I want to say this at the outset: I think John Carpenter is a genius. Anyone who could almost single-handedly create the modern horror film (Halloween), entertain with an action movie while, at the same time, infusing that action with a decidedly un-'80s liberalism (Escape from New York) and, of course, presciently incorporate Hong Kong filmic traditions in an American movie years before anyone else thought to (Big Trouble in Little China) has to know something the rest of us don't. Put simply: I always look forward to John Carpenter's movies. I want them to be good.
Unfortunately, Carpenter's doing his best to tear down his rep and burn the rubble. His sequel to Escape, the pathetic Escape from LA, was as cheap and exploitative as sequels get without having the name Charles Band attached to it. And now John Carpenter's Vampires, while not being that bad, isn't great, either.
Based on the novel by John Steakley (no pun intended - I hope), Vampires is another attempt by Carpenter to mold the sensibilities of the classic western to the skeleton of another genre. Jack Crow, played with typical flair by James Woods, is the head of a Vatican-sponsored vampire-hunting squad. The squad's a tough bunch of hombres, travelling from town to town doing what needs to be done. They're a modern Wild Bunch, living more or less outside the law, boozing and whoring and being real men. To an extent, this works.
Vampires opens with Team Crow busting open a vampire nest in some New Mexican jerkwater. Crow and his boys work with brutal efficiency, flushing and killing. It's a solid piece of work, juxtaposing the violence inside the nest with the presence of a priest outside, blessing the charred remains of the undead. The entire sequence has a nasty bestiality that displays the skill Carpenter has when he really has something solid to work with.
After this, however, the movie begins to decay. Following the raid, the master of this vampire pack (and, apparently, all vampires - played by an almost unrecognizable Thomas Ian Griffith) takes out Team Crow. Crow is put on the run with the last member of his team, Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) and a hooker (Sheryl Lee) "infected" by the master and linked to him telepathically, a la Mina Harker in Bram Stoker's Dracula.
Bizarrely, since the movie runs 107 minutes, not much else happens in Vampires. Jack Crow makes contact with the Church and learns the origin of Griffith's super-vampire, gets a fresh new priest in the person of Tim Guinee and wanders around doing this and that. Meanwhile, a sort-of romance blooms between Montoya and Lee's Katrina, even as Katrina comes closer and closer to full vampirism. It's... it's boring.
Only at the very end, in the last ten or so minutes, does Carpenter's film regain the momentum it started with, though even this is inexpertly handled. Large parts of the massive "slayers versus the vampires" climax are done in an abstract, montage fashion. Very disappointing.
This is even more of a letdown when taken in the context of Carpenter's carefully-staged camera work and the sharp performances from the cast. Even Daniel Baldwin, the oft-overlooked Baldwin brother, puts together some good moments. But where's the script? Where's the good stuff? Where's the John Carpenter genius that turns an ordinary story into something special? Vampires is simply parts looking for a whole.
Grade: C
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews