I often tell my
friends that my opinion of a book, film or album should never be trusted until
I’ve either read/seen/listened to it again or waited 48 hours. Entertainment is
a largely emotional experience for me, and so I’m liable to have a high opinion
of any work that gets my adrenaline pumping in spite of whatever flaws it might
possess—at least until the rush wears off. I really, really liked Transformers
when I first saw it and, Hell, Star Wars:
The Phantom Menace was one of my favourite films for years. So when I say I
enjoy something, feel free to treat me like a little kid who has just ingested
a pound of sugar. The stomach ache will come, just you wait.
The same applies
to the inverse. Some things will leave me feeling sour after I’ve first experienced
them, but whether because of the mood I was in at the time or simply due to
changing tastes I’m liable to come around to liking or even loving them some
months or years in the future. I initially disliked Rebellion’s 2010 Aliens vs. Predator game and it took me
three years to realize that my shitty living conditions in third year of
university had actually contributed to my feelings of ill will rather than the
game itself. It’s actually pretty rad.
John Carpenter’s
Prince of Darkness is another such case.
Made for a fairly low budget of $3 million and released in 1987, Prince is the second entry of what
Carpenter calls his “Apocalypse Trilogy,” preceded by The Thing (which I liveblogged while drunk on New Year’s) and
followed by In the Mouth of Madness.
It didn’t exactly thrill me on my first full viewing a couple years ago, but
after watching again it during my most recent horror binge in October I’ve come
around to it in a huge way. Not only is it Carpenter’s best film after The Thing, it really is a little gem
that deserves critical re-evaluation.
