Watch Vampires For Free

Thanks for the memories!

Sorry, this movie sucks

I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

John Carpenter's Vampires is not very distinctive from other films in the vampire-horror genre. This generically titled horror flick aims to fascinate with its excess of over-the-top gore and a truck load of bloody vampire showdowns, but the sheer lack of originality serves as an obstacle. While it certainly would asking for a lot for John Carpenter to endeavor something that engages at an intellectual level or transcending the vampire genre into something groundbreaking, it would exciting for Carpenter to venture outside the box of horror flick conventions. Unfortunately, what transpires here is what feels only little more than one vampire conflict after another while building up to anything spectacular. It is a 108- minute adventure that overstays its welcome after the hour mark. For the director who capitalized on the success of previous works such as 'The Thing', 'Halloween', 'Escape From New York' and its sequel, this feels like a handful of potential squandered on something purely derivative. This film follows Jack Crow (played by James Woods), a vampire hunter seeking vengeance against the blood-thirsty monster Valek (played by Thomas Ian Griffith) who brutally slaughtered his crew at a motel room, with Anthony Montaya (played by Daniel Baldwin) and a wounded Katrina (played by Sheryl Lee) who is endangered of turning into one of those bloodsuckers. In an effort to go after Valek is now in pursuit of an ancient relic that can grants all vampires with the power to survive under sunlight, Jack, Anthony, Katrina, and a Catholic preacher Father Adam Guiteau (played by Tim Guinee) must go on cross country trip to stop him and defeat him. This movie is violent, gory fun for those who can skim past the lack of inventiveness. What is there not enjoy about an orgy of gruesome practical effects and vampire mayhem besides its capability at plaguing the weak stomach? The only the way it recycles the same elements from previous entries of its breed, take Robert Rodriguez's 'From Dusk Til Dawn' for an example. Carpenter has a gift to take simple, conventional concepts turn them into fun-filled debacles like we have seen in the past. Here, his take on the vampire genre feels way too ordinary. It follows all the same rules as another vampire story in the media including driving a stake to the heart to end their life and of course, sunlight being their mortal enemy of engulfing theme into infernos. While the film manages to wring out occasional exciting moments including periodic vampire showdowns and gruesome body mutilations to feast the hunger for gore-lovers, the story lacks the exciting punch and the characters are too paper- thin for anyone to really care for them. Clocking into the lead role is James Wood who leads a supporting cast of actors who are each planted into unappealing roles. If there is any role that manages to stand out among the rest, it is Valek who is portrayed by Thomas Ian Griffith. Channeling with the behavior to match Dracula, Griffith, sporting sickish make-up to suit as the antagonistic bloodsucker, exhibits an appropriate vibe as Valek but nothing that will leave you wowed. Giving the least amount of work with is Sherry Lee who's character spends most of the time speechless and paralyzed due to her vampire-inflicted wound that threatens to turn her into another Dracula. None of the performances are particularly bad, but that is about all that can be said. Then there is John Carpenter's music score that fits quite appropriately with its western-style settings. Vampires is a marginally entertaining horror ride that will have no problem engaging to the least-demanding demographic, but will leave those asking for something original with a cold shoulder. Even with some fun moments and its appealing representation of humans versus vampires, it is far from anything original and quite forgettable. For those who seek for a better taste in John Carpenter's take on the horror genre, they are better off sitting through 'The Thing'.

John Carpenter's fondness of Westerns is well established, all the way back to his first prominent flick "Assault on Precinct 13" being a modern re-working of "Rio Bravo" with John Wayne. I think Carpenter is one of the best American directors, up on a level with Scorsese and a few others (and usually working with a much lower budget) but for some reason he doesn't get critical respect in this country, probably due to the genre he works in (I suspect that's also why Stephen King is not generally regarded as one of the best American novelists). I've also been a huge fan of James Woods since "The Onion Field," so to have them working together is a dream for me. "Vampires" had me right from the get go with Woods and his crew planning their raid on the "nest" ---I don't think there's anyone better than Carpenter at setting up scenes and building suspense, he's not afraid to give it the running time it needs—unlike a lot of younger directors who came from music videos and want everything fast and choppy. After most of the characters are killed off early on, the survivors track down the bad guy like in "The Searchers" also with John Wayne---in this case the "sheriff" and his "deputy" and the "floozy." Carpenter gets the best career performances out of two actors who are not my favorites—Daniel Baldwin and Sheryl Lee—although those two have the best scene in the film, i.e. the first one in the hotel room. I have mixed feelings about Thomas Ian Griffith as the "master"---I'd only ever seen him once before, in "Excessive Force," and liked him, but I thought he came a little too close to the "stereotyped European bloodsucker" that the Woods character himself had derided, but I imagine Griffith played it the way Carpenter wanted it. I loved having the devious Cardinal turn out to be a "bad guy," but that's just me and my issues with Catholicism in general. The plot with tracking down the "black cross" got just a bit unwieldy at times, but Carpenter keeps things humming along until the climax, after which in classic Western tradition the Woods character lets the two new vampires go their way for "old time's sake" but warns he'll have to kill them if they cross paths in future, then Woods and his new sidekick ride off (without horses) into the sunset (or sunrise, rather) for more adventures. …So after multiple viewings I really can't see why anyone wouldn't enjoy this flick unless they were just pre-determined not to; reportedly this was the project that led Carpenter to decide to stay in the business, and I'm sure glad he did…. Woods' line to the young priest in one scene---"Did you get a little wood just now, Padre?" ---should be in a collection of classic movie bon mots, along with "You gotta be f---in' kidding" from Carpenter's version "The Thing"--maybe someone should do a short film of just clips from Carpenter's oeuvre.....

Unknown to the rest of the world, a group of men have been organized by the Catholic Church to hunt and kill vampires. The leader of this group is a man named "Jack Crow" (James Woods) and he is as tough and non-relenting as they come. As it so happens, however, after one particularly successful event in New Mexico in which 9 vampires are killed while nesting together an abandoned house, the group convenes at a motel that night to celebrate. What they don't realize is that the master vampire by the name of "Jan Valek" (Thomas Ian Griffith) has found out where they are and he is in a very vengeful mood. To make things even more perilous for them is the fact that there is a traitor within their ranks who is working with Jan Valek for alternative reasons. Now rather than divulge any more I will just say that, even though the film starts out rather pretentiously, the action soon kicks in quite nicely which results in a pretty good vampire movie all things considered. Admittedly, there are some scenes which seem to focus more on gore over suspense or horror, but the overall plot and acting make up for it in the long run. Above average.

The book, Vampire$ by John Steakley is absolutely brilliant. The movie adaptation is absolute crap. It is such a total waste of the time and energy it took for me to watch it that I wish I could sue Hollyweird for the 2 hrs of my life it robbed from me. What was wrong with following the story, it was written so beautifully, so fluidly it could have easily been translated to film, but alas it does not follow the genius writing in the novel at all. The main character of Jack Crow is physically and emotionally so distant from the character developed in the mind of John Steakley that he is unrecognizable to those who have read the original story. If you want to know what the actual Vampire$ story is about and who the real characters are I suggest you read the book, and be prepared, you'll want to read it again and again and again.