Rating: 
Summary: VERY disappointing
Review: I was quite eager to see this movie when it came out. I read the book it was supposed to be based on before I went to see the movie and was sorely disappointed to find that the two had nothing to do with one another except for 2 characters' names and one scene (though vastly different in book and movie) takes place at the same location. Even if I hadn't read the book, I would still be disappointed in the movie. It had a couple of cute lines, but the soundtrack was monotonous and unimaginative, the plot was dry, and there were unresolved loose ends.
Rating:
Summary: Not worth the time
Review: This movie was stupid. Cheesey lines, bad plot, and the romantic twist with that Baldwin guy was just pathetic.
Rating:
Summary: An awful movie.
Review: Don't waste your time or your money. Get "Fright Night" instead.
Rating: 
Summary: Blah.
Review: I saw this movie recently, and the only redeeming value that it seems to have is a few creative action scenes, hence the one extra star. I expected better acting from James Woods, and better direction from Carpenter. C'mon, this is the man who directed the classic Halloween. And you might say that the horror genre is often like that, and it shouldn't be judged by the same criteria as other films. Well, even judged as a horror movie, this film is poor. It isn't scary in the least. I never really felt that the characters were in danger, except for the milquetoast priest. There weren't even any "jump scenes". 2 stars.
Rating:
Summary: Quite simply awful
Review: I was completely surprised by how awful Vampires was. It's aJohn Carpenter film, a man who knows how to direct action sequencesand scary jump-in-your seat shocks. It's unfortunate that Vampires was a complete bust, an extremely unscary movie that never hits on the right note on whether it wants to be funny or scary. The result is that it's never either one for a moment. Only thing worth noting about this film is James Woods fun performance.
Rating:
Summary: Do you like Volkswagen cars?
Review: OK, now, after you've read the title of this review, you must be wondering "what the Hell does THIS have to do with the movie "Vampires"? ", and at best you've reached the conclusion that the movie is full of Volkswagens. Well, the same blank feeling you had when you saw it, the same lame connection with it you managed to pull (unless you're more imaginative than I've predicted), is what you should feel if I asked you "Do you like Vampires?"But let me start at the beginning, as all decent folk. This movie has a great trademark - Carpenter, and one even greater one - Vampires. Naturally, a horror-lover that I am, I was immediatly drawn to it. But after the intro scene, I was sitting as blankly as you felt seeing my question about Volkswagens up there. In this movie it would be very difficult to distinguish a Vampire from a normal person, if there wasn't for screeching and growling and jumping. Indeed, Carpenter suceeded to, in less than two hours, completly destroy the myth of Vampires and everything we knew about them. Which would have been great - if he had offered us anything INSTEAD. He hadn't. Goodguys are brutes kinds of which you can easily find in any gerilla squad, they lack even the slightest strifes of character in their unmoldable structure, appearing as thick as wooden as they only can, and the worst about them is the main goodguy, Jack Crow (James Woods) who seems like a pathetic clone of Batman - a lone crusader in the fight against evil, motivated with the fact that Vamps killed his parents. Touching. Or would be, if Carpenter took any OTHER mean that move making allows to tell us that, except just in WORDS. On the other side, how does a vampire look like? OK: it's your every day bloke, except he acts like a cat with a piano placed on it's tail, but has fangs longer than your every day kitten. Also, this movie desparatly needs the plot. It all seems like a music clip, actually, except it misses music: no ACTUALL plot, just separate scenes, as if Carpenter had no time to squeeze the plot among special effects and gore. But I will not say "I wish I could give no stars to this movie, because it HAS it's good side. It is Valek, the chief Vampire. Even though he misses character as well, he is, among all that jazz, a Dracula-type vampire and it helps YOU build him as a character, since Carpenter refused. And Valek is also the best looking Vampire so far: an exceptional makeup work which deserves to be mentioned. Is it scary, you wonder..? Yes... After I saw it, I curled up in my bed, all windows shut and shutters closed, door locked, lights on, and chanted, until I fell asleep: "There's not gonna be such a thing as "Vampires II", there's not gonna be such a thing as "Vampires II", there's..." PS. No, there are no Volkswagens in the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: decent vampire flick
Review: Carpenter is one of my favorite horror directors because of Halloween and The Thing, but his work is starting to get lame. This movie is fun, especially the opening sequence, but it could be much better. James Woods gives a so-so performance, Daniel Baldwin is a joke of an actor, the guy who played the lead vampire was so-so, and the hooker was lame. Better than some, but easily not the best.
Rating:
Summary: Best from Carpenter in a decade... not saying much
Review: Could have been worse-- a lot worse, given how far down Carpenter has slid since They Live. In fact, this is the first really decent piece of filmmaking I've seen from Carpenter in the last decade. James Woods and Daniel Baldwin work well together as the buddy-good-guys who aren't actually buddies (they love each other, but don't really like each other--- you know how that goes), Maximillian Schell is appropriately creepy as a higher-up in the Catholic church, Sheryl Lee makes a great hooker (assuming her role is supposed to be played as unsympathetically as it is, of course), and the action only stops long enough for you to draw a breath before it starts again. Not the best of the films we rented in the past week, but worthwhile, and a good deal of fun.
Rating: 
Summary: John Carpenters Vampires
Review: This is a vampire film. No it really is. It is a film for people who like vampire films. Good acting, lots of violence, blood. It is set is the modern day it inovates traditional idea's of vampyres while keeping to a traditional theme. This is my suggested buy of the year.
Rating:
Summary: Another masterpiece from John Carpenter!
Review: This is the movie every horror-fan owns. It's got everything. Great story, gore, and magnificent actors. James Woods is great as the vampire-slayer, and Thomas Ian Griffith...you'll just have to see it! The story is a little different from the regular vampire stories. In this movie, they aren't afraid of crosses, so you as a watcher, get a more "real" feeling when you're watching this. so, either you like action or horror, this movie has it all.
|
