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.
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.