5 Secret John Carpenter Masterpieces Critics Hated

by

John Carpenter is a true icon of genre filmmaking, and has heavily influenced countless horror and sci-fi directors and writers. Today, it’s incredibly difficult to find anyone in film—directors, writers, or critics—who doesn’t praise his work, especially considering classics like Halloween, Escape From New York, and The Thing. But surprisingly, for most of his career, critics often overlooked or didn’t appreciate his talent.

It’s surprising how few John Carpenter movies were both critically praised and commercially successful when they first came out. Most of his films received lukewarm or negative reviews initially, only gaining appreciation later on. This left Carpenter feeling discouraged with the film industry, and while several of his movies eventually became beloved cult classics, it didn’t really make up for all the early criticism he endured.

American Critics Didn’t Think Much of Assault on Precinct 13

Looking back, the lukewarm response to John Carpenter’s 1976 film, Assault on Precinct 13, foreshadowed some of the challenges he would face throughout his career. This low-budget thriller, about a police officer defending a nearly empty station from a violent gang, first demonstrated Carpenter’s talent for creating tension in any situation.

I was really surprised by this movie! It’s a cool blend of classic Westerns like Rio Bravo and horror films like Night of the Living Dead, but somehow it works perfectly as a modern cops and robbers story. It was only the director’s second feature film, following Dark Star back in 1974 – which was apparently a pretty silly expansion of a college project. Even then, you could totally see how talented he was. It’s a shame American critics didn’t seem to get it at the time, though!

When Assault on Precinct 13 first came out, it didn’t really get savaged by critics, honestly – it was mostly just ignored. Those American reviewers who did bother to write about it seemed to see it as either a passable thriller at best, or a really bleak, violent movie at worst. Even Whitney Williams from Variety, who was one of the few giving it a somewhat positive write-up, basically said the second half only had enough action to please people who just wanted to see violence.

Though initially overlooked, Assault on Precinct 13 gained popularity after being released in the United Kingdom. A screening at the London Film Festival in December 1977 proved to be a turning point, as British critics praised the film, leading to its success at the European box office.

The Fog Was Dismissed as a Middling Effort in the Wake of Halloween

Released in 1978, Halloween was a huge cultural success and finally earned director John Carpenter the critical praise that had escaped him with Assault on Precinct 13. The film became the most profitable independent movie of all time, and one prominent critic called it “truly terrifying” before naming it among the year’s ten best films.

After the success of Halloween, John Carpenter became a well-known director, and everyone was eager to see what he would do next. That next project was The Fog, a spooky ghost story set in a small Northern California coastal town. The film centers around a strange mist that rolls in, bringing with it the ghosts of pirates who terrorize the town’s residents, including a stranded hitchhiker. While The Fog did well in theaters, it wasn’t nearly as popular as Halloween. Carpenter was disappointed that critics didn’t praise it as much as they had his previous film.

Although some critics, like Kevin Thomas from the Los Angeles Times, had positive things to say about The Fog, most reviewers thought it didn’t measure up to Halloween. While Carpenter’s skillful direction and suspense were generally applauded, many felt the movie was bogged down by too many pointless side stories and veered into science fiction unnecessarily. These critics believed the straightforward, chilling simplicity of Halloween was missing, and that Carpenter seemed to be overcomplicating a fundamentally absurd idea.

This isn’t a typical horror movie. In 2018, The Guardian called it one of John Carpenter’s most atmospheric films, and Carpenter himself considers it a “minor horror classic.”

The Thing Was Hated by Sci-Fi Fans

Few films demonstrate a bigger shift in critical opinion than John Carpenter’s The Thing. Initially met with mixed reactions, it’s now considered a landmark sci-fi horror masterpiece. The incredibly realistic practical effects used to create the shapeshifting alien remain impressive even today, and the film’s dark, hopeless mood has heavily influenced many other filmmakers.

Today, many critics actually consider The Thing to be even better than Halloween, because of how groundbreaking it was. However, when it was released in 1982, both critics and audiences disliked it, and that negative reaction still bothers director John Carpenter.

He once expressed deep regret over the failure of the 2008 film, The Thing, saying it affected him more than any other disappointment in his career. He believed its success could have significantly changed his professional path. The movie was widely disliked, even by its target audience of science fiction fans, who felt he had let them down, and the criticism was overwhelming.

In retrospect, the response to The Thing wasn’t simply negative—it was intensely critical and openly hostile. Many in Hollywood seemed upset with Carpenter for showing such disturbing imagery, and some critics claimed he prioritized gore over all other elements of filmmaking, pushing it to excessive levels. He later shared that he was even labeled a “pornographer of violence,” which was surprising given his previous work, which generally favored suspense over graphic content.

The film’s bleak and pessimistic mood upset many critics, particularly after the heartwarming success of E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial that summer. The studio even canceled the director’s future projects and he had to take a less important directing job to revive his career.

Prince of Darkness Was Labeled Cheesy and Devoid of Compelling Characters

After The Thing wasn’t well-received, John Carpenter had the chance to direct two more large-scale films: Starman and Big Trouble in Little China. Unfortunately, both films didn’t do well in theaters initially, though they gained a following later on. This led Carpenter to return to his roots with a more streamlined approach for Prince of Darkness in 1987.

This low-budget horror film centers around a priest, played by Donald Pleasence of Halloween fame, who unearths a strange green liquid beneath a monastery. He quickly realizes this liquid is the physical form of Satan, unleashing terrifying cosmic horrors upon a group of physics students assisting his investigation. While bizarre, the film is also deeply unsettling, filled with disturbing imagery that will stay with viewers long after the credits roll.

Critics weren’t impressed with Carpenter’s depiction of Satan as a glowing, liquid substance, comparing its color to Mountain Dew. Richard Harrington of The Washington Post was especially harsh, calling the film awful and saying it should be locked away forever.

Early reactions to Carpenter’s script were negative, with many finding the characters uninteresting and underdeveloped, suggesting a lack of investment from Carpenter himself. The film was even labeled “cheesy,” a particularly harsh criticism for a horror movie. However, over thirty years later, Prince of Darkness is now considered one of Carpenter’s most innovative, distinctive, and daring works. It’s a common story – a film initially dismissed can later become a cult classic.

Most Critics Lampooned the Social Commentary in They Live

The movie They Live includes a now-famous line where a character says he’s here to kick butt and chew bubblegum, but he’s out of bubblegum. That kind of memorable writing is rare. But seriously, They Live is considered one of John Carpenter’s finest films.

It’s a wildly fun story about a wanderer who discovers sunglasses that expose the world’s richest people as aliens hiding in plain sight. But beyond the entertainment, it’s arguably director John Carpenter’s most meaningful film. He wrote it because he was bothered by the growing commercialization of American politics in the 1980s under Ronald Reagan, and that concern became a story about aliens controlling people into blindly accepting and constantly buying things through hidden, hypnotic messages.

This film offers a lot of insight into what America is really like. Back in 1988, reviewers understood Carpenter’s message, but they felt he was aiming too high with a low-budget movie. They agreed that those in power often manipulate people to consume, but questioned why he was expressing these ideas in a silly B-movie featuring a wrestler fighting obviously fake aliens.

Richard Harrington of The Washington Post criticized the film again, dismissively saying it felt like a superficial attempt at depth. This critic, along with others, seemed to be unfairly setting standards for what films can address political and social issues – a position that feels snobbish and illogical.

Carpenter was hit hardest by the bad reviews, and unfortunately, he wasn’t able to get funding for the sequel he’d always hoped to create.

Read More

2025-11-25 04:12