Vampires Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
From the master of terror comes a new breed of evil.
Prepare for the Dawn.
The church has long known that vampires exist. However, it is discovered that a group of vampires are searching for a powerful doom for mankind. The Vatican then secretly enlists a team of vampire-hunters, led by Jack Crow, to hunt down and destroy the vampires before they find the crucifix.
| James Woods | |
| Tim Guinee | |
| Sheryl Lee | |
| Maximilian Schell | |
| Daniel Baldwin | |
| Thomas Ian Griffith | |
| Gregory Sierra | |
| Mark Boone Jr. |
| John Carpenter |
5.70 out of 10 (12888 votes)
Visitor Reviews
All Fang, No Bite
posted on 07 Aug 2009This is a movie, that in the famous words "coulda been a contenda", but instead appears doomed to the status of 'also ran' in the annals of vampire flicks. Carpenter appears to have had a serious case of ambivalence with this film. Did he want a semi-spoof of the vampire genre, the potential is there in the sardonic humour. Did he want a surrealistic horror film, moments appear, especially with some of the cinematography. Did he want an action flic, there are lots of explosions, gunfire, and macho leaping about. However, what appears closest to Carpenter's vision would be the teenage slasher flic. Gore, blood, and fake body parts fly with abandon. But none of it works. The characters are almost parodies of classic movie types, the tough and stoic leader, the loyal sidekick who betrays him, even a hooker [albeit a vampire hooker] with a heart of gold. But Carpenter does nothing with them. Holes are shot in the old vampire myths (no crosses and garlic here) but nothing fills there place. The movies plods from action sequence to action sequence with little or no character or plot development. Then there are the gaffs. Vampires arise from the ground covered in the red earth of New Mexico. Next scene, they stride across the same location looking well bathed and more like neo-goth models than the undead. The supreme vampire looks more like a refugee from Belarus than the titan of unholiness. Sure they diss the Catholic Church, but an institution that survived the Reformation is unlikely to be bothered by John Carpenter's lame jibes. Add disjointed continuity, dreadful dialogue, and the world's most boring vampires (why be undead if things are this dull?), and you get a movie which is not worth the effort.Overall, give it a break. If you want to see a class act in Vampire movies, try to catch the old '70's version of Dracula with Louis Jordan. It pops up on the tube from time to time. Little gore, no guns, but more real chills and superlative acting than you'll see in any of Carpenter's recent efforts.
Let's hit 'em!
posted on 20 Jul 2009I saw it on WORLD PREMIERE at the Munich Fantasy Filmfestival. And it was GRRRRREAT! John Carpenter is a director you can really rely on. He has the right sense of humor that makes this film so special. It has a cool story (hunting vampires), cool fx (killing vampires) and a cool soundtrack (musical vampires). A short summary: From Dusk Till Dawn Splatter Version. Hunting vampires is a classical horror movie theme and is done very well by Carpenter. The cast is also great (Maximilian Schell as bishop...) and this is what makes a movie good. I am looking forward to seeing the German version, hopefully it won't be cut too much... If you wanna see a really cool, perfect splatter movie, go in there-you will be satisfied!!!
It was a fantastic movie!
posted on 05 Jul 2009When I went to see this movie I was hoping that I hadn't wasted my friend's money, the friend who paid for my ticket, and I wasn't disappointed. It was high energy, kept me wondering who was gonna do what next, and had enough funny one-liners to keep me smiling through most of the movie. I could tell the rest of the audience liked it too from the laughing and oohing and aahing. It had plenty of action and enough gory effects to make me cringe, even though I wasn't the one being maimed. The way Jack Crow and Valek clashed was exciting and thrilling. Some of the scenes chilled me to the bone. It was a worthwhile movie and I guarantee you won't be disappointed! I was SOOOOO glad I got to see it!
Where's Buffy when you need her?!!
posted on 17 Jun 2009Next to "From Dusk till Dawn", "Vampires" is probably one of the best in those style of horror movies in which 80% of it contains Rambo-style action! It practically has its own genre!! Anyhow, in this flick, James Woods is the ultimate macho-man as he with partner Daniel Baldwin, and innocent hottie Sheryl Lee must battle the ever gothic Valek, played by Thomas Ian Griffith. It's a tremendous fight to the death, with blood gushing like fountains!! "Vampires" is a cool movie, with cool action sequences, but whatever you do, DO NOT, watch this film while eating!! Let's just say the word "puke" will have a whole new meaning for you!!
Tailored for widescreen
posted on 14 Jun 2009I had trepidation watching this movie. It never received a theatrical/or even video release in Britain. I thought either a) this movie is a shambolic mess, or b) Vampires has too much gore.I was right on both counts, but I made the mistake of watching this movie in full-screen format the first time. On second viewing, this time in widescreen DVD, I managed to appreciate it more. This isn't a good movie, but I'm probably judging this against another movie I'd seen a week before (Blade). While Blade was more comical, Vampires was more humorous.As for the gore aspect - it probably wasn't as bad as it could have been. The two major problems with this movie concerned the master villain who came across as a reject from a Marilyn Manson concert and wasn't in the least bit scary, and the middle hour of the movie managed to be way too slow. I noticed about 10 minutes that could have been trimmed immediately - noticeably the stupid long shots of Woods and co walking down the road, and the five or six vampire burning bodies at the beginning.If you take it for what it is - a darkly humourous look at Vampires, and if you are not Catholic (which this movie seemed to have something against), then you may enjoy it.This is Carpenter's best movie for a long time, but still falls way short of his early excellence. There were glimpses (especially in widescreen) of the old directorial magic.5/10.
Another Carpenter classic
posted on 11 Jun 2009This one here is a lot better than Los Mertos. For one it doesn't concentrate on getting out during the sunlight to steal a girl. For two the Lead vampire is a male and not a female.Jack Crow(James Woods)hunts vampires for a living. He demands a heavy price for it too. His main concern is killing the main vampire Jan Valek(Thomas Ian Griffith). Soon he and his men are visited by Valek and soon blood flows. Montoya(Daniel Baldwin), Jack and Father Adam Guiteau(Tim Guinee)now must save the world as Valek searches for a secret black cross that will allow him and other vampires to walk in daylight.One of the best vampire movies. I'd recommend watching Dracula(Christopher Lee), Dracula 2000 and Van Helsing after you watch this. Stay away from Los Mertos.
Five words kept running through my head... "This is a bad music video..."
posted on 05 Jun 2009Being an advent vampire flick fan, i immediately raced to see this new John Carpenter release...Ignoring the fact that it contained none of that dark and gothic atmosphere that usually draws me to vampire movies...here is what i felt...Five words kept running through my head... "This is a bad music video..."Dissolves and slow mo's totally disregarded the space time continuum (do i watch back to the future too often?). Not only that, but they were irritating, and made the narrative appear weak. Almost as if the filmmakers concluded that this method covered up holes in the script.Yet it had definite structure, and I will give credit to the cinematography which was simply wonderful. The editing lacked any true sense of cinematic narrative, and a lot of the film is a rip off of Tarantinos Reservoir Dogs shot of people walking and "looking cool" So is it worth going to see? Not a bad movie choice... on a Tuesday night at half price ;)
James Woods and big guns
posted on 30 May 2009Another one of John Carpenter's great ideas, that goes wonky half way through.The premise is simple, we kill Vampires. There's some great actions scenes, with James Woods being his usual cool self. The bad guys are scary and there's loads of 'em.Unfortunately, for a film that is a kick-off film, there just isn't enough kicking-off. More guns and guts please next time.
Better The Second Time Around
posted on 18 May 2009I had such high hopes for this film that the first time I saw it, I hated it. I'm a huge John Carpenter fan, and rank several of his films as my all time favorites, but I initially found this to be as much of a cheesy mess as Escape From LA (without the awful effects).I just saw it again, though, and despite some scenes & lines that should have been erased off the first draft, the film is overall fairly entertaining. Still not up to Carpenter's standards, but probably his best film of the 90's. (Which, unfortunately, isn't saying a whole lot).The effects are passable, the acting adequate, and if you aren't expecting much, this isn't a bad entry in the vampire genre(better than Fight Night, but not as good as From Dusk till Dawn)I give it a 6 out of 10. Probably a 5 if JC hadn't made it.
So much potential - so bad...
posted on 18 May 2009This one is a real mystery to me - one my favourite directors (John Carpenter), one of my favourite actors (James Woods) and one of my favourite subject matters (vampires). How could it be so bad? I went into this movie like a kid going into a candy store, and came out like a kid who's just had his toy collection smashed. The funny thing is I can't even pin down exactly what made it so poor... The plot seemed sound enough for the subject matter (a bunch of guys who kill vampires for a living), James Woods delivered an adequate performance, the visual effects were OK. But, as a whole, the movie stank. The dialogue was bad, the attempts at humour missed the mark, and none of the characters were very "real" or even interesting. The thing I find amusing is that this came out around the same time as Blade (1998), which is probably the greatest vampire action film ever. Don't watch this movie - go rent Blade, Dusk Till Dawn or Near Dark instead.
Alright, Not bad
posted on 24 Apr 2009I liked this film. Not a perfect film by any means, but not bad. All the scenes with James Woods are excellent. This flick fulfills the brain candy factor by all means. I wish it kept the violence level of the first 20 minutes, but the rest is still worth watching. James Woods indiscriminately kicking 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't expect "The Thing" because that'll never happen again in our lifetime. Vampires is unadulterated fun, Period.
Fade in, Fade Out
posted on 31 Mar 2009I'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.
Great Vampire movie!
posted on 19 Mar 2009This is not the best vampire movie I have ever seen, and not the worst. The weapons and methods used to kill the vampires are quite inventive. The crossbow attached to a cable, that pulls the vampires into the sun was great. I have enjoyed James Woods work since Videodrome. Daniel Baldwin plays a good sidekick, but does not have the acting ability of his brother Alex. Thomas Ian Griffith makes the perfect master vampire, the white contacts is a nice touch. The music by Carpenter is enjoyable as it is in most of his movies. There are some really good effects, such as when the master vampire cuts one of the hunters in half, using only his fingernails.
If nothing else this flick is worth seeing just to get a look at Sheryl Lee's rear!
excellent vampire movie
posted on 26 Feb 2009i heard of this film years ago but only got round to seeing it recently and have watched it 5 times since!! i don't know why the rating is so low as it really keeps you hooked and is a bit diff from the usual vamp films, it doesn't have the "creepiness" of Dracula movies but is action packed and the acting is great,for those that say it's not believable what do you expect, its about vampires and if you were to pick that fault you would hardly ever watch another film! it has a good story line and james woods was brill as the slayer jack crow,has a lot of great one liners and i loved the padre! i loved dusk till dawn but would say that this beats it hands down,didn't think much of bram stokers Dracula thought it was built up too much,any suggestions about other vampire film would be great
I was soooo disappointed
posted on 21 Jan 2009I went to a midnight showing of "Vampires" Halloween night. What a waste!! I should have seen Practical Magic instead. We had a chance to have a plot, but we didn't. We had a chance to find out what the difference between goons, vampires and Master Vampires was, but we didn't. We could have had character development, but we didn't. What we did get was James Woods acting like a complete a**hole and beating people up a lot. We got vampires being shot with bullets that didn't kill them and some gore. We got two extremely under-developed villans and a couple of under-developed heroes. It was almost like they shot a 5 hour movie and then started cutting pieces out of it until there was nothing intelligible left. I usually like John Carpenter movies -- but this was a real stinkeroo -- I gave it a three
Comparisons to Other Movies
posted on 21 Jan 2009First off, DO NOT compare this movie to Blade. Blade is an action movie. Vampires is a classic horror movie blended in to the style of John Carpenter (the rock music, the corny one liners, etc)which is all very cool. This movie reminded me of a cross between the Evil Dead and From Dusk Till Dawn. This is because the vampires in this film were way over the top in their acting (very funny). The gore factor in this film is quite high and comical (a stake through a head). Don't get me wrong, this film is good and should become a cult classic. The budget of this film was $20 million (which is how much Jim Carrey gets paid per movie), and although it does not use CGI, the special effects still work well.
Much better than its reputation!
posted on 28 Dec 2008I 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.
Fantastic!
posted on 28 Dec 2008This fun, but mean spirited & grossly violent vampire tale, directed by JOHN CARPENTER, is a fun, action packed thrill ride of severed limbs, broken backs, ripped out hearts & exploding vampires galore! Backed by the Vatican, JACK CROW (JAMES WOODS) & his mercenary vampire hunters, visit town after town & place after place, breaking into vampire nests & destroying the undead inhabitants, but after they break in & destroy a vampire nest that oddly has no leader with them, the group is attacked at a Hotel & Crow's entire team is decimated by the vampires very powerful master VALEK who's seeking revenge. On the run Jack & his vampire slaying buddy, take an hooker who has been bitten by the leader & thus has a psychic connection with him & teams up with a Priest & together they seek their revenge, but besides the vampires that they must take on & their leader, there's somebody else that's assisting the vamps along in their mission. I really liked VAMPIRES, it was the perfect blend of blood, guts, violence, great acting, sharp directing, cleaver writing & some really awesome special effects, Carpenter never disappoints this time around & there's always something interesting happening to hold your attention & VALEK the lead vampire makes for an awesome vampire villain. Highly recommended to horror fans, especially vampire fans & for those who liked FROM DUSK TILL DAWN or any of Carpenters other works. Followed by two direct to video sequels, the first sequel is called VAMPIRES: LOS MURETOS **** stars
A must-have for any home video collection
posted on 28 Aug 2009By far one of the most enjoyable films of 1998. James Woods manages to be both admirable and uproariously hilarious in the role of lead vampire slayer. Additionally memorable is the character of master vampire Valek, who proves to be an able match for Woods. Also contributing substantially to the movie is Carpenter's soundtrack, which manages to come across as both suitably menacing and appropriately "hick" (this is the southern US, after all). The best part about this film--at no time does it seem forced or fake, which is more than one can say about most films in the genre. Rewind your VCR to rewatch the campy motel scene, which combines America's two great loves--unabashed sex and pointless carnage.