This remake was so inferior to the David Soul version in every way.
In short, the worst remake EVER. Too much dialogue, slow plot. Oh yes, and why didn't the main vampire wear a black cloak? He as dressed more like a cowboy, in his waistcoat!
The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk
This is a hard one to judge. Both have pros and cons. It seems the remake tried to make up for the cons or shortfalls in the original. It's hard to judge because the remake takes place in more contemporary times.
I found myself liking the original and the remake for different reasons.
I think if you approach the remake as looking at a new movie, instead, it will make better sense. An exact 100% imitation of the original would not have accomplished anything.
I hated this new version, not because it failed to copy things from the old movie, but because it simply wasn't effective on any level. The vampires were not scary. The story meandered. The film lacked atmosphere. It just wasn't interesting. It may have been truer to the novel, but the execution here was sub par.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
I totally agree. This remake was not on a patch on the David Soul version of '79.
The Webmaster
www.trueghoststories.co.uk
I just finished watching the old version again and it certainly stands the test of time, despite the changes made to the story. It's quite well made, creepy, atmospheric, and well acted (James Mason is pitch-perfect in it). The new version just left a bad taste in my mouth. The vampires were not scary at all. Mr. Barlow was a bore, Straker was a bore, Ben Mears was a bore, the story was not griping, Callahan as a new vampire helper was silly, the vampires and their "speed" effect was goofy and not scary at all. The ONLY scene that I found somewhat creepy and memorable was when the kids got the school bus driver in his bus. That's the only scene with any impact.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
I just finished watching the old version again and it certainly stands the test of time, despite the changes made to the story. It's quite well made, creepy, atmospheric, and well acted (James Mason is pitch-perfect in it). The new version just left a bad taste in my mouth. The vampires were not scary at all. Mr. Barlow was a bore, Straker was a bore, Ben Mears was a bore, the story was not griping, Callahan as a new vampire helper was silly, the vampires and their "speed" effect was goofy and not scary at all. The ONLY scene that I found somewhat creepy and memorable was when the kids got the school bus driver in his bus. That's the only scene with any impact.
For one, you have to stop thinking of it as a 'remake'. It is not a remake of Tobe Hooper's Salem's Lot. It is another adaptation of Stephen King's Salem's Lot.
Not that it will make you like it any better, but there are critical differences in the concepts. Mikael Salomon is not trying to give his own version of Tobe Hooper's movie. He is trying to give his own version of the novel.
Not having seen the original, I can't compare the two. At first chance, I am going to, though. Comparing the novel with Salomon's Salem's Lot has proved to be an interesting experience. It really brings into focus how much technology and social conditions have changed our perspectives on the outside world.
As far as quality...it was worth the $5.00 I paid for it, and I'm glad I didn't pay anymore. Don't think I'll be wearing my DVD player out re-watching it, but I might go back once every other blue moon..
Damion Crowley
All complaints about my post go to Helen Waite.
The idea of calling things a "re-adaptation" is relatively new. Before, roughly, 2000, if it used the original source material, it was still a remake. Unless you consider the 1941 adaptation of Maltese Falcon "another adaptation" of Dashielle Hammett's book, then why should this be consider other than what it is: a remake.
--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/
While I agree that the David Soul version was superior, I must take issue with your criticism of Barlow in the remake, who is portrayed more like he's described in the book. No black cloak. The 1979 version changed Barlow entirely.
Also, worst remake ever? Really? It's pretty bad, I admit, but did you ever see the TV remake of Carrie from 2002? THAT was the worst remake ever.
----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX
Rutger Hauer's Barlow was not at all scary or even interesting. Everyone knows it was closer to the book, yet somehow something was lost in the translation when they tried to depict Mr. Barlow correctly. Everyone knows that Barlow in the old series was changed drastically, yet somehow his very small role as a more monstrous creature is far more memorable and scary than anything Rutger Hauer did here. This just fell flat.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
Regarding 1979's Barlow, Hooper felt he had to make him a scary creature because of 2 suave and lame vampires(Frank Langella and George Hamilton)from 1979 were already in the theaters. I'm with you on the 79 version being much better. I just recall being bored on the 04 version, regardless of the film's title. FWIW, Langella's 1979 disco Dracula didn't even have fangs! Yawn.
shareI have not seen the TV remake of Carrie, so I have to argue that the Day of the Dead remake is the worst remake ever
shareAside from that creepy kid floating outside the window, the 70's version is a bore.
shareAgreed. I watched the '79 version as a young kid and it scarred me for years. But when I watched it again years later I found it laughably cheesy, and very dated. It was therapeutic to see how unscary it was.
While I will always love the book, I found the re-adaptation very affective and well acted on its own. It was horrifying and sad at the same time; especially the exploration into Ben's connection with the Marsden house and the small ways that evil was already entrenched in small town life before Barlow and Straker were 'invited' in.
I found Sutherland's portrayal of Straker effectively evil, as well as James Cromwell's portrayal of a faithless priest's descent into evil very chilling (what a great actor he is). Rob Lowe was perfect as Ben.
I am somewhat offended at the way diehard fans of the original nastily put down anyone who likes the re-adaptation. While you are allowed to have your opinion, just because it is your opinion does not make it the 'right' one. I think there is a place for this version, and it focuses on aspects not covered in the Tobe Hooper version.
I think a lot of people tend to think that just because a movie is old, it's automatically superior when it's remade. That's not always true. While the big theatrical version of Don't Be Afraid of the Dark was released, people bashed it like crazy all while saying how scary the original was. Well, I saw the original and thought it wasn't scary in at all. So, I have to say the newer one was better as it kept me interested until the very end.
shareYes. I see this with a lot of movies, and while many remakes are terrible, sometimes they add something new to the story. Plus modern sensibilities, better acting and production values can improve on the original. Old does not automatically equal better.
sharein this case it does; old version is light years better.
shareThe 79 version is much better. The 2004 version wasnt terrible but nothing in it was scary. I appreciate that it stayed true to the novel better than the original but it lacked the atmosphere and terror of the Barlow in the 79 version.
I think most people would agree with that. There are some who prefer 2004 but most SL fans prefer the 79... And I don't think it has anything to do with which came first.
[deleted]
While I liked the 1979 film, I liked this one as well. In fact, I think this one is slightly better. There are things to like and not to like about both versions, but I like this one slightly better.
shareOh, it was not.
Too much Dialogue? Slow Plot....hm. just like a stephen king book.
Swing away, Merrill....Merrill, swing away...share