Magnus-83
A rejoint le nov. 2002
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges4
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Évaluations23
Note de Magnus-83
Avis19
Note de Magnus-83
This is one of the worst movies I've seen recently (and I've seen more than a few).
The story is laughable. A piece of ice falling into the sea would cause a tsunami? That would move at the speed of sound? Yeah, let's pretend in order to enjoy the rest of this movie. The scenes are equally laughable. Sets built up by cardboard boxes and microwave ovens are actually meant to represent the interior of a modern ocean liner? That also happens to have walls made out of concrete? And a command bridge with no equipment and ordinary windows with Venetian blinds?
Add to that some CGI that looks like it was made with paintbrush on a 20 year old computer, and you have the essence of this movie.
I would like to commend on the acting, though. Well, at least some of it. No, we're not talking top notch, but unlike other reviewers I wouldn't call it wooden or stiff either. Just the fact that the actors managed to keep straight faces when having to work with the above is an achievement.
The story is laughable. A piece of ice falling into the sea would cause a tsunami? That would move at the speed of sound? Yeah, let's pretend in order to enjoy the rest of this movie. The scenes are equally laughable. Sets built up by cardboard boxes and microwave ovens are actually meant to represent the interior of a modern ocean liner? That also happens to have walls made out of concrete? And a command bridge with no equipment and ordinary windows with Venetian blinds?
Add to that some CGI that looks like it was made with paintbrush on a 20 year old computer, and you have the essence of this movie.
I would like to commend on the acting, though. Well, at least some of it. No, we're not talking top notch, but unlike other reviewers I wouldn't call it wooden or stiff either. Just the fact that the actors managed to keep straight faces when having to work with the above is an achievement.
Good movie. In some ways, a masterpiece.
The works of H.P Lovecraft are generally thought of as "unfilmable". In some respects that is true. First, they would appeal to such a small fan base that any major studio that would put some money into it would go bankrupt. Another reason is that Lovecraft, for all his imagination, wasn't really that good as an author. Many would disagree on that one. But that's the truth. A good novel, novella or short story need a beginning, a middle and an end. Lovecraft rarely delivered more than two out of three.
Anyway, The Whisperer in Darkness was a pleasant surprise. The script was good, the acting was surprisingly good, and they made a decent work with the cinematography. It is an independent movie and the special effects was what you could expect. But there were no obvious anachronisms. The props and miniatures looked real. The monsters looked like something straight out of a horror movie from the first half of the 20th century.
Shooting in black and white/monochrome added to the atmosphere.It gives the movie a "aged" or vintage look and feel, and that's the master stroke in my opinion. It actually do come off as an old horror flick from time to time.
All in all, it's worth watching. I've seen worse - especially when we're talking Lovecraft adaptations.
The works of H.P Lovecraft are generally thought of as "unfilmable". In some respects that is true. First, they would appeal to such a small fan base that any major studio that would put some money into it would go bankrupt. Another reason is that Lovecraft, for all his imagination, wasn't really that good as an author. Many would disagree on that one. But that's the truth. A good novel, novella or short story need a beginning, a middle and an end. Lovecraft rarely delivered more than two out of three.
Anyway, The Whisperer in Darkness was a pleasant surprise. The script was good, the acting was surprisingly good, and they made a decent work with the cinematography. It is an independent movie and the special effects was what you could expect. But there were no obvious anachronisms. The props and miniatures looked real. The monsters looked like something straight out of a horror movie from the first half of the 20th century.
Shooting in black and white/monochrome added to the atmosphere.It gives the movie a "aged" or vintage look and feel, and that's the master stroke in my opinion. It actually do come off as an old horror flick from time to time.
All in all, it's worth watching. I've seen worse - especially when we're talking Lovecraft adaptations.
