Review of Vampires

Vampires (1998)
Uneven and occasionally entertaining.
6 February 2000
Strange to say, if it had been longer it might have been better. Even though I found myself contemplating my ceiling for long stretches of this film, I think it could have benefitted from some more information about the characters. It seems strange that we only saw Crow's hunters for about ten minutes before they...well...weren't there anymore. Couldn't we have been given some background on them? Since one of the most interesting scenes in the film was the 'cleaning of the nest' right at the beginning, and since -- as many have stated -- this is supposed to be an action film...why not clean a few more nests? Let us meet the hunters one-by-one? How can we care about a hotel room full of hookers & hunters if we don't even know their names? How can we understand Crow's rage and anguish and motivation, when all we hear about his past are two or three lines of dialogue? Three quarters of this movie is people looking menacingly at eachother, and people en route to doing something. As well, I REALLY hated the way intense action scenes were presented in a sort of slow-motion montage that made me wonder if my VCR needed cleaning. And the priest was miscast. He made a good priest; as a hunter he was embarassing.

That said, there were still some great scenes. Sheryl Lee was almost transcendental in her ability to rise above her mundane role, but I think this has more to do with Sheryl Lee than it does with John Carpenter. And James Woods was fun in his usual intense, somewhat disturbed way. The vampires rising from the sand were striking and when the action actually HAPPENED, it was fun. But am I the only one who thinks that John Carpenter has become unfocused and sloppy?
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed

 
\n \n \n\n\n