(1998)

Critic Reviews

42

Metascore

Based on 19 critic reviews provided by Metacritic.com
75
The Globe and Mail (Toronto)
Crude, rude, nasty fun.
63
ReelViews
The essential problem with the movie isn't that it's loud, violent, and gory, but that, before Carpenter ratchets up the tension in the final 35 minutes, it's not especially interesting.
50
Chicago Sun-Times
The movie has a certain mordant humor, and some macho dialogue that's funny. Woods manfully keeps a straight face through goofy situations where many another actor would have signaled us with a wink. But the movie is not scary, and the plot is just one gory showdown after another.
50
The lead actors on both sides of the vampire divide are all strong personalities.
50
James Woods adds another hateful, embittered creep to his gallery of losers, neurotics and junkyard dogs with vampire slayer Jack Crow.
50
It's interesting, though, to think of double-billing Woods' Crow with Pacino's Prince of Darkness from Devil's Advocate: Scenery-chewing never looked so good.
42
Entertainment Weekly
The goons themselves, though, look rather chic, flying through the air in Galliano-goes-to-hell garments straight out of Vampire Vogue.
40
Carpenter oscillates between high horror and lowbrow camp, which is more unsettling than the scenes of decapitation and dismemberment, and drives a steak through the heart of Woods' fine performance in the process.
40
Empire
For all the exploding gore, graphic eviscerations and combustible corpses, it's not shocking, not sexy and not scary.
25
USA Today
Anemic. [30 October 1998, p.8E]
25
New York Daily News
It's just as well that John Carpenter makes horror movies, because here's a horrifying thought picture James Woods as an action hero. [30 October 1998, p. 44]

More Critic Reviews

See all external reviews for Vampires (1998) »

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Reviews | User Ratings | External Reviews | Message Board