Vampires (1998) Reviews

• Strangely appealing

  soralapio2002-06-22

  Ever since I saw a documentary on the making of horror movie special effects, I've wanted to see 'Vampires'. I wasn't disappointed. In this era of cheap computer effects it's really refreshing to see a movie where the special effects are done the old fashioned way. For some bizarre reason I really like Vampires. The plot is somewhat clichéd, the acting is nothing special and yet... I find myself watching this movie over and over again. Somehow the idea of a secret military force funded by the church, dedicated to fighting vampires is thrilling even though I'm not a religious man. I suppose it harkens back to the day of witch hunters. James Woods is great as the grim, dedicated man sworn to destroy all vampires and as the true shocker, the generic Baldwin appearing in the movie does a really good job as well! If you like gory movies, check it out!

• An underrated Carpenter movie with bite!

  DVD_Connoisseur2007-04-14

  "Vampires" is great popcorn entertainment. While fans will always compare 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 very watchable. Daniel Baldwin delivers a believable performance as his dependable sidekick. "Twin Peaks"' Sheryl Lee plays the leggy small-town hooker who is unfortunately bit by a Master Vampire, Valek. There are also appearances from Maximilian Schell and "Miami Vice"'s Gregory Sierra. In Carpenter's "Vampires", the undead don't exit this world peacefully. Instead, they explode like giant Catherine wheels. This is exciting to watch - you can't have enough sparking vampires, can you? With lots of action and a few dark laughs, you could do a lot worse than see this movie. With an excellent score, great visuals and a fast pace, "Vampires" scores a strong 8 out of 10.

• Much better than its reputation!

  leo-961999-08-04

  I was puzzled by the low rating "Vampires" got, it's my favorite movie of 1998/99. Why do I give the date in that manner? I was (un)fortunate enough to see this movie in the uncut version (as shown in France), in the US version and just a few weeks ago in the German one. But first things first -- I am female and I have read so many reviews and comments telling me, that I, as a woman, should feel disgust at the alleged misogynous undertone of "Vampires". I am sorry, but in none of the three versions I saw did I feel, hear or see anything which might support this allegation! Crow hated practically everyone except for Montoya and the first priest, Montoya -- while quipping left and right -- behaved quite kindly towards Lee's hooker except where she directly caused him to react violently and none of the other oneliners warrant, IMO, even a raised eyebrow regarding that special topic. Let me add that I also am not religious, with my own perceptive view of enough past wrongs done by the Catholic church, so that any of the soi-disant "hate" directed at that church is in my opinion well-founded given the plot. Callan's explanation of how he views god, as well as several other references by Crow and Montoya underline the basic belief of the vampire hunters while maintaining their no-nonsense attitude. With that back to why I liked the movie so much: it is in its own way as stark and streamlined as the best samples of its genre; the cinematography is just perfect with the right mixture of visual and non-visual storytelling; the dialogue is engagingly humorous throughout, feels real and allows each character his or her own voice; there are several deeply moving scenes, either visually or characterwise moving, which will stay with the audience; there are enough novelties incorporated to make this rendition of the vampire theme fresh and quite frankly, I liked Carpenter's score a lot too. What wins me completely over is the very obvious fun all the actors had with their roles. James Woods was perfect as sardonic, illusion-free Crow and his brushing "campiness" with the tip of a finger, yet withdrawing just in time, is priceless. Daniel Baldwin makes the most of his character's arc, nicely underplaying his role, while he still manages to convey Montoya's journey by minimal changes of expression or voice. The final scene couldn't have been done any better. Sheryl Lee gives what I consider one of the strongest supports I've seen in quite a few years, whether by male or female actors, especially when you count in the scarcity of means she's handed over. Ian Griffith had several fine moments and the entire supporting cast was refreshing in their non-Hollywoody realistic, natural look and acting. The overall impression was of people enjoying what they're expertly doing. An advice to the German audience, I noted while watching the dubbed release that the translation killed practically every single punch line and nearly all of the humor. And it *could* have been translated properly. The voice actors dubbing for Woods and Baldwin did so without recreating even a tenth of what both actors put into their voices in the original version. I do think that some of the disappointment expressed there is due the extremely low quality of the translation and dubbing. See the movie in its original language. I also can't see any reason for the loss of those scenes which were cut out of the US release when compared to the French one. The movie loses quite some strength this way.

• If John Carpenter retired with Vampires, it'd be enough to call him one of the great masters of horror

  Smells_Like_Cheese2001-08-13

  Why is this movie so appealing? I don't know how to answer this other than what I love about it: James Woods! Vampires is a movie brought to us by horror mastermind John Carpenter who almost gave up film making because he became disgusted by how Hollywood got so greedy. I'm so glad he decided to make Vampires because if not for his touch, I think this movie could have been really bad or bland. I'm very sad to say that Vampires seems to get overlooked or shadowed when people bring up great vampire movies a lot. I think because Blade was also released the same year, so it just got lost in 1998. However, I still love this movie, it's a western horror fright film that I'm sure will have you on the edge of your seat. A lot of people complain about James Woods being too camp in his role…since when did that become such a bad thing? He's so awesome in this movie and really makes it exciting. Mercenaries led by Jack Crow rids an abandoned house of vampires in the middle of New Mexico. The sun sets and, as the Slayers leave, the Master bursts out of the ground outside the house. The slayers stay at a motel in the middle of a desert, getting drunk, smoking and partying with women as they celebrate their victory. One of the prostitutes is a young woman named Katrina. When the master vampire, Valek, turns up at the motel, he bites Katrina and massacres the slayers and prostitutes. During this attack Valek sees Jack and calls him by name which astonishes Crow. Crow and his partner, Montoya, run outside and grab Katrina, take a pickup truck and drive off. Narrowly escaping from Valek, they keep on driving for a few more hours until dawn. While Crow goes back to the motel to deal with the remains of the team and prostitutes, Montoya takes Katrina to the nearest hotel. Meanwhile, Montoya has gotten another hotel room and he tells Katrina that she has been bitten by Valek and that she too will be one soon if they cannot find and destroy him. She now has a telepathic link to the Master. They are using her to find out his real plans and why and who set them up. I think between John's touch to the film it was the cast who really made this something special. James Woods brings a lot of fun to the film, being almost an extreme Rambo. Not since the Frog brothers in Rambo have I seen such passion to kill vampires. I love when he walks away from the explosion at the hotel that's a few feet behind him, I always have to say "Yeah, I know there's an explosion behind me. What; you think I don't see explosions? I do; every day! They bore me now!". Daniel Baldwin plays off James very well and did great being the sidekick who does stand his ground when pushed too hard. Sheryl Lee, very chilling performance at times, she doesn't do much in the film but when she does have powerful scenes, she pulls in very well with great screams. Tim Guinee, the replacement priest with no experience whatsoever, I adore him playing off James Wood's tough exterior. Him trying to stand up to James but he knows he can't win with him, however when put to the test, he really comes through for the guys and turns into Arnold Schwarzenslayer. And the final star of the film and a very haunting performance with Thomas Ian Griffith as the vampire Vallek. Great performance by him and he is a very savage vampire who reminds you that not all vampires are romantic with cheesy accents. I love the whole style of the film, it feels raw and like you're riding with the cowboys. A lot of beautiful colors of the sunset and the shadows to give you a chilling feel. This film may just require a certain taste, but I think most people do enjoy this film and I'm sure somewhere down the line, it will get the appreciation it deserves. Much thanks to John Carpenter giving the film industry one more try and bringing us a great vampire movie. 8/10

• This movie lacks a certain "bite", but still is not bad.

  BlackMonk2000-09-09

  The movie opens with a trained, fully-equipped team of vampire slayers, led by Jack Crow (James Woods), methodically purging a "nest" of its fanged occupants. This is one of the best scenes of the movie and sets the viewers up to think, "Hey, these guys know what they're doing. They're some rough-and-ready characters." But, lo, where is the master vampire? Not to worry, he'll have his chance at revenge...later that very night, as the "trained" vampire hunters go to the nearest town, lay down their weapons, and begin drinking and whoring. And they knew full-well that a master vampire, whose "subjects" they'd just fried, was still lurking about! How stupid can you be???!!! The movie marches on, showing carnage and betrayal as the plot is advanced. (And, frankly, it's not a bad plot). But there are many holes, many questions that are not answered, like, Why was such an mysterious and important item (a cross that would permit a vampire to walk in the sunlight) guarded by such a inept group of robe-clad nincompoops, who, according to their own harried screams, knew "The day has arrived!"? If they knew that a particularly horrific "day" was inevitably going to "arrive," why, then, did they lack even a modicum of defensive capability. Why were they caught frantically scampering around like a herd of panty-clad Dr. Smiths (from TV's Lost in Space..."Oh the pain, the pain of it all..."). Oh well, we'll never know, and they're too dead to tell us. Be that as it may, this movie does have some good dialogue, interesting characters, a unique idea or two, and an actual plot--which makes John Carpenter's "Vampires" stand head and shoulders above most of the horror movies that are out today. I enjoyed it despite its defects.