *BEFORE* they become the vampires we recognise.
A new King movie? Let's crank up that bloom!
This movie took a different approach when it came to the vampires. The Drive tru. When it came to the Glick Brothers and I was expecting so much more. It felt rush to be honest. I’ve listened to the critics of this movie thinking they were bias against it, so waited when it came out on max. The dark parts are really dark that it’s made for the big screen. I won’t say anything about Barlow. Accept this, did I find him scary, the answer is no. His look is more shark then Nosferatu, the practical effects in the original Barlow was far more terrifying and still holds up to this day.
The movie seems cool. But I’d love to see where in the end the protagonist’s love interest follows him to where they’re hiding months later, and tries to turn him… only for him to finally release her.
I really enjoy the 79 version. This new one? Disjointed, rushed, very poor if any character and relationship development and it felt like everyone in town saw the 79 mini series and knew all about vampires just like that. Awful.
Susan's mother is the absolute worst. 🤣
I waited so long for this reboot, and what a disappointment! Bill Camp playing Matt Burke was the only shining spot in this movie.
I read this book a few years ago nd even then i can see this adaptation changes a lot of things, lmao
specially MArk being basically an anction hero, what the hell
This version was horrible! Mark Petrie was a joke!
Plot too rushed, very few vampire classic action neck bite, bland romance, antagonist look like rock band member, unhinged "blade to be" kid but i appraised their creepyness look, good use of situation realism like vampire do exist, oh sheet there's vampire on roof well well well.
I agree. The movie was too short for what it needed to be and lacked atmosphere. It was OK for just any given vamp movie, but fell way short of a Salem's Lot adaptation. A longer run time could have fixed 65% of the movies problems.
There are definitely things i really liked about this movie, but i dont think it was paced very well. It has a lot of the problems a lot of modern movies have where scenes don't flow together very well, and they're just in a hurry to get from one scene to the next so they can get to the next set piece faster. Maybe this is just how how movies are going to be made now to try to hold onto goldfish attention spans, but I'm not a fan. Some of the characters also just seemed to automatically know things for no other reason than because the plot needed them to know, so it kinda felt like there were scenes cut out that should've been there. It was also trying to be funny in really awkward ways and in certain scenes that didn't entirely work for me. The casting and horror imagery were pretty good, though, and I like that vampires are scary again. I think this would have worked a little better if they made it just a little bit longer to allow certain scenes to be more fleshed out. Doesn't touch the original miniseries/movie from 1979, but it's good to throw on if you want something light for an evening with friends this spooky season.
Another excellent example of this trend making vampires scary again is the Netflix miniseries Midnight Mass from Mike Flanagan. You can definitely see the influence of Salem's Lot in that one. It has a lot of excellent tension, and the vampires are compelling and scary.
Ty, fair comments and observations you make here. In relation to pacing, you may have read since your post, that Dauberman had a 3 hour edit ready, but WB suits butchered it.
This has seemingly impacted on character development, and what they know/discover, and ultimately as a result, trainwrecked the pacing down to 2 hours.
I'll be investigating Midnight Mass in the next week or so; thanks for the heads up.
For the record, those popsicle sticks are tongue depressors
I enjoyed it more than I expected to. Could have been great if it had at least another hour run time.
22:05 Yes I had a problem with the fact that you stated that Susan only knew Ben for "two days" at this point in the movie yet in an earlier scene it showed many residents mail was back up in their mailboxes and their newspapers were laying on their porches for what looked like several days of not being brought inside. So I was perplexed as to how many days has past by in this movie.
Father Callahan doesn't become the "head vampire" or a vampire at all in the 2004 series. He has been corrupted as the daytime servant of the vampires(although the show isn't really clear on whether or not he is still serving them in the present day). Mark kills him by smothering him with a pillow while he's incapacitated at the hospital, that wouldn't really work with a vampire.
The book is still the best. Many of king’s book to movies adaptations never translate very well.
The OG film is the best FILM adaptation of the book.
@@NocturnalCritic once I saw how they mucked up the characters, I knew this new one was gonna suck
The 1979 version was good because I hadn't read the book and wasn't sure what to expect. I knew it was about vampires but no more. The young lad sitting .up in his coffin to bite the grave digger was a shock, likewise the young lad floating outside the window. It was paced a bit like the book. I mean slow start, picking up speed to a roller coaster climax. I'd actually bought the book in 1976, started to read it but gave up because the beginning was so slow. After watching the 1979 mini series the book was an easy read.
I can't say the 2004 was better or worse, it just wasn't so shocking because I knew what to expect. It seemed to be advertising a lot of of consumer products. Three of the characters drove brand new BMWs. The priest in the book drank Jim Beam, but in 2004 mini series there frequent reminders that he drank Jamesons. Ben Mears placed a pack of cigarettes on his aunt's grave, clearly showing the brand of tobacco. They were just the ones I noticed,. The 2004 version also had Easter Eggs, I mean references to other Stephen King stories, there was a dog called Cujo and a karaoke version of Stand By me. Again, there might have been others that I didn't observe. .
In the UK in 1995 the BBC had a radio series, of Salems Lot that was quite acceptable. As for this latest film I haven't seen it though I probably will. Stephen King is quite outspoken about film versions of his stories, he saw this latest one reckons it's not bad. I remember The Godfather was rendered into a five part TV series, the events shown in chronological order making the story really easy to follow. Perhaps someone will do the same with the three hour version of this Salems Lot.
I love this review! Really enjoyed
I disagree, the shot of Ben through Barlow's open mouth is really, really extremely stupid! lol Pretty much agree on the rest.
“Straker”
Not “Starker” lol
@@tonyyoung_wry you know when someone hasn't seen the other two TV movies, & hasn't read the book, when they mispronounce one of the major names in the story. Over & over.
Actually it has nothing to do with that lol it was just a typo, but carry on.
@@angelicablue Reading book doesn’t help you pronounce things that much because you can’t hear what it actually sounds like.
@@Nevae_696 hahahahaha! "Straker" is really a hard word to sound out in your head, right? How many different ways do you think it COULD be pronounced? "Let's see--"st" is short for "saint", so maybe it's 'Saint Raker'"? Gimme a break. SOME words, yes. A simple word like Straker, I doubt you'd struggle to pronounce, unless you have reading difficulties. I suggested having read the book AND seen one or more of the TV movies would enable you to pronounce it correctly. It's not as if Straker is a minor character. Also, the argument that "the script was wrong" may be true, but IF you'd watched any of the other series, or listened to any other review of Salem's Lot, ever--you'd correct the script when on air, & when actually reading from it. My point is this guy isn't a true fan, because at least once or twice in his life, he'd have heard the proper pronunciation for that name. Now that's ok--most reviewers AREN'T really fans. Now he knows. Maybe going forward, he's less likely to mispronounce.
@@angelicablue I said it doesn’t help MUCH not all time I was speaking generally when comes to reading.
This was a really good movie and children friendly. I’d like to keep the original for adults.
Children-friendly?; that is a outright travesty; this remake should have been a 18 Certificate; imagine a U Certificate remake of the Godfather trilogy? 😱
"Mark, the greatest horror hero ever"? You need to watch more movies, you guys...
At 3:53, I noticed Christine, the red and white '58 Plymouth Fury, made a cameo in this remake.
This movie was so lame and disappointing...The acting was subpar not scary and story was stupid..
Ahh "Mark Crusher" the long lost sibling of Wesley.
So, this was posted almost a week ago, so maybe you might see this comment, not 100% sure if you see it, but this popped up on my RUclips Recommended Next, I got curious, so decided to check it out. A few things I wished to say, so figured I'll take a chance on if you'll see it. First off, way you described that opening credits, and then said, "Then the movie starts." It reminds me so much, and guessing with the wrestling reference maybe was intentional, but when someone reviewing a match with a wrestler who has a flashy entrance, but isn't that good in the ring, and how they'll say after the entrance, "And then the bell rang." 😉 And what you said at the end there, very spot on with my thoughts of this movie. I do like it more than the 2004 movie, but still pales in comparison to the original from the 1970s for me. The original really does feel like a masterpiece in horror, trying to top that, not saying it can't be done, because maybe someday someone would, but it would be very difficult to do. Instead of Remaking stuff that got so much right the first time, they'll be better off Remaking stuff that got so much wrong, but still had a good enough story in there to make it better. Much like John Carpenter did with The Thing From Another World for example. That I wish they did more of if they really want to do Remakes. But enjoyed this video, thought I'll give you a subscribe, see what else you had, and thank you.
I challenge you to find a town whose residents keep their cars shinier than Salem’s Lot! 🚗
@@davidsantacarla Noticed this. It's supposed to be a trashy little blue collar town full of rusted out pickup trucks...not showpieces
Idk, just go anywhere that has a lot of people from Latin America. Idk if you've noticed, but even if they don't live in a really nice house, the upkeep on their cars and trucks tend to be really good. Obviously can't speak for everybody, but having a really nice car or keeping the car you do have really nice and well maintained seems to be a kind of status symbol for a lot of Latinos, at least in my experience.
I thought the 2004 mini series was under rated. Yes it has many faults but it is actually closer to the book. The small town secrets concept was explored more and the history of the Marsten house too. For anyone who hasn't seen it should give it a try. It stands head and shoulders above this version.
Mark is the GOAT of horror movie protagonists. 👏 👏 👏
Thanks for the summary. Now I don't have to watch this dumpster fire. Instead, I'll rewatch Tobe Hooper's masterpiece.
Having read the book multiple times religiously, the 2004 (with its fault) is actually closest to the novel. I enjoy all three, but the only way to do it, you have to remember that Salem’s Lot is (by King’s admission) just a retelling of Dracula, which, if treated that way, all of those films become enjoyable. However. Most people worship the 1979 because of nostalgia, some of the graphics are good, and still hold water, but as an adaptation of the novel, the 2004 film surpasses that, and yes, if you actually read the novel, you would understand. In truth, the only way to get a great, slow burn version of Salem’s Lot, would be to get a 10-20 episode (1-2 hours each) limited series. That it. I know some of the responses will attack me, but as a writer myself if it were my property, I would want to see it done right and in my opinion (keyword there) 2004 and 2024 did better, even with their faults. Period. Sure, i’m in the minority, but at least I stand by my convictions. 😊
I just saw the 1979 one the day before I saw the new one. Personally, I think 1979 is way better. I haven't seen the 2004 adaptation, so I'll have to try it out some time. The new one has a problem that a bunch of recent movies have where they're in too much of a hurry to get from one set piece to the next and don't leave enough room for scenes to breathe and for characters to get proper development. I think a lot of King's longer stories are better served as a miniseries, but I think that there would have been a good movie if it was given somewhere between 2.5-3 hours to flesh itself out more. That wouldn't fix everything, but it would've made it a lot better imo.
I liked the 2004 series quite a lot.
@@Tyler_W i love this response and you’re correct. His longer work benefits from the miniseries treatment
@@SimulacraViro nice to see i’m not alone. It deserves love too 🥰
Totally disagree with you. I enjoyed this movie immensely. I have watched it twice now and I my humble opinion it's 5 Stars. The original was a proper mini series and very scary for a made for the telly movie. The pace of this version is spot on and gets right to the point. And I find that absolutely refreshing. The actor who played Mark is excellent! In fact his portrayal of the character is far superior than the original in my opinion. Thank you Stephen King for fighting to get this film released. Instead of it being sacked by the brain trust of Warner Brothers. If you want to see Vampires doing what they do this is the movie for you lads and lasses.
@@Lonchanney1 I 💯agree with you if they had a better look for barlow n never changed the kitchen scene with Barlow n Marks parents or the ending staking of him at the marston house it would have been spot on
Your comment has deeply offended me; unless you apologise, I’m gonna get Barlow to use his fangs to burst your fart, then I’m gonna drive a Steak through your fart 😡
It stuck to it's origin and it's fans 😊. You didn't saw any vampire's dancing and singing did ya?😂
I think it's an error to call Barlow Mark's rival. That kid is the freakin Terminator, he has no rival. 🤣
Scariest vamps are from Lost Boys & fright night
Could film companies make horror films any darker? I like to watch black screen for 90 mins.
That looks completely manipulated ….. missed the good ole days of a light to the side to crate highlights….. not to mention an actual fog machine
Watch it yesterday I like it. It was a fun watch. Really liked the teacher was a bit upset he died. But hey he did make a stupid decision 😑. There were many stupid decisions in the movie. The one that really pissed me off was when they go to the morgue to watch over the body of Danny’s mum to she if she would change to a vampire nobody bought a weapon like seriously😒. I also liked Mark’s character very badass
Nothing ever beats the original but this was ok for a straight to stream movie. It’s something to watch when you got nothing else.
In 2024 there are gazillion other better things to watch to waste time….
The original Salem Lot is on Max.
I didn’t like the second remake. I much prefer the original.
Soon: "Salem's Lot, the Director Cut"
There is a Condensed version of the original TV series floating about on the interwebs and though quite edited still has the tone of dread the mini series had. This version falls short but edges towards more Action Horror but with half the movie cut I understand why It misses the mark. Still a pretty easy movie to throw in and watch.
this movie looks good imo and I think if u try n seperate it from the original mini series it seems like a good vampire movie!
I thought this shit was a series and couldnt figure our qhy the first episode was so damn long.
The book and the movie version of Salem's Lot differs, as far as how Ralphie Glick dies. Wikipedia's plot version states that Danny Glick was turned by Barlow himself, but other sources are saying that Danny was turned by his own brother. So, what happened to Ralphie Glick? And was Danny Glick turned by Barlow, or his own brother. There's too many conflicting answers concerning their deaths...!!!!!
I like the way the crucifix illuminated when they came in contact with the vampires.
If you're gonna hate on the movie can you at least get your pronunciation of the name Stray-ker correct.
Also the newspaper cliptalking of the fire is from 1951,the first fire that almost burnt the town down.
In the 79 version Marc is giving his speech for the play which tells of the 51 fire.
The movie was so garbage, unwatchable
small point, not Starker, Straker.
The 1979 version is cheesy as hell and not scary, but it was well acted and had time for good character development. Any remake needed to be something like midnight mass, with enough time for the story and characters to build.
Hi, Nocturnal!
This is one of the one hand counted occasions I don't agree on your view
I actually like the 2004 version
It's more faithful to the source material
I haven't seen the new remake, I will soon
The 1979 version was pretty slow for my taste
Fair enough! I appreciate you sticking around to check it out though. Let me know your thoughts on the new adaptation.
@@NocturnalCritic Of course!
I did enjoyed your video even if I don't agree
Your still the most fair critic, and this is a jewel nowadays
@@kikynessanez5060 i agree with you. He is great
I think too much was cut from it. I couldn’t help but notice the continuity issues. The rest was good imo.
Btw I give it a 7/10 just for not being woke…
The problem is, the movie could have been a masterpiece and it wouldn't matter because people are obsessed with saying "original is best, it's perfect, so scary even today" when, I'm sorry, the original just doesn't hold up anymore.
I love the original, and I re read the book every year. This new film was ok not great but even when the teaser trailer came out people were going "nothing touches the original, nothing at all, this doesn't even look close " etc
Nah, this movie was mediocre at best. It has couple of really cool shots, but it's so frantically paced but somewhat lifeless and dull at the same time. Scenes and subplots are rushed. Movie just ends. I was hoping they will make climax with Barlow fight better, but nope, he still shows up for like a minute and dies right away like a bitch. He's the least intimidating ancient vampire ever. At least in '79 version he was creepy and you get the sense of him being big threat, he takes over the entire town off screen in a single scene then dies like a bitch that it's comical.
@@njmfff I don't disagree for the most part. My issue was that even when stills were coming out people were like "nah, original so scary, scary, fucking terrifying, 79 version all day nothing can touch it nothing ever"
And the 79 version is just a bit campy and lame now.
@@andrewmorrison5289 Some parts are bit outdated in terms of technical stuff, but it was helluva lot better directed and it actually had creepy scenes.
The Window scene was soo much creepier in original because it lingers on boy flying and you see him in full. Here it's just "Hollywood", it goes at neckbreaking speed and loses it's impact because it's over long before it starts.
Same with Mike, I legit yelled when Matt goes into a room, doesn't see the vampire, then turns his back at the ONLY ROOM entrance where vampire is obviously hidden. Then wouldn't you know, he jumps at him from behind. Like my God Matt, how did you not see this one coming? By the process of elimination you should have figured out he is in one of the two rooms, and he clearly isn't in room #1.
It's lot of stupid choices that pushes plot forward like this that makes this movie really dull, despite few actually really nice artistic shots.
Then we have playground scene already explained in this video. It completely killed the solid setup by being "too Hollywood".
@@njmfff better directed for sure but and there are older movies where the technical limitations work for it rather than against it but Barlow in the 79 film now looks Ike a terrible Halloween costume.
@@andrewmorrison5289 I still find something weirdly uncanny in his design in old version. It's like one of those moments when you can say it's obviously fake rubber mask, but at the same time it's kinda the idea that counts.
This movie is worth the book to be honest.
This was a decent watch. Would have liked a little more information but was decent for what it was.
I liked the tbs Salem's lot... that's my go-2 SL . Salem's Lot 2024 plays like salem's lot greatest hits. It's at its strongest when it veers away from source material (3rd act)... it brought something new and creative. Sadly, there wasn't enough character development to undergrid the payoff . Overall it was fine... not the dumpster fire I'd thought. Definitely a streaming movie over theatrical.
Salem's lot should/could be a series like buffy... a town cursed and the paranormal events that engulfs it
Ok, it wasn't a mind blowing masterpiece. But I had fun watching it, even if it was cheesy. Not everything needs to take itself serious to be enjoyable.
I still think John Carpenters is the best vampire movie.
@@alexrogers9051 I love this movie, but I don’t know if it beats From Dusk Till Dawn for me personally
@@NocturnalCritic 30 days of night surely
This movie was awful in every sense. Waited 2 years to see it and it was hardly a B flick. The original and the 04 remake were far and beyond this farce. Awful!
Vampires don't burn in sunlight most aren't even affected. Stakes don't kill vampires but it does put them into stasis.
tell that to most films with them
I really hate this type of know-it-all comments because vampires are fictional, any story can setup rules for them to fit their narrative. If we are going for actual folklore vampire, then oh boy, your head would explode because they are nothing like Hollywood vampires. Don't even get me started on werewolves.
I’m gonna put you into a stasis by driving a Steak through your fart 🤣
Should have been put to bed with batgirl.....terrible adaptation.
Mmmm , so it's a Marky Sue film