John Carpenter always had a way of cashing in with the most simplistic of horror movie title, for example Halloween, The Fog, The Thing. The fall off in his directing career maybe could be pointed to his first film about vampires, notably called Vampires. The bloodsucking creatures in the southwest desert scenery really made the film seem like it derived from the film "From Dusk Til Dawn", which came out a couple years prior. With a lack of originality in the story, there was also a problem of having a dull supporting cast around James Woods. Needless to say the film was able to hold my interest throughout the film and James Woods did pull off his dialogue really well but it is a disappointing film considering pass successes.

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 latest shows us that, disappointingly, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED wasn't a one-off; the director has indeed lost his touch and now produces slick, empty films which are very nearly totally pointless. This type of film might have worked back in the late '80s, but for a late '90s film it's on very shaky ground. These days audiences want something a little more than a cartoon-like film in which a thin plot provides various contrived excuses for some gore and some action.Unfortunately, originality is extremely rare in this film, and it never manages to be exciting or scary. This is a real shame, because the premise was at least interesting. I was hoping this film to be another FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, but to no avail. There just isn't the same sense of frivolity and of fun as in that film, and in some ways it's a lot less extreme. I kept hearing about how gory and gruesome this was, but the end result left me cold. Yes, there are at least two good scenes of explicit gore, produced by some nice CGI work: the first comes when a vampire victim is slit in half, the second when an old priest gets messily decapitated. Unfortunately the rest of the special effects merely involve blood and little is shown, often becoming repetitive. The biggest crime in my eyes, though, is the lack of creativity with the vampires. When they die, they are either staked or burn in the sunlight, actions which both become boring at the end of the film as they are repeated over and over again (at least Tim Burton had the right idea with the repetitive decapitations in SLEEPY HOLLOW by making them unusual and different each time). The special effects aren't even that good.The action is frankly poor, and the worst thing you could possibly imagine happens near the end: instead of showing us some nice, exciting gruesome bits, the film cuts away to an outside of the building the violence is taking place in, merely letting us hear the sound effects instead! It's outrageous. There are a couple of nice bits of action but not enough to satisfy shelling out the dosh for, and the final confrontation between the master and Crow is dumb, quick and anticlimactic. As for being scary, well, that's a no-no either. The vampires themselves just look like goths with pale faces and black attire, pitiable rather than disturbing. What a disappointment. At the beginning there are a couple of suspenseful door-opening scenes, but these amount to nothing and the film forgets about them soon afterwards, opting for crude shocks instead. I did like the head vampire hiding on a ceiling above a potential female victim, but this had been spoiled in the trailer anyway! It's a case of the trailer showing all the good bits with this film, so don't be fooled.The acting is the thing which lifts this film from being totally poor. James Woods' vitriol-spewing, intense performance as the chief vampire hunter, Jack Crow, is very good as always and typical of the actor; his character is very similar to Miguel Ferrer's in the same year's THE NIGHT FLIER, scarily so in fact. Both are stubborn, selfish, stop-at-nothing men who use others without a second thought, feeling no guilt in doing so. I love anti-heroes like these, I just wish we could see more of them in films. As support, a heavy-looking Daniel Baldwin isn't bad, and gets better as the film goes on. Sheryl Lee lends the love interest, as a woman turning into a vampire, and her performance is actually pretty good. She conveys fear very well, and gets to contrast her good and evil sides a lot too. Just watch out for that gratuitous nude scene. The rest of the cast are of little importance, apart from a bland gung-ho priest who comes into things at the end. Their deaths have absolutely no impact, they're just cardboard cut outs, the vampires included. Even Thomas Ian Griffith disappoints and fails to cut an imposing presence. As for Maximillian Schell, the less said the better! VAMPIRES is just about passable as a film, but doubly disappoints because we were expecting a lot more from both the director and modern vampire actioners like BLADE, a lot better than this. It's packed with dumb jokes and is played straight, incredibly. Give it a miss and keep your fingers crossed for Carpenter's next film.

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.....