John Carpenter's Vampires | | Cast : | James Woods, Daniel Baldwin | | Director : | John Carpenter | | Studio : | Columbia/Tristar Studios | | Format : | Color, Closed-captioned, Dolby, Widescreen | | Released Date : | October 30, 1998 | | DVD Released Date : | October 07, 2003 | | Language : | English (Dubbed), French (Dubbed), French (Subtitled), English (Subtitled), English (Original Language), French (Original Language) | | Audience Rating : | R (Restricted) | | | BUY THIS DVD FROM AMAZON |
Customer Reviews
| Rating |  | | Date | May 16, 2005 | | Summary | Silly Vampire, Necks are for Biting | Content
 | This is one of those films that prove that monsters tearing victims into pieces and foulmouthed antiheros racing to save humanity do not necessary make for a great horror film. John Carpenter, who has created several very successful films in this genre, should know that a believable plot, accessible characters, and maybe even some special effects are also required. Alas, Vampires limps along from its opening scenes where Jack Crow (James Woods) and his team of tough guy vampire killers carry out the slaughter of a next so ineptly that it is a miracle they make to their party that night. And there, the master vampire they didn't really try to track down reduces the team to Crow, his sidekick Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) and Katrina, a prostitute due to become a vamp herself. It's quite possible you will find yourself rooting for Valek (Thomas Griffith) rather than the good guys. Although, everyone is unappetizing in this film.
So here you are in the Southwest hinterlands, having seen some 25 people and things killed in the first 15 minutes. With most of the cast slaughtered, you might expect the rest of the film to be less baroque, and you would be correct. Crow is after Valek who is the original vampire (as in very first, ever), and Valek is determined to hunt up an old relic and complete a ritual that will give him the power to walk by day. Katrina alternates between snuggling up with Montoya and spying on Valek via a telepathic link. No one speaks in sentences of more than five words except for the priest (Tim Guinee), and he never shuts up. Naturally, everything is the fault of the Catholic Church.
Basically this is yet another silly vampire film, with ugly people and ugly vampires. What saves the world is that the basic vampire is less bright than those hunting it. Only masters have the intelligence to mount a concerted attack, but their mental abilities are hardly exemplary. Carpenter's vampires have very few tricks, and the major special effect is when they explode in the sunlight. I'm sure the intention was to tell a gritty bit, slash, hack, and spear story, but the grit is overwhelmed by the overall ineptness of the participants. Note that I don't mean the actors were inept - they make the best they can of a brutalized script, but the characters themselves leave you hoping that vampires and humans wipe each other out and the dolphins finally take over.
|
| Rating | | | Date | April 18, 2005 | | Summary | A Great Modern Vampire flick! | Content
| I think this should've been John Carpenter's last movie, never doing Ghosts From Mars. Still I think he was a legend for giving us flicks like Halloween, The Fog, The Thing, and Christine. He is one of the reasons this movie is at 4 stars.
The plot is pretty much made up of a group of vampire hunters led by James Woods... who all die, giving Woods a reason for revenge. Not before getting mixed up in the plot of a master vampire who's trying to become a day walker... another way of saying he wants to be like Blade(Wesley Snipes). An interesting tale that still lacks a certain quality.
James Woods however is the best thing about this movie. If you don't like him you seriously won't like Vampires. I would say this is James Woods biggest movie as a main actor... having little roles in films like The General's Daughter, John Q and Cat's Eye... as well as voices in cartoons and games. Daniel Baldwin who isn't really known for anything except that he's a Baldwin brother... I thought was excellent to watch as a vampire hunter. The friendship between these two actors is the next thing to like besides the whole killing vampire story. Finally, Thomas Ian Griffith playing the head vampire Valek. Most recognizable in the movie Kirate Kid part III... who in both films I thought gave good acting.
As I said before, this movie just lacks something. The acting is terrific if you like that action/comedy style. The blood and gore isn't the best but definitely noticable. The little graphics they do use does help the movie a lot, such as when the vampires burn up. I think the faults are how this movie is catagorized as a horror... when it's not. When the story becomes entertaining, yet you can't believe this Valek was the first vampire ever. And while it's humor does get alittle tiring after all.
Still, I'd recommend to go and see this. If you're a fan of vampire movies, John Carpenter movies, and of horror movies... the chances of you disliking this is good. However I love movies, and even though this isn't one of my favorites. I thought it was worth watching, buyable if you like it. |
| Rating | | | Date | March 14, 2005 | | Summary | Rock & Roll Vampire Killers?? This movie stinks folks. | Content
| John Carpenter's "Vampires" is not a very good vampire movie at all. First and foremost, this movie is not even remotely scary or creepy in the slightest...it is just stupid. And, while I am a big James Woods fan, I did not like his character of "Jack" the vampire killer in this movie. "Vampires" starts off badly and ends even worse. The only good scene is the part where "Valek", the head vampire, kills a bunch of sorry vampire killers who look like a bunch of punks.
The plot for "Vampires" involves this head vampire named Valek who desires to be able to move around in the daylight as well as the dark. The key to Valek being able to achieve this goal is some ancient cross that is located in some monastery or church. Well, the whole movie basically follows Jack and Montoya as they attempt to hunt down Valek after Valek destroys the rest of Jack's vampire killing possey.
This movie detracts from vampires as a whole and makes tremendous unconvincing and poor deviations from old vampire traditions and vampire lore. This is one of John Carpenter's poorest films, if not, the worst. The acting is pretty terrible except for James Woods and his character is an a-hole. So, to be prefectly frank, this movie stinks and is one of the worst vampire movies that I have ever seen except for "Interview With The Vampire" of course. Overall, I can not give this movie more than ONE lousy star and I would definitely not recommend this movie to any sophisticated horror movie fan. |
| Rating | | | Date | January 06, 2005 | | Summary | This film really doesn't Bite! (bad pun) | Content
| I know the acting sorta stinks and the action sequences are kinda corny at times in the film but all in all, this film does live up to it's title. John Carpenter who is best known for his film Halloween creates a very rough and dirty enviroment for John Carpenter's Vampires. The violence isn't any more vulgar as Halloween in my opinion and being that it's a horror film, you should expect there to be plenty. I think it helps to be a big fan of James Woods in general because if your not then you might hate him in this film. He's not charming, he doesn't have too many morals about human life, and he isn't considered a pretty boy in the first place. Yet the fact that he kills vampires does make him a hero as well as the fact that he works for the Church. The action sequences are pretty intense and very well done. I've seen plenty of vampire films and this one ranks in the top 5 easily. There are many horribly made vampire flicks but Carpenter does a good job of proving that it can be done well. Also, there is some definate nudity in this film so be warned. Only ages 17 and up should see this film. I love this film and I think that it's a good idea that one rents it before buying it. |
| Rating | | | Date | December 19, 2004 | | Summary | BLARGH. BLAAARRRGH!!!! | Content
| What a terrible, terrible, awful, horrible movie.
I saw this years ago in theater, hated it, and then saw it at the video store and thought "Maybe I was wrong." So I rented it. And boy, was I right! This movie is a piece of garbage!
I have never hated a cast of characters more than Jack Crow and his slew of morons. How can you root for a guy who tortures and beats up priests? Who constantly swears and abuses women? This is the HERO of the film? Riiiight. And his unending references to "mahogany"... is this supposed to be funny? Because it's really not, it's annoying and stupid and makes the character even more unlikable, if possible. Perhaps this was the point: an "over the top", "balls out" hero and movie. Yeah, if that's what was attempted here, it doesn't come across at all. There is no irony or tongue-in-cheek with this character. Just a stupid little man who constantly appears to be trying to compensate for something. "I'm such a bad dude! Look! Look!" The guy is a loathsome toad.
There are many more movies with cooler visuals, more gore, a creepier feel, and better plot in this genre. This movie is so bad it isn't even laughable. It's embarassing.
This movie didn't give me a little "wood". A little "mahogany". It is a waste of film and intelligent movie viewers will avoid it like the plague.
|
|
