A novelist and a young horror fan attempt to save a small New England town which has been invaded by vampires.A novelist and a young horror fan attempt to save a small New England town which has been invaded by vampires.A novelist and a young horror fan attempt to save a small New England town which has been invaded by vampires.
- Nominated for 3 Primetime Emmys
- 4 nominations total
Browse episodes
6.831.4K
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Featured reviews
Really Holds Up
So I saw this again recently to compare to the new Max movie version, which I liked a lot. This holds up a lot. To think this was a 1970's TV mini-series is pretty incredible because of the sanitized nature of the platform. The adaptation is somewhat close to the source material. The acting is actually very good. The special effects is good for the budget and platform. The script is weak in some areas, mostly, dialogue. There are not so many horror moments considering it is Tobe Hooper's project, but the horror atmosphere is worthy. The pacing is slow at times, but that is because of the mini-series format. Worth seeing.
Pretty effective miniseries.
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.
This is one of a handful of truly scary films
I was fourteen years old when this film was released, and it was really a shocker for its time. Although I can see the points raised by detractors of this film, nevertheless, it is, in my opinion, one of the most truly terrifying movies I have ever seen. The scenes in which first Ralphie and then Danny Glick appear in windows at night, scratching to be let in, were utterly horrifying, as were the scenes with Mike Ryerson in Jason Burke's guest bedroom ("Looooook at me ... I will see you sleep like the dead, teacher") and Marjorie Glick in the mortuary. Along with the original "Halloween," this is a film that really, really scared me, and I feel that a key element was the lack of gore (which is probably a disappointment to younger viewers used to explicit splatter). The nonverbal dialogue of expressions and actions, the music, and the significantly occurring silences resulted in the suspense which makes a film truly frightening in my opinion.
Having said this, I do feel that the book was much, much better than the movie, and I would recommend it as one of the best vampire stories ever written (sorry, Anne Rice, but it's true). But let's be fair and realistic. It's a rare film that excels the book on which it was based. Not one of Stephen King's wonderfully (and horribly) imaginative works has EVER been committed to film in a way that has equaled the written work. Never, ever, EVER. That is something that will just never happen. If it were possible, then nobody would bother to read his books, he would become a screenwriter, and that would be a real loss for the horror genre.
Having said this, I do feel that the book was much, much better than the movie, and I would recommend it as one of the best vampire stories ever written (sorry, Anne Rice, but it's true). But let's be fair and realistic. It's a rare film that excels the book on which it was based. Not one of Stephen King's wonderfully (and horribly) imaginative works has EVER been committed to film in a way that has equaled the written work. Never, ever, EVER. That is something that will just never happen. If it were possible, then nobody would bother to read his books, he would become a screenwriter, and that would be a real loss for the horror genre.
Atmospheric adaptation
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 :.
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 :.
I'm trying to figure out why so many horror fans don't like this show...
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!
Did you know
- TriviaThe exterior for the Marsten House was actually a full-scale facade built upon a smaller pre-existing hill-top house. In total, the facade cost the production an estimated $100,000 dollars to build. In 1979, an entire house (including the interiors) could have been made for that amount.
- GoofsWhen the younger Glick brother is abducted (and later presumably murdered by Barlow) he's wearing a jacket, t-shirt, dungarees and sneakers. After which, he appears to his brother wearing pajamas.
- Crazy creditsThe text of the opening credits appear and dissolve piece by piece into each other in a jigsaw puzzle fashion.
- Alternate versionsSalem's Lot originally aired as a two-night mini-series with the first episode airing on 17 November 1979 and the second episode airing the following week on 24 November 1979.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Stairs (1986)
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content







