Salem's Lot (1979) User Reviews

Atmospheric adaptation

[FiendishDramaturgy · 8/10 · 4 September 2003]

Excellent horror flick from Tobe Hooper who gave us Poltergeist (that's Poltergeist 1, the GOOD one)...Lifeforce, Nightmares, The Mangler, Dark Skies, The Others, and so many more!

Written for TV by Paul Monash, screenwriter who adapted the marvelous TV series, "V," and directed by one of the Masters of Horror, Tobe Hooper, this movie (in the extended version) closely follows Stephen King's original literary work much better than expected.

While there are campy moments, and the effects could have been much, MUCH better (it WAS post-Star Wars, after all), there are edgy, frightening moments; moments where you literally hold your breath, if you've allowed yourself to be drawn into the movie. Riddled with "scare you" and "edge of the seat" moments, this film, while a bit dated, is still scary.

I previously owned the "cut" version which aired on cable in 1979.

In writing this review, I purchased the full-length version and I must say that I was delightfully surprised. This version was so much better, followed the original work more closely, and added the depth of character development which the "short" version completely obliterated.

In the wake of the remake to be aired in 2004, I thought a fresh viewing of this movie was in order, and so it was. If you have never seen "Salem's Lot" in its 184 minute presentation, please do. It's a classic in the horror genre and will enrich your perspective of the plot by 100%.

Suspenseful and actually scares you from time to time.

It rates an 8.4/10 from...

the Fiend :.

Remember "Atmosphere?"

[trannongoble · 8/10 · 20 January 2011]

There is something that makes a great horror film other than special effects and gore. It's called atmosphere. Many of the legendary horror films had this element. Salem's Lot is definitely one of them! Music build-up, subtlety, and the great acting of David Soul and James Mason make this mini-series one of the greatest horror flicks of the 70s (and beyond).

Scenes that gave me nightmares as a child such as the Glick boys floating up to the windows and scratching on it; Mike Ryerson in the graveyard and sitting in the rocking chair; Ben Mears describing his childhood memory of the Marsten House to the "teacher"; the delivery of Barlow's crate ... etc..etc. All these scenes were built on atmosphere.

Anyone can make a film to shocks and grosses people out, but only the great ones know how to create memorable scenes and give millions of kids nightmares just on suspense and atmosphere all.

Salem's Lot has what it takes. Tobe Hooper did a fantastic job on this film and it is one of my favorites of all-time.

Scary. Seriously.

[neil-476 · 8/10 · 8 January 2012]

Tobe Hooper's 1979 adaptation of Stephen King's early yarn about a vampire epidemic in small-town America still carries a great distinction - notwithstanding the flared jeans and mullets, it is very scary.

The scariness is particularly notable given that this was a TV miniseries - there was therefore never going to be anything particularly gory or visually horrific in it (although Reggie Nalder's Nosferatu-style head vampire Barlow is pretty nasty). But the claustrophobic atmosphere of slowly escalating horror, which made King's original novel so effective, is well duplicated here in audiovisual form. As the vampiric influence spreads, there is a genuine sense of prejudice.

David Soul is an adequate protagonist and Bonnie Bedelia is an attractive damsel in distress, and all the cast do well in the many, many incidental roles. But the film belongs to James Mason, playing a role - essentially, the vampire's "familiar" - unlike anything he had played before, and playing it with gleeful and malevolent relish.

This was strong, strong stuff for telly back in 1979, and still packs a scary wallop.

Excellent

[Gafke · 3 January 2004]

This movie is an odd cross between "Peyton Place" and "Nosferatu"...and it works! Set in the small, isolated and somewhat inbred community of Jerusalems Lot (called Salems Lot by the locals) this film is more about small town dirty secrets which are really not secret at all. Everyone knows everyone else's business, gossip is a way of life and the town's mistrust of outsiders is both expected and justified when two men show up in town and a little boy goes missing. This is a story about a small town that just happens to have a vampire in it.

James Mason is elegance personified as the "Renfield" character who sticks out like a sore thumb in this tight-knit community and makes himself the object of suspicion when he moves into the local haunted house and opens up an antique shop. His European accent, expensive suits and somewhat prissy manners make him a hot item of gossip. So too does the arrival of Ben Mears also cause local tongues to start wagging. Mears was born and raised in Salems Lot, having moved away as a small child. He returns as a semi-successful author and a recent widower, haunted by childhood memories of the Marsten House - the local haunted house in which James Mason now resides. Yet another outsider is Mark, a new teen in town with a morbid collection of horror movie paraphernalia. These three characters are drawn together by force as more people go missing and the small town residents, with their narrow vision, cannot accept what is really happening. It is up to the outsiders - the author who knows, the teenager who believes and the human who is a monster - to solve the mystery.

When the vampire finally appears, it is a frightening, exhilarating experience. Reggie Nalder as Barlow, the ancient Master whom James Mason serves, is a disgusting parasite, a physical homage to Nosferatu with his rat-like teeth, his long bony fingers and his hypnotic eyes. He is the frosting on the cake for this excellent film. By the time he makes his appearance, it is almost unnecessary. The paranoia has already decimated the town, and the fear of the unknown is the greatest monster of all. But though he may be unnecessary, he is not unwelcome. He is a wonderful vampire, a truly hideous beast, a fine salute to what a vampire should be - ugly, vile and obscene.

This is one of my all time favorite vampire films, right up there with Nosferatu and Subspecies. To hell with whining, pretentious vampire Pretty Boys - this is the real stuff, and it doesn't get much better than this.

An Evil House Attracts Evil Men

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 21 August 2014]

The successful writer Benjamin "Ben" Mears (David Soul) returns to his hometown Salem's Lot, Maine, expecting to write a new novel about the Marsten House. Ben believes that the manor is an evil house that attracts evil men since the place has many tragic stories and Ben saw a ghostly creature inside the house when he was ten. Ben finds that the Marsten House has just been rented to the antique dealers Richard K. Straker (James Mason) and his partner Kurt Barlow that is permanently traveling.

Ben meets the divorced teacher Susan Norton (Bonnie Bedelia) that is living with her parents and they have a love affair. Ben also gets close to her father Dr. Bill Norton (Ed Flanders) and his former school teacher Jason Burke (Lew Ayres). When people start to die anemic, Ben believes that Straker's partner is a vampire. But how to convince his friends that he is not crazy and that is the truth?

"Salem's Lot" is a long movie of 183 minutes running time with a deceptive conclusion. The story is slowly developed but the problem is the silly conclusion. Susan goes to the Marsten House knowing how dangerous the place is following Mark in an irrational attitude. The clumsy Ben has the whole day to go to the vampire lair but he goes near the sunset. Ben drops the glass of holy water in an awful cliché. Bill goes with him totally unarmed in another stupid attitude. The end of the story in Ximico, Guatemala has no explanation. Why are the vampires chasing them? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): Not Available

Excellent traditional vampire flick!

[The_Void · 7/10 · 16 August 2005]

Stephen King's repertoire of books turned into films isn't all that good on the whole, but the list does have a few solid entries; and Salem's Lot is one of them. The cut that I saw was the cinema version, which has been cut down from the three hour TV version. Because of this, the film is overlong in places and incoherent in others; but if you ignore that little fact, what you have here is a nice little vampire flick. The story takes place in the small town of 'Salem's Lot'. If I were to name a town, I wouldn't call it 'Salem's Lot' because with that name, something evil is bound to happen. It's like calling your town 'Werewolf Creek' or 'Demonic Possession Falls' - you just wouldn't do it! Anyway, Salem's Lot becomes a town of vampires after the local weirdo orders a strange package from somewhere. The plot follows a writer that has gone back to Salem's Lot to finish his book. Once murders start occurring, the inept police sergeant suspects the local weirdo, but the writer has more imaginative ideas about what's going on...and sees that it may be down to vampires!

The special effects in Salem's Lot are very cheesy - so cheesy, in fact, that I got the impression that they were like that on purpose. The way that the small town is presented is good, and it gives director Tobe Hooper lots of chances to create an atmosphere around the story. He handles the atmosphere side of the film with great skill, and that makes up one of the film's best assets. There's a reason why many fans consider this Hooper's only good movie besides The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, and the atmosphere is probably it. The story does take a while to get going, but the way that it introduces the characters is good and through it's atmosphere and the way that the story moves; the film never gets boring. I haven't read the book of 'Salem's Lot', so I cant comment on how the film relates to the writing; but I can say that it's nice to see the man that is probably the best contender to the crown of 'modern master of horror' handling a story about vampires in a traditional way. I loved the way that King didn't try to distance the story from the genre clichés, and it's nice to see a 'true' vampire film. Overall - good stuff and highly recommended!

I'm trying to figure out why so many horror fans don't like this show...

[Odysseus-5 · 9/10 · 9 September 1998]

As it really is a wonderful and suspenseful vampire tale! Stephen King - not normally my favorite horror writer - has created one of the absolute BEST modern vampire tales in this story, and this mini-series translation is absolutely true to the feel of his tale! Instead of splatterfest effects , this show hinges itself on a high-tension spiderweb of plotlines and sets up the vampire more as a behind-the-scenes controlling evil. The terror here is not in seeing the monster, it is in NOT seeing him and knowing that he and his minions are out there, somewhere, plotting and planning with the heros stumbling blindly after them like toddlers in the dark. Give this show a chance! It may just scare you!

The Vampires Are Here and Does Any One Care?

[tgbldkam · 6/10 · 15 May 2022]

Years ago, I read the book Salem's Lot. It was a good book. Recently I came across the mini series on TubiTV. It's was an okay movie. It had it moments then there were moments the film dragged. Plus it suffered from Pointless Character Syndrome.

I do suggest watching the three hour version.

Here is a breakdown:

Good:

The vampire kid floating outside his brothers window.

Barlow breaking into a family's home to confront the Priest however see bad...

James Mason as Straker. He played the character as it should be, suave and charming. He seemed to enjoy the role.

Good premise.

Bad:

David Soul's performance as Ben Mears. David wooden performance did not bring life to Ben. Ben was not interesting. He was kind of a thoughtless jerk. After killing the head vampire, he didn't run to his girlfriend's house and tell her mother to get out of town. Instead of he left her there to be turned into a vampire.

The characters in general were not very interesting expect for Straker. I wish the film was from his point of view.

Also, some characters were one dimensional.

The film left me with questions: What caused the Sheriff to get spooked that made him pack up his family and leave town. Did he have an interaction with a vampire? Did he learn something in his investigation about Straker and Barlow?

What did the lab find on Straker's suits?

Did the old school teacher die from the heart attack?

Why was the vampires chasing Ben and the kid? In the book the vampires didn't bother with them after they left town.

Some characters were spotlighted then dropped such as the Elisha Cooks character though it is later implied he was turned into a vampire.

Barlow confronting the Priest...we don't see what happened during and after the confrontation. In the book, Barlow taints the Priest causing the Priest to leave town in disgrace.

Plus the sheriff had Cook's character to spy on Ben. However that storyline was dropped.

The clumsy running around the house to get to the head vampire coffin. Granted they were in a rush and panicky however all that could have been avoided if Ben showed up earlier in the day to do away with Barlow.

The Ugly

Pointless Character Syndrome: the toxic married couple. I do believe in the book they were the early victims of the vampire plague. However, their story had no baring on the storyline. Before the vampire plague hit the town, they left and no one cared.

Finally, Barlow. I remember in the book he was in human form and had a personality. Not in this movie, he was a silly version of Nosferatu. In the book, he was the boss. In the movie, he came across as Straker's pet mutant rat.

The vampires floating outside windows freaked me as a child.

[Fella_shibby · 9/10 · 20 November 2020]

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs. Revisited the 183 mins version recently aft reading Coventry's review but unlike Coventry, I am very generous with a 9 cos of some lovely memories of this movie n of the late 80s n early 90s. Renting horror movies' vhs by saving school pocket money n enjoying em was amazing.

This review is for the 183 mins version.

The grave scene of Geoffrey Lewis frightened me then and the scenes of the vampires levitating/floating outside windows creeped me out then. Found it spooky n eerie.

The settings of that of a small town is always enjoyed by most genre fans. This movie nailed it by the less populated one.

The film has strong character development, nice atmosphere n some shocking scenes. Watch out for the deer antlers one.

Fright Night borrowed heavily the concept of a vampire moving into a house while his servant makes the preparations.

Lost Boys borrowed the concept of vampires floating outside windows.

This film borrowed the make up effects from the 1922 Nosferatu.

Reggie Nalder with his bald, rodent-like sharp teeth, pale skin n long fingernails may remind of Max Schreck.

Jus a year prior to this movie, Reggie Nalder played Van Helsing in the pornographic Dracula sucks.

Important Film

[gavin6942 · 7/10 · 24 December 2015]

Vampires are invading a small New England town. It is up to a novelist and a young horror fan to save it.

Producer Richard Koblitz said, "We went back to the old German Nosferatu concept where he is the essence of evil, and not anything romantic or smarmy, or, you know, the rouge-cheeked, widow-peaked Dracula. I wanted nothing suave or sexual, because I just didn't think it'd work." "Salem's Lot" had a significant impact on the vampire genre, as it inspired horror films such as "Fright Night" (1985) and the scenes of vampire boys floating outside windows would be referenced in "The Lost Boys" (1987). Not to mention the antler impalement which was in both "Lost Boys" and later in "Hannibal".

Sadly ,the film seems to be hard to come by. Despite being a modern classic, my library system did not have it, so I had to purchase the DVD for $15. And, frankly, that is way too much for a DVD with no special features -- not even a menu! This movie is in desperate need of a blu-ray upgrade.

Decent, but oh so very long

[adamscastlevania2 · 5/10 · 20 May 2015]

(50%) For a TV movie this is worthy of at least some acclaim as it is quite a well made piece, but the fact remains all too clear: it's way too damn long. There's a fair bit to like here from the decent cast right though to the generally good direction and decent scares, but when your 90 minute horror flick elapses even biblical epics then something is not quite right. There's some memorable scenes here, and some impressively crafted sections, but the scenes of David Soul trying the very best he possibly could in closing the stupid doors to his Jeep have always somehow always stood out in my mind as oddly very funny. If you have three hours to kill this is by far not a terrible way to spend it, and this is one of the better horror TV movies ever, but three hours is a long, long time.

A NIGHTMARE - INDUCING MASTERPIECE

[lilyriver1224 · 10/10 · 9 October 2004]

I first saw "Salems Lot" when I was only 10, and 20 years later I still have the random nightmare because of it. "Salems Lot"- the book- was an excellent tale of a small - town being slowly killed - off by vampires, but the 1979 T.V. movie took the story to a whole new level. Tobe Hooper stayed true to the nightmarish Stephen King novel when he directed this movie for television. The movie is so scary (and holds - up today), because of great cast and truly terrifying scenes of goulish vampires. The actors who made up the small - town cast, looked like your everyday working - class people that you might bump into at your local supermarket. That element of quiet small - town folk mixed with the absolute horror / evil of the Stryker character (played by an unnervingly cold James Mason) and Mr. Barlow -- one of the most hideous / terrifying vampires since "Nosferatu"-- make "Salems Lot" one of the best horror movies that I've ever seen.

I give it 10 out of 10 stars!!!!!!!!!

Classic vampire horror flick...

[paul_haakonsen · 7/10 · 4 September 2021]

Well, I had the opportunity to sit down in 2021 and watch the 1979 horror classic "Salem's Lot" once again. And of course I did so, as I hadn't seen "Salem's Lot" since my childhood. Well, I saw that 2004 remake, but it ain't no 1979 classic.

And it is surprising how well "Salem's Lot" actually still holds up 42 years later. Yeah, the movie is still very enjoyable and watchable these many years later. I will say that it was every bit as enjoyable to sit through "Salem's Lot" in 2021 as it was back when I was a kid.

The storyline, which really should need no introduction, is a very well-written story and one that definitely provides good entertainment. Needless to say that it is a surprise, as it is based on a Stephen King novel.

The 1979 "Salem's Lot" had an impressive cast ensemble, which included James Mason, Bonnie Bedelia, George Dzundza, Kenneth McMillan and Fred Willard, to mention those most recognizable. But all casted actors and actresses in "Salem's Lot" definitely put on a good performance and added to the overall enjoyment of the entire experience.

While "Salem's Lot" is listed in the horror genre, the type of horror is subtle and slow paced, so don't sit down to watch "Salem's Lot" with the intention of being assaulted by an abundance of jump scares and macabre scenes. But the slow burning horror that is used in "Salem's Lot" works quite well in favor of the storyline, as it slowly piles up and adds to the dread.

If you haven't already seen the 1979 classic "Salem's Lot", shame on you. And if you haven't, and find yourself with the opportunity to do so, you have to do it. This is a classic vampire movie.

My rating of "Salem's Lot" lands on a seven out of ten stars.

Disappointed

[mriporte · 1/10 · 18 April 2009]

I had just finished the book in about 4 days because I could not put it down, thought it was AMAZING and was excited to see the movie. After about 5 minutes, I was very very let down.

Looked horrible, huge plot changes. Changed people's names from the book for no reason? Matt Burke is Jason Burke, Floyd Tibbets is now named Ned, Where did Dr. Cody go?? I don't get it. Barlow was a smart vampire in the book and is now a hissing beast thing. I think a remake with a good director and King writing the screenplay is needed. Had to force myself to finish. I find for some reason all of Stephen King's books are turned into horrible movies (exceptions: Stand by Me and Shawshank Redemption).

See the mini-series version if at all possible

[t_pellman · 2 July 2002]

First let me suggest to see the original miniseries version if at all possible. The "movie" version is horribly chopped. The remaining pieces don't fit together and leave gaping holes (such as, "what happened to Susan?")

Salem's Lot is an almost unknown milestone in horror films. This superb combination of the talents of Tobe Hooper and Stephen King bridges the gap between the Hammer-style films of the 60's and the modern vampire films. Two things to especially note:

(1) This takes place in Everytown, USA and the cinematography reflects the ordinary turned extraordinary (which is the same effect achieved by Bram Stoker's original writing for the audience of his time.) It begins looking almost like a Rockford Files episode and goes dark from there. But even the climax in the evil Marsten house looks *real*, just as you would imagine an old decrepit house to look. You can almost smell the dust. Hey, this was the seventies, the decade of naturalistic lighting. Everything coming out of Hollywood now looks just that - like Hollywood.

(2) It is a shame that anyone today viewing Salem's Lot already knows that is about vampires because when it first aired on TV, the unknown aspect is what made the first half so creepy. Now you just sit there waiting for the vampires to show up. (If I thought that even one person might read this without knowing it was about vampires, I wouldn't write this.) The advertising for the show made no mention of vampires and the effect worked well. I was ten years old when I first saw this. I had seen at least a dozen other vampire flicks - Noseratu, Lugasi, the Hammer films - and I had no clue that this was about vampires. All I knew was that something creepy was going in this town and it was getting creepier and creepier. Only in the second episode when you see someone get bit in the neck did it finally click, "Oh my god, they're vampires." You realize it right about the same time that the main characters do. Highly effective.

Also, superb performances by David Soul, Lew Ayres, James Mason.

After 40 years still a worthwhile horror classic

[johannes2000-1 · 7/10 · 4 August 2022]

I recently read Stephen Kings novel (one of his first major successes), so I thought of checking out this mini-series. It's by now more than 40 years old, and that of course shows. The pace is slower than we are now used to (the overlong almost three and a half hours didn't help with that) and the special effects are modest.

But director Tobe Hooper created a pleasantly creepy atmosphere, building up the tension gradually but very effectively; the photography is at times great (the scene of the undertaker on the graveyard for instance); the eerie musical score is exactly right; and there is some solid acting, especially by David Soul and by old school actor James Mason, who excels in his aloof and over-civilized attitude. Some scenes, like the floating vampires by the windows, now make a rather simple impression, but the make-up of the master vampire, like a Nosferatu in colour, is absolutely top-notch scary!

The series follows the novel pretty closely, they only brought back the amount of characters a bit, probably to keep everything more surveyable. The epilogue is essentially different from the book and comes a bit out of the blue, but as an (open) closure to the movie it worked fine enough.

A great story!

[mm-39 · 7/10 · 15 April 2021]

A great story! Before P C culture with heavy social messages and forced characters which dilutes a good story there is old movies which are closer to the book. Salem's Lot has many old time characters, and behaviors which reminds us of old small time stories mixed with a Vampire take is interesting. The real life style stories make the a horror movie more believable when the supernatural takes over. The character driven story has an author and horror movie fan face the Vampires. Of course King always has writer as the hero, a bit of personal influence there. Will the author face his fear of the house of evil? Even the aged Salem's Lot is still entertaining, which shows a good story ages well. 7 stars.

Frightfully Fun Fare

[Kennybee · 10/10 · 19 December 2003]

Tobe Hooper's SALEM'S LOT is an engrossing, riveting tale of suspense. The atmosphere makes this film. There is a foreboding creepiness that sucks you into Salem's Lot long before the true horror begins.

David Soul manages to become a vampire slayer in the tightest jeans imaginable. Even faulty jeep doors and vengeful plumbers can't hold him back from probing into the secrets of the old, suspicious New England town of Jerusalem's Lot. What compels him is as fascinating as what he uncovers.

The townsfolk range from a shapely boarding house owner to a deliciously smarmy real estate agent to a truly moving school teacher looking for a way out of nowhere. SALEM'S LOT makes you feel you are among friends, sadly, a community of doomed ones. Mood is everything. If you let it, SALEM'S LOT will get under your skin and seep into your nightmares.

There are moments of true horror: the floating Glick brother window knockers, the caretaker in the creaky rocking chair, Marjorie Glick rising from the dead, the vampires vying for Mark's tender neck. Just a few great scenes in a chilling, memorable film.

SALEM'S LOT is the perfect complement to a sleepy, rainy afternoon at home alone. By nightfall, dare to leave a window ajar as the fog rolls in and the undead fatefully rise to quench their thirst.

Underrated.

[matosoluiza · 7/10 · 6 February 2023]

Sure, it wasn't the scariest movie of all time. But it wasn't completely non-scary. The blue vampire jump scared me once.

Pros: Underrated.

The acting is good from most characters.

Easy to understand.

Adapts from the book fairly well.

Good story.

The ending is really good.

Etc....:

Cons: The quality is really bad, look at the godfather which is 1972, and this is 79.

Vampires look cheesy and fake.

Slow start.

Many useless scenes.

Etc..:

So, I have mixed feelings about this. Would I watch it again? Yes, but not anytime soon. I think you should give it a shot. But there are certainly better movies out there.

Salem's Lot (9/10)

[skybrick736 · 9/10 · 19 February 2017]

First things first when it comes to Salem's Lot, make sure the three- hour extended version is watched for the full experience of a fabulous film. Otherwise any shortened version that exist out there will be choppy and convoluted. There is a vast amount of defined characters, who performed great for their part, and weren't silly to the point it would hamper the movie. There is a handful of recognizable actors and actresses that aren't mainstream (Bonnie Bedelia, Ed Flanders, Geoffrey Lewis, Fred Willard) but are fantastic with a shared role. What horror fans like most about Salem's Lot however is the effect of Kurt Barlow, the vampire. There are always the mimicked comments on message boards and reviews that say "This is how vampires are supposed to look" and "This is way better than the Twilight vampires", its frankly true. Tobe Hooper will be more always more well known for Poltergeist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre but its Salem's Lot, which I personally find to be his best work.

Pretty effective miniseries.

[HorrorDisasterGuy-90617 · 7/10 · 18 October 2023]

The story is pretty interesting and is build up well. The miniseries does an amazing job on building up the atmosphere when the vampires arrived. I really like how the vampirism spreads throughout the townsfolks. The creepiness factor really works well when the vampire shows up because it gives off a eerie vibe to it. And the climax is pretty suspenseful. There's a few flaws with this miniseries. One is that some scenes feels unnecessary and I didn't get the point of it. Also the main vampire doesn't appear a lot and only shows up 2 hours into the miniseries. While he doesn't appear a lot, he's definitely the scariest vampire I ever seen. He looks so freaky and is really threatening villain. The vampire makeup effects are really well made. I really like how the makeup looks so creepy with it's yellow eyes and Barlow blue face. The atmosphere is the best part of the movie. The miniseries does an amazing job building up the suspense to it and the vampire scenes are really effective to be creepy.

Lacks Bite

[gftbiloxi · 4/10 · 22 April 2005]

Stephen King's bestseller SALEM'S LOT is a surprisingly complicated novel that first presents a detailed portrait of normal life in a small New England town--normal life that is gradually perverted when the town becomes infested by the undead. And with a cast that includes such memorable performers as James Mason, Lew Ayres, Elisha Cook Jr., and Marie Windsor, this 1979 two-part television special seemed to a great deal going for it. Unfortunately, however, director Tobe Hooper and his screenwriters are unable to find a way to streamline the novel's numerous characters and subplots into any dramatic whole, and the result is a film that constantly references a host of characters, events, and ideas but seldom to any real effect.

Even so, the film does have its charms. Chief among them is James Mason in one of his final performances, offering a brilliant, sinister, and wickedly witty performance as Mr. Straker, the servant of the vampire. Ayres and Bedelia are also extremely good, and although Cook and Windsor are largely wasted they are nonetheless entertaining to watch. And the film does offer a few "jump in your seat" thrills: the scenes of child vampires floating outside bedroom windows are truly creepy, and the great vampire himself hearkens back to the silent film NOSFERATU in a most effective way.

Still, most viewers will find the film fairly tame. David Soul was not a memorable actor, the script is incredibly talky, and there are too many lose ends for the story to be satisfying. It will be of most interest to fans of King's work who would like to see how television handled this, one of his most successful novels. A word of warning: there are two versions of this film. The "edited" version is virtually unwatchable; stick to the full-length.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer

Genuinely frightening, and one of the better Stephen King adaptations

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 25 February 2011]

While I personally would put Shawshank Redemption, Stand By Me and Misery above Salem's Lot, I cannot deny how truly great this is. And I also think out of the made-for-TV Stephen King movies, Salem's Lot is the best.

What makes the film work is its atmosphere. So many scenes are genuinely unnerving, because the atmosphere is so good. Salem's Lot is not reliant on fake blood/gore and cheap special effects to make its point. The atmosphere amongst other things takes good care to do its job well, and well it does, and the build-ups are also quite suspenseful.

The look of Salem's Lot is suitably Gothic. It doesn't look cheap, the sets are creepy-looking and the costumes are grandiose. The music is also very chilling and just adds to the unnerving atmosphere of each crucial scene. The special effects are decent, the pace doesn't hurt Salem's Lot as much as it could have done and it is a good length. The dialogue is also less clunky than it is in a Stephen King adaptation like TommyKnockers, and the story is coherent.

The acting is good. David Soul is appealing and gets into his character well enough and Reggie Nalder delves into Barlow very effectively with his entrance one of Salem's Lot best scenes, but the show belongs to James Mason who is beyond terrifying and is simply born for the role. Tobe Hooper's direction ties things up very well too.

Overall, a very impressive, atmospheric and genuinely frightening Stephen King adaptation. First time I saw it, it affected me so much I couldn't sleep with the light off for a couple of nights. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Slow and deliberate....too much so for my taste.

[planktonrules · 6/10 · 2 June 2020]

When I read through the reviews for "Salem's Lot", I saw that many, many people loved this television movie...so much that I knew I had to see it as well. Sadly, however, my reaction wasn't nearly so positive...and much of it has to do with the glacial pacing and heavy need for editing. When it ran on TV, it was 200 minutes long. Later, they edited down the film to 120 minutes for European release....and I assume that perhaps this shorter version is better when it comes to pace.

The story begins with Ben Mears (David Soul) coming to the town where he lived when he was a small child. He's very interested in an old haunted looking house and is surprised when he learns that it was just sold...after being on the market for 20 years! Something is up in town...and what, exactly, is something you don't really see for some time.

For me, one of the best things about classic horror films of the 1930s and 40s is that you didn't see a lot of the monsters, as the film kept teasing the audience and building suspense. But these movies were on average about 70 minutes long....and you might wait an hour or so until the monster appears...at most. Here, however, here in "Salem's Lot" you see almost nothing of the vampire Barlow until well over two hours into the film! Then, you really don't see that much of the hideous guy. It's just too long and too drawn out for my taste...and I wanted more vampire!

Overall, an interesting film but one that really needed faster pacing and more vampire scenes. Worth seeing, but it's just not a 9 or 10 like I see others say. My explanation is that perhaps many have reviewed the film many, many years after seeing it. When seen today, it just lacks pacing.

By the way, if you get the DVD you might also find that the film's volume keeps changing. Sometimes it's very loud, other times you'll find yourself turning the volume up because it's so soft. My advice is use the closed captions....that does help.

This film should just not have been attempted.

[reallifestory · 1/10 · 16 January 2002]

(in reference to the full 184 minute original television version)

This was just much too ambitious a project to undertake, ESPECIALLY for TV, ESPECIALLY in 1979. There are no redeeming qualities for this film whatsoever. It does not succeed on any level. Standing alone, it is not scary or remotely believable. Compared to the source material, King's novel, it is very unfaithful and weak and watered-down. Can anyone take David Soul seriously?

I imagine the producers of this project merely envisioned dollar signs and weren't concerned with making a quality film. I'm not certain that a truly faithful adaptation CAN be created from King's novel. It just could not be condensed into what most audiences would accept as a normal and acceptable length.

However improbable, it may not be impossible. If a dedicated and talented genre filmmaker could receive worthy funding in order to demand high production values, perhaps it could be remade successfully, not as a 100% faithful and complete retelling of King's engrossing story, but at the very least it would have to be better than this 1979 schlock.