Here is Prince of Darkness, the first of four reviews that should be coming within the week. Again, sorry about the delays, but I'm back in full swing movie watching/reviewing wise.Prince of Darkness (1987)

Synopsis:A sinister secret has been kept in the basement of an abandoned Los Angeles church for many years. With the death of a priest belonging to a mysterious sect, another priest opens the door to the basement and discovers a vat containing a green liquid. The priest contacts a group of physics graduate students to investigate it. 

 My Review:
Next on the Esoteric Order of Reviews is John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness. This relatively underrated offering has long been in my backlog of what to rewatch, and upon using a random number generator to choose for me, it picked it. Ironic that my second review will also find it's title in a Carpenter piece, isn't it?

Prince of Darkness is a deceiving movie to the common watcher. Most cast it's message and execution to be exceedingly religious and stubbornly fact based, much like a science fiction film. But, in fact, it is neither. What few people realize about this movie--symbolized in the opening scenes and imagery--is that it is about the fall of religion and the birth of something else. It is about cosmic horror, a relatively under-represented genre in film making.

Almost immediately the film detatches itself from common sense through a professor and his theoretical speeches to the characters in his class that reality is subjective. Furthermore, the movie introduces a sect, and makes a point to say that the vatican had nothing to do with it and didn't even know about it. It is also made a bundantly clear that the film's antagonist is not Satan, but Satan's father, a cosmic deity of untold power, near the middle of the film. Carpenter took an approach here that is quite similar to Derleth or Lovecraft, and it's that he has created a cosmic horror event beyond the means of human knowledge or commense sense.This is both why many people do not understand this movie, and few who do understand absolutely love it.

It takes a keen eye and ear to spot the details early on in this movie and how it is absolutely soaked in a universal, almost speculative atmosphere. It is an intelligent movie in a cheesy, trademark Carpenter shell. The above misjudgment on it being a religious movie, and also Carpenter's own style and choice of film and sound, is why this movie usually gets a bad representation by the masses. But if you view it as a cosmic horror event, similar to lovecraft in structure, you might very well enjoy the movie despite it's rough edges and some terrible casting choices I should say. On the upswing the movie has one of the most chilling Carpenter and Howarth scores ever and atmosphere that is literally dripping with unease and speculation. The droning vibe soon escalates into panic as events unfold and the ancient books are deciphered, which was a very nice narrative touch to have throughout. Also, for many scenes, are some sweet imagery shots, like cultist members, worms, murders, dream sequences, etc that add a very nice unease to things.

The last five minutes or so of the film are absolutely shocking. The subtle twist, though delivered with sledgehammer mannerisms, is hard to catch. The fact is that the ending dream is one of the best things Carpenter has put on film, and so is the meaning of it and how it relates to the story. Like I said, the story is cosmic horror, and the "damned if you do damned if you don't" ending (not the previously mentioned twist) works perfectly with the vibe and atmosphere. The character development, while narrow, is some of the best writing Carpenter has employed in creating human figures, second only to the thing. And lastly on this quick fire segment, the overall length of the movie is appealing. It's quite short, but has good closure and a good start point, playing like a film version of some of the more famous concise horror authors.

In closing, as I want to keep this review relatively short and fully spoiler free, is that prince of darkness still stands as one of the most unusual films in the horror mainstream. It is wonderfully told, oddly directed (in a good way to some, like me) and has one hell of a downer ending. All of these elements play into the fact that only Carpenter could do something like this, something so vague that you leave wondering if it was a horror film or if it was a philosophical lesson. And that is what makes Carpenter so good.

4/5

Welcome, one and all, to the Esoteric Order of Reviews. The purpose of this corner is to present to you reviews for the absolute horror classics, both modern and in the literal sense of age. The ones that paved the way, the ones that changed how we look or feel about the genre. There is no better place to start than the master of horror: John Carpenter, who's unofficial apocalypse trilogy created so many niches and tropes we know of in the genre today that is influence is almost innumerable. He is--to me--one of the most respectable people in the business who has never lost sight of the humanity or the tension that binds horror together. Without further introduction, I bring to the table:

The Thing (1982)

Synopsis:

The Thing is a deceptively simple story about an "alien being" unearthed in Antarctica that has the ability to assimilate and change into any life form in the galaxy. It comes to Outpost 31 through the form of a dog, where it takes over the crew one by one.


What I think:

The Good:

I don't think a movie with such a heavy and infectious atmosphere exists in the same tier as The Thing. Carpenter's masterful directing, paired with a rock steady screenplay and pacing, works with a very good hook to create one of the most jarring horror movies of all time. The Thing is the master of atmosphere: It will immerse you almost immediately and never let you go, throwing out the used up husk off your couch and into an incinerator. Carpenter would later be known to almost  replicate this unreal amount of tension and paranoia in his movies (Prince of Darkness, Mouth of Madness, etc) but arguably none hit the nail in the head like his classic The Thing.

The mood is set brilliantly without delay or false pretenses by an haunting bass tone which loops with a machine like quality, hinting at the growing tension and fear that grips Outpost 31 and subsequently you, the viewer. And that is what makes The Thing such a masterpiece: It's use of a slow burn narrative is pretty phenomenal to watch unfold. As the movie progresses from an innocent mishap with cabin fever and an insane helicopter gunner to sheer horror the Lovecraftian nature of Carpenter's films becomes truly epitomized. Trust is a priceless quality, as the characters begin to vie for alliances and unsettling fear in others, the whole dynamic begins to change.

As the opening helicopter chase progresses to a firefight that climaxes with the death of a presumed insane Norwegian, there is something "not right" about the camp. The surviving dog looms around the camp, hiding in the shadows and keeping tabs almost unnaturally on all the members of the crew. And then it hits: The Thing presents the absolute highest class in tension building and use of atmosphere and lighting to suspend disbelief and increase the growing mood. What I mean by this is immersion. The movie pulls you in, makes you believe what is happening, root or boo characters, and generally shocks you with it's insane creature design and story twists. Speaking of, the story is told very conventionally, which is a good thing. The characters--and you--know very little about The Thing, even by the end, but clues exist all over. The devil lives in the details with this one.

All of the actors put in quite a heavy effort into setting the mood and dynamics between the crew. It doesn't feel like most modern titles do when concerning large groups of "survivors", per say. Everyone pitches in 100%,and best of all no one feels like a side character or an extra. And this wouldn't be the same if Carpenter wasn't able to keep up with his directing skills through use of some ingenious filming techniques for the time, steadicam and wide shot and cut out set pieces included. The commentary on the DVD edition is also quite interesting, as half of these techniques were completely foreign to Carpenter. He had to learn them on the spot to make The Thing happen.

Without getting ahead of myself I'll sum it up concisely, so that I can shift gears:

The Thing is not scary in the same way as say [REC] or Session 9 or The Exorcist is. You won't jump out of your seat (save for a few cheap scares) but instead will sink deep and low into it, cringing at every succeeding scene. It works on your base emotions: trust and instinct, and slowly unravels them to expose the frail and dangerous nature of humans. To be honest some horror purists don't even consider The Thing to be horror, but rather a thriller with a gore filled vehicle to drive it. But regardless that's what I love about this movie: it's deeper than most other gore filled horror tales. It will scare you because you don't know what to expect, or who to trust, and will crush you with it's foreboding atmosphere.

The Bad:

The Thing is not without it's flaws. I could say that the philosophy behind the movie is not as used as I would like. There is plenty more room to be had in between the shocking scenes for more character development and natural reactions rather than Wilford Brimley dully being a fourth wall. The only three black humor scenes in the entire movie all distract from the overall immersion as well, acting as cigarette burns on the reel so to speak. There's also the universally addressed issue of the set pieces: Some of them are absolutely awful, filled with props or pieces that shouldn't be there, and also having a horribly unauthentic feel about them. But these mars cannot tarnish the overall picture, and merely act as aesthetic or impersonal issues to an overall almost perfect horror film.

My Consensus:

To draw this review to a close, The Thing is one hell of a good horror movie. It is one of the most engrossing psychological horrors ever made and is filled with so many memorable scenes. One of my all time favorite scenes has to be the the bleak and bone crushing ending, which I won't go on to spoil, but it is absolutely fitting for the story. Huge points also go to the blood test scene and the dog shed scene as well. Basically there is very little to hate about this movie. All of the actor's throw in enough character and lines (Which Carpenter directs brilliantly) to give weight to the story and the monster design and premise is simply brilliant. There might never be a movie like The Thing, a movie with the ability to completely fill your mind with illusions of paranoia and mistrust, but also being able to gross you out without a simple bit of CGI.

Most people look at horror in one of two ways: acknowledging the psychological horror's (usually regarded as the "good" ones by the masses), or the gore-fest "torture porn" (usually the most popular.) I find it ironic that arguably both sub genres really hit a mainstream popularity when Carpenter introduced both--at the same time--with The Thing. He keeps the icy foreboding atmosphere the Antarctic and turns it up to eleven with tension and paranoia, whilst also sharing with the viewer some of the most vile and disgusting creature designs to this day.

Future reviews by me should stand to be more objectionist and cold, analyzing various flaws or techniques I did not like. But this review should stand as a testament to my sheer appreciation for John Carpenter and his horror. The Thing is a classic, top to bottom, and is hard to beat even to this day.
 
 
 4.5/5