While shooting a Halloween news story on horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, reporter Rebecca Marsh discovers that the "fiction" Lovecraft wrote is actually true and the creatures and cults descri... Read allWhile shooting a Halloween news story on horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, reporter Rebecca Marsh discovers that the "fiction" Lovecraft wrote is actually true and the creatures and cults described in his writings really exist.While shooting a Halloween news story on horror writer H.P. Lovecraft, reporter Rebecca Marsh discovers that the "fiction" Lovecraft wrote is actually true and the creatures and cults described in his writings really exist.
S.S. Mausoof
- Dr. D'Souza
- (as Saqib Mausoof)
- Director
- Writer
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Really, I'm being extremely generous in giving this movie a 3/10. It obviously deserves 1/10: the acting, directing, effects, and writing are all atrocious. However, there were a few good scenes (the old time 1930s scenes were kind of cool), one or two of the actors were passable, and the attempt to bring to life a Lovecraftian tale of horror is welcome, though it always seems doomed to ineptitude or mediocrity.
In the end, I'd have to say that this movie is only for people who can overlook seriously bad filmmaking. I'm talking worse than your average Troma movie here. And if you can take that, then have at it. Maybe you'll find something to enjoy here.
In the end, I'd have to say that this movie is only for people who can overlook seriously bad filmmaking. I'm talking worse than your average Troma movie here. And if you can take that, then have at it. Maybe you'll find something to enjoy here.
A reporter, Rebecca Marsh (Renee Sweet), while investigating H. P. Lovecraft gets more than she bargained for.
This presentation was probably meant to be a Halloween quickie of the "Blair Witch" type. Unfortunately, it falls cinematically short of just about anything that you might have seen; it has bad camera work, bad actors, bad acting, bad dialogue, how many bads can something have.
It is even a pity that Lovecraft Followers could not even appreciate this movie. If this is your first Lovecraft movie do not let it hinder you from watching others.
We named our cat Cat-thulhu as the little monster calls you into the next room and then attacks.
This presentation was probably meant to be a Halloween quickie of the "Blair Witch" type. Unfortunately, it falls cinematically short of just about anything that you might have seen; it has bad camera work, bad actors, bad acting, bad dialogue, how many bads can something have.
It is even a pity that Lovecraft Followers could not even appreciate this movie. If this is your first Lovecraft movie do not let it hinder you from watching others.
We named our cat Cat-thulhu as the little monster calls you into the next room and then attacks.
Having friend in the movie business, I understand student films, and I've seen quite a few. Most of them make an honest effort to be good. They try hard, and sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. This fails. Miserably. I'm sick of low-budget filmmakers who think that not using a tripod makes their film "verite'." It doesn't. It makes it nauseating to watch. Add to that all the little details that make it irritatingly bad, such as: TV reporters wear makeup. Lots of it. Ms. Marsh appears to be wearing none. Editors have the messiest offices in the known universe. They don't look like a vacant office with a stack of newspapers on the desk. And who uses white out? (It was on the desk) If someone is so insane as to need a straight jacket, she is NOT going to be in a regular hospital bed. Why not just put her in a chair staring out the window? TV cameramen use tripods for on-the-street interviews. Always. And wireless mics, too.
All this is just from the first 25 minutes. I couldn't stand to watch any more. The writing was abysmal (it would have been better to let the actors improvise), the camera work looked like a 5-year-old who stole daddy's camcorder, and the acting was... well, it was lousy too. A lot of bad actors, if they're well-directed (like Heather Graham), can still manage to not ruin a production, but the directing is so vacant that the acting really drags it down. Not that it had far to go.
Don't waste your time on this. To see how to do a low-budget horror flick right, see the first Evil Dead.
All this is just from the first 25 minutes. I couldn't stand to watch any more. The writing was abysmal (it would have been better to let the actors improvise), the camera work looked like a 5-year-old who stole daddy's camcorder, and the acting was... well, it was lousy too. A lot of bad actors, if they're well-directed (like Heather Graham), can still manage to not ruin a production, but the directing is so vacant that the acting really drags it down. Not that it had far to go.
Don't waste your time on this. To see how to do a low-budget horror flick right, see the first Evil Dead.
In the opening titles they give special credit to the special/makeup effects guy. WHY? The small amount of effects called for in this movie are all done pathetically bad. The acting is really atrocious, believe me it goes from bad to laughingly worse. The tedium in this script is unbearable,. It takes 50 minutes of running time to get to any action. When I say "action" I am not talking "Poltergeist" level action. Action is 5 minutes of the white witch mumbling nonsense syllables and Runic names while an empty rocking chair moves slowly back and forth. This movie is too tedious to recommend as a so-bad-it's-good movie. Avoid it. Really. Avoid it.
I actually managed to stay awake. It was a fight but I managed it somehow.
I really wish I hadn't bothered.
I really wish I hadn't bothered.
Did you know
- SoundtracksHalloween In Hollywood
Performed by Michael Raven
Written by Michael Raven & Felton Pilate
Produced by Evan Brass
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content