The Whisperer in Darkness (2011)

I like Black Panther, but I didn't like this movie.

This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Judging by the low reviews that most movies based on Lovecraft's writing achieve -- on this site and elsewhere -- it must be very difficult to make a movie that works. On the whole, I don't think that Lovecraft's stories lend themselves well to visual presentation -- they rely for their effect on their (often rather overblown) descriptions of characters' mental states and experiences. Such things are notoriously difficult to translate into film.Whisperer in the Darkness does not really try to replicate the emotional tenseness and claustrophobia of the stories. It isn't particularly scary, or even disturbing. It is, however, amusing and engaging, and tells a Lovecraft story with reasonable fidelity. Mostly, I think, it works because it's presentation -- 1930s writing and acting, but made with modern cinematography -- is so unusual.The movie is made by the same folks who gave us the "Scary Solstice" album, containing such Christmas favourites as "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Mi-Go." So we know that the movie isn't going to be too self-important or pompous. I get the impression that it was made by people who love Lovecraft's work, but aren't in awe of it.I suspect that Lovecraft would have hated this movie -- he seems to have been a relentlessly gloomy, self-interested man, with no sense of humour whatsoever. The idea that anybody would make a light-hearted, gently mocking adaptation of his stories would have appalled him. Still, his loss is our gain, I think.To appreciate this movie I suspect that the viewer needs to be a fan of Lovecraft's work, but not an acolyte, if you see what I mean. An interest in early 20th-century science-fiction/horror cinema certainly helps as well.

Of all of America's great writers HP Lovecraft, and his eerie tales of cosmic horror, has suffered from not being given a decent film treatment. Or so I thought until I stumbled on this gem-a labour of love from the HP Lovecraft Historical Society. Filmed in lovingly recreated 1930's RKO style this tells the tale of strange alien goings on in the remote mountains of Vermont and an ancient evil hidden there. Considering this is no Hollywood big budget film the production values are impeccable and by using the 1930's feel even the limited budget's SFX look and feel a perfect fit. If you are a fan of Lovecraft's work or any decent Scifi or horror this really is a treat and until Hollywood at least tries to better it -easily the best screen version of Lovecraft's large body of work.

Hats off to the HP Lovecraft Historical Society for creating yet another gem of a movie.Film makers are in a difficult position: If you make a movie 100% faithful to a text written 80 years ago, you will alienate the non-fan viewers. If you drift too far from the original text (or slap an "inspired by" sticker on it and then do something completely unrelated) then the fans will crucify you.The HPHLS have managed to walk the fine line - they remain true to the original story, and accurately cover 95% of the story with only minor embellishment to make it flow on screen. But remember also that the book itself was only a novella, so if they had stopped the movie at the end of the book, it would have been a short movie indeed.But after the "book" story ends, the movie continues with a logical extension of the story that remains faithful to the Lovecraft style and vision.Purists may not like this extension, but a movie that intends to articulate the Lovecraft vision and capture a new audience at the same time needs to appeal to an audience broader than just the fans.The acting is solid and consistent throughout, and consistency is an important word here, because the movie intends to recreate both a story, a style of writing, and a style of movie making. Consequently the special effects also reflect the 1930s - of course it's not Avatar-grade because it would look stupid if it was.I give it 10/10 not because it is the best horror movie ever made, but because it deserves to be recognised as the best recreation of HP Lovecraft's "Whisperer in the Darkness" story ever made.Highly recommended to every Lovecraft fan, and to every non-Lovecraft fan who is happy to accept it on its own merit.

An adaptation of Lovecraft's story of the same name, which I have read. Within seconds, I pegged this as the work of the people who made The Call of Cthulu (director Brannery wrote and produced that film). I liked that one, but felt it was perhaps too slavish to a short story which didn't really lend itself that well to such a literal adaptation. The Whisperer in Darkness perhaps lends itself a lot better to such a treatment, and this adaptation is therefore quite good. It's been probably ten or eleven months since I read the story, so I don't remember it perfectly, but I think this is very faithful (the ending seems different, but I can't recall how the story ended that well). This is very creepy, with nice black and white photography. I don't much care for CGI monsters, but, for some reason, I think they look quite good in black and white, and the flying crab aliens look very good. The acting is amateurish throughout, but I did like Matt Foyer a lot in the lead. He has a great look for this movie. Highly recommended.