La hora del vampiro II: el regreso

There's an interesting story buried under the awful execution. Many interesting ideas and threads that warrant further exploration. It's a true shame this is what the result was.

I sat down to watch the 1987 "A Return to Salem's Lot" after having just revisited the 1979 "Salem's Lot". And with the movie sporting a cover similar to the original 1979 movie, I assumed that there was a chance that this sequel might actually be an okay movie.

Truth be told, 2021 was actually the first time for me to sit down and watch "A Return to Salem's Lot". And it will also be my last time. Wow. Just wow. "A Return to Salem's Lot" was bad, really, really bad. I mean it wasn't even on the same page as the 1979 predecessor. Nay, "A Return to Salem's Lot" was just something that felt like a spoof.

It was painful and gut wrenching to sit through "A Return to Salem's Lot" and watch the ridiculous storyline unfold on the screen. God only knows what went through the minds of Larry Cohen and James Dixon when they were writing the script for this atrocity of a movie.

The special effects in the movie were poor, and actually even worse off than the special effects in the predecessor that was made 8 years before. So that is a bad testiment to how bad "A Return to Salem's Lot" really is.

Then there was the acting, or what was supposed to resemble acting. There was a shared concensus of putting on poor acting performances among the actors and actresses, or so one would think by looking at the performances put on throughout the course of the movie.

I found "A Return to Salem's Lot" to so bad that it felt like a slap to the face with a cold, dead fish. Don't waste your time on this 1987 sequel, because it is horrible.

My rating of director Larry Cohen's "A Return to Salem's Lot" lands on a mere three out of ten stars.

A good story can survive all but the worst treatment. Unfortunately, this really is the worst treatment.

The acting is terrible. The editing is worse--choppy and inept. It's the kind of editing that's so bad you have a number of those "What? How'd he get over there?" moments. It's hard to believe that Larry Cohen had ever directed anything before this, it's so amateurish. I would have guessed this to be a first film, if I didn't know better. It looks as if the director just didn't get the shots needed to cover the action and left the editor scrambling to stitch together a movie.

Similarly, lines of dialogue come out of nowhere, completely unmotivated, almost nonsensical.

The sad thing is, there are good ideas buried in this mess: vampires trying to run a sustainable community by feeding on cows' blood, their attempts to recruit a journalist to record the details of their lives for future generations, the protagonist's perpetually-17-years-old childhood sweetheart seducing him into the Devil's bargain. They're good elements for a story.

But the details don't hang together. None of it quite makes sense. And the one or two good special effects are overwhelmed by all the lousy ones.

If, like the inhabitants of Salem's Lot, you plan to live forever, you might want to take a look at this movie. But for the living: Believe me, you don't have enough time to waste two of your precious remaining hours on this one.

....that I had to force myself to see it through to the end.... how bad? Well the kid who played the exceedingly foul-mouthed boy has NO other acting credits to his name on this movie database! That should say something...to think that Michael Moriarty, an actor with many fine films to his credit, would appear in a piece of crap like this... I first saw it last year after renting it at a video store, because the original Salem's Lot is a pretty good film, but this movie has nothing to do with the original....it looked like they shot it about 10 minutes after the writer wrote it, and they had one shot only...if you forgot your lines, just adlib something...the plot was preposterous....the only attribute it made to vampire movies at all was the concept of the "drones" who could function during the day as normal people and guard the real vampires.

Really I must say, that of "major" studio movies, this one truly has a shot at worst of all time, as they had real actors, a real budget, location, scenery and etc....and it is still horrible. So you can't judge it against awful movies that were shot for video only with a $100,000 budget....No, this one really is unbelievably bad considering its backing and the name it had to trade on..... I gave it a "2" but I think I was charitable. Because of this movie, there will never be a "Salem's Lot 3" and that's too bad.

The original "Salem's Lot" is being copied now by at least three franchises on Netflix. The locations are different and the monsters have better special effects, but none of the capture the way the original baked mounting dread into a nightly miniseries. Think I'm wrong? Ask any GIF generator for "boy scratching at window."

This movie is a long way from Salem's Lot. It was filmed in leafy, picturesque Vermont instead of California. Michael Moriarty, who was suffering from end stage alcoholism when it was made, lurches and jeers through the movie looking more amused that afraid. Ricky Addison Reed, who plays his son, is dresses in the same outfit Richard Gere wore in "American Gigolo", which heightens the "ick" factor when one of the child vampires wants to "marry" him. Dozens of actors from 1950s television westerns make up the cast of vampire villagers

It's a terrible horror movie. It's an okay unintentional comedy for a nostalgic night of back 80s hair and fashion, and a good reason to remember not to become a drunk.