Skip to main content

We’re looking into a possible pattern of nationwide anti-Catholic hate crimes.

Vampires
aka John Carpenter’s Vampires
(1998)

(SPOILERS) John Carpenter limps less-than-boldly onward, his desiccated cadaver no longer attentive to the filmic basics of quality, taste, discernment, rhyme or reason. Apparently, he made his pre-penultimate picture to see if his enthusiasm for the process truly had drained away, and he only went and discovered he really enjoyed himself. It doesn’t show. Vampires is as flat, lifeless, shoddily shot, framed and edited as the majority of his ’90s output, only with a repellent veneer of macho bombast spread on top to boot.

Carpenter came to the project, written by Don Jakoby (Tobe Hooper’s Lifeforce and Invaders from Mars) and based on John Steakley’s novel’s Vampire$, off the back of the expensive – but bargain-basement-looking – flop Escape from L.A. Russell Mulcahy had left – his version was poised to feature Dolph Lundgren, so much as I carry goodwill towards Mulcahy’s work, I doubt that it would have been vastly better – and Carpenter saw the opportunity for a western tinged, Peckinpah-infused romp. When the budget was slashed, he combined his favourite bits from the Jakoby and Dan Mazur drafts, in collaboration with Michael de Luca (the one-time New Line head and writer of In the Mouth of Madness… but also of Freddy’s Dead and Judge Dredd).

The result is a ponderous New Mexico-set hunt-the-vampire yarn, as Jack Crow (James Woods) and his band (dwindling band) attempt to stop vampire master Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) from completing a ritual that will enable him to walk in sunlight. You know, the kind of thing the same year’s Blade featured with much more inventiveness, exuberance and energy. Carpenter appears to have embraced the Peckinpah impulse of boorish, sweaty, hard-drinking, hard-whoring red-blooded bullshit in his characters – and in his overbearing Western synth metal score – and it isn’t a good look for the director, particularly in the twilight of his creative flow.

Woods comes on like a parody of himself; the director apparently allowed him a long leash to improvise, and on such grounds, one can safely affirm that more Woods is less. An interviewer, sucking up to Carpenter, suggested Woods was an unlikely choice for a hero: "That’s exactly why I cast him; I thought, 'We haven’t seen this.'" Except that this is exactly what we have seen from Woods, every goddamn time, but more often than not to positive ends.

Here, he’s just tiresome as he struts around in leather and shades, unsure what Carpenter is up to with all that cinemascope, and spews out lousy lines about how he’s going to “shove a stake right up his ass” (Valek’s) or teasing new cohort Father Guiteau (Tim Guinee, dreadful) by asking if the beating he just inflicted had masochistic allure (“Did I give you wood? A little mahogany?”) Jack has a dark backstory, of course (“My father kept a secret once. He’d been bitten by a vampire”), but all you remember is Woods being extra scuzzy and charmless, given too much of a free rein to be effective. And with zingers like “Come on padre. My nuts are on fire here”, I don’t think there was ever much chance for him to land upright.

He’s supported by Daniel Baldwin as Tony – not Inigo – Montoya, a role apparently passed on by brother Alec. So yeah, one immediately thinks of Daniel as the next best thing in terms of star wattage. But Carpenter doesn’t care about that kind of thing. Any old slop, or slob, will do. Hence Griffith as the lead villain. It’s like Carpenter wanted Michael Wincott but bottled it, and instead asked for any tall guy with long hair willing to wear white face cake. He wanted to get away from gothic vampires? So why did he dress Valek in the most generic goth-vampire metal-band outfit?

Also in the cast are the ubiquitous Mark Boone Junior – every other movie I watch seems to feature him at the moment – and a barely registering Maximillian Schell. The only one here deserving any laurels is poor Shery Lee. She’s a trooper, giving a performance of dedication and conviction as bitten prostitute Katrina, one that requires her to lie bare-ass naked on a bed for several minutes while Baldwin, barely able to believe his shlubby luck, drools over her. The movie might have been improved had it focussed on Katrina, as even Carpenter is unable to detract from her performance. He tries, though, with Tony giving her a good beating after she sinks her teeth into him (“Look what you did! You fucking bit me! Fucking bitch!”) and then falling in love with her (who wouldn’t want Daniel Baldwin falling for them? Tantamount to the jackpot of having little brother Billy sleaze all over them).

There can be no doubt Carpenter is scrupulously objectifying Katrina; one only need listen to his take on the shoot (“Yeah, it was a lot of fun. It’s a beautiful place, New Mexico. I love shooting there. They have great strip clubs there”). And cringe. His mind certainly doesn’t appear to have been on a polished production. There’s the occasionally glimmer of a good idea – the phosphorous burns as vamps go up in sunlight – but the visuals and action are mostly as underwhelming as we have come to expect by this point.

Carpenter apparently cut a lot more than normal, but it still seems like he’s barely there with his lacklustre compositions, stiff choreography and ponderous pacing. All highly unflattering, as actors (and extras) stand around waiting for whatever is supposed to happen to happen. There’s no illusory movie magic here; Vampires reeks of straight-to-video standards at their most unforgiving. He is, of course, aided and abetted by the guy who killed his career in much the way Janusz Kamiński did for Spielberg’s versatility: Gary Kibbe.

The suggestion that Kibbe was shortlisted for best cinematography Oscar is somehow left intact on Wiki, but with a telling citation needed. Even by Academy standards, the idea is absolute cobblers, and I can only assume whoever posted it did so purely to take the piss. It’s kind of implicit when the cited “great look” of the movie is rebuffed by the director (“A lot of that was in post-production. We shot it pretty straightforwardly and tinted it in post”).

The same interview attempts to make something of the director’s action choices, and again, he betrays his inadequacies. With regard to the motel massacre, any semblance of tension and coherence drains away through the use of dissolves (the interviewer suggests this is masterful). Carpenter advises “That was an editing room situation. I’m not sure that we knew exactly what was going to happen when we shot it, but we came across that idea in the editing and it seemed to work”. Not sure they knew exactly what was going to happen when they shot it? Yeah, I could tell.

There are a few nods to expanding vampire lore in the thematic content. The old virus parallel (“The less you eat, the faster the virus moves into your bloodstream” advises Tony, offering a day-old hamburger to Katrina). We are told that, in 1340, Valek was a priest and the first known case of vampirism, which makes for an interesting-enough notion, that of the church itself being responsible for this cannibalism and feeding on blood – the church being elite, and vampirism being an elite practice of the nobility – but it’s squandered when delivered in such a crass form. This is, after all, a movie that thinks a line like “How do you like your stake, bitch?” is the height of wit. And allows its seasoned-pro vamp hunter to remain oblivious to the obvious signs that his right-hand man is infected for most of the running time.

Frank Darabont cameos, which only serves to make you wonder what his vampire movie would have been like. While he was still working with Dean Cundey (most recently offering his lensing skills to The Book of Boba Fett), a Carpenter vampire movie might have been something to be savoured (the same with the touted The Creature from the Black Lagoon remake). But Carpenter was a victim of his DP’s success (Cundey going on to work with Zemeckis and Spielberg), and the quality of his productions quickly fell through the floor in the wake of Cundey’s departure. Vampires is near-enough the nadir of his big screen work. Although, if you’re looking for outright worst, you can always check out his Masters of Horror entries.


Popular posts from this blog

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

If this were a hoax, would we have six dead men up on that mountain?

The X-Files 4.24: Gethsemane   Season Four is undoubtedly the point at which the duff arc episodes begin to amass, encroaching upon the decent ones for dominance. Fortunately, however, the season finale is a considerable improvement’s on Three’s, even if it’s a long way from the cliffhanger high of 2.25: Anasazi .

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

You have a very angry family, sir.

Eternals (2021) (SPOILERS) It would be overstating the case to suggest Eternals is a pleasant surprise, but given the adverse harbingers surrounding it, it’s a much more serviceable – if bloated – and thematically intriguing picture than I’d expected. The signature motifs of director and honestly-not-billionaire’s-progeny Chloé Zhao are present, mostly amounting to attempts at Malick-lite gauzy natural light and naturalism at odds with the rigidly unnatural material. There’s woke to spare too, since this is something of a Kevin Feige Phase Four flagship, one that rather floundered, showcasing his designs for a nu-MCU. Nevertheless, Eternals manages to maintain interest despite some very variable performances, effects, and the usual retreat into standard tropes, come the final big showdown.

Captain, he who walks in fire will burn his feet.

The Golden Voyage of Sinbad (1973) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen returns to the kind of unadulterated fantasy material that made Jason and the Argonauts such a success – swords & stop motion, if you like. In between, there were a couple of less successful efforts, HG Wells adaptation First Men in the Moon and The Valley of the Gwangi (which I considered the best thing ever as a kid: dinosaur walks into a cowboy movie). Harryhausen’s special-effects supremacy – in a for-hire capacity – had also been consummately eclipsed by Raquel Welch’s fur bikini in One Million Years B.C . The Golden Voyage of Sinbad follows the expected Dynamation template – blank-slate hero, memorable creatures, McGuffin quest – but in its considerable favour, it also boasts a villainous performance by nobody-at-the-time, on-the-cusp-of-greatness Tom Baker.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

I think it’s wonderful the way things are changing.

Driving Miss Daisy (1989) (SPOILERS) The meticulous slightness of Driving Miss Daisy is precisely the reason it proved so lauded, and also why it presented a prime Best Picture pick: a feel-good, social-conscience-led flick for audiences who might not normally spare your standard Hollywood dross a glance. One for those who appreciate the typical Judi Dench feature, basically. While I’m hesitant to get behind anything Spike Lee, as Hollywood’s self-appointed race-relations arbiter, spouts, this was a year when he actually did deliver the goods, a genuinely decent movie – definitely a rarity for Lee – addressing the issues head-on that Driving Miss Daisy approaches in softly-softly fashion, reversing gingerly towards with the brake lights on. That doesn’t necessarily mean Do the Right Thing ought to have won Best Picture (or even that it should have been nominated for the same), but it does go to emphasise the Oscars’ tendency towards the self-congratulatory rather than the provocat

You’re the pattern and the prototype for a whole new age of biological exploration.

The Fly II (1989) (SPOILERS) David Cronenberg was not, it seems, a fan of the sequel to his hit 1986 remake, and while it’s quite possible he was just being snobby about a movie that put genre staples above theme or innovation, he wasn’t alone. Fox had realised, post- Aliens , that SF properties were ripe for hasty follow ups, and indiscriminately mined a number of popular pictures to immediately diminishing returns during the period ( Cocoon , Predator ). Neither critics nor audiences were impressed. In the case of The Fly II , though, it would be unfair to label the movie as outright bad. It simply lacks that *idea* that would justify the cash-in.