Cthulhu

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.

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

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 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.