Recently in Remakes/Sequels pg.2 Category

Now, this flick is the absolute epitome of "low budget", meaning its literally low budget, not relatively, where you might here some idenpendent director on the commentary talk about the difficulties of making a flick with only $100,000. You learn from the special features that the actors were not paid, and a viewing of this will tell you right away that the script and FX were done on the cheap, although the cinematography, in my view, was excellent for a film of this nature and not bad even when compared with a film with some budget.

Now, the obvious question you might be asking is, "O.k., so what's it about?"

Well, to be perfectly honest with you, I'm not one hundred percent sure.

Hey, didn't you watch the flick!?!? (You might ask)

Yes, I did, a number of times, as a matter of fact. (I'm fascinated with legitimate efforts to make a movie with no budget or, putting it as charitably as I can, no expertise) As best as I can determine, the story is of a young woman who is looking for answers in the death of her sister, who appears to her from time to time as a demonic figure. This flick is a sequel, and I must admit that I did not see the first one, but to be brutally honest with you, I don't know that that makes a huge difference.

The story is near unintelligable, which would be bad enough but when you couple it with the horrendous sound quality, its impossible to make sense of what you can actually here in addition to what you cannot. The actors are not actors, they are regular Joe's and Janes's who decided to act in this flick. That may sound like a paradox, but just like everyone who does a bad thing isn't necessarily a bad person, not everyone who acts in a movie is an actor.  

Once you accept that (and you will no more than 2 minutes into the flick), your only choice in appreciating the acting is realizing that the actors gave their performances on Saturday after processing insurance forms, or whatever they really do, all day Friday. 

Throw in the tapioca- pudding- for-vomit, knife under the armpit in the stabbing scene and the slapping scenes where the slapper's hand is visibly more than a foot away from the slapee's face with the sound coming in a full second later, and you have the potential for some laughs in this one.

I must say, even though this one has to go into the "Dud" category on artistic (or lack thereof) alone, the cinematography is not bad, the director of photography obviously knew what he was doing and this flick is shot like a real movie with differing angles and smoth cuts. So, the story doesn't make sense, the direction is poor, the FX amateurish, the sound either annoying or comical, and the acting substandard, who should see this film?

Well, not many, if you want to know the truth. But, if you have a love for (really) small budgt film, or you just want to see what it might look like with you and some of your buddies shooting something on a camcorder, pick this one up. Hey, they (somehow) got distribution, so I think you can find it somewhere if you look for it.    

Directed by Rob Zombie. Starring Sid Haig, Sheri Moon Zombie, William Forsythe, Bill Mosely, Leslie Easterbrook, Ken Foree, Danny Trejo, Priscilla Barnes, Daniel Roebuck, Ginger Lynn Allen. Horror/Drama. Synopsis: A crazed, murderous family makes one last stand in 1970's Texas as they are cornered by a revenge minded Sheriff  with  murderous intentions of his own.

I'm a little hesitant to say that I really liked this film. Hesitant because I feel like I should be a little bit ashamed, at least, at saying that I liked a film with so much gratuitous violence, torture, wanton sex, foul language, and multiple characters with such a blatant disregard for life in this sequel to House of 1000 Corpses.

But, I'm not ashamed, and I'm not sure why. I have nothing, of course, against violence, sex, and language when they are part of a meaningful movie, since those things are so much a part of life. On the other hand, when excess gore, for example, is used as a substitute for a real story or real acting, its gets old real quick. That's not the case here, although this film is the very definition of a cult film that is not going to be everybody's, as they say, "cup of tea". In fact, strictly speaking, its probably not the majority of people's cup of tea. But those of us who like it will, undoubtedly, really like it, own it , and watch it multiple times, which is what having a good cult classic is all about.

The film is a sequel, and is rare in that it is much, much better than the original. We get right into the depravity with this flick from the opening scenes, with there being a siege on a home inhabited by some of the murdering family: Mother Firefly (Leslie Easterbrook Police Academy), Otis (Bill Mosely) and Baby Firefly (Sheri Moon Zombie). The raid is led by Sheriff John Quincy Wydell (William Forsythe Out For Justice), the "hero" of the film, who is only slightly less maniacal, and every bit as darkly humorous, as the psychotic prey he is stalking. Unfortunately, the raid produces even more corpses (along with the ones already inside the home) and only captures the matriarch of the clan, Mother Firefly.

And where is the patriarch, you might ask? Well, Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig) is entertaining a lady friend, both in reality and in his dreams, and you get the feeling that this is not an unusual occurrence for him or anyone else in the family. Here is the thing about Captain Spaulding, he is a clown, a crazy killer clown, to be sure, but still a clown. He has got some notoriety in the area by appearing on cheesy TV commercials and, in fact, wears his clown makeup most of the time. the combination of a clown with such a depraved figure is delicious and works well in this film.

Well, its only a matter of time before Captain Spaulding and Sheriff Wydell butt heads, as Sheriff Wydell has a rather personal reason for wanting to bring the clan, known-as you might guess- as the "Devil's Rejects". And, no, the Sheriff is not interested in a good, long, jail term either. Along the way is a nonstop parody and stark look at a segment of society, probably a little too stereotypical, but fun nonetheless. You'll see many familiar faces here, including some other cult movie figures such as Charlie (Ken Foree, Dawn of the Dead) and  a barely recognizable Mary Woronov as a victim. Also look out for Priscilla Barnes (Three's Company) as yet another vitim, probably as you've never seen here before. The distinctive and always likable Danny Trejo (Con Air, Heat) makes yet another appearance, basically playing himself' the loud talking ex-con turned bounty hunter. Daniel Roebuck (Late Night, Final Destination)  is the faux narrator of the movie in the role of the cheesy, superficial 70's era talk show host who is following the crimes of the family. He is, simply, hilarious.

This is one you will either turn off two minutes into the film , or keep watching until the end without daring to get up and go away from the set...at times it will be hard to believe what you are seeing and hearing. Some of the more memorable lines can't be quoted here, as this is a family friendly blog. This is sort of a cross between Natural Born Killers and The Fugitive , but even that description does not really do the film justice.

William Forsythe, one of the best character actors working, is brilliant here and worth the price of admission, so to speak, alone.  Think of his great roles in Out for Justice and The Rock, combine them, amp it up about 90%, add some Southern Sheriff steretypical traits and you're on the right track...almost. Sid Haig, long a fixture in cult classics (Coffy, The Big Doll House)  is wonderful as the hideous Captain Spaulding. You will not be able to take your eyes off of him, for more than one reason , when he is onscreen. Leslie Easterbrook (Police Academy) does a better Karen Black than Karen Black in this one and Seri Moon Zombie and Bill Mosely are sufficiently depraved and evil as well.

What is this film about? What's its meaning? What is Zombie trying to tell us? Heck, I  don't know, probably nothing, if you ask me. Maybe its some kind of referendum on the wanton violence that is so much a part of our world, I don't know, I'm not smart enough to figure that out. All I know is that I watched it, and I was entertained...even though there is a voice over my shoulder that told me I probably shouldn't be. But, I was. 

And so will some of you. 

Directed by Michael Caton-Jones. Starring Sharon Stone, Michael Morrissey, David Thewlis, Charlotte Rampling. Action/Drama. Synopsis: Writer Catherine Trammell has moved to London, where her love of the dangerous adventure implicates her in the death of a soccer star, and introduces her to a troubled psychologist and an aggressive detective.

Well, here we go again with the sequels. Basic Instinct 2 was largely panned by critics, much of it coming even before the release of the movie. As always, I try to talk about remakes/sequels apart from the original, and stay away from things that really don't have to do with the movie itself (e.g., pretending that I'm offended that Sharon Stone is doing a nude scene at the age of 48, etc.)

I have to say, given the general negative buzz about this film, I am pleasantly surprised but pleased to say that it carried itself pretty well, in my opinion. The first thing that you have to come to grips with, if you are a fan of the original (and aren't we all) is that this is different film, you will only see Catherine Trammell (Stone) from the original, although there are some references to the first movie. Those of you who did not see Basic Instinct, or who have forgotten some of the plot points, don't worry, you will be able to follow and appreciate this one fully.

Stone is masterful in reprising her role as Catherine, even more sinister and wickedly seductive than she was in the first one. To me, this makes sense, as the movie is told in current time, e.g. its fourteen years later in the movie, too. 

The film starts out with a bang, no pun intended, as we see Catherine and her paramour speeding through the streets of London in a car that cost more than the average three bedroom home. And, well, while they are driving they are....enjoying each other. Well, no good deed goes unpunished and they soon swerve off the road into the drink (or did driver Catherine do it on purpose?)...as you might guess, she survives, he doesn't, the fit hits the shan, and soon Catherine is under suspicion throughout the whole of London as a suspected murderess who, in case you hadn't heard, also writes best selling novels about murders and had the habit of being around people who happened to die violently in San Francisco a few years back.

Well, the only way that old Cath is going to be considered for bail is after she is evaluated by a psychologist (David Morrissey). It also seems that there is a police detective (David Thewlis) who is particularly anxious to keep/put Catherine behind bars and makes no bones about the fact that he believes Catherine murdered before and will again.

Without being a spoiler, Catherine does make her bail, takes a shine, as they say, to David Morrissey, and people begin dying violently. But, as in the first movie, its not entirely clear who is the murder(ess). However, Catherine seems more on the edge here, even more enjoying of the suspicion cast upon her for the crimes, even as facts crop up that point the finger elsewhere, including the psychologist who is treating her and the detective who wants to see her behind bars.

As in the first Instinct, much of the killing happens off screen and none of what we do see involves Catherine. The plot is a little far fetched-as it was in the first one- and the ending will leave some of you hanging, with the possibility of the killer not being who we thought he/she was. Again, this is similar to the first one, but, for me, I thought it was clear who did the killing in that one, as well as this one.

As a strict comparison to the original, this comes in second best, but not by as much as you might be led to believe. Part of what made the original so good was that it was so different from anything that most of us had seen up until that point, and Sharon Stone bursting into the big time with that movie also helped considerably. In this one, although its clear that Morrissey is a fine actor, he doesn't have the star quality of Michael Douglass, who was really the star of the first one, though everyone (rightfully) thinks of it as Stone's movie. The changing of the setting from San Francisco to London didn't bother me at all; as far fetched as it would be that Catherine Trammell would still be running around free with all those dead bodies connected to her, it would have been even more far fetched-too much so for me-if they tried to have her still at home in San Francisco. Another city in another country works well here, and you will see a sleeker, sexier, more modern London than is usually portrayed in flicks intended primarily for American audiences.

The supporting cast is very good, particularly Thewlis as the do-whatever-it -takes cop and Charlotte Rampling as Morrissey's more experienced psychological mentor. On the negative side, the plot was a little choppy, with too much happening outside the story that we need to follow to fully appreciate the story we are seeing onscreen. Also, there is more skin and less implied than in the original, which may be hard to believe, but I think it was overdone in this case. There is a fine line between classically erotic and late night cable raunch.

On the whole, I can't see anyone who liked the first one, likes Sharon Stone, or likes psychological thrillers not finding something that they like about this movie. If you saw the original, you probably will still prefer it, but there should be room for a less appreciated but entertaining sequel, shouldn't there? 

Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, Brian Van Holt, Paris Hilton, Jared Padelecki, Jon Abrahams, Robert Ri'chard. Directed by Jaume-Collet-Serra. Horror. Synopsis: Six friends on a road trip to see a football game camp out one night in a deserted woods area where they encounter an unknown, threatening person, and our later led to the forgotten , small town of Ambrose, LA, where many of the residents seem very subdued and they are soon in the sights of maniacal killers.

Saw this on DVD recently without even realizing that was a remake of a classic 1953 film starring Vincent Price. Basically it looked interesting and I'm a sucker for almost all things horror, so I decided to give it a shot.

I'm glad I did.

Now, House of Wax is not anywhere near a great film, in my opinion, but it is a good one, provided you can suspend your disbelief just a little more than usual to enjoy a horror film. The basic premise is six college kids who get sidetracked on a trip to a football game (I know, I know, the young group of friends who get sidetracked/lost/abducted angle is way overused...but, look at it from the movie maker's point of view:its worked before and, if it ain't broke, don't fix it)  They decide, for reasons that you will have to further suspend your disbelief for, to camp overnight in a lonely wooded area before getting up and hoofing it the rest of the way to Baton Rouge for the game.

The night goes pretty much as you might expect from young kids, a little bit of drinking, some horseplay, some making out. The first strange thing is the presence of an unknown pickup truck driver who mysteriously pulls his truck up near our heroes and shines his high beam lights on them without saying or doing anything else. Rude. And a bad omen, for all fans of horror far but not, of course, for our stars. The most pugnacious of the group, Nick (Chad Michael Murray) shows his displeasure by hurling a beer bottle and knocking out one of the truck's headlights. For those of you who have not seen the movie, remember this point, its kind of key as the story goes on.

The kids awaken to find that one of their cars, mysteriously, has had its fan belt broken. The owner of the car, Wade (Jared Padelecki) insists that his friends go on to see the big game, and bring him a new fan belt on the way back. He's not leaving his car!

Fortunately, a wonderfully crude character enters the story (Damon Merriman) who tells the kids of a small town just up the road and, hey, he'd be happy to give Wade a ride. Of course, Wade foolishly accepts and he and his girlfriend (Elisha Cuthbert) accompany the crude stranger to the strange town of Ambrose, which no one seems to have heard of and, for some reason, does not appear on a the map (or the GPS)

Now, this is the time where I have to say that, all tongue in cheek criticism of Hollywood's penchant for stretching reality to set up a plot in horror films aside, House of Wax  actually does a very good job of giving more depth to its characters than most. We all know the formula for most horror films: group of young, nubile kids, at least one more guy than girl, nerdy guy gets killed first, strong cocky guy gets killed in the most hideous way, hottie/slutty girl gets killed after/during shower/nude scene, compassionate guy (who is usually the smart girl's boyfriend) gets killed last, smart girl thwarts the monster/maniac and emerges as the lone survivor. 

Wax doesn't completely deviate from the formula, but without spoiling it, there is enough difference from the tried and true that we can actually not necessarily predict the order and way our heroes meet their demise, plus there is actually more than one survivor. More importantly, the director took pains to make sure you knew, and hopefully empathized, with the characters before some of them started getting waxed. (No pun intended...well, maybe a little) We know that Chad Murray's character and Elisha Cuthbert's character are brother and sister, actually twins (a point of foreshadowing in the story) and that Chad is a little peeved at sis because he feels she is responsible for his latest arrest, and he's not too particular about her current boyfriend. In fact, neither his parents or sis would bail him out this time, that honor fell to his buddy Dalton (Jon Abrahams, funny as always but noticeably heavier than we've seen him in Boiler Room and Meet the Parents ), who just so happens to be along for the trip, too.

Now, I've probably set the record for talking about this film and not mentioning you-know-who. Listen, I'm don't have anything against Paris Hilton, she's a nice looking young lady.  I'm just not sure what all the fuss is about. Anyway, she is also one of the gang, along with her boyfriend, Blake (Robert Ri'chard) who is the fun loving, hip-hop listening rich kid of the group. Oh, and Paris is afraid to tell him that she might, just might, be pregnant.

See? I told you that there was some depth here. Anyway, when two of our heroes get to the small town ( Ambrose ), they encounter the only one in the town, Bo (Brian Van Holt), who seems, well, animated. From there, the real horror story begins as our two heroes, as well as their friends who decide to give up on the big game, turn back and meet  the evil head on.

The story is well told, even though the first few minutes drag on a little (except for the opening sequence, which is a flashback to 1974, and we see a mother and father who have two sons...one good, one not so good. Its shot so as to not see any other actors from the shoulders up. Very effective and, yes, they tie it together later)

The actors are good overall, even Hilton, who along with Abahams and Ri'chard, don't really have a whole bunch to do. Elisha Cuthbert, Chad Michael Murray, and Holt (Basic) carry the film, however, as they should, since they have 80% of the action in the whole film. I think Cuthbert is the standout, as you empathize with her and can appreciate that she catches on to the town's dirty little secret before anyone else does. Murray will have all the guys-o.k., I'm stereotyping- in the audience saying things like "Hell, yeah, that's just what I would do!" , even when it doesn't necessarily seem like the smart thing. Holt is deliciously evil, psychopathic, but in an understated way. You have got to love the matter of fact demeanor as he severs the tip of one of the star's fingers.

Fans of gore will get enough of it here, as there are several gruesome deaths and, of the only one of our stars who is not killed onscreen, we get to see the horrible, waxy aftermath. For resasons that say more about our celebrity worshipping culture than anything, Paris Hilton is probably the best known-if least talented-member of the cast and, as I said before, she does well in her limited role. The writer and director knew they were not casting Naomi Watts here. Fans will be pleased and Paris haters will probably enjoy her gruesome death onscreen. (Now, that is not a spoiler, you know how these movies work and there is no way you thought that Paris would be the surviving smart girl)

The videography is good and they did well with the whole town of wax thing, although that wasn't the big draw for me. It was the characters, they actually made me care enough to root for, or against them, and when that happens, I'm entertained.  

 Starring:Naomi Watts, Adrien Brody, Jack Black, Colin Hanks, Evan Parke, Jamie Bell, Andy Serkis. Drama/Fantasy/Remake Synopsis: A struggling movie director with an unique vision takes his cast and crew on a voyage to shoot a movie with no financial backing, instead landing on a mysterious and unknown island where they encounter all manner of wonders, particularly a 25 foot ape who captures the heart of the leading lady and is eventually brought back to New York City.

If someone asked me to name the 10 best young actors/actresses ("young" being a relative term), two names that would be in my top 10 would be Adrien Brody and Naomi Watts, no question, especially for Ms. Watts. Those two are the primary reason I got around to checking out King Kong on DVD, as the classic story (franchise really) of the big ape has never really appealed to me, and I have never gotten around to watching either of the two previous stories of Kong (With Fay Wray in 1933 or Jessica Lange in 1979...I think) 

So, it kind of pains me to say that this film didn't do much for me at all. The acting is good, but you kind of expect that with a cast like this. It's just the story...well, its a little too far out there for me, even as a fantasy, to really care about the characters or to believe the "romance" between actress Ann Darrow (Naomi Watts) and the big gorilla.

The film starts out with a pretty good setup/background of some of our main characters. We meet the struggling director (Jack Black) and struggling vaudvillean actress Ann Darrow and we can quickly appreciate their circumstances in Depression era Manhattan. Black is a director with a unique vision and a dearth of scruples who takes after learning that his financial backers are not going to fund his next project, but before they can actually fire him and take back the stock footage that he has already shot.

It seems that he has a vision for a movie to be shot in a faraway, exotic locale, a place that no one knows about (but that he incredibly has a map to) and he just needs to find his leading lady, which he does literally on the street hours before the ship sails.

While on board with this motley crew of actors as well as the actual crew, a budding romance develops between the writer who was actually tricked into coming along, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody The Jacket) and Ann Darrow. The film actually does a credible job of showing us the chemistry between these two, which makes it even harder to understand the affection that Ann Darrow will later have for this ape.

Also on board the ship, we witness a strong relationship between two of the crew members, but is never explained or developed, ending with the death of one (Evan Parke) at the hands of Kong himself, again raising a question, at least for me, of Ann Darrow's instant affection for an animal that has killed men trying to save her.

Alas, not the only question that I had in the film, which really stretched my suspension of disbelief quotient, such as: where did Jack Black get the map to the island that knows about? How did the blue people manage to survive on an island with giant apes, dinosaurs, and insects without any modern weapons such as guns? Where did the huge jugs of chloroform come from and why did the crew on the ship just happen to have them? How did the crew and actors get Kong on the little boat back to New York? How could the boat support Kong's weight? How does Jamie Bell's character manage to hit all of those huge bugs attacking Adrien Brody's character with a machine gun while his eyes are closed?

I could go on, but you get the point...a little too far fetched for me, even given that you go into a movie like this understanding its fantasy. To me, the fantasy is that, o.k., "if there were really 25 foot apes, it might happen like this..." But, I just couldn't get there with this film.

Brody and Watts do a good job, but it's not enough to save this film from mediocrity. The real standout is Jack Black, who is wonderfully sleazy in his role and his character benefits from having the best of a suspect script.

The best part of the film, of course, is the CGI and special effects. In fact, it almost seems as if the story was put together to compliment the effects, instead of the other way around.

King Kong is, by no means, a bad film, and the youngsters will no doubt appreciate it very much. But, with such a time tested franchise and with such good actors, it should have been a lot better. 

Horror/Drama. A TNT original movie. Directed by Mikael Saomon. Starring Rob Lowe, Andre Braugher, James Cromwell, Samantha Mathis, Robert Mammone, Rutger Hauer, Dan Byrd. 

Synopsis: A successful writer returns to his hometown Maine to confront his personal demons revolving around a menacing house that sits on a hill above the town. Shortly after his arrival, strange things begin to happen in the form of people disappearing. Ultimately, he and the people of Jerusalems Lot confront the horror of vampirism in their small town.

A few disclosures: Salem's Lot, by Stephen King, is one of my favorite novels, and I try to read it every couple of years. Like many fans who are in the over 30 club, I remember the original TV movie (will later be reviewed in this blog separately) vividly, and being a scared pre-teen when I saw it, it wouldn't be possible to be as scared as I was the first time, if only because I'm not a 12 year old who is scared of the dark anymore. (I'm still scared of the dark, to tell the truth, just not 12) The kid vampire floating outside the window scene in the original is one for the ages. I say this because, anytime a remake is made, and of a popular novel to boot, I think there is the temptation to not talk about the remake on its own merits, but to talk about it as a comparison to the original and/or the book.

So, when I first heard that a remake was in the works, I was very excited to see it. My reaction to hearing that Rob Lowe would be playing Ben Mears was a resounding "Huh?" Now, nothing against Mr. Lowe, he's from my generation (in fact, according to IMDB, we're almost  the same age...but, he's older..haha!!), and I know he has had success, but I wasn't into that whole Brat Pack thing back in the day, and opt now for sports, news, and movies on cable instead of network TV so I'm not that familiar with his work in The West Wing. My impression of him was that he is a celebrity, a pretty boy, and a relative lightweight as an actor. I'll talk more about  my impression and how Mr. Lowe did a little later. 

Some fans of the novel might be irked that the story in this film is set in the present day. I disagree. Some stories, no matter how timeless the theme may be, are period pieces and should stay in that period. Modern film versions of movies like Othello, in my opinion, lose a little something when set in the present day. On the other hand, movies that are remade to the present time like Scarface can work very well. I think Salem's Lot fits in the latter category. First of all, it was only set in the '70's because that was the time that King wrote it, no other reason. In this version, set aside the cell phones and references to the Internet, and we don't have a setting that is too radically different from the original.

The story is largely the same, and this version stays closer to the specifics of the book in some regards but deviates more than the original film in others. There is no question that it develops more of the novel's characters than the 70's version.

Ben Mears (Lowe Tommy Boy, The Hotel New Hampshire ) is a successful writer based in New York who returns to his hometown of Jerusalem's ('Salem's)  Lot to research a book he is going to write on the Marsden house, a home that overlooks the small town and was the scene of a gruesome murder/suicide of the owner and his wife, a crime that a young Ben Mears was witness to as a young boy entering the home on a dare.

Shortly after Ben's arrival back in Salem's Lot, two things happen that really shape the upcoming days in Salem's Lot. First, he meets Susan Norton (Samantha Mathis The American President) and, his attempt to rent the Marsden home are rebuffed when it turns out the home has been sold to a antiques dealer named Richard Straker (Donald Sutherland The Dirty Dozen, JFK) and his absentee partner, Kurt Barlow (Rutger Hauer The Hitcher, Blade Runner ). Of course, people soon start disappearing around Salem's Lot and its not long before some of the good folks in town start to suspect that the undead might just be walking among them.

As I said earlier, this movie develops more characters along the line of the novel, so it is much more of an ensemble cast than the '79 movie. Dr. Norton , an important character in the novel and the first movie, is replaced  by a younger and, shall we say, more virile Dr. Cody ( Robert Mammone). Dud Rogers (Brendan Cowell) also appears in this version, another important minor character in the book and absent from the '79 movie. 

The most obvious changes from the novel/orginal that fans of either will notice right away are the change in Matt Burke (Andre Braugher) , a much more sinister Larry Crockett (Robert Grubb),  and a much more worldly Mark Petrie (Dan Byrd The Hills Have Eyes). Also, the Kurt Barlow main vampire character is much closer to the novel than the hideous, Nosferatu like character in the '79 movie.

This film is told in the first person, with Rob Lowe doing the narrative throughout the film. This works very well, in my opinion, and Lowe is a more convincing Ben Mears than David Soul in the original. I was pleasantly surprised. Also, this version makes much more use of Father Callahan (James Cromwell The General's Daughter)  than the '79 version, and radically changes his role from the novel.

Again, unless you are one who thinks that a movie based on a popular novel needs to be wedded to every specific of the book, I beleive you will find this change in character enjoyable, as Cromwell plays a flawed, but likeable Father Callahan very well. To me, the changes in this version are, on the whole, minor, and made to make the story more in tune with 21st century front page issues (e.g. homosexuality, child abuse, racism, drug/alchohol abuse, the War in Iraq). However, none of these undercurrents takes from the story, or is overly emphasized, and the story is still wonderful.

Most of the main characters do a little better than their '79 counterparts, but I think this is mainly due to the expanded script and greater latitude in a 2004 cable  film as opposed to a 1979 network TV movie. As I said, Lowe surprisingly surpasses Soul as Ben Mears, the wonderful Samantha Mathis outdoes Bonnie Bedilia as Susan Norton, as Bedelia was saddled without a major impact in the '79 version, especially in the edited version many of us saw on TV where she just disappears from the movie with no explanation. Rutger Hauer is deliciously wicked, if not as shocking, as his '79 counterpart who had no dialogue.

The one major character who is not an upgrade is Richard Straker. No slam on Donald Sutherland, obviously an excellent actor, but his Straker is more humanly evil than James Mason's version in the '79 movie. Mason was the epitome of understated, polite, unspeakable European evil. In other words, Mason was scarier. 

Of the novel characters who got short shrift in the '79 movie, Steve Vidler's Sheriff Parkins stands out. Vidler makes the character much stronger, though probably a little too young, than what is portrayed either in the novel or the '79 film, which makes it even more striking when he makes his choice towards the end of the movie...which coincides with the end of Salem's Lot.

The special effects work, though it would not take much to outdo the '79 movie in that department. We see a lot more believable gore in comparison to '79, but its not over the top nor is it even close to what you will see in a typical modern horror flick. I can't say this version is scarier than '79, although I would bet that most people who have seen both would say the same thing, I think the primary reason for that is that most of use who have seen both are 25 years older. Hopefully, then , the list of things that will make us jump is a lot shorter, or at least different.

What this film does do is tell a much better story, with better acting all around, than the '79 movie. And you need to understand that I consider the '79 movie a classic in this wonderful subcategory (vampires) of horror movies. This is a decent horror movie that is also a good drama, based on a hall of fame novel that makes it a favorite. My only real criticism is the release of the DVD without special features. How long before they realize that we serious movie fans who want to break down every aspect of a film no longer consider special features as an "extra perk", but as a neccessity?

Oh, well, can't have everything.