The Late Night Horror Drive-In

The Films of John Carpenter: The 90s

When it comes to the films of John Carpenter his films from the 1970s and 1980s would be seen as his golden era and rightfully so. Films such as Assault on Precinct 13 (1976), Halloween (1978), Escape from New York (1981) and the Thing (1982) just to name a few are great films and that’s just a small portion of Carpenter’s filmography from the 70s and 80s. Even a lesser film from this era is still quite solid. The easy thing to do would be a write up on this era, but instead I wanted to focus on his films from the 1990s (onward as a little bonus) which some see as very much lesser films and Carpenter being on a decline. But was he? Like I said even a lesser film from his golden era is still quite solid and that run Carpenter had really was outstanding so it’s easy to kind of dismiss his 1990s work, but in my opinion I find his 1990s work quite underrated. With that said as a whole no these films aren’t quite as strong but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t good. A film or films not being as good as others doesn’t mean they’re bad. Due to the wonderful films Carpenter made in the 70s and 80s once again it’s easy to dismiss his 90s work but I think while not quite on the level as his golden run, but 1990s John Carpenter films are quite enjoyable. Who cares if the films perhaps aren’t as good? It’s not a competition and the films should be judged on their own merits and not compared to past films.

While yes the focus here will be on his 1990s work, but of course there’s gonna be mentions of his past era like in the opening of the essay. The interesting aspect of Carpenter’s career and this is something I’ll get into throughout is he never really had major box office success with a couple of exceptions of course. While the good portion of his films in the 70s and 80s turned a profit, but they weren’t huge returns. The films that were big hits were more due to their budget to box office gross and when ranking films by box office gross they were moderate hits. It’s really home video, cable and so forth is where Carpenter’s films found more an audience. But in the 1990s none of the films Carpenter made turned a profit with only a couple breaking even. While again in the previous decades he had box office success but most of his work were more moderate hits. After the release of They Live (1988) which opened at number 1 but only lasted in the top 10 for 2-weeks made 13-million on a 3-million dollar budget, Carpenter would take a few years off before returning in 1992 with Memoirs of an Invisible Man, which would be a sign of things to come as on a 40-million dollar budget it only grossed 14-million.

(NOTE: when available I’ll also provide worldwide numbers).

I think the problem with Memoirs of an Invisible Man were kind of similar to Big Trouble in Little China (1986) which is an outstanding film, but was a box office failure. Fox wasn’t really sure how to market Big Trouble in Little China as it has aspects of various genres. While the film later found an audience on cable and home video, but the Fox had no clue on how to market the movie and therefore flopped. I don’t think WB really knew how to market Memoirs of an Invisible Man as the movie is kind of a comedy, kind of action/adventure and kind of a drama. Also the casting of Chevy Chase probably didn’t help as most would expect a comedy with Chase as the star. Also the name John Carpenter odds are most would expect a horror film which isn’t fair as Carpenter has made plenty of non-horror but that’s where his name is mostly attached to. Perhaps, at the time the audience just wasn’t interested.

While Memoirs of an Invisible Man might not be Carpenter’s best movie, but it’s an overall fun film. Following the box office failure of Memoirs of an Invisible Man, John Carpenter directed the made for Showtime anthology film Body Bags. The film consisted of three segments with John Carpenter directing two of them (the Gas Station, Hair) with one segment (Eye) directed by Tobe Hooper. I suppose to some degree you can see Body Bags as sort of the Showtime version of Tales from the Crypt but instead of the Cryptkeeper, we had the coroner played by John Carpenter. Originally Body Bags was meant to launch an anthology series, but Showtime chose not to. Body Bags is another solid film in the career of Carpenter. It strikes the perfect balance of horror and comedy. It’s not one of Carpenter’s most talked about films but it does deserve more attention.

Following Body Bags John Carpenter directed what many consider his best film of the 1990s and overall one of his best films with In the Mouth of Madness (1994). However, despite the acclaim the film has gotten over the years from fans, In the Mouth of Madness wasn’t a success at all, but it is 1 of 2 films Carpenter made from the 90s onward that broke even. The film only grossed 8-million on an 8-million dollar budget. It’s also the lowest grossing film John Carpenter made in the 90s and one of his lowest grossing films in total. While I do think In the Mouth of Madness is a good film, but it’s not really my style, which is why I didn’t fully connect with the film. However, I do fully understand why so many fans of Carpenter love it. Things didn’t get much better the following year with the release of Village of the Damned (1995) which is a remake of the 1960 film of the same name. I’ve seen two different listings of the budget. One listed as 22-million and listed as 45-million. I’d say with very much certainly the 22-million listed budget is the correct one. Regardless, Village of the Damned only grossed 9-million making it yet another box office failure. The film does feature a solid cast led by Christopher Reeve in his final role before his tragic accident that left him paralyzed from the neck down. While Village of the Damned isn’t quite as good as the original 1960 film, but I find it to be quite enjoyable. It’s not Carpenter at his very best, but it is in my opinion a solid mid-tier film on his career.

The following year would be quite odd and it’s kind of funny how things sometimes work out. Escape from L.A. (1996) was John Carpenter’s highest grossing film of the 1990s. When it comes to his filmography as a whole it’s actually his 2nd highest grossing film after Halloween (1978). Now of course I’m not adjusting box office numbers for inflation. That’s not how it works but if I were to than Escape from L.A. wouldn’t be at the 2 spot. It would drop a few. But that’s not really how it all works, but even if you wanna adjust the box office numbers it doesn’t change the fact it’s Carpenter’s highest grossing film in the 1990s, but it’s also one of his biggest flops. While the film pulled in a fair 25-million dollars but it had a budget of 50-million. Even adding in worldwide numbers it’s not as big a flop, but still a failure as worldwide numbers puts it at 43-million. But it’s kind of funny how it all works as again not only is Escape from L.A. John Carpenter’s highest grossing film from the 90s onward but his 2nd highest grossing film in his career, yet was a box office bomb. Escape from L.A. drew some mixed reviews from critics and even some fans, but L.A. is sort of a satire to some degree of the original and the genre in general but it’s not in your face about it and I think some moviegoers and critics may have taken the film a little too seriously. Also I think the 15-year gap between films maybe could have factored in. Knowledge of the first film isn’t needed. Escape from L.A. is its own film. But while I think the core target audience were most likely well aware of Escape from New York. I’m sure many were fans, but 15-years is quite a gap and I’m not sure how much the target audience will care that much that long later. But then again Carpenter’s filmography is made up of only moderate hits with the exception of Halloween. While the Fog (1980) and Escape from New York were hugely successful in terms of dollars made to budget, but they were still more moderate hits in the years they were released. But really outside of Halloween, the Fog and Escape from New York the rest of Carpenter’s films were minor hits, flops or broke even. Seeing as the 1990s all of his films were box office failures with only 2 films breaking even so perhaps it wasn’t the gap between films and it’s just the way things were going for John Carpenter in the 1990s.

Personally I think Escape from L.A. is quite a fun film. While I’d rate Escape from New York as the better film overall and in regard to Carpenter’s filmography I’d place Escape from L.A. around the middle of the pack but that’s a compliment as even other filmmakers I’m a big fan of Escape From L.A. would rank within the top of the list on many filmmakers I love. As I said earlier even films I’d rate middle to bottom are still solid films as truthfully John Carpenter is one of those rare filmmakers for me where he never made a film I can say I disliked. While sure there’s films I like more than others. There’s a couple that I might like but I wouldn’t say I’m a huge fan of and some I find simply ok, but I can say John Carpenter never made a film that I disliked. At the absolute worst I’d say average for me would be how I rate the films at the bottom of the pack. But while yeah Escape from L.A. might be in the middle of his filmography for me, but it’s a super fun and action packed film that deserved a much better fate than it got. While I mentioned a couple of reasons for why perhaps the film didn’t fair well, but perhaps it’s more of the change in tone from Escape from New York? L.A. again I again think can be seen as a satire of sorts, it also goes for perhaps a little more campy tone without being too campy and silly. While the basic structure of the film may be more or less the same as the original but the tone is quite different. Maybe people were expecting a much more straight forward movie and simply weren’t sure what to make of Escape from L.A., which is fair. But I do think it’s an excellent fun filled ride that really should get rediscovered.

John Carpenter would close out the decade with Vampires (1998) and was his 2nd highest grossing film of the 1990s. Originally it looked like Vampires would break the trend of box office failures for Carpenter as the film would open at number 1 with 9-million dollars made opening weekend, but Vampires plunged in week to 8th and pulled in 3-million which was a 57% drop off. It would drop to 12th in week 3 and took a huge plunge in week 4 and chart 41st. By the end of its theatrical run Vampires grossed 20-million on a 20-million dollar budget making it his 2nd film in the decade to break even and of course along with In the Mouth of Madness the only one to not lose money at the box office. I do remember being quite excited for Vampires as the trailer looked epic. While I wasn’t able to see it during its theatrical run, but once it hit video I quickly rented it. After the film ended I did not like it at all. But in the years since its release I now very much enjoy Vampires and find it to be a very solid film in Carpenter’s career. I’m gonna venture to say many that went to see the film opening weekend probably felt as I did, which is probably what lead to the stark drop off in week 2, but I think over the years many people began to come around to the movie like I did. While Vampires isn’t perfect by any means, but over the years it’s began to get a cult following and while sure Vampires most likely won’t be within the top 5 Carpenter films for most fans, but yeah the film has gathered a cult following and it is a very fun film.

There’s plenty of reasons why a film flops or only pulls in moderate success. Now of course the argument would be it wasn’t a very good film. But you can’t know that unless you see it. There’s been a lot of subpar films that were box office hits and a lot of terrific films that flopped. But Vampires opened at number 1 and while the 9-million opening weekend might not have been huge and based on opening weekend with the numbers it pulled in I’d venture to say 25-30-million was what it would be on pace for. If I’m right, no Vampires wouldn’t have been a huge success, but it would have turned a profit and had it turned a profit it would have been the first Carpenter movie in a decade to do so. If my best guess is correct on what it may have grossed based on how it performed it would still be only a moderate hit. So why did Vampires plunge? Well like I said before about when a movie flops it’s just not very good. Ignoring my opinion on the movie, sure an argument can be made it just wasn’t very good, which is why it plunged. But over the years it has gained a cult status and as mentioned I’m part of that. So what I think may have happened here is we’ll go back to the trailer. I do think it raised expectations to an unfair level. You know how you see films and the trailer is great and you’re excited. You go see it and you’re underwhelmed. But you revisit the film and this time you’re expectations are met. I think perhaps that happened with Vampires for many people. The film also gets off to an action packed start before slowing down a bit and getting into the story. Many times I’ve read interviews with producers and or directors where they mention wanting to hook the audience with a big time action scene or death, than have a little sprinkled throughout before having bigger action and death scenes as the film goes on. The problem with Vampires is it starts off big but never quite gets that big again. However, story purposes it makes sense. While Carpenter does craft some great scenes of action throughout but I do think to some degree after such a great start, the action doesn’t quite reach that level again even if still very good. Also, let’s be honest here. James Woods is kind of a jerk. While I do like his character and Jimmy Woods is terrific, but it doesn’t change the fact he is a bit of a jerk throughout the picture and perhaps the audience wasn’t able to fully connect with him the way they did with other anti-heroes. This is just my possible reasons why Vampires started off strong opening week then took a nosedive. As mentioned I was one of the people that didn’t like the movie at all upon my first viewing. Partly due to my expectations based off the trailer plus Carpenter being one of my favorite filmmakers. But no doubt over the years I’ve really come to enjoy Vampires and many others have as well.

Little did we know at the time but Vampires was the beginning of the end as Carpenter would begin to slowdown and go into semi-retirement. 3-years after Vampires saw the release of Ghosts of Mars (2001). Unfortunately it was another box office failure. Ghosts of Mars opened in the 9th spot pulling in just 3-million and would fall out of the top 10 the following week. In the end on a budget of 28-million the film would only gross 8-million and additional 5-million overseas bringing the world wide total to 14-million. The film was panned by critics as nothing more than a schlock film, but I think this is a case where critics and audiences missed the point. Ghosts of Mars turned out exactly as it was meant to be. Roger Ebert and Richard Roeper seemed to be the only critics that got it. Just because  film turns out how it was meant to be doesn’t mean it’s enjoyable, but in the case of Ghosts of Mars while no it isn’t elite level Carpenter, but it’s a super fun ride and in my opinion a solid mid-tier film. Over the years it’s gained a bit of a cult following, but it’s still generally considered a lesser Carpenter, which is something though I disagree with. However, the film isn’t without some issues. The plot does borrow a little from Assault on Precinct 13 as well as Escape from New York. With a few changes here and there this could have been the 3rd Escape film. The cast is solid and while Ice Cube was solid enough but I do feel the performance was a tad bit forced even if good nonetheless.

After the failure of Ghosts of Mars John Carpenter wouldn’t direct another film until the 2010 release of the Ward. In between the two films Carpenter directed Masters of Horror: Cigarette Burns in 2005 for the first season and Masters of Horroe: Pro-Life in the 2nd season. As for the Ward it keeps in tune with how I feel about Carpenter’s work. It’s not a great film, but it’s a decent enough offering from Carpenter. The Ward was produced on a 10-million dollar budget while grossing 5-million. However, it only received a limited release. While the film failed to turn a profit, but I don’t know how it did per theater. So the  10-million budget to 5-million gross may not be as bad as it seems.

Bottom line is the John Carpenter films of the 1990s and beyond are gonna split fans. His 90s work is very polarizing and granted 1990s John Carpenter as a whole film by film may not be quite as strong as his work in the 70s and 80s, but as I said before, who cares? Just judge Carpenter’s 1990s work on their own merits instead of comparing them to Halloween, Escape from New York, the Thing and so forth. On their own merits quite honestly I think all the films John Carpenter made in the 1990s and after were enjoyable. Sure some more than others but I don’t think there’s a bad film in the batch. I do understand why certain films might be dismissed. Some that are seen as ok to subpar films even if I disagree, I understand it. But I also feel again Carpenter’s 1990s work has no bad films in the lot. Yeah if you’re gonna compare them to all the films he made prior you aren’t gonna enjoy them. But again. Judge them by their own merits. They may not be the best films he made within his career but they’re overlooked. I’ll admit to being a fan of 1990s John Carpenter.