GamerTab
That was an excellent one.
Cathardincu
Surprisingly incoherent and boring
Chirphymium
It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional
Michael Ledo
There is a group of Satanist that live in the city. Satan grants them wealth and youth for sacrificing a blood relative, of which there has been a lot of as late and always young attractive women. The film centers around Alexandra Parkman (Christine Moore) who is connected to all the missing people and victims. The dialog is corny and at times amusingly sexual. It is from the 80's and I love their hair style.Not a great film as the plot lacks complexity.Sex and nudity (Amy Brentano from "Breeders"; Ruth Collins from "Psychos in Love"; Jeanne Marie of "Young Nurses in Love"; and Miriam Zucker of "Alien Space Avenger")
peter-mackie284
Okay yes, it's not good. But if you really give it a fair shot, it had some decent ideas behind it. The motivation for the villains is acceptable, the acting ranges from horrible to surprisingly decent, and the plot isn't half bad believe it or not. I think the disappointing thing about this movie is that it could have been pretty good, not great, but good if in the hands of a capable director.Is it bad? YES, but it seems to stand out among the other exploitation schlock for some reason (granted it is exploitation schlock). I can't believe I'm writing this, but this movie begs for a remake, in an era where production companies insist on taking good nostalgic horror movies and making them mediocre, they should take a mediocre movie with decent ideas like this and make it, well, good.If you can find this, check it out, just don't pay to much to see it, and maybe you'll agree with me.
ms_jade_li
"Prime Evil" came in a boxed set of bad "b" movies. The hope was that it would be at minimum watchable. It met those expectations. The plot was complicated enough, and the format was such that it succeeded in building suspense. This is a horror movie without too much horror, and it is presented without any gratuitous violence. I liked the tale told from a feminine perspective. The reality is that, similar to "Rosemary's Baby", it is a tale that could actually be. That perhaps is where the horror creeps in, in retrospect. The cast was decent and had skills beyond that of your typical bad "b" film. Was I glad I watched it? Yes. Would I watch it again? Probably.
FieCrier
I watched this as one of the movies in Rhino's Horrible Horrors Vol. 1 box set. While it wasn't entirely horrible, it was pretty poor.It starts off with some narration (which is absent for the rest of the movie), and a scene of a monk turning Satanist in the 1300s or something like that. Then in the present day, the death of a priest who was secretly a Satanist prompts a nun to go undercover to try to infiltrate the Satanists. She isn't given much to do for most of the movie, though.There's a young woman who had been abused by her father and a group of child pornographers who plans to get married. Apart from the sexual abuse as a child, she's never had sex. Her grandfather is one of the Satanists and plans to use her in a sacrifice. He would like to take over the group.There's also the Satanist's goon, who goes about like a slasher killing some people, abducting others. The cinematography and editing and so on aren't incompetent, but the acting and story are pretty lifeless. Surprisingly, there's no nudity. There's not a whole lot of blood, but there is some, and towards the end some people rapidly age or melt, I'm not sure.
