The Forgotten John Carpenter Horror Movie That Almost Received A NC-17 Rating

Picture this. A tough-as-nails vampire hunter named Jack Crow sneers his way through his kills, using sheer spite to hunt vampires down in droves. You see, his family was destroyed by these creatures of the night, so it is now his life's mission to kill them all and look cool while doing it. He's a mercenary (hired by the church, no less) who drives stakes through vampire skulls and hearts like a fighting combo, often dragging them out in the sunlight with steel cables to watch them violently combust.

It would be tempting to compare him to a spell-casting exorcist like John Constantine or a fellow vampire hunter like Van Helsing, but Crow — despite his general badassery — is rather unpleasant to be around. He worships toxic notions of masculinity and spews misogynistic insults unprompted, but these traits are never met with criticism or pushback. This conflicting morality surrounding Crow sums up John Carpenter's "Vampires," where James Woods' cigar-smoking Crow manages to impress and repulse at the same time. However, I would be lying if I said that this gore-filled vampire flick isn't fun.

Does a general enjoyment of the film's exciting kills and high-octane shenanigans denote that "Vampires" is groundbreaking cinema? Absolutely not, especially with regards to Carpenter's impressive oeuvre, which contains bangers like "In the Mouth of Madness" and "The Thing." It is a terribly flawed product of its time, one that presents a rude-as-heck protagonist as the picture of machismo, where its core thrill lies in the pleasure of watching bloodsuckers explode. There's not much going for it except an edgy stylistic identity, greatly elevated by Woods' intense, committed performance as a man who sincerely yells "Vaya Con Dios!" (Go with God!) to a group of vampires towards the end.

Although the gore featured in the film is pretty standard, "Vampires" almost got an NC-17 rating (meaning no admittance for those under 18) instead of its R rating (for strong violence, profanity, and gore). But what is so extreme about "Vampires" that an NC-17 rating was considered at some point?

Although referred to as "Vampires," the film was also released as "John Carpenter's Vampires," which conveyed a hyperspecific directorial vision of a genre that has been drained and revived several times. Expectations attached to the film were majorly positive, given Carpenter's track record of making powerful, moving stories that came equipped with brilliant social commentary.

However, 1998's "Vampires" is quite listless in terms of depth, which transformed its gore-infested action into the only talking point around the time of its release. I must emphasize that there's nothing wrong with that at all, as Carpenter was more than happy to highlight how far he had to go to up the violence-meter (via The San Diego Union-Tribune):

"I pushed things to the limit because that's what this movie calls for. I pushed the violence in every scene, pushed it over the top."

This is true, as the advent of the very first vampire, Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith), immediately heightens the stakes (quite literally), prompting Crow and his crew to kill droves of vampires to get to him. Just like Crow is the apex hunter, Valek is the apex predator who rips his victims to shreds without remorse, now eagerly in search of a Christian relic that will turn him into a daywalker. Crow cannot let this happen, of course, so he indulges in impulsive fights that unfold like one would in a Western, the only difference between the copious amount of blood and guts left behind in the process.

Unfortunately, some of these scenes were a bit too much for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which pushed Carpenter to prune some of the bloodshed so as to avoid an NC-17 rating. Per producer Sandy King (also Carpenter's wife), just a few scenes were shortened to avoid the stricter rating, as they "didn't want to ruin the movie and spoil its rhythm."

As a result, "Vampires" is a perfectly violent, coherent flick that frames its bloodthirsty creatures as terrifyingly inhuman, without resorting to any kind of complexity or romanticization. While the film definitely pales in comparison to the best that Carpenter has to offer, it still promises a bloody good time.