@artdamaged I assume this video was ripped from the old website. For whatever reason specific videos, the compression used to slowly degrade the longer it stayed on a screen where there was little or no active moments, until it would magically "refresh" itself.
Bored? What movie were you watching? I saw this when i was younger late one night and it gave me nightmares, the ending totally freaked me out. I love John Carpenter movies, they just jump right into the story instead of spending a half hour setting you up. I love unconventional horror movies. The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, Halloween...John Carpenter is awesome!
The one thing most of us have to realize is that once a movie gets a bit older and it becomes something we saw when we were younger it starts to get an aura around it that gives it a few more points, a higher score if you will. Movies that were a 6 in our books when they came out slowly may turn into an 8 after 15 or 20 years. I mean I remember that such movies as "The Thing". "Conan the Barbarian" ('82) and "Flash Gordon" being panned by most everyone when they came out. Now they seem great.
Siskel is sucha douchebag.... I consider him to be the more cocky of the pair (get it?).... Carpenter hasn't made anything impressive since Halloween?.... He is beyond wrong... He's goddamn wrong
You know...I could easily sit here and freak out on the fact that Siskel and Ebert wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. The fact of the matter is this...John Carpenter, love him or hate him, will be remembered for directing a number of well-made films that have been incredibly influential. I'd honestly love to see Ebert try to make a movie. I think that if you want to REVIEW movies for a living...maybe you should try making one first.
I really like the atmosphere in this. The mood is really dark and menacing. Other than that not a very good storyline or characters. I'd watch it again for sure.
John Carpenter hasn't made anything decent since Halloween? wtf!!! How about: Someone's Watching Me! (1978) The Fog (1980) The Thing (1982) Escape From New York (1982) Christine (1983) Starman (1984) Big Trouble In Little China (1986) No not much there. {sarcasm}
Carpenter is a stylist, the reason the 2nd half of the film changed the direction because the film needed a visceral counterpoint to the cerebral1st half. It needed the energy, because at the centre the film was starting to get boring, hence it changed the pace and energy. Carpenter is focused mainly on the style. POD is not a "typical" intellectual film, but it has an intellectual approach to the material of the film. It is a smart film though.
I think their point of view is again the proof how SOME people or critics are expecting in a Carpenter film something what is not there, their expectations were different.
I don't think it matters. Their opinions were the least interesting thing about their reviews. I have never watched or read any of their reviews and felt that anything was illuminated or that any insight was shed on a film. I also never watched their reviews if I have not seen the film, because they spoil the whole thing.
Their opinions were pedestrian and unqualified in almost all instances, and they were almost comprehensively lost and clueless when faced with any kind of genre material.
The sad thing is, I wish they showed some kind of compasion towards it, along with The Thing. I mean come on, The Thing is a masterpiece! It's supposed to have tension so that the audience has no idea what may happen next.
I think they're pretty much spot on. Prince of Darkness starts off promising with scientific theories and how The Devil is in fact part of an anti-universe that exists at a quantum level inside our own, waiting to take over and occlude this universe. But all of this is quickly forgotten and the whole thing degenerates into people getting possessed and fist fights. Carpenter certainly could have done better.
"Prince of Darkness" is a brilliant film, and Carpneter has been responsible for myriad masterpieces in the genre realm. He's one of the finest musical composers in film history, and he's a master of rhythm, mood, visual composition, and conceptual innovation. 'Prince of Darkness' is no exception, and this is a perfect example of why these reviews should not be taken seriously as aesthetic values or criticism, and should be viewed only for their definite amusement and entertainment capacity.
You are a good example of why genre filmmaking is a low percentage art form. Directors like Carpenter get at the highest and most vital ambitions of expression, while the people who go to see their films on average are conditioned to appreciate only the lowest order of disposable entertainment. That's also why genre material is so subversive, people don't understand metaphor or satire, and can't grasp abstraction. 'Prince of Darkness' is mature and typically 'too smart for the room' as they say.
@VariedInterest How can you logically hope to dissuade us from taking Siskel and Ebert's analysis of the film seriously while at the same time expecting us to take your own analysis of the film seriously? A bit contradictory. I often times disagree with their reviews of films that I've enjoyed and yet I still manage not to slip into an elitist diatribe about both their, and the general public's, lack of ability to appreciate high cinematic art. But to your credit, Piper was badass in They Live.
Reptilian shapeshifter 2:40
TheSwahiliMuskrat 1 month ago
Siskel is even more awesome after he's had a few shots XD
blackacidlizzard 2 months ago
Log Live Satan! lol! xD
pickledtochus 3 months ago
Why, at around 2:35, does Ebert look like someones smeared poo all over his face?
artdamaged 4 months ago
@artdamaged I assume this video was ripped from the old website. For whatever reason specific videos, the compression used to slowly degrade the longer it stayed on a screen where there was little or no active moments, until it would magically "refresh" itself.
spooieVAULT 3 months ago
i dug the movie . it used to creep me out. when i first saw it on vhs.
BRm2008 4 months ago
This movie scared the snot out of me. For all the things it got wrong, it got plenty right as well. I think they're being too harsh on it.
KennethSorling 4 months ago 4
Bored? What movie were you watching? I saw this when i was younger late one night and it gave me nightmares, the ending totally freaked me out. I love John Carpenter movies, they just jump right into the story instead of spending a half hour setting you up. I love unconventional horror movies. The Thing, Big Trouble in Little China, They Live, Halloween...John Carpenter is awesome!
crodgers100 4 months ago 3
They're both way off. This movie S-C-A-R-E-D me.
hithr3000 5 months ago
Solid view point from Ebert here.
DrPepperAndSteak 5 months ago 2
The one thing most of us have to realize is that once a movie gets a bit older and it becomes something we saw when we were younger it starts to get an aura around it that gives it a few more points, a higher score if you will. Movies that were a 6 in our books when they came out slowly may turn into an 8 after 15 or 20 years. I mean I remember that such movies as "The Thing". "Conan the Barbarian" ('82) and "Flash Gordon" being panned by most everyone when they came out. Now they seem great.
nardpuncher 6 months ago
Siskel is sucha douchebag.... I consider him to be the more cocky of the pair (get it?).... Carpenter hasn't made anything impressive since Halloween?.... He is beyond wrong... He's goddamn wrong
plisskenetic 9 months ago
Siskel forgot to mention that he liked Starman.
Panorama1981 1 year ago 3
John Carpenter had a hell of a run early on. "Halloween" "The Fog" "Escape from New York" and "The Thing" were all classic.
lineba20 1 year ago
You know...I could easily sit here and freak out on the fact that Siskel and Ebert wouldn't know a good movie if it slapped them in the face. The fact of the matter is this...John Carpenter, love him or hate him, will be remembered for directing a number of well-made films that have been incredibly influential. I'd honestly love to see Ebert try to make a movie. I think that if you want to REVIEW movies for a living...maybe you should try making one first.
Malenock86 1 year ago
@Malenock86 Ebert wrote the screenplay for Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.
TheDailySun 1 year ago
@Malenock86
Well he did co-write three Russ Meyer movies.
help4343 8 months ago
"He has not been impressive since" ?! The Thing was great!
abcomid 1 year ago
this was awesome!!
BRm2008 1 year ago
I really like the atmosphere in this. The mood is really dark and menacing. Other than that not a very good storyline or characters. I'd watch it again for sure.
kutuluu 1 year ago
what did they think of CHRISTINE
TURBODORK2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
live62805 1 year ago
Comment removed
live62805 1 year ago
Comment removed
live62805 1 year ago
say to siskel; what about THE THING!; kurt russell, keith David, Wilford Brimley, etc. was a fantastic sci-fi thrilleré
savykevin 1 year ago
Carpenter is a stylist, the reason the 2nd half of the film changed the direction because the film needed a visceral counterpoint to the cerebral1st half. It needed the energy, because at the centre the film was starting to get boring, hence it changed the pace and energy. Carpenter is focused mainly on the style. POD is not a "typical" intellectual film, but it has an intellectual approach to the material of the film. It is a smart film though.
betty100ful 1 year ago
I think their point of view is again the proof how SOME people or critics are expecting in a Carpenter film something what is not there, their expectations were different.
betty100ful 1 year ago
This movie was fantastic. How on earth can anyone think otherwise? It is only trumped by The Thing, J Carpenter's even better movie.
mygoatisdead 1 year ago 2
this is one of his most underrated movies
people's just don't get it....
SWJIGSAW 2 years ago
The credit sequence is the best thing about the film. relays a lot of useful information with such a deft economy.
The science and philosophy in this film is junk and even Carpenter admits it.
Watchable, but not one of his best.
lamentate07 2 years ago
I don't think it matters. Their opinions were the least interesting thing about their reviews. I have never watched or read any of their reviews and felt that anything was illuminated or that any insight was shed on a film. I also never watched their reviews if I have not seen the film, because they spoil the whole thing.
Their opinions were pedestrian and unqualified in almost all instances, and they were almost comprehensively lost and clueless when faced with any kind of genre material.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
"Take gym or something." Haha.
speedyboris 2 years ago 7
This movie is evil, it's bad, it's naughty! LOL
The sad thing is, I wish they showed some kind of compasion towards it, along with The Thing. I mean come on, The Thing is a masterpiece! It's supposed to have tension so that the audience has no idea what may happen next.
Headbanger142 2 years ago 10
I think they're pretty much spot on. Prince of Darkness starts off promising with scientific theories and how The Devil is in fact part of an anti-universe that exists at a quantum level inside our own, waiting to take over and occlude this universe. But all of this is quickly forgotten and the whole thing degenerates into people getting possessed and fist fights. Carpenter certainly could have done better.
Deavi783 2 years ago
"Prince of Darkness" is a brilliant film, and Carpneter has been responsible for myriad masterpieces in the genre realm. He's one of the finest musical composers in film history, and he's a master of rhythm, mood, visual composition, and conceptual innovation. 'Prince of Darkness' is no exception, and this is a perfect example of why these reviews should not be taken seriously as aesthetic values or criticism, and should be viewed only for their definite amusement and entertainment capacity.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
No it isn't. Prince of Darkness is probably Carpenter's most disappointing effort.
Deavi783 2 years ago
You are a good example of why genre filmmaking is a low percentage art form. Directors like Carpenter get at the highest and most vital ambitions of expression, while the people who go to see their films on average are conditioned to appreciate only the lowest order of disposable entertainment. That's also why genre material is so subversive, people don't understand metaphor or satire, and can't grasp abstraction. 'Prince of Darkness' is mature and typically 'too smart for the room' as they say.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
"You are a good example of why genre filmmaking is a low percentage art form."
Rubbish.
"'Prince of Darkness' is mature and typically 'too smart for the room' as they say."
It could have been a smart movie. But the second half of the film is just B-Movie stuff with possessions and fist fights.
Deavi783 2 years ago
I am not unclear as to why you did not like the film.
VariedInterest 2 years ago
Bu you don't seem to understand that it is NOT a "brilliant film".
Deavi783 2 years ago
@Deavi783 no...that would be "Memoirs of an Invisible Man"
lifesonfan 1 year ago
@VariedInterest How can you logically hope to dissuade us from taking Siskel and Ebert's analysis of the film seriously while at the same time expecting us to take your own analysis of the film seriously? A bit contradictory. I often times disagree with their reviews of films that I've enjoyed and yet I still manage not to slip into an elitist diatribe about both their, and the general public's, lack of ability to appreciate high cinematic art. But to your credit, Piper was badass in They Live.
MalnourishedGoat 1 year ago
@Headbanger142 I think the special effects in the Thing were so overwhemling, they couldn't see the brillant filmmaking behind them.
Ashloomis 1 year ago
@Headbanger142 just for the record, 'the Thing' is not a masterpiece
earthdome111 3 months ago
@earthdome111 yes it is
MrTEHCOMEDIAN 1 month ago