John Carpenter delivers a bold new vision of the undead in his action/horror film _Vampires_. The story follows a pair of vampire slayers that go rogue in order to pursue a master vampire named Valek, who they believe to be the original source of vampirism. James Woods leads the cast, which also includes Sheryl Lee and Daniel Baldwin. However, the characters aren’t written very well and the performances bear that out. But the vampire lore of the film is quite interesting and keeps the film engaging. So while the story isn’t that compelling, the action and mythology keeps _Vampires_ entertaining.

James Woods plays a tough master vampire slayer, a dedicated Catholic, a leader of Men, and underneath it all, a caring dude. Not an easy task, but after seeing this movie a few times over the years, Woods really grew on me. I still think he seems a little tiny for the part but he certainly talks and fights tough. Sheryl Lee is also a standout as she trembles, grimaces and slinks her way through the movie. The relationship between Jack Crow (Woods) and Father Adam (Tim Guinee) was very well established. There are some neat twists on the vampire lore and a real feeling of grit and grime with the desert backdrop. Everything sprays or squirts disgusting amount of blood and other goop, which is what you get with Carpenter Horror. The other characters are fine but mostly forgettable and are only there to add to the body count, or for Woods to launch one-liners towards. The vampire-king Valek is threatening enough and gives Woods a worthy opponent.

“John Carpenter doesn’t make vampires feel romantic here he makes them feel like something old, hungry, and mean enough to turn faith into a weapon.” John Carpenter’s Vampires is honestly a pretty fun, gritty, and mean vampire movie. It’s not one of Carpenter’s best, but it definitely has his style all over it. It feels less like a gothic vampire story and more like a dirty western/action-horror movie with vampire hunters instead of cowboys. What I liked most is the tone. This movie is rough, violent, dusty, and kind of nasty. The vampires don’t feel sexy or romantic here. They feel like predators. Carpenter strips away a lot of the elegance people usually associate with vampires and makes them feel brutal, ancient, and dangerous. The opening sequence with the vampire hunting team clearing out the nest is probably one of the best parts of the movie because it immediately shows what kind of world this is. James Woods as Jack Crow is a lot. He’s arrogant, rude, aggressive, and honestly kind of hard to like, but he fits the type of movie Carpenter is making. Crow feels like someone who has spent too much time fighting monsters and has become kind of monstrous himself. He’s not a clean hero. He’s mean, damaged, and obsessive, but that gives the movie its rough edge. The vampire hunting concept is really cool too. I like the idea of the Catholic Church secretly funding vampire hunters, treating vampirism like this ancient evil that has been hidden under religion, ritual, and violence. It gives the movie more mythology than just “kill the vampire.” There’s lore here about Valek, the first vampire, the church, the black cross, and the idea of vampires trying to walk in sunlight. That part made the story more interesting. Valek is one of the better parts of the movie. Thomas Ian Griffith gives him this cold, powerful presence, and I liked that he feels less like a random vampire villain and more like something old and cursed. He’s not as iconic as Dracula, but he works for this movie because he has that ancient evil energy. I also liked the western feel. The desert locations, the motels, the sunlight, the trucks, the weapons, and the vampire hunters dragging vampires into the sun all give the movie a different vibe from a lot of vampire films. It’s almost like Carpenter made a vampire movie with the attitude of a western and the brutality of an action movie. The violence is one of the things that stands out. This movie is bloody, harsh, and not very polished in a clean Hollywood way. When vampires die, it’s messy. When people get killed, it’s mean. The movie has this grimy physical feeling that helps the horror work even when the story itself is kind of simple. But the movie is definitely flawed. Some of the writing is rough, and the way Katrina is treated can be uncomfortable. Sheryl Lee does a good job with what she’s given, but the movie uses her more as a plot device than a fully developed character at times. A lot of the movie’s attitude feels very late-90s macho, and that can make some scenes feel dated. The characters outside of Jack Crow don’t always get enough depth either. Daniel Baldwin is fine as Montoya, and I liked his dynamic with Crow, but the movie is more focused on attitude, action, and vampire lore than really digging into the whole team. After the opening, it becomes more of a smaller revenge/chase story. Still, I can’t lie, I had fun with it. Carpenter knows how to create atmosphere, and even when the movie is messy, it has personality. The score, the desert setting, the violent vampire kills, and the whole church-versus-vampires mythology give it enough flavor to stand out. Theme-wise, I think Vampires is about obsession, faith, corruption, and how fighting evil can damage the people doing the fighting. Jack Crow hates vampires so much that it feels like hate is the only thing keeping him alive. The church is supposed to represent holiness, but it’s tied to secrets and old mistakes. Valek is evil, but his existence is also connected to human failure and religious corruption. That makes the movie more interesting than just “good guys kill monsters.” Overall, Vampires is a gritty, violent, stylish John Carpenter vampire western. It’s messy, dated in parts, and not as strong as Carpenter’s classics, but it has a cool premise, a memorable villain, nasty vampire action, and a tone that makes it stand out. Not perfect, but definitely entertaining.

I love John Carpenter, but this film doesn't have the shelf life of garlic, let alone a vampire. Production-wise, I'm fascinated yet again. The practicality, cinematography, and colours build a brilliant atmosphere, although several key elements do lack depth. There's a certain subgenre this falls into, films like "From Dusk Till Dawn" or even more recently, "Sinners". Unfortunately, unlike those films, the writing for this is disastrous. It's aware of clichés, yet unironically plays them. The dynamics and developments are poor, and the acting isn't very good either.

I hadn't seen her since the movie theater, and I still like her. Jack Crow is cooler than cool.