Mjeteconer Just perfect...

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Kirandeep Yoder The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

marieltrokan Tobe Hooper's very memorable, very eerie and frightening adaptation Salem's Lot is a representation of a violent outrage that's an outward warmth. An external nature of gentleness is an actual nature of devastating hostility. A devastating hostility is a tranquility that's tranquil. A tranquil tranquility is a hate that's without reason. A hate that's without reason is being an external nature of gentleness.An external gentleness is a coldness that's internal. Internal is the soul, and the soul is the inexplicable. A hate that's without reason is being a hate that's without reason.A hate that's without reason, is a kindness that's logical. A kindness that's logical is a kindness that's logical. A repetition of kind logic can't be a kind logic - a kindness that's sane is forced to be unique. Logic is necessity. The necessity of kindness is dependent on uniqueness. The necessity of kindness is needlessness that's needless: the pointlessness of pointlessness is dependent on uniqueness.Pointless pointlessness is importance that has no reason. Uniqueness is the only thing that can create importance that has no reason. Inexplicable importance is the same as an unimportant explanation. Uniqueness is the only thing that can create an unimportant explanation. An explanation, is an exposure. In order for an exposure to be unimportant, a uniqueness is required. An exposure is a loss of mystery. A loss of mystery is a gain of identity. Uniqueness is the only thing that can create a gain of identity that's unimportant. A gain is a help. An identity is a distinction. A distinction that helps is a symmetry that's obstructive. In order for a destructive symmetry to be unimportant, a uniqueness is necessary. A destructive symmetry is a destruction of reality: uniqueness is the only thing that can permit a destruction of reality that's acceptable. Uniqueness isn't the destruction of reality. Uniqueness is the maintenance of reality - the maintenance of reality is the only thing that can permit the destruction of reality. Reality is destruction. The destruction of destruction can only be acceptable if given permission by the maintenance of destruction. The destruction of destruction is peace that has no reason: the maintenance of peace that has no reason needs the permission of the peace of destruction. The peace of destruction is peace that has reason - corrupt peace. Pure peace needs the permission of corrupt peace in order for pure peace to overrule corrupt peace. If corrupt peace doesn't let pure peace destroy corrupt peace, pure peace won't have the ability to live. Pure peace needs to live, but, it hasn't the corrupt heart to destroy another force without the permission of the other force. The 1979 adaptation, Salem's Lot, is a very beautiful, very peaceful and very memorable allegory about a corrupt peace (the vampire Barlow) having the decency and having the heart to sacrifice itself for the benefit of humanity

moonspinner55 Famous writer returns to his hometown in Maine to complete a new project: a book about the Marsten House, a creaky, rotting mansion on the hill with a dark past, one that has haunted the author since he was a young man. It turns out the house still casts a dark spell, one that may be responsible for the deaths or disappearances of several local boys. Horror-veteran Tobe Hooper directed this made-for-TV miniseries, adapted from the early Stephen King novel ('Salem's Lot short for Jerusalem's Lot). Hooper does good work here, particularly in the climax, though for the first hour he dawdles over the material. The 184-minute running-time may have convinced the filmmaker he could allow the story to unfold slowly; if so, the gambit doesn't quite pay off. With a main character who isn't very exciting (he fills us in on the house's history and introduces us to the rest of the cast), a midsection involving the Catholic Church (complete with a child's funeral and a priest staring down evil) and too many trips to the hospital and morgue, the narrative goes into a depressive rut. One of the most intense sequences, an unhinged man finding another man in bed with his wife, isn't topped by the supernatural happenings (a fatal flaw) and nothing imperative comes of this story thread. James Mason has a devilishly good time playing the mysterious new owner of the Marsten House, but mostly the performances are solid if unspectacular. Hooper's spooky visuals will give fans of the occult what they're hoping for, though the picture has cheesy tail-ends to most of its big scenes. Also, the interiors are too bright, the sets are disappointing, the art direction is dull and the prologue is unnecessary. Followed by "A Return to Salem's Lot" in 1987.

gavin6942 Vampires are invading a small New England town. It is up to a novelist and a young horror fan to save it.Producer Richard Koblitz said, "We went back to the old German Nosferatu concept where he is the essence of evil, and not anything romantic or smarmy, or, you know, the rouge-cheeked, widow-peaked Dracula. I wanted nothing suave or sexual, because I just didn't think it'd work." "Salem's Lot" had a significant impact on the vampire genre, as it inspired horror films such as "Fright Night" (1985) and the scenes of vampire boys floating outside windows would be referenced in "The Lost Boys" (1987). Not to mention the antler impalement which was in both "Lost Boys" and later in "Hannibal".Sadly ,the film seems to be hard to come by. Despite being a modern classic, my library system did not have it, so I had to purchase the DVD for $15. And, frankly, that is way too much for a DVD with no special features -- not even a menu! This movie is in desperate need of a blu-ray upgrade.

nlangella1 This was an excellent miniseries. I use to own the full length miniseries on VHS as a kid. Idk why so many fans had a problem with making Barlow look more like Nosferatu? Honestly, I preferred this version over the 2004 one and the novel written by Stephen King himself. It just makes more sense. Barlow's appearance in the novel and in the 2004 version wasn't scary. I don't find a vampire with a more human like appearance like Dracula to be frightening. David Soul portrayed a better Ben Mears than Rob Lowe. I also liked the actor who played Mark. I found this version satisfying. Sure, it's not exactly like the novel. But then again it's Hollywood.