User reviews

John Carpenter's Vampires is a flawed film, that's for sure. It is not really terrifying, despite being billed as a horror film. It is rather brutal, and the film's humor and the actions of the characters have been accused in some quarters of having a misogynistic bent. So why is this film so much fun? Two words: James Woods. An extremely underrated actor, Woods is nearly perfect in the role of cocky Jack Crow, a renowned vampire hunter. He chews scenery with relish, handles his character's off-color humor with panache, and never lets up his colorful performance for one minute. Is John Carpenter's Vampires art? No. Is it great filmmaking? No. Is it a good time at the movies with a central performance that will put a smile on your face? You bet. And, occasionally, that is enough. Who says the B-picture is dead?

But then kind of sputters out a bit and devolves into a bunch of talking with a decent finale scene. It was ok, entertaining enough. I was genuinely so excited to watch this again after watching the first 15-20 minutes, thinking it's a bit of a hidden gem, eh, not exactly, but wasn't bad. If it kept the pace of the first 20 minutes it would have been an absolute classisc.

The movie opens with a trained, fully-equipped team of vampire slayers, led by Jack Crow (James Woods), methodically purging a "nest" of its fanged occupants. This is one of the best scenes of the movie and sets the viewers up to think, "Hey, these guys know what they're doing. They're some rough-and-ready characters."

But, lo, where is the master vampire? Not to worry, he'll have his chance at revenge...later that very night, as the "trained" vampire hunters go to the nearest town, lay down their weapons, and begin drinking and whoring. And they knew full-well that a master vampire, whose "subjects" they'd just fried, was still lurking about! How stupid can you be???!!!

The movie marches on, showing carnage and betrayal as the plot is advanced. (And, frankly, it's not a bad plot). But there are many holes, many questions that are not answered, like, Why was such an mysterious and important item (a cross that would permit a vampire to walk in the sunlight) guarded by such a inept group of robe-clad nincompoops, who, according to their own harried screams, knew "The day has arrived!"? If they knew that a particularly horrific "day" was inevitably going to "arrive," why, then, did they lack even a modicum of defensive capability. Why were they caught frantically scampering around like a herd of panty-clad Dr. Smiths (from TV's Lost in Space..."Oh the pain, the pain of it all..."). Oh well, we'll never know, and they're too dead to tell us.

Be that as it may, this movie does have some good dialogue, interesting characters, a unique idea or two, and an actual plot--which makes John Carpenter's "Vampires" stand head and shoulders above most of the horror movies that are out today. I enjoyed it despite its defects.

Vatican-funded vampire hunter Jack Crow (James Woods) and his sidekick Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) search for centuries-old vampire Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) that killed their friends. They find a prostitute (Sheryl Lee) bitten by Valek and, using her telepathic link to the vampire, they try to track him down.

James Woods is really the whole show, hamming it up like the expected Carpenter cheesy macho anti-hero. Sheryl Lee is surprisingly good, as well. The worst casting is that of Thomas Ian Griffith as the villain. He's very much a post-Lestat romantic goth douchebag Dracula wannabe. Nothing frightening or exciting about him. More F bombs than a movie without Chris Tucker should probably have. This is John Carpenter's last above-average movie. It's still not a patch on his classics but it's entertaining enough.

The modern American west has been overrun by bloodsucking ghouls, and the Catholic Church hires a crew of fearless exterminators to hunt down the undead and drag them into the sun.

I can certainly sympathize with Jack Crow's (James Woods) partner Anthony (Daniel Baldwin). I do not know if I could resist turning into a vampire with Sheryl Lee doing the biting. She would make me want to avoid daylight for eternity.

This was an action-packed adventure with Thomas Ian Griffith as the chief vampire, and Oscar winner Maximilian Schell (Judgment at Nuremberg), as the Cardinal that did not want to die.

Oh, that Sheryl Lee! It was only brief nudity, but it was all she had to offer.

I went to a midnight showing of "Vampires" Halloween night. What a waste!! I should have seen Practical Magic instead. We had a chance to have a plot, but we didn't. We had a chance to find out what the difference between goons, vampires and Master Vampires was, but we didn't. We could have had character development, but we didn't. What we did get was James Woods acting like a complete a**hole and beating people up a lot. We got vampires being shot with bullets that didn't kill them and some gore. We got two extremely under-developed villains and a couple of under-developed heroes. It was almost like they shot a 5 hour movie and then started cutting pieces out of it until there was nothing intelligible left. I usually like John Carpenter movies -- but this was a real stinkeroo -- I gave it a three. **Edit** Since I wrote this I have been told that it was a "wonderful" movie, faithful to the novel which explained everything the movie didn't. I maintain then it was a good book, but the movie still sucked.

Ever since I saw a documentary on the making of horror movie special effects, I've wanted to see 'Vampires'. I wasn't disappointed. In this era of cheap computer effects it's really refreshing to see a movie where the special effects are done the old fashioned way. For some bizarre reason I really like Vampires. The plot is somewhat clichéd, the acting is nothing special and yet... I find myself watching this movie over and over again. Somehow the idea of a secret military force funded by the church, dedicated to fighting vampires is thrilling even though I'm not a religious man. I suppose it harkens back to the day of witch hunters. James Woods is great as the grim, dedicated man sworn to destroy all vampires and as the true shocker, the generic Baldwin appearing in the movie does a really good job as well! If you like gory movies, check it out!

I'm a big fan of John Carpenter. But in his latest films, I've noticed somewhat of a clumsy way he directs his films. It's almost as if the films were rushed and some scenes or even shots, just weren't filmed. He fades between all of his scenes... Sometimes, leaving us wanting more, but he just fades to the end of it. Sometimes, the scenes he uses could have been completly cut out and not used with the fade-technique whatsoever.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my mind. Off to the plot:

Jack Crow is a Master Slayer, meaning that he kills vampire for the catholic church, and has been doing that for his entire life. After he cleans out a nest of Vampires in New Mexico, his team gets ambushed my a powerful vampire named Valek. Valek kills the entire team of slayers, except for Jack and his friend Montoya. They also manage to bring a hooker along with them, who got bitten by the vampire. Using the hookers telepathic link with her master, the two try to hunt down Valek and find out what he's up to.

This film is gory. Really gory. Most likely John Carpenters goriest film to date, counting The Thing. Some might think that gore is an unnecessary way of filming, but in this film: Gore is not used to "impress" or "Show off". It's used as a background thing. I didn't feel that it was a way of using the gore to create "terror". And if you happen to like gore, you'll find one redeeming factor in this film.

The acting is good. James Woods is really funny as Jack Crow at times, altough Daniel Baldwin isn't really "great", nor is Tim Guinee. But the acting holds up. There's not much else to say other than that James Woods is funny... at times.

The action in this film is quite abundant, yet it's not that great. It can be enjoyable but at the same time the action is very repetive. That doesn't bode very well. Another thing abut this film is that it's too damn long for an action/horror film. Its almost 2 hours long. They should have made it 90 minutes instead, as that would be more fitting of a movie of this "type".

Well. The film is boring sometimes, yet it has some redeeming factors. All in all I give it a six. Nothing great, but if you're a John Carpenter fan you'll like it. And you might want to see how his style has changed. Dramaticly.

I'd have to say that Vampires is about the worst written and acted vampire movie I've ever seen, and I have seen more of them than most people should in a lifetime. The Acting (especially by James Woods) was really pretty boring. His constant barrage of one liners and lack of meaningful conversation just annoyed me.

Nobody really spoke too much in this movie. There were no clever jokes or interesting stories about the vampires. Basically it was just a hunt the bad guy vampires, go get the leader, he kills some of my guys, I kill some of his guys, I use all the brilliant techniques of a professional vampire hunter (add sarcasm here) ...well you can see the rest, but I wouldn't waste my money.

So of course Woods is granted a vampire proof shield - he didn't get a scratch through the whole movie. (oh yeah - a cut on the leg to get some blood, sorry) Cool who does get "vamped", but that also turns out hokey.

The best part of this movie is definitely the head vampire. He is big and fast and strong and can slice through the good guys with his fingernails (literally) He of course has a huge group of followers who also look really mean, but don't make any kills - it's always either Woods or the vamp's leader. And kill they did! Blood everywhere, heads slashed, and lots of screaming and burning on the part of the vampires. Definitely some cool looking weapons and great death scenes, but for vampire killers, these guys don't seem to have the right equipment. They always carry guns, for example. They use them, and see that it doesn't work, but never stop shooting. Even by the end of the movie with a huge fight scene between Woods and the leader, he pulls out a little handgun and starts shooting. HA HA HA. That's what the vampire did and that's what I've been doing as I kick myself for being talked into seeing this dumb movie.

Daniel Baldwin was actually the best actor on the screen. He plays a big dumb right hand to Woods, but does it well. He definitely needs a lot of work to make get close to where his brothers are (Baldwins I mean), but he shows some promise.

Truly though, I think that the least impressive part of the movie was the sound. The music was the same from beginning to end. Every time Woods went into badass mode, an old guitar playing the same chord would start up.

It's really ridiculous that anyone would bother making a movie like this. I give it a 2! Really, don't waste your time!

"Vampires" is great popcorn entertainment. While fans will always compare Carpenter's later movies with his early genre classics, "Vampires" is excellent entertainment, even if it isn't an "important" or "milestone" horror event.

James Woods is not the most likable of heroes here but he's very watchable. Daniel Baldwin delivers a believable performance as his dependable sidekick. "Twin Peaks"' Sheryl Lee plays the leggy small-town hooker who is unfortunately bit by a Master Vampire, Valek. There are also appearances from Maximilian Schell and "Miami Vice"'s Gregory Sierra.

In Carpenter's "Vampires", the undead don't exit this world peacefully. Instead, they explode like giant Catherine wheels. This is exciting to watch - you can't have enough sparking vampires, can you? With lots of action and a few dark laughs, you could do a lot worse than see this movie.

With an excellent score, great visuals and a fast pace, "Vampires" scores a strong 8 out of 10.

Carpenter is not in his usual good form here despite excellent performances by James Woods and the rest of the cast. Woods is Jack Crow, a mercenary vampire hunter who leads a team of fellow hunters out to find and exterminate vampires.

Crow, who comes across as an atheist, is in the payroll of the Catholic church and is driven by his own demons that are more based on revenge rather than anything else.

The film shows the battle between the hunters and a very powerful vampire (Valek) who attempts to create a new order of invincible vampires that can rule the earth.

Despite the excess of gore and blood the film does not have the tense moments of other better Carpenter films (Escape from New York, Assault on Precinct 13). Nonetheless, Valek is a formidable foe that creates a number of scary moments. Perhaps a film only for the loyal Carpenter fans (myself included).

Vampires is a classic 90s film by Carpenter. But unlike most of Carpenter's later films, Vampires is pleasant and interesting to watch. Vampires has everything we all love this director for. A good cast, a classic plot that is not original and typical action scenes of level B action movies. The story itself in Vampires looks like a caricature of other vampire movies. Here, literally the first 10 minutes of the film set the tone of what is happening in the film. I'm sure that if Vampires the viewer sits down to see an interesting story about vampires, instead of waiting for Carpenter's classic film, he may be deeply disappointed. Vampires can be safely recommended to all Carpenter fans.

I like Carpenter's earlier work like The Thing, Halloween and The Fog among others but Vampires fails to be a great horror film. It has many great gore effects but nothing more. Carpenter is legendary horror director but this time he seems to be pretty tired.

The film deals with a vampire hunter played by James Woods who is catching vampires with his "army". He knows there is a master vampire somewhere and by destroying him, he would save the world from "vampire virus". What follows is gore, splatter, often bad humor and blood. And did I mention gore?

It is nice to see that he had guts to do the film this bloody and didn't want it to be some PG13 crap without any personal touch. The effects are pretty excessive (the split scene at the beginning is interesting!) and effects group has made fine job. Vampires would've been far more interesting piece of horror cinema, if Carpenter had included his skills in the tension and atmosphere department too. If you want brainless splatter, then you may like this one..

Well, it could've been far worse but I was expecting little more from John. He is still one of my favourite directors and his classics will never die. I hope he will be able to do something personal again.

5 out of 10.

A band of professional, Vatican-sanctioned vampire hunters, led by hardened slayer Jack Crow (James Woods), battle a powerful master vampire called Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith), who is attempting to repeat the ritual that turned him into a vampire and which will enable him to walk in daylight.

Director John Carpenter is, of course, capable of much better than Vampires, but the film is also a long way from his worst (Ghosts of Mars, please stand up!). The plot plods at times, especially when the director focuses a little too much on style over content, but any film that features James Woods as a mean sonuvabitch vampire slayer, the gorgeous Sheryl Lee as a sexy hooker turned bloodsucker, some impressive set-pieces (the vampires burning up in sunlight being amongst some of the best bloodsucker deaths committed to film), and lots of outstanding gore effects by the brilliant KNB effects group is never going to be a total waste of any horror fan's time.

6 out of 10, bumped up to 7 for Mark Boone Junior's awesomely bloody demise (split up the middle by Valek's talons), the savage decapitation of a priest, and Sheryl Lee's nude scene (we don't really get to see her 'twin peaks' but we are treated to her delightful derrière).

John Carpenter's Vampires. (1998) This is a good movie. John Carpenter is back. We start off with Jack Crow. A vampire hunter employed by the catholic church. He and a group of hunters carefully track down and slay the beasts. After the latest slaying at a rundown house, the "Master" that they have been tracking is not found.

They head back to a motel and party the night away. Then, a master unlike anything they have seen before kills almost everybody in sight. Who is that? A monster that is unstoppable, like a machine with superhuman strength.

The acting by James Woods is excellent. His performance here is top notch. With conviction, he is a distraught and very angry man who is determined to find the master that can be the one vampire that is possibly the first.

The master vampire Valek, is the most sinister vampire I have ever seen in movies. The look is excellent. With the pale white face, veins on his face, and the power, he is the ultimate monster. Valek is cunning and smart too. As he would bury himself beneath the very dirt anywhere to avoid the light. He also has telepathy to possibly control his bitten victims and see their thoughts. He also can fly faster than ever. Like the original vampire Dracula.

The plot is great. I enjoyed the story and the rough and tough attitude of the good guys and the sheer villainy of Valek. Daniel Baldwin is good as Montoya, Sheryl Lee is fine as Katrina, and Thomas Ian Griffin is great as Valek. Great casting.

The Last Word: Cool. Not great, Vampires is a good movie. With good acting and a solid plot, you cant go wrong. Also, Valek is got to be the coolest looking vampire in the movies.

As a big fan of John Steakley and his novels, I must say I was rather disgusted with what Carpenter did with the movie. A horrible adaptation, this movie fails on just about all levels.

The acting: I thought it was pretty dreadful. Sheryl Lee's role was to be naked and quiver a lot. Most of the characterizations in the movie just plain destroyed, in my opinion, the greatly written and multi-dimensional characters of the book. The silly dialogue and motivations didn't help, either. (one of the tough, no-nonsense, big bad fighters of evil good guys falls in love with a vampire hooker! WHAT????)

The plot: Barely existing in some parts of the movie. There were plot points that made little or no sense (Why were so many things kept secret from Jack Crow for apparently NO REASON at all?). Again, it deviated far too much from the plot of the book for my tastes.

The action: Seemed like John Carpenter didn't think about it all that much. In some parts he gets really lazy and just cuts to this slow motion montage of vampires (inexplicably) running away. Mostly, I thought it was poorly filmed and haphazardly edited.

In conclusion, I found very little to like about this movie.

I was puzzled by the low rating "Vampires" got, it's my favorite movie of 1998/99. Why do I give the date in that manner? I was (un)fortunate enough to see this movie in the uncut version (as shown in France), in the US version and just a few weeks ago in the German one.

But first things first -- I am female and I have read so many reviews and comments telling me, that I, as a woman, should feel disgust at the alleged misogynous undertone of "Vampires". I am sorry, but in none of the three versions I saw did I feel, hear or see anything which might support this allegation! Crow hated practically everyone except for Montoya and the first priest, Montoya -- while quipping left and right -- behaved quite kindly towards Lee's hooker except where she directly caused him to react violently and none of the other oneliners warrant, IMO, even a raised eyebrow regarding that special topic.

Let me add that I also am not religious, with my own perceptive view of enough past wrongs done by the Catholic church, so that any of the soi-disant "hate" directed at that church is in my opinion well-founded given the plot. Callan's explanation of how he views god, as well as several other references by Crow and Montoya underline the basic belief of the vampire hunters while maintaining their no-nonsense attitude.

With that back to why I liked the movie so much: it is in its own way as stark and streamlined as the best samples of its genre; the cinematography is just perfect with the right mixture of visual and non-visual storytelling; the dialogue is engagingly humorous throughout, feels real and allows each character his or her own voice; there are several deeply moving scenes, either visually or characterwise moving, which will stay with the audience; there are enough novelties incorporated to make this rendition of the vampire theme fresh and quite frankly, I liked Carpenter's score a lot too.

What wins me completely over is the very obvious fun all the actors had with their roles. James Woods was perfect as sardonic, illusion-free Crow and his brushing "campiness" with the tip of a finger, yet withdrawing just in time, is priceless. Daniel Baldwin makes the most of his character's arc, nicely underplaying his role, while he still manages to convey Montoya's journey by minimal changes of expression or voice. The final scene couldn't have been done any better. Sheryl Lee gives what I consider one of the strongest supports I've seen in quite a few years, whether by male or female actors, especially when you count in the scarcity of means she's handed over. Ian Griffith had several fine moments and the entire supporting cast was refreshing in their non-Hollywoody realistic, natural look and acting. The overall impression was of people enjoying what they're expertly doing.

An advice to the German audience, I noted while watching the dubbed release that the translation killed practically every single punch line and nearly all of the humor. And it *could* have been translated properly. The voice actors dubbing for Woods and Baldwin did so without recreating even a tenth of what both actors put into their voices in the original version. I do think that some of the disappointment expressed there is due the extremely low quality of the translation and dubbing. See the movie in its original language. I also can't see any reason for the loss of those scenes which were cut out of the US release when compared to the French one. The movie loses quite some strength this way.

Let's get the facts straight right now: VAMPIRES, made in 1998, is not the best vampire movie ever made. It's neither director John Carpenter's best work and doesn't come even close to his best movies (HALLOWEEN, THE THING etc.). However, in this day and age, when all the vampires seem to be brooding, good looking teenagers who try to avoid killing people, it feels good to watch a movie in which vampires are what they're meant to be: monsters.

The film starts with a group of vampire hunters, lead by man named Jack Crow, attacking a nest of vampires in New Mexico. All the blood suckers are killed and the gang go to celebrate in local motel. At night a vampire named Valek attacks them and none of their weapons seem to work on him. Valek slaughters nearly the entire group, only Jack, his friend Montana and a hooker bitten by Valek survive. Jack decides to hunt down Valek who turns out to be the oldest and most powerful vampire.

This film is not meant to be anything more than an entertaining popcorn movie to relax with and then go on with your life, and it works like that. Carpenter keeps the story going, doesn't even try to create any unnecessary plot twists or minor characters, but keeps the story very clear and simple. Music is good, actors capable and the action sequences don't go over the board.

James Woods is the definite show stealer here. His Jack Crow is definitely one of the more entertaining vampire hunters I have seen in movies. He's not an old Van Helsing clone, or a superhuman hybrid like Blade, nor does he have an arsenal of ridiculous weapons like Hugh Jackman's modernized Van Helsing. Only things Crow has are a handgun, crossbow and smart-ass comments. Woods obviously has had fun playing the "been there, done that" guy to whom killing vampires is just an everyday work.

In other roles Tim Guinee is a good counterpart for Woods, as the nervous and inexperienced priest who joins the group. Especially the scenes where Woods has to teach him the "facts of life" are enjoyable. Thomas Ian Griffith looks really awesome as the vampire Valek. Although he doesn't have much to do, just watching him ripping people to pieces is a pleasure, since not many vampires these days has that bite anymore. In fact, all the vampires in this movie look awesome, with pale skin, long teeth and nails, glowing eyes and dressed all in black. This is what vampire are about!

So VAMPIRES is not truly memorable film, but if you want to watch a little better film from director John Carpenter's 1990's works, where James Woods is at his best and vampires are not brooding teenagers, then this is a film for you. Put it on, sit back and enjoy.

What can I say? I went to the theatre expecting a bad vampire movie and I got it. First of all, I'm not partial to vampire hunters...the only great one has passed on (Roddy McDowall...aka Peter Vincent from "Fright Night") and all the rest are glorified religious nutcases who think that their way is the only way. So, I knew I was going to hate most of the characters.

Okay, there are two I really liked. The main "Master" vampire, Valek (of course) except that his character falls short of being able to truly like him. We didn't get the chance to get to know who or what he was and what made him the way (personality-wise) he was. All you know is that he was condemned by the Church (who wasn't back then?) and then turned into a vampire. Ooh...big deal. The second person I liked was Sheryl Lee. Her character is the only mature character in the whole thing and the only one with any sense...

As for Mr. Woods' character Jack Crow...I have never seen a character I've hated so much since watching that other travesty of a vampire movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" and having to put up with Quentin Tarrentino until he is thankfully killed. Jack Crow is a leather-wearing cool-guy wannabe who acts tough, talks tough and gets off to beating up a defenseless priest. Then if that's not enough, he proves how much a jerk he is by spending a good portion of the film asking the question over and over that proves he's way too obsessed by that lower part of his anatomy better left alone. His character is immature and irritating, and had I been any part of his "team," I would have staked him out over an ant bed covered in honey and left the vampires to their business!

I guess I could sort of like the younger priest...at least by the end. He's one of the few that truly believes what he preaches. He stands up for himself finally and does it without resorting to the bullying tactics shown by Jack Crow and only at the end does he try to be like the afore mentioned Crow in showing a beginning in that anatomy obsession. Daniel Baldwin disgusted me until he was bitten and beginning to fall in love with Sheryl Lee's character. Only then did he begin to show some compassion instead of mindless bravado and a macho attitude that wouldn't quit. Thankfully, it did quit.

I think the best part of the movie was the scenic shots of New Mexico. Having lived in Santa Fe for a year and missing it immensely, that was about the only hope the movie had in winning me over. I liked the shot of the St. Francis Cathedral, brief as it was, and I liked the mural across from the pay-phone Jack Crow was using. The other thing I recognized was the quick shot of Camel Rock. But that was it, and I have to say that I should have just walked out of the theatre after those scenes were over. Now I think I'll just look at the old pictures from my stay in Santa Fe...rather than even bothering to rent that pathetic excuse for a movie.

Based on the novel 'Vampires' by John Stakley, it's a good a violent terror film that displays action-packed, thrills, fast-paced and wild fighting images. Vatican-sponsored vampire hunter Jack Crow (James Woods) leads his team of the mercenaries into the American Southwest to battle master bloodsucker Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) and his cruel hordes. After destroying a haunt, Crow, his buddy Anthony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) and company are ambushed at a post-stake party. A new band of hunters is formed: Crow, Montoya, Father Adam Guiteau (Tim Guinee) and a hooker with a psychic link to the vampires. All of them are seeking a 600-year-old relic, the legendary Berzier Cross, a religious object that will allow the nocturnal cohorts to stalk the Earth in broad daylight. The blood confrontation of the ages is about to begin !. They've been around for 600 years...and they're very, Very thirsty !. The final confrontation between good and evil has begun !. Prepare for the Dawn!.

From the master of terror comes a new breed of evil, emerging this 'John Carpenter's Vampires' (1998), a satisfying horror western packing full of action, gore, along with just humour enough to hold attention until the inevitable showdown. James Woods does a nice work of toning down from his ordinary bug-eyed crazy to merely borderline disturbed here. The film is made in comic-book style with plenty of action, chills, fun, feats, thriller and susprise-filled entertainment. This horror movie has its moments concerning a small group of survivors who are attacked by unsettling vampires and carring out a relentless and violent chase. This is an imaginative terror/western/adventure/thriller with some excellent moments, even if the storyline is not up to the scale of the tale. Horror thriller gets off to a breathtaking start with a holdout ravaged by vampire hunters, succeeding other massacres, in which a group of survivors break out, while protecting themselves against abundant attacks from ominous vampire predators. This is a decent epic of some hunter survivors and their incredible odyssey through the nightmare world created by a nasty vampire called Valek. There's a lot of gore shown in the bloodthisty creatures get staked, beheaded, mutilated, dismembered,decapited and torched, the last accomplished by dragging into the New Mexico sunlight to spontaneously and spectacularly combust. And one breathtaking scene, in which Valek and his followers emerge from beneath the desert at dawn, hints at the stylish genre filmmaking with which Carpenter established his reputation. Magnificent plethora of characters with adequate performances for its entire cast, such as: Daniel Baldwin as portly sidekick, Tim Guinee as naive young priest, Sheryl Lee as a beautiful bitten prostitute with blood lust, Thomas Ian Griffith, Maximilian Schell, Gregory Sierra, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa and Mark Boone Junior .

This gory motion picture was competently directed by John Carpenter. This classic filmmaker Carpenter formed a band in the mid-1970s called The Coupe de Villes, which included future directors Tommy Lee Wallace and Nick Castle, in fact in 'Vampires' composed the pulsing music by means of synthesizer. Since the 1970s, Carpenter has had numerous roles in the film industry including writer, actor, composer, producer, and director. Although Carpenter has directed films in numerous other genres (dark comedy, sci-fi, drama), he is known primarily for making horror films. After directing Dark Star (1974), he has helmed both classic horror films like Halloween (1978), The Fog (1980), and The Thing (1982), and noted sci-fi tales like 1997: escape from NY (1981), Starman (1984), among others. Rating : 7/10 . The flick will appeal to John Carpenter followers.

It's followed by two sequels: ¨Vampires: los muertos¨ (2002) by Tommy Lee Wallace with Jon Bon Jovi, Cristián de la Fuente, Natasha Gregson Wagner, Arly Jover, Darius McCrary, Diego Luna. ¨Vampires: The Turning" (2004) by Martin Jay Weiss with Meredith Monroe, Colin Egglesfield, Stephanie Chao , Roger Yuan, Patrick Bauchau .

It is possible I missed the point, but I feel Carpenter missed the mark, as a horror movie and as a vampire movie. Although there is plenty of gore, the movie is not scary. Violence for the sake of pure joy in violence becomes inane.