yespat Of whom I am not. It's that simple gross, gory horror type of story. If that is your preference, i'd it will not disappoint. Plenty of blood dripping hatchets, white face makeup, and mayhem in the streets. I wondered why the ratings were so high. I guess it has to do with the large numbers of stephen king fans. For the rest of us, i would not recommend it.

LovecraftLass 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.

coolgod Carpenter clearly has fallen down the stair's onto his head or has been lobotomised because his talent for making good film's has completely dissolved by the time this arse piece came out of his a s s h o l e. I like the theme tune at the beginning/end of the movie but that's about it. It's Kind of an interesting concept involving reality imitating art or the will of a mad arsehole hellbent on aligning reality to his f ucking book...,but its a poor attempt to be fair. It's main failure is not the f ucking acting or special effect's but just a lack of depth to the story, leaving the viewer with a sense that the movie is quite underdone & finishes in a quite unrewarding place for the paying punter that has sat through all that schitt. & after going over the movie later on in your head, you recall the many a gimicky/surreal scene that now stand's to reason as they were there as merely filler material for this baggy trouser's movie.

BA_Harrison When bestselling horror novelist Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow) disappears before the completion of his latest book, insurance investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is called in to try and locate the missing writer. Trent's search leads him to the sleepy town of Hobb's End, the originally-presumed-fictional setting for Cane's last book, home to some really weird characters and potential portal for the 'old ones', who become more powerful with each new convert to Cane's work.I have to admit that the mind-bending 'what is reality?' narrative of In The Mouth Of Madness had me scratching my head at times, but I still enjoyed the overall experience, partly thanks to the excellent central performance from Neill, a good supporting cast that includes John Glover, David Warner and Charlton Heston, and director John Carpenter's lively direction, but largely because the film is just so damn FREAKY.Carpenter doesn't bother explaining all of the weirdness… he simply lets it wash over the viewer like a bad dream, the disturbing visuals and unsettling atmosphere slowly worming their way under the viewer's skin. A kid riding a bicycle on a lonely road turns into a creepy old man, the figures in a painting slowly change position, and an old woman keeps her naked husband shackled by his ankle. There are slimy Lovecraftian creatures with thrashing tendrils, axe wielding maniacs, and an ugly cop who beats the hell out of a kid for doing graffiti. None of this makes much sense, and the ending does nothing to make matters clearer. But it sure is freaky!