I saw the movie 'Salem's Lot' (2004) and it was amazing!
I couldn't sleep because of the movie.which means the movie was f***ing scary to me. anyway after I saw the movie, I knew that there's a oldest virsion.And the two movies are based on Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot'. so the point is, which one is better?
book? old movie? newest movie?
2007-01-10 03:36:01 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
The book is by FAR the best...
Out of the two movies, the one you saw isn't too bad and is fairly close to the book - the older one with David Soul ("Hutch" of Starsky and Hutch TV fame) is absolutely horrible. It bore very little resemblance to the book.
I'm certain you can rent it if you're interested in seeing it and form your own opinion...
Do yourself a favor and buy the book (or get it from the library) and read it...you'll see why it's much better either movie!!!
2007-01-10 03:42:49 · answer #1 · answered by Gary M 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hands down the original 1979 mini-series is way better. The 2004 one follows closer to the book but we all know you can not transend flawlessly from book to film. The remake was not bad but the 1979 one is way more suspenseful and atmospheric. I say read the book which is great also then watch the '79 film. I think you may find the original film worth it. Give it time to build up. It's not an action film. I give it 5 stars!!!!
2007-01-11 12:37:18 · answer #2 · answered by am_eye_insyde 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I've not read the book or seen the newest movie but the oldest one will probably be the best i thought it was a good movie the remakes are usually rubbish
2007-01-10 12:29:35 · answer #3 · answered by mhariann579 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Stephen King's books are always better than the movies. Except maybe for the Green Mile and Shawshank Redemption, those were well done.
2007-01-10 11:54:04 · answer #4 · answered by Lewis 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Would love to c the remake, the old one scared me as a kid, very creepy. It would look lame to most by todays standards. But as our Australian Music Guru would say..do yourself a favor..read the book nothing is better than ur own imagination. Besides Stephen Kings early horror books were cutting edge.
2007-01-10 12:24:51 · answer #5 · answered by riverdanceboi 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the books are normally the best since they have all the details, the movies normally leave out alot in consideration of the duration of the movie. read the book, you'll love it. I'm a Stephen king fan. you should try reading "bag of bones" that's a great book, can hardly wait for the movie for that one.
2007-01-10 12:45:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anna Banana 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hmm. I thought the older one was creepy. I didn't think the main big vampire was, but definitely the guy that died in the priest's house. Then the priest hears creaking upstairs, and it's the guy, who was a vampire, sitting there with bright yellow eyes. Also, the same vampire is crawling up behind the kid in the basement. So I thought that one vampire was scarier than any others.
2007-01-10 11:47:28 · answer #7 · answered by Teresa 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book is def the scariest by far. I remember the older version w/ David *Starsky and Hutch* Soul and the newer version w/ ....I think Rob Lowe. But the book wins and the original movie wins by a fang :)
2007-01-10 12:41:20 · answer #8 · answered by starikotasukinomiko 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The book, by far. I could make the vampires be what I wanted to see, which creeped me out much more than a movie could do.
2007-01-10 11:40:32 · answer #9 · answered by Lady Ettejin of Wern 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I remember seeing the old version when i was a kid and regreted it for a long time, i couldn't get it out of my mind, but i haven't seen the remake, so i hope to see it some time soon.
2007-01-10 15:29:47 · answer #10 · answered by catalyist 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋