Vampires Reviews

Page 1 of 83
Super Reviewer
½ May 11, 2008
John Carpenter at his best, James Woods having a ton of fun!!!
Super Reviewer
August 22, 2007
Or known as 'John Carpenter's Vampires' if you wish. This film starts off really well with Woods and his vampire slaying team cooking up some vamps in their own unique way. They find em, harpoon em and drag them out into the sunlight via a winch on a truck. What I really liked about the film was this cool vamp slaying team, there were a few well known faces in there, character actors that really made a unique cool looking unit. Its such a shame that they all get wiped out early on.

This leaves Woods and Baldwin galloping up diarrhea drive without a saddle. It also seems to diminish the film before its even started, but wait! all is not lost. Woods character is a solid hard ass, he looks unashamedly cool with his black leather coat, blue jeans and shades, he's got a mouth on him, a wicked name and knows his way around most weaponry, in short he's an older Snake Plissken with a short back n sides.

The plot is simple enough, its Woods vs vampires, good enough for ya?. When I say vampires I mean just one badass head vampire (who looks suspiciously like the head nutter from 'Ghosts of Mars') and a lot of faceless stake fodder. Its all about Woods really, yeah he has the typical wet sidekick pushed on him, a newbie priest to look after, and there's Baldwin but to be honest they don't figure. You wanna see Woods swearing and kicking vampire ass.

When I first heard of this I didn't think too much of it, after 'Escape From LA' most were in shock and this really didn't sound very inspiring. But this does turn out to be a pretty decent western vampire flick along the lines of 'From Dusk Till Dawn'. There is plenty of blood and gore with some nice body part effects, obviously violence is high, nice visuals and your obligatory cowboy-like musical score.

Not your obvious Carpenter flick as it does seem more glossy than most, still looks a bit 'made for TV' here and there but generally its a tad more Hollywood. Doesn't add much new to the vampire lore either, only the way they harpoon vamps and certain weapons have a face lift of sorts. All your usual types of deaths, leaping around, decapitations, vampire POV, bone snapping sound effects etc...are present and correct.

Better than you would expect but mainly down to Woods, without him who knows. Its cheesy and not quite up to the standards of other more original quirky Carpenter films but it certainly holds its own amongst other vampire films. It does always amuse me though how all the characters know regular bullets don't have any effect on vampires, yet they continually empty clips into them as if it will do any good.

'Can I ask ya something Padre? When I was kickin your ass back there...you get a little wood?'
FilmFanatik
Super Reviewer
½ April 2, 2008
Here's a John Carpenter movie that I hadn't seen before, and one that I found pretty enjoyable for the most part. You see I've never been a huge John Carpenter fan. Yes he's made some terrific films in a couple of different genres, but when you look at his overall output, a lot of times it feels lazy and stinks of egotism. Hell, nearly ever movie he makes he puts his name on the title, and I don't like that at all. Vampires could have been a great abortion in the style and awfulness of Ghosts of Mars, which he made right after this one, but it isn't. It's not incredibly-well acted (other than James Woods) and it's laughably schlocky at times, but it's different and manages to actually be entertaining in spite of itself. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece or anything, but I was pleasantly surprised at how much fun it was. It's not one of Carpenter's best films, but it's decent enough that you won't be bored or angry, like I usually get watching his lower calibre movies.
Super Reviewer
September 6, 2010
I have heard a lot of good things about this movie and people keep asking me why I hate it since I love vampire movies, so I suppose I will give it another try sometime. But for now, I will say that I hated the beginning of this movie, it's confusing and strange and I couldn't find anything good about it.
TheDudeLebowski65
Super Reviewer
½ October 6, 2010
I am a diehard horror fan. I absolutely love John Carpenter's work. I've always wanted to see this film, but I somehow neglected it. Vampires is a different take on vampire films, and it's quite amusing to watch. From start to finish the film is filled with gore and awesome violence. This by far the goriest vampire film that I've seen in a while, and it's simply a well made film that will deliver good scares and action. John Carpenter has made a film that takes wise cracks the catholic church, and it's easy to see why the film has gained much controversy with the Vatican. But that doesn't really matter, this is a work of fiction after all, everything presented here is for simple viewing pleasure. Vampires is one demented vampire flick, and along with Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Ti'll Dawn, this is the best vampire film of the second half of the 1990's. James Woods delivers a mean performance as Jack Crow, a vampire slayer under contract with the Vatican. Vampires is an action packed gore fest that will definitely appeal to gorehounds as much as vampires fans. I'veseen my share of vampire films, and this has got to be the bloodiest film that I've seen. John Carpenter's take on Vampirism is very interesting and opens up a new window of possibilities in the vampire genre. What makes the film worthwhile is that it doesn't take itself too seriously, and Carpenter delivers yet another solid horror film. Unfortunately this is quite his last great horror film, as ghosts of mars was borderline watchable. This is definitely a film that will appeal to vampire fans, as this is a different on the genre and is quite original in it's conception. James Woods is the best actor here, and it his acting acting definitely improves on the overall film. The result is a wicked vampire film with lots of gore and action. However I wouldn't recommend the film to everyone, but to those who haven't seen this film, and want to, you're in for quite a surprise.
Super Reviewer
½ September 8, 2009
A decent story but it's shows only a fraction of Carpenter's talents and so is a wasted opportunity!
Super Reviewer
June 4, 2009
oh yes yes James Woods doesnt have a non-badass bone in his body and the body split down the middle scene can NEVER be topped! You know what flixster thank you. i think im gonna go buy this now. it makes from dusk til dawn look like twilight.
arashxak
Super Reviewer
½ March 14, 2009
The whole religion vs. vampires crap always annoys me fortunately heres is not the case & it's quite the opposite but that's about the only good thing about the movie overall it was a weak effort by Carpenter specially compared to his other movies that I've seen "The Thing" & "In The Mouth Of Madness"
DragonEyeMorrison
Super Reviewer
½ March 2, 2008
Carpenter already showing clear signs of getting rusted.
Super Reviewer
January 11, 2008
Director, John Carpenters best film to date. A masterpiece. Slick, stylish, cool and endlessly thrilling. A blood-thirsty classic of a horror film. Loaded ith exhilerating action and suspense. James Woods has never been better.
Super Reviewer
January 7, 2008
Could have been good. They really wanted to do an update to the vampire myth and they had a good start just not a good story. I liked the fact that they all worked for the vatican and that the vamps were a little harder to kill than we were led to believe but it started to get boring and predictable halfway through.
FiLmCrAzY
Super Reviewer
½ November 29, 2007
its quite good really reli gd interesting and exciting jumpy bits as well
Super Reviewer
½ September 15, 2007
Ugh. I had such high hopes for this movie. I mean, it's got James friggin' Woods battling friggin' vampires! I keep watching it over again, in disbelief that it can possibly be as bad as I remember. It is. The villains are rubbish, the heroes are cretins and the effects are underwhelming. And James Woods is completely wasted, which is extra-tragic because he seems to be the only one putting any affort into this movie whatsoever. This film makes me weep for what could have been.
deano
Super Reviewer
March 29, 2007
Although James Woods is brilliantly cast as a foul-mouthed, Vatican-backed vampire slayer who heads an enthusiastic team of mercenaries, the film turns sour when our "hero" abandons his common sense while seeking vengeance against 600-year-old vampire master. The storyline becomes ludicrously arbitrary and is not scary.
Super Reviewer
July 13, 2007
I love anything about vampires, they're kind of an obsession of mine.
Super Reviewer
June 23, 2007
Although hardly a classic of the horror genre it certainly has its moments of extreme gore and some novel ways of ridding the world of the undead.
Super Reviewer
½ March 30, 2007
A very good vampire film, all about hunting them down and killing them off!
Super Reviewer
February 17, 2007
Saw the "sequel", which was lousy, so by law this is probably awful too.
garyX
Super Reviewer
February 11, 2007
Lame post-Buffy vampire flick made well after Carpenter's star had well and truly waned. Humourless and stupid with feeble set pieces and dialogue like "A master vampire who can walk in daylight. Unstoppable. Unless we stop him." But still a hundred times better than Ghosts Of Mars...
Super Reviewer
½ October 12, 2012
John Carpenter delivers a bold new vision of the undead in his action/horror film Vampires. The story follows a pair of vampire slayers that go rogue in order to pursue a master vampire named Valek, who they believe to be the original source of vampirism. James Woods leads the cast, which also includes Sheryl Lee and Daniel Baldwin. However, the characters aren't written very well and the performances bear that out. But the vampire lore of the film is quite interesting and keeps the film engaging. So while the story isn't that compelling, the action and mythology keeps Vampires entertaining.
Page 1 of 83