IMDb user comments for
Vampires (1998) More at IMDb Pro »

Filter:

Best Chronological Prolific Authors Loved It Hated It Hide Spoilers:

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Index

370 comments in total

---

33 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Strangely appealing, 22 June 2002

Author: Miikka Lehtonen from Turku, Finland

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!

---

27 out of 34 people found the following comment useful :-
Much better than its reputation!, 4 August 1999

Author: leo-96

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.

---

18 out of 25 people found the following comment useful :-
Fade in, Fade Out, 17 August 2004
Author: m0rg16 from Sweden

I'm a big fan of John Carpenter. But in his latest films, I've noticed somewhat of a clumsy way he directs his films. It's almost as if the films were rushed and some scenes or even shots, just weren't filmed. He fades between all of his scenes... Sometimes, leaving us wanting more, but he just fades to the end of it. Sometimes, the scenes he uses could have been completly cut out and not used with the fade-technique whatsoever.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my mind. Off to the plot:

Jack Crow is a Master Slayer, meaning that he kills vampire for the catholic church, and has been doing that for his entire life. After he cleans out a nest of Vampires in New Mexico, his team gets ambushed my a powerful vampire named Valek. Valek kills the entire team of slayers, except for Jack and his friend Montoya. They also manage to bring a hooker along with them, who got bitten by the vampire. Using the hookers telepathic link with her master, the two try to hunt down Valek and find out what he's up to.

This film is gory. Really gory. Most likely John Carpenters goriest film to date, counting The Thing. Some might think that gore is an unnecessary way of filming, but in this film: Gore is not used to "impress" or "Show off". It's used as a background thing. I didn't feel that it was a way of using the gore to create "terror". And if you happen to like gore, you'll find one redeeming factor in this film.

The acting is good. James Woods is really funny as Jack Crow at times, altough Daniel Baldwin isn't really "great", nor is Tim Guinee. But the acting holds up. There's not much else to say other than that James Woods is funny... at times.

The action in this film is quite abundant, yet it's not that great. It can be enjoyable but at the same time the action is very repetive. That doesn't bode very well. Another thing abut this film is that it's too damn long for an action/horror film. Its almost 2 hours long. They should have made it 90 minutes instead, as that would be more fitting of a movie of this "type".

Well. The film is boring sometimes, yet it has some redeeming factors. All in all I give it a six. Nothing great, but if you're a John Carpenter fan you'll like it. And you might want to see how his style has changed. Dramaticly.

---

15 out of 20 people found the following comment useful :-
This movie lacks a certain "bite", but still is not bad., 9 September 2000

Author: BlackMonk from TN

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.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
An underrated Carpenter movie with bite!, 14 April 2007
Author: DVD_Connoisseur from England

"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.

---

7 out of 8 people found the following comment useful :-
Naysayers, take note..., 1 April 2002

Author: poe426 from USA

Who but John Carpenter would have the savvy to make a "vampire western," and do it so well? His WILD BUNCH is a blue-collar crowd doing a dirty job, led by the cocky James Woods (whose wisecracking but nonetheless no-nonsense approach to hunting vampires reminded me more than a little of the early SPIDER-MAN- the one written by Stan Lee and rendered by Steve Ditko). And, just for the record, the movie IS better than the book. MUCH better. Carpenter manages to evoke a sense of time and place that seems to capture the FEEL of the southwest. The music definitely helps in this regard, but it's the director's filmmaking TECHNIQUE that makes this the almost "spiritual odyssey" that it is. When was the last time a movie made you feel you were THERE...?

---

6 out of 7 people found the following comment useful :-
Woods at his absolute best. Carpenter's still got "it.", 28 October 2003

Author: Fiendish_Dramaturgy from .: Fiendish Writings in the Dark :.

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

PREMISE

The quest for the black cross is on. When the Vatican learns that a nest of vampires is after this holy relic, they send Jack Crow (Woods) and his team of expert vampire hunters out to find it first. If the vampires get their hands on it, they can then do a rite which will enable them to walk in sunlight and go virtually undetected.

END PREMISE

While this movie received horrible ratings among fans of the vampire genre, it is a clever twist on the old story with enough variations to make it great. I have not always liked Carpenter's work, but this one is up there with his older classics, in my opinion. I think the reason it was not well received is that movie audiences of today, especially American movie audiences, have become more jaded and desensitized to the effects of horror.

After all, what makes horror, true horror, to you? Is it more blood? More graphic scenes showing disemboweled corpses in detail? The true psychological mind game? Ghosts? Monsters? What? That question is answered differently by every person you ask. Therefore no horror movie, especially a specific genre of horror movie, will satisfy every fan of that genre. Vampire fans, in particular, are discriminating creatures who demand a certain level of story quality, effects quality, and believability. Otherwise, they will turn on the makers like a pack of rabid wolves.

There are rules which must be followed, or the movie loses its flavor for these discriminating and sometimes sophisticated palettes. Carpenter broke the rules in this endeavor, and the lack of its success embodies the fans' contempt for his lack of respect for the main principles of vampirism.

Guns were far too widely used here. They were much better utilized in Len Wiseman's "Underworld," in which unique bullets were used. I won't go into the details so as not to spoil that movie for anyone who has yet to see that pure work of art. Click my name to see my review of it.

I liked the plot, and I found this movie very enjoyable. I, however, am not the discriminating vampire fan. I highly enjoyed "Lost Boys," although, I would not recommend it to another fan of that specific genre due to its mainstream-ality. Honestly, there are very few vampire movies out there which live up the the rigid expectations of the true vampire fan. This movie is one of those movies I would recommend, merely because, while it violates some of the basic rules behind vampirism and is not what I would classify as an intelligent vampire film, it still has a few redeeming qualities.

These vampires have an agenda. They are on a mission. They do not simply kill to feed. They are after the "black cross" in order to liberate their species from the prison of darkness, and will kill anyone in their way. There are some suspenseful scenes, and this movie does carry a degree of intensity, but it was otherwise a bit disappointing for the true vampire fan.

While the Master Vampire in this endeavor is purported to be the original vampire, his demonstrations of vampire craft are not very impressive. According to legend (those rules I mentioned earlier), older vampires are accorded specific powers which young vampires are not. While he does demonstrate the legendary feats of strength, that is where it stops. That in itself, was quite disappointing. The potential was here, and as I said, there are some great elements, but this movie fails miserably to live up to its expectations and potential.

My honest recommendations for good vampire movies would be "Underworld," "Dusk Til Dawn," "Salem's Lot" (the made for TV movie, and not the butchered video release...beware!), and "Near Dark," one of the best, in my opinion. I (being a romantic) loved "Interview with a Vampire," regardless of the hidden subtext and omitted story lines, but that is my personal choice. Fans of Anne Rice's "Vampire Chronicles" for the most part hated that movie, for those reasons, and others, I'm sure, and her "Queen of the Damned" was completely bastardized on film, so I'll stand by the movies I've already named here, with "Underworld at the top of the list. I found that movie to be ~extremely~ good. I judged "Underworld" harder than most, because of the high expectations I had for that movie. I was not disappointed. If you are a fan of horror and/or vampire/werewolf lore, check it out. It's going to be a classic, one day.

This movie rates a 9.3/10 with few slow spots and lots of heavy, fast-paced action.

the Fiend :.

---

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Get Your Woodsy, 19 December 2000
Author: tedg (tedg@FilmsFolded.com) from Virginia Beach

*** This comment may contain spoilers ***

Even the stupidest film sometimes rewards. And this film is stupid - like dozens of its contemporaries, it casts evil against an amoral crusader, with the Church as secondary evil. Here we have a Baldwin, acting Baldwin-y (which means acting from his chest), and stock vampires. I suppose the excuse to make this is the innovation of killing them in a slightly different way than is rote.

But the reward here is James Woods. I think he is one of our best technical film actors. By technical, I mean he works not on the character, but on the dramatic effect of the scene. He's a scene-man. One of the most powerful scenes (seared into my memory) was about thirty seconds in the otherwise forgettable `True Crime.' Clint Eastwood and he have an exchange about one of their wives which ranks in my top film moments.

Oops, a minor spoiler follows, though you should be able to see it from across the continent.

So here is Woods in a really unartful enterprise, playing a role that seems to allow no room for acting. And his comrades wouldn't know how to cocreate a technical reading anyway. But he's still damned good! It is like fine rock guitar playing: the holes are where the emotion is. Woods does what the director wants during the `important' moments, like saying goodby to his infected partner, like confronting the cardinal. All according to the specified level of mundaneness. But in the holes, where he is just walking, or grabbing an implement, you can see a good actor. Even this small leavening excites.

And such is noted in the only clever dialog. There's a juvenile running joke about getting an erection when killing vampires. (This I suppose balances the mutual orgasm of the master vampire and hooker victim when he is busied with her genitals.) But that joke is in the form: `did you get some wood?'

Well, I got some Woods.

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
Carpenter's Horror Vamping ..., 20 January 2007

Author: Benjamin Wolfe from USA

I remember back in 1998 when this first was a poster at the local theater. I was interested but didn't think much of this movie at that time. I saw this on video, some years later. John Carpenter's "VAMPIRES" story is interesting, but it seems like there was just something missed in the overall picture. Although the places that they traveled to eradicate the 'nests' was very desert-Gothicism, in other words it was the place you would figure they would be.

The camera work, the colors and the entry of the characters was juicy, I truly was enveloped into the film's visual outlay. But as it went through there was just something, that I felt it lacked. James Woods (Jack Crow) for me however always brings something different and insightful to the character-role that he is 'in'. Whether it's the crud-white trash in "The Onion Field" or his newest quest in the legal world "Shark". James Woods was the actor that won the 'Saturn'award that year for best actor in a science fiction /horror film. Nuff said. I always seem to enjoy the Baldwin brothers when they are characters in a story. Daniel brought his on in this one too. He was a big-good guy, not a perfect good-guy, but a big part of Jack's team.

Sheryl Lee, the female Vampire in the movie, however, I don't know if she did drugs then or if she was just annoying. Maybe it's me who has the problem, but I just think that part was somewhat miss-cast. She has done other parts that were all her, but for me not this one. For me and some, there were a few of the lines, that should have been rewritten. They were hard to swallow, some lack real 'Bite'.

With that said, I still felt this was only really deserving of a 7',considering the talent involved and then the lack of in some of the scripting. In a wrap-up though, still a fun and entertaining story to see. John Carpenter is very much a 'master' in the horror genre.(***)

---

4 out of 5 people found the following comment useful :-
James Woods!, 20 January 2006

Author: imjudelaw from Canada

James Woods! Need I say anything else? Okay, this isn't the greatest movie... but it oozes cool. The vampires in it aren't prissy romantic types or Gothic morons either. They're vicious bastards who would make the vampires in Blade look like wusses.

The actions good, the storyline solid... but it's nothing new. It's just good fun.

It's in my opinion that in Carpenter's old age he's become too tired and cynical to make films that audiences or critics would find to be works of masterpiece, for example, his Apocalyptic Three (Thing, Prince of Darkness, Mouth of Madness). No, he's instead content with making sarcastic films that lampoon mainstream movies.

Ghosts of Mars is much like Vampires in this way... Carpenter's tired, take his films at face value and laugh at how they mock the average person's taste for the mainstream.

---

---

Page 1 of 37:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Add another comment

---

Related Links

Plot summary	Plot synopsis	Amazon.com summary
Ratings	Awards	Newsgroup reviews
External reviews	Parents Guide	Official site
Plot keywords	Main details	Your user comments
Your vote history