In the Mouth of Madness (1995)

This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

When it was first released , "In the Mouth of Madness" did so-so business at the box office yet found new life on home video and became a cult classic among John Carpenter's die hard fans. Having seen this movie for the first time on DVD via Netflix after seeing a commercial for it on a vhs, I like this movie. It's about a quest for a missing horror author named Sutter Cane (played by Jurgen Prochnow of Das Boot fame) by John Trent (Sam Neill). The ending of this movie has the detective having a good time at the premiere of the film based on the book of the same name and he's the only one left laughing!!! The quality of the DVD is pretty good (back when New Line used LaserPacific to master their films) and the extras include commentary from John Carpenter as well as the film's trailer which can be seen easily on Youtube. I might as well buy the Shout Factory bluray sooner than later....

I can't believe that it took me so long to watch this movie. It has practically everything I love in it: Lovecraft, Stephen King, and a ton of references to look for and spot and conjecture about. In short, I'm very disappointed in myself for not watching it sooner. In my defense, I had no idea it was even about a book, so, there ya go.I loved the plot to it. It was creepy and took many unexpected twists and turns. Reality itself gets distorted in interesting ways that did not come across as cheatery and contrived. It also raises some interesting questions about readers and the free will of the characters in fiction.Sorry, a small digression here. Just pretend for a moment that it's true (c'mon, you can do it, you guys read horror and sci-fi. I know you have imaginations). That a fictional character is aware of what is happening to him or her. They realize this but can't do anything about it. They are forced to live through whatever unimaginable horror the author can think of to inflict upon them. I can't imagine anything more horrifying. I'm not really talking about meta-horror, exactly, because to me it's a different kind of awareness.Anyways, you didn't read this to get my half-assed attempt at midnight psychology. You want to hear about the movie. It starts out with a bang and the pace keeps up until the last fifteen minutes or so. It does start to slow down a bit near the end but it's a necessary slowness so it's acceptable. The plot stays on point throughout without any digressions that don't add to the movie.The effects are top-notch and some really managed to give me the creeps. Some of the creepier ones are also the most simple. Maybe not simple to pull off but in the plot they're somewhat minor happenings but add to the general atmosphere and general creepiness. The bridge into Hobb's End. The changing picture. Simple, but very effective. And the creature effects? Excellent.Sam Neill is very believable as the cocky insurance investigator, totally convinced he is the master of his own, cynical view of the world. Julie Carmen is very able in her role, if a little lat at times but since I've never seen her in anything else I'm not really sure if that was an acting choice or her typical acting ability. Jürgen Prochnow is perfect as the "author" of the end of the world. Oddly enough, this is not the first time Jürgen has brought about the Apocalypse. The first time was in a movie called 'The Seventh Sign" (which I'll be reviewing soon). He's perfect as the elusive Sutter Cane. Even the secondary characters are played well.And of course, all the references. I'd love to point out as many as I noticed (and I'm pretty sure there's more I didn't) but since some are plot points I don't want to spoil anything for you. I don't like to assume that just because a movie is older then it's ok to tell the whole story. Suffice it to say that there are many and Lovecraft and King fans alike will have many happy egg hunts.There is only one part that I don't get and it bugs me: SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD BUT A MINOR ONE - How on Earth did he figure out that the book covers make a map? Was it wiping the ink under his eyes? I have no idea.

"In the Mouth of Madness" has surreal and gruesome horror, as per usual for a John Carpenter film, but what's scariest about it are the ideas it presents.The film is mostly grounded in the idea that reality is an illusion, and, despite humans grasping for order in the universe, just beneath the surface lies only inexplicable chaos, and this is uncovered through the release of a universal book. Once a skeptic, John Trent (a convincingly insane Sam Neill) slowly begins to descend into chaos and madness through a series of strange and scattered events. A group of children are used as vessels for chaos, time doesn't seem to comply, unexplained monsters appear, and Carpenter's blocking frequently suggests an isolation and alienation for Trent, looking small in the frame and sometimes completely surrounded by darkness and the unknown, which is the driving factor for fear in this film. As the film continues, it's hard to tell what is reality and what isn't, and that's kind of the point. Even when it seems Trent has snapped back into reality, it is revealed that there are only more layers of confusion, and the end of the film is brilliant in it's ultimate, meta- realization that reaches out to the viewer and leaves us feeling insecure about our own reality, and sanity, even if just for a second (although I think it would have been more effective without the music).

There's references to both Stephen King and Lovecraft, but the movie itself is more a celebration of this kind of horror in general. The whole movie is about questioning one's own sanity, as the horror evoked by not knowing what is real, has been an effective trope in horror fiction for a long time. There's some slight attempts at connecting it to a philosophical level concerning subjective reality, but it never really gets all that interesting. I don't think the plot was meant to explore the limits of horror, fictional reality or anything like it, but rather to serve as a vehicle to unsettling scenes. And for that, it works alright.Sam Neil's performance is good, but Julie Carmen was not always that convincing, though it might have been on purpose. The best part of the movie is not the plot nor the actors, though, but the utter charm that Carpenter brings to most of his movies. The special effects and just the general looks of them evokes something special, though sadly it's not fear.