MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (2004) Discussion > I liked this more than the original

I liked this more than the original

posted 12 years ago by captkirk_459
10 replies | jump to latest

In the original the Barlow is a mindless Nosferatu. You didn't know much of Ben Mear's history with the house. In this one we learn more of the history of the House and Ben. Striker is better in this movie too. The scene with the priest was better than it was in the original. I did like how the girlfriend became a vampire in the original. How she becomes a vampire in this one was because of stupidity. This movie just feels like it has more of the King flare.

[–] tj_mower 12 years ago

I agree with this. However, in the book she gets turned into a vampire because of her stupidity as well (and the character even points out that she's being stupid as well).

The 79 version is campy, disjointed, and clunky. And doesn't make a lot of sense. This versions narrative is far better. Not to mention the Barlow character is far better as well. The vampire in the 79 version is laughable, not scarey.

The only thing 79 has going for it is the scenes where the vampire kids fly into the windows. That's the best part of those movies.

[–] stones78 12 years ago

No, the original is fine; you're disjointed and clunky and have rather bad taste in films.

[–] Plissken_1996 10 years ago

Agreed. The 1979 version is best, without a doubt.

Humans! You're not worth the flesh you're printed on!

[–] marshmallowsmores 12 years ago

This is one of my favourite vampire movies. I love the cast and look of this movie. It's just perfect. I don't know why people hate it so much. Although, I will admit the original is creepier.

"a father can't murder his own children that would be in bad taste"

[–] MikePaul854 11 years ago

People hate it because they see "remake" and it's instantaneous. Personally speaking, I found this one closer to the book then the David Soul version.

[–] gary_overman 11 years ago

People hate it because they see "remake" and it's instantaneous. Personally speaking, I found this one closer to the book then the David Soul version.

I don't know if the negative reaction to the 2004 version is because it's a remake or not, but I thought the 2004 film was closer to the book as well, but not all that much. Both films had major departures from the book, but the 1979 version was less like the book than the 2004 version.

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

This one is closer to the book but the original is scarier thats why people prefer it lol

[–] bek-12 10 years ago

Here it is, a couple of years after your original post, and I just rewatched it today. I also like this 2004 version better. A lot better, actually. The commentary by Rob Lowe is interesting, I found Father Calahan to be a really complex and interesting character this time around (although I wish they'd stuck to the book on him this time around), the characters are interesting, and it's pretty creepy (as it should be).

[–] stones78 10 years ago

the sfx are lame here

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]