Rating: 
Summary: I've seen better...
Review: This movies is pretty bad. Some parts I found interesting, but it's obvious Carpenter has lost his touch. I have seen many Vampire movies, in fact I love them, but this wasn't very well done! The script was dull, acting just as sad, and John went a little heavy on the red sauce. I give it 3 stars because I could watch this if I had nothing else, but I wouldn't recommend this to any REAL vampire movie fans.
Rating: 
Summary: Carpenter is BACK!!!
Review: Vampires is John Carpenter'sbest movie of the 90's. Itcontains all of JC's trademarks- A tough as nailshero, a great villan, a questfor a ancient artifact, aworld threatening supernaturalforce and nude babes! If you don'tlike this one, there's no hopefor you.
Rating: 
Summary: Total Disapointment
Review: I have enjoyed many of Mr.Carpenters movies and I think he use to be one of the greatest directors. ButI have lost hope in him. This is the last John Carpenter movie I will ever see. I was hoping he would redeem himself after "Escape from L.A." but I guess not. Vampires was pure crap. I think I could have written a better script to this garbage. As for Mr. Carpenter, I think its time for him to stop making movies.
Rating:
Summary: I don't even like organized religion and I was insulted.
Review: This movie is filth. It's the most insulting, horrid piece I've ever seen; I wish I could burn the negatives. James Woods is a great actor, but I will never forgive this. Details? Oh, I wish I didn't have to, but they're burnt into my brain. You have scenes of vampires being dragged out by a truck wench. That in itself is reminiscent of the scenes of dino-hunting in The Lost World. But it gets worse. Vampiric oral acts. Daniel Baldwin burning himself in the case of any injury. The worst soundtrack I've ever heard in a non-porn film. Woods beating up a priest. A final scene with Woods(as Jack Crow--an obvious Christ-figure) mounted on a cross in which Baldwin has his throat ripped out and there's a sharpshooting priest and... Oh, dear Lord, no... If you are a member of a non-war generation, watch this with some friends. It will tie you all together in memories of monstrosity and above all, bad film-making.
Rating: 
Summary: It should have finished how it started.
Review: This movie is one of the best horror movies I have ever seen...until I read the book. The movie is based on the book by John Steakley which is completely different. The movie starts off great with a team of vampire killers slaying a nest of vampires. Then one vampire kills them all except for about four people. The movie drags on from there with bad music and even worst dialogue. But it does bring a good ending and new definition to the word terror. The only real disappointment is they got James Woods to play Jack. They should have gotten someone younger and with more energy.
Rating:
Summary: Decent, Sharp Fangs, Sharper Stakes
Review: A fun, if unsophisticated movie. Loosely based on the book Vampire$, which is a very good read. Tells the story of professional vampire hunters. Violent, bloody, and dark. The bad guys are very, very bad, but not fleshed out very much as characters. James Woods makes a good tough but surly hero. Read the book first and you'll know the characters and enjoy the movie more.
Rating:
Summary: Lame
Review: The story was a string of cliches. The characters dull and cardboard flat. The photography colorful but unengaging. This movie was a total waste of time. Don't add insult to injury by wasting your money.
Rating:
Summary: way below par for talent involved. little redeeming value
Review: Went to see, looking forward to decent work by Carpenter and Woods. Sadly disappointed by lack of decent story and gratuitous violence. Not even scary. Grossly overpriced at this discount price. Save your $.
Rating:
Summary: 1 star for Valek
Review: I must admit that I was captivated by Valek, and his quest to find the Berziers Cross. The idea of a vampire surviving in the daylight wasn't bad either. However, I found the acting and the plot to be mediocre. Lets give some credit to the vampires, especially to Valek : Jack could have never survived their first encounter. How is it that he is not only able to survive, but also able to defeat the vampires? It seems to be a weak plot: 2 slayers and a priest, able to destroy vampires of such strenght. Can someone explain to me, why it took the vampires so long to get into safety? Why would Valek take refugge in a place where he would be easily killed? As for our hero Jack, I must admit I was digusted by his character and his story, from begining to end. I also never understood, why Katrina laid naked in bed, or why she was punched and pushed around.
Rating:
Summary: Read the book then watch the movie
Review: As some may know this movie is based on a book that is very well done.The movie is good but alot is left out or dropped that was in the book.Overall this is worth a few rents.
| 
