MOTW #3 John Carpenter's Vampires

[PackBacker]

"John Carpeneter's Vampires" 1998
Directed by: John Carpenter
Screenplay by: Don Jakoby

Starring: James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, Tim Guinee

Tagline: From the master of terror comes a new breed of evil.

http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/41E26S62VNL._AA280_.jpg


Have at it, schmoes. I'll be back in a couple hours with my thoughts.


Upcoming MOTW
Week #4 Phantasm
Week #5 The Haunting (original)
Week #6 Videodrome

[Tony_Montana]

I saw this last year sometime. Can't remember much about it, which means it probably wasn't all that impressive to me. Then again I don't remember it being particularly bad either.

[Kikabi]

The movie's adapted from the book Vampire$ by John Steakley, which emphasized more of the mercenary nature of the vampire slayers. They're the bounty hunters of the undead. So ,they weren't doing this so much out of a sense of good and evil; they were doing it for the money. Except for Jack Crow (James Woods) who was always a conflicted character when it came to the religious aspects.

The vampire slayers as bounty hunters is something I wish the movie had more time to explore, explaining more clearly why they were all risking their lives hunting down these vamps. It's the reason why it's a "Vampire Western" in the first place.

Every vampire movie has it's own rules for the vampires. The most important rule in this one is that crosses don't affect vampires. The other one is that it takes several days after one is bitten to turn into a vampires.

During these days, the bitten forms a telepathic link becomes established with the vampire who had bitten her. I think this gets explained once too often in the movie. In fact, if there were a Vampires drinking game, you'd have to take a drink every time someone says "link."

But, it's a cool idea and device to keep tabs on what Valek is doing without breaking the point of view of the movie, which stays strictly with the slayers. So the link thing works well in telling the story.

The vampires look very cool. The make-up is pretty much the same style as used in Interview With the Vampire, pale and veiny, similiar teeth and eyes. Although they didn't have the budget for the same contact lenses used in Interview, the vampires's eyes are effective, especially Valek's. The vamps rising out of the earth was a great scene. How nice of the wind to blow away all that dirt off of them.

Thomas Ian Griffith, as Jan Valek, makes a terrific vampire. I like that Valek's beautiful, but he's nothing but dangerous. No philosophizing, no charming words and manners for him, and no taunting and playing cruel games with his potential victims, either. He just gets straight to the sex and blood, and ripping people to pieces with his bare hands, with the bullets not phasing him as they do the other vamps.

Also, he has a sweet coat. There should be a rule that all vampires, the leaders, at least, have to wear cool coats of some kind, preferably black and hanging at least past the knee. But enough about vampire fashion. :p

The gore-factor's pretty up there. Not completely complaining since I like how Valek establishes how strong, unstoppable. and monstrous he is by ripping apart Crow's team. But not sure why Crow feels the need to stake his dead comrades in the heart when he also decapitates them, buries the heads elsewhere, and sets the motel, along with the bodies, on fire.

That was just overkill in my book, no pun intended. I should have felt bad for Crow that he has to do all of this to his dead buddies, but the excess gore distracts from that potential emotional connection.

I loved the score. I also loved the suiting up scene with the team bringing out modern and medieval weapons and body armor. Nice touch. Although I'm not sure if dragging the vamps out into the daylight one by one is the most efficient way to exterminate a "nest." Lucky for them, all the vampires don't get out of bed enmass and attack them all.

I usually give low budget B-movies a lot of slack, but I've got to say, I've never seen such bad fire special effects.

Vampires has been given a lot of heat about being misogynistic. It's true, all the women in the movie are either vamps or whores, and there's plenty of T & A. That's not so bad, but the guys imply that the only thing a woman's good for is a good lay. But it's how Katrina's treated that gets the movie it's misogynist rap.

I'm of two minds on it. Seeing Tony knock her out cold is a harsh thing to see, especially after he was trying to be nice to her. I didn't like it, nor the way they pushed and dragged her around like a thing.

However, that's how they see her, especially Crow, as a thing, no longer a human being, but a thing they'll have to kill the minute she grows fangs. Still, Crow didn't need to be so rough with her. It too easily implies that he's that way with women in general, and that his behavior is acceptable, since Tony and the Padre don't step in to stop him. At least Tony redeems himself after punching her out cold.

I give it 7.5/10 - It's mostly a fun bit of cheese. The direction is fine, the editing, not so much. Sometimes the acting is OTT, including from James Woods. As I said, Thomas Ian Griffith impressed me, but not just with his looks. He doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but what he has he delivers very well. But of the dialogue overall, meh. Some good (a lot of Woods' ab-libs) and some of a little too cheesy.

[XCoRyX]

Wound up digging it alot more then I thought. Had no interest in seeing it and back when it was first out my dad rented it and I enjoyed it alot. James Wood was phenomenal. And Thomas Ian Griffith is always cool (Karate Kid III hehe).

[Cronos]

As with all of John Carpenters films I love Vampires, still need to pick up the dvd. There's some great acting, James Woods kicks ass as usual, his character is great. I liked the fact they're bounty hunters and not just random people who cross paths with the undead and then have to try and survive but actually seek out the blood suckers. There's a lot of cool vampire action and some great gore, i especially remember the scene at the begining where the vampire gets a stake in the head. Loads of other great moments in it.

9/10

[LordSimen]

It's a vampire western, essentially, and one of my favorite vampier movies next to Near Dark and From Dusk Till Dawn. Plus, James Freakin' Woods. Come on! What more is there to say? XP

8/10

[!MorganOnyx!]

Drastically underrated movie. People slate it because it doesn't have the weird ambiance that a CARPENTER movie usually sports. It's like it's CARPENTER does trashy action b-movie! But that's what I love about ths film, it's a straight to the point, balls in the air, wham bam thank you mam kick ass action horror! Vampires have never scared me anyway but as long as the movie takes itself seriously you can get alot out of it. JAMES WOODS is good as the lead, actually believable in a tough guy role and THOMAS IAN GRIFFITHS is suitably evil, charismatic and brutal as fuck as the head vampire. The action is well staged and the effects are gruesome enough for a giggle. CARPENTER shoots the movie with his usual flair, paying attention to the important things like building up a repoir with the main characters and adding creepy visuals at the right time and the right place. A success. :)

[countchocula]

This is Carpenter's last feature-length film that is worth watching, in my opinion. James Woods rocks. He's even more badass than Snake Plissken. The gore is delicious, the effects are seamless, and the pace never lets up. This is one of my favorite vampire flicks. The only thing missing is the presence of Sheryl Lee's breasts. Where does she get off keeping her chest concealed in a horror film?

[pablo_super1!]

I loved this movie. I seen it when I was little its my 5th favorite from 1998. James wood is great and so is Thomas ian Griffith. Its my second favorite vampie movie after From Dusk Til Dawn

[PackBacker]

"Vampires" is sort of a guilty pleasure movie of mine. It's trashy but fun...definitely agree with Morgan on the Carpenter B film feel.

Everytime I watch the film two things stand out for me: James Woods and the score. Although I think no one can be more badass than Snake Plisskin, James Woods's Jack Crow is up there. Crow gets too excited...Snake woulda shrugged and walked off after stabbing a vampire. This though is awesome:

"No... Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these buggers will bend you fucking over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his fuckin' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters."


The other highlight is the score. I'm almost convinced that Carpenter is better as a musician than a filmmaker....and I love 90% of his films. This one features a haunting Tex-Mex inspired melody. It's never over-bearing and perfectly accentuates the tone. Absolutely terrific.

The story itself is a fun take on the sub-genre. Vampire films have to work to be original. This one did itself a great deed by featuring mercenaries...funded by the Catholic church!!! Nice touch IMHO. The whole Valek/daywalker idea was ok for me but nothing to shit my britches over.

The acting is a mixed bag. Woods was awesome as previously discussed. Ian Griffith and Guinee were solid but I felt Daniel Baldwin and Sheryl Lee were distracting. Baldwin is just wretched. Besides the fact that he looks like bloated roadkill he just isn't believable in the least. Wooden would be an understatment. Lee looked like a crack whore who had been ridden hard and put up wet...maybe she did ok then. She just sorta seemed "there" with no real presence.

The gore effects were terrific. Valek's big destruction scene was terrific. Tearing the guy in half was the topper for me but there was plenty of good looking red stuff to go around. Similarly the burning vampires look decent.

I found it a little odd that the film had multiple instances of homosexual undertones. The fat Baldwin brother seemed to have a serious crush on Jack Crow. There were a couple instances where I thought he was just going to start unzipping him. The other situation was with Crow and the Padre talking about him getting wood. At first it seemed like good natured ribbing but then it just got odd. Maybe it's me but especially on this viewing I picked up on it. Maybe Carpenter intentionally put it in there due to not having any altar boys in the picture...

All in all it's a fun flick. Not high brow horror but amusing with one uber badass James Woods strutting his stuff.

[yorrick brown]

i didn`t like that the head vampire looked like a goth rocker.

but james woods as jack crow was sick.i loved this speech he gives.(thank you imdb)
Jack Crow: You ever seen a vampire?
Father Adam Guiteau: No I haven't.
Jack Crow: No... Well first of all, they're not romatic. Its not like they're a bunch of fuckin' fags hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents, all right? Forget whatever you've seen in the movies: they don't turn into bats, crosses don't work. Garlic? You wanna try garlic? You could stand there with garlic around your neck and one of these buggers will bend you fucking over and take a walk up your strada-chocolata WHILE he's suckin' the blood outta your neck, all right? And they don't sleep in coffins lined in taffata. You wanna kill one, you drive a wooden stake right through his fuckin' heart. Sunlight turns 'em into crispy critters.

i liked it ,mindless silly fun.the blonde lady was good and very pretty and that druggie baldwin brother good as well i liked that james wood let him go well drive off at the end .

but i guess this was a sign of things to come with carpenter as he did ghost of mars after this.

[JJFlamingo]

Perhaps the last great hurrah to come from the ouvre of John Carpenter, and easily one of the Greatest Vampire Movies Ever Made. Woods is easily at his most badass, playing the nihilistic antihero to the hilt, and would certainly give Plissken some pause. Baldwin and Sheryl Lee were actually very good in their parts, and their relationship brings a welcome dose of poignant melodrama to the proceedings (notice Montoya doesn't even fight back when she bites him). The big disappointments acting wise were Griffith's Valek and Tim Guinee's Padre. Valek is given nothing in the script to make him interesting, and comes across as a Generic Vampire King that we've seen many times before, while Guinee is practically an embarassment, making us wonder why Crow don't just break his neck and get it over with. The gore is plentiful and fun, and I can't say enough about yet another fantastic score to a Carpenter film. The overture when the hunters arrive to Valek's hideout late in the film is inspiring with the image of them slowly casing the joint out while the guitar music is rolling. And the final scene with Crow and Montoya saying goodbye is beautiful and touching, showing the bond between these two men without portraying either one as weak or sentimental. In all, easily in Carpenter's Top Ten, and that's saying ALOT...:D

[XCoRyX]

And the most insane thing i'll go out on a limb and say honestly - is that i've enjoyed both straight to video low-budget sequels...the one with Bon Jovi and the kid from Family Matters (Jovi did really well I feel),and the even lower budgeted third one dealing with Muay Thai and asian cultures.

[Tagia_Romero]

Originally posted by Kikabi
The movie's adapted from the book Vampire$ by John Steakley, which emphasized more of the mercenary nature of the vampire slayers. They're the bounty hunters of the undead. So ,they weren't doing this so much out of a sense of good and evil; they were doing it for the money. Except for Jack Crow (James Woods) who was always a conflicted character when it came to the religious aspects.

The vampire slayers as bounty hunters is something I wish the movie had more time to explore, explaining more clearly why they were all risking their lives hunting down these vamps. It's the reason why it's a "Vampire Western" in the first place.

Every vampire movie has it's own rules for the vampires. The most important rule in this one is that crosses don't affect vampires. The other one is that it takes several days after one is bitten to turn into a vampires.

During these days, the bitten forms a telepathic link becomes established with the vampire who had bitten her. I think this gets explained once too often in the movie. In fact, if there were a Vampires drinking game, you'd have to take a drink every time someone says "link."

But, it's a cool idea and device to keep tabs on what Valek is doing without breaking the point of view of the movie, which stays strictly with the slayers. So the link thing works well in telling the story.

The vampires look very cool. The make-up is pretty much the same style as used in Interview With the Vampire, pale and veiny, similiar teeth and eyes. Although they didn't have the budget for the same contact lenses used in Interview, the vampires's eyes are effective, especially Valek's. The vamps rising out of the earth was a great scene. How nice of the wind to blow away all that dirt off of them.

Thomas Ian Griffith, as Jan Valek, makes a terrific vampire. I like that Valek's beautiful, but he's nothing but dangerous. No philosophizing, no charming words and manners for him, and no taunting and playing cruel games with his potential victims, either. He just gets straight to the sex and blood, and ripping people to pieces with his bare hands, with the bullets not phasing him as they do the other vamps.

Also, he has a sweet coat. There should be a rule that all vampires, the leaders, at least, have to wear cool coats of some kind, preferably black and hanging at least past the knee. But enough about vampire fashion. :p

The gore-factor's pretty up there. Not completely complaining since I like how Valek establishes how strong, unstoppable. and monstrous he is by ripping apart Crow's team. But not sure why Crow feels the need to stake his dead comrades in the heart when he also decapitates them, buries the heads elsewhere, and sets the motel, along with the bodies, on fire.

That was just overkill in my book, no pun intended. I should have felt bad for Crow that he has to do all of this to his dead buddies, but the excess gore distracts from that potential emotional connection.

I loved the score. I also loved the suiting up scene with the team bringing out modern and medieval weapons and body armor. Nice touch. Although I'm not sure if dragging the vamps out into the daylight one by one is the most efficient way to exterminate a "nest." Lucky for them, all the vampires don't get out of bed enmass and attack them all.

I usually give low budget B-movies a lot of slack, but I've got to say, I've never seen such bad fire special effects.

Vampires has been given a lot of heat about being misogynistic. It's true, all the women in the movie are either vamps or whores, and there's plenty of T & A. That's not so bad, but the guys imply that the only thing a woman's good for is a good lay. But it's how Katrina's treated that gets the movie it's misogynist rap.

I'm of two minds on it. Seeing Tony knock her out cold is a harsh thing to see, especially after he was trying to be nice to her. I didn't like it, nor the way they pushed and dragged her around like a thing.

However, that's how they see her, especially Crow, as a thing, no longer a human being, but a thing they'll have to kill the minute she grows fangs. Still, Crow didn't need to be so rough with her. It too easily implies that he's that way with women in general, and that his behavior is acceptable, since Tony and the Padre don't step in to stop him. At least Tony redeems himself after punching her out cold.

I give it 7.5/10 - It's mostly a fun bit of cheese. The direction is fine, the editing, not so much. Sometimes the acting is OTT, including from James Woods. As I said, Thomas Ian Griffith impressed me, but not just with his looks. He doesn't have a lot of dialogue, but what he has he delivers very well. But of the dialogue overall, meh. Some good (a lot of Woods' ab-libs) and some of a little too cheesy.

You know, I was going to post a review, but after seeing that, I have been disheartened. :p

You've summed up my thoughts on the film as well, that's what Carpenter called 'Once Upon A Time In Vampireland', and with good reason, given his overt references to Westerns and brotherly companionship.

[Kings-Rook1]

Jack Crow: Can I ask ya somethin, Padre? When I was kickin? your ass back there... you get a little wood?

WTF! Set the wayback machine for 1998; I was so looking forward to John Carpenters Vampires. I mean think of it…John Carpenter makes a Vampire movie! Unfortunately I haven’t been excited about a Carpenter film ever since. The story is OK, the script has it's moments, Daniel Baldwin sucks, James Woods was alright (But definitely not deserving of all the praise he’s getting). Griffith was cool as Valek and the gore was pleasant but all in all it’s just another B-grade addition to the Vamp genre. You can sit throught it easy enough as long as it’s not a scene with Baldwin in it.

6/10

Bring on the Tall Man!!!!!

[PackBacker]

I just can't help but think of where this film would be without Daniel Baldwin...possibly an iconic vampire film. I'm just wondering if they were strapped for cash and just dumped it in his lap.

[Kings-Rook1]

Beating on infected whores is about all he is worth (wish him luck in rehab though). Right at the first words out of his mouth, “We kill Vampires.” You know you’re in for a treat. Luckily Valek shows up and thrashes em all.

[Ratlehed]

Well, this is probably my 4th viewing of Vampires. I didnt really have any urge to watch it ever again. But since its the movie of the week I figured I'd give it another try.

First I must say that John Carpenter is one of my favorite directors. I really enjoy most of his films. They usally have a good story and good charectars. Vampires, however, falls a little short in both depts.

The story wasnt bad. It was just a little to straight. There was no real plot twists here. It was pretty predictable.

The charectors is what kept this movie flat. Starting with Jack Crow. James Woods can play smart and crazy fine. Woods playing a vampire killer is something I cant buy. Sure he has cool weapons and vampire killing experiance. But seeing him getting pummeled by Valek and just brushing it off is a little to much. He just isnt tough looking. I just dont think James Woods made a good tough-guy in general. Baldwin did fine, I thought. He played a beliveable run down bounty hunter guy. Sheryl Lee was the best actor in the film. Her eyes and body movement really sold it. She played a good sick person/ vampire. The rest of the cast was avg.

The F/X where decent. Some things looke good while others looked iffy. They had alot of cool vampire killing weapons that would have made for some nice death scenes. The motel and monk slaughtering parts had some good death scenes though. The part where Crow shot the vamp girls hand off was pretty cool.

The music was cool. As usual with J.C.. Had the music been different it would have really hurt the film.

Maybe if Roddy Piper (They Live) would've played Jack Crow I would've dug the movie more. Someone tougher than James Woods at least. It was good just not good compared to some of Carpenters other films. It was good vampire/action movie.

2/4 stars. An entertaining time waster.

[XCoRyX]

I didn't mind him nor Daniel Baldwin. Woods I think made the movie, I'm sure he could have been replaced as could anybody except a handful in movie history,but he really brought something to the movie,and it was cool seeing him doing something different then he usually does.

Oh,and this movie was made in 1998,not 1988 ;)

[Kikabi]

Originally posted by XCoRyX
I didn't mind him nor Daniel Baldwin. Woods I think made the movie, I'm sure he could have been replaced as could anybody except a handful in movie history,but he really brought something to the movie,and it was cool seeing him doing something different then he usually does.

Yeah, I agree. Woods gave Crow a great attitude, a wise-crackin' bad-ass, and he sold me on his toughness. Daniel Baldwin didn't stick-out as a sore thumb to me as he seems to have for others. I think he did fine.

[PackBacker]

Originally posted by Ratlehed
Maybe if Roddy Piper (They Live) would've played Jack Crow I would've dug the movie more.


Now that woulda been freakin' awesome. I can just here him asking "Did that give you wood?" in a Scottish accent.

and yes....1998 my bad! :)

[XCoRyX]

Piper is a cool guy for the part...but then again theres like 10 others right off the top of my head that could also do the role...its not a very hard role to play,which is why I don't think Woods did so bad.

[Frank the Tank]

This was really fun.

Great gore, good action, and an badass James Woods. Makes up for plotholes with sheer presence and attitude. Technically not a great movie, but a great shut off your brain and enjoy type of movie.

[Stabby McStab]

Maybe it's because this is a John Carpenter movie but I really like this movie. It's not a blockbuster but it's entertaining. Plus James Woods is awesome. Now the sequel to this is another story. It's pretty bad, plus the lead actor is Bon Jovi.

[teenkiller]

I'm a couple of months late to the conversation but I just saw the movie for the first time last night so EFF YOU!!... er... it was good.

I found it a bit weaker than Carpenter's other work (Halloween, Escape from NY, THE THING) but it still kicks the shit out of Escape from L.A. This is the film that pulled Carpenter out of retirement. I read that he was giving up on filmmaking because it stopped being fun but when he was offered this he felt he had to take it because he liked the idea of a western.

Johnny C. gives up his usual electronic score and goes for more of a twangy tex mex slow driven guitar tune. It's not as great as some of his other tunes but synthesizer work wouldn't really fit in with this type of film.

The debate on whether James Woods lives up to the badass role? I'll say this. He certainly does NOT look the part but he definitely had me sold anyways. It is said that a good deal of his lines were improvised with Johnny C. having him read from the script when he felt James needed to play a scene in a more straightforward manner. I haven't seen Daniel Baldwin in anything else so I can't really speak for his acting in general but he seemed fine in Vampires.

Vampires was a worthy way of wasting 100 minutes. Makes for a decent one time watch at least and since I'm a big fan of Johnny C. I felt I owed it to myself to check it out. Vampires don't really do anything for me and the lead villain here wasn't any exception. I didn't really feel his evil. In fact, his introductory scene where he starts slaughtering the team I thought looked pretty cheesy. Didn't work for me.

One thing that bothered me. It was too easy to tell that the Catholic church was being evil. Easy call. I mean, aren't they always? Predictable. I do like at the end though when the priest gives Jack the cross and tells him that JESUS had been with them all along. Jack seems to accept it.

John Carpenter's Vampires: 7.5/10

Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

[Kikabi]

One thing that bothered me. It was too easy to tell that the Catholic church was being evil. Easy call. I mean, aren't they always? Predictable. I do like at the end though when the priest gives Jack the cross and tells him that JESUS had been with them all along. Jack seems to accept it.

John Carpenter's Vampires: 7.5/10

Well thats all for now GOoD JOURNEY my fellow schmoes.

Good review and good call about the Catholic Church. Although I'll point out that it's not "the Church" but the Cardinal who turned evil. And yeah, it was an easy call since Maximilan Schell was so slimy from the start. But the two individual priests are heroic so that balances things out as far as the Catholic Church being evil in Vampires.

I don't know about the Catholic Church always being evil, though. I guess I haven't seen enough movies where they're protrayed that way. It seems more often preachers are evil, the more fundamentalist, the worse they are - it's a Stephen King staple and a tired stereotype.