“Memoirs of An Invisible Man” (1992)
Comedy had never been a defining factor of Carpenter’s filmography until “Big Trouble in Little China” proved his knack for blending humor into his usual science-fiction fare. That most likely explains why Chevy Chase picked him to take the helm of his passion project, an adaptation of the 1987 book of the same name by H.F. Saint. Coming four years after Carpenter’s sharp, biting satire of “They Live,” “Memoirs of An Invisible Man” was the first clear misstep for the director, who even refrained from labelling the film as “John Carpenter’s,” as he had done for the majority of his prior films, as a way of acknowledging that Warner Bros. had more creative control over the project than he did. Originally developed as a project for Ivan Reitman to direct, Carpenter’s direction is, frankly, pretty bland, feeling like a pale imitation of another director without any of the unique perspectives in place that defined his niche as a filmmaker. The film’s saving grace comes from its groundbreaking visual effects, in particular, a scene where Chase’s Nick Halloway has his invisible silhouette outlined by standing out in the rain, but even these effective uses of spectacle can’t save a shoddy script and a bevy of weak performances. —JN
“Body Bags” (1993)
John Carpenter has had a rough go trying to get anthology horror storytelling up-and-running. He first attempted with “Halloween III: Season of the Witch” (believing the Michael Myers story was complete with “Halloween II”) — which was disliked by fans and critics and tanked at the box office — and then “Body Bags” was supposed to launch a “Tales From the Crypt”-esque series when it debuted on Showtime in 1993. Naturally, it didn’t, but this team-up between Carpenter and the late Tobe Hooper is a gem; a moody, silly, and well-made anthology where each short (sans the first one set at a gas station, with cameos from Sam Raimi and the late Wes Craven) is based on a different body part. “Hair” — directed by Carpenter — sees a wonderful Stacy Keach as a balding man who gets more than he bargained for with a new hair product, and “Eye” — directed by Hooper — finds Mark Hamill as a baseball player who gets a replacement eye that, well, doesn’t go properly. Carpenter himself is clearly having a ball as the mortician in the film’s shell story introducing these shorts. It’s a fun, charming anthology, but also a bummer seeing the series — and potential directorial talent for later segments — that could have been. — RO
“In the Mouth of Madness” (1994)
Carpenter has faced his fair share of criticism from detractors about the violence in his films. And after showing his subversive side with “They Live,” it only makes sense that he would take on a project that examines the relationship — loving, tumultuous, or downright dangerous — between the artist and the consumer. Informally tying in with “The Thing” and “Prince of Darkness” as the final chapter in Carpenter’s “Apocalypse Trilogy,” “In the Mouth of Madness” fits into the same “messy, but fascinating” mold as ‘Darkness.’ It starts out as an astute examination of horror fandom, the extremities that one could take it to, the media’s role and responsibility in handling such material, and the critics who dismiss the genre outright as trash. Then, it goes from using a Stephen King-surrogate author to address these themes by going whole-hog in the insanity department. It’s a film that may occasionally be at odds with itself, but Carpenter’s reverence for the material — coupled with Sam Neill’s committed performance that matches Carpenter at each twist and turn he takes — makes this an essential viewing in the director’s oeuvre. Also worth noting that this came out the same year that fellow horror maestro Wes Craven was also diving into the relationship between art and viewer with “New Nightmare.” — RO
“Village of the Damned” (1995)
Between remaking “The Thing From Another World” and the creature design of the aliens from “They Live,” it’s clear that Carpenter has a deep love for 50’s and 60’s B-movies. With that in mind, it makes sense that Carpenter would want to revisit Wolf Rilla’s 1960 adaptation of John Wyndham’s book about all of a town’s women becoming mysteriously pregnant with alien children. Despite knowing the premise, the build-up is quite eerie and well-paced, with Carpenter’s score perfectly underscoring the mystery and confusion. Once the kids are born though, the film takes a turn for the worst, falling into a repetitive rhythm and fumbling the setup for its otherwise well-executed finale. The film loses all steam once the mystery is revealed, and while there are talented performers here (Kirstie Alley and Christopher Reeve in one of his last film roles), it’s hard to tell if they’re trying to fit the film’s off-kilter vibe, or if it is just an unfortunate miscast. It ultimately just feels like a bigger-budget version of the B-movies that Carpenter holds dear, but without the master touch we come to expect from him when he takes these concepts and adds craft and class to them. — RO
“Escape from L.A.” (1996)
Before it was in-vogue to dust off older films and make a years-later sequel to them, Carpenter and Kurt Russell — on record saying that Snake Plissken is his favorite performance — returned to the dystopian world of major cities becoming maximum security prisons. With a budget eight times as much as “Escape From New York” – and yet, looks much worse – “Escape From L.A.,” much like “Die Hard 2,” is the ultimate “again” sequel. Snake gets injected with another deadly virus or serum, gets deployed to another city run amok with criminals, meets a new quirky driver (Steve Buscemi instead of Ernest Borgnine), has to play a basketball game against himself instead of a boxing match. You get the gist. Admittedly, Russell puts back on the eyepatch, camo, and combat boots and falls back into the swing of things with ease, and is compulsively watchable. Replacing the first film’s hard-edged, no-frills attitude is a much campier endeavor, complete with special effects that were dated on its second day of theatrical release (the surfing scene… ouch) and performances who ham it up instead of creating the original’s verisimilitude. It has its charms but is mostly a disappointing follow-up. — RO