The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

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")

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.

So there I was, standing in best buy with four DVDs in my hand trying to figure out which 'Grindhouse' double feature I'd buy. I looked on the back and was interested in the story of 'Prime Evil'. Sure enough, I bought the sucker. I got home and immediately put the DVD in to start watching. The first feature film 'Don't Answer The Phone' was awesome. A pure slasher flick with loads of nudity and gore. When 'Prime Evil'started, I was pleased. But by the end of the film, I was questioning why this movie was even considered to be part of the 'Grindhouse' dvds. There's little to no blood and the story d r a g g e d on and on until the 'climatic' end. BTW, the end is ANYTHING but climatic. I ~*~LOVE~*~ cheesy b-movies, but this one was so bad, its horrible.

I will sit through anything with demonic rituals, so I sat through this. On checking web reviews, I have become convinced there are two different versions. "CryFi" from Lansingburgh says in his review here on IMDb "surprisingly, there's no nudity." There was also no nudity in the DVD (Rhino) that I saw (there is also very little blood and almost no horror). However, over on cndb, reviewers are talking about how glad they are that there is nudity in the movie and judging the different actresses' "racks". Mr. Skin gives it three stars (!!!) for "great nudity" and lists four actresses as being nude during the flick. Does anyone know what is the situation with this film. It's hard to believe Roberta Findlay would make a movie without nudity, but there was not an inch of skin on the Rhino DVD, though there were scenes where I would have expected skin. Anyone know what's up?