Cthulhu

Imagine that Stephen-King-wanna-be wrote the gay adaptation of Lovecraft and entrusted directing to David-Lynch-wanna-be. If this sounds to you like an interesting concept, make sure to check out "Cthulhu" from 2007. To me, this accomplishment has left the impression of a paranoid schizophrenic trying to meaningfully screen his hallucinations. On the one hand we have a boring, confusing and seemingly pointless story, mediocre acting and characters with whom I could not connect at any level, and when I saw Tori Spelling in one of the roles I was really on the verge of giving up. And yet, on the other hand, we have an interesting camera work and captivating mystical atmosphere that has kept me to finish it. How to evaluate a movie that I barely made to see through (2/10), which at the same time left a quite strong impression (8/10) ...

5/10

I really wanted to like this, especially with the glut of direct to video adaptations of Lovecraft stories (Beyond the Wall of Sleep etc) that are essentially student project level non-movies. But this is yet another example of a film that heavily relies on Lovecraft and yet totally jettisons any real relation to the author or his works, much less the sensibility behind them. It owes more to The Shadow Over Innsmouth than anything, and unfortunately that world was already realized in far better (yet still in woefully inadequate) fashion in "Dagon." To someone who loves Lovecraft as much as I, it's rather insulting this film is called "Cthulhu." There are ideas the writer and director were far more interested in, such as the main character's confused sexuality, than anything written by Lovecraft. So, why not drop the illusion of being a Lovecraft adaptation, and simply make the film that was there without him, since little in this film relates much to his writing? Answer? Because if you use his name and the titles of his works you gain free publicity and legitimacy. You will also let down legions of HPL fans because once again someone has made a film that seems to think it's own very uninteresting and pedestrian ideas have any place mixed in with the cosmic horror of Lovecraft. And worse, viewers who don't know HPL will once again be left with the opinion that "Gee, I guess he wasn't that good a writer." And with this sad example, you can probably add "Was Lovecraft gay?" to those questions.

I'm middle-aged, gay and familiar with the Cthulhu mythos. The problem with this film is everything. It's technically lacking. Only the photography is decent, in an artsy-fartsy but lifeless blue-green two-strip Technicolor cliché-of-the-last-five-years kind of way. The sound mix is so atrocious, there are characters whose words you will never hear and the DVD doesn't come with subtitles so you can't speed-watch the really boring parts while still reading the words. In spite of this, I just had to fast-forward through the forced coupling with Tori Spelling. There is only so much I can take in the name of cinema. I have no problem with the main character being gay. But did he have to be a depressing and depressed highly-strung nellie whose only expression is a kind of impression of a terminally-menstruated Sigourney Weaver in "Alien 3" as rendered by Michael McDonald of "Mad TV"? It's hard enough to watch a film where the hero never manages a smile but must he also seem manic from too much caffeine or possibly crack and generally out of shape and unattractive? Hint to indie producers: Modern audiences generally prefer good-looking people. The editing makes a point of destroying your last chance of actually getting involved in the story and understanding what goes on from one scene to the next, uncomprehensible flashbacks and dream sequences included. The atmosphere is made all the more creepy by the fact that all the actors are extremely amateurish and undirected. Also, this film is not about Cthulhu at all but a failed adaptation of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Finally the gayest character in the whole lot is the hero's father, which is itself very troubling. I've only managed to muddle through 50 minutes of the 110 minutes of this film so far. It already seems like an eternity, in a non-Euclidian way. I don't know if I'll make it through... Wish me luck. If you don't hear from me again, please notify my next-of-kin - those that don't have scaly skin anyway. Thank you.

This "movie" was terrible. The DP should be shot. They clearly spent no time on development, rehearsal, or scouting locations. That the producer sold belongings to get this movie made is profoundly sad and I hope he received treatment for whatever malady caused him to feel such fervor for this film. Uwe Boll movies MIGHT be better and they are among the worst films around. I was especially disappointed in Cara Buono's performance as I have enjoyed her work before.

Characters smile at inappropriate times for no discernible reason. Camera work to set the mood was a complete failure and annoying in its presentation. Subplots are picked up and immediately ignored. Motivations are hazy at best. No special effects to enhance the story. Absolutely nothing of Lovecraft in this movie except the title. The highlight of the film was when I sent it back to Netflix. Ugh!

I was just at the "world premiere" of Cthulhu at the Seattle Int'l Film Festival tonight so this comment IS actually about the correct film. Someone connected to the film previously commented that some posts are not relevant or are about some other film - and gave a score of 10 while at it.

To be blunt: Cthulhu is not a good film. I had high hopes going in, as I do with all films shown at SIFF, but I was disappointed throughout and I know others were as well. From the mediocre-to-outright-horrible acting (except, ironically, for Tori Spelling who plays a sexy, baby-seeking blonde), to the lackluster script, to the 2 hour running time (note to director: you should be GLAD you were forced to reduce it to this length).... starting at the half-way point I could not wait for it to be over. Had the film been written and shot as a tongue-in-cheek comedic version of the story with intentional sarcasm, etc, it might have worked. But the combination of trying to make a serious film, plus the bad acting, makes Cthulhu not quite worth the celluloid it's printed on.

Kudos for Gildark for making ANY first film, especially because this one was made in my neck of the woods (and my neck of the woods needs more films made in it). But unfortunately it didn't work out - and Cthulhu likely doesn't have any chance of being commercially viable. If you're a Lovecraft fanatic you might have a different take altogether, but your numbers are probably too low to make much of a difference to help the film succeed. The rest of us just want/ed to be entertained by a good film. Will need to look elsewhere.