He would, and you know it gives him nightmares.

I think Scorsese is one of the few directors working "in the system" today who actually gets a little respect from the studios, but I'm sure if one of his movies totally bombed, he'd be directing Transformers 5 or something.

Simply because he doesn't get the final word, and honestly, if you don't get that as the DIRECTOR for pity's sake, what's the freakin' point?

Sorry, I'm grumbly today.

Exactly. Nicholson and Deniro are in lame comedies most of the time now. Pretty disheartening to see the crap they're in now compared to what they once were. And you're right...you really can't count on a director churning out great movies consistently anymore. Even Scorsese is about half and half these days.

I agree, Rob, that movies, while not as "glossy", were more personal, so to me, better when the directors had more say. You could be more certain of liking a directors movies simlply because they WERE the director. You GOT that director and could count on it. Not anymore.
*sigh*

I didn't HATE the newer Salem's Lot, but it just didn't have the iconic scenes that the original did. The Nosferatu-looking Barlow, Danny Glick scratching at the window, that frightening scene where Ben and the kid are in the basement of the Marsten house. All are etched permanently on me brain.

As far as the remake of Let the Right One In....it's easy enough to ignore it, I suppose. Nobody forces us to watch it. I suppose I will though...just to see what they did with it.

One more "grumpy old man" comment: In the 70's, directors and screenwriters really had a lot of say as far as what their movies were like and how they were made. The creative juices were allowed to flow freely. Now, it's all about money and weekend grosses. The bean counters have the final say more often than not. A director is lucky if he gets anything even resembling his original vision on the screen. I think that's a big reason why directors and actors that made wonderful movies in the 70's (Francis Coppola, DeNiro, Nicholson) are now reduced to being associated with whatever film comes their way. See the documentary 'Easy Riders, Raging Bulls' if you're at all interested in that kind of film making...or read the book.

I totally agree with you Rob & Always...and I am devastated that Hollywood is re-making "Let the Right One In". Why must they always mess with perfection?

Regarding the newer "Salem's Lot" movie...it wasn't bad, but I really hated how they changed the ending with the priest. I much preferred SK's version of what happened to him.

Rob wrote: "In my opinion....the "Young Folks" in Hollywood these days are often all flash and style, no substance. People don't have the patience for characterization or a slow buildup anymore. They'd rathe..."
When it comes to CGI & the old Special Effects from the 70's, I love the older stuff better. It took real brains to come up w/the stuff in older movies..
Like when you watch a newer movie & say the house gets destroyed... CGI totally ruins it for me, cause my lame realistic mind knows there's no-way the actor could have gotten out of it with hardly a scratch(I'm thinking of I, Robot; however I did like the movie)
Perhaps a poor example but I do like the older movies where CGI had yet to enter the scene.. But I am from an older era.
And what happened to Cartoons... Everything is now 3-D animation

In my opinion....the "Young Folks" in Hollywood these days are often all flash and style, no substance. People don't have the patience for characterization or a slow buildup anymore. They'd rather see CGI and stuff being blown up every 2 minutes. I find that way more boring than 70's films.

To Ryan;
That's just the way the Old Folks in Hollywood use to make the shows & movies back then... Slow & Dull by Today,s standards....
May I suggest the Updated Version :) It's done well, I think, however it does take liberties, like most TV-adaptions.

I watched the 1979 version but not all the way through. I had to stop it, it was just too boring and drawn out. I never seen the 2004 version which is probably scarier. I'd have probably watched all the 1979 version enthusiastically if i had read the book.
I might read the book sometime and then give the film another shot.

I wrote a review of the Rob Lowe version when we read Salem's Lot as a group. It has it pluses and minuses.

I enjoyed both of them, though both of them have serious weaknesses. I loved Donald Sutherland and James Cromwell and thought Rob Lowe did a pretty good job as Mears. Also, I liked the pacing of the first half better in the 2004 version. However, the 1979 version scared the ever living crap out of me when I first saw it (I was barely seven) and I like the actual vampire bits better in that version. In the 2004 version the vampires, for some reason, seem to have stepped out of a Madonna music video... plus every time I saw Rutger Hauer I kept flashing back to his role in Buffy the Vampire Slayer ;)

I don't know if nostalgia is coloring my opinion, but I love the original mini-series. I agree that the first half is a bit slow, but I think Soul is a great Mears. I like the vamps and Straker is just perfect, like F.R. said.

F.R. wrote: "That scene you mention was in the version I saw, but it was the epilogue. The prologue just had them in Guatemala hunting vampires, while in the epilogue they found Susan as a vampire and the moon ..."

You're right. Stupid me got my "-ogues" mixed up.

I have seen the Rob Lowe version, but it has been so long since I saw either of them, that my comparison would likely be inaccurate. I enjoyed both. Even when I saw the original version in around 1997 or 1998 (I would have been 12 or 13), I was entertained. I remember laughing so hard when the old German guy hit the vampire with his car and it screamed like a panther! My mom came into my room to see what was so funny, because I was laughing hysterically! :-D

That scene you mention was in the version I saw, but it was the epilogue. The prologue just had them in Guatemala hunting vampires, while in the epilogue they found Susan as a vampire and the moon as a skull.

I like the 70's version more than you did, but you're right....the first half is pretty slow going. When I saw it on tv when it first aired, I missed the first half (it was shown over two nights), so I only saw the good parts apparently. There's still a lot to like. The great Barlow/Nosferatu makeup, James Mason, Danny Glick scratching at the window, the scene in the basement of the Barlow house.

When it originally aired, there was a prologue of sorts where David Soul and the kid find the vampiric Susan many years later hiding out in Mexico. They dispatch her, then the camera cuts to a full moon which slowly transforms into a skull...then back to a moon again. I thought that prologue was pretty special, but they've always edited it out when they repeat it on television. I don't even think it's on the dvd I have...although I'd have to check again to make sure. Anyone else remember that?

I re-watched this for the first time in years over the weekend, and I have to say it doesn't hold up well.

In the minus column Tobe Hooper's direction is terribly flat. He’s an odd film-maker though, one capable of making 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre', but at other times seeming like a man who's never even seen 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Of course he's not helped by Harry Sukman's score, which takes melodramatic to new and dangerous levels.

The script - even at four hours - allows strands to just get away from it, so at the end you wonder what was the point of them? Why was Elisha Cook's character there? Why did we need to see Fred Williard's amorous encounters? The whole thing is far too long (and contains some really heavy-handed fore-shadowing). After all we're there to watch blood-sucking, and it seems to take ages to get to the Vampire action.

Performance wise, they’re mostly bland. I don't think David Soul convinces as someone smart enough to write books. Like some old noir hero he appears, until almost the very end, to be a guy slow on the uptake. Maybe the screenwriter should have been brave and changed his profession from King's version. If he was a returning soldier it may have worked better.

To be fair though, it is a long slog but the last half hour - when the vampires are at the fore - is really exciting. I'd also like to say a word about James Mason's performance. That man had a voice designed for spouting evil lines with glee and intelligence. He is fantastically creepy all the way through, without ever seeming to doing that much, and I can't imagine a better Straker.

Has anyone else seen this recently? Have any of you seen the Rob Lowe version? How does it compare?