Vampires

Rating:
Summary: John Carpenter did a good job.
Review: I like most vampire movies and I like James Woods, so why would'nt I like this movie. It is a great "Saturday Matinee" type film, but it has plenty of gory special effects to keep me interested.

Rating:
Summary: Good, Gory Fun!
Review: I like James Woods and I like Vampire movies and this film is very good. Lots of blood and gore fill this tale about a mercenary hired by the Vatican to eradicate vampires. Things go wrong, of course, when the vampire hunter gets set up to become a snack for a group of particularly vicious blood-suckers. Action-packed and entertaining all the way through.

Rating:
Summary: John Carpenter strikes again!
Review: This film was the best vampire movie I ever saw in my whole life.I hate the scene at that party when the priest gets killed in front of your eyes.The master vampire makes Dracula look [bad].This movie really scared me.That Hooker girl,dame she is hot but I better not tell you she becomes UNDEAD!Jack(James Woods)who is the leader of a club who kills vampires.I am telling you once you have seen JOHN CARPENTER's VAMPIRES you'll never forget it.Even if you are undead.It is just a movie right?

Ages 13 and up can see this do to violence and bloody battles,language,adult content,and nudity.

Rating:
Summary: Carpenter's vampiric opus!!
Review: One of 1998's best films was this horror pic that sent new vampires to the world of blood-lishes fans. While keeping in tradition in some respects to the vampires of such classics as Dracula and Horror of Dracula, John Carpenter splices some new vampire chemicals to explode into pure addrenilanne excitement and again proves that John Carpenter is one of the great cinematic horror fiends. In his path of celluloid wonders is such cult spankies as Big Trouble In Little China and They Live, and a little slasher flickerino called Halloween. James Woods here returns to some of his Hard Way-flare. This may be his best role ever! DON'T WATCH THIS ONE ALONE! P.S. Too bad drive-in's are a dying tradition.

Rating:
Summary: My God this movie blew
Review: I don't give out one star reviews lightly but this one merited it. The heroes of the film were completely unlikable as spent most of their time beating up a half conscious girl and freaking out at each other for no reason. This could have been saved if the actual vampires had been decent. They weren't. They were almost as easy to kill as the Dusk Till Dawn crew and had no personality whatsoever. If the director was going to go for the completely brutal and animalistic tyoe for them this would have worked but it was sort of an uncomfortable medium throughout. The head vampire was especially lackluster.

Rating:
Summary: Coffin Loads of Attitude
Review: Horror-meister John Carpenter promised a baying audience much with his latest offering. Based on the titular book by John Steakley, 'Vampire$' is a revisionist western set in the rolling scrublands of Mexico. It has all the hallmarks expected of a Carpenter film; the gore, the violence, the hard-as-nails heroes, but it fails to live up to the standards set by his previous works. 'Vampire$' is not a bad film by any standards, simply not as good as it should have been given the director's previous calibre. Drawing on the established genre stereotypes of fearless hunters and evil vampires (or should that be sheriffs and outlaws?), the film tells the story of a Vatican-funded vampire extermination squad. Led by Jack Crow, a cynical, arguably psychotic man whose parents were killed by vampires, they clear out 'nests' for a living. James Woods pulls out all the stops as Crow, swearing, stomping and hulking about in leathers and shades for all he is worth. However, Woods is getting a little old for this kind of physical role. When Team Crow is ambushed by the master vampire, Valek, and massacred, Jack and his surviving underling Montoya, go on the run with Katrina, a bitten prostitute. Realising that somebody has tipped Valek off, Jack uses Katrina's telepathic link with the vampire to track him down. Matters are complication by Valek's search for a holy relic that will allow him to walk in the sunlight, thus rendering him unstoppable. In true western style, there is a climactic confrontation at high noon, with various vampires getting a bit hot under the collar in the daylight. A nice ironic touch is the complicity of the Catholic Church in the crusade against the undead, for it was a botched exorcism that created vampires in the first place. The church is desperately trying to put right its mistake, guiltily throwing money and resources to Team Crow. It is illustrative of the human susceptibility to err that Valek is aided in his search by a Cardinal (Maximilian Schell in bug-eyed sinister form) seeking immortality. The opening scenes of the movie are undeniably good, although the fiery immolation of vampire 'goons' in daylight is somewhat reminiscent of a scarecrow with fireworks strapped to the arms. By far the best sequence is Valek's single-handed slaughter of Team Crow at their cheap motel. It is here Carpenter's legendary flair for gore is showcased to its fullest Thomas Ian Griffith injects the role of the master vampire with a charismatic, sensual menace not seen since Christopher Lee first donned an opera cape in the fifties. Valek truly is a beautiful monster. Characterisation is lacking in the film, with Crow and Montoya barely developed beyond gun-toting, hard-drinking slayers with coffin-loads of bad attitude. A notable exception to this is Sheryl Lee's abused hooker, Katrina, who is thoroughly credible as a confused victim of a vampire bite, terrified and struggling to comprehend what has happened to her.

There is a recurring thread of mysogynism throughout the film that is very anachronistic. The men treat Katrina as an object to be used and discarded, rather than an innocent victim, making the eventual pairing off between her and Montoya seem unrealistic. Such shabby treatment of women in horror films is exceptionally nineteen eighties and is a grave miscalculation on the part of Carpenter as director. 'Vampire$' is a passable addition to the modern genre, with a few unfortunate echoes back to previous film conventions of the eighties. It introduces a new generation of slayers to stand alongside old favourites such as Van Helsing and Captain Cronos. It is saved from B movie status by the performances of Thomas Ian Griffith and Sheryl Lee, and the sheer elegant monstrousness of the vampires themselves. There is a palpable aura of power surrounding Valek and his cohorts, greatly helped by some good special effects. The film is a watered-down version of the book, which as is often the case, is better. There are several characters in the book that would have translated marvellously to the big screen, but are for reasons best known to the director, not included. There are rumours of a sequel starring Jon Bon Jovi, so it remains to be seen if the rule of diminishing sequels applies, or if Carpenter will make a return to full form. Copyright (c) 2001 Helen Murphy All Rights Reserved. Resident Author. bloodlust-uk.com

Rating:
Summary: In a word..AWESOME!!
Review: My husband and I loved this movie,it is Carpenter's best since "The Thing." Sure it's a little rough, but look at it like this. Your on the road all over the country, hunting down monsters every day, you'd be a little rough too, don't you think? We thought the characters were perfectly depicted, strung out and very rough around the edges. Considering the job, it was the only way to have them act. And it was a stroke of genius that Carpenter wrote them so realistically. I've also heard alot of people talking about the "love, hate relationship with the church." Well, if I were hunting for a really bad guy and the people I was working for ratted me out to him, I'd be a little upset too. Another mark in Carpenter's favor in the realism slot. As for the actors and their acting, it was all top notch as were the f/x. Woods was first rate as Jack Crowe,raised by the church to be it's Master Slayer (who didn't have a problem w/the church until someone from it set him up.) Baldwin was fine as the slayer with the small health problem(watch to find out what it is.) Lee was great as the hooker with the connection to Valek. And the guy who played Valek himself was also very convincing. As was the rest of this great cast. Bottom line, if you are a serious horror film fan that likes a good vampire movie, here you go. You can't go wrong with this movie, the only one better in the last 9 years was "Dracula 2000." My husband and I saw one on T.V. the other night called "Modern Vampires" all we can say about that is avoid it at all costs. Carpenter has done something with "Vampires" that has needed to be done for along time, he took the genre seriously and produced one heckuva great movie. It is not for the squeamish though as I said before the f/x are top of the line and very unflinching. If you are a serious vampire movie fan, see this by all means.

Rating:
Summary: Great Vampire Movie
Review: This is one of the very best vampire movies in at least 9 years. The other was "Dracula 2000." There were alot of people who thought that the character of Katrina wasn't developed well. O.K., she was a hooker, Valek bit her and she had a psychic connection to him and she helped the good guys. That's about all you need to know. Alot of people said the story wasn't very well done, and while I haven't read the book, I would still have to strongly disagree. The whole thing about the black cross was excellent. In fact, everything about this movie was. The cast, Woods was perfect as the Master Slayer, the guy that played Valek was very convincing, Baldwin as the Slayer with the small problem, (I won't give away that secret in case you haven't seen it.) Lee and the guys that played the new nerdy priest and the evil bishop were also very well cast. If you haven't seen it, I can't recommend it enough. It is John Carpenter's best in a long time.

Rating:
Summary: If there were a lower rating, I'd give it.
Review: One of the (unintentionally) worst movies I've ever seen. The absence of plot, poor acting, bad directing, bad dialogue, bad EVERYTHING make this one unbearable. Sure, the movie gave me nightmares, but not ones of vampires and ghouls, no, rather ones in which I was to blame for this crapfest, sinking deep into a spiral of depression and turning to alcoholism...I can only Imagine what John Carpenter must feel like after every keeps telling him how this movie sucked.

You want vampires?

Watch From Dusk 'til dawn (1&3....2 wasnt very good.), Shadow of the Vampire, Bram Stokers Dracula, Blade.

.... but by all means, DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!

Rating:
Summary: The Best Vampire Movie In A Long Time
Review: This shocking thriller/horror film from John Carpenter is probably one of his best horror flicks yet. He did an excellent job on the story. I haven't seen a vampire movie this awesome since Nosferatu (1922) and that's a long time to wait for another good vampire movie. I would suggest this title to anyone who likes to study vampires or if you just like gory movies.

Strong Language, Adult Situation, Nudity, Strong Violence and Gore