In the Mouth of Madness

1995 "Lived Any Good Books Lately?"
7.1| 1h35m| R| en
Details

An insurance investigator begins discovering that the impact a horror writer's books have on his fans is more than inspirational.

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

Stream on any device, 7-day free trial Watch Now

Trailers & Clips

Reviews

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.
PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.
Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.
Phillida Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.
Osmosis Iron This is Lovecraftian horror done right! It has the budget, it has the talent and it definitely has the style. Atmosphere is the key for any movie inspired by the works of the great Howard Phillips, and this one gets it! The horror is not in your face, it is eerie, subtle and ever present. It might not be always visible, but in the back of your mind you know it's there if you close your eyes.. This movie is a must watch for all horror fans, but for anyone who has tasted the insanity of Lovecraft's works and has not looked away, it is a tasty mouthful indeed!
LovecraftLass I can't believe that it took me so long to watch this movie. It has practically everything I love in it: Lovecraft, Stephen King, and a ton of references to look for and spot and conjecture about. In short, I'm very disappointed in myself for not watching it sooner. In my defense, I had no idea it was even about a book, so, there ya go.I loved the plot to it. It was creepy and took many unexpected twists and turns. Reality itself gets distorted in interesting ways that did not come across as cheatery and contrived. It also raises some interesting questions about readers and the free will of the characters in fiction.Sorry, a small digression here. Just pretend for a moment that it's true (c'mon, you can do it, you guys read horror and sci-fi. I know you have imaginations). That a fictional character is aware of what is happening to him or her. They realize this but can't do anything about it. They are forced to live through whatever unimaginable horror the author can think of to inflict upon them. I can't imagine anything more horrifying. I'm not really talking about meta-horror, exactly, because to me it's a different kind of awareness.Anyways, you didn't read this to get my half-assed attempt at midnight psychology. You want to hear about the movie. It starts out with a bang and the pace keeps up until the last fifteen minutes or so. It does start to slow down a bit near the end but it's a necessary slowness so it's acceptable. The plot stays on point throughout without any digressions that don't add to the movie.The effects are top-notch and some really managed to give me the creeps. Some of the creepier ones are also the most simple. Maybe not simple to pull off but in the plot they're somewhat minor happenings but add to the general atmosphere and general creepiness. The bridge into Hobb's End. The changing picture. Simple, but very effective. And the creature effects? Excellent.Sam Neill is very believable as the cocky insurance investigator, totally convinced he is the master of his own, cynical view of the world. Julie Carmen is very able in her role, if a little lat at times but since I've never seen her in anything else I'm not really sure if that was an acting choice or her typical acting ability. Jürgen Prochnow is perfect as the "author" of the end of the world. Oddly enough, this is not the first time Jürgen has brought about the Apocalypse. The first time was in a movie called 'The Seventh Sign" (which I'll be reviewing soon). He's perfect as the elusive Sutter Cane. Even the secondary characters are played well.And of course, all the references. I'd love to point out as many as I noticed (and I'm pretty sure there's more I didn't) but since some are plot points I don't want to spoil anything for you. I don't like to assume that just because a movie is older then it's ok to tell the whole story. Suffice it to say that there are many and Lovecraft and King fans alike will have many happy egg hunts.There is only one part that I don't get and it bugs me: SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD BUT A MINOR ONE - How on Earth did he figure out that the book covers make a map? Was it wiping the ink under his eyes? I have no idea.
Smoreni Zmaj Second best Lovecraft movie I saw (I watch them in chronological order), after Cast a Deadly Spell. I can not say I'm amazed, but it is a very pleasant surprise. It's not ordinary monster horror although some monsters appear. It's based more on mystery and suspense than on scary scenes. Effects are very good for 1994. and Sam Neill is perfect choice for leading role.7,5/10
peefyn There's references to both Stephen King and Lovecraft, but the movie itself is more a celebration of this kind of horror in general. The whole movie is about questioning one's own sanity, as the horror evoked by not knowing what is real, has been an effective trope in horror fiction for a long time. There's some slight attempts at connecting it to a philosophical level concerning subjective reality, but it never really gets all that interesting. I don't think the plot was meant to explore the limits of horror, fictional reality or anything like it, but rather to serve as a vehicle to unsettling scenes. And for that, it works alright.Sam Neil's performance is good, but Julie Carmen was not always that convincing, though it might have been on purpose. The best part of the movie is not the plot nor the actors, though, but the utter charm that Carpenter brings to most of his movies. The special effects and just the general looks of them evokes something special, though sadly it's not fear.