MovieChat Forums > Salem's Lot (2024) Discussion > Okay, as a horror movie. Sucks as a Sal...

Okay, as a horror movie. Sucks as a Salem's Lot movie.


If you're gonna do it, then do it. This was the epitome of rushed. There's no way you could effectively tell this story in under 2hrs. Someone should've spent the money and went all out with at least a 3 to 4 hours mini series. Instead it chops around from scene to scene with no cohesiveness because they were trying to squeeze so much in.

-Alfrie Woodard was entertaining (like always).

-Mark was a little TOO tenacious and aggressive for a 11yr old kid.

-Barlow looked nice. Very believable.

-3 versions and no one comes even close to James Mason as Straker. Sutherland was a joke, and Asbaek wasn't given much of a chance.

-A Drive-In? Give me a effing break.

Had potential to end up being the best version, but they blew it. '79 is still king.

reply

'3 versions and no one comes even close to James Mason as Straker.

Mason was terrific in that role (well, he was always terrific).

reply

[deleted]

I prefer the original miniseries.

This was okay but forgettable. It's odd because they did some great lighting.

Perhaps it should have been a miniseries.

It is far better than "Return to Salem's Lot"

reply