23 May 2012

It Stinks!

I really enjoy James Woods and his expected intensity on film. However, this movie was very disappointing after an excellent beginning. There was no horror only mildly entertaining stunts and no real suspense. What suspense there was was wasted by the good guys all to easily defeating the bad guys. I feel Carpenter could have done so much better with the actors. The movie just didn't jell for me. Suspense was built up only to take the easy way out. Both myself and my 2 teenager sons felt we were watching a MST3K movie but (unfortunately) without Joel & the Bots. Oh, by the way, Catholics should beware to be viciously portrayed both by a traitorous Cardinal (bad) and a gunslinging, vicious Priest (good). This mess could have been so much better. I think Carpenter has lost it.

Ian Finnesey

22 May 2012

A damn fine vampire movie.

The best way to put my feelings about it would be "This movie is everythingI would have wanted in 'From Dusk Till Dawn', but didn't get." It hasdialogue that sounds like someone might really say it, it has decenteffects, it doesn't screw around too much with the whole vampire archetype,and it doesn't completely change tone halfway through. Not the greatesthorror movie ever made, but certainly in the top half.

22 May 2012

John Carpenters Vampires

For John Carpenter fans such as myself, this movie is awesome. Pretty gruesome on special effects but done well I thought. And who could play a bad ass better than James Woods? The opening scene will have you asking for more and you wont be able to look away!

21 May 2012

A Vampire Movie with Real Bite!!!

If you're a real vampire lover, then you'll really enjoy John Carpenter's "VAMPIRES." This movie is action packed and, yes, there is plenty of gore (after all, it is a horror movie). James Woods gives a great performance as "Jack Crow," the leader of the slayers. However, the one performance that really got me into this movie was that given by Thomas Ian Griffith as the Master of all Vampires, "Valek." Griffith's presence alone steals every scene that he's in. The only reason why "VAMPIRES" didn't get 5 stars was because of the way it ended. I was expecting a grander finale than what was given. If you love Vampire lore then this is the movie for you.

cygnus x-1

21 May 2012

yet another disappointment from the once great John Carpenter

the buzz on this movie seemed unusually good: John carpenter getting back tohis roots, his first vampire film, and a decidedly politically incorrectslant to some of the characters.well, as with practically every film he has made starting with prince ofdarkness, this movie starts out with so much promise and quickly dissolvesinto nothing.the special effects are well done and the gore surprisingly abundantconsidering how the MPAA chops up horror films these days.it's almost like they had half of a screenplay completed and decided just towing it instead of completing it.the acting is solid, with James Woods being especially good, but they areunfortunately not able to elevate this film any above a 5 in mybook.disappointing and boring.rating:5 (mainly due to the acting and effects work)

21 May 2012

Quite simply awful

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.

19 May 2012

CARPENTER CLASSIC!!!!

Iam a very big John Carpenter fan,whats not to like, the Thing(One of the best movies of all time), They Live, Halloween, and the list goes on.Vampire$ is a great, action-packed movie with the only problem being the scriped,the movie drags a little during the middle but other then that it is a great Man's movie(Carpenter's mark except for StarMan). So see this movie and as for comparing it to Blade,don't. They are very,very different movies, Blade(great) is an action-superhero movie and Vampire$is a horror-western.

19 May 2012

ONE OF THE BEST VAMPIRE MOVIES AVAILABLE

This review is from: John Carpenter's Vampires (DVD) THIS IS ONE OF THE BEST VAMPIRE MOVIES I HAVE EVER SEEN AND ALSO STANDS AS ONE OF CARPENTER'S BEST EFFORTS TO DATE ON SCREEN. JAMES WOODS IS ABSOLUTELY ONE OF THE TOP VAMPIRE SLAYERS TO DATE TO GRACE THE SCREEN, AND THOMAS IAN GRIFFITH IS WITHOUT PEER AS THE MOST SAVAGE AND LETHAL VAMPIRE TO TEAR THE LIFE OUT OF ANYONE WHO CROSSES HIS PATH. THE MOVIE WAS VERY ATMOSPHERIC AND MOODY, THE MUSIC WAS GREAT, THE HELICOPTER SHOTS OF THE NEW MEXICO COUNTRYSIDE AND HIGHWAYS WERE GREAT AS WERE THE SPAGHETTI WESTERN CLOSEUPS OF JAMES WOODS EYES IN THE BEGINNING. I WISH THE FINAL BATTLE BETWEEN WOODS AND GRIFFITH HAD LASTED LONGER, ALSO I WISHED THEY HAD DELVED MORE INTO HOW THE MEN WERE RECRUITED ONTO THE TEAM, HOW LONG THE TEAM HAD BEEN TOGETHER, AND MORE OF THE VATICAN END OF THE TEAM RECRUITMENT. BECAUSE OF THIS I GAVE THE M0VIE 4 OUT OF 5 STARS. THIS IS A NO NONSENSE SHOOT-EM-UP WESTERN OF A VAMPIRE FILM. BLADE WAS A COMIC BOOK COME TO LIFE WITH THE MOST WIMPY MASTER VAMPIRES EVER PUT ON THE SCREEN. INTERVIEW WITH THE VAMPIRE WAS A VERY SUAVE STYLISH CLASSICAL LOOK AT VAMPIRES BUT LACKED THE PUNCH WOODS AND GRIFFITH'S SAVAGERY PORTRAYED ONSCREEN. IN MY OPINION THIS FILM OFFERS THE MOST BRUTAL AND MERCILESS VAMPIRES YET PUT ON SCREEN. I TIP MY HAT TO MR CARPENTER FOR THIS.

17 May 2012

Vampires

Well, this is a different, modern day take on the old vampire movies. It starts with a bang and continues almost non stop with only short breaks of explanation in between. A band of vampire hunters "controlled" by the church are on the trail of the leader of the undead. He is searching for an ancient cross that will give vampires the ability to walk in daylight. Amazingly James Woods has brought some gravatis to this production, though I cannot get rid of the feeling that he has his tongue firmly wedged in his cheek while this is all going on. Fun with much gore.

Orhan Cevher

16 May 2012

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.

CantripZ

16 May 2012

Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeese!

Wow! This is an amazingly bad film! For some foolish reason, I watchedthis expecting a horror movie, but beyond the fact that it has somevampires and a light smattering of gore John Carpenter's Vampires isn'ta horror movie by a long chalk.There's no tension, no buildup, no mystery, no disturbing death, noatmosphere, no uncertainty or sense of foreboding.In spite of which, I liked it. It was reasonably fast-paced, with anentertaining premise, a bunch of (amazingly bad!) action scenes, anamusing cast and script notable for its consistent unintentionalhumour... all served with extra cheese.At least, I think the humour is unintentional, but every time somethingmildly dramatic or exciting happens James Woods delivers adevastatingly funny line (like when he says to the gay supergothvampire bloke "So tell me, does your dick still work after 600years?")...All the dialogue is like that - super-macho, utterly unconvincing andfull of oddly unnecessary expletives. Personally, I swear a lot,possibly more than these guys, but the script is so awkward itsometimes sounds like they're cussing to hit quotas: one penisreference, two f-words and an overwritten sexual insult per scene! Therock score (composed, of course, by Carpenter himself) is a majorcheese-enhancing factor. Electric guitar solos meander almost non-stopthroughout the film's hundred-plus minutes (of the type often referredto as "bluesy" by those who don't know better), fitting perfectly withthe biker-bar look of many of the characters and the dusty desertsetting, but... well, not in a good way.The lead performances were all brilliantly funny without being in theleast bit good. James Woods proves once again that he has charisma evenwhen he's asleep. Daniel Baldwin (who, not being a big fan of Americanmovies, I've not really seen before) seemed like he was distractedlythinking about his mortgage payments. Sheryl Lee provided the leastlaughs at first, playing her badly-written hooker character with analmost professional attention to cliché, but in the end she got toyodel and chew scenery What else needs a mention? Well, there's aromantic subplot (by the numbers, skipping several numbers along theway), the sound fx (I love the way the vampires make a mad array ofbadly-dubbed animal noises every time their mouth move, as if they'recarrying speakers in their pockets!), and the excuse for a plot (I willavoid the novel like the plague, but in my kindness I assume Carpenterskipped the chapters that made us give a damn)... but no, I won't goon.Because, for all the dissing (and the fact I rated it 4/10), this is afun movie.Like Plan 9 from Outer Space with cool colour cinematography.The look of the film is the only thing that's unabashedly,no-excuses-needed good about it... but then, it's hard to make a desertlook less than beautiful.My advice is to definitely watch this, but first stock up on somequality skunk... and rent, don't buy!

15 May 2012

Carpenter at its best

I've seen this movie up to 10 times in cinema. It is quit the best work Carpenter ever did in his life. Forget Christine and Halloween, only Escape from New York comes probably close to it.The whole movie - pictures, musics and actors, especially James Woods (best act since Once upon a Time in America) and Thomas Ian Griffith as Valek the Master Vampire, make this movie to an outstanding experience. Last but not least - this movie is made for cinema, not to watch it on a 30-Inch-TV !

Richard Brunton

12 May 2012

Nice visuals, bit cheesey.

Some really nice visuals fill this film, all associated with the vampires.Woods seems to take his role very seriously, but with cheesey lookingweapons, and a sleezy human baddie, it looses it's way from being a coolstylish horror. The head Vampire is very cool, and looks the part. The hotelattack is superb and the visuals of the vampires waking is verycreepy.

DVD_Connoisseur

12 May 2012

An underrated Carpenter movie with bite!

"Vampires" is great popcorn entertainment. While fans will alwayscompare Carpenter's later movies with his early genre classics,"Vampires" is excellent entertainment, even if it isn't an "important"or "milestone" horror event.James Woods is not the most likable of heroes here but he's verywatchable. Daniel Baldwin delivers a believable performance as hisdependable sidekick. "Twin Peaks"' Sheryl Lee plays the leggysmall-town hooker who is unfortunately bit by a Master Vampire, Valek.There are also appearances from Maximilian Schell and "Miami Vice"'sGregory Sierra.In Carpenter's "Vampires", the undead don't exit this world peacefully.Instead, they explode like giant Catherine wheels. This is exciting towatch - you can't have enough sparking vampires, can you? With lots ofaction and a few dark laughs, you could do a lot worse than see thismovie.With an excellent score, great visuals and a fast pace, "Vampires"scores a strong 8 out of 10.

11 May 2012

Wood, mahogany, teak... whatever you wanna call it...

This movie is thoroughly entertaining from start to finish. There is a point at which it gets a little slow, however it only serves to help set up the thrilling climax. Not quite as amazing as the John Steakley novel it's based on, but that can be blamed on their budget. James Woods is fabulous as Jack Crow, the total bad@$$ leader of the vampire-hunting team. Another great aspect of the film is its non-political correctness. Jack Crow and his comrades are equal opportunity offenders. Also features a cameo by The Shawshank Redemption writer/director Frank Darabont.The commentary on this DVD is not the greatest, unfortunately. John Carpenter sounds as if he's bored and has better things to do. There are some interesting things he brings up, though.

anonymous

11 May 2012

less than zero

I gave it a 1 (awful), but it was more like less than zero -- zero was notan option. James Woods is usually in good films, he must have been hardpressed to make a quick buck...

evilasahobby

05 May 2012

Seven different types of tragedy

Vampires is a terrible film that just happened to hire some good actors.James Wood has some worthwhile moments, the Baldwin is acceptable and thefilm's premise is interesting. That's about it. The gore is a bit excessive,mainly because its there in place of a decent script. The dialogue reallydrags in sections, mainly because you've seen it all before (almost) inother b-grade movies. Sure, it adds a little to the Vampire film genre, butnot much.However, I did learn that if you tie a girl (Sheryl Lee, in this case) to abed and / or slap her around for a while, she will love you.Overall, its an awful, terrible abortion of a film that John Carpentershould be sorry he ever made.

05 May 2012

Dont waste your time!

This movie isn't worth the film it's shot on. Boring, boring, boring. John Carpenter has gone to the absolute bottom of the barrel for this one. Ever go to the movies and within the first fifteen minutes, just wish it would end? If that's what gets you off, then buy this DVD.

bob the moo

05 May 2012

Entertaining but really more gore than style or content

Jack Crow leads a Vatican sponsored group of vampire slayers who travelAmerica killing vampires by dragging them out into the desert sun to makethem burn up. After one successful day's killing the group is celebrating ata motel when they are attacked by a master - Valek. Only Jack and his friendMontoya survive alone with a hooker who has been bitten by Valek. Using herphysic link with Valek, Jack tries to track him down before he can uncover arelic that will allow him to walk by day and night.John Carpenter's best days seem to be long gone by recent (well - many yearsactually) form. Vampires is widely seen as nothing more than another slip onthe downward spiral of his films. The plot is best ignored - the bones areall you need to know and it's safe to ignore all the stuff about theCatholic church creating vampires and the relic etc and enjoy the mainaction.However I found it all to be a bit silly and the main focus was on the goryeffects which never seemed real or scary - just tacky like a straight tovideo slasher. Bodies splitting, bodies burning, gore, gore and more gore.In moderation gore can be scary but here it is the only thing going on andit all gets a bit tiresome. Of course it does depend what mood you're in - Idid enjoy it a bit because it was a Saturday night and I was looking for abit of undemanding nonsense to not trouble by brain.....however any othertime and I would have been let down seriously and givenup.Woods is always worth watching and gives a strong performance here, even ifhe hams it up at times. For most of the time though he gives a good toughguy role. Baldwin is OK (he is my favourite brother since Homicide) but hasno good lines and is lumbered with the dumb task of convincing us he loves avampire. The climax's potentially emotional scene between the two men didn'tconvince me at all. Lee is totally wasted and has almost nothing to do apartfrom shake and stare.Carpenter himself shows none of the subtlety or talent that he once had. Theeffects scream out in all their gaudiness and the action is signposted andclearly aimed at teenage boys who like to see stuff explode. Only in the oddscene does he show that he can still frame a shot or direct a good scene -the majority smacks of a hack job.Overall this is just about passable if you're in the mood for a bit ofundemanding twaddle. However if you're looking for anything else then you'llbe seriously letdown. At best I found this to be just passable and instantlyforgettable.

05 May 2012

John Carpenters Vampires

I love the premise for the film, i love the Wild Bunch vs. Vampire's approach, and the fact that the one thing that keeps Jack Crow going is his pure a**h****ishness. the music was well-done and effects were great (would've liked to see more gushing blood to equal the amazing prosthetic jobs by Nicotero and co., though)(director's cut? wishful thinking).The only problem(s) i had with the film was that the Master Vampires weren't really any different from the goons, it would have been interesting to see some hierarchy established between the goons and masters (maybe even find out who they choose to become masters and why), even between the masters and Valek. And Valek... 600 years lookin for the Black Cross and all he can do is scream? really, 600 years and all he can do is scream about everything? i would've liked to see an articulate and intelligent vampire. yes, a little cliched, but i'm sure Carpenter would've been able to put his own twist on it. aside from that i thought the movie was great. a very entertaining film and some b***s-to-the-wall action. hopefully carpenter's next film (Psychopath, TBA 2006) won't pull any punches (no PG-13 kiddie cr*p) like this one and move Carpenter back to the top of the hollywood radar.