(2012-04-19 23:06:58)

James Woods Kicks!

It's easy to see why many people didn't like this movie. It was NOT Interview With the Vampire, it did NOT make the vampires seem beautiful and graceful and romantic. Instead the story focuses on the Vampire hunters for a change. Portraying the Vampires as blood sucking monsters and not lace wearing romantics was a much needed breath of fresh air to this genre. Simply put, if Le Stat is your dream date, you will probably not like this movie. If you want to see a good action movie with attitude, some funny lines, and Vampires in it, then you will like this movie.

photoscots

(2012-04-19 10:03:02)

As Bad As Toothache

A friend of mine approached me at work recently and told me he had watchedthe Carpenter movie 'Escape from LA.' He followed that up by saying, 'Ithink John Carpenter has lost it.'For those of us brought up on Carpenter masterpieces such as 'The Thing'and'Escape from New York' then I think my friend has a point. The recentbatchof movies by Carpenter have been a letdown. A recent example is 'Vampires'starring James Woods and to be honest if the film didn't have Woods thenitwould be totally lost.I won't go over the plot as my friends here do so adequately but theproblemwith this film is that does nothing very well. The editing in the film isatrocious, it tries to be cool with the use of fast cut editingparticularlyin the opening sequence but it only looks amateurish, a bit like a karaokesinger after one too many.Apart form Woods the acting doesn't inspire either and the actors employedwould be best left to tv filmwork. I don't include Maximmilian Schell inthis because he is one of the great actors and wasted in this tripe. Heonlyappears briefly though.This film has been made in the same vein as another Carpenter movie, 'BigTrouble in Little China' but 'Vampires' isn't as good and not half asfunny.My conclusion with this film is don't bother to even rent it instead waitfor a freebie on tv. That reminds me, I must visit thedentist.

Daniel Hassig

(2012-04-11 00:14:44)

Vampires-Carpenter bites back with a great film.

Until recently I didn't get a chance to see Vampires until just a few daysago. I read a lot of reviews, some good, many bad, but I wanted to see formyself of course. And I wasn't for one second disappointed.First off, it seems that a lot of people were disappointed with this film.Whether it be fans of the book, or just people who just wanted to insultCarpenter. Of course as with nearly all of his films, they get many badreviews and do not so well at the box office. One of the few major criticsI'll let go is Gene Siskel. He liked Vampires.Anyway, now to my opinion. While it wasn't The Thing. And really since 1982which film of his has surpassed The Thing? I thought Vampires started offgreat, the method of which Jack Crow's team disposed of vampires was great.Watching the poor vamps clawing at the floor and hissing as they're draggedto their doom into the sunlight. I found it great. And for the die-hardCarpenter fans, the ones who knew how to respect this film....tell me themusic did not kick ass. I loved it. It had a creepy quality and still hadthat western theme.The action let up for quite awhile, but Valek was definitely cool. And JamesWoods was definitely entertaining as Jack Crow. I liked this more thanBlade, even though Blade had a lot more action. Blade was a quick executionin style, more like a long music video than an actual movie. Vampires isJohn Carpenter's own interpretation on vampires themselves. It's a movie ofself-expression and horror, which is of course, what John knowsbest.I don't think a large percentage of audiences in the United States givesJohn Carpenter the respect he deserves. Vampires is his best film in recenttime and who better to do a film like this? Steven Spielberg? I think not.Quentin Tarantino? Already did it with From Dusk Till Dawn (And quite wellmight I add)And as much as I love Escape From LA, John's last film beforethis in 1996, it was truly at heart a remake of New York, right down tocertain characters even. Hence Brain from NY, and Carjack Malone from LA.Final thought, if you have an open mind and an educated background on horrormovies, see this film. On my eternal scale from 1-10, I give Vampires a 9.Definitely one of the best of the year.

(2012-04-10 10:27:24)

One Word: AWESOME!!!!!

You have to buy this movie. I have never really liked James Woods, but this was incredible. The story was great, and the action was even better!

(2012-04-08 01:46:52)

A horror classic

This review is from: John Carpenter's Vampires (Superbit Collection) (DVD) Definitely in my top 10 horror movies of all time.This movie is far from perfect, as a matter fact in order to enjoy this movie you will need to ignore several holes in the story.The grail being protected by defenseless, harmless monks being one of them.The story drags a little towards the end but overall, great movie. As opposed to MOST vampire movies, there is nothing romantic or poetic about these monsters.

Alexandra

(2012-04-07 07:31:19)

Horrible, boring movie!

This movie wasn't my pick to see, so I sure ripped into the person whowanted to see it. This movie was boring, predictable..just really, reallyBAD. Do NOT waste your time or money!

mentalcritic

(2012-04-06 18:41:30)

Misogyny must be infectious...

Either Joe Eszterhas somehow "possessed" John Carpenter for the productionof this film, or the misogyny of American cinema is actually infectious. Iremember sitting down to view this film shortly after it came out, thinking"what the hell, it's a John Carpenter film". Even the best directors havebad days, and Carpenter is no exception.Everything in this film offended me in some manner. The women in the filmmight as well have swastikas tattooed over their faces, and the men in thisfilm are truly beneath what I would call a man (whatever that might mean).James Woods is a fine actor, but his character made me constantly root forthe bad guys, er girls...I actually like a bit of blood and gore in my horror films, and thisnonsensical attitude of "less is more" than seems to be prevalent amongAmerican audiences today has got to stop. Compare the R-rated (in Australiathat is, the R-rating in Australia actually means something) Nightmare OnElm Street episodes with their M-rated counterparts. Is less more? Not in ahorror film. More blood is needed. The problem is, more of a story is neededfor balance, and Vampires fails to deliver on that score. As a matter offact, Vampires does a lot to undo my theory about what sort of content makesa horror film memorable, primarily because the ensuing gore is a cover-upfor a weak story. The story is so memorable that I can hardly remember itafter all this time. I hardly remembered it five minutes after the film wasover, in fact. Hardly a result consistent with the directorial skills JohnCarpenter normally brings to bear.I've been waiting a while for John Carpenter to make another film thatcompares with The Thing. It hasn't happened yet, but hope does springeternal.

David Choi

(2012-04-06 07:20:09)

A scary horror film with a great cynical sense of humor.

Director John Carpenter creates a geniunely wicked thrill machine with anacceptable outcome. Relying on fancycinematography, a wild musical composition made by Carpenter himself, and anappropriate New Mexico location, VAMPIRES is one enjoyable ride.James Woods' mordant performance is right on the money as Jack Crow, theleader of the vampire extermination squad. Woods' disdainfully sardonicsense of humor adds flavor to a solid vampire flick. Daniel Baldwin isCrow's trusty assistant who helps thin out the numbers of the vampire race.Thomas Ian Griffith is also great as the "Master" Vampire, Valek, whoseonly intent is to gain the ability to live and walk during daylight... Ohyes, and how can we forget the beautiful Sheryl Lee, who is puissant as thetough prostitute who gets bitten by Griffith. The soon-to-be vampire alsohas a psychic implication with Valec and she can admonish his every move.The fight between mankind versus the vampire species is ignited.Casualties from both sides are predictably ensued, and the origins ofValek's vampirism have been traced to the rituals involving RomanCatholicism of the late 14th century... As Crow and Valek fight man tovampire only one survivor can be left standing. Who will it be?VAMPIRES is a fine horror show. The special effects are again top-notch fora horror flick. VAMPIRES is better than average for it offers a verydetailed storyline into the creation of the vampires as well as theirprimary goals. This film is of course, surreal, with its nifty, swirlingphotography, and a vigourousmusical score composed which insinuates when the next action sequence willtake place. The humor in VAMPIRES remainsrighteously edgy as well.VAMPIRES is a prepossessing film which manages to steadily keep its tongueimplanted in-cheek throughout the whole movie with solidity. James Woods andDaniel Baldwin add depth in their personalities as wisecracking vampirehunters who care only about their jobs and they don't give a hoot aboutanything else. The negative portrayal of the Roman Catholic Church as atravesty is also sinfully satirical and may be occassional offensive.VAMPIRES is a satisfying film where vampires feed humans as a culinarydelight. The effects are decent, and the plot pluscharacter analysis tries its best to be ingenious. Black humor alwaysconsistently remains iniquitous as the humans yell disparagements to thevampires before finishing their jobs with a nasty stake in the heart! Allof the trademarks of a John Carpenter film are comprised in this newinstallment. VAMPIRES is a more conventional horror film with frights andscares eliciting.VAMPIRES certainly lacks the cohesiveness and substantiation that makeseveral genre legends, legends, but this films is definitely worth a lookfor horror fans everywhere. A feast for aficionados of slick scary movies.Not for the squeamish.RATING: **1/2 out of ****.

(2012-04-05 10:50:36)

it sucks

if it wasn't for the fact that the "vampire master" is hot and had the scene of him biting the hot chicks inner thigh, the movie would suck completely. it's garbage. i hate the rest of the retarded characters. hillbillies

Jackson Booth-Millard

(2012-04-05 03:35:35)

Vampires

I might have seen a few seconds of the beginning once, and I'm glad Iwatched the whole film, from director John Carpenter (Halloween,Starman). Basically Jack Crow (James Woods) is a vampire slayer on theVatican payroll, and accompanied by others, including Montoya (DanielBaldwin), he is obviously on the lookout for the vampires, but the onlythings that can kill them are stakes in the heart and sunlight, forgetgarlic, crosses/the crucifix and the bible, they don't help. The bigthreat of the film is mastermind vampire Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith)who needs a black cross or something to be able to walk in sunlightfrom then on. Also starring Sheryl Lee as Katrina, Maximilian Schell asCardinal Alba, Tim Guinee as Father Adam Guiteau, Boone Junior asCatlin Mark and Gregory Sierra as Father Giovanni. The main reason tosee this film form me, besides a good performance (with littledialogue) by Woods, is the gore, some good amounts. Worth watching!

(2012-03-31 08:54:14)

An awful movie.

Don't waste your time or your money. Get "Fright Night" instead.

(2012-03-30 16:44:24)

Absolutely Ridiculous!

This is the most ridiculous vampire movie of all time. I found myself laughing at the stupidity of the whole thing. Shame on James Woods for being part of such a third rate film (and THAT'S a compliment!). Definitely not worth the $5 I paid to rent it on Amazon Unbox. I highly UN-recommend this video. If you pay for the DVD, you'll be frightfully sorry.

(2012-03-22 00:42:56)

decent vampire flick

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.

Stanley Strangelove

(2012-03-21 13:15:49)

Ferocious vampire flick ... James Woods plays for high stakes

John Carpenter's Vampires is a pretty good vampire movie. As aCarpenter film, it doesn't rank with his best, but it's a definiteimprovement over its three predecessors: Escape from L.A. (1996),Village of the Damned (1995) and In the Mouth of Madness (1995).James Woods stars as Jack Crow a vampire hunter who leads aprofessional team of vampire hunters. Thomas Ian Griffith plays vampiremaster Valek who is on the hunt for THE BLACK CROSS. If Valek canpossess the cross vampires will be able to walk the earth in daylight.Jack Crow, Montoya, and a novice priest try to stop Valek from gettingthe cross. Katrina (Sheryl Lee) is a hooker who they have to take withand protect. Along the way there is plenty of carnage and impalement.The scenes raiding the vampires nests are good and gruesome and the waythe vampires light up like flares when they are pulled into the sun isclever.James Woods does a good job as the ultra-cynical vampire hunter andGriffith's Valek is a fairly formidable foe.Carpenter fans will like this one.

(2012-03-18 19:59:20)

Great Vampire Movie

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.

Mathew Beall

(2012-03-18 09:14:15)

Read the book? Don't see the movie....

Well, I watched the movie because it was based on the book "Vampire$" byJohn Steakley. What a disappointment. It was very loosely based, omittedentire characters, plot lines, and even had some lines that were completelytwisted. The book was a very dark action book, whereas the movie was justyour run-of-the-mill horror movie. Everyone should read the book, it issuperior in every way.

(2012-03-12 20:24:17)

A TOTALLY FAB MOVIE

James Woods is always watchable and he is just perfect as Jack Crow. There is good support from Baldwin and Lee but it's a pitty that Griffith didn't have much dialogue. If he did his character would have been scarier. But with that one minor fault aside. This movie rocks!

(2012-03-12 13:00:35)

Think "Communists."

This review is from: John Carpenter's Vampires (DVD) Classic Woods humor as he and his merry band track down the Vampiristas, drag them out into the light of day - and drive a stake through their hearts.One wonders if the Vampires are not a metaphor for Communists - as James Woods, in real life, takes every available opportunity to expose and lampoon the leftist disease that has infected America.

gizmomogwai

(2012-03-11 10:23:09)

It's the anti-Buffy. And it's not pretty

John Carpenter's Vampires is the latest movie I watched as part of myreviewing of horror and Halloween-themed shows this October. It's alsothe worst so far. This movie, which is about a vampire slayer namedCrow (James Woods), came out in 1998- right about when a TV show calledBuffy the Vampire Slayer was on the air. Skimming through some of thecomments, I haven't seen anyone else talking about this, but to me thedifferences are obvious. Although both are about vampire slaying, thismovie is the anti-Buffy in numerous ways. And it makes the movie lookfairly ugly.If you think the vampires in Buffy are too tame, and that the amount ofviolence that can be put on TV is too light, then you'll probably lovethis movie and hate Buffy. That's fine for you. Personally, though, Ihappen to believe in what I was taught in twelfth grade English, thatless is more. Besides, I've never heard of vampires who fight likethis- tearing apart and decapitating people with a single swipe oftheir claws. True, the vampire who does this, Valek, is supposed to bethe ultimate super-strong vampire. It's just too bad they couldn'tdecide on how strong he is- when he's killing Crow's team he's pumpedfull of bullets and isn't moved by them; but when he chases after thetruck a gunshot knocks him off.But the big way in which this movie is the anti-Buffy is in its view ofwomen. I'm male but a liberal, and I liked how Buffy empowered women,made them the heroes for once, and gave them independence, smarts andstrength. In contrast, in this movie the main female character is aprostitute called Katrina. She's bitten by Valek early on, almostsounding like she was having an orgasm while he fed off her. Shegradually turns into a vampire, but Crow and his sidekick Montoya keepher alive in hope that she can be used to find Valek. The way she'streated by the men is not respectful. She's tied to the bed naked, forone thing. Now, as is evident from reading my other reviews, I lovefemale nudity in movies. But here even I was wondering why she wasnaked. Montoya hits her, which may be forgivable in the heat of themoment, but he doesn't regret it: "Who cares?" he asks. Later Crow alsoturns rough with her (and it's Montoya who ironically objects). I'llgrant you, Crow's rough with everyone- too rough to be likable- buteven elementary school bullies know you're not supposed to hit a girl.At any rate, Katrina is a powerless pawn, a worthless hooker, there areno heroines, and James Woods is who we're supposed to be rooting for.What's good about this? Again, it'll appeal to people who love gore,its vampires aren't fooling around. It may provide a scare (although abetter movie can scare you with less graphic violence) and sometimesits presentation of vampires is valid. Vampires, Crow tells us, are"not romantic." That's true to the original legend. I just wish I couldhave seen this less romantic version of vampires in the originalNosferatu. 4.5/10 Happy Halloween.

Orhan Cevher

(2012-03-11 04:23:24)

Great Director, Average Result

I'm a Carpenter fan since "The Fog", And I just watched "Vampires", it wasgood, but not good as I expected. The Plot took a different angle for thevampirism, and tells a story about no ordinary vampire but the father of allvampires itself. The story changes almost all the myths that we know aboutvampires, in this situation it's an interesting film, but not scary andactionful as I thought. Anyway, it's a John Carpenter film, every fan shouldsee it for the sake of A Great Direcor.