MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (2004) Discussion > what...the...fu...

what...the...fu...

posted 12 years ago by cCsaltyCc
13 replies | jump to latest

I read the book a couple years ago. It was the first Stephen King book I ever read. I LOVED it! I saw they made a movie about it so I searched for it on Netflix, and found out there was two of them, the old one and the remake, but neither was on dvd. I patiently waited until one of them became available and moved it to the top of my queue. Unfortunately, it was this pile of *beep* they call a "movie". this movie sucked on so many levels. I was so disappointed and angry that I wasted three hours of my life (that I'll never get back), that I decided to make a list of problems I had with the movie.

1. MAKING A RULE, THEN IGNORING IT FOR ONE SCENE: So in one scene, Mark Petrie grabs a little toy tombstone with a cross on it, to ward off one of his vampire friends. It doesn't kill the vampire, just burns him a little, but in a later scene, Ben Mears makes a makeshift cross out of tongue depressors and tape, and it kills the vampire. WTF? Another one of the rules they made clear throughout the movie was that vampires couldn't enter a home unless they were invited in, yet somehow Barlow was able to enter the Petrie home without an invitation, just to kill Mrs. Petrie and recruit Father Callahan. I think it was just an excuse to show their awful CGI way of killing Mrs. Petrie, which brings me to number two...

2. CGI: it's awful. So awful, that it's *beep* and that's why it made number two on this list. What was supposed to be going on with their eyes? Was that how we were supposed to know they were vampires? Because they could've done what is right and just gave them fangs.

3. THEY MOVED LIKE VAMPIRES IN THE BEGINNING, BUT TURNED INTO ZOMBIES: seriously, they moved really fast. They had sharp fangs and could hop about. Then towards the end, they moved really slow and had their arms out like a cliche zombie. I think the director forgot what he was making, or wasn't paying attention, which is obvious when we get to number four...

4. ROB LOWE: this has to be one of the only movies I've seen Rob Lowe in, where he's not trying to be a douche, and his acting SUUUUCKS! It's just bland and emotionless. Even his narrating was horrible. I think it was so out of his normal roles he takes, he just had no idea what to do. If I was the director, I think I would have asked him to step up his game or I'd find someone else. There's no way I would've let all of that make it into the movie.

So that's what I got for now. There's still some other things that bothered me, but I had to vent about this movie ASAP, and this is all I can think of right now without having to go back and watch it again (ugh). Is there anything else that bothered you?

[–] philwhite-411-828978 12 years ago

Watch the original its miles better

[–] Mimapopaluck 12 years ago

All of your complaints are valid ones. Watch the original one. It has none of these problems. It's much better, scarier, and has great acting. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In a way it's good you saw this one first, because if you saw the original first then watched this, you'd be so disappointed. At least you now have a better version to look forward to.

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

All of your complaints are valid ones. Watch the original one. It has none of these problems. It's much better, scarier, and has great acting. I don't think you'll be disappointed.

In a way it's good you saw this one first, because if you saw the original first then watched this, you'd be so disappointed. At least you now have a better version to look forward to.

Are you sure about this? It also has Barlow entering the Petrie house uninvited as this one did, and I might add that the book also has the same problem.

Neither film was especially close to the book, but this one was actually a bit closer.

[–] hihi_hellokitty 8 years ago

In the Book the vampires use the phones and hypnosis to ask every member in town to let them in.

[–] Darkwalker173 10 years ago

The original was nothing great either, and Barlow was nothing but a monster in the original, not one single line.

Both movies were bad, but this version was somewhat more faithful to the book.

I laugh in the face of danger, then I hide until it goes away.

[–] moosefeathers 10 years ago

The original is not so great either.

Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...

[–] gary_overman 10 years ago

The original is not so great either.

I thought the 1979 film was good, but like I have said more than a few times, both here and on the other board, I liked this one better.

[–] jangoq 8 years ago

Well I guess all the horror buffs, critics, and fans around the world over the past 37 years are idiots then.

[–] urverksapelsin 9 years ago

6. 1:14 into the movie. The son, now a vampire, calls his mother. Calls, with a telephone. Vampires can not enter without a invitation, but he does not come to the door and ask. He calls and asks with a telephone. ? This i so stupid. What next? You can invite them via e-mail?
Where did he get a telephone anyway?

7. Whats up with the bruse (spelling) and the two cuts on Mikes body after ortopsy? Why did they bring it up over and over again? Why did it matter at all?

[–] kellogem6 8 years ago

I wonder if you add a vampire as a friend in facebook, can s/he come into your house?

[–] hihi_hellokitty 8 years ago

I thought it was pretty smart that the vampires used technology to their advantage.

[–] roland-rockerfella 8 years ago

The 70's version with David Soul is far better.

[–] apriloish 8 years ago

it is but this ones all right the original is pretty good but neither are great the book is better then both this one isnt a remake of the original its simply an updated new version another adaptation i mean