John Carpenter's Vampires

Audience Reviews

View More

Mr S Nov 14 Among the many glories of the 90's are gory, ugly, violent, fast, hot, and ridiculous movies. The first thing you think watching this is: "am I watching a prequel of From Dusk Til Dawn?" The desert, the outlaw characters, the guns, the vampires. It's a weird western vampire gunslinger movie! But Vampires eventually distances itself from its earlier (and more compelling) cousin. The "who's the rat?" story line, the ever-talented Sheryl Lee chewing the scenery and burning up the bedsheets, the "they made this guy a leading man?"-ness of James Woods, and the "wait... is that..."-ness of a chunky New Yoakah Daniel Baldwin, all comingle with the Southwestern setting and a penchant for guns and blood, to make a raucous, fascinating ride. Throughout the plot, you get genuine questions of what will come next. Who might be betraying who? Will this person triumph over that one? How long will they be able to survive? And throughout, you're blessed by some genuinely "loud" acting that still manages to be cool and entertaining. And you have to give Carpenter credit for the music, which he created. It's got the perfect southern rock/blues/country vibe to keep the energy going while fitting the scene. I have vague memories of seeing parts of this movie, decades ago. Seeing it again, I'm very happy to revisit these actors, and a unique and exciting adventure through an otherwise worn-out story line. Grab some popcorn and a drink and strap in for some ultraviolence and loud acting. It's a John Carpenter Vampire Western! See more Rob V Nov 5 The book, Vampire$, is good. This film is not (and has almost nothing to do with the book). What happened, John (Carpenter)? See more TheMovieSearch R @TheMovieSearch Nov 2 The 1998 vampire film delivers a solid, if somewhat uneven, entry into the genre—one that manages to balance the dark allure of vampires without leaning too far into excess. It doesn’t overindulge in supernatural spectacle, but it also doesn’t hold back enough to leave a lasting bite. Instead, it lands comfortably in the middle: enjoyable, at times exciting, and ultimately a fine experience for what it is. What works best about this film is its tone. It doesn’t try to reinvent the vampire mythos but instead embraces familiar tropes with a sense of confidence. The tension, atmosphere, and gothic undertones blend together nicely, and the pacing keeps things engaging throughout. The vampires themselves are handled with a grounded menace—dangerous but not invincible—which gives the film a more balanced sense of horror. The cast deserves credit for carrying much of the story’s weight. Each actor seems to understand the assignment, bringing enough charisma and presence to make their roles believable. The chemistry between characters, both human and vampire, helps sustain the energy of the film, even when the script occasionally falters. You can tell the ensemble was committed, and that goes a long way in a movie like this. That said, the film isn’t without flaws. Certain scenes feel underdeveloped or rushed, and there are moments when the narrative seems to drift instead of building toward something bigger. A few creative choices could have been tightened or rethought, as they occasionally pull you out of the story rather than pulling you deeper into it. Still, those missteps don’t ruin the experience—they just keep it from being great. Visually, the movie has that late-’90s charm: dark lighting, eerie practical effects, and just enough stylized flair to give it personality. It’s the kind of film that feels nostalgic now, even if it wasn’t perfect then. The direction, while not extraordinary, keeps things coherent and functional—never brilliant, but never disastrous either. In the end, the 1998 vampire film sits comfortably in the “decent but not unforgettable” category. It’s entertaining enough to warrant a watch, especially for fans of old-school vampire cinema, but it’s not something that demands multiple viewings. It satisfies the craving once, then fades quietly into memory—a decent bite, just not one that lingers. See more Ernestas R @Calicifer Oct 19 This is one of those low budget, B grade movies which are dime a dozen, but often would feature unique ideas which would make them worth a watch. This one is one of them. It's not the best, but the fact that people trash it, only speaks about their terrible sense of taste. There is slop coming daily in movie theaters, but they don't mind it. It's only when there is something less ordinary it's then they get extra offended and start trashing a movie. This movie is a decent action movie about Vampire hunters. It features your all typical tropes. It has some sex appeal and ends up and a bitter sweet note of protagonist sparing his friend who is turning into vampire for his help. What this movie has however is some occult knowledge. It had mentioned that vampires, original ones are born out of reverse exorcism where body is killed and soul is left. Which goes in an opposite way of killing the spirit and leaving body alive, thus cleaning it from foreign influences. Thus this movie is a lot more clever than people give it credit for and if they would not be such whiny little dum dums, maybe they would learn something instead of trashing this movie for it being slow. See more Jonathan N Sep 12 Spoilers: go watch before you read this. I found this movie very boring and slow, despite the good premise. I fell asleep. See more Katherine S Aug 7 The beginning of this movie was not good See more Read all reviews

John Carpenter's Vampires

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW

Most Popular at Home Now