What makes a horror movie great to watch decades after its release?

The very nature of the genre means it must really deliver to stand up upon a rewatch.  Cutting edge effects grow dated and the scares dim over time.  Even for films we genuinely enjoy at the time, going back for a rewatch can be a head scratching experience. 

“Wait, I found that scary?” or “How did I ever think this was good film?”

To my absolute delight, earlier this year I revisited a movie that I really, really liked as a teen, which, by all accounts, should be a red flag. Not only good for a 36 year-old movie - it was just plain good by today’s standards.  

Each week, my aim is to serve up an insight into elements of our human nature on display in movies and films from the genre.  Kairo & loneliness.  X and the experience of aging.  This week, I’m giving you the opportunity to get to know my genre tastes a bit better, with the added challenge of not spoiling a movie made in 1987.  

I’m keeping this spoiler-free because, even if you have seen the movie or think you know what it is about, the big reveal you recall isn’t actually the big reveal.  

This movie begs to be revisited.  The nuance of the character arcs and intricacies of the backstory, in my opinion, are overwhelmed in the first viewing by everything else happening onscreen.

John Carpenter’s Prince of Darkness

For my birthday, I treated myself to a series of John Carpenter’s 4K remasters (physical media for the win!). 

Carpenter continually tried new approaches to filmmaking, making him a challenging director to pigeonhole, and to recommend to younger audiences. While there were familiar faces that recurred in his films, and his synthesized scores are a hallmark, the style of his films vary.   The realism of Halloween contrasts sharply with the over-the-top creature effects in The Thing.  Neither of which look like they are made by the same person who brought They Live to the screen.  For a genre that caters to the underdogs and outliers, it is ironic how many filmmakers avoid taking the chances Carpenter did once they earn some name recognition.  

Confession time.  Before buying this series, I never watched They Live.  Watching it for the first time in 2023 gave me the experience my friends must feel when I talk about how fun Big Trouble in Little China is, and they try to watch it -  they never look at me the same way.  It is truly some bonkers stylistic decision-making.

With Prince of Darkness, Carpenter opts for the realism of Halloween.  I believe this is one of the main reasons the film holds up today.  The style isn’t contemporaneous. Like Halloween, it is set in a specific time and place, but the film itself isn’t dated.

The spoiler-free premise

The peaceful death of a priest sets in motion a series of discoveries starting with a single key, stored in a small, silver chest, intentionally placed over his heart while on his death bed.  Through this, an unnamed priest, played by Donald Pleasence, learns of The Brotherhood of Sleep;  the keepers of a secret so earth shattering, that their own existence, has remains hidden from the Vatican.  In a small Los Angeles church, they guarded their secret for centuries, sharing the truth with the next priest only upon death.  Desperate, and believing that the church cannot be trusted to intervene, the priest reaches out to the scientific community, hopeful that technology is advanced enough to now prove to the world that the secret is real before it can no longer be hidden.  All of this takes place as a once-in-a-millenia celestial event plays out in the skies above.  

Sound intriguing?  Everything I just stated unfolds within the opening credits. 

I mean, that could easily be the entire plot and we barely passed the ten minute mark.  The other elements woven through the film could also be entire movies in their own right.  It is so very rich and layered - the best grab bag of spine tingling moments and hooks which are doled out sparingly to build the suspense. This is why I am so keen to not spoil anything for you.

Get to Know Me: 4 Reasons I Love the Film

The opening credits

I am not a filmmaker, yet I fully support any motion to have these 10 minutes and 18 seconds taught in film school. 

Unlike today’s formulaic horror movies, the opening contains no jump scares. The premise I describe above is drip fed in short sequences, sometimes through dialogue delivered in stolen moments of conversation, and also in observing glimpses of the characters going about their day, accompanied only by the theme music.  Interspersed are the credits themselves.  

This sequence is patient, letting our eyes take in the beautiful scenery, the richness of the cinematography.  Allowing us just enough time to register what we see, before it disappears from view.  This patience never drags.  The pace of the transition moves along quickly, planting seeds but unconcerned with whether or not we understand what we are seeing.  

For my rewatch, I was sitting in the basement, lights off, volume up. As the Universal logo slowly appears onscreen, the heartbeat of the movie fills the speakers.  Four notes, wrapped around me like a weighted blanket to say ‘settle in, you’re in the right place’.

In the first scene, the dying priest, laid out on his deathbed, takes his last breath as the camera focuses on the silver chest over his heart.  

Take. My. Money.

Religion & Science

These are two of my favourite themes to watch play out in the genre.  

First, for me, religion makes for cinematic eye candy.  Every religion has a set of rites and rituals.  Their histories erased and rewritten, evolving across time and geography.  And they require a belief in the supernatural.  Perfect for the big screen.

Here, the focus is on Catholicism, without relying on an old priest and a young priest.  Carpenter skips over the usual depictions of both the church and people who worship.  There is no judgement cast.  Instead, it is in the smallest moments, often in the background, where the crisis of faith unfolds among the two religious characters - the aforementioned Donald Pleasance and one of the scientific team members, Calder (Jessie Lawrence).  

I love the blink-and-you’ll-miss-it presentation. 

If a film is going to unravel a mystery, I want the enjoyment of swimming in the act of discovery.  Let my mind wander.  Let it go down the wrong path and turn around.   Calder is not even a main character, yet over three separate scenes, Carpenter demonstrates how the revelations are taking a toll on his faith and his fight to maintain it.  And in two of those scenes, he isn’t centre-of-frame. Like the very best moments in a Spielberg film, where characters talk over one another, I love the sense of witnessing something not everyone else may notice.

Second, science. 

Good science or bad science, I’m game.  As long as the filmmaker knows the difference.  So much of the sci-fi series Fringe is absolute gobbledygook - but clear out and let Walter Bishop cook!  I find it so entertaining.

The scientific theories and elements are cautiously dispensed.  Often through conversations between the grad students, offering an idea of where the movie might be headed while simultaneously introducing both the characters and their various motivations for pursuing quantum physics.

Typically, this is where the culture clash occurs.  Religion and science duking it out with one left standing at the end of the film. I’m thrilled to have the plot twist set out from the very start.  Both sides willingly working together.  They are unlikely partners racing to prove a truth that neither wants to believe.  

Pass the popcorn.

Realism

The movie maintains a modern feeling across decades, in the same way Jaws does.  

I’m recognizing that no matter how much I personally love a film, I find the most enjoyment rewatching movies that look and feel real.  Filmed on location.  Filmed on real streets in L.A.  Actually filmed at night.  Minimal computer generated effects and camera filters. 

Listen, I grew up a huge fan of Star Wars and Tron.  I simply don’t find computer generated special effects hold up over time when they are over applied.  (see Terminator 2 for a case study on how to do it right) 

I fully realize that makes me some kind of old fogey but I’ll take 1980’s The Changeling over a bunch of CGI ghosts any day ending in Y.

The vast majority of the story is told practically with only two real moments of poorly aged effects (that add up to less than 30 seconds of run time).  If you are able to see PoD in 4K, I highly recommend it.  The crispness is fantastic for a 1987 production. 

What’s more, the occasional flourishes work.  In one brief scene, I see a flash of Dario Argento when a shadow, created by streetlight, races against a brick wall.  

If you know it, the sheer emptiness depicted here, is completely haunting and has stayed with me. (Yes, I’m being deliberately vague, sigh, you’ve truly got to see it)

The overall subgenera for PoD is cosmic horror, yet it presents as a contained, isolation horror.  The set design is incredible.  I always notice the placement of the coat hooks, just a few feet off the ground in the nursery of what is now a long abandoned rectory.  Small touches.  Big hits of reality.

Did I mention the thrill of briefly escaping realism through a sprinkling of found footage sequences, another of my favourite genre techniques? 

You know, in case the mystery wasn’t intriguing enough.

The cast

The absolute joy I experience seeing Victor Wong and Donald Pleasence onscreen together cannot be overstated.  It is pure nostalgia for me, and I understand if you don’t feel the same.  That’s how nostalgia works.

Donald Pleasence throws heat from his first line reading.  His character doesn’t even have a name. He is simply listed as The Priest.  He is our exposition machine, dialled up to eleven, seemingly in his own movie, and yet, I love it.

And Victor Wong as the professor of quantum physics - who better to explain abstract theories?

When I see him at the front of the classroom delivering a lecture on quantum mechanics, my first thought is - of course!  This is exactly what this guy should look like.  This is exactly how he should sound.  He is both the scientific, steadfast backbone and the heart of the film.  His playfulness and seriousness set the tone, or tonal shift in every scene he appears in.

Beyond our two protagonists, the remainder of the cast stands apart from ‘80s genre films in that they are all adults. 

No kids and, unbelievably, no teenagers. 

Our graduate students are mature adults.  The male leads are intentionally unlikeable (Jameson Parker playing against type, and familiar face Dennis Dun).  There isn’t a clearly defined good guys/bad guys dichotomy.  Just a group of people, unhappily working together.  Each person uniquely suffering from the revelation that what they know to be true, just isn’t.  

Unsurprisingly for a Carpenter film, the women are the drivers of the action.  If you were to take a look at the full cast photo, you’d be unlikely to accurately guess the body count and who lives or dies.  The cringiest of the cringeworthy moments of the film were cringeworthy back then. By design.  All of which ages well.

Is PoD a perfect movie? Of course not.  It isn’t even the best Carpenter film, though I do feel it holds up over the years. 

Whereas, The Thing, considered by many to be his very best, doesn’t always age as well with modern audiences because of the extensive creature effects, which made us all fall head over heels for it in the first place.  

So, if you have never seen this film, or, if many years (decades?) have passed since you last saw it, here’s my recommendation on top of everything I’ve written: if you enjoy intrigue, if you enjoy thinking about a movie long after it ends and you relish a sense of ambiguity, I believe you will get a kick out of Prince of Darkness.

Next week, I’ll return with my usual style of writing.  

Was this tangent worthwhile?  Did you learn a bit more about me? Do you prefer my earlier pieces?  Do you have a twenty page PowerPoint presentation at the ready to explain why I’m wrong about Prince of Darkness?  

Tell me all about it in the comments.

Enjoyed this story? Support my writing here, share with your network or subscribe below to receive your weekly update directly to your inbox.