Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Don't Believe the Hype

A Disappointing Continuation

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

I only found out this movie even existed yesterday when I ran into it on the shelves of my local library, which has a quite good DVD section where one can borrow DVD's for free. Thank goodness for that, free, I mean, because I'd really be embarrassed to admit I paid actual money to watch this abomination of a movie. It is bad, really really bad. So bad in fact, I'm thinking of writing to the production company and requesting they pay me for watching it!

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.

Michael Moriarty stars as a man returning to Jerusalem,s (Salem's) lot with his son after inheriting a house from his aunt with the intentions of rekindling their father/son relationship, but its not long before they realise something is not right. I saw this and the original 1979 on VHS 20 years ago, this film had me in stitches with the bad acting and what looked like bad tomato sauce fake blood, did the film makers decided to make a vampire movie and cash in on a sequel to Salem's Lot and ruin it.if you want a movie to watch if you are bored try this, you might just end up falling asleep to it.

This film is notorious among a couple of my friends after we rented it years ago and had many laughs. Still, it's a shame, because the original Salem's Lot was so strong and the framework story for this one could have put it in the same category----if it had been handled well, but it wasn't.The dad (Michael Morarity) was a bit of a hard headed putz that couldn't see his hand in front of his face. His uninteresting, overly foul-mouthed brat son wasn't very endearing either, yet we are supposed to believe he can wrestle with an ancient Master Vampire and actually offer resistance!! A 120-lb kid should not offer ANY physical resistance whatsoever to a creature with superhuman strength!! Aggravating to put it mildly. The overall impression is that vampires are just weaklings waiting to be killed by your local dog catcher, ice cream man, schoolteacher, anybody in fact.....far from the case of the deadly Mr. Butler in the original, who was not someone you would try to fight when he was awake!!The cheeseball "Nazi Hunter" was the source of the most laughs, but not for the reasons intended. To this day, I can still do a spot-on impression of some of his dumbest lines lol....I was initially excited to watch this movie for the first time and dug the cool small town atmosphere and obvious potential for creepiness, but it wasn't realized. I still enjoyed it somewhat (I enjoy many "bad" movies), but I hope one day someone will come along and do this the right way. That will probably never happen until it is sparked by a highly successful remake of the original first.EDIT: I revised my rating from 3 to 5 after thinking about how I feel about watching this, rather than what a movie critic that has to answer to his bosses would say. Truth be told, it would merit a 2 or 3 in those terms, but my ratings here are heavily biased by how much I am entertained by the film, good or bad.