- Premios
- 2 nominaciones en total
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Having read the novel several times and seeing the 1979 tv-series a number of times over the years, I was really looking forward to this. Well, it was disappointing. I realize it's a lot to ask to have to cram the book into a two-hour film, a lot of story and character background had to be sacrificed. All of our main characters are there, some visibly altered to suit 21st century norms, but not well fleshed out. A bunch of liberties are taken with the storyline as well, some for no clear reason, it seems. I guess if you have never read the book, you wouldn't know what you're missing. But the most heinous thing about this film is simple: if you're the least bit of a horror movie fan, It's Not Scary. Like, at all. Give it a watch if you like, but the broth of this soup is quite thin.
The movie had some decent scares. The acting was solid but the plot was rushed and, something I'll never understand, they felt the need to rewrite one of the greatest writers of our time. Too many storylines were dropped while others were strangely created. I just wish the story had been properly developed which is where an episode series would have been appropriate. The Marsten house murdee backstory could have been given some time, as well, as that's a great subplot and explanation as to why Barlow and Straker choose the house/location. Barlow's makeup was beautiful done, however, so that's something. Do films still do test audiences? It doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
I loved the book when I read it in the 80's and looked forward to this movie but I was let down.
I'm not a purist and don't usually mind different interpretations of a fictional story, but the changes weren't really the worst parts, that would be the bland storytelling and the movie just felt rushed.
There was no character development whatsoever, the acting was mediocre, though Alfre Woodard stood out and I wish she was shown more as she was the best part of the movie for me, though she was hardly in it, and I can't say it enough, there was nothing really happening with the story to keep me interested.
A little backstory on anyone would have been nice, an actual view of the budding romance that was taking place to help us actually feel the main characters grief, anything at all other than the bland scenes we got.
Unfortunately an utterly forgettable film.
Not Recommended.
I'm not a purist and don't usually mind different interpretations of a fictional story, but the changes weren't really the worst parts, that would be the bland storytelling and the movie just felt rushed.
There was no character development whatsoever, the acting was mediocre, though Alfre Woodard stood out and I wish she was shown more as she was the best part of the movie for me, though she was hardly in it, and I can't say it enough, there was nothing really happening with the story to keep me interested.
A little backstory on anyone would have been nice, an actual view of the budding romance that was taking place to help us actually feel the main characters grief, anything at all other than the bland scenes we got.
Unfortunately an utterly forgettable film.
Not Recommended.
Ok I just watched one of my all time favorite Stephen King novels. I loved the 1979 version which I watched eagerly when I was 15 years old. I had been anticipating watching this for quite a while at least since the whispers started that a remake was coming. The movie was not terrible I gave it a six (that may be to generous) because the movie was watchable. I had so hoped it would be remade with the kind of money writing acting everything that "It" had when the last remake was done. Everything was just a little off with this movie. The acting was just ok. Character development was pretty non existent. They could have done a lot better on developing some interest in the characters. I think it was to rushed toward the end the drive in ending was terrible some should have pumped the brakes hard on that one! Why? Why remake something if not to make it outstanding! Stephen King is an awesome writer and if the production is done correctly then it should be awesome. Very disappointed ...
What makes the book a masterpiece is the slow burn. The budding love affair. The vignettes of strange things happening around town. The eventual gathering of a gang of misfit heroes that come together in perfect King fashion.
All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.
There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.
All of that is gone. The pacing is largely incoherent. Characters jump to conclusions (the right ones, always) without a second thought. It's hard to love any of characters because they all lack the depth they need to make the story move forward.
There are some really amazing moments here, and some small sparks of genius. But, unfortunately, this adaptation is defanged.
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
Stephen King Movies Ranked by IMDb Rating
See how IMDb users rank the feature films based on the work of Stephen King.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaWriter Gary Dauberman told Den of Geek in June 2019 that his goal with the new version of Salem's Lot is to make vampires frightening again. He wants to get away from the sexier, more romanticized undead that have infested pop culture for much of the past quarter century, thanks to everything from Interview with the Vampire to Twilight to The Vampire Diaries.
- ErroresWhen Ben is reading old newspapers on microfilm in the library, a headline reads "Local Couple Victims of DUI". The paper was supposedly printed in 1956, at a time when the term "DUI" was not yet in use.
- ConexionesFeatured in Half in the Bag: Top 10 Horror Movies (2024) Part 1 (2024)
- Bandas sonorasSundown
Written and Performed by Gordon Lightfoot
Courtesy of Warner Records
By arrangement with Warner Music Group Film & TV Licensing
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- El misterio de Salem's Lot
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 851,156
- Tiempo de ejecución
- 1h 54min(114 min)
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.35 : 1
- 2.39:1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta