Cthulhu (2007) User Reviews

''Jurrasic Park'' with no dinosaurs

[CanEvrenol · 4/10 · 6 June 2009]

I was very impressed with the first hour of this movie. I thought.. finally, a very good Lovecraft film. But where is the Cthulhu monster??!!!! This is like a Jurassic Park remake with no dinosaurs. I was so disappointed. Especially with that stupid song at the end! I mean how misplaced a tune can be! I see the final music at the end as a warm welcoming and letting go feeling.. as the protagonist lets go and accepts his Cthulhu identity. But still... Hello??? ..The Lovecraft audience is expecting something much much more different here.

A Lovecraft story is, above all, about those that lurk beyond. A glimpse is not enough Lovecraft bluntly shows us these creatures or entities whatever they are. This is what makes him unique. This is also what makes him not taken very seriously during his life time. And now this movie completely ignores that aspect - which is like betraying Lovecraft, n regard to using the name Cthulhu as the film's title.

I am sure the director and the producer of this film are not trying to exploit the Lovecraft fans but unfortunately that's what it comes down to. I mean, at the very least, this film should not have been named ''Cthulhu'' man. This is wrong.

The gay theme is OK. Actually it fits very well considering the ''secret identity'' theme of the Inssmouth people and Cthulu cult. But overall, this film turned out to be a rather heartbreaking experience for me.

I bet Lovecraft himself would be most unsatisfied with this film.

Brokeback R'lyeh

[enigmo69 · 5/10 · 22 May 2014]

As a long-time HP Lovecraft fan, I tend to consume with an open mind as much of the related content as I can, and this was no different. I understand a lot of what is out there has only the most tenuous relationship to any Lovecraft story or mythos and the whole 'nameless horror' thing is simply used as a device. And this in many ways is no different.

So, anyone expecting a full on Cthulhu Experience (tm) will be disappointed: Cthulhu itself is referred to in only the most general terms and only directly spoken of once; the Cult of Dagon an easily missed, fleeting reference early in the film; and the acolytes themselves, while not over-done, much to their credit, could easily be avid followers of any cult or fringe religion.

There are many references to entities coming from or going back to the sea, to horrors committed by and to the locals, but again these are mostly indistinct mentions with no real fleshing-out to make the feeling of creeping dread really take ahold which just left me itching for more of the old fisherman and more backstory. Having said that, there are moments during the film of desolate foreboding that work, and at brief times reminded me of the first Silent Hill game, which for anyone whose played it is high praise indeed! And these points are to the films credit. Same too with some of the other cinematography, with good use of the seascape and threatening clouds, as well as the town itself to create the impression of a coastal colonial American town with some of the history that you might expect of a Lovecraftian horror.

However, there were certain points that admittedly other reviewers have covered that I feel genuinely detracted from the film, not least the whole sexual aspect of it. The fact that the main protagonist was gay was semi-relevant to the storyline, so I can grant that, but the amount of time spent on it was inordinate to the amount of time spent on other, more important things like developing tension and moving the plot along. A few minutes less of him making cow-eyes at a truck driver and a few minutes more backstory would have paid dividends! Also, the sexual aggressiveness of Tori Spelling's character, while well done and performed well, smacked just a little of misogyny, as well as a huge missed opportunity for a grander plot device. I similarly felt other female characters were somewhat sidelined, with the sister given only the most cursory of parts. Given the set-up, I would imagine the protagonist and sister to have spent a LOT more time together, or at least that time to be much more emotional.

In general, I had no massive problem with the film in that I have certainly seen worse Lovecraft adaptations and much worse acting. But considering how many of these get made that are at best amateur and at worst throwaway projects, seeing that this seemed to at least have the makings of a decent version is a sadly wasted chance at submitting to a niche genre already bloated with half-hearted attempts. Having said that, it by no means sinks without trace and does stand up by itself as a half-way decent film. Unfortunately that is mostly because it's pitched itself at a subgenre with precious little competition. It is ultimately worth watching, but as a Lovecraft fan there are other films I would get to first.

Not really a Lovecraft Movie

[gwotton · 5/10 · 17 June 2009]

Thought rife with Lovecraft references and drawing heavily on The Shadow over Innsmouth this film isn't really a Lovecraft movie. Rather it is more reminiscent of Kafka's The Trial and has many similar elements.

The gay sex was unnecessary, we understood that the main character was gay, we didn't need to be beaten over the head. It was a good device though because it added to the overall feeling that he was an outsider. It served to sever his ties to his family and community.

As with good Lovecraft though, there's little to no monsters on screen but rather tension and reactions which create the monster in the mind. The scene in the tunnels was particularly effective as was the shop girl freaking out while refusing to tell him what was scaring her. I also thought that the brother-in-law with the Lovecraft chin was a nice touch.

In general this is Kafka meets Lovecraft more than a Lovecraft movie. If you judge it based on the original it certainly falls apart very quickly, but as an 'inspired' film it has good points. Perhaps future efforts will be better and I expect that the filmmakers learned a lot from making this movie. Namining it Cthulhu was a mistake though and by doing so they set themselves up to be held to an impossible standard.

Most Lovecraftian thing about this was that it almost drove me insane!

[avfanatic · 1/10 · 4 September 2014]

This "movie" was terrible. The DP should be shot. They clearly spent no time on development, rehearsal, or scouting locations. That the producer sold belongings to get this movie made is profoundly sad and I hope he received treatment for whatever malady caused him to feel such fervor for this film. Uwe Boll movies MIGHT be better and they are among the worst films around. I was especially disappointed in Cara Buono's performance as I have enjoyed her work before.

Characters smile at inappropriate times for no discernible reason. Camera work to set the mood was a complete failure and annoying in its presentation. Subplots are picked up and immediately ignored. Motivations are hazy at best. No special effects to enhance the story. Absolutely nothing of Lovecraft in this movie except the title. The highlight of the film was when I sent it back to Netflix. Ugh!

Where's the Lovecraft?

[lachrymost · 1/10 · 18 June 2007]

OK, I'm a long-time reader of H.P. Lovecraft, and I'll admit I have been disappointed again and again with film adaptations of his works. But this extremely loose adaptation of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" would have Mr. Lovecraft spinning in his grave. The protagonist is a gay professor who travels the long two hours to his estranged mother's funeral. His homosexuality takes up a disproportionately large part of the movie, and I'm not quite sure why. Does it MATTER that he is gay? Isn't it rather cliché and a negative stereotype to show him in bed with a "street kid" and to include random Gus Van Sant-ish scenes of moody (and way too clean) rent boys on the "mean streets" of Seattle at the beginning of the film? What does that have to do with Fish-Creatures and Unutterable Horror!!? And why is he hooking up with his (straight) childhood buddy halfway through the movie and indulging in a loving sex scene with lots of back-patting and kissy-face when he is supposed to be investigating the suspicious disappearances of the locals at the hands of eldritch, nefarious creatures? Why was I subjected to a scene of the two friends as teenagers jacking off together at sunset under a pier? Where's Cthulhu??? I feel like I went to see "Brokeback Beach" instead of a chilling thrilling tale of the macabre. Who CARES if the guy is gay? I don't care! He can do what he wants on his own time! I just wanted to see scary stuff. Total monster screen time for this picture clocked in at about 30 seconds, unless you count Tori Spelling, then maybe you can bump it up to 15 minutes. Sigh...I don't know what these idiots were thinking. I won't even begin to relay the plot, because there wasn't one. I read a quote from the filmmakers that said they "didn't know anything about the horror genre and had no respect for it when they started this project." Well then, why did you make the film? Why choose Lovecraft to massacre?

I feel like I lost two hours of my life yesterday.

The Thing That Should Not Be

[roboto-arigato · 1/10 · 15 August 2008]

This is a terrible adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." The acting was weak, the direction was weak, and the original content has been butchered. I saw this movie at the Seattle International Film Festival, and that was the worst mistake I made all weekend. If you want to see a film based on "Shadow Over Innsmouth," Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" is mediocre, but it's certainly better than this botched attempt. If you want to see "Call of Cthulhu," the silent film adaptation is great. But this? This film is a waste of time. I suspect the people who are writing 10 out of 10 scores are either friends of the director or shills who worked on the film. There is no earthly way this film is a 10. It stinks like a rotten pile of fish.

Yet another NON-LOVECRAFT movie

[digitalshark · 1/10 · 20 September 2007]

I really wanted to like this, especially with the glut of direct to video adaptations of Lovecraft stories (Beyond the Wall of Sleep etc) that are essentially student project level non-movies. But this is yet another example of a film that heavily relies on Lovecraft and yet totally jettisons any real relation to the author or his works, much less the sensibility behind them. It owes more to The Shadow Over Innsmouth than anything, and unfortunately that world was already realized in far better (yet still in woefully inadequate) fashion in "Dagon." To someone who loves Lovecraft as much as I, it's rather insulting this film is called "Cthulhu." There are ideas the writer and director were far more interested in, such as the main character's confused sexuality, than anything written by Lovecraft. So, why not drop the illusion of being a Lovecraft adaptation, and simply make the film that was there without him, since little in this film relates much to his writing? Answer? Because if you use his name and the titles of his works you gain free publicity and legitimacy. You will also let down legions of HPL fans because once again someone has made a film that seems to think it's own very uninteresting and pedestrian ideas have any place mixed in with the cosmic horror of Lovecraft. And worse, viewers who don't know HPL will once again be left with the opinion that "Gee, I guess he wasn't that good a writer." And with this sad example, you can probably add "Was Lovecraft gay?" to those questions.

Disappointed

[SteveSeattle · 2/10 · 15 June 2007]

I was just at the "world premiere" of Cthulhu at the Seattle Int'l Film Festival tonight so this comment IS actually about the correct film. Someone connected to the film previously commented that some posts are not relevant or are about some other film - and gave a score of 10 while at it.

To be blunt: Cthulhu is not a good film. I had high hopes going in, as I do with all films shown at SIFF, but I was disappointed throughout and I know others were as well. From the mediocre-to-outright-horrible acting (except, ironically, for Tori Spelling who plays a sexy, baby-seeking blonde), to the lackluster script, to the 2 hour running time (note to director: you should be GLAD you were forced to reduce it to this length).... starting at the half-way point I could not wait for it to be over. Had the film been written and shot as a tongue-in-cheek comedic version of the story with intentional sarcasm, etc, it might have worked. But the combination of trying to make a serious film, plus the bad acting, makes Cthulhu not quite worth the celluloid it's printed on.

Kudos for Gildark for making ANY first film, especially because this one was made in my neck of the woods (and my neck of the woods needs more films made in it). But unfortunately it didn't work out - and Cthulhu likely doesn't have any chance of being commercially viable. If you're a Lovecraft fanatic you might have a different take altogether, but your numbers are probably too low to make much of a difference to help the film succeed. The rest of us just want/ed to be entertained by a good film. Will need to look elsewhere.

Cthulhu Indie - All in all, not that bad a movie

[hampus_granberg · 16 October 2011]

Cthulhu, one of the most revered of horrific thriller literature, originally created by H.P Lovecraft is a creation of dark and mysterious revelations of the terrible deep we know as the open sea. The most obscure of murky scenes pictures the world of Cthulhu with a burned lense towards a full moon, it's cloudy, dirty, foggy, and cold, both in mind and physical presence. A 60:s America taking place in the most inbred of local population, these societies deep beneath the surface of human culture transpires in parallel to what lurks on the bottom of the ocean, it's gritty and malevolent, with no guarantee to reality, psyche, life or death. What we see is chaos, through the vision of people who simply end up in the wrong ally at the wrong time, swept by the waves into the most sinister of maelstroms, sucking you deeper and deeper into madness, until the total epiphany of a psychosis takes one step forward, only to have your protagonist hang himself to one unresolved suicide, with scribbled notes of cultists and watching eyes of the Deep Ones.

This is Cthulhu, a world that never ceases to twist ones mind into a reality not recognizable from the first.

In truth, Cthulhu 2007 is NOT a bad movie, per se. The very spirit of H.P Lovecraft doesn't have that much of a grip, but rather leaves the experience to the watcher, but without explaining any of it. I see how it would be confusion to people unfamiliar with Cthulhu, but probably very unnerved by taking in that puzzling terror of unexplained phenomenon. To fans of Lovecraft, it's certainly a stretch with all the chants, cults, and Cthulhu, all regarded with a very slight read-up on what these books really had in mind, which to me as a small fan appears a bit weak.

However, from a more romanticized view, this movie creates a tale of describing nature, and actually captures the origin pretty good. The very thin love story has actually caught good interest, and renders decent quality, not with any unnecessary thwarts here and there, just plain and simple, and like the movie, it takes itself seriously. As for the horror, I was getting a bit impatient at first, but as it started I could really see this as inspiring. Again, it did not bare the same familiar being to the original, but it has it's own perspective, and in regard to storytelling and emotional value, it holds up very good.

All in all, this movie is not like the books, only with pieces it introduces fright, but it poses itself from a different angle, a more human modern way, and as it reflects upon the book, I'd say it's a good tribute to Lovecrafts work.

The actual best part of this experience is that it leaves me with that exact feeling I'd hoped for, NOTHING is explained, only that there's a cult, strange creatures, and the sea. It is, in it's own sense, a masterpiece.

The only real complaint is about the mythology. The connection gets pretty vague, as Cthulhu is sometimes pronounced wrong, the language of the deep ones could've had more ambitious work, and all in all, reading the books should've been a greater study to really execute the presentation of the movies source.

It could be looked upon as a different starting point within the same universe, or an inspirational version of it's forefather (more like their own version).

As a movie, and compared to Cthulhu, I can say I did enjoy it. It left me satisfied.

Worth watching

[BruddanChrist · 6/10 · 9 June 2009]

The acting is fair enough. There are moments when overacting and underacting bring scenes down, but nothing is ruined. I liked the editing, for the most part. There are times when it makes the story hard to follow, but overall it's well done. The cinematography is beautiful.

My only real gripe with the movie is that the plot is a bit thin. A lot of things happen that feel ultimately irrelevant, and other things happen without much explanation. The conflict gets lost in all the random happenings, which adds to the difficulty of following the story.

I'm not sure where all the hatred for this movie comes from. It wasn't a great film, but it certainly wasn't horrible. The story felt stretched and a bit convoluted, and the title is misleading since the movie has virtually nothing to do with Cthulhu, but I feel like I have to give props to the director for making the film he made. He easily could have made a weightless horror movie with cheap scares, but he attempted something a little meatier.

Total disappointment

[azraeliz · 3/10 · 10 April 2009]

When I heard about this movie last year I was very excited, maybe this time they would make a good Lovecraftian movie. I've been a fan Lovecraft for over 20 years now, and have read all of his stories and seen almost all the movies based upon his work. And as a general rule, those movies have been pretty bad, with 2 or three exceptions. But lets talk about this movie. It's based loosely upon on "Shadow over Innsmouth". the good things about the movie are the underlying dread and the nihilistic view upon current world affairs. The settings are good(a gay main character is an interesting twist) and the filmmakers manage to make the movie look creepy in few places

But...the bad things are too many to ignore. The acting is very bad, the main protagonist gets very annoying as the movie goes on. The editing makes film disjointed in places. The photography is like on a America funniest home video and the script is badly focused. After 40 minutes you cant wait for the film to end. And I must mention Jason Cottle wig/hairpiece at the beginning of the movie, it's atrociously bad and very funny to look at. I realize that the movie was made on tight budget and I respect the filmmakers for trying to make the best movie they could. I see the potential but they are not there yet.

For me this movie was a total disappointment, because i made the mistake of having high expectations for it.

A beyond decent first film

[helltopo-1 · 10/10 · 27 July 2007]

Seems opinions are very extreme when it comes to this film. And I also overheard conversations after the films showing at SIFF in which people said they'd have to think about the film before they offered an opinion on it.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be an indication of good art. If people are thinking about it, talking about it, even arguing about it, it's left a far greater impression than a film that mindlessly entertains. And I am of the opinion that "Cthulhu" provides both cerebral and visceral fun.

Yes, the film takes some liberties with Lovecraft's work. Yes, maybe the title "Cthulhu" is a tad non-sequitur in a film that's actually about Dagon. These are minor complaints at best. The film is extremely well-made, funny, and surprisingly scary in parts (underground tunnel, anyone?). Jason Cottle and Tori Spelling are great (you heard me right), as is the fellow who played Tori's wheelchair-bound husband. The script is engaging and, refreshingly, the politics of the "anti-Bush" agenda are subtle, and there only if you want them. The story is the thing here, and that's what Cogswell and Gildark focus on. "Cthulhu" is a fragile, volatile coming home story first, an apocalyptic horror tale second, and thirdly, a blackly humorous metaphor for the regime that's currently choking the life out of the world. The Grand "Old One" Party, indeed.

thoroughly enjoyable indy horror

[skunkfoot7 · 7/10 · 1 May 2011]

I thought this film was thoroughly enjoyable. The Camera work is spectacular, highlighting the picturesque and natural beauty of the Oregon coast. The main character is Gay, but there isn't a this is a film for gay people feel to it. There is a delightful American Gothic feel to the whole first half of the movie without a bunch of predictable crap and basic horror genre plot lines. The one thing that really sucks is NO Monster... At least a tentacle or something would have been appreciated. But I love the stories of Lovecraft, unfortunately judging from the horrible profits this movie made, I don't think there will be a sequel.

This film is actually painful to watch

[benoit-3 · 3/10 · 12 July 2009]

I'm middle-aged, gay and familiar with the Cthulhu mythos. The problem with this film is everything. It's technically lacking. Only the photography is decent, in an artsy-fartsy but lifeless blue-green two-strip Technicolor cliché-of-the-last-five-years kind of way. The sound mix is so atrocious, there are characters whose words you will never hear and the DVD doesn't come with subtitles so you can't speed-watch the really boring parts while still reading the words. In spite of this, I just had to fast-forward through the forced coupling with Tori Spelling. There is only so much I can take in the name of cinema. I have no problem with the main character being gay. But did he have to be a depressing and depressed highly-strung nellie whose only expression is a kind of impression of a terminally-menstruated Sigourney Weaver in "Alien 3" as rendered by Michael McDonald of "Mad TV"? It's hard enough to watch a film where the hero never manages a smile but must he also seem manic from too much caffeine or possibly crack and generally out of shape and unattractive? Hint to indie producers: Modern audiences generally prefer good-looking people. The editing makes a point of destroying your last chance of actually getting involved in the story and understanding what goes on from one scene to the next, uncomprehensible flashbacks and dream sequences included. The atmosphere is made all the more creepy by the fact that all the actors are extremely amateurish and undirected. Also, this film is not about Cthulhu at all but a failed adaptation of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Finally the gayest character in the whole lot is the hero's father, which is itself very troubling. I've only managed to muddle through 50 minutes of the 110 minutes of this film so far. It already seems like an eternity, in a non-Euclidian way. I don't know if I'll make it through... Wish me luck. If you don't hear from me again, please notify my next-of-kin - those that don't have scaly skin anyway. Thank you.

Watch something else.

[john-mcdowall · 1/10 · 7 June 2010]

This is really one of the most poorly made and written movies I have seen. The characterisations are weak and uninteresting, exposition is ham-fistedly thrown at you, conclusions bluntly presented and inconsistencies rife.

The director failed to make even the simple decision in how to pronounce 'Cthulhu' which has the effect of making the uninitiated think a new character is introduced.

The acting is weak, with the lead character switching between camp rage and comical bewilderment every other minute.

The 'horrors of a gay man in small town' allegory is completely misfired - unless gay men are often asked to seek out missing children and be raped by randy housewives.

HP Lovecraft seems to suffer from the eternal legacy of amateur fools attempting to make his works as Z-movies, of which 'Cthulhu' definitely falls into, and that is a shame as the original source material is so strong.

In summary, this is a terrible movie that has nothing in common with the original source material except for the lifting of certain names and places.

Weird, but never quite comes together.

[CorrinMcCool · 2/10 · 27 August 2008]

I really wanted to like this movie. I'm a big fan of the Cthulu mythos, and the preview actually looked pretty good.

Unfortunately, this is yet another disappointing release from HERE TV.

The frustrating thing is that the movie almost works. There are a lot of wonderfully creepy little details: the bizarre check out girl who passes the protagonist a warning note, the strange kids saying "I knew you'd be back", the crazy things being reported on the news.

Unfortunately, the film never really gels. I never felt scared, or even particularly interested in what was going to happen to the main character. About half way though the film, the plot breaks down almost completely and weird random events seem to take over everything.

The film was at least mildly interesting in a "what sort of weird stuff will they throw out next" sort of way, but never really worked as a story.

Cinematography varies from some very nice shots of the ocean to some very amateurish hand held stuff.

This movie is not what you think it is

[zachtole · 2/10 · 27 August 2009]

A true to life portrayal of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu mythology has rarely been seen over the past 40 or so years, especially installment with decent budgets. The few attempts to capture this level of pure insanity have all fallen far far short and this rendition is no saving grace. "Cthulhu" centers around and gay college professor returning home for his mothers funeral, only to discover that his once serene hometown is now the backbone of a malevolent cult, and that he himself, plays a key role in their nefarious machinations. I mention the fact the he is a gay man merely because this is what this movie is about. You heard me, "Cthulhu" is more about a mans struggle between family and his sexual orientation, than about cult worship and the resurrection of ancient deities. Imagine if Lord of the Rings was more about the strong homo-erotic undertones between Sam and Frodo, and less about complete salvation of their entire world. If you can picture that, then you have "Cthulhu"; pretty much all 100 minuets of it I would say. The fact that he is gay does play into the overall storyline, but is overly focused upon, thus resulting in a incoherent story plagued throughout with poorly ad-libbed dialog and plot progression. The story involves several intense moments of emotion and terror, but poor writing and performance by the actors leaves these scenes lifeless and disorienting. One scene literally starts with a discussion about monsters and cult worship, and abruptly ends with argument about a severe lack of jelly on his PB&J. Its OK to feel like you need to read that last sentence again. One could argue that these moments are intentionally puzzling, as to capture the sense of insanity that The Cthulhu Mythos is most know for. Sorry guys not buying it. The direction choices are neither clever nor a foundation of the film fundamentals, what ever they may be, but rather a way of filling space between love scenes and ultimately dumbing down the entire film. However, beautiful imagery and a sparse, but superbly conducted soundtrack make for a stunning viewing experience. Unique and creative camera work establish the drama in more ways than the actors themselves, but a sever lack of music during several key points of the film does little to keep audience's attention during dialog heavy scenes. Anyone interested in a career behind a camera should invest the time into this film for its great camera direction, which though stylish and well refined, is not enough to save this film in its entirety. From the start of the film, audiences are left just far enough out of the story loop to leave you guessing. Guessing what? Perhaps whats going on? Perhaps why are some of the actors incredibly loud all the time, while others can barely be heard? Perhaps why am I still watching this movie? Perhaps the eeriness of devout hordes of ancient demon worshipers is a task that can only be handled by big budget studios and a top list cast. Or, maybe, you just need someone out there who actually wants to make a movie about the Cthulhu Mythos, and not just stick a big "Cthulu was here" sticker on a homosexual love story. If your going to make a movie about Cthulhu, make it about Cthulhu. Life, please don't send me deceitful crap like this again.

A Terrible Waste of Two Hours

[herrderpinge · 1/10 · 9 November 2010]

If you're looking for extremely bad acting and a long-winded introduction to the political views and sexuality of the director, this is your film! If on the other hand your intention is to watch a good horror film, try something else.

Don't believe any of the positive reviews here. They were most certainly written by people connected to this miserable production.

That's all I have to say about the movie, but this is my first review, and I didn't realize that one is required to write at least 10 lines! That seems sort of silly considering the fact that we're constantly being inundated with meaningless verbiage. Nice to know that this sort of nonsense is being "enforced by Law"...

I personally prefer the "Brevity is the soul of wit"-philosophy, but who cares, right?

Smell like a rotten fish

[mhamill · 2/10 · 26 April 2009]

Word among my wife's circle of friends was that the 2007 movie Cthulhu was wretchedly bad. If you are bad movie fanatics like we are, this was reason to place the movie on our Netflix queue. No question about it, Cthulhu is a stinker of a movie. However, it languishes somewhere between mediocre and abysmal. I have seen much worse than this, but certainly not recently.

Perhaps I would rate this clunker lower if it were not that some of the actors actually seem to be trying. Jason Cottle plays Russ, a reputedly brilliant university professor in the Pacific Northwest who is reluctantly drawn home because of the untimely passing of his mother. That and there is the small matter that Armageddon is at hand. While we see him driving home to the funeral, we hear on the radio all these terrible things about the end of the world, like rising sea levels and global anarchy. Not much of it is actually borne out on film though because that would, like, cost money, although the budget was big enough to include one overturned car.

Russ turns out to be gay, which is fine by him, but not so fine with his weird dysfunctional family. Russ's domineering father is particularly unhappy with his sexual orientation but as we learn later it is not because he is particularly homophobic. Nor does he seem particularly broken up by the passing of his spouse. Russ's sister Dannie (Cara Buono) tries to play family peacemaker, but everyone at the old homestead seems very concerned about Russ passing on his DNA to another generation. That's pretty hard when the idea of making love to a woman gives you the hives.

Russ does find himself rather curious when one evening he sees a row of hooded priests, looking like they came out of The Da Vinci Code, climbing out of boats and into an old warehouse along the wharf. Curiosity leads him inside where he finds outlined on chalk on the floor the names of many of the townspeople. What could it possibly mean other than they were being cheap? Should we care? For someone who seems to want to rush back to academia he seems to ask many questions and spends inordinate amounts of time in and under creepy warehouses. Part of his motivation for hanging around is to catch up with an old family friend, whom he conveniently seduces. Through his friend, he learns about a mysterious book that could explain all the weird things going on in town. A clerk at a convenience store warns him to stay away from the old warehouse by the wharf. However, if he is crazy enough to investigate the place would be please look for her younger brother who disappeared some years earlier? It turns out what Russ really has to worry about is Tori Spelling. Tori plays Susan, the friend who allegedly harbors the old book that explains the weird things Russ is witnessing. Tori's presence in a movie is almost an imprimatur of its badness. She is sort of like Adrienne Barbeau's was in movies a few decades back, and she comes with Barbeau's ample cleavage. Susan has a husband who is conveniently paraplegic and sterile. In fact, his visit is a setup because Susan is on a mission to become impregnated. Of course not just anyone will do, as we learn later. It's got to be Russ.

So Susan plays the role of hussy. This one seduction scene is very strange and is perhaps the comic highlight of this lowlife movie, rendering what is probably the silliest scene filmed in the last decade. Fortunately for bad movie buffs, there is plenty more here to wallow over. The movie is tangentially related to H.P. Lovecraft's horror stories wherein Cthulhu apparently is a pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings. No such critter is manifested here of course, as there was no budget for that, but there is a sort of Swamp Thing scene at the very end of the movie. Russ's father and his kind live near an island off Antarctica and spend most of their long lives in the ocean. They apparently manifest as humans from time to time, and use human females to procreate. Yeah, this is pretty convoluted but it explains why Susan is putting the moves on a gay guy.

The movie suffers from the classic symptoms of a bad movie: no budget to speak of, mostly unknown actors, an incoherent script, dialog that doesn't make much sense and a director (Dan Gildark) what doesn't give much of a damn. What's puzzling is that in spite of these problems some of the actors are trying to do something with the material. It is all for naught but perhaps it somewhat immunized them from having careers completely destroyed. Every actor is entitled to at least one clunker. Unfortunately, this one sinks like dead weight.

Cthulhu then comes across as something like a Coen Brothers movie if the brothers were drunk while making the film. It is undeniably an odd little movie. Do not spend too much time trying to connect the plot points because you really cannot. Marvel instead that even though this is a really bad movie, it could still be plenty worse.

If you like an occasional bad movie though, this is definitely one to add to your list.

A wonderfully ambiguous film.

[icedtea49 · 7/10 · 23 October 2021]

This movie has great practical effects and CG when needed for all it's flaws. A beautiful piece of gay art. The message, the setting, and the tension of the time all speak very clearly to me; making this movie stand out for it's crisp and horrifying world.

Unspeakable failure

[killerqueen-1 · 3/10 · 24 October 2010]

I did not have very high hopes about this movie. That was good. When I first saw the trailer I thought "Oh, for a private production by a bunch of college guys this isn't half bad" and then I found out that this was not the case. It was an actual production, a "real" movie. Oh hell.

The worst thing about this movie wasn't the sometimes really bad acting, not the tendency to always follow the rule "when not knowing what to do with the story, throw in a weird montage" or even the lack of an actual plot line. The worst thing was that in some scenes it got your hopes up. It was like "Oh, oh, here they can save it! They can make it all better! Just let them make this into... no. Not this time either." It was a never ending anti-climax.

And yes, the ending is yet another case of that sickness. They could have saved it a little there. They could have blackened out the last scene and then showed us just a silhouette way out in the ocean. Something that would make us understand that He is coming. That this really is the end. Instead they just goes "Let's finish this off quickly and disturbingly, come on!" This movie never ever demand any sanity rolls whatsoever, so you RPG fans can just forget to bring your D100 along.

Wonderfully bizarre

[kubrick779 · 8/10 · 23 July 2007]

Of the half-dozen films I saw at this year's tepid Seattle Int'l Film Festival, the only ones that have really stayed with me since are 'Outsourced' and this, a local-spun sci-fi/satire/horror hybrid that might have been the festival's most bizarre -- and yet wholly charming -- entry. Judging by what I've read here, reaction is divisive (makes sense: I went with three other people to the encore screening, two of them loved it, one of them, not so much). Afterward I overheard a couple scratching their heads in the theater lobby, wondering how, exactly, one could classify what they just saw.

Which is what, I think, has stuck with me. It doesn't take off until the second act, really -- when Tori Spelling (who actually steals her scenes in a supporting role) shows up on screen, oddly enough, things start to get good. One scene near the middle at Tori's house is reminiscent of something like David Lynch at his funniest, and weirdest. The lead actor (Jason Coddle, who is in, I believe, every single scene) gives a wonderfully paranoid, intense performance. It was made on a shoestring budget, so we get rookie season, but what finally won me over in the end was the sinister mood the film builds, and sustains. Sinister is the word, more than scary, but if you've ever been to a small town in the middle of nowhere before and wondered what unspeakable evil lurks beneath those post offices and general stores, you'll at least be along for the ride.

I'd recommend it. It's fun and it's different. More movies like this should be at the multiplexes and on the shelves.

Not as bad as they say!!

[ericalinardy · 6/10 · 9 February 2013]

If you think of this as a SyFy movie of the week, then you are entering into it in the right state of mind. I would not call it cheesy, but it has that low budget feel. The script and dialog could be better, along with some of the acting. It is VERY loosely based in the Lovecraft mythos, but does hit some of the basics. Tori Spelling is mediocre in this role, however she does pull off some of her scenes rather well in the middle of the movie. I have to say her acting at the end of the movie was very over- acted and almost laughable. Luckily, she is not the lead in this movie and the lead did a fairly good job(not great, but decent). If you are looking for strict adherence to the mythos or style of Lovecraft this movie is not for you, but if you like B movies you are surely going to enjoy this movie. This move felt like a fan fiction with higher quality production than usually seen, but that is part of the charm in my opinion.

Terrible!

[tberry19 · 1/10 · 9 February 2014]

This has got to be the worst film adaptation i have ever seen. After reading H. P. Lovecrafts "The call of Cthulhu" i got so excited thinking that this was going to actually follow that story. Within the first 15 minutes of the film i was slightly optimistic that it would put aside all of its rubbish and actually improve, but no. What i was then shown were scenes of a man being drugged and raped by a red neck hick who wanted a baby by any means necessary, man on man sex scenes and arguments about a man being gay.

The story has just been ruined. Anyone unfamiliar with the original story would have no idea how fantastic it was because, despite the film having a great concept they could have based it off, they just stole characters and perverted it.

How much irrelevance, swearing and sex scenes are the audience supposed to sit through?!

Interesting take on the Mythos from a filmmaker apparently unfamiliar with it.

[uke2se-1 · 3/10 · 20 April 2009]

It is a sad thing that Lovecraft's writing style lends itself so well to camp and B-flicks and so poorly to artful and complex movies. At least, that is if you are to analyze the movies based on the Mythos. There are very few movies based on Lovecraft's work that surpasses your average B horror movie, and in this case, even though the movie itself looks and feels nothing like a B horror movie, it actually suffers more from it.

We are introduced to Professor Russ Marsh, a homosexual. Basically, that's all we ever learn of him, and it's a bit confusing that his sexual orientation takes up so much screen time. Him being gay does tie in with the story, but not to such an extent that the film makers should be forced to remind us of his orientation every five minutes, which is the case in this movie. At the very beginning of the film, the homosexuality bit feels almost a bit fresh for a Lovecraft film, however.

Over all, the intro to the movie is very moody and beautifully filmed. The car crash is not really much of a surprise, but it helps set a good atmosphere.

Everything falls apart once Russ reaches his home town in Rivermouth (Innsmouth?) county. Russ's father - who appear to be about five years older than Russ - is the leader of some odd cult, and also a horrible actor. He chastises Russ for being gay throughout the movie, and, despite the horrible acting, we are treated to a few nice scenes of a dysfunctional family. The bad acting seems to be the hallmark of Rivermouth county, and with the exception of Russ's childhood friend and soon-to-be lover Mike, the cast's performance ranges from mediocre to dismal.

Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Insmouth is picked apart and shuffled freely as the plot unfolds, and it seemed to me that all the good parts from the story were missing. The Shadow Over Insmouth had several set pieces that have been included in previous adaptations, so I can forgive the screenwriter for not including them, but the bits that are there are so few and far between that you never feel the presence of the Mythos, and you certainly don't feel that you're watching a film based off of a Lovecraft story.

Connecting global calamities like the melting of the polar caps and the war in the Middle East to the Cthulhu Mythos is a nice touch, but it is never delved into, and feels almost like the movie taking a five minute break while bombarding us with stock footage. Not resolving anything is very Lovecraftian, but this movie doesn't even attempt to create any plot or problems not to resolve. Over all, it feels really empty.

The biggest complaint that I have now and that I had when I first heard that this movie was being made, is that the film makers don't really seem interested in the subject matter. The nods to the Cthulhu Mythos in the movie seem stapled on more than anything, and it is quite obvious that no one involved in making the movie had any concept of the Mythos.

I suppose that in order to be able to watch any decent Mythos movies I need to keep turning to the HP Lovecraft Historical Society. They may not have any budget, but they have heart and a deep rooted understanding of the source material. I'd recommend watching The Call of Cthulhu by Andrew Leman and the HPLHS any day over this loose adaptation.