Visitors Review

anonymous (2012-05-23 01:18)

The most enjoyable dark comedy / horror movie of late

Once you get over the fact that Vampires is not so much of a horror moviethan a dark comedy the movie becomes quite enjoyable. It is a breath offresh air to see the vampire concept taken away from the Anne Rice-esquetroubled and suffering fool and returned to the savage, ravenous beastthatwe were used to. James Woods performance is extremely good and hedelivershis lines with gusto.

(2012-05-22 13:17)

CARPENTER ,THE BEST DIRECTOR OF HORROR FILMS?OF COURSE

Once again,CArpenter show me the great director he is...I have seen this film 3 times on the cinema..is it necessary to say anything else?

(2012-05-22 08:40)

Misogynist Monster Mash Mess

Okay. So it's a Friday night, and I want to settle down with a good horror flick. John Carpenter's "Vampires" looked to fit the bill: horror, humor, and what looked like some interesting twists in the plot (ie, vampire hunters working for the Catholic church). Boy, was I wrong. Certainly, the opening scenes with James Woods swaggering in those tight jeans, leather jacket, and sunglasses lent an interesting machismo, but as the film progressed, the plot and imagery deteriorated rapidly, and frankly became quite disturbing. Some brief examples...Sheryl Lee plays a prostitute bitten by Valek, the original 'master' vampire. Apparently, although not dead, she will "turn" within 48 hours; Woods and Daniel Baldwin want to use her psychic link with Valek to find and destroy him before he obtains the "black cross" and be able to live in the daylight. Lee is therefore dragged, slapped, stripped and degraded; yet, Baldwin inexplicably falls in love with her with no real explanation or character development (maybe the actor's fault?). The film also has a love-hate relationship with the Catholic church: priests are slapped around and degraded (at least they're not stripped), and the brief religious mention at the end of the film doesn't redeem the basic message of violence. The villains, except for Valek, are indistinct; the special effects and editing are choppy. And if you don't guess the three lines Woods says to Baldwin at the end of the film, you don't get out much (hint: it begins "I will hunt you down...). "Buffy" and "Angel" on television pack more of a punch.

Philip H. Berry (2012-05-21 20:17)

This movie is supposed to be fun, and it is despite the many flaws.

I saw this opening night (Oct. 30) and was prepared to be disappointed. Iconsider myself a fan of John Carpenter, and as such, I am aware that he hasrarely made a perfect film (maybe Starman), but he does sometimes come close(The Thing, Escape From NY), and then sometimes he misses completely (Escapefrom LA, The Fog). But one thing he does usually deliver is entertainment.No matter how bad his films have been, no matter how disappointing, I'venever wanted my money back because I've always gotten something out ofthem.So, I liked "Vampires." So much so I'd like to see it again, and I'll buy itwhen it hits video. But this movie, on the Carpenter scale, comes in atabout 6 for me (10 being highest, 1 being lowest).What makes a great movie? Look through this site and you'll see people wholoved movies you yourself hated. But on the whole, a balance of characterdevelopement, plot, and action make a solid movie. As vampire movies go, Ithink "Lost Boys" and "Interview" are high on the list because of theirability to balance all these elements which make a good movie, I think "DuskTill Dawn" is on the bottom of this list as it failed at character and plotand was almost pure action (and poorly done action at that).Vampires hits just above middle for me because although it lacks competentcharacter development, it's plot is average and mildly interesting, andit's action is average to good.I think James Woods was probably one of the best things about this move.Thomas Ian Grifith was great but suffered from a severe lack of dialogue anddevelopment (don't blame the actor for these shortcomings). Daniel Baldwinwas okay. "Laura Palmer" was good (but also lacking proper dialogue). Andthe rest were rather forgettable (once again, I blame the writing, not theactors. -- How you could waste Maximillian Schell's talents on a phone inrole like this is beyond me.)If you like vampire movies, you should probably like "Vampires." If you likeCarpenter movies, you should also like this film. But if you're looking fora critical masterpiece, you shouldn't be seeing a Carpenter Vampire movie tobegin with.This movie is supposed to be fun, and it is despite the many flaws.Therefore it succeeds in its mission.(P.S. you can't "de-romantasize" vampires by dressing tall, good lookingpeople in black velvet. No amount of dust or dirt will take away from theirappeal. If Carpenter was really trying to do this, as Jack Crow's dialogueindicated, he failed, and I for one am glad he did.)

MovieMaster (2012-05-20 08:57)

John Carpenters best Since The Thing!

This Movie was very enjoyable. John Carpenter is good at action and horror and this movie has that. Not as good as The Thing...But Pretty Close...Check this out!

(2012-05-19 21:17)

REALLY COOL

I liked this movie. I usually hate vampire film but this one was good. It was funny and gory and didn't have to resort to sub-From Dusk Til Dawn type mayhem as it had a plot also. The music is also very spooky in some places.

(2012-05-17 18:14)

Without a Doubt, My Favorite Vampire Movie

This review is from: John Carpenter's Vampires (DVD) The plot has been discussed by dozens of previous reviewers. The movie has been picked apart by people who hated it.All I add is this: this is without a doubt my favorite vampire movie of all time. The scenes are breathtaking. The acting IS spotty at times, but hey. The story is good. I think the reason I like it so much is that I prefer more "realistic" vampires, if you can even talk of such a thing. If there WERE such a thing as vampires, they would be like the monsters in this movie. And if there WERE people who hunted them, they would probably be like the people in this movie.This movie has a lot of replay value - I absolutely had to have it in my collection. I've watched it many, many times.As far as the DVD edition is concerned, I so much enjoyed watching it with John Carpenter's commentary turned on.There have been so many negative reviews, there must be SOMETHING that is turning the average viewer off, though. My advice: rent it first. You'll either hate it, or (like me) you'll love it and know that you have to own it.

Kelly Donaldson (2012-05-17 16:29)

Liked it, but not as Vampire$...

Ok. Let me explain. I liked the movie as a stand alone vampire movie, but Ididn't like it as a movie based on a book. I've read Vampire$ (by JohnSteakly) many many times and I love it a little more every time. Similaritiesbetween the book and the movie: Character names, using crossbow and wench tokill vampires, the idea of a team commissioned by the Pope to kill vampires,oh, and there were vampires. For the big differences, read the book. If youdidn't like the movie, read the book. If you did like the movie, read thebook. Rock and roll.

(2012-05-17 05:32)

A definite bomb. Only James Woods is worthy of praise.

An utter disappointment. A bomb. There's no other way to describe John Carpenter's Vampires. Carpenter isn't one of my favorite directors but I've before Vampires, I've seen five of his films and I enjoyed three of them. Halloween was a creepy slasher flick that took more scares from implicit violence, The Thing was a creative special effects sci-fi thriller, They Live was a paranoid action thriller, and Big Trouble in Little China was a hilarious action-comedy. Watching Vampires, I was hoping for the scares of Halloween, the edge of your seat suspense from The Thing, and the action of Big Trouble in Little China. Instead, Vampires exceeded in explicit violence and gore, had little action and the suspense was nonexistent. The only thing noteworthy of this film is James Woods, who delivers an over-the-top performance as vampire slayer Jack Crow.

(2012-05-16 18:24)

A COOL MOVIE

Don't listen to bad press. This is a good movie, no doubt about it. It's just a little different to from the norm. Don't compare it with overblown movies that are largely superficial. This works perfectly as a solid vampire flick WITHOUT ideas above it's station

(2012-05-15 16:31)

An insult to vampire lovers everywhere

Let's get right down to all the problems with this movie: 1. They make it a point to say that guns won't hurt the vampires; yet always draw their guns and shoot them. 2. Sunlight is the only thing that kills the vampires in this film (going against the Stoker) yet while they're fighing the vampires in that old house, you can see sunlight filtering in and actually touching the vampires (which don't die as a result). 3. why waste time attaching the tow-cable thing to the vampires to pull them out into the sunlight when the Hum-V that they're in could just pull down the whole darn house, killing all the vampires at once???And what about that whole thing where they strip that girl naked and tie her to a bed. Why did they do that?? Was it that neccessary?The list goes on and on, but I'm running out of room. See for yourself, try to count how many silly mistakes YOU can find in this cockroach. No, I take it back, save your time DO NOT SEE THIS STUPID MOVIE!!!I WISH I COULD GIVE THIS FILM NEGATIVE STARS.

(2012-05-15 08:50)

So much plot, so little movie

The premise of this movie is predictable for anyone who ever saw the original Dracula; however, John Carpenter must have been too heavily medicated to develop it beyond a camp and often vulgar attempt at teen romp by old (age wise) actors. Had the cast from Scream or even Dawson's Creek been used it could have possibly turned into something more than just watchable. This is good celluloid fodder for matinee or the "budget" movie crowd - but eat first don't spend the extra money on movie food. Probably its best asset will be that it will be the only new movie not rented at the video store on the weekend so you won't have to go home empty handed. It is the perfect nap movie. Catch the beginning, catch the "zzzzzzzzz's", and catch the credits - an afternoon well spent on a bad-weather day.

(2012-05-10 11:04)

Standing Ovation for John Carpenter

Words cannot describe how much I really love this movie. So far, this is the best John Carpenter film I love. The only two characters I love are Jack Crow and Valek. James Woods had this cool toughguy attitude. Thomas Ian Griffith played the Master Vampire very well. I just hope there will be a sequel, and he returns as Valek again. Well...I doubt that my wish will be granted. Anyway, the movie was excellent. Even though I didn't really want Valek to die, I give it 5 stars anyway. I am looking forward to see more movies from John Carpenter.

(2012-05-10 05:01)

FUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There us only 1 word to describe this movie and that is FUN. This film is wicked!. I had friends over to watch this film and we were all laughing and screaming our heads off!!!!!!!!!!! BUY IT NOW!!!

Oslo Jargo (2012-05-07 19:04)

Vampire Bites the Dust

This wasn't as bad as expected in the begining and I gave it a chance butsomewhere around half way, the film becomes another routine teen actionflick with nothing to say. Woods isnt awful as the aging vampire hunter whocuts the fingers of priests to extract information but the vampire is solame that we don't even think its frightening anymore. Most of the vampireslook like rejects from a 1980's gothic bar and they are about as scary as adead mosquito. The early 80's vampire flicks (Fright Night, Vamp, Dracula)are much better and I'd recommend seeing those instead of thiswaste.

worldpieceprod (2012-05-07 06:18)

Alright, Not bad

I liked this film. Not a perfect film by any means, but not bad.All the scenes with James Woods are excellent. This flick fulfills thebraincandy factor by all means. I wish it kept the violence level of the first20minutes, but the rest is still worth watching. James Woodsindiscriminatelykicking the crap out of the priest(Padre) at least 3 times is priceless.Good fun to be taken lightly. Check it out. Nothing but mindless fun.Don'texpect "The Thing" because that'll never happen again in our lifetime.Vampires is unadulterated fun, Period.

(2012-05-02 00:12)

Carpenter did great with the script he was given

this would have been an awesome movie if only there weren't so many shots of people (especially woods, baldwin, vamp-man valek) looking like B.M.F.s that was the only problem i could really see in it. you could probably find 15 minutes of B.M.F. shots where you just see the character slouched back or standing fully propped up and tough. they even walk like B.M.F.smy friends and i really enjoyed this movie even though if you see "in the mouth of madness" you'll realize john carpenter is better then this movie lets you think. vampire movies are becoming so passe. they even have to get rid of the old stereotypical vampire weaknesses to make them stronger.i just hated every second it showed a character sitting there like a bad-a$$. it's convincing enough that they are vampire exterminators and bad-a$$es with out having ot show how cool they look. it looked like the marlboro man revived. whoever wrote the screenplay has some serious problems with the catholic church. hey no problem if thats your thing but it seemed like there was an underlying theme of hatred towards it. i don't get why if crosses and religous relics had something to do with the vampires creation that it would have no effect on them in hunting for them.I did like some of the methods they used to kill the vampires. some of them seemed to be to time consuming and it would have been easier to do it another way but man did it look cool when they pulled them out of the house. th effects were so neat to especially when valek first gets to the door. and takes that dude out with his bare hands. very gory very gross. but such a neat special effect. (if you saw the movie you know exactly which one i'm talking about)enough of my endless chatter.

(2012-05-01 12:10)

Sucked nut!

This is one of the stupidest movies I have ever had the dis-pleasure of sitting through. What a loathsome piece of trash! This movie will insult you if you love horror movies or vampire movies. Bram Stoker is probably turning in his grave over this cockroach of a film!!! BAAAAAAARF!

Signet (2012-04-29 10:23)

A Sorry Mess

This film is a terrible disappointment. Carpenter's take on Vampires issilly without being funny, offensive without being scary and just plainbadly conceived and badly executed. Further, I for one am getting weary ofseeing movies where clergy are depicted as a)simpleminded, b)feckless, orc)wicked. In "Vampires", they are all of the above.As for the acting, it is wholly forgettable. Thomas Ian Griffith hissesadequately and Daniel Baldwin is a suspiciously convincing dolt. JamesWoods' acting usually has its moments; sadly, none of them are in JohnCarpenter's "Vampires".This movie is so bad and the expectations preceding it have been so highthat the whole thing makes me furious. What a waste of time, talent, andmoney.

photoscots (2012-04-28 19:13)

As Bad As Toothache

A friend of mine approached me at work recently and told me he had watchedthe Carpenter movie 'Escape from LA.' He followed that up by saying, 'Ithink John Carpenter has lost it.'For those of us brought up on Carpenter masterpieces such as 'The Thing'and'Escape from New York' then I think my friend has a point. The recentbatchof movies by Carpenter have been a letdown. A recent example is 'Vampires'starring James Woods and to be honest if the film didn't have Woods thenitwould be totally lost.I won't go over the plot as my friends here do so adequately but theproblemwith this film is that does nothing very well. The editing in the film isatrocious, it tries to be cool with the use of fast cut editingparticularlyin the opening sequence but it only looks amateurish, a bit like a karaokesinger after one too many.Apart form Woods the acting doesn't inspire either and the actors employedwould be best left to tv filmwork. I don't include Maximmilian Schell inthis because he is one of the great actors and wasted in this tripe. Heonlyappears briefly though.This film has been made in the same vein as another Carpenter movie, 'BigTrouble in Little China' but 'Vampires' isn't as good and not half asfunny.My conclusion with this film is don't bother to even rent it instead waitfor a freebie on tv. That reminds me, I must visit thedentist.