I didn't like this version at all. I have to admit that it is more faithful to the book than the previous version. I really liked that they stressed the fact that the Marsten house is seen from everywhere in town, thus influencing every citizen's daily life. Also, it was good to see the subplots of Eva and of the bus driver, something I really missed in the seventies' film.
Conversely, as many other users have already said, I do not understand why they changed the characters so much. I am not against changes (Straker's death was changed in the previous version), but I found that most changes here were pointless. Why does Matt Burke's character need to be gay? Why is Susan Norton not as sexually proactive as in the book? Why does the story have to be told in flashback? That "Wait! There's more!" insert in the middle really killed me.
Other changes are truly absurd and, what is worse, take good ideas away. Instead of having Donald Sutherland saying the prayer about the left hand (which in my opinion would have been a great scene), the writer makes him say that lines to Eva's character, for which he has to make up the subplot about the letters in French. Anyway, Sutherland may be the best this movie has to offer, although I prefer James Mason as Straker by far.
The blackmail subplot not only is an unnecesary change but it also works against the story, as it makes it hard to find James Cody's character as positive as it would be. And worst of all, it leads to two of the least realistic moments in the movie, namely when James is begging over the phone in a room full of policemen and when Ben gives him the money he needs before raiding the house.
And it's not only a writing problem. It is also a casting problem. The actor playing Matt Burke seems younger that he should be, but the funny thing is that that doesn't prevent other characters to make comments about his age (like at the hospital). Floyd Tibbits's character is another example. The actor does actually seem like a nice chap, perhaps too nice for that character.
But the truly worst part of the movie is concerned with Susan. I did not like what they did with her character in Tobe Hooper's movie (I refer to the vampire part), and I was hoping that now the writer would stick to the novel. I thought he had until I saw that awful scene just near the end. What kind of writer thinks that it is good idea to make a vampire act as Ingrid Bergman in "Spellbound"?
P.S. And why do vampires that initially move at the speed of light and climb walls end up stalking through Salem's Lot' streets just like zombies?
reply
share
gary_overman
10 years ago
Granted, there were some changes that were completely unnecessary, such as Matt Burke being both Black and gay, the blackmail thing, and a few other things as well, but I didn't think that this version was all that bad myself.
I thought that it was a little closer to the novel and there were no continuity problems like there were in the 1979 film.
Personally, I like both versions and I watch both of them about three or four times a year.
reply
share