Cthulhu

This is a terrible adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." The acting was weak, the direction was weak, and the original content has been butchered. I saw this movie at the Seattle International Film Festival, and that was the worst mistake I made all weekend. If you want to see a film based on "Shadow Over Innsmouth," Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" is mediocre, but it's certainly better than this botched attempt. If you want to see "Call of Cthulhu," the silent film adaptation is great. But this? This film is a waste of time. I suspect the people who are writing 10 out of 10 scores are either friends of the director or shills who worked on the film. There is no earthly way this film is a 10. It stinks like a rotten pile of fish.

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.

The acting is fair enough. There are moments when overacting and underacting bring scenes down, but nothing is ruined. I liked the editing, for the most part. There are times when it makes the story hard to follow, but overall it's well done. The cinematography is beautiful.

My only real gripe with the movie is that the plot is a bit thin. A lot of things happen that feel ultimately irrelevant, and other things happen without much explanation. The conflict gets lost in all the random happenings, which adds to the difficulty of following the story.

I'm not sure where all the hatred for this movie comes from. It wasn't a great film, but it certainly wasn't horrible. The story felt stretched and a bit convoluted, and the title is misleading since the movie has virtually nothing to do with Cthulhu, but I feel like I have to give props to the director for making the film he made. He easily could have made a weightless horror movie with cheap scares, but he attempted something a little meatier.

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.