Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy

[Dave]

Dave's Notes part V
Vampires (1998)

I must have seen the end of this before (again probably late at night after work) but I've never seen the whole thing before.

First thoughts, if we are doing modern-day updates of vampirism, then I like What We Do in the Shadows best. This had that same western feel as Dusk to Dawn which unfortunately made it seem a little unoriginal. I liked it though, I'd give it 3.5 or even 4 stars.

I did like the alternative origin story for vampirism. If you asked a vampire what they most wanted, then to walk during the daylight hours sounds like a likely answer, so the film's premise seems valid. Why the church would not destroy the Black Cross is much less likely.

I think John Crow's decision not to build a new team was flawed, but luckily he got away with that. "I will find you, I will hunt you down, and I will kill you!" - isn't that Liam Neeson's line in Taken?

And the Cardinal had seemed like such a nice man! I'm getting this same vibe from these JC movies - don't trust the nice guy/gal.

Now some nits - The young priest - I never learnt to drive (but the church sent me to the USA where you can't get any place without driving). When the master vampire of all the other master vampires is killed, then surely all the others are released from whatever spell they were under??

 

[Foxbat]

Now some nits - The young priest - I never learnt to drive (but the church sent me to the USA where you can't get any place without driving). When the master vampire of all the other master vampires is killed, then surely all the others are released from whatever spell they were under??

Yes, I thought this was a fatal flaw. Never read the book on which it was based but I’d guess maybe a more cinematic ending (with the open option of a sequel) was thought necessary.

The protagonist exit always looks more intense and dramatic if he rides/drives/walks off into the sunset with a job still to be done (even more dramatic because we know his job is to hunt down and kill his best friend).

 

[Foxbat]

Anticipating being asked ‘what book’ I’ve gone back and watched the opening credits (where it’s mentioned). The book is Vampires by John Steakley. It was published in 1990.
I can see the Dusk till Dawn comparison and, interestingly, if Carpenter had stuck closely to the original plot, this wouldn’t have been an issue (see plot summary in link). I wonder how much of this movie’s evolution was influenced by the success of Tarantino’s movie?

Vampires (novel) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dave]

Okay, so I watched Memoirs of an Invisible Man. This is another one that I must have caught the tail end of once, on TV, late some night after work. I think that I'm now up to date with all JC films; that I've seem them all, if some a very long time ago, and I think I might watch them again. Please let me know if you think otherwise. JC films are not "great" films, however none of them is a bad film. They are comfortable films that you could watch over again and still find new things.

Dave's Notes part VI
Memoirs of an Invisible Man

First thoughts- Chevy Chase - he isn't really that funny. This may be why I have avoided watching this film. It is also from that short period of time when Daryl Hannah was considered a sex symbol.

This was a mistake. I was very surprised how good this was. Not a great comedy, but even so, I thought:

Let's not do anything cheap and meaningless.
How much do I owe you?
You couldn't afford it!

and saying that his name was "Harvey," and then the keeping track of our kids lines were all very amusing.

Quite a different John Carpenter film.

 

[BAYLOR]

If for no other reason, I'm grateful to Foxbat for this thread because, though I have seen the film, I missed the beginning and either never knew, or had forgotten**, its name.


** - I might have looked it up at the time -- I was buying a newspaper (with a TV listing section) every day back when it was broadcast -- but I don't recall doing so.

It's one of the best Lovecartian themed films of all time.

 

[Ray Zdybrow]

An interesting discussion of Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy Here. They also discuss John Carpenter's Cigarette Burns, an hour-long TV movie (it's on Vimeo for free, with Dutch[?] subtitles), which you may want to watch first as they talk about it in some detail (ie, SPOILERS!).
I agree with the posts about Carpenter's films being flawed, but his BEST films (including Cigarette Burns, and except for The Thing) are the flawed ones imo.

 

[Foxbat]

I've resurrected this thread for two reasons - 1) I mentioned Prince Of Darkness in the thread about films you shouldn't like but do.
2) Thinking about the movie again got me wondering why I always go back and watch it again, despite all its faults. What draws me to it?

To answer my own question - I think there's a bit of insanity here. Didn't somebody once say that repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result is insanity? I think I go back and watch this in the hope that I've missed something and that it is actually a coherent movie but I keep getting the same result over and over. It's like a siren call for me. I keep getting drawn back to it.

So I went searching and found this.

ANALYSIS: “This is not a dream” – Finding meaning in PRINCE OF DARKNESS (1987)

Spoilers All hail goo Satan, for he towers before you in liquid form and will unleash the will of the Anti-God on this Earth, bringing destruction and death in his wake… Join Iona Smith…

movingpicturesfilmclub.com

I don't agree with everything there but it assures me that I'm not alone in really wanting to love this movie.
Maybe one day I'll get a different result or maybe one day I'll just touch the surface of a mirror

 

[BAYLOR]

I agree that The Thing is Carpenter's masterpiece. It is by far the film of his that I've watched the most times. I do rate Prince of Darkness quite highly for its creepy and unsettling vibes. I have not seen The Mouth of Madness and must rectify this in the very near future.

Both great films .

The Mouth of Madness is one of the best cosmic horror films ever made. HP Lovecraft would have loved this movie.

 

[Vince W]

Both great films .

The Mouth of Madness is one of the best cosmic horror films ever made. HP Lovecraft would have loved this movie.

Thanks for reminding me about this. I still need to watch it.

 

[KGeo777]

I would say his best films are Halloween and Christine and maybe They Live.
The Mouth of Madness has some interesting creepy ideas. "Oh no, not the Carpenters!"
I guess because the main character is not sympathetic you don't feel that invested in it--but the idea is interesting.


I have mixed feelings about the Thing because the SPFX take over the story so much.
I always felt that it gets kind of dull with the FX when Palmer things out.
I wonder how much more spookier the film may have been if some of the thing stuff was happening in shadows or glimpsed at through open doors
because the creepiest sequence for me is when Clark is walking to the kennel and when MacReady realizes he is alone in the generator room.
When you see the Thing stuff--it's a spfx showcase, it's not really about being scared or manipulated much.


I don't think it explored the horror of the situation as much as it could have--but the ending works better than many of his later films.

The Thing is one of those ideas that could be remade in some many ways--the idea is so interesting.


And some of his other films have good ideas or starts but then go off in weird meandering ways.
Prince of Darkness.

Ghosts of Mars is especially bad for blowing an interesting concept.

Vampires has an excellent start with them at the house, but I don't think it holds together by the end. I think it should have focused on them killing vampires town to town rather than follow the first vampire--failed exorcism plot.

I think Carpenter worked better with limited budgets.

 

[BAYLOR]

I would say his best films are Halloween and Christine and maybe They Live.
The Mouth of Madness has some interesting creepy ideas. "Oh no, not the Carpenters!"
I guess because the main character is not sympathetic you don't feel that invested in it--but the idea is interesting.

Halloween was a great film, the less said about the sequels the better though Halloween 3 Season of the Witch was missed opportunity to diversify the Halloween franchise into other more interesting avenues of story telling. In the Mouth of Madness makes me wish Sutter Canes novel were real ones. Though you can find book covers of these book.

I have mixed feelings about the Thing because the SPFX take over the story so much.
I always felt that it gets kind of dull with the FX when Palmer things out.
I wonder how much more spookier the film may have been if some of the thing stuff was happening in shadows or glimpsed at through open doors
because the creepiest sequence for me is when Clark is walking to the kennel and when MacReady realizes he is alone in the generator room.
When you see the Thing stuff--it's a spfx showcase, it's not really about being scared or manipulated much.

Conceptwise. John Carpenter's' version of TheThing is much closer to John W Campbell story Who Goes There of which it was based on than the Howard Hawks's James Arness as plan man from Mars film. though in truth, I like that film as well.

I don't think it explored the horror of the situation as much as it could have--but the ending works better than many of his later films.

The Thing is one of those ideas that could be remade in some many ways--the idea is so interesting.

I like that ending because it keeps you guessing which off the two survivors has been comprised by the Alien.

And some of his other films have good ideas or starts but then go off in weird meandering ways.
Prince of Darkness.

Was actually inspired by the Quatermass film . A good film that could have been a great film, but it sadly missed the mark

Ghosts of Mars is especially bad for blowing an interesting concept.

A great concept and one thye didn't know what to do with.

Vampires has an excellent start with them at the house, but I don't think it holds together by the end. I think it should have focused on them killing vampires town to town rather than follow the first vampire--failed exorcism plot.

I think Carpenter worked better with limited budgets.

I did like his film They Live. This on is based on the story Eight O'clock in The Morning by Ray Nelson The story in and off it self is good but good by What Carpenter does is takes it to whole different level of nastiness and improves on it. And Roddy Piper turned in a great performance opposite Keith David.

 

[Foxbat]

I think Carpenter worked better with limited budgets.

I think I tend to agree with this. Perhaps he relaxes and loses focus when he has more resource available. It reminds me of a soccer manager who can create a successful team out of players with limited abilities but struggles to have his team maintain cohesion when more expensive players are added to the squad (perhaps playing them more to justify their price tag than their tactical necessity).