John Carpenter's latest shows us that, disappointingly, VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED wasn't a one-off; the director has indeed lost his touch and now produces slick, empty films which are very nearly totally pointless. This type of film might have worked back in the late '80s, but for a late '90s film it's on very shaky ground. These days audiences want something a little more than a cartoon-like film in which a thin plot provides various contrived excuses for some gore and some action.

Unfortunately, originality is extremely rare in this film, and it never manages to be exciting or scary. This is a real shame, because the premise was at least interesting. I was hoping this film to be another FROM DUSK TILL DAWN, but to no avail. There just isn't the same sense of frivolity and of fun as in that film, and in some ways it's a lot less extreme. I kept hearing about how gory and gruesome this was, but the end result left me cold. Yes, there are at least two good scenes of explicit gore, produced by some nice CGI work: the first comes when a vampire victim is slit in half, the second when an old priest gets messily decapitated. Unfortunately the rest of the special effects merely involve blood and little is shown, often becoming repetitive. The biggest crime in my eyes, though, is the lack of creativity with the vampires. When they die, they are either staked or burn in the sunlight, actions which both become boring at the end of the film as they are repeated over and over again (at least Tim Burton had the right idea with the repetitive decapitations in SLEEPY HOLLOW by making them unusual and different each time). The special effects aren't even that good.

The action is frankly poor, and the worst thing you could possibly imagine happens near the end: instead of showing us some nice, exciting gruesome bits, the film cuts away to an outside of the building the violence is taking place in, merely letting us hear the sound effects instead! It's outrageous. There are a couple of nice bits of action but not enough to satisfy shelling out the dosh for, and the final confrontation between the master and Crow is dumb, quick and anticlimactic. As for being scary, well, that's a no-no either. The vampires themselves just look like goths with pale faces and black attire, pitiable rather than disturbing. What a disappointment. At the beginning there are a couple of suspenseful door-opening scenes, but these amount to nothing and the film forgets about them soon afterwards, opting for crude shocks instead. I did like the head vampire hiding on a ceiling above a potential female victim, but this had been spoiled in the trailer anyway! It's a case of the trailer showing all the good bits with this film, so don't be fooled.

The acting is the thing which lifts this film from being totally poor. James Woods' vitriol-spewing, intense performance as the chief vampire hunter, Jack Crow, is very good as always and typical of the actor; his character is very similar to Miguel Ferrer's in the same year's THE NIGHT FLIER, scarily so in fact. Both are stubborn, selfish, stop-at-nothing men who use others without a second thought, feeling no guilt in doing so. I love anti-heroes like these, I just wish we could see more of them in films. As support, a heavy-looking Daniel Baldwin isn't bad, and gets better as the film goes on. Sheryl Lee lends the love interest, as a woman turning into a vampire, and her performance is actually pretty good. She conveys fear very well, and gets to contrast her good and evil sides a lot too. Just watch out for that gratuitous nude scene. The rest of the cast are of little importance, apart from a bland gung-ho priest who comes into things at the end. Their deaths have absolutely no impact, they're just cardboard cut outs, the vampires included. Even Thomas Ian Griffith disappoints and fails to cut an imposing presence. As for Maximillian Schell, the less said the better! VAMPIRES is just about passable as a film, but doubly disappoints because we were expecting a lot more from both the director and modern vampire actioners like BLADE, a lot better than this. It's packed with dumb jokes and is played straight, incredibly. Give it a miss and keep your fingers crossed for Carpenter's next film.

Jack Crow (James Woods) leads a group of vampire hunters organized by of the Catholic church. Anthony Montoya (Daniel Baldwin) is his second in command. They clear a nest but the master isn't there. Jan Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith) escape the hunt and massacres the group as they party into the night. Katrina (Sheryl Lee) is a local party girl who gets bitten. Crow and Montoya survive the attack taking Katrina along to track Valek. Cardinal Alba (Maximilian Schell) tells Crow about Valek's massacre of their European team. He is the first recorded vampire and the most powerful after a botched exorcism by the church. Father Adam Guiteau (Tim Guinee) is assigned to rebuild the team and attack Valek quickly. Crow suspects that Valek is actually searching for the legendary dark crucifix which supposedly gives vampires the ability to walk in daylight.

Director John Carpenter doesn't waste any time and dives right into the world of vampire killers. I respect that. There's no real need for an introduction to lay out the background. The action is brutal. It's a lot of blood and tearing. They are not kung fu fighting. While I love the brutality, there isn't much tension. It's brutal without actually being intense. That's the major deficit. The story isn't twisty enough. James Woods does a fine macho character. This is good vampire hunt movie but it doesn't anything more than that.

John Carpenter's Vampires is a flawed film, that's for sure. It is not really terrifying, despite being billed as a horror film. It is rather brutal, and the film's humor and the actions of the characters have been accused in some quarters of having a misogynistic bent. So why is this film so much fun? Two words: James Woods. An extremely underrated actor, Woods is nearly perfect in the role of cocky Jack Crow, a renowned vampire hunter. He chews scenery with relish, handles his character's off-color humor with panache, and never lets up his colorful performance for one minute. Is John Carpenter's Vampires art? No. Is it great filmmaking? No. Is it a good time at the movies with a central performance that will put a smile on your face? You bet. And, occasionally, that is enough. Who says the B-picture is dead?