once, recurring character types in Carpenter’s films, and Carpenter’s movies ranked according to the author’s preference. CARPENTER’S content is as good as, or better


than, CRAVEN’S. As before, Muir provides exten­ sive credit lists for each film—in the same erratic, random “order.” But his plot summaries are much tighter here, and his historical overview of Carpenter’s career and critiques of Carpenter’s films all seem better rendered, demonstrating ei­ ther that Carpenter inspired Muir more than Cra­ ven did, or that Muir is continuing to mature as a writer (or both). I’d say the improvement is due more to maturation than inspiration, since, as Muir’s examination illustrates, Carpenter’s total output has been neither as successful nor as sat­ isfying as Craven’s. Muir has only praise for Carpenter’s first six


features, from 1975’s DARK STAR to 1982’s THE THING—though his encomia couldn’t alter my original opinion of HALLOWEEN (a triumph of style over substance, designed to showcase Carpenter’s cinematic bag of tricks) or THE FOG (1980: an ambitious but disappointing attempt at atmo­ spheric horror). Even Muir admits that Carpenter’s subsequent films cannot match the first half- dozen; some have their moments, but none is wholly satisfying, and a few (e.g., VILLAGE OF THE DAMNED [1995]) are downright poor. Still, Muir strives mightily to portray Carpenter’s


later works in the best possible light, emphasiz­ ing their virtues—even as he honestly assesses their faults (ie., “the overlong fight sequence in a Los Angeles alley” that mars 1988’s THEY LIVE). He argues that Carpenter owes his relative lack of critical and box-office success to his maver­ ick status: he’s refused to compromise with the big-studio system—except on MEMOIRS OF AN INVISIBLE MAN (1992), and Muir likens that Chevy Chase fiasco to Craven’s 1995 Eddie Murphy flop, VAMPIRE IN BROOKLYN. Certainly, Carpenter’s rejection of high-profile


assignments (STAR TREK: THE MOTION PICTURE [1979], TOP GUN [1985], FATAL ATTRACTION [1987], etc.) displays his artistic integrity. Too bad his uncompromising stance hasn’t resulted in more works of artistic merit. But Muir argues that Carpenter never sought the high-falutin’ ‘artist’ label and instead tries to be a popular entertainer like his idol, Howard Hawks. But he hasn’t always succeeded there, either. (Did JOHN CARPENTER’S VAMPIRES [1998] really entertain you?) And the comparison of Carpenter to Hawks is


inapt. ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 (1976) may 76


be Carpenter’s RIO BRAVO, but most of his films do not reflect a Hawksian sensibility (group of professionals working together to do a job, qui­ etly acknowledging each other’s abilities). BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA (1986) tries to, but the film progresses at such a herky-jerky pace that the relationships never develop the way they do in Hawks’ smoother constructions. Carpenter’s remake of THE THING is the an­


tithesis of Hawks’ version, jettisoning its empha­ sis on camaraderie and cooperation in favor of a return to the original story’s themes of alienation and mistrust. It does succeed, but on its own unHawks-like terms. While lacking in character­ ization (necessarily so, one might insist, given the theme) it impresses because it refrains from wal­ lowing in its ground-breaking special effects, in­ stead letting the alien transformations come fast and furiously, never permitting them to overwhelm the story. (Talk about Carpenter’s refusal to com­ promise!) Considering the damage done to Brian


DePalma’s reputation because of his slavish Hitch­ cock imitations, it’s better for Carpenter to be a flawed original than a Hawks copy. And, despite some adulterated opinions, THE FILMS OF JOHN CARPENTER, like WES CRAVEN: THE ART OF HORROR, remains pure Muir. —Anthony Ambrogio

Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84