El príncipe de las tinieblas

La naturaleza mágica y atractiva de El príncipe de las tinieblas se sustenta por completo en su desarrollo y en su vertiente musical. Los efectos visuales son baratos, incluso ridículos en algunos puntos, pero no son tantos como para hacer daño. Por el contrario, hay mucha atmósfera oscura y bochornosa, creada por la oscuridad casi constante, las imágenes oníricas y la música demoníaca. Al igual que La cosa, se trata de una película de terror con una conclusión extremadamente pesimista que hará que te estremezcas y no tengas precisamente ganas de descorchar el champán. (04.06.2002)

Prince of Darkness was the first Carpenter film made under the banner of Alive Films, which he joined out of disgust with the terms of the big Hollywood studios. He made a deal with Alive that he would get 3 million for each film and complete creative control. This put him in virtually the same situation he found himself in when he made Halloween or The Fog. Even with those, he had the choice of either throwing himself into a more ambitious, big-money project with producers up his ass or raking in a few hundred grand and doing whatever he wanted. It was a sensible move for Alive Films, remembering how Halloween made nearly eighty grand for 320k, especially since Carpenter still showed no signs of creative decline (despite the convictions of the critics of the time, who incidentally totally buried him with The Thing). In Prince of Darkness it is easy to see the director's relaxation, the release from the pressure he hated so much. Unfortunately for the viewer, it contains many of the flaws that cost him so much effort to eliminate in The Thing, and you can sense from here the slight disillusionment that he wasn't going to waste time with the treatment as he did at his zenith back when no one appreciated him. Whereas in The Thing he spent months rewriting the script, selecting the cast, doing two weeks of rehearsals with the actors, which was unusual at the time, as well as reshoots and pick-ups, here it's pretty much plain to see that he's done away with those elements and gone back to the "as long as the camera’s rolling" method of his early days. The cast ends up being a horrible collection of patients in their eighties (the real horror occurs whenever the protagonist smiles under his moustache), most of the information is provided during a session in one room and anyone who isn't in that room is probably wandering around one of the two corridors somewhere, where his transformation into a servant of evil already awaits. On paper, however, Prince of Darkness rests on an exceptional, original, and thoroughly radical story, which is nothing less than the invocation of a Nega-God tying in secret societies, time travel, forgotten languages, meta-worlds, and cosmic anomalies. Which is awesome. So nobody’s going for a more capable remake? (02.10.2020)

For me, the fourth best Carpenter (after The Thing, Halloween and In The Mouth of Madness). The story moves along quite slowly, using the mysterious rooms of an old monastery to build a terrifying atmosphere, which becomes thicker than mud, and by the end (i.e. the last 25 minutes) had me watching almost without blinking. Everything is supported by an excellent horror soundtrack, which doesn’t have a motif as strong as Halloween’s, but it’s nonetheless superb and elevates the experience. If there’s anything really worth criticising, that’s the very (and I mean very) unlikeable characters, whose actions and words sometimes get dangerously close to idiocy. Otherwise, satisfaction. (12.08.2008)

In the early 90s, some films that had already premiered in the West in the 80s or 70s arrived in Europe for the first time. Among them were several horror titles, such as Prince of Darkness. I was truly fascinated by the jump scares and special effects at the time, which now look laughable, and so, originally, influenced by nostalgia, I gave it a higher rating. John Carpenter has the reputation of a great horror creator, but he has always been unequivocally a B-movie director who made commercial films, and only on a few rare occasions has he managed to surpass his own shadow. In fact, there are only two titles that I truly approve of, the legendary The Thing and In the Mouth of Madness, which beautifully - perhaps best of all the films on a similar topic - captures the sympathetic trashiness of Lovecraft's literary work. Prince of Darkness does not belong to those exceptions, the ravages of time have taken their toll on it, and above all, today I see the ridiculous dialogues and silly behavior of the characters. The screenplay is simply stupid. However, even after all these years, I can still give the soundtrack a perfect rating, as it is a real treat within the genre, and the camera work and visual design of the scenes are remarkable. For that, John gets 2 stars and contributes 45% to the overall impression. Unfortunately, this film also fully exposes the fact that Carpenter, limited by the budget, mostly - actually almost always - worked with B-actors, meaning second and nth-category actors... (05.01.2013)

Carpenter lays down some pretty solid arcs here in his unmistakable style, making Prince of Darkness into another great serving of what horror has to offer. The suffocating atmosphere created by the simple masks, the artful work with the unknown evil descending on the earth, and the brilliant horror music can be felt throughout. In addition, the more than solid script, interestingly working with the "clichés" of the Satan cult, works alongside this, which makes me almost give it the best possible review. However, in the end, it's still standard Carpenter, with no proper innovation in the formal procedures, and the sense he occasionally steals from his past works is very evident to more knowledgeable viewers, and some things can be predicted ahead of time (such as the kill list). Despite this, the most important thing (the viewer's emotions) remains, and so I give it four stars with a clear conscience. (31.07.2006)