User reviews

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.

In Larry Cohen's A Return to Salem's Lot, star Michael Moriarty plays the same kind of insufferable wise-cracking jerk as he did in Cohen's Q: The Winged Serpent; not only is the film's 'hero' thoroughly unlikeable, but so is his foul-mouthed rebellious teenage son Jeremy, played by Ricky Addison Reed. With these two on screen for the majority of the film, I found this 'sequel in name only' extremely irritating; my annoyance was compounded by a terrible script and the general tone of the film, which does away with the spine-chilling terror of Tobe Hooper's excellent mini-series of '79, and replaces it with scare-free drama and misplaced humour.

Moriarty plays anthropologist Joe Weber, a man so devoid of morals that, in the film's opening scene, he is happy to film the ritualistic murder of a native without trying to intervene. Joe is called back to civilisation to help deal with his wayward son, as if he would be of any use to the boy. The pair travel to Salem's Lot, where Joe has inherited a ramshackle property, but discover that the town is inhabited by vampires, led by Judge Axel (Andrew Duggan). Unlike the creatures of pure evil in Hooper's original, these bloodsuckers try to keep a low profile by feeding on cows, only occasionally taking human victims, and are keen to strike a bargain with Joe: they will spare his son if he writes a 'vampire bible' chronicling their kind. However, when Jeremy tells his father that he wants to integrate into the vampire society, Joe teams up with elderly Nazi-hunter/vampire slayer Dr. Van Meer (Samuel Fuller) to try and destroy the undead.

Forget blood-curdling scares; forget atmosphere; forget the intense horror of Mr. Barlow or the nightmare-inducing sight of Danny Glick floating outside a bedroom window: Cohen's film has nothing of the sort, instead offering viewers such awful, fright-free scenes as a bunch of giggling children attacking a pair of drunken bums, Joe having sex with a vampire blonde (he knows she's dead, but she's hot, so what the heck!), Jeremy having his first kiss with a vampire schoolgirl (the debut of Tara Reid), and Joe painting his porch (amongst other D. I. Y. Jobs). Thankfully, once Joe teams up with Van Meer, the film becomes a bit more lively and entertaining, as the pair go from house to house armed with stakes to pierce the hearts of the vampires. It's cheesy, trashy, and an insult to Hooper's classic, but at least it's more fun than watching kids in a schoolhouse learning about their vampire history.

For the cheap and cheerful special make-up effects and gore, and not one but two opportunities to see Katja Crosby topless, I rate A Return to Salem's Lot 3/10.

I sat down to watch the 1987 "A Return to Salem's Lot" after having just revisited the 1979 "Salem's Lot". And with the movie sporting a cover similar to the original 1979 movie, I assumed that there was a chance that this sequel might actually be an okay movie.

Truth be told, 2021 was actually the first time for me to sit down and watch "A Return to Salem's Lot". And it will also be my last time. Wow. Just wow. "A Return to Salem's Lot" was bad, really, really bad. I mean it wasn't even on the same page as the 1979 predecessor. Nay, "A Return to Salem's Lot" was just something that felt like a spoof.

It was painful and gut wrenching to sit through "A Return to Salem's Lot" and watch the ridiculous storyline unfold on the screen. God only knows what went through the minds of Larry Cohen and James Dixon when they were writing the script for this atrocity of a movie.

The special effects in the movie were poor, and actually even worse off than the special effects in the predecessor that was made 8 years before. So that is a bad testiment to how bad "A Return to Salem's Lot" really is.

Then there was the acting, or what was supposed to resemble acting. There was a shared concensus of putting on poor acting performances among the actors and actresses, or so one would think by looking at the performances put on throughout the course of the movie.

I found "A Return to Salem's Lot" to so bad that it felt like a slap to the face with a cold, dead fish. Don't waste your time on this 1987 sequel, because it is horrible.

My rating of director Larry Cohen's "A Return to Salem's Lot" lands on a mere three out of ten stars.

But not as bad as others might have you believe either. Michael Moriarity returns from South America to get his mal-adjusted son and brings him to a house he inherited in Maine in the cozy little town of Salem's Lot. This film has no bearing on the original source, nor is it a similair film in any way. Larry Cohen directs and creates his vision. He shows us a town where vampirism is an accepted and seemingly normal lifestyle. The story has plenty of flaws, and sure does ask you to do a lot of suspending belief, but it has at its core a pretty interesting story of a father and a son bonding amidst their own weaknesses and a horde of vampires. Moriarity is good and some of the character actors are in fine form, especially Samuel Fuller barking out one-liners and Andrew Duggan(his last film) as the head vampire with New England grace and charm. Some exceptionally weak areas are special effects. The evil vampire face is absurd-looking, like a mask from a shop! All in all, I enjoyed this very flawed film for its heart.

This movie had a good idea, that is, how a colony of vampires might live, what they do to survive, etc. However, it just didn't work out right. The pacing and performances were not up to snuff, and any movie in which you have characters standing in a barn full of Holstein cattle, and explaining that "Jersey cows make richer milk", obviously had problems in the design phase.

Just a bad film...

As much as I loved the original Salem's Lot is how much I loathe A Return to Salem's Lot.

Why was this even made? It's blatantly a cash grab, with no respect for what it came from. The acting, the special effects and the storyline are atrocious. Even the cover art is misleading, making the viewer believe a character is in this movie and isn't!

This dreck is an insult to fans of the original, to the subject matter, to viewers in general, and to Stephen King.

If I could give this waste of celluloid zero stars, that would still be too many.

If you are a fan of the horror and cult genre, especially of original screenplays and imaginative plots, you can't but have tremendous respect for Larry Cohen. The creative mastermind had an extremely busy career, during which he wrote more than eighty scenarios and also directed a good twenty films between the early 70s and the late 80s. Moreover, and what I personally appreciate most about Cohen, there is a huge diversity in his films. From pioneer blaxploitation cult like "Black Caesar", over micro-budgeted horror classic "It's Alive", towards the absurdly playful "Q - Winged Serpent" or "The Stuff"; - each of these is unique and 100% original. As a matter of course, not all of Cohen's scripts and/or films can be equally flawless. Notably the ones where he experimented with comedy and homage, like "Full Moon High" and this "A Return to Salem's Lot", are rather large disappointments.

In fact, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is more than a disappointment. It's a huge misfire. I honestly can't fathom what Cohen tried to accomplish with this redundant, in-name-only sequel to Tobe Hooper's successful TV mini-series based on the Stephen King novel. Here, an estranged father and son land in the little Maine town of Jerusalem's Lot and it's apparently already inhabited by vampires since the time of the Pilgrims. This wouldn't be a Larry Cohen flick if it didn't contain at least a handful of worthwhile elements. There are some nifty plot elements (for instance, the vampires use humanoid "slaves" to run the town during daylight), the gore is fairly outrageous and it's great fun to see the controversial director Samuel Fuller ("White Dog") as a bonkers vampire hunter. Still, throughout most of the running time, "A Return to Salem's Lot" is dull and utterly pointless. Michael Moriarty is once more incredibly irritating. Sometimes I really dig him, sometimes I can't stand him. In this film, it's the latter.

PS: I also hate misleading film posters. The poster for this film leads you to believe that Reggie Nalder's notorious character from the original, Kurt Barlow, also still appears in the sequel, which obviously isn't true. And yet, in spite of all this, you are still a favorite of mine, Larry Cohen!

This is just so bad. The acting is absolutely appalling. The entire cast sound as if they're reading unfamiliar dialogue from an idiot board. Ricky Addison Reed doesn't appear to have done any other film or TV work before or since, & it's not at all surprising. In fact, a quick check through the database shows that quite a few cast members have only ever appeared in other schlock horror movies by Larry Cohen. The monster special effects are laughable. Just check out the ridiculous "true face" of the head vampire, it's on a par with those cheap & cheesy 50's horror/sci-fi B-Features. The script is an insult to Stephen King. Another reviewer stated that this movie isn't as bad as others have made it out to be. I disagree. It is really, really that bad.

A smart mouth kid and his absent a-hole father reunite and head to Salem's lot to reconnect, only to find that the entire town is filled with and controlled by vampires.

And oh dear lord this movie is bad.

The main protagonist is an anthropologist who likes. To.......talk. like this.....and........take. random. Pauses..................while talking.

Whereas his son smokes cigarettes, uses profanity and wears suspenders and pretty much tries to mimic Gordon Gecko except he's like 12 years old. And it's painful to watch.

Once in Salems' lot they are introduced to the local Vampires, by way of a young girl who shrieks and honks her way through her lines and thankfully gets her blood drained.

The father's outrage and horror at witnessing this lasts oh about 0.2456 seconds before he jumps into bed with a vampire girl he had a crush on when he was younger and subsequently knocks her up. Because dead girls can get pregnant apparently. And eat garlic and have reflections.

It seems the vampires want him to write a history / bible of their way of life – mainly living off the blood of cows and on special occasions feasting on humans. And his son decides to also become a vampire. But they meet this old man who wants to help them fight against the...........

Then I zoned out for about half an hour and just didn't have it in me to rewind and re-watch what I missed. I really don't think it was anything remotely resembling intelligent story telling so I'm okay with that.

In the end, Bad acting, cheapo effects, shonky music and a really stupid story are pretty much all that can be summed up from this movie.

And Tara Reid is in this. She must be so proud.

I first saw this in the early 90s on a vhs. Revisited it recently aft reading Coventry's review. While fans of the classic Salem's Lot (including myself) is disappointed with this unrelated sequel, Larry Cohen's fans may enjoy it but the rubber mask is way too cheap man. The film lacks the spookiness n eeriness. The atmosphere is nada. It is more comedic, specially the rubber mask. We have a Nazi killer played by Samuel Fuller, who takes asylum in a church n carry holy water. He even manages to be hale n hearty after getting trapped in a bear trap.

Absolutly has nothing to do with the tv mini-series Salem's Lot (1979). Very low-budget type film. This does not have the same characters nor the same actors as in the original film and does not have the main vampire killer as in the original film we all are a fan of. This film is just a total rip-off by name of title of the original film instead. Not worth the bother and definatly not for children to see. My rating is an awful "1". What a waste of good talent for Evelyn Keyes (Gone With The Wind) and June Havoc. Only worth a look if you would like to see them act again. But they are goonies in this one. Why their was not legal nogotiations concerning the use of title ("Salem's Lot") and the picture of the main Vampire Killer from the original film on the video package is beyond me.

A Return to Salem's Lot (1987) is a fun film by the legendary B-Movie director Larry Cohen. The film is about a former resident of Jerusalem's Lot Joe (Cohen regular Michael Morarity) who comes back to town with his son. Whilst in town they learn about it's horrible secret. The town is run and populated by the living dead! The mayor takes a liking to him chooses Joe to chronicle the struggles and the history of the people of 'Salem's Lot. In some ways the film uses parts of the book that the mini-series failed to utilize. While Joe and his son are in town, an elderly gentleman (Samuel Fuller) is in town asking question about an "old friend" who might be around. Seeing the old director tool around in an V.W. bug is quite the sight. Like all of Mr. Cohen's films, it's filled with his usual quirky dialog and interesting direction. Panned by some and hated by most this film has been sadly neglected. Many people fail to realize that this is a movie and it's not suppose to be taken seriously folks! Please remember that the next time you go to the theater.

Recommended!

Return To Salem's Lot fits into a select category of films I like to label ONE A.M. HBO Specials. These were the films HBO showed to death between 11pm and 6am during the mid-to-late 80s, when there weren't 500 other movie channels to choose from. HBO never showed Casablanca or other TCM-type classics, so their stable was somewhat limited. Some were cheap teen-sex comedies (Summer Job, Bikini Car Wash Company), while others were cheapie underground horror flicks (Clownhouse, Student Bodies, Night of the Creeps). RTSL falls into the latter category. If you watch this film the way it was likely intended to be seen (as a campy drive-in special, worth viewing at 2am simply because it beats watching Sha-Na-Na), then it can be quite entertaining in its way. Many of these 1am cheesefests also featured unknown up-and-coming stars (Clownhouse had Sam Rockwell, RTSL has Tara Reid), as well as established actors at the tail-ends of their careers (Andrew Duggan is downright wonderful in RTSL).

Granted, not every horror film is The Shining. But movies like RTSL definitely have their place.

"A Return to Salem's Lot" sequel to classic 70's TV movie. Where to begin with A Return to Salem's Lot, no production values, scenes swap between day light and night time through atrocious editing, the acting is truly, truly awful, with out exception. Although it is supposed to be night time in many scenes, it is clearly daylight. The story, well, there really is none that makes any sense It makes Plan 9 From Outer Space look Oscar worthy. I can only imagine this is currently sitting at 4.4 stars as it is in the, "So bad it's good" category.

....that I had to force myself to see it through to the end.... how bad? Well the kid who played the exceedingly foul-mouthed boy has NO other acting credits to his name on this movie database! That should say something...to think that Michael Moriarty, an actor with many fine films to his credit, would appear in a piece of crap like this... I first saw it last year after renting it at a video store, because the original Salem's Lot is a pretty good film, but this movie has nothing to do with the original....it looked like they shot it about 10 minutes after the writer wrote it, and they had one shot only...if you forgot your lines, just adlib something...the plot was preposterous....the only attribute it made to vampire movies at all was the concept of the "drones" who could function during the day as normal people and guard the real vampires.

Really I must say, that of "major" studio movies, this one truly has a shot at worst of all time, as they had real actors, a real budget, location, scenery and etc....and it is still horrible. So you can't judge it against awful movies that were shot for video only with a $100,000 budget....No, this one really is unbelievably bad considering its backing and the name it had to trade on..... I gave it a "2" but I think I was charitable. Because of this movie, there will never be a "Salem's Lot 3" and that's too bad.

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!

The original "Salem's Lot" is being copied now by at least three franchises on Netflix. The locations are different and the monsters have better special effects, but none of the capture the way the original baked mounting dread into a nightly miniseries. Think I'm wrong? Ask any GIF generator for "boy scratching at window."

This movie is a long way from Salem's Lot. It was filmed in leafy, picturesque Vermont instead of California. Michael Moriarty, who was suffering from end stage alcoholism when it was made, lurches and jeers through the movie looking more amused that afraid. Ricky Addison Reed, who plays his son, is dresses in the same outfit Richard Gere wore in "American Gigolo", which heightens the "ick" factor when one of the child vampires wants to "marry" him. Dozens of actors from 1950s television westerns make up the cast of vampire villagers

It's a terrible horror movie. It's an okay unintentional comedy for a nostalgic night of back 80s hair and fashion, and a good reason to remember not to become a drunk.

There's an interesting story buried under the awful execution. Many interesting ideas and threads that warrant further exploration. It's a true shame this is what the result was.

Father and son take a trip to Salem's Lot, Maine where they discover that the locals are all vampires - who want the two travelers to write a bible for them.

This disappointing theatrical sequel to the excellent 1979 mini-series Salem's Lot has pretty much nothing to do with the original or the novel that it was based on. This film is shamefully flat on scares and the vampires aren't even remotely frightening. For the most part we just get old people running around with plastic fangs in their mouths. Story-wise we get little suspense to sustain the audience.

Yet despite these obvious flaws our leading stars do OK performances and there's a fine music score.

Even still, this doesn't save this sequel from being poor.

* 1/2 out of ****

Joe Weber an anthropologist returns from South America to be with his son Jeremy and they travel to a small, quiet New England town, know as Salem's Lot, where he grew up as a child and that he has inherited a house, which he plans to fix up and live. But soon he discovers the town's horrific secret, it's populated by vampires who live a normal life and the town's judge Axel, wants Joe to write a bible for their kind.

Drum roll please… shock, horror! What do you know? I liked it, quite a bit. Okay, okay it doesn't come close to Hooper's superior 'Salem's Lot', but I found this cheap looking quickie to be hugely enjoyable and I liked that it was ridiculously quirky. Cohen's touch is evident here with the comedic black humour that underlined the story, which translated into plenty of his films that featured Michael Moriarity. Those two just seem to click when they come together. Cohan's got his own sort of style that distinguishes his films from the rest of the genre and that's why he's a cult b-grade filmmaker. For lot of people I can see why it's a big disappointment and why it was put down, but this is really only a sequel by name, as there weren't any real connections from what I grasp between the two films. If you think you are going to get something in the same vein as the classier Hooper film, you'll be sorely mistaken. It's just unfavourable to compare it to "Salem's lot", as it hasn't got a real chance. They should have had a different movie poster that didn't feature Barlow (from the first film), because he is nowhere to be seen, I guess that was one the other disappointments for people. But that's just advertisement for ya.

From watching the 'Island of the Alive: It's Alive 3' (1987) commentary not too long ago, which was shot-back-to-back with 'Salem's Lot'. Cohen originally went to Warner Brothers in the interest of getting the rights for 'House of Wax', but instead they suggested that they would back him for a 'Salem's Lot' and 'It's Alive' sequel. Where Larco production took control and many of the same cast and crew were involved in both products. Both films actually shared the same intro, with its multi-coloured lava effect. Is that saying something about the budget, or did Cohen just liked it and wanted to reuse it again? These double features were intended to be release on Warner Brother video, but they got a small cinema release. Just a bit of trivia for you.

The production is pretty rough, which goes for disjointed editing and the shabby makeup and tacky effects. They might not be up to scratch, but in all, those certain aspects don't destroy the fun and heart of this flick. But one thing did stand out and that it was a well-shot picture. Daniel Pearl's (Texas Chainsaw Massacre) camera work ups the ante and a touch of professionalism. Sadly the score didn't have that approach, it was at times just a bit too much. Cohen might have executed some of the action scenes sluggishly, but that didn't dampen the reasonable thrills that flowed with some nice bloody moments and grubby make-up effects. Slow to get going, but when it kicks in, everything picks up with a sudden burst. What's a Cohen film without the trademark offbeat dialog and campy performances. The script was light on material, but the biting wit and maniac language shined through. The outrageous humour seems to be there to counter-punch the corny horror side of things. The flawed plot has some virtually impossible actions taken or done. But my attention was held throughout and I just went with things. I thought it had some incredibly intriguing ideas in the mix and bizarre aspects that pull you in. I was even thinking of 'The Howling', which the same idea is covered in this film. At least it wasn't a retread. Fine performances are heralded from the cast. Moriarity's versatility shows, and there's fun to be had when he's on screen. Also Samuel Fueller hams it up as a grisly old Nazi hunter and Andrew Duggan plays the Judge Axel with a touch of class and hidden menace. Ricky Addison Reed was painful as a foul mouth brat, Jeremy Weber. There's a notable performance from a very young Tara Reid too. What we get here is a dreary atmosphere that adds a nice pinch of satiric macabre, which kept me in a trance.

Addictively off the wall horror from Cohen, which might be too much for those who aren't into very cheap, campy b-grade horror.

This movie stinks. It is difficult to convey just how bad it is. A good place to start is the idiotic dialogue. The guy asks his 12-year old son, "Did you get laid last night?". Then, as he watches the painful transformation of his son into a vampire, the father calmly asks, "Would you like an aspirin?". Then there is the fact that it has nothing to do with the first movie, or the book. Then there is the fact that it is so damn boring. How many times do we have to see the guy try to escape from the vampires? Of course, the plot really makes no sense either. One has to wonder what the editors actually took OUT of the movie. If they edited all the bad parts out, the movie would only be about 45 seconds long. I was unable to even laugh at it, it was just too stupid. Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie at all costs.

I was looking for this movie for a long time simply for one reason just because TARA REID plays here at the age of 12.When i found this movie by chance i was stuck by the great cult atmosphere.Since then i have seen this movie some times again and i have enjoyed it as much as i first saw it.Larry Cohen at his best performance behind the camera,great special effects and vampires,dialogues with meaning plus an occult atmosphere,and the spooky surroundings of a Vermont village which goes perfect with vampires.Great scenes and performance by Michael Moriarty.Enough gory scenes,and all the elements you like at vampires.Defy all others and try to see this movie,get it wherever you find it.Just a must!

A divorced dad and son attempt to build on their newly resurrected relationship by heading back to pop's hometown named Salem in up-state Maine.When he gets there,he finds that all the townspeople have turned into 300-year-old vampires."A Return to Salem's Lot" by Larry Cohen is not as bad as it's reputed to be.In fact I used to watch it pretty often when I was a kid.Of course it's not as scary or suspenseful as Tobe Hooper's "Salem's Lot",but it still manages to entertain if you are in the right mood.The acting is terrible as is the make-up of the vampires,but there is enough amusing moments to make the viewer smile.Samuel Fuller is quite memorable as a Vampire slayer.Overall,"A Return to Salem's Lot" is a quirky,occasionally uneven horror film that is worth a look for fans of Larry Cohen's unusual horror movies.7 out of 10 and that's being kind.

The whole thing seemed to be constantly on one median level, with very few shocks. It never really yanks you into the story, and the music is extremely loud and dirge-like, making you feel like you're watching a very tepid documentary made without much thought. An extremely peculiar, rather uninteresting film, a considerable step down from the first film (which wasn't terrific, but was at least exciting!)

I think they should have got Tobe Hooper in again - perhaps he was busy. It's very similar in feel to Halloween 4, which was a complete waste of time - there's a feeling that nobody knew what they were doing during the whole creation process, particularly the music composers, who were obviously filling time until they were discovered by Philip Glass.