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.

siderite It is notoriously difficult to bring a Lovecraft story to the screens without reinventing pretty much everything. The reason for that is that the emotional tension in his stories is all based on what he tells you the characters feel. He doesn't really construct a horror environment as much as place people who are easily scared, disgusted or appalled in circumstances that are usually light sci-fi.Created by the same team that did The Call of Cthulhu in 2005, it is a black and white movie, only this time not a mute one. The story it is based on is also longer, but then so is the movie.I liked it, but then I kind of understand what H.P.Lovecraft was all about. For other people I think this would be a waste of time.

Danial Carroll As with many Lovecraft fans, I feel that his work is a creative goldmine just waiting for the right film treatment. I've seen pretty much every film even vaguely adapted from his stories, and though most are ultimately forgettable, a few—such as Dagon and Cthulhu—have been watchable. Then comes along this one...As it got going, I found myself in awe of the quality. For a low-budget film, the production, cinematography, acting, sound, and script were all top-notch. I thought to myself, "FINALLY someone has made a good Lovecraft adaptation!" Unfortunately, this amazement did not make it to the end of the film. When we are first introduced to the Mi-Go (the monsters of the story), we are teased with shadows and fleeting glimpses, which are enough to send a chill up your spine. However, in the final act of the film, they decide to go ahead and reveal the creatures in all their CGI glory... though I honestly wish they hadn't. I get that independent filmmakers can't afford the sorts of FX that studio films can, but that just makes me wonder, why put them in at all? The film was perfectly creepy without it, and as soon as I saw the cheap CGI, I was taken completely out of the film. It wasn't just one scene either, but the entire ending. I could have cried.Had this film stuck to the "less is more" techniques it began with, I would easily have given it 10/10, but sadly, the cheap CGI tainted its perfection.

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.