lpbott-102-817827
Joined Jul 2011
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews7
lpbott-102-817827's rating
This movie suffers from being a little too faithful adaptation. What I mean is that it suffers from a lot of the same faults as the book.
There are a lot of side characters that lead to absolutely nowhere. Mostly the random townspeople lives. I mean there is a lot of exposition about their lives, from an abusive teen marriage, an adulterous affair and much more backstories that have zero relevance on the actual plot.
Now that being said there are still iconic scenes that I remember from when I saw it in the 80s, and those are the best scenes in the movie, y'all know what they are. Another problem with this is that it was made into a miniseries for TV, so a lot had to be tamed down, not to mention it looks like it was made with a $3 budget.
The core story is fantastic hopefully one day there will be a good version of this movie.
Salem's Lot is on par with Trilogy of Terror, and by that is that it did scare a generation of kids, but nostalgia clouds quality, making people remember it being better than it was.
There are a lot of side characters that lead to absolutely nowhere. Mostly the random townspeople lives. I mean there is a lot of exposition about their lives, from an abusive teen marriage, an adulterous affair and much more backstories that have zero relevance on the actual plot.
Now that being said there are still iconic scenes that I remember from when I saw it in the 80s, and those are the best scenes in the movie, y'all know what they are. Another problem with this is that it was made into a miniseries for TV, so a lot had to be tamed down, not to mention it looks like it was made with a $3 budget.
The core story is fantastic hopefully one day there will be a good version of this movie.
Salem's Lot is on par with Trilogy of Terror, and by that is that it did scare a generation of kids, but nostalgia clouds quality, making people remember it being better than it was.
I would not call this a sequel by any means. The only things in common with the original is the location and vampires. It is 80s schlock but not in a good way.
The plot is all over the place.
It changes things about the general lore of vampires while keeping other parts in tact.
The main is evidently vampires can get humans pregnant and vice versa.
While an interesting concept the story just becomes the most generic vampire movie.
All the characters are generic and not interesting.
Considering this is suppose to be a sequel but now there are vampires that are 300 years old even though the town was turned in modern times roughly 1975.
The fact the a grown man hooked up with a vampire with the appearance of a 17 is just creepy.
The plot is all over the place.
It changes things about the general lore of vampires while keeping other parts in tact.
The main is evidently vampires can get humans pregnant and vice versa.
While an interesting concept the story just becomes the most generic vampire movie.
All the characters are generic and not interesting.
Considering this is suppose to be a sequel but now there are vampires that are 300 years old even though the town was turned in modern times roughly 1975.
The fact the a grown man hooked up with a vampire with the appearance of a 17 is just creepy.
I for one LOVE jukebox musicals! Mamma Mia, Rocket man, Across the Universe and Moulin Rouge are some of my favorite movies.
This however was just bad. Cinderella is a classic simple story. It was just so cringe. The jokes fell flat, the music just didn't fit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make the story empowering, but they failed to make it good.
This however was just bad. Cinderella is a classic simple story. It was just so cringe. The jokes fell flat, the music just didn't fit.
Absolutely nothing wrong with trying to make the story empowering, but they failed to make it good.