alexanderdavies-99382
This film bears no resemblance to the classic television mini series from 1979, nor is the film in the same league. The publicity and the marketing for "Return to Salems Lot" clearly used the image of the Nosferatu vampire from the mini series because it was apparent that no one would see the 1987 movie. The ploy didn't work as the film went straight to video release. "Return to Salems Lot" has none of the intelligence, imagination or atmosphere of "Salems Lot." The aim of this film, is to include as much graphic detail as possible. The script is largely absurd and the story ridiculous. The location that was used for the film is totally different to before but it's a good locale all the same. The grassy hills, the church, they give you cause to think that vampires stalk those hills in search of food. There is at least some good action scenes which offer some compensation. The town of Salems Lot is now over-run with vampires. They are gradually running low on food supply after all the remaining human beings are either dead or slaves to the undead. Michael Moriarty is pretty good in the lead and director Samuel Fuller is OK as a vampire Hunter. Watch this and enjoy something that requires less brain power.
kencossaboon
The ratio has to be adjusted as it came out in the 1980The movie is about a guy who is a writer where he and his forgotten son, go back to his childhood home town, and finds more have changed than the old family home. For the children living in the town when he returns, lets say that the marriage laws have changed a bit. The town folk make an offer he can not refuse to write about them.He meets his childhood sweet heart her 17 and him 14 at that time, and she did not change. But then again she did not get any taller either, but it was a good trade off for looks and height. When they first meet it was a bit creepy. When he was dictating the story I was expected to see dragon talk, but instead it was a audio cassette recorder. So, I reset my mind to remember it was the 1980's.I was surprised with the language for the time. The kid swore more than the adults. I see what Maine's fixer uppers look like. It was nice to see the Perv'y old men get theirs in the movie, but I now tend to say clear of groups of kids because of the movie. The monster masks were pretty flexible for the time. The acting was a bit flimsy as were the one liners. Not Michael Moriarty's best acting. Tara Reids role was OK but then again she was a kid. She had better roles in Van Wilder and American Pie. It was later in life that she had those fantastic eyes, that may have been contacts but who knows. It says her trademark was the deep raspy voice, but I go with the Eyes. As a sequel it was a bad movie. It seemed there had been more thought to the music than the script, and was no credit to the great writing of Stephen King. However when I was watching it I found it was good background sound while doing paper work in the office. I think you would feel better giving the money that the movie cost, giving it to the tax man instead of watching the movie.
ken2903
I knew it was going to be bad but i had no idea. I tried to keep an open mind and view it without comparing it to Salem's Lot but it was still sh't.The main character kept making some stupid stupid decisions that just didn't make sense. He had such a hard on to write a history/bible for this community of vampires that he just about lets them vampirize his son? I know its implied that he has experience with different cultures but who stumbles across a town of vampires and then lets their teenage son talk him out of leaving?I'm trying to think of something nice to say about it and all i can come up with is that there was a pretty decent pair of vampire bewbs (not Tara Reid) that were shown on two occasions and the Nazi hunter guy was partially interesting.In conclusion, i believe that if RTSL was a dinosaur it would be a lameasaurus Rex.3/10
ozthegreatat42330
I actually feel embarrassed for Michael Moriarty. He has never had the really good roles he deserves. And he did not deserve this. It is obvious that the studio wanted to exploit the popular "Salem's Lot" without "shoveling" out the cash to do a decent job. This film cannot even in good conscience be called a sequel. There was nothing left of the town at the end of the last film, and suddenly all new characters are coming home to a place that isn't even supposed to exist. I really felt as if my intelligence was being insulted, by this truly poor representation of the subject. If you are renting the film OK, you just wasted a couple of bucks, no big deal. But if you bought it, you've just been bitten big time. This movie deserves an early grave.
AD
