Vampires

Rating:
Summary: Great performances, atmosphere overcome an uneven script.
Review: Vampires is one of my all time favorite movies, but to be fair, I could not give it five stars. However, I think anyone who likes horror, vampire movies or spaghetti Westerns MUST see this film at least once.

Vampires has almost everything it needs to be a truly great horror flick -- and it is good enough that I've been obsessing over owning the video ever since it left the theaters. It has great performances -- James Woods, of course, can always make me cringe, laugh or melt with startling ease, and it looks like he had a lot of fun with his role as obsessed vampire slayer Jack Crow. Supporting cast was solid, direction was crisp and snappy, the camera work was wonderful, costuming and props were cool (love the slayers' tools and Valek's coat!), and Carpenter's score suits what's going on onscreen perfectly.

Ironically, two of the best performances in the flick -- Thomas Ian Griffith as Valek, a genuinely scary and sensual vampire badguy, and Sheryl Lee as Katrina, a nascent vampire being used by the slayers to track Valek down -- had the least to work with where the script is concerned. Neither were given enough lines, but managed to do more with expression, tone and body language to make their characters believable than many people could have done with ten times that amount of dialog and screen time. Griffith especially was given short shrift in this department, but still manages to terrify and enthrall.

Vampires is also daring. Jack Crow (many of whose lines Woods improvised, to great effect) is absolutely uncompromising -- tough, flawed, mean, hot-tempered, and nearly as vicious as his quarry. He's the kind of person who will literally do whatever it takes to get the job done, and that's hard to look at at times. And no, he's not a nice guy. He's not PC (thank GOD!), which apparently irritated a lot of movie critics when Vampires came out. In fact, Jack Crow is a real bastard. He's also the only kind of person who would actually have the guts, and the bloodthirst, and the near suicidal singlemindedness, to actually go and hunt vampires. He's not here to charm us or even spare our feelings; he's here to save our butts. He's unnervingly fun to watch.

So, too, is his archnemesis, Jan Valek, who is right up there among my top ten Favorite Movie Badguys. Valek grabs the insipid, "vampires as lonely, romantic figures bemoaning their lost humanity and constantly falling in love with mortals they can never be with" image that has infected the vampire mythos of late and rips the living $^%$%^$@# out of it. He's a cold, scheming, vicious, arrogant, merciless, occasionally sadistic killer to whom humans are either tools, or food. He doesn't give interviews. He doesn't romance women who bear a resemblance to his lost love. He doesn't go clubbing or get embroiled in human politics or keep human 'pets'/servants. He is every inch the intelligent, cunning predator, completely alienated from human kind, and is undeniably a threat. He's also disturbingly alluring, which in a strange way just makes him even more frightening. And, like Crow, he doesn't do things halfway. Piss him off, he'll seduce your woman, tear all your friends apart and chase you down no matter how fast you run or how far you go. The movie illustrates this with a gory directness which is both disturbing and refreshing.

Ok, so that's what Vampires has going for it. Here's what it is lacking: real studio backing and funding. I don't know who dropped the ball on this one, but Vampires definitely needed a bigger budget. It needed to be about half an hour longer for character development's sake, the effects needed cleaning up in a few places, and the scriptwriter needed to be taken to a deserted area and had a gun held to his head til he revised out the cornier lines ("Unstoppable unless we stop him"?!? "I'll snap your neck like a twig"?!? Come ON!) and put in about three or four more revisions to even out the general story pacing, fix some of the dialog and GIVE KAT AND VALEK MORE LINES AND SCREEN TIME! :).

Sony/Largo/whoever also screwed up where promotion is concerned. There was almost NO advertising of Vampires once the movie actually came out, even though it was #1 nationwide its first week in theaters. The planned second soundtrack (with Marilyn Manson, etc) was to my knowledge never released, nor was there a 'book of the film', a 'making of' or any posters, etc. created besides the movie poster version you see on the front of the video box. Hello?!? Vampires made it to #1 for that week pretty much on its own merits. With some real support from its studio and distributor it could have done a lot better and also been a better movie.

Just my $0.02.

Rating:
Summary: Think of this one as the Wild Bunch going after Dracula
Review: "John Carpenter's Vampires" is something of a misnomer because most of the twists in this action charged tale of the bloodsucking undead have to do with the novel by John Steakley and the script by Don Jakoby. In the world of Carpenter's film there are teams of mercenary vampire hunters, sanctioned by the Vatican, searching the earth for nests of vamps and using their vast array of weapons and equipment to drag their prey out into the sun where the explode into flames. There are also Master Vampires who travel around with their packs. Leading the stalwart Vampire Hunters is James Woods as Jack Crow, in one of the most delicious over-the-top performances in Woods' celebrated career. Carpenter's commentary tells time and time again of how Woods adlibbed lines throughout the film.

The basic story is that after disposing of a nest they find in New Mexico, Crow's team is wiped out by Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith), a master vampire. But this time is more than personal, because Valek is after a sacred black cross that will allow vampires to walk in the sunlight. This would not be a good thing. So Jack is hot on the trail aided and abetted by Tony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin), the only other surviving member of his team, Katrina (Sheryl Lee), a hooker who is about to turn into a vampire, and Father Adam Guiteau (Tim Guinee), the rookie priest assigned to provide support. Be forewarned: Jack Crow spouts more profanity (in both the conventional and literal meaning) than have been heard in every other vampire movie filmed in the entire history of the world. "Vampires" is indeed a different kind of vampire movie, made with Carpenter's stylistic flair and more than a bit of Sam Peckinpah-type violence. A worthy addition to the video library of late night vamp-fests.

Rating:
Summary: Did Michael Myers kill Carpenter?
Review: Look at the elements in this movie. James Woods, vampires, evil priests, and John Carpenter. what could go wrong? answer, lots.

Because, while Woods is on form, and vampires and evil priests alike are present and correct, Carpenter seems devoid of all the directorial genius we know he has here.

The first half of the movie is pretty good, with some nice set pieces that are guaranteed to give you high expectations for the rest of the movie.

stake that through the heart right this second. after the action is over, the movie is nothing more than a bunch of poorly handled cliches and failed attempts at new ideas. even when the action does pick up again, it is way too late to compensate for the huge sagging middle third that comes before it. even the sequel manages to keep the action coming. if you see this next to a copy of Assault on Precinct 13, get that and leave this one in the dark corners

Rating:
Summary: Might have worked with Kurt Russel in the lead...
Review: I'm not big on Vampire movies but I always enjoy a John Carpenter flick. Or so I thought. If I hadn't known this was Carpenter I would have never guessed it by watching it. Usually you can identify one of his films immediately by the cinematography alone. No one fills a widescreen picture frame like Carpenter. I don't think I saw one innovative shot in this whole movie. The music sounded like an tired replay fron the They Live soundtrack, where it worked much better. I didn't think James Woods brought anything to his part and he cannot carry a movie by himself. Baldwin looks like he was too busy eating double-cheeseburgers to care about his supporting role. The burning vampires were cool I guess. I wonder if Carpenter thought to solicit Kurt Russell for the lead in this. Mighta worked better. The thing that bothered me the most was the lack of nice widescreen shots that signature ALL of John Carpenters other films. Very disappointing and not worth owning. Get In the Mouth of Madness for a real Carpenter film....

Rating:
Summary: "John Carpenter's Vampires"
Review: Vampires (R)
James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, Tim Guinee.
Directed by: John Carpenter.
Synopsis: A famous vampire slayer is forced to hunt down the first vampire. With his team slaughtered, and time running out. He must stop this vampire before a black cross allows the vampire to walk in the daylight.
Special Features: Feature Length Commentary, Trailer.
Review: This film opened with the highest Halloween opening ever, and sold like nobodies business on home video. Master slayer Jack Crow's entire team except sidekick Daniel Baldwin are slaughtered by the original vampire caused by a reverse exorcism by the catholic church that was never finished. This master vampire searches for the black cross to finish the ceremony that would then enable him to walk in the daylight. Crow and sidekick use a bitten hooker to hunt down the vampire due to her psychic link to him. This bloody vampire film is well written, stylish, and just the ticket for horror fans. I jumped out of my skin at the split in half killing. The acting is on James Woods scowling owns the picture he is one of the greatest tough guys ever in this film, Daniel Baldwin is excellent as the no bull sidekick with a soft spot, Sheryl Lee is on as the turning hooker, Tim Guinee as the reluctant priest, Thomas Ian Griffith as the Valic, and Maximillian Schell as the bishop, they are all in top form. Carpenter's direction is slick and he has an eye for spooky sights. This film gets better every time I watch it. As for the DVD? Well the commentary is cool, but couldn't they have added a little more to it? Disappointing, but the film makes it worthwhile. Where's the special edition?

Rating:
Summary: cool
Review: this movie was good because i love vampire movies and daniel bladwin looked so good. i really liked this i hope they make another one contuning the first one or remke it

Rating:
Summary: Keeps you watching
Review: First saw a piece of this movie when I was at a friend's, never was able to finish it until I got it off of Amazon.com.

First, the effects are great, at least for its time period. Blood, gore, toplessness. . . yes, it's all there. However, in a movie with vampires, the plot is pretty predicatable. Big hero chases master vampire, friend becomes enemy, hero wins.

The reason it gets four stars, however, is because of its effects, the actors, the script, (Yes, the script was probably one of the better parts to the movie.), and its unique display of exactly how the vampire came to be.

Over all, it's a decent movie. Worth watching once or twice, but in the long run, not worth owning for $15 or more.

Rating:
Summary: GRADE A B-MOVIE
Review: Legendary horrormeister John Carpenter's VAMPIRES is a slick, sexy, and gory bloodsucker opus that proves a talented storyteller can still do a lot with the undead. No matter how many vampire movies there are, and no matter how many of them really stink, there's always room for one more good one. And this is a good one. James Woods is the scenery-chewing boss of a gang of Vatican-endorsed vampire killers that finally encounters one unkillable master vampire called Valek. In fact, Valek is the first of all vampires, and was actually a priest in his mortal life. Now, he seeks a legendary black cross that can allegedly give him the power to overcome the undead's greatest bane--sunlight. Heavy metal goth style vampires are all the rage, but Valek (Thomas In Griffith) makes the teen fad work, and may be the most frightening screen vampire since Max Schreck in NOSFERATU. Daniel Baldwin is Woods's trusty (?) sidekick, and Tim Guinee gives a convincing turn as a bookish priest who slowly turns into an efficient vampire slayer in his own right. Sheryl Lee throws in some major sex appeal as an unlucky prostitute who gets bitten by Valek and becomes the vampire hunters' link to their arch foe's plans. Unpretentious and thrilling, JOHN CARPENTER'S vampires is light but satisfying fare, and certainly not the worst way to waste a lazy afternoon.

Rating:
Summary: Watch Fright Night (1985) instead!
Review: A group of nine men (James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Mark Boone Junior, Cary Hiroyukitagawa, Tommy Rosales, Henry Kingi, David Rowden, Clarke Coleman, Gregory Sierra) are vampire hunters. Starts like any other film. Abandeon-looking house. Vampires inside. Shooting spree. Drag them outside and burn them. Gregory Sierra (Barney Miller tv series) plays a priest who offers a blessing before the hunt and after they burn the vampires. They think all the vampires in New Mexico are accounted for except for the Master (Thomas Ian Griffith). The Master finds them, kills everyone except for James Woods, Daniel Baldwin and a freshly-bitten Sheryl Lee who are now on the run. Maximillian Schell plays a Cardinal. Filmed in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Rating:
Summary: The Kind Of Vampires We Though Were Lost
Review: This movie has vampire fans cut down the middle, but I think this movie will have to stand the test of time before people look back on it and say, "Man, that was actually pretty good." Forget what negative criticism you've heard about this, and take a good look at it. Vampire films have really taken a nosedive in recent years, and I'm not quite sure why. Maybe they try to be too hip with the techno era(Queen Of The Damned, Blade), or too romantic(Interview With The Vampire, Bram Stoker's Dracula) or just too artsy(Nadja, The Addiction). Maybe my head's just too far up you-know-where, but I always grew up with the notion that vampires were nasty evil, brutal mothers-MONSTERS! Monsters like zombies or giant mutant ants, but with more intelligence. I grew up with vampires that actually were badass and scary like Jerry from Fright Night or the gang from Near Dark. Well, John Carpenter gave us the this kind of Vampire film that's been missing for quite some time. It doesn't pretend to be some dark romantic epic, it's a B film. It's tough-as-nails vampire hunters after tough-as-nails vampires. It's got the trademark John Carpenter macheezmo we all love. It goes back to the roots of 80s vampire flicks by passing on the CGI and going for good ol' prosthetics, courtesy of the good guys at KNB FX. There are some good performances here; I love Carpenter for the fact that he didn't choose actors who are flavor of the month, but relied on actors that he felt were the best for the job. The standout here being Thomas Ian Griffith as Valek-The Master Vampire. Griffith(still unappreciated. Could you imagine VanDamme playing Valek?) is still trying to break away from the action flick typecast to do some different roles, and he does a great job. He's one of the best vampires to come across the silver screen in a long time. He's not the wussy, blonde, pretty boy Lestat. He's got the viciousness of a From Dusk Till Dawn vampire, but just enough of the classic goth tinge to satify the Anne Rice fans. Basically, the right mix of ingredients to make the kind of vampire that's actually scary. Like Ghosts Of Mars, this is the kind of film that would have been received better had it come out in the 80s. We've become too accustomed to recent vampire movies that it's easy to blow this off as corny coz it doesn't fit into one of the three vampire movie categories that are so hot right now. Enjoy this for what it is-and it is good.