IslandGuru Who payed the critics

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Teddie Blake The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

meritcoba Lovecraft might not have been the best of writers, but he had a great influence on others and perhaps his greatest legacy was the invention of the Cthulu mythos that inspired and was inspired by such writers as Robert E. Howard, the writer of Conan the barbarian and Clark Ashton Smith, whom I prefer. His legacy was mostly the work of one August Derleth, who created the Arkham House publishing company with the intention to preserve and popularize Lovecraft's work, which he achieved as far as I can be a judge. I have read a fair amount of Lovecraft's work or tried to, as especially his longer works are a bore to read. The one that I still recall with a certain fondness is The case of Charles Dexter Ward. Whose namesake appears in the movie, just like others from other stories appear in the movie I personally think it is one of his best stories. The whisperer in the darkness I did not read, but the summary can be found on wikipedia. The movie takes liberty with the original story, probably because there isn't enough in the tale for a whole movie. Unfortunately this means that the movie has some unlovecraftian aspects, one of which is showing the monsters for a fair amount of screen time and another is showing a certain death(can't say which one because it might be considered spoiler). Two things you never see in a Lovecraft tale. But even from a movie making standpoint it would have been better if they hadn't shown both. It felt misplaced. Overall the story keeps in pace with the Lovecraftian mood although you feel that it lacks the budget. For instance, in once scene they needed a train to arrive and you can clearly see that it is a modern locomotive, even though they blurred it to hide that fact. And this made me wonder why they went through all the trouble to place the story in the thirties instead of keeping it in the modern day, like Lovecraft would have done. It seems nice that they tried, but there isn't really a reason.The movie shows a lot of talking, but it keeps the story going forward and there are some really nice shots that give a sense of weirdness that the should have used more often. One is where the camera looks down from the stair onto the professor while you hear nothing but the tic tic of a big clock. The trick that the professor uses to save the world is a neat one. How to save the world without firing a bullet. Pity is though: there is a big plot hole in the story.If you want to find it. Just have a look at the movie.. Nice effort.

stephen-435-741964 Hats off to the HP Lovecraft Historical Society for creating yet another gem of a movie.Film makers are in a difficult position: If you make a movie 100% faithful to a text written 80 years ago, you will alienate the non-fan viewers. If you drift too far from the original text (or slap an "inspired by" sticker on it and then do something completely unrelated) then the fans will crucify you.The HPHLS have managed to walk the fine line - they remain true to the original story, and accurately cover 95% of the story with only minor embellishment to make it flow on screen. But remember also that the book itself was only a novella, so if they had stopped the movie at the end of the book, it would have been a short movie indeed.But after the "book" story ends, the movie continues with a logical extension of the story that remains faithful to the Lovecraft style and vision.Purists may not like this extension, but a movie that intends to articulate the Lovecraft vision and capture a new audience at the same time needs to appeal to an audience broader than just the fans.The acting is solid and consistent throughout, and consistency is an important word here, because the movie intends to recreate both a story, a style of writing, and a style of movie making. Consequently the special effects also reflect the 1930s - of course it's not Avatar-grade because it would look stupid if it was.I give it 10/10 not because it is the best horror movie ever made, but because it deserves to be recognised as the best recreation of HP Lovecraft's "Whisperer in the Darkness" story ever made.Highly recommended to every Lovecraft fan, and to every non-Lovecraft fan who is happy to accept it on its own merit.

masterandoverlord This adaptation of the classic H.P. Lovecraft story had a lot of potential, however weak acting limited the enjoyment factor to me. A lot of the players were just plain poor actors or were guilty of blatant over acting to include the narration. The supporting players were much better actors than the main players which was a bit frustrating. The cinematography and sound was great. The music was effectively used in creating the right feel for the film. Presenting the film in black and white was very effective in adding to the noir and 1930s feel. I don't want to go into any further details as I don't want to give any of the story away to those who may be unfamiliar.

btdie4 Really enjoyed the clean look of this film in black & white, and also the sound editing. This is probably the classiest example of what can be achieved with a limited budget when the filmmakers obviously have a love of the material which shines through. The script is faithful to Lovecraft yet it does cuts down on a lot of the excessive verbiage to make it somewhat more palatable to a modern audience. The pace progressively builds and does pay off. The standout performance is from the adorable Autumn Wendell "Hanna Masterson" who embodies the film and is very effective at being terrified, yet innocent at the same time. A perfect fit to a film which achieves the same things.