User reviews

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.

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!

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.

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.

Cthulhu, one of the most revered of horrific thriller literature, originally created by H.P Lovecraft is a creation of dark and mysterious revelations of the terrible deep we know as the open sea. The most obscure of murky scenes pictures the world of Cthulhu with a burned lense towards a full moon, it's cloudy, dirty, foggy, and cold, both in mind and physical presence. A 60:s America taking place in the most inbred of local population, these societies deep beneath the surface of human culture transpires in parallel to what lurks on the bottom of the ocean, it's gritty and malevolent, with no guarantee to reality, psyche, life or death. What we see is chaos, through the vision of people who simply end up in the wrong ally at the wrong time, swept by the waves into the most sinister of maelstroms, sucking you deeper and deeper into madness, until the total epiphany of a psychosis takes one step forward, only to have your protagonist hang himself to one unresolved suicide, with scribbled notes of cultists and watching eyes of the Deep Ones.

This is Cthulhu, a world that never ceases to twist ones mind into a reality not recognizable from the first.

In truth, Cthulhu 2007 is NOT a bad movie, per se. The very spirit of H.P Lovecraft doesn't have that much of a grip, but rather leaves the experience to the watcher, but without explaining any of it. I see how it would be confusion to people unfamiliar with Cthulhu, but probably very unnerved by taking in that puzzling terror of unexplained phenomenon. To fans of Lovecraft, it's certainly a stretch with all the chants, cults, and Cthulhu, all regarded with a very slight read-up on what these books really had in mind, which to me as a small fan appears a bit weak.

However, from a more romanticized view, this movie creates a tale of describing nature, and actually captures the origin pretty good. The very thin love story has actually caught good interest, and renders decent quality, not with any unnecessary thwarts here and there, just plain and simple, and like the movie, it takes itself seriously. As for the horror, I was getting a bit impatient at first, but as it started I could really see this as inspiring. Again, it did not bare the same familiar being to the original, but it has it's own perspective, and in regard to storytelling and emotional value, it holds up very good.

All in all, this movie is not like the books, only with pieces it introduces fright, but it poses itself from a different angle, a more human modern way, and as it reflects upon the book, I'd say it's a good tribute to Lovecrafts work.

The actual best part of this experience is that it leaves me with that exact feeling I'd hoped for, NOTHING is explained, only that there's a cult, strange creatures, and the sea. It is, in it's own sense, a masterpiece.

The only real complaint is about the mythology. The connection gets pretty vague, as Cthulhu is sometimes pronounced wrong, the language of the deep ones could've had more ambitious work, and all in all, reading the books should've been a greater study to really execute the presentation of the movies source.

It could be looked upon as a different starting point within the same universe, or an inspirational version of it's forefather (more like their own version).

As a movie, and compared to Cthulhu, I can say I did enjoy it. It left me satisfied.

This movie has great practical effects and CG when needed for all it's flaws. A beautiful piece of gay art. The message, the setting, and the tension of the time all speak very clearly to me; making this movie stand out for it's crisp and horrifying world.

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.

Seems opinions are very extreme when it comes to this film. And I also overheard conversations after the films showing at SIFF in which people said they'd have to think about the film before they offered an opinion on it.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be an indication of good art. If people are thinking about it, talking about it, even arguing about it, it's left a far greater impression than a film that mindlessly entertains. And I am of the opinion that "Cthulhu" provides both cerebral and visceral fun.

Yes, the film takes some liberties with Lovecraft's work. Yes, maybe the title "Cthulhu" is a tad non-sequitur in a film that's actually about Dagon. These are minor complaints at best. The film is extremely well-made, funny, and surprisingly scary in parts (underground tunnel, anyone?). Jason Cottle and Tori Spelling are great (you heard me right), as is the fellow who played Tori's wheelchair-bound husband. The script is engaging and, refreshingly, the politics of the "anti-Bush" agenda are subtle, and there only if you want them. The story is the thing here, and that's what Cogswell and Gildark focus on. "Cthulhu" is a fragile, volatile coming home story first, an apocalyptic horror tale second, and thirdly, a blackly humorous metaphor for the regime that's currently choking the life out of the world. The Grand "Old One" Party, indeed.

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.

A true to life portrayal of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu mythology has rarely been seen over the past 40 or so years, especially installment with decent budgets. The few attempts to capture this level of pure insanity have all fallen far far short and this rendition is no saving grace. "Cthulhu" centers around and gay college professor returning home for his mothers funeral, only to discover that his once serene hometown is now the backbone of a malevolent cult, and that he himself, plays a key role in their nefarious machinations. I mention the fact the he is a gay man merely because this is what this movie is about. You heard me, "Cthulhu" is more about a mans struggle between family and his sexual orientation, than about cult worship and the resurrection of ancient deities. Imagine if Lord of the Rings was more about the strong homo-erotic undertones between Sam and Frodo, and less about complete salvation of their entire world. If you can picture that, then you have "Cthulhu"; pretty much all 100 minuets of it I would say. The fact that he is gay does play into the overall storyline, but is overly focused upon, thus resulting in a incoherent story plagued throughout with poorly ad-libbed dialog and plot progression. The story involves several intense moments of emotion and terror, but poor writing and performance by the actors leaves these scenes lifeless and disorienting. One scene literally starts with a discussion about monsters and cult worship, and abruptly ends with argument about a severe lack of jelly on his PB&J. Its OK to feel like you need to read that last sentence again. One could argue that these moments are intentionally puzzling, as to capture the sense of insanity that The Cthulhu Mythos is most know for. Sorry guys not buying it. The direction choices are neither clever nor a foundation of the film fundamentals, what ever they may be, but rather a way of filling space between love scenes and ultimately dumbing down the entire film. However, beautiful imagery and a sparse, but superbly conducted soundtrack make for a stunning viewing experience. Unique and creative camera work establish the drama in more ways than the actors themselves, but a sever lack of music during several key points of the film does little to keep audience's attention during dialog heavy scenes. Anyone interested in a career behind a camera should invest the time into this film for its great camera direction, which though stylish and well refined, is not enough to save this film in its entirety. From the start of the film, audiences are left just far enough out of the story loop to leave you guessing. Guessing what? Perhaps whats going on? Perhaps why are some of the actors incredibly loud all the time, while others can barely be heard? Perhaps why am I still watching this movie? Perhaps the eeriness of devout hordes of ancient demon worshipers is a task that can only be handled by big budget studios and a top list cast. Or, maybe, you just need someone out there who actually wants to make a movie about the Cthulhu Mythos, and not just stick a big "Cthulu was here" sticker on a homosexual love story. If your going to make a movie about Cthulhu, make it about Cthulhu. Life, please don't send me deceitful crap like this again.

I really wanted to like this movie. I'm a big fan of the Cthulu mythos, and the preview actually looked pretty good.

Unfortunately, this is yet another disappointing release from HERE TV.

The frustrating thing is that the movie almost works. There are a lot of wonderfully creepy little details: the bizarre check out girl who passes the protagonist a warning note, the strange kids saying "I knew you'd be back", the crazy things being reported on the news.

Unfortunately, the film never really gels. I never felt scared, or even particularly interested in what was going to happen to the main character. About half way though the film, the plot breaks down almost completely and weird random events seem to take over everything.

The film was at least mildly interesting in a "what sort of weird stuff will they throw out next" sort of way, but never really worked as a story.

Cinematography varies from some very nice shots of the ocean to some very amateurish hand held stuff.

If you're looking for extremely bad acting and a long-winded introduction to the political views and sexuality of the director, this is your film! If on the other hand your intention is to watch a good horror film, try something else.

Don't believe any of the positive reviews here. They were most certainly written by people connected to this miserable production.

That's all I have to say about the movie, but this is my first review, and I didn't realize that one is required to write at least 10 lines! That seems sort of silly considering the fact that we're constantly being inundated with meaningless verbiage. Nice to know that this sort of nonsense is being "enforced by Law"...

I personally prefer the "Brevity is the soul of wit"-philosophy, but who cares, right?

In all the discussions and comments about all the previous movies based on Lovecraft stories and ideas, I've never seen anyone raise the topic of sexuality. It's not as if there's never any love interest added to these movies. Some of them have very clear boy/girl elements grafted to them; yet nobody's ever objected in more than an offhand way.

What is it about this particular movie that's drawn such heated discussion of a previously neglected aspect? Some people are saying sexuality "of any kind" is completely inappropriate to a Lovecraftian movie. Others--I'm tempted to say the more honest ones--are just upset about the filmmakers daring to introduce a gay character into Lovecraft's world.

In most of his stories, the *gender* of the protagonist isn't even disclosed. At least one TV adaptation--of "Cool Air"--made the protagonist a woman, which created a tension between her and the hidden doctor that's missing from the original story. Was that wrong?

What's really behind this new aspect to Lovecraft film criticism?

Of the half-dozen films I saw at this year's tepid Seattle Int'l Film Festival, the only ones that have really stayed with me since are 'Outsourced' and this, a local-spun sci-fi/satire/horror hybrid that might have been the festival's most bizarre -- and yet wholly charming -- entry. Judging by what I've read here, reaction is divisive (makes sense: I went with three other people to the encore screening, two of them loved it, one of them, not so much). Afterward I overheard a couple scratching their heads in the theater lobby, wondering how, exactly, one could classify what they just saw.

Which is what, I think, has stuck with me. It doesn't take off until the second act, really -- when Tori Spelling (who actually steals her scenes in a supporting role) shows up on screen, oddly enough, things start to get good. One scene near the middle at Tori's house is reminiscent of something like David Lynch at his funniest, and weirdest. The lead actor (Jason Coddle, who is in, I believe, every single scene) gives a wonderfully paranoid, intense performance. It was made on a shoestring budget, so we get rookie season, but what finally won me over in the end was the sinister mood the film builds, and sustains. Sinister is the word, more than scary, but if you've ever been to a small town in the middle of nowhere before and wondered what unspeakable evil lurks beneath those post offices and general stores, you'll at least be along for the ride.

I'd recommend it. It's fun and it's different. More movies like this should be at the multiplexes and on the shelves.

If you think of this as a SyFy movie of the week, then you are entering into it in the right state of mind. I would not call it cheesy, but it has that low budget feel. The script and dialog could be better, along with some of the acting. It is VERY loosely based in the Lovecraft mythos, but does hit some of the basics. Tori Spelling is mediocre in this role, however she does pull off some of her scenes rather well in the middle of the movie. I have to say her acting at the end of the movie was very over- acted and almost laughable. Luckily, she is not the lead in this movie and the lead did a fairly good job(not great, but decent). If you are looking for strict adherence to the mythos or style of Lovecraft this movie is not for you, but if you like B movies you are surely going to enjoy this movie. This move felt like a fan fiction with higher quality production than usually seen, but that is part of the charm in my opinion.