HUNTING JOHN CARPENTER'S VAMPIRES

"John Carpenter's Vampires" (1998)

Directed by John Carpenter

   When I first saw "Vampires" back in 1998, I remember leaving the theater underwhelmed. I didn't dislike it, but I wanted to love it and I didn't. When it was released on DVD, I bought it simply to add to my John Carpenter collection. I re-watched "Vampires" last night and an interesting thing happened to me: I changed my mind about it. Before it was even over, I found myself thinking: "Wow. This is bad-ass!" Why did it play differently? Before I touch upon that, let's go over the plot.

   A group of vampire hunters, sponsored by the Vatican are hunting blood suckers in New Mexico. The main villain is a Master Vampire named, Valek (played by Thomas Ian Griffith) who has a plan to perform a ritual that will make it possible for vampires to be able to walk in sunlight. After most of the Vampire Hunters are wiped out by Valek, the head Vampire Hunter, Jack Crow (played by James Woods) hits the road with his partner, Tony Montoya (played by Daniel Baldwin) and a prostitute named Katrina (played by Sheryl Lee) who was recently bit by Valek and will turn into a vampire in days. It's a race against time for Jack and Tony to find Valek before Katrina turns into a vampire, because in the days leading up to her transformation, she has a psychic link to The Master Vampire which points the Hunters in the right direction. A priest named Father Adam Guiteau (played by Tim Guinee) assigned by the Vatican, joins the crew and they're off on their journey. In a way, it's kind of a "Vampire Road Film".

   Why now? How did I grow to enjoy this movie more now, than in 1998? I admit that going to the theater to see this film upon it's original release, I carried with me the entire filmography of it's director, John Carpenter in my head. It now seems unfair that I had this mindset of: "You better be as good as all the other classic Carpenter movies that I love." I didn't realize that I wasn't giving it a proper chance. How can a new film compete with my feelings for movies that I've loved my whole life? When I watched it last night, I did it with zero expectations of the film. It only had to serve as something to keep me mildly amused to pass the time. I didn't think about any of Carpenter's other movies while watching it and I absorbed it as a stand alone film, not attached to a filmography.

   What's good about this film? For starters, the concept is simple, but fun: Vampire Hunters with modern weapons (or at least modern at the time) hunting vampires in a setting that I don't usually see in a Vampire Film: New Mexico, a desert like setting. Not all the human characters are vulnerable and helpless and the look of this film is not your typical backdrop.

   The main vampire, Valek looks cool and threatening. There are Vampire Films that I love where I don't actually like the design of the vampires. The vamps in this movie are pretty basic looking. I love a "less is more" approach to vampire design in films. The minions of the Vampire Master don't need to be anything special because they're on screen with just enough time to attack someone then get killed. Being that the Vampire Master is the vamp that receives the most screen time, with this design all I need is someone with charisma and a Gothic look. Valek has that.

   Our main protagonist is played by James Woods. Many people have a difficult time enjoying a performance by someone who has become controversial later in life. Although it crossed my mind while watching James Woods perform in this film, how I feel about him as a person, I quickly stopped thinking about that, as I became engrossed in his performance. Like it or not, this guy has had a long career in movies, because he was a capable actor. I enjoyed the Jack Crow character and off the top of my head, I can't think of someone else who I would have preferred to play him, because you would have to cast a "James Woods-type". I mostly think of Kurt Russell as John Carpenter's go-to leading man, but Kurt wouldn't work as Jack Crow. Kurt Russell is too likeable and Jack Crow is kind of a creep. It feels natural to me, that a guy who's devoted his life to violence against monsters would be a bit of a scoundrel. When they reveal Jack Crow's origin story of how he ended up becoming a Vampire Hunter, it makes sense that he would have a chip on his shoulder.

   The other performance in the film that I want to touch upon is that of Sheryl Lee. I'm a huge "Twin Peaks" fan and that motivates my reason to mention Sheryl's performance. I've seen Lee in other stuff, but this film is the closest that I've ever seen Sheryl Lee perform emotional reactions with her character that is reminiscent of her portrayal of Laura Palmer.

   I left the experience of revisiting "Vampires" feeling that it was a fun, action packed, somewhat crass Vampire film that I'm happy exists. I don't think anyone will ever regard it as John Carpenter's best, but I would definitely disagree with anyone who calls it his worst. I think Carpenter's films are classics because we love that they're creative, fun and re-watchable. If you go into this one just wanting to have simple, dumb fun - it achieves that. Although, I would suggest that it's smarter than people may give it credit for.
   If you revisit this film, I'm not expecting you to discover that it's now one of your new favorites, but I think you could have a good time with it and I would hope that the reputation of this movie doesn't remain negative. I love Vampire Films. I love them so much, that I even enjoy "Bad Vampire Films". This ISN'T a bad Vampire Film.