I own the DVD of the 2004 miniseries. I enjoyed it. I don’t compare the 2 because they are so different. I like both versions for their unique ways of the story
We wouldn't mind a Blu Ray release with some special features, but we doubt that'll ever happen. We enjoy how different both versions of the story are, and when the new film eventually comes out we hope it's also different in its own way.
When we first watched it we were shocked to see how great the cast was! We appreciate this version for trying to do things differently, it manages to include a few things that 1979 just couldn't do at the time. Hopefully when/if the new film comes out, that'll also give us a fresh take on the story!
a couple nit-picks: The Danny Glick hospital scene with his brother is not faithful to the book as mentioned; Ralphie was sacrificed in the book, not converted. Additionally, in the novel Susan leaves home after the argument with her mother with thoughts about people thinking she is too 'forward' with boys. The mother was scandalised she'd slept with Floyd Tibbetts. So, having her approach Ben isn't revelatory. Finally, Mark not having a father in the 2004 version intensifies the father/son dynamic of Ben/Mark. It's logical. Also, Rob Lowe is not 'underrated' as an actor, LOL.(sooooo bad....)
I never totally understood that when I read the book. Why the first victim Ralphie is "eaten" [=it seems???] by either Barlowe or it's implied it could be Satan? Straker prays "Father, hear me now! I have made sacrifice for your favor, with my left hand I bring it..." when he offers Ralphie. But why wouldn't he simply be drained and vamped by being bitten? Why is he entirely eaten instead? I assume Stephen King is making Satanism reference?
Reggie Nalder (and make-up) was MUCH MORE TERRIFYING! Rutger Hauer, while a great actor, was more the "VOMpire" (pronunciation) you would go "for coffee" with!
If you want to spend a bit more time hanging around the Lot... There are two related short stories. One is a sequel tale, "One For The Road," and it's very creepy and highly recommended. The other, "Jerusalem's Lot", is set a long time before the novel and is basically a Lovecraft homage. It's fun, but has little direct connection beyond the town name. It did, however, provide the inspiration for the excellent limited series "Chapelwaite" which seems in a sense more directly connected and is far better than either of the 'Salem's Lot miniseries.
Thank you for the recommendations! David is especially feeling the itch for more after finishing the book, and recently seeing the towns reference in Pet Semetary. We've heard good things about Chapelwaite, we'll be sure to check it out! Being better than both miniseries sounds very enticing!
Both stories are excellent recommendations. Yeah, if you ever wanted to see how the surrounding towns reacted to the events in Salem's Lot and what it would be like living near a town that has gone over to the undead "One For the Road" is a great little read. Very Creepy!
I’m rewatching now and was curious what others thought on it. I liked it about as much as the first and don’t mind the changes. I go back and rewatch both every couple of years. Do feel that the 2004 version was paced a bit better.
We definitely think by sacrificing time with Ben as a main character let them give more time to the side characters and the townsfolk. Ultimately making the events feel like they're on a larger scale, but also helped move the story along a bit faster. It's been interesting to see the different types of comments we get on this video, some hate this version, some love it, and others like it, but not as much as the original. We're just happy to see that more people are aware of its existence than we originally thought!
@@SCDFarmer Amazon prime is where I have them digitally purchased, but I also have the blu rays ripped to my hard drive. Stuff doesn’t always stay for sale and I bought them ages ago.
I watched the 2004 miniseries at the time and recalling disliking it in comparison to the book and the 70s version. The town already seems corrupt and dark and the slow corruption of a sunny small town was not such a factor. Plus, I watched the 70s version with my dad, now long-gone, and it really got into my brain in a way the later one just did not. But I haven't seen it since, so need to re-watch it to see if I was too harsh in judgement.
We struggled so much to find a copy of this! There's no Blu ray from what we can find, no special features, such a wasted opportunity! But surely some streaming services would benefit from adding all these lost miniseries. You never know, when the new film gets a release date, it might push them to license the other adaptations.
Barlow wasn't a Nosferatu-esque creature in the novel either, and Jason Burke wasn't even called Jason in the novel, if anything is an unnecessary deviation it's the simple changing of his name from Matt to Jason in 1978. Adaptations are always going to change the source material to set itself apart, and 2004 was made so long after the novel and 1978 that naturally they were going to make some changes to the character. Also we don't see Mike as gay in 2004, he uses Matt's repressed sexuality as a way to manipulate him, and to get himself a meal, because that's what vampires do.
Hollywood has a bizarre obsession with injecting race and homosexuality into everything, whether it was in the original source material or not. Asinine.
It's mentioned that Burke is gay but keeps it out of town in this. Mike was straight in this , original, and book. And Burke wasn't gay in 79 version or book. You're correct on that.
Lost me at Susan - they took all the subtlety out. All of their romance was gone or fell flat. She was more up to date but not in a good way - the entire series suffered from that. I don't know if either of you are writers, but note the serious downgrade of all their shared scenes dialogue. The wordplay and innuendo in the original miniseries between Ben and Susan was brilliant. I would love to have seen Rob Lowe and Samantha Mathis have a crack at it with the brilliant original dialogue. More intellectual that most people communicate, but highly efficient at establishing connection in precious little time. They were both intellectual outsiders. Susan was a meek, young liberated woman (yes - she was an actual character) and downgraded to a spunky, bratty girl child who was a bit full of herself. Old Susan took action out of bravery and selflessness and was petrified while doing so - allowing the audience to connect. There was horrifying dread as she was pulled into the vampires den. New Susan more about putting up a brave front - which was common in 2004. The actresses performance was okay but she didn't convey the terror of the situation. Not a good trade off in my opinion.
It's difficult to disagree with a lot of what you're saying, like we say in the video we think Ben in particular suffers from having less screentime in the 1979 adaptation, in this they were trying to fit too much into the same runtime. A third episode would have solved a lot of the character issues, in that we could spend more time with all of them, and develop the storylines it starts and abandons. It would have been nice to see the two of them go on more dates like in the novel, or have the awkward dinners with her parents. We mentioned something similar in our Bride of Chucky video, but there's something about 2004 that just screams 2004, especially the TV side of things. Somehow it feels somewhat more dates that the original miniseries, which is interesting in itself. We're really hoping that in the new film Susans story ends the way it's supposed to end, it's such a minor change but it's so important for Bens development.
@@ycft The Buffy the Vampire Slayer dusting deaths really dated the 2nd mini series along with the CGI. I'd love for Susan to get her proper book ending. I love the 79 film but there is room for improvement in many places - especially the town folk. James Mason, Reggie Nalder, Marsten House facade, chunks of the score, the elements of Ben and Susan's romance and the look of the vampire can not be topped. I'd prefer they keep those elements as close to the original 79 film as possible and work out all those kinks in dropped story lines and tv editing.
@@mehranpritchard4314it may seem that way to you if you're swayed by more modern production values or you value cultural pandering. They were both good in different ways, but the 2004 version was too woke.
It was pretty good for a TV miniseries, the weak part was the child actor's dialogue, and probably should have been a bit more violent in some spots ,but it was pretty good overall
Makes us wonder if this had came out a few years later, after Supernatural was well underway, if they could have gotten away with making it more violent!
As a huge fan of the novel, when this remake had been announced back in 2003 i was ecstatic. When I watched it in 2004 on TNT I was pretty disappointed because the cast was stellar, but the miniseries really missed the mark in alot of ways. I was a never huge fan of '79 miniseries, which is blasphemy to alot of horror fans
No judgement here for not being a huge fan of the 1979 version! Everything is subjective, we've had opinions that people didn't like in the past 😂 If the 2004 miniseries wasn't tricky to get a hold of, we'd recommend giving it a rewatch. Some elements have aged quite well, others not so much 😂
@@ycft I'd like to rewatch it I mean I thought the cast was great I thought Rob Lowe was a great Ben Mears. I think it was the changes they made to the storyline that bothered me and some epic moments they could've used from the book but glossed over. I did however enjoy Rutger Hauer as Barlow as I was never keen on the Reggie Nalder version.
Barlow is a type 1 vampire so doesn't need an invite in to your home although it's always polite to ring the doorbell before entering someone's home. I don't like the 2004 adaptation the cinematography is dull and Rob Lowe is as dull as dishwater.
I'm not sure if this was King's official reasoning or not but I think Barlow doesn't need an invitation to Mark's house because at that point evil had already permeated so much of the town it was practically Barlow's anyway.
We like the sound of that! Maybe after Straker does the ritual of kidnapping a child and sacrificing the dog at the cemetery it has something to do with Barlow being able to walk freely through the town. We'd read somewhere that maybe it had something to do with Barlow and Streamers store, anyone who bought an item from there was inviting a piece of him into their homes. Absolutely nothing backs this up, but it's a fun idea.
Vampires have different powers but according to Dracula in which this is based all vampires need an invitation. Why can’t we just admit it was an overnight then give them an excuse. Dracula visits Lucy outside first then he can just come in .
The young hero who tried to rescue Susan had entered the vampire's house uninvited. There is reason to believe that since he invited himself to Barlow's house, Barlow can reciprocate? Just a theory. In the novel "Dracula" it is Jonathan Harker who accepts the Vampire's invitation, not the other way round, So it might be feasible that either an invitation or profanation of a vampires lair might be reciprocated.
Quite like this version and have it on dvd! More faithful to king's novel than the Tobe Hooper version and more literate. Stand outs for me are James Cromwell as father Callahan , Rutger Hauer as Kurt Barlow , Brendan Cowell as Dud Rogers and Robert Mammone as doctor James " Jimmy " Cody . Lovley Samantha Mathis is also great in it as Susan Norton as is Rob Lowe as Ben Mears. I also quite like Donald Sutherland as Richard Straker. So quite like this but the vampires themselves , alas , are not scary or in the least bit threatening. But I do like the scene on the school bus , were the vampire kids set upon Charlie Rhodes. So quite like this as a whole. Are you a new group ? 🤔
@@johnbleakley4125 we were so happy that they included the bus driver scene! That part of the novel is incredibly well written and extremely creepy! It is interesting, it's like are the children mimicking their former lives, or are they genuinely seeking revenge on someone they previously weren't strong enough to stand up to. Maybe it's a mixture of them being set upon the town, but they pick their victims
It was always possible to do an even better version of 'Salem's Lot, but this certainly wasn't it. They were trying too hard to be "relevant" to the times rather than be true to the story.
Saw some of it but it sucked. The 1970's series was far superior. The problem with this series was that it could not generate any empathy for the main characters, and it really could not generate any real horror ambience. The 1977 (?) TV miniseries was absolutely spin chilling, with Tobe Hooper creating a masterpiece of horror never equaled on a TV series. He captured Steven King's amazing power to terrify and then some. None of us who saw it will EVER forget Danny Glick's visit to the young hero. But this? Disappointing.
It was passable but they didn't get the atmosphere right. It was also a bit jarring seeing actors from "Neighbours" and "Prisoner Cell Block H" knocking about 😂
The 2004 version is a companionpiece to 1979 version as that it focuses on characters who are in the book but were left out of the 1979 version, like the trailer trash couple, the school bus driver and the hump back guy who lives in the junk yard.
That's a really good way to describe it, and the 2024 film works in the same way, it includes some things that were missing from other adaptations, whilst also making some changes to keep it fresh. To varying degrees of success we must add!
Just found this video and very intrigued as to how you both enjoy the brand new adaptation out this week 😊 Also Rutger Hauer is a fabulous camp vampire villain in the original Buffy movie!
Omg Rutger was in Buffy! It's been years since we've watched that film. We've come to realise after making this video that we've actually seen him in a fair few films 😂 We have watched the new film! We'll be recording our review of it this weekend 😃
It's interesting in the novel how King reveals all the characters having "little foibles", secrets sins= Mr Burke smokes weed even though he's a high school teacher, also the local hardware store owner is attracted to teen boys and when he becomes a vampire [=I quote here...] "he visited the houses of several of the boys who would frequent his store who would angry-stare at him with suspicion and knowledge, and he fulfilled his darkest desires." So the vampirism is a metaphor for committing forbidden things in society. It's even more strange that in the book Susan's mom objects to her daughter dating Ben Mears because he wrote a novel with a graphic gay sex scene in a men's prison. Also the male nurse in 2004 miniseries speculates that Ben attacked Father Callahan because he was molested =???? So that motif keeps occurring in the story somehow....
I realise I'm a year late here, but i didn't hear it mentioned by the reviewers or saw it mentioned in the comments, but everyone might like to know that the 2004 version was shot in Australia (the towns of Creswick & Woodend in rural/ regional Victoria), & pretty much all of the supporting characters (even some of the semi-major ones) are Australian actors (if you listen VERY carefully, you can occasionally hear the American accent slip with some of them, mostly at the end of the odd sentence!!). They had to scour the country for left-hand drive american cars!! (The harsh aussie sunlight probably also explains the well-lit basements you mentioned!). Secondly, I enjoyed your review, but how can you possibly not have heard of Rutger Hauer??!! How can you call yourself film nerds if you haven't seen "Blade Runner" & marvelled at his performance?!!
We've realised after making this video that we have actually seen Rutger Hauer in a fair few films 😂 Complete brain fog on that one! We can't remember if we mention it in this video, but we watched him play Van Helsing in Dario Argento's Dracula 3D not long after watching this series. They managed to make Australia unrecognizable! I'm glad the mystery of the well-lit basement has been brought to an end 😂 Thank you for the trivia!
I was pleasantly surpised also by this remake, it was much better than i thought it would be. It's closer to the novel than the 79 version is. Rutgar was brilliant as Barlow. And check out Ladyhawke from 1985, you're very welcome...
Thank you for the recommendation! David just read the cast list and saw that Richard Donner directed it, so he's eager to give it a watch. We've been amazed at how split people are over this series, it's a mixture of pleasantly surprised or absolute hatred 😂 The fact that it's so drastically different from 79 is so refreshing, and hopefully whenever the new movie comes out it'll have its own interesting spin on the story.
So many good actors, squandered on utter ridiculousity. Watching this I think “wtf are they talking about, did TNT pay them to talk this up, to polish such a stanky turdloaf” The entire room howled w laughter at how dopey the 2004 version was, I seriously have no idea where you guys are coming from. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I’m baffled.
The way that the characters were portrayed was terrible and nothing like how they are in the book..it stuck closer to the source material but still fell flat..that wedding scene was cringe worthy and unnecessary and it lacked the creepy atmosphere of the 79 version.
YES! do a dracula dead and loving it! Love to hear your thoughts on it! Now to your question fav type of vampire. I like all type of vampire films/stories. But I prefer the villainous type like Barlow, Dracula(Not Francis Ford Coppallas), Valek, Deacon Frost, Jerry Dandridge, David, Nosferatu, Viktor, Marlow, Lestat too etc, etc
Sam's been nagging David to watch Dead and Loving It ever since we recorded this, and it will happen! Some strong vampires there! Jerry Dandridge is great, in both incarnations, and Bill Nighy as Viktor, need we say more! We're both very excited to see what Bill Skarsgård does with Nosferatu, we trust him and Robert Eggers to do something cool with the material.
Can anyone tell me where you can find the miniseries to watch in the UK please?. On prime its the original Salem's Lot with David Soul. I am a huge fan of this but would love to see the mini series before the new Salem's Lot comes out in October x ❤️🤗
Okay Ben Mears thought if they killed Barlow then Susan and anyone turned a vampire will change back into a human then why did he and the others killed the vampires in the Marsten's house before founding her.
I have mixed feelings about this one, maybe because I think you really need more time to develop some of the central characters--especially the love between Susan and Ben (this ALMOST works in the 2024 version). Three hours is not enough time to do the novel justice. Four or even five would work better imho. I found it a bit thematically unfocused. When Straker is more interesting and frightening that Barlow, something is very wrong. But yeah, in this one the town is a character (well, it is the title character) and the darkness in the town feels very real. Yet I felt the connection between the town's darkness and the Vampire wasn't really there.
We feel like the new film forgets that the town is supposed to be a character, the same with the Marsten House. Every adaptation proves that a full series is the only way to go if you want to properly adapt this book. They could even include the prequel short story 'Jerusalem's Lot' and the sequel short 'One For The Road' and properly build out the world. Each adaptation has something that works really well, but usually it means sacrificing certain plot points and characters. It's funny how when we first made this video, only the people who hated this series commented, but over time it's been really nice to see people more positively about it.
I didn't care for it. When I saw the original trailer 20 years ago I was so excited. Unfortunately when I saw the movie I was disappointed and found it no different than the return to Salem's lot in terms of quality and found it comedic. The cast was great, a better director would have made a big difference. The score and tone of it just didn't feel like a horror series, it had no atmosphere and wasn't creepy in any way.
We'll never judge anyone that doesn't like this version, we know we're in the minority for this one 😂It is definitely a product of it's time, and if a TV adaptation was done today we could expect something a good quality, probably similar to Midnight Mass. We always appreciate it when people give a proper reason why, rather than just saying "it's shit" 😂
I own it. And I think its better than the original. But has things missing from the book. And ita better than. Than the 2024 version. They all have qualities that the others are missing .the original has some that the 2004 version is missing and have. And 2024 is kinda cheap it feels like a taco with no fixings.
My fiancée and i watched the longer version of this, for those who don't know there is an edited version but the 720p version is a lot longer. anyhow we both loved it me specially since i love movies that take place in snowy areas. We both gave this remake a solid 10. Great cinematography and great actors and great soundtrack. For those who have not seen the remake do so, it's better than the original with some tweaks to the story and small changes here and there. i know its rare to find but if you do get the 720p version.
Whiile i didn't hate it I dont liike it nearly as much as the Hooper film from the 70s which was so scary for me as a small kid. I hated Rob Lowe and the vampires in the original are so much more scary. 2004 was closer to the book which i love the book but i think the changes made for the original made for a better viewing experience
Yeah in 2004 i saw it once. i saw the 1979 version 1000 times since 79. Music and movies continue to decline and i dont mean cause of woke topics. I support woke and being better and kinder. I used to do focus groups in hollywood and i thought huh i should be in charge of editing and producing cause you guys cant make good movies and shows anymore. Im available and yes im qualified ive watched 100000s of movies. Sorry dont mean to sound like the orange man lol
I hated the Nosferatu looking Barlow. It doesn't match the book at all. The 1979 version deviates from the book too much, which is why I don't like it.
The 79 version of Barlow improves on the book! The book is fantastic but it doesn't work as a film. The original miniseries made Barlow something unique, exciting and frightening - trust me when I say Nosferatu was on no one's radar in 1979 pre internet. The monster and his controlled keeper really set the vampire story apart from all other. Doing him as in the book on film is a bore - as plainly seen in the remake mini series. It's not frightening at all. The 2nd series did a better job of the town characters in general but failed in all the scares. Every one!
@@restlessbohemian26 I'm afraid I have to disagree. I find it more frightening with the original Barlow. I don't find Nosferatu scary at all. I find human-looking vampires much more terrifying.
I own the DVD of the 2004 miniseries. I enjoyed it. I don’t compare the 2 because they are so different. I like both versions for their unique ways of the story
We wouldn't mind a Blu Ray release with some special features, but we doubt that'll ever happen. We enjoy how different both versions of the story are, and when the new film eventually comes out we hope it's also different in its own way.
@@ycft I totally agree
Agreed
I rewatched this a couple of months back, i really like it , good script fantastic cast and different enough to the 79 mini series to set it apart.
When we first watched it we were shocked to see how great the cast was! We appreciate this version for trying to do things differently, it manages to include a few things that 1979 just couldn't do at the time.
Hopefully when/if the new film comes out, that'll also give us a fresh take on the story!
R.I.P mr. Andre Braugher..and great video
Thank you for the comment! Andre Brougher was fantastic in this, we are devastated by the news of his passing.
This version totally slept on. I loved it
saw it about 20 times... actually a very good remake!
Glad to see another fan! There's generally more haters than lovers of this miniseries, but we really like it
The 2004 version is far closer to the novel. I liked it except for the ending
a couple nit-picks: The Danny Glick hospital scene with his brother is not faithful to the book as mentioned; Ralphie was sacrificed in the book, not converted. Additionally, in the novel Susan leaves home after the argument with her mother with thoughts about people thinking she is too 'forward' with boys. The mother was scandalised she'd slept with Floyd Tibbetts. So, having her approach Ben isn't revelatory. Finally, Mark not having a father in the 2004 version intensifies the father/son dynamic of Ben/Mark. It's logical. Also, Rob Lowe is not 'underrated' as an actor, LOL.(sooooo bad....)
I never totally understood that when I read the book. Why the first victim Ralphie is "eaten" [=it seems???] by either Barlowe or it's implied it could be Satan? Straker prays "Father, hear me now! I have made sacrifice for your favor, with my left hand I bring it..." when he offers Ralphie. But why wouldn't he simply be drained and vamped by being bitten? Why is he entirely eaten instead? I assume Stephen King is making Satanism reference?
I loved it at first sight. Rewatching right now. Enjoyed Rutger Hauer as Barlow.
Reggie Nalder (and make-up) was MUCH MORE TERRIFYING! Rutger Hauer, while a great actor, was more the "VOMpire" (pronunciation) you would go "for coffee" with!
If you want to spend a bit more time hanging around the Lot...
There are two related short stories. One is a sequel tale, "One For The Road," and it's very creepy and highly recommended.
The other, "Jerusalem's Lot", is set a long time before the novel and is basically a Lovecraft homage. It's fun, but has little direct connection beyond the town name. It did, however, provide the inspiration for the excellent limited series "Chapelwaite" which seems in a sense more directly connected and is far better than either of the 'Salem's Lot miniseries.
Thank you for the recommendations! David is especially feeling the itch for more after finishing the book, and recently seeing the towns reference in Pet Semetary.
We've heard good things about Chapelwaite, we'll be sure to check it out! Being better than both miniseries sounds very enticing!
Both stories are excellent recommendations. Yeah, if you ever wanted to see how the surrounding towns reacted to the events in Salem's Lot and what it would be like living near a town that has gone over to the undead "One For the Road" is a great little read. Very Creepy!
RIP Andre Braugher
I’m rewatching now and was curious what others thought on it. I liked it about as much as the first and don’t mind the changes. I go back and rewatch both every couple of years. Do feel that the 2004 version was paced a bit better.
We definitely think by sacrificing time with Ben as a main character let them give more time to the side characters and the townsfolk. Ultimately making the events feel like they're on a larger scale, but also helped move the story along a bit faster.
It's been interesting to see the different types of comments we get on this video, some hate this version, some love it, and others like it, but not as much as the original. We're just happy to see that more people are aware of its existence than we originally thought!
Major turn off from the 79 version Barlow never said a word and the type of vampire he was.
Do you know where I can see it online?
@@SCDFarmer Amazon prime is where I have them digitally purchased, but I also have the blu rays ripped to my hard drive. Stuff doesn’t always stay for sale and I bought them ages ago.
I watched the 2004 miniseries at the time and recalling disliking it in comparison to the book and the 70s version. The town already seems corrupt and dark and the slow corruption of a sunny small town was not such a factor. Plus, I watched the 70s version with my dad, now long-gone, and it really got into my brain in a way the later one just did not. But I haven't seen it since, so need to re-watch it to see if I was too harsh in judgement.
"Salem's Lot"(2004) is a good enough Vampire horror movie!This is a well made and decent Remake!
We completely agree!
It was "okay".
Why isn’t this streaming anywhere?Quite a few miniseries from the past are mostly lost, and are very difficult to see.
We struggled so much to find a copy of this! There's no Blu ray from what we can find, no special features, such a wasted opportunity! But surely some streaming services would benefit from adding all these lost miniseries.
You never know, when the new film gets a release date, it might push them to license the other adaptations.
Mike Ryerson and Jason Burke were not gay in the book nor in the 1978 mini series. This departure was just an unnecessary nod to the changing culture.
Barlow wasn't a Nosferatu-esque creature in the novel either, and Jason Burke wasn't even called Jason in the novel, if anything is an unnecessary deviation it's the simple changing of his name from Matt to Jason in 1978. Adaptations are always going to change the source material to set itself apart, and 2004 was made so long after the novel and 1978 that naturally they were going to make some changes to the character.
Also we don't see Mike as gay in 2004, he uses Matt's repressed sexuality as a way to manipulate him, and to get himself a meal, because that's what vampires do.
I FULLY AGREE!
Hollywood has a bizarre obsession with injecting race and homosexuality into everything, whether it was in the original source material or not. Asinine.
Yes it sucks that they went woke.(Pun intended)
It's mentioned that Burke is gay but keeps it out of town in this. Mike was straight in this , original, and book. And Burke wasn't gay in 79 version or book. You're correct on that.
Where can I watch this online? Can’t find it ANYWHERE!
We found the DVD on eBay, and it was pretty cheap. In the UK you can rent it on Prime!
I have seen it .its good .bit it dont give me the chills like the old one does
Lost me at Susan - they took all the subtlety out. All of their romance was gone or fell flat. She was more up to date but not in a good way - the entire series suffered from that. I don't know if either of you are writers, but note the serious downgrade of all their shared scenes dialogue. The wordplay and innuendo in the original miniseries between Ben and Susan was brilliant. I would love to have seen Rob Lowe and Samantha Mathis have a crack at it with the brilliant original dialogue. More intellectual that most people communicate, but highly efficient at establishing connection in precious little time. They were both intellectual outsiders. Susan was a meek, young liberated woman (yes - she was an actual character) and downgraded to a spunky, bratty girl child who was a bit full of herself. Old Susan took action out of bravery and selflessness and was petrified while doing so - allowing the audience to connect. There was horrifying dread as she was pulled into the vampires den. New Susan more about putting up a brave front - which was common in 2004. The actresses performance was okay but she didn't convey the terror of the situation. Not a good trade off in my opinion.
It's difficult to disagree with a lot of what you're saying, like we say in the video we think Ben in particular suffers from having less screentime in the 1979 adaptation, in this they were trying to fit too much into the same runtime. A third episode would have solved a lot of the character issues, in that we could spend more time with all of them, and develop the storylines it starts and abandons. It would have been nice to see the two of them go on more dates like in the novel, or have the awkward dinners with her parents. We mentioned something similar in our Bride of Chucky video, but there's something about 2004 that just screams 2004, especially the TV side of things. Somehow it feels somewhat more dates that the original miniseries, which is interesting in itself. We're really hoping that in the new film Susans story ends the way it's supposed to end, it's such a minor change but it's so important for Bens development.
@@ycft The Buffy the Vampire Slayer dusting deaths really dated the 2nd mini series along with the CGI. I'd love for Susan to get her proper book ending. I love the 79 film but there is room for improvement in many places - especially the town folk. James Mason, Reggie Nalder, Marsten House facade, chunks of the score, the elements of Ben and Susan's romance and the look of the vampire can not be topped. I'd prefer they keep those elements as close to the original 79 film as possible and work out all those kinks in dropped story lines and tv editing.
Great cast but the execution of the series was very poor.
Are you talking about The 1979 version or the 2004 .The 2004 was clearly better then the 1979 version.
The 2000 series
@@mehranpritchard4314it may seem that way to you if you're swayed by more modern production values or you value cultural pandering. They were both good in different ways, but the 2004 version was too woke.
It was pretty good for a TV miniseries, the weak part was the child actor's dialogue, and probably should have been a bit more violent in some spots ,but it was pretty good overall
Makes us wonder if this had came out a few years later, after Supernatural was well underway, if they could have gotten away with making it more violent!
Forgotten for a reason imo.
Trust us, it deserves to be remembered way more than A Return To Salem's Lot 😂
As a huge fan of the novel, when this remake had been announced back in 2003 i was ecstatic. When I watched it in 2004 on TNT I was pretty disappointed because the cast was stellar, but the miniseries really missed the mark in alot of ways. I was a never huge fan of '79 miniseries, which is blasphemy to alot of horror fans
No judgement here for not being a huge fan of the 1979 version! Everything is subjective, we've had opinions that people didn't like in the past 😂
If the 2004 miniseries wasn't tricky to get a hold of, we'd recommend giving it a rewatch. Some elements have aged quite well, others not so much 😂
@@ycft I'd like to rewatch it I mean I thought the cast was great I thought Rob Lowe was a great Ben Mears. I think it was the changes they made to the storyline that bothered me and some epic moments they could've used from the book but glossed over. I did however enjoy Rutger Hauer as Barlow as I was never keen on the Reggie Nalder version.
I love both versions
Barlow is a type 1 vampire so doesn't need an invite in to your home although it's always polite to ring the doorbell before entering someone's home. I don't like the 2004 adaptation the cinematography is dull and Rob Lowe is as dull as dishwater.
Rutger Hauer was a "VOMpire" I would go to McDonald's with! The '79 "'Salem's Lot" was FAR SUPERIOR!
I'm not sure if this was King's official reasoning or not but I think Barlow doesn't need an invitation to Mark's house because at that point evil had already permeated so much of the town it was practically Barlow's anyway.
We like the sound of that! Maybe after Straker does the ritual of kidnapping a child and sacrificing the dog at the cemetery it has something to do with Barlow being able to walk freely through the town. We'd read somewhere that maybe it had something to do with Barlow and Streamers store, anyone who bought an item from there was inviting a piece of him into their homes. Absolutely nothing backs this up, but it's a fun idea.
Barlow's a type 1 vampire so doesn't need an invitation.
Never thought of that good call 👍
Vampires have different powers but according to Dracula in which this is based all vampires need an invitation. Why can’t we just admit it was an overnight then give them an excuse. Dracula visits Lucy outside first then he can just come in .
The young hero who tried to rescue Susan had entered the vampire's house uninvited. There is reason to believe that since he invited himself to Barlow's house, Barlow can reciprocate? Just a theory. In the novel "Dracula" it is Jonathan Harker who accepts the Vampire's invitation, not the other way round, So it might be feasible that either an invitation or profanation of a vampires lair might be reciprocated.
The Original miniseries was Superior.
I re-watched 1979 recently and 2004 last night. Enjoyed them both but 2004 way more. Loved it. Very entertaining.
No and i won't. 79 version was perfect. This upcoming remake smh seems too short n cast is suspect.
Stephen King wrote a sequal called one for the road
David's got the audio book lined up for when he finishes The Girl Who Loves Tom Gordon 😀
Thank You for the In-Depth Review and Video 😀
Quite like this version and have it on dvd! More faithful to king's novel than the Tobe Hooper version and more literate. Stand outs for me are James Cromwell as father Callahan , Rutger Hauer as Kurt Barlow , Brendan Cowell as Dud Rogers and Robert Mammone as doctor James " Jimmy " Cody . Lovley Samantha Mathis is also great in it as Susan Norton as is Rob Lowe as Ben Mears. I also quite like Donald Sutherland as Richard Straker. So quite like this but the vampires themselves , alas , are not scary or in the least bit threatening. But I do like the scene on the school bus , were the vampire kids set upon Charlie Rhodes. So quite like this as a whole. Are you a new group ? 🤔
@@johnbleakley4125 ✅
Glad you enjoyed this one! And thank you for the continued support during this series of videos!
@@johnbleakley4125 we were so happy that they included the bus driver scene! That part of the novel is incredibly well written and extremely creepy! It is interesting, it's like are the children mimicking their former lives, or are they genuinely seeking revenge on someone they previously weren't strong enough to stand up to. Maybe it's a mixture of them being set upon the town, but they pick their victims
@@ycft 😀
The acting was chronic"the Wedding Vampire Scene was pathetic and unnecessary!
This version is best left forgotten. Why TNT evn thought that the story needed a second-rate remake is beyond my understanding!
It was always possible to do an even better version of 'Salem's Lot, but this certainly wasn't it. They were trying too hard to be "relevant" to the times rather than be true to the story.
Pure Crap 💩.Simple as That!
Saw some of it but it sucked. The 1970's series was far superior. The problem with this series was that it could not generate any empathy for the main characters, and it really could not generate any real horror ambience. The 1977 (?) TV miniseries was absolutely spin chilling, with Tobe Hooper creating a masterpiece of horror never equaled on a TV series. He captured Steven King's amazing power to terrify and then some. None of us who saw it will EVER forget Danny Glick's visit to the young hero. But this? Disappointing.
It was passable but they didn't get the atmosphere right. It was also a bit jarring seeing actors from "Neighbours" and "Prisoner Cell Block H" knocking about 😂
The 2004 version is a companionpiece to 1979 version as that it focuses on characters who are in the book but were left out of the 1979 version, like the trailer trash couple, the school bus driver and the hump back guy who lives in the junk yard.
That's a really good way to describe it, and the 2024 film works in the same way, it includes some things that were missing from other adaptations, whilst also making some changes to keep it fresh. To varying degrees of success we must add!
Rob lowe was excellent in it
He's such an underrated actor!
I thoroughly enjoyed this version. Creepy as all hell. I hope to see it again one day.
Just found this video and very intrigued as to how you both enjoy the brand new adaptation out this week 😊
Also Rutger Hauer is a fabulous camp vampire villain in the original Buffy movie!
Omg Rutger was in Buffy! It's been years since we've watched that film. We've come to realise after making this video that we've actually seen him in a fair few films 😂
We have watched the new film! We'll be recording our review of it this weekend 😃
The ending where the twins was turning into some Vampire Mayberry was laughably bad.
It's interesting in the novel how King reveals all the characters having "little foibles", secrets sins= Mr Burke smokes weed even though he's a high school teacher, also the local hardware store owner is attracted to teen boys and when he becomes a vampire [=I quote here...] "he visited the houses of several of the boys who would frequent his store who would angry-stare at him with suspicion and knowledge, and he fulfilled his darkest desires." So the vampirism is a metaphor for committing forbidden things in society. It's even more strange that in the book Susan's mom objects to her daughter dating Ben Mears because he wrote a novel with a graphic gay sex scene in a men's prison. Also the male nurse in 2004 miniseries speculates that Ben attacked Father Callahan because he was molested =???? So that motif keeps occurring in the story somehow....
Thank you for validating this forgotten series! It was chilling but your pronunciations of actors need need a little more looking into😂
Pronunciations of actors and characters is a problem that haunts us to this day....It's gonna be rough when we start doing Italian Giallo 😂
I realise I'm a year late here, but i didn't hear it mentioned by the reviewers or saw it mentioned in the comments, but everyone might like to know that the 2004 version was shot in Australia (the towns of Creswick & Woodend in rural/ regional Victoria), & pretty much all of the supporting characters (even some of the semi-major ones) are Australian actors (if you listen VERY carefully, you can occasionally hear the American accent slip with some of them, mostly at the end of the odd sentence!!). They had to scour the country for left-hand drive american cars!! (The harsh aussie sunlight probably also explains the well-lit basements you mentioned!).
Secondly, I enjoyed your review, but how can you possibly not have heard of Rutger Hauer??!! How can you call yourself film nerds if you haven't seen "Blade Runner" & marvelled at his performance?!!
We've realised after making this video that we have actually seen Rutger Hauer in a fair few films 😂 Complete brain fog on that one! We can't remember if we mention it in this video, but we watched him play Van Helsing in Dario Argento's Dracula 3D not long after watching this series.
They managed to make Australia unrecognizable! I'm glad the mystery of the well-lit basement has been brought to an end 😂 Thank you for the trivia!
@@ycft You''re welcome! 👍
I was pleasantly surpised also by this remake, it was much better than i thought it would be. It's closer to the novel than the 79 version is. Rutgar was brilliant as Barlow. And check out Ladyhawke from 1985, you're very welcome...
Thank you for the recommendation! David just read the cast list and saw that Richard Donner directed it, so he's eager to give it a watch.
We've been amazed at how split people are over this series, it's a mixture of pleasantly surprised or absolute hatred 😂 The fact that it's so drastically different from 79 is so refreshing, and hopefully whenever the new movie comes out it'll have its own interesting spin on the story.
So many good actors, squandered on utter ridiculousity. Watching this I think “wtf are they talking about, did TNT pay them to talk this up, to polish such a stanky turdloaf” The entire room howled w laughter at how dopey the 2004 version was, I seriously have no idea where you guys are coming from. Sorry to sound so harsh, but I’m baffled.
It's crap
MAYBE "passable"! NEVER NOTEWORTHY!
The way that the characters were portrayed was terrible and nothing like how they are in the book..it stuck closer to the source material but still fell flat..that wedding scene was cringe worthy and unnecessary and it lacked the creepy atmosphere of the 79 version.
Seen it? I own it! It’s great.
It had strengths but also flaws. Some invented storylines annoyed me like the blackmailing of the doctor, but I found it enjoyable.
YES! do a dracula dead and loving it! Love to hear your thoughts on it! Now to your question fav type of vampire. I like all type of vampire films/stories. But I prefer the villainous type like Barlow, Dracula(Not Francis Ford Coppallas), Valek, Deacon Frost, Jerry Dandridge, David, Nosferatu, Viktor, Marlow, Lestat too etc, etc
Sam's been nagging David to watch Dead and Loving It ever since we recorded this, and it will happen!
Some strong vampires there! Jerry Dandridge is great, in both incarnations, and Bill Nighy as Viktor, need we say more! We're both very excited to see what Bill Skarsgård does with Nosferatu, we trust him and Robert Eggers to do something cool with the material.
I enjoyed it. I enjoy them both, although the 79 version was far more gripping.
We're rewatching the 79 version tonight in preparation for the new film 😃
Can anyone tell me where you can find the miniseries to watch in the UK please?. On prime its the original Salem's Lot with David Soul. I am a huge fan of this but would love to see the mini series before the new Salem's Lot comes out in October x ❤️🤗
We really wish we could be more help when we covered this we couldn't find it on streaming ANYWHERE in the UK 😥 We had to order it on dvd from ebay.
@@ycft thank you so much, will hunt for a dvd copy xxx ❤️
I saw it on TNT as a kid. Good stuff. Donald Sutherland. Andre braver. Vampire horror done right.
Okay Ben Mears thought if they killed Barlow then Susan and anyone turned a vampire will change back into a human then why did he and the others killed the vampires in the Marsten's house before founding her.
I have mixed feelings about this one, maybe because I think you really need more time to develop some of the central characters--especially the love between Susan and Ben (this ALMOST works in the 2024 version). Three hours is not enough time to do the novel justice. Four or even five would work better imho. I found it a bit thematically unfocused. When Straker is more interesting and frightening that Barlow, something is very wrong. But yeah, in this one the town is a character (well, it is the title character) and the darkness in the town feels very real. Yet I felt the connection between the town's darkness and the Vampire wasn't really there.
We feel like the new film forgets that the town is supposed to be a character, the same with the Marsten House. Every adaptation proves that a full series is the only way to go if you want to properly adapt this book. They could even include the prequel short story 'Jerusalem's Lot' and the sequel short 'One For The Road' and properly build out the world.
Each adaptation has something that works really well, but usually it means sacrificing certain plot points and characters.
It's funny how when we first made this video, only the people who hated this series commented, but over time it's been really nice to see people more positively about it.
I didn't care for it. When I saw the original trailer 20 years ago I was so excited. Unfortunately when I saw the movie I was disappointed and found it no different than the return to Salem's lot in terms of quality and found it comedic.
The cast was great, a better director would have made a big difference. The score and tone of it just didn't feel like a horror series, it had no atmosphere and wasn't creepy in any way.
We'll never judge anyone that doesn't like this version, we know we're in the minority for this one 😂It is definitely a product of it's time, and if a TV adaptation was done today we could expect something a good quality, probably similar to Midnight Mass. We always appreciate it when people give a proper reason why, rather than just saying "it's shit" 😂
VOMpires and heart aTTOCKS! I really CANNOT deal with this "commonTRY"!
We get it, you don't like the 2004 version 😂 By commenting so much all you're doing is pushing this video out more, it's time to move on.
I guess I do NOT care "this much"!@@ycft
Why isn’t this streaming anywhere?
It's annoying isn't it! We would have thought some streamer would have got it in time for the new movie
I have bought the dvd but haven’t watched it yet
The 2004 version was closer to the book and Barlow was much more accurate.
The 1979 version was much creepier and atmospheric.
Actually I liked it better than the old movie because Rutger Houer was the vampire
We always enjoy seeing some love for 2004 !
I own it. And I think its better than the original. But has things missing from the book. And ita better than. Than the 2024 version. They all have qualities that the others are missing .the original has some that the 2004 version is missing and have. And 2024 is kinda cheap it feels like a taco with no fixings.
It's always nice to see some fans for the 2004 version! We didn't mind the 2024 film, it's just very okay.
Loved it
WOW!
My fiancée and i watched the longer version of this, for those who don't know there is an edited version but the 720p version is a lot longer. anyhow we both loved it me specially since i love movies that take place in snowy areas. We both gave this remake a solid 10. Great cinematography and great actors and great soundtrack.
For those who have not seen the remake do so, it's better than the original with some tweaks to the story and small changes here and there. i know its rare to find but if you do get the 720p version.
We'll have to look out for that version! We always enjoy seeing this adaptation get some love!
Conteúdo difícil de se encontrar . Já assisti o original de 79 ,queria ssistir o de 2004 em português.
Whiile i didn't hate it I dont liike it nearly as much as the Hooper film from the 70s which was so scary for me as a small kid. I hated Rob Lowe and the vampires in the original are so much more scary. 2004 was closer to the book which i love the book but i think the changes made for the original made for a better viewing experience
I loved this when it came out, but I said it then, and I still say it now: I love Rutger Hauer but he was too fat to be crawling across the ceiling
I wasn't a fan of Barlow in either version. Neither one came close to the Barlow from the book.
I have a copy!!!
We hope yours arrived in better condition than ours 😂
Yeah in 2004 i saw it once. i saw the 1979 version 1000 times since 79. Music and movies continue to decline and i dont mean cause of woke topics. I support woke and being better and kinder. I used to do focus groups in hollywood and i thought huh i should be in charge of editing and producing cause you guys cant make good movies and shows anymore. Im available and yes im qualified ive watched 100000s of movies. Sorry dont mean to sound like the orange man lol
I seen this I didn’t like it I love the 1979 and 2024 version better
I hated the Nosferatu looking Barlow. It doesn't match the book at all. The 1979 version deviates from the book too much, which is why I don't like it.
There were legitimate reasons for changing Barlow's appearance. Do your research instead of complaining like a child.
The 79 version of Barlow improves on the book! The book is fantastic but it doesn't work as a film. The original miniseries made Barlow something unique, exciting and frightening - trust me when I say Nosferatu was on no one's radar in 1979 pre internet. The monster and his controlled keeper really set the vampire story apart from all other. Doing him as in the book on film is a bore - as plainly seen in the remake mini series. It's not frightening at all. The 2nd series did a better job of the town characters in general but failed in all the scares. Every one!
@@restlessbohemian26 I'm afraid I have to disagree. I find it more frightening with the original Barlow. I don't find Nosferatu scary at all. I find human-looking vampires much more terrifying.
@@jflaugher Well - you have the second film to enjoy!
I liked him much better as a monster than a gentleman who happened to be a vampire
The issue of got is showing the movie lame af
It was laughably awful.
Loved it