# Vampires (1998)

### reviewed by
Tom Alaerts

Vampires (1998, USA, Largo Entertainment, 103 min.) director/composer: John Carpenter script: John Carpenter, Don Jacobi, Dan Mazur actors: James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, Mamilian Schell rating: >= 12 years (in France) some people should be warned that the movie contains: extreme violence, some nudity, foul language, a delightful absence of Hollywood-type morals or political correctness.

At the moment, John Carpenter's latest movie can only be seen in France, where it did good business (esp. considering it's a horror movie). USA release is planned for the autumn. For interested tourists: keep in mind that the French release is dubbed in French. I don't know if the movie is also screened with subtitles. Luckily, my French was good enough so I only didn't fully get some subtleties of Jack's Crow swearing... I also believe that the movie is at the end of its career in France.

For those who haven't heard about it: here follows a very short and relatively spoiler-free synopsis of the intro: Jack Crow (James Woods) and his team are full-time, Vatican-endorsed vampire hunters. Team Crow employs drastic measures, to say the least. They manage to seriously anger the "original vampire" Valek (an impressive Griffith) and now the hunters become the hunted...

John Carpenter is back. Remember those delicious shivers you experienced during his best movies? Remember the impeccable wide-screen compositions, the trademarked thumping soundtrack? The much-copied "spring-loaded-cat" shocks? The non-conformist anti-heroes with the snarling one-liners? This movie delivers it all in spades. Carpenter needed a hit movie. It was hoped that his previous effort, Escape from LA, would bring him back to the commercial top, but it wasn't the expected hit. Perhaps this was only to be expected, how could a public that adored the extremely populist "Independence Day" appreciate such a cynical take on America? Before EFLA, there was "Memoirs of an invisible man" (which I believe is underrated), "In the mouth of madness" (which had a good story, but was not really scary) and the remake of "Village of the damned" (somewhat impersonal, but like most of JC's movies, it seems to get better with each passing year). I believe that all these movies made some money world-wide, but we have to go back to "They Live" (1998) for Carpenter's last real commercial success. Commercial success is not necessarily a synonym for artistic success (just reconsider Independence yawn), but a hit now and then typically means easier funding for new projects. This movie might just be it.

You can expect Carpenter doing things differently. A vampire-movie is a classic, strongly coded style, but Carpenter injects it with new blood, by filming it as a contemporary western. Many Carpenter movies have some Western-type situations or characters, but it was never this obvious. You can notice it in the group of Team Crow (a wild bunch), the dusty southern landscapes, the music... I believe it is an appealing, refreshing mix (as far as I know, only Near Dark has more or less the same atmosphere) and I think the movie will benefit from strong word-of-mouth. Don't expect a soft horror movie. Vampires is a raw and brutal movie. The vampires themselves act more like leopards (very quick, beastly, deadly) than like classic vampires.

Carpenter's style has evolved. I always admired the relatively calm and pure but elaborate filming style of his earlier work. Alas, it seems that this very classic filming style is out of fashion. The style of Vampires is still visibly Carpenter (this is one of the very few directors who have a recognisable style) but on the whole it's "faster" than before. The global effect is more like the style of Desperado. More camera's are used and editing is generally faster than before (certainly during action scenes), but we're not talking 3-cuts-per-second Michael Bay style here. Well, the Reborn Carpenter Style works. It is also interesting to note that an extreme carnage in a motel is edited with fades. You would expect fast cuts (fades seem like "nicer" transitions) but it works. In this case I thought it gives a more mythical aura to the action.

Considering actors: James Woods truly shines. You really believe he's vampire hunter Jack Crow. He is not a likeable man, but then Snake Plissken or the killer from Assault (forgot the name) weren't nice either. These are truly "Carpenterian" heroes (lone, cynical, anarchist), and the director has said he sees them as idealised projections of himself. If that's true, better not mess around with this guy... It must also be said that Crow's attitude to women is not politically correct. Jack Crow won't have an Erica Jong novel in his bookcase... Daniel Baldwin is not special at all. Competent, nothing more. This could have been a nice role for Kurt Russel. It is a pity we don't see Sheryl Lee more often on the screen: she's a good actress (though her dialogue is minimal here) and of course, rather pleasing on the eye. But the big surprise of the movie is Thomas Ian Griffith. I didn't know him, but it seems he played in some B-grade action movies. His Valek is a truly magnificent, powerful and scary vampire. He has the charisma of Christopher Lee. The fact that he is really tall, makes him seem even more supernatural and invincible. What a change compared to Coppola's wimp Dracula!

Some other nice touches: the music has evolved, too: there are some typical Carpenter rhythms but they are held together with guitar sounds which reminded me of Ry Cooder (okay, not as good as Cooder). All in all, it seemed like one of JC's better soundtracks, and I am curious if it will also work as stand-alone music. And considering the story: the way the church is tied-in to the vampire myth is refreshing and there's some nice use of telepathy (also unexpected in a vampire movie). The inventive way the vampires are killed produces some extreme images. Perhaps it works so well because it isn't played for laughs (unlike From Dusk Till Dawn, for example). You'll see...

Perhaps you are thinking: "Okay, but what about cardboard characters? Or an underdeveloped script?" Well, since you insist, I have to explain it... This movie deals with professionals. They don't start some Freudian whining when something bad happens. They act. The characters are defined by their actions, less by their dialogue. Therefore, the bit of love-interest isn't drenched in Titanic-like romanticism. Vampires just wants to be creepy. The rest is superficial. By concentrating fully on the essential elements of what makes a good horror film, it succeeds. You can actually apply this reasoning on most of Carpenter's movies.

Is everything in the movie that excellent? Sadly, I have to make one remark: it really feels like the remaining budget suddenly evaporated while the ending was being filmed. It should have been a big, nail-biting finale. What we get to see is reasonably suspenseful in its build-up but like I said, it seems the moviemakers ran out of money. I don't want to give away too many spoilers, I think you will notice it yourself. Some running people, some shots are heard (not seen). It's all over rather quickly. I believe Carpenter wanted to save it with quick editing. Now, if Stanley Kubrick is allowed to film for 15 months and is recently even doing re-shoots for a month, perhaps it would be nice to flesh out the ending of Vampires somewhat before the definitive USA release. Otherwise, the movie is very enjoyable and there's a constant tension. The motel scene will be classic among horror fans. If I compare the movie to Prince of Darkness, Carpenter's last truly excellent horror movie, Vampires scores less on the edge-of-the-seat factor, perhaps because POD was much more claustrophobic. Or perhaps also because of the change in filming style.

Whatever, Vampires is suspenseful and there's a lot of (gory) action. Highly recommended for genre lovers who are tired of standard horror-movies, or amateurs of wayward but skilled film-making in general.

Score: I think it is in Carpenter's top 5. You can convert this to your own units of appreciation.

    Copyright Tom Alaerts, 1998

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