The Dunwich Horror (2008 TV Movie) User Reviews

The Dunwich Horror: Why can they never get Lovecraft right?

[Platypuschow · 4/10 · 23 October 2018]

One thing that always bugs me is when a movie goes by multiple names. I know it's a petty thing but for me it makes no sense, it takes away from the movies credibility. This Dunwich Horror version goes by many names including Witches, Darkest Evil and Necronomicon.

It's a less than faithful adaptation of H.P Lovecrafts classic Dunwich Horror and though its hideously flawed it's still better than the 1970 original in my opinion.

It stars Dean "Quantum Leap" Stockwell (Who was in the original as Wilbur Whateley), the always excellent horror icon Jeffrey Combs and the highly underrated Sarah Lieving.

It doesn't really try to stay loyal to the original material and is instead more of a messy remix. The special effects are appalling, far worse than you'd imagine considering the caliber of the cast! The plot is hit and miss and the whole thing is spotty at best.

I still for the life of me cannot figure out why the vast amount of Lovecraft adaptations are so bad. This material is pure gold so why do so many writers balls it up?

This isn't the worst adaptation out there, but it'll certainly not going to appease fans of the book.

The Good:

Fantastic cast

The Bad:

Major differences from the original

Weak sfx

Constant fade to blacks are just annoying

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

Jeffrey Combs would have played the book version of Whateley considerably better

Sarah Lieving seems to be naturally attracted to crappy roles

More mediocre Lovecraft

[mritchie · 5/10 · 27 April 2009]

Someday, H.P. Lovecraft might get a big-budget adaptation, but until then, it's B-movies all the way and this is as "B" as you can get, and I actually admire it for not trying to be more than that. Unfortunately, except for some good effects late in the film, there's not much here worth recommending. The 1970 film of the same title was mostly just inspired by the Lovecraft story; this version sticks a bit more closely to the original tale about the awful Whateley family and their blasphemous breeding of human woman and the demonic monster Yog-Sothoth in an attempt at opening up a portal for the horrific Old Ones to return to Earth. Wilbur Whateley (Re-Animator's Jeffrey Combs) is a drooling backwoods idiot (supposedly a 10-year-old who has aged 40 years physically) looking for a missing page in the evil book The Necronomicon which will allow him to finish the rite of re-entry.

What's been added to this version is a romantic lead couple, played by Griff Furst and Sarah Lieving, who are helping a Miskatonic University professor (Dean Stockwell) find the missing page before Combs does. There's lots of Lovecraft name-dropping; in addition to Miskatonic University and the Necronomicon, we meet Alhazred the Mad Arab, the author of that evil book, and Olaus Wormius, a decadent Necronomicon scholar. The decent opening sequence is right out of The Exorcist, there are nice effects in the climactic scene involving Yog-Sothoth's appearance, and an effective brief shot of an ancient Lovecraftian landscape. Furst, who sometimes looks like Peter Sarsgaard or the early Mickey Rourke, is good, but the rest of the cast is mediocre, including Stockwell (who played Wilbur in the 1970 film) who practically sleepwalks through his part. Very bad dialogue doesn't help anyone, and why they felt the need to transport Lovecraft's New England towns to the Bayou is beyond me--the change adds nothing interesting.

The curse of Lovecraftian films

[Ar_Pharazon_the_golden · 4/10 · 9 July 2012]

The film is as cheap and mediocre (leaning towards bad) as you can guess. Bad directing, bad effects (that's the least), a rather sloppy plot that doesn't really do any justice to the original material. The acting is better than I expected, but doesn't deserve praise either. The only real reason to watch the film is that there is such a shortage of Cthulhu Mythos based movies (and how few of them are actually good!) that a true fan will try anything.

The house-searching scene was the only one that showed a little bit of inspiration, albeit poorly executed. Other than that you get a pointless background (really far in the background) romance, a rather silly version of Olaus Vormius and a momentary presence of Abdul Alhazred who kind of steals the show.

Disappointed.

[JoeB131 · 3/10 · 25 April 2010]

Some of the cast choices gave me hope. Dean Stockwell was in the 1970 adaptation of the Lovecraft classic, and there has been some law passed that Jeffrey Combs has to be in every Lovecraft adaptation made after 1980, I think. Sadly, the two guys who you might have heard of are barely extended cameos. Then again, so is much of Lovecraft's story, which only takes up about 14 of the 1:45 running time of this turkey.

Fans of Lovecraft know this story. A human woman mates with the elder God, Yog-Sothoth, having a pair of twins, a human looking Wilbur who ages dramatically in ten years, and a hideous monster that eats people. Sadly, they are only in the movie for a brief period, and Combs isn't nearly trying his best. (Imagine him saying. "Hey, I've been on Star Trek! I don't need to do this Lovecraft garbage anymore!")

Most of the rest of this film is our star-crossed lovers searching for the missing page of the Necromonicon, a lot of name-dropping from other Lovecraft stories. Ugh. A romance in a Lovecraft story? No, in a Lovecraft story, everyone usually goes insane and is sent to an asylum.

Combs is probably closer to the way Lovecraft wrote Wilbur Whatley in the original story, but so what? It seems they realized they had to stretch a 44 page story into a hour and half feature on the skiffy channel.

Also, nothing in the story really emphasizes the horror of this situation. There are a bunch of alien Gods waiting to get back into our universe and kill everyone... Except for one line, there's no discussion of the philosophical implications of it.

Cheesy Low-Budget Horror Movie

[claudio_carvalho · 3/10 · 28 June 2010]

In Louisianna, the thirty-five year old single mother Lavina (Lauren Michele) delivers a baby boy and a monster in the evil Whateley House. Ten years later, Dr. Henry Armitage (Dean Stockwell) and his assistant Professor Fay Morgan (Sarah Lieving) discover that the page 751 of every copy of the Necronomicon is missing and The Black Brotherhood has summoned the gate keeper Yog Sothoth to leave the portal opened to the demons and ancient gods. They invite the arrogant and skeptical Professor Walter Rice (Griff Furst) that can translate the Necronomicon to help them to seek the book. Meanwhile Lavina's son Wilbur Whateley (Jeffrey Combs) ages very fast and seeks the missing page to open the portal.

"The Dunwich Horror" is a cheesy low-budget horror movie that has an awful screenplay associated to terrible acting and poor special effects. Dean Stockwell and the cult-actor Jeffrey Combs are wasted in this forgettable flick. The romance of Fay and Rice is quite ridiculous and out of the context of the plot. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Bruxas" ("Witches")

Good story, not so good movie.

[johannes2000-1 · 3/10 · 18 November 2010]

I used to read Lovecraft in my early days and I remember being absolutely fascinated by the creepy atmosphere of his dark, menacing world. Movie adaptations never fail to disappoint me however, probably it's very difficult to translate his grotesque fantasies to the big screen. With this one it's no different. You can applaud them for trying to stick close to Lovecraft, but the flaws of this production are so abundant that it's hard to find anything positive to say.

First of all: the special effects are terrible on all accounts, from the silly fake tentacles of the supposed monster that stretch out to the victims, and the flashes of a big sharp-toothed jaw that's supposed to belong to the mighty monster Cthulhu, up to the CGI in the last half hour that's supposed to conjure up an orgiastic climax but turns out even faker than fake.

The acting seemed over all mediocre and uninspired. Dean Stockwell obviously didn't want to bother too much and just went through the (few) motions that were required of him. Jeffrey Combs is like a piece of Lovecraft furniture that you apparently cannot do without when you do a Lovecraft-adaptation, and in this capacity he did okay. The main parts are for Sarah Lieving and Griff Furst as a love couple (is that genuine Lovecraft material?? I doubt that!). Sarah Lieving is (or has to play) a bit of a stern and stiff lady, she sure is good-looking but didn't convince me a bit as the supposed fanatic supernatural witch-hunter, she's far too restrained and civilized.

But I was pleasantly surprised with Griff Furst. I didn't know him yet but he impressed me as a talented and very natural actor with a good sense of timing and a definite sparkle of humour in his eyes - and very good-looking to boot! The part of the well-bred and educated professor who's reluctant to get drawn into this supernatural adventure but at last bravely makes the best of it, fitted him like a glove.

All in all this seems like a waste of some good material (original story, Stockwell and Furst), I rank it a meagre 3 out of 10.

"That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange eons even death may die."

[Bored_Dragon · 5/10 · 2 November 2018]

Considering IMDb rating (3/10) and terrible reviews, I expected to withdraw from the film after about ten minutes, but the film really is not so bad. The story is more faithful to the source material than most adaptations of Lovecraft and pretty well captures the atmosphere for which this horror giant is recognizable. The acting certainly isn't an Oscar material, but it's quite decent, and for a low-budget B movie, technical aspects are not that bad either. The only serious flaw of the film are the effects, because of which I had the impression of watching a movie from the '80s, or maybe the early '90s. If the film was not from 2009, even the effects would be ok, but for 2009 they are absolutely unacceptable. This disadvantage has affected my rating, which would have been a bit higher with the contemporary effects, but it does not necessarily have to affect your film experience. Simply imagine you're watching a movie from the eighties and the effects will not bother you anymore. They did not bother me too much when I was watching, but I have to take them into account when evaluating because they are really extremely outdated, while not being necessary at all. If the budget did not allow for the effects to be in accordance with current technology, they could simply completely avoid them with simple directorial tricks. If you are expecting a horror that will scare you and hold you on the edge of the seat, this definitely isn't a film for you, but if you're a fan of Lovecraft and the Cthulhu mythos, and if you're not overly demanding and meticulous, you will enjoy the good atmosphere of this adaptation.

5/10

Didn't quite deliver

[paul_haakonsen · 4/10 · 27 January 2011]

Initially I was kind of excited to see that Jeffrey Combs was in the movie, so it was with some anticipation that I sat down to watch it. And I am a huge fan of H. P. Lovecraft's work and all the Lovecraftian work that followed in his wake. This movie, however, was somewhat of a lukewarm attempt, to be bluntly honest.

The story does stay fairly close to the story of the Whateley's as Lovecraft initially built it up, but at the same time there is a bit too much other loose ends thrown into the frame. Ends that are never really seen through and come full circle. In that way, there is a lot of things going on in the movie, too many things in my opinion, and most of these things doesn't really get to be concluded.

"The Dunwich Horror" suffered from a fairly weak acting crew, with most performances being mediocre to look at. Had they managed to put more enthusiastic people into the movie, it would have come out with a more vibrant and appealing result. And the dialogue didn't really help lift up the movie, because it was halting and at times embarrassing to witness.

What did work for the movie was Jeffrey Combs, of course. As always it is nice to see him in a Lovecraft-inspired movie. And his name is usually associated with such. Unfortunately, his character wasn't given enough on-screen time. "The Dunwich Horror" is not one of Comb's more impressive performances, but being a fan of his, I just had to sit through this movie. And aside from Combs, then the core essence of the Whateley's was also pretty nicely interpreted.

There was a bit too much name-dropping in the movie, with lots of references to places, people and such in the Lovecraft-created Cthulhu mythos. But most of this was irrelevant, and seemed to be put in there only to impress the really hardcore Lovecraft fans, people who are familiar with these names. To other people, it is just a bunch of random and pointless facts. The reference to (August) Derleth was, however, a bit surprising.

As for the effects and CGIs in "The Dunwich Horror", well, they were low-budget, and it was showing clearly. Hats off to them for their effort, just a shame that they didn't have a bigger budget for these effects. There were some shots where Yog Sothoth actually looked rather nice. So the effects weren't all bad. The storms that ravaged the buildings, well that is a whole other story. You have to see that to believe it!

In my honest opinion, then this adaption (or interpretation) of "The Dunwich Horror" is not really one of the better Lovecraft-based pieces of work around. Sadly, most of these movies are B-movies and often fail to leave impressions in the viewers. This is one such movie, which is a shame, because it had potential. Had they trimmed down the plot-lines and put in some more whole-hearted actors, the outcome would have been much better and would have had a chance to actually become noteworthy.

As bad as they come...

[frellingdren · 1/10 · 19 May 2009]

This movie reminds me of something you would see at a local film festival (and I am not talking about Sundance or Canne).

It is one of the worst Lovecraft attempts to date. Dean Stockwell is wasted. Combs is passable... but also wasted (not that Combs ever really raises the bar of what he is a part of). The acting is all bottom of the barrel. The editing, direction and effects are horrible.

If I had to scrape the bottom of the barrel for something positive to mention, it would have to be the sets and locations. Those were well chosen.

I rarely say that a film is so devoid of merit as to deem it a complete waste of time and money, but this is one of those rare films. Save your time and money. You will just be sad you squandered them watching this trash.

However, if you like B-level schlock for the sake of a good laugh... you might be able to suspend disbelief long enough to laugh at this. But... even that would be a stretch. It is as unwatchable as movies come.

the CGI horror

[trashgang · 3/10 · 25 March 2011]

If you put Dunwich in your title and add Witches to it then you are sure that it will sell. And when one old horror is already titles The Dunwich Horror then some people will think it's a remake. But not alone that, if you use the word Necronomicom then you automatically think of Lovecraft. And knowing that Lovecraft's short story The Dunwich Horror lays in the public domain, well, hell breaks loose (no pun intended). The acting is okay, we do have some well known names, Jeffrey Combs (re-animator), Dean Stockwell (The Dunwich Horror 1970) and Griff Furst. But names are not enough. From the start you know this is going to be so badly wrong. The possessed one, well, she just has colored contact lenses. Then she gets CGI wings. It's cold in the room, remember Exorcist. Her voice, remember Evil Dead, the pyramid is some kind of puzzle box, remember Hellraiser. But what makes this flick a turkey is one of the worst CGI that I have seen for a modern horror. Sparks shooting from fingers, soooooooooo eighties, It never was scary or bloody. It's just about incantations. well, do I have an incantation:"go away bad movie go away..."

Loved, Loved, Lovecraft!!!! WARNING: SPOILER

[sidekickllb · 10/10 · 28 September 2011]

*** SPOILER ALERT *** OMG, I loved this movie! I am a Lovecraft fan, albeit not a purist, so I really enjoy updated takes on his stories. This movie was a really great, modern take on The Dunwich Horror. I was hooked from the very beginning to the slimy, tentacled end! Griff Furst, as Walter Rice, with his ever-so-dreamy eyes and fantastic acting, really made this movie for me. I really connected with and believed his character. Not to mention that I caught myself humming Van Halen's "Hot For Teacher" a few times, LOL. Bravo, casting director!!!!! I was also happy to see Dean Stockwell (Dr. Henry Armitage) and Jeffrey Combs (Wilbur Whateley) - two exceptional Lovecraft movie alums - in this film as well. I was a fan of Stockwell's first Dunwich film also, and let's face it, Combs has brought Lovecraft mythos to life for countless fans for over 2 decades now. I only have 2 complaints. (1) Both of their deaths (Wilbur and Armitage) seemed a little quick to me ... I mean, Lovecraft is known for writing about gory, slimy death throes that can last entire lifetimes, and these two seemed to be snuffed out in a second or two. Oh, well. And (2) I just couldn't quit giggling when the 'Sumerian incantation pyramid' thing was -- a 1980's Rubik's Pyramid painted bronze (I know, because I had one 'back in the day,' LOL). I'd kind of like to see a sequel ... maybe see Rice and Morgan as a Lovecraftian X-Files??? Hello, Hollywood? :D

I really enjoyed this one!

[slang-75283 · 7/10 · 30 August 2015]

I love Mr Lovecraft as much as anyone and there are many stories of his I'd like to see made - and made well. Look, you can be a real Lovecraft stickler and pick this film to bits for it's inaccuracies, etc. However, the cover of the DVD does say "BASED ON H.P. Lovecraft's The Dunwich Horror". And on the back - "An ADAPTATION . . ."

Before I watched it I took this movie as someone's expression of a Lovecraft story. I expected it to be, well, unfortunate. But sometimes bad movies can be at least funny.

I have to say I was surprised. No it isn't the best Lovecraft movie around (is there one?). But it's a great movie taken on its own merit. I like the location move (and a beautiful location it is too). I particularly like the scene of the boat journey through the bayou. I just wanted to be there. The atmosphere still remained and, honestly, even though New England is the 'correct' setting, Louisiana works a treat.

I thought the filming/editing of Wilbur's sections gave the feeling of his disjointed psyche and Jeffrey played a very different and disturbing Wilbur. I don't know if the wild departure from Dean's original charming (but still creepy) portrayal was Leigh Scott's idea or Jeffrey's but it worked for me.

Griff and Sarah were believable. Little natural actions that we all do everyday were there. I also liked Wormius. Again, a different way of looking at this kind of character. Not all occultists, magicians, alchemists, and other assorted spooks look like they've popped out of a fairy tale (or Hollywood) - believe me, I know.

What I liked most of all was the representation of some of the occult concepts and I really liked the use of homages to Charles D Ward, Innsmouth, Witch House, etc. I have to say that adding some of the ideas from these other stories (e.g.: the Witch House and it's extending hallway) make for recognition of astral realms explored by many in reality. And the idea that the Necronomicon does not actually exist (at least in our physical realm) but rather as the house (a gateway in itself - or rather, a kind of foyer with many doors) probably irritates those that so very much want the Necronomicon to be real (for real!). Putting all of this stuff into an astral (or, dare I say, a subconscious) setting, via the helpful 'assistance' of Wormius suggests a writer that has done a bit of research into such methods. Sometimes there is no time for training and a quick sip of metaphysical 'punch' works as well.

All in all, I was pleasantly surprised and would happily recommend this film (but maybe not to hard- core H.P. fans!).

Poor old Lovecraft!!

[KDCarson · 5/10 · 22 September 2013]

***Spoilers***Why can't Hollywood or the Syfy Channel just read what Lovecraft wrote and do some good anthology movies of his short stories?? Trying to take one of his novella's or short stories and stretch it into an hour and one half movie is a hard task to do except for those film makers who truly love Lovecraft's writings. Dean Stockwell shows up again, not doing quite as good a job as the first time. The plot is very far away from the original written classic. Acting and special effects okay, but they should have stayed much closer to the original story. A cute girl was added for eye candy effect, also not a character found in the original story. And a rather wooden excuse for a primary hero in the college professor. Alas, poor Lovecraft!! I pray a well funded famous director will do you justice one day!!

"Mapquest is never wrong!"

[dutchchocolatecake · 1/10 · 23 May 2012]

Pros - Good props, good scenery, good music; and a cast that included people of color.

Cons - everything else.

This movie will appeal to pop culture Lovecraft "fans" that read a few things on the Internet (maybe even saw a couple comics and thought, "yeah, that's cool!") and like the idea of Lovecraft's work without actually downloading .txt's or cracking the spine of a book to find out more.

There's a lot I can look past in a low budget movie. I'm not an FX snob. I understand that there is so much you can do to "wow" the audience visually. But there's no excuse for lack of substance and intellectually stunted scriptwriting. If the plot is coherent, the characters complex and relatable, and the theme pays respectful homage to Lovecraft's works; you can count my vote in. However, like many of "Lovecraft" adaptations, I cannot throw my lot in with this one; mostly because of the abysmal portrayal of women.

Women in this movie are either possessed, barefoot and pregnant, naked and/or sexualized in some other way, or just plain ornamental tag-alongs that have no identity outside the men they are accompanying at any given time. Not only are the men in this movie condescending, smug, and quick to put women in their "place" in this movie (or at least what the screenwriter believes is a "woman's place"); there's also a helping of ritualized rape, domestic battery, and allusions to incest.

And then there's Jeffrey Combs. An ongoing legend in Lovecraft films. Yet he's cast into a minor, annoying role that any community college drama student could have filled. Such a disappointment.

Wow what a waste. Could have been salvageable in a few respects - one, actually respecting the spirit of Lovecraft's work and two, not relying on cheap plot devices that alienate the female half of the audience. This is what happens when immature egotism gathers enough money and sycophants to attempt to rewrite a science fiction tradition that is almost a hundred years strong. Thanks for nothing.

With the exception of a good concept and decent turns from Combs and Furst, The Dunwich Horror did little for me

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 12 July 2012]

I was dubious about this film, but got an inkling that Jeffrey Combs would at elevate it if just a tad. I have to say The Dunwich Horror was neither better or worse than I expected. Granted the concept is great, and there were two performances that were at least halfway decent, Griff Furst who did have a naturalistic charm to him, and especially Jeffrey Combs, whose acting and appearance doesn't feel at all out of place. However, where The Dunwich Horror is let down in particular is in the quality of the production values and the way it was written. Granted I have seen worse editing before but it still looked very choppy at times and the lighting does lack atmosphere, but the biggest let down in that regard were in the special effects, especially with the tentacles they are ridiculously fake. On top of that, the script didn't flow naturally from one line of dialogue to the next and some parts even came across as cheesy, while the characters are stock and not developed very well. While the concept was great, the actual storytelling itself was not convincing, with the scary moments coming across as predictable and the romance very forced and further disadvantaged by very lacking chemistry between the leads. The rest of the acting was poor, with Dean Stockwell giving the impression that he didn't want to be there in the first place and doesn't even try and Sarah Lieving while attractive is too stiff and rather miserable-looking. Overall, other than the concept, Furst and especially Combs the movie didn't do much for me I'm afraid. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Uggghhhhh A Mess

[ConfuzzledShannon · 2/10 · 9 October 2018]

This movie starts off with the birth of twins. One a monster and one a semi normal baby. The mother is either suppose to be old, albino, allergic to sunlight or is just wearing a really bad Halloween costume. That basically describe what what this movie is like to watch...A bad Halloween costume. It was really terrible. Only thing I can as pro is that is seemed to follow some Lovecraftian stories details but that is it.

For Masochists Only.

[rmax304823 · 19 October 2011]

It opens with a childbirth at home. The light is eerie. We see a woman in bed screaming horribly while she stares at her swollen belly. The attendants goggle as parturition proceeds. The camera pans around, never holding still. The cuts are instantaneous. A glistening black snake crawls up an attendant's arm.

The rest of the movie -- as much of it as I was able to bear before an attack of restless legs syndrome set in -- follows the same template. There is hardly a pause for ordinary conversation. One shocking horror follows another, accompanied by loud music and diverse grotesqueries.

There's a rural family involved. They all have bizarre appearances. The family head sits there cackling while skinning some kind of black-furred animal, maybe a cat or a skunk. A whirligig of a woman is bald except for a long fringe of blond hair.

Dean Stockwell looks normal enough as the chief investigator of that "portal" that opened up during the childbirth. Stockwell was the chief investigator of a previous version of "The Dunwich Horror", filmed some thirty or forty years earlier. His assistant, Sarah Lieving, is pretty and thoroughly glamorized. I imagine she'll wind up strapped to a table in some dank cellar. There is a snooty expert on the mysterious Necromicon, a book that contains the spell that opens and closes "portals." He's pretty normal too, although he is, as I say, kind of disdainful and snooty. I hope he gets sacrificed.

I've sometimes puzzled over H. P. Lovecraft, who wrote this tale, along with other stories of horror, fantasy, and science fiction. Edgar Allan Poe had a theory of literature -- throw everything else out the window and go for the effect. Logic counts for nothing. Imagine Poe and Alfred Hitchcock chatting about this. But H. P. Lovecraft seems to have taken this theory to its extreme. In one of his stories, nothing happens except that a guy wakes up in some underground chamber and finds his way to the surface. It's spooky but there is no substance to it.

This movie stinks, a pointless exercise in ominousness and computer-generated effects. Any successful horror story begins in more or less placid normality and works its way into the abnormal. Look at "The Exorcist" or "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Shining" for good examples. Well, I'll mention Val Lewton's work at RKO in passing. This one begins with junk and, I expect, ends the same way.

Recommended for self-haters, the guilt-ridden, those recently emerged from an eremetic existence, the irretrievably mad, and toddlers who have never seen a movie before.

SyFy HP Lovecraft

[BandSAboutMovies · 4/10 · 2 January 2020]

An adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's The Dunwich Horror, this movie is all about Wilbur Whateley (Jeffery Combs, Re-Animator, The Frighteners) as he tries to find the Necronomicon, an ancient, diabolical manuscript that will help him open a doorway to a dimension inhabited by unspeakable creatures known as the Old Ones.

Otherwise known as The Darkest Evil and Witches, this first played on the SyFy Channel on December 13, 2009.

In Louisiana, a single mother delivers a baby boy - and a monster - in the cursed Whateley House. Ten years later, Dr. Henry Armitage (Sean Stockwell!) and his assistant, Professor Fay Morgan (Sarah Lieving, who shows up in plenty of this director's films) discover that every single copy of the Necronomicon is missing page 751.

Oh yeah - the Black Brotherhood has also summoned the gatekeeper of the ancient ones, Yog-Sothoth, to open the portal to the walls beyond sleep. Meanwhile, Professor Walter Rice (Griff Furst, who was in the remake of The Magnificent Seven) tries to translate the book. And oh yeah - Lavina's son, Wilbur Whateley(Combs), is aging quickly and needs the missing page to save himself.

Written and directed by Leigh Scott, who created The Baron Trump Adventures and wrote several movies based on The Wizard of Oz, this film has a pretty great cast and moves quickly enough.

Nearly all of the various symbols and diagrams shown in this film come from the "Simon" version of the Necronomicon. Although Lovecraft insisted that the book was pure invention - it came to him in a dream and he allowed other authors to refer to it and use it in their stories - it's not a real book.

That hasn't stopped many from claiming that it was, with Lovecraft himself sometimes getting letters from fans asking about it. Several of them pranked large university libraries by adding it to card catalogs and even requesting it from large libraries like the Vatican.

The Simon book actually has little to no connection to Lovecraft. After a limited edition hardback printing, the paperback version of this book has never gone out of print, selling more than 800,000 copies. I mean, I have one. It's right next to The Satanic Bible and Hollywood Babylon on my shelf of mystic related works. The tagline for this book states that it could be "potentially, the most dangerous Black Book known to the Western World."

The book deviates from Lovecraft's intent to have the Ancient Ones be forces beyond good and evil. The idea that mankind is locked in a war between opposing forces comes from the Judeo-Christian beliefs inserted into the Cthulu mythos by author August Derleth.

There's also a section of the intro given over to Richard Grant's theory, as espoused in his book The Magical Revival, that there was an unconscious union between Aleister Crowley and Lovecraft. In short, they drew on the same occult forces from different paths: Crowley through actual rites, Lovecraft through the dreams that inspired his stories. Grant goes on to claim that the Necronomicon exists as an astral book as part of the Akashic records and can be accessed through both ritual magic or in dreams.

There's also a 1978 Necronomicon, edited by George Hay with an introduction by Colin Wilson, that was supposedly created from a computer analysis of a discovered "cipher text" by Dr. John Dee, the man who coined the term British Empire. He was an intensely religious Christian that studied sorcery, astrology and Hermetic philosophy, all with the goal of communicating with Enochian angels, so that he could learn the universal language of creation and achieve what he referred to as the pre-apocalyptic unity of mankind.

Anyways, back to the Simon version. Two members of the Magickal Childe scene - a New York City book store that was the major focal point for American magic/magick from the 70's until the 90's - Khem Caigan (the Necronomicon's illustrator) and Alan Cabal claimed that the book is a known hoax. My theory has always been that Peter Levenda, an occult author who wrote the book Unholy Alliance, is Simon, as the copyright notice for this book is in his name. Ironically, the name of Levenda's latest book? Dunwich.

witches: the ultimate evil (title shown as)

[mishmichster · 1/10 · 13 January 2013]

Excellent story, being based on Lovecraft's Dunwich Horror, poorly Executed.

The actors' incredulity I can excuse, being caught up in what must have been clear to them was a travesty. The effects and dramatic music I cannot excuse. Why keep blacking out the light at every suspenseful moment, like a child playing with a light switch? Why have special effects expected in a film from the 1950's in a film from 2009 instead of CGI? Low budget I guess.

Horrific rather than horrifying best describes this movie. It is a shame, hardly redeemed by giving it a new title other than the story it was based on, because the original would make an excellent remake in the right hands. This could not hold a torch to the 1970's version.

Watchable, but only just.

[Sergiodave · 4/10 · 31 August 2021]

This is a below average Lovecraft movie, so all bar HP Lovecraft lovers should avoid like the plague. In all honesty this TV movie is worth no more than 3 stars, but being Cthulhian and starring Jeffrey Combs it gets another.

The Necranomanon strikes again, missing the all important page.

[mark.waltz · 3/10 · 8 October 2021]

This is the Necronomiconis 101 for dummies, the search for the huge book of evil to figure out what to do when the birth of twins indicates that a portal has been opened which could result in some major evil. The film takes forever to get going, showing the viewer some really eerie visuals including the supposed rape of the young woman we see at the opening. Then the film editor takes us around to supposed locations where related occurrences took place, slowing down the narrative to a painfully noisy pacing. The cast (with the exception of former child star Dean Stockwell as a doctor of spiritual studies) is filled with bland nobodies, a few made up to look like mentally challenged demons, and they are silly, not frightening.

Overloaded with cheesy effects and some really bad CGI, this is just another example of how cable TV became the graveyard where rotten films go and bad acting and writing is welcome. It makes H. P. Lovecraft's short story seem much ado about nothing even though it is considered a masterpiece of horrific prophecy, a tedious and boring film with a few gross moments and a few dangerous sequences, and waiting for anything to happen is like waiting for the day of the rapture. By the time anything vital occurs to make sense of the writer's intentions, the viewer will either be ready for bed or an exorcism. As for me, I felt the need for a shower to wipe out the filth I just spent 90 minutes watching.

Don't expect much and you'll be happy.

[dylanstaxes · 6/10 · 15 April 2021]

Jeffrey Coombs just threw up on Luke Perry. This is that kind of movie. This is not a faithful retelling of Lovecraft's tale, but it does have stuff from a dozen of his stories put in a blender with a bunch of cheese.

If you really need a good copy of the story you will hate this. Otherwise, enjoy.

Don't waste your money on this one...

[sorendanni · 3/10 · 30 October 2020]

Due to the limited supply of copies and the great interest of collectors, these kinds of niche Horror DVDs cost a lot of money, but rarely offer the good film they promise.

The Dunwich Horror (The Witches) from 2008 is another such film: based on a good story by HP Lovecraft, but so poorly executed that it has become a big mess.

The good news: it are not the actors that are to blame. Each and every one of them did their best to save this film. Unfortunately.

The story has been adapted and not for the better. Instead of Lovecraft's ghastly creepy story, we get a messy quest for a missing page from the Necronomicon. There is a strange, half-hearted relationship between two main characters woven into it. The level of this love story does not get any further than that of the average bad soap ...

Even more disturbing than a chopped plot, are the laughable special effects. Bad cheap computer animation just kills this horror movie. I've seen worse, but not all that often! It is not easy to shoot a good film on a small budget, but other filmmakers are much better at this! I guess they rather use sugestion than bad Playstation 2 graphics for monsters.

I can go on, but it's clear I have no more good things to say. 3 points for the acting, nothing for the rest. Don't waste your money on this one...

Didn't want to lower or raise the rating.

[Redpawn3 · 4/10 · 3 March 2020]

Of course the reason I watched this was because the version I watched (both are on prime) was titled The Dunwich Horror (Not Witches: The Dunwich Horror).

AND because Dean Stockwell is in it. It's okay for what is a TV-movie (I guess). It isn't a faithful adaption, but it has plenty of Cthulhu Mythos info. Absolute favorite part of this movie is the first 10 minutes... the introduction of our heroes, and the overly zealous college student who won't stop talking (long after the Professor has his answer) about Cthulhu.

If you have spare time and don't mind B-type films then go for it. If you're a purist, or a snob, or have to choose your viewing very selectively, skip it.

Silly attempt of standardizing Lovecraft

[siderite · 6/10 · 17 May 2015]

I can imagine the frustration of Hollywood producers trying to transmute a rich and reputed mythos into money by using the same old recipes that work for any other concept and failing miserably in the case of Lovecraft. But they have to try.

Such an attempt is this adaptation of the short story with the same name. They start with the wise and nutty professor and his sexy assistant, join forces with an unbeliever and proceed through bad CGI to make him believe before he can use the knowledge that he already had to defeat the monster that had no chance to win in the first place. Yeah, the script is a mess, especially considering that The Dunwich Horror is one of the more classically good vs evil Lovecraft stories.

However, that doesn't mean the film cannot be entertaining. As a nod to the 1970 version, Dean Stockwell plays again for the good team, while Jeffrey Combs is a really convincing Wilbur. The horror of the possible opening of the portal to the Old Ones is rendered well, yet everything else is cheesy in a "let's make some money" way that disgusts me. Yog-Sothoth take all money grabbing Hollywood people! I hated the entire useless romantic liaison added, as well as the "team" aspect that never existed in the original material and was put here only to standardize the story to something the public is used to.

Bottom line: in the end, the Lovecraft aspect of the film is minimal, even if they kept the general plot of the story. It is the soul that they couldn't grasp. And it is strange, too, as Lovecraft is usually tending to the needs of the superego, distressed by "unnatural" events or beings; it should be easy to put that into a movie. I just don't think they get it! You need to make your viewers feel dirty inside for watching the film. That's the actual point of Lovecraft stuff!