Prince of Darkness (1987)

Excellent, a Must See

In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

.Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

'Prince of Darkness' is not master of horror John Carpenter's best film and it is weakest in his so called "Apocalypse Trilogy", but Carpenter is such director whose more mediocre work surpasses other genre director's film by miles. In 'Prince of Darkness' Carpenter again manages to perfectly create creepy and claustrophobic atmosphere (although might not as good as in 'The Thing') and the horror doesn't need to rely on jump scares and fancy special effects. Only Carpenter can build up such a slow an intense waiting of the doom.After some flops at the box office John Carpenter had fallen into discountenance by the mayor studios 'Prince of Darkness' was again independent film with modest budget. The low budged doesn't take anything away from the movie, on the contrary it doesn't show like a low budget film (I guess it's Carpenter's experiences working on shoestring budgets). The build up is little slow, and the action parts are little corny some times (without right amount of cheese it wouldn't be Carpenter's film), but the dialogue is magnificently written and characters (except some expendables) are rather intelligent and avoiding too much horror movie clichés. Again, Carpenter manages to create an eerie synthesizer soundtrack, that is pleasure to listen, but is not recommended to listen on your ipod while walking on dark streets.'Prince of Darkness' is above average atmospheric and intelligent horror film that uses many interesting ideas and avoids to slump into horror film clichés. It should please hard core horror fans, and is must see for John Carpenter fans.

I've never seen this movie until a few days ago for the first time. Man I overlooked this one way to late into my adult life. I've seen plenty of John Carpenter films growing up, and I loved everything than mans done. His style and tone just speaks to me when it comes to horror and concepts. How was the movie?Different. I think John was on a mission when he made this movie. The idea of Science explaining an ancient evil is rarely done in horror movies since the concept of horror works best with the supernatural. But in this case, it was a nice touch up of change and I welcomed it.The script was well paced. The plot wasn't convoluted, and the score was AMAZING(if you love synth music). The use of practical effects can't be overlooked, especially the use of water effects in the scenes taking place during the possessions(cool stuff). And that last scene is horrifying as hell!The characters are a bit stiff. Typical class of characters brought together for an experiment, yadda, yadda. But in the end, they do their part not tripping over one another. I'm glad I finally seen this piece of work from John Carpenter. And I will watch the final in his apocalypse trilogy to make myself complete in viewing the works from a great filmmaker. 8/10

So maybe I'm stretching "classic" a bit, but this film never got the good reviews I felt it deserved, an I'm a veteran of many things horror. The subject matter is fairly original. Did you ever hear of Satan as a green fluid held prisoner under a creepy old church? I didn't think so. Watch how Donald Pleasance overacts, but he's engaging, and makes anything he's in that more enjoyable. A few more familiar faces include Jameson Parker, who's sporting a Freddie Mercury mustache, Dennis Dun, Alice Cooper(that's right)and Victor Wong. I found this film very suspenseful with some interesting kills, and cool scenes. It's not a film that ends nicely, like many John Carpenter films, so you may feel empty after watching it, but the ride should be worth it. There are a few negative things, however, that bear mentioning, such as poor character development, as there's really no one to root for, and an awful, forced love scene that's almost as bad as the one from The Fog(1980), as it wasn't needed at all. Getting those out of the way, I still recommend this film, as I don't think Carpenter made many more good ones after this came out.

Maybe for some people this film is invokes some kind of deep nostalgia and that's why they love it so much, but it's honestly a terrible film. The idea is interesting, with the devil being an actual being intricately linked with the very fabric of the universe, Jesus being an alien sent here to warn us and the Catholic Church spreading a lie to cover up the horrible truth. It's a great premise, but it's handled so badly that the movie is barely watchable. The writing is atrocious, so much of the plot is half ass explained with some of the most awful dialogue I've ever seen. There are several plot points that go completely unresolved and one of them is a major one that is talked about through most of the film. The acting is terrible (unfortunate because many of these actors had given great performances in previous John Carpenter films) I don't think any of the actors had a clue what was going on and gave performances that ranged from limp and dull to completely absurd and over the top (not in the good way either). All of this makes the slow pace of the movie, which could have made for a great slow and terrifying movie, incredibly dull and frustrating to watch. I think any fan of John Carpenter should watch it, but it's honestly a terrible movie.