The Whisperer in Darkness

source: The Whisperer in Darkness

First you need to know that they made this film to look like it was made in the 30's or so... even credits, music, etc. Also, if you put budget in perspective the Effects and the Acting is very good. Some complain of over-acting... but in the 30's they all over-acted... if you seen one, or just a little bit of an old movie you will know... OK, now the story: I thought it would be impossible to make an adaptation to Whisperer in Darkess, one of my favorite HPL... I was wrong... This movie gets very good the intention, but lacks something I don't know what... Maybe the dialog by letters was better and kept me on the edge of my seat... but the movie don't have it, it is like the movie starts after they exchanged letters and all... Also, I think in the HPL story they don't tell much what the aliens are doing or purpose... in this movie it is very well explained. The ending run away too far from original, could be a car instead of a plane... would be more realistic. But I liked, in a way this ending is more "lovecraft" than the original story... The only way it could be better was if they could get the "mood", the creepy atmosphere from description in the letters of the places, situations and all... (the only way I know to do it is by flashbacks, that would get too boring after the second letter and would have the fate of "The Resurrected" movie has.) In the end I give it 9, can't get any better for the budget and I dislike the little girl part...

When I was 10 to 14, I stayed up as late as my mother let me to watch "Friday Night Creature Features." I began doing this during the summer after my father died. I guess I found some sort of solace in these films where nasty things happened to good people. I projected myself onto the characters and I projected my father (who died of oral tongue cancer) onto the creatures as well. I loved "The Wolfman" and "The Mummy." I liked some Frankenstein films and others like "The Thing" and "The Creature from the Black Lagoon." They were not monsters, until the world took them from where they should have been and put them where the should not have been. This movie took me back to those days, in a good way, and provided me with a hint of the catharsis I was looking for when I was young.

Lovecraft might not have been the best of writers, but he had a great influence on others and perhaps his greatest legacy was the invention of the Cthulu mythos that inspired and was inspired by such writers as Robert E. Howard, the writer of Conan the barbarian and Clark Ashton Smith, whom I prefer. His legacy was mostly the work of one August Derleth, who created the Arkham House publishing company with the intention to preserve and popularize Lovecraft's work, which he achieved as far as I can be a judge. I have read a fair amount of Lovecraft's work or tried to, as especially his longer works are a bore to read. The one that I still recall with a certain fondness is The case of Charles Dexter Ward. Whose namesake appears in the movie, just like others from other stories appear in the movie I personally think it is one of his best stories. The whisperer in the darkness I did not read, but the summary can be found on wikipedia. The movie takes liberty with the original story, probably because there isn't enough in the tale for a whole movie. Unfortunately this means that the movie has some unlovecraftian aspects, one of which is showing the monsters for a fair amount of screen time and another is showing a certain death(can't say which one because it might be considered spoiler). Two things you never see in a Lovecraft tale. But even from a movie making standpoint it would have been better if they hadn't shown both. It felt misplaced. Overall the story keeps in pace with the Lovecraftian mood although you feel that it lacks the budget. For instance, in once scene they needed a train to arrive and you can clearly see that it is a modern locomotive, even though they blurred it to hide that fact. And this made me wonder why they went through all the trouble to place the story in the thirties instead of keeping it in the modern day, like Lovecraft would have done. It seems nice that they tried, but there isn't really a reason. The movie shows a lot of talking, but it keeps the story going forward and there are some really nice shots that give a sense of weirdness that the should have used more often. One is where the camera looks down from the stair onto the professor while you hear nothing but the tic tic of a big clock. The trick that the professor uses to save the world is a neat one. How to save the world without firing a bullet. Pity is though: there is a big plot hole in the story.If you want to find it. Just have a look at the movie.. Nice effort.

"The Call of Cthulhu" by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society was an absolutely sublime film. Making it a black-and-white silent film to appear as though it were made in the '20s-'30s was a stroke of genius, and the film stays very close to the source material without being boring. So when it was announced that they were doing a follow-up film, adapting Lovecraft "The Whisperer in Darkness," I was beside myself with joy to the point of being giddy. Unfortunately, "The Whisperer in Darkness" fails to live up to the high water mark left by "The Call of Cthulhu." Instead of a silent film, this one is done more in the style of a '50s black-and-white horror film. While I don't take issue with the style they chose, they still make some very odd choices that left me feeling a little cold and at times saying, "Huh?" So, where does the problem arise? I started to wonder if I remembered the original story correctly. Then realized that I had. They not only make adjustments to the story, but treat the story as only acts one and two, creating a completely original third act. While I understand the adaptation aspect of movies and am more tolerant than many seem to be because I understand that a direct one-to-one translation of most literary works to the screen would, well, suck, the change in tone in the third act is enough to give the audience whiplash. The final act goes straight into traditional horror and action that seems like something more out of the Call of Cthulhu RPG as opposed to the slow-burning weird fiction of the unknowable that Lovecraft is most well known for. This leaves us with one of the most inconsistent movies I've seen in recent memory. The tonal change is so drastic that it's clear the different parts of the film were written in two completely disparate time periods. As such, this film is kind of a let down after "The Call of Cthulhu." I strongly recommend seeing that one over "The Whisperer in Darkness" and only recommend this one for hardcore Lovecraft fans.

This movie is very good. The atmosphere of dreadness keeps rising throughout the movie, acting is coherent with the chosen aesthetics, the movie flows very nicely and adaptation of the story is interesting and builds up good suspense. It is well done. OK, I just felt like writing this because of those unfair reviews trying to nitpick and don't doing justice to the work and love put on this movie. They seem to judge this movie like it was a big budget modern Hollywood movie. The same goes to the comments about "The Call of Cthulhu" (2005). Both movies are successful attempts to make adaptations as they would be made when Lovecraft was alive just adjusting their pace to modern audiences.

Glad to see so many positive reviews, all of which I agree with. Well acted, well-crafted and should be a staple in film school of how to make a movie. As a Lovecraft devotee, the only point I'd emphasis is that this is the only adaptation, except for Dunwich Horror (1970), that works. Lovecraft's stories speak to the darkest midnight of the imagination and trying to translate that midnight to film is virtually impossible; many movies have tried with few successes. Dunwich succeeded by weaving that midnight into a far more conventional story of innocence, power and lust (Sandra Dee's tour de force with strong assists by Ed Begley and Dean Stockwell) and Whisper does the same within an homage to both Noir and '30s SciFi and Horror films. It works beautifully, even the dangerously hokey finale with its potentially disastrous revelation of ritual, monsters, frantic flight and circular denouement. A little beauty hopefully destined to be a cult classic. 5-22-14 P.S. Just saw The Haunted Palace again on TCM - a favorite from my early adolescence and one of the best of American International's horror movies. Vincent Price was flawless. Mention it because it has a lot references to Lovecraft, from the name, Charles Dexter Ward, to the deformations of the locals. And, like Dunwich, it does have a brief scene (the opening) of a semi-clad maiden about to be inseminated by an Old One (or spawn thereof). Not quite as erotic as Sandra Dee's Tour-de-Force but getting there. Despite those references, Palace is not a Lovecraft movie. It's a well-made AI horror movie using the Lovecraft allusions to add depth but not to drive the plot, which centers on Price's character, Joseph Curwen, being possessed by an ancestor named C. D. Ward (who bears no resemblance to Lovecraft's character). Point being that, while it is a very successful horror movie, it isn't a treatment of any of Lovecraft's stories or characters. Its success as a horror movie does not equate to success as a Lovecraft-inspired horror movie.

As with many Lovecraft fans, I feel that his work is a creative goldmine just waiting for the right film treatment. I've seen pretty much every film even vaguely adapted from his stories, and though most are ultimately forgettable, a few—such as Dagon and Cthulhu—have been watchable. Then comes along this one... As it got going, I found myself in awe of the quality. For a low-budget film, the production, cinematography, acting, sound, and script were all top-notch. I thought to myself, "FINALLY someone has made a good Lovecraft adaptation!" Unfortunately, this amazement did not make it to the end of the film. When we are first introduced to the Mi-Go (the monsters of the story), we are teased with shadows and fleeting glimpses, which are enough to send a chill up your spine. However, in the final act of the film, they decide to go ahead and reveal the creatures in all their CGI glory... though I honestly wish they hadn't. I get that independent filmmakers can't afford the sorts of FX that studio films can, but that just makes me wonder, why put them in at all? The film was perfectly creepy without it, and as soon as I saw the cheap CGI, I was taken completely out of the film. It wasn't just one scene either, but the entire ending. I could have cried. Had this film stuck to the "less is more" techniques it began with, I would easily have given it 10/10, but sadly, the cheap CGI tainted its perfection.

It is so hard to find a good Lovecraft movie. But this one is excellent. It does not rely on cheap jump scares or the like. It builds up a creepy atmosphere that scares you by suggesting the unimaginable otherworldly. Just like Lovecraft, it presents a vision of superior forces beyond the control of humanity. The acting is great and the screenplay is very fluid. The set design is amazing as well. Sadly, the digital effects are rather noticeable and cheap. Especially on the creatures. I would have really liked to see some good old stop motion, especially on a film that looks so eerily like an old 30s or 40s horror movie.

I'm partly cheating here, as i'm writing the first part of my review before seeing the film - but bare with me; One of the reviewers of this film is Sandy Petersen, one of my idols and creator of, amongst other things, the famous Call of Cthulhu RPG, and he gave the film 10*. I would be most severely disappointed if this were a bogus rating, and to my defence i can say i have watched just about every Lovecraft-inspired film and short film out there and sadly, i have to say they are all mostly rubbish, except for the classic "From Beyond", and the rather good Cthulhu (2007), if you ignore the ratings. Anyway, i'm off to see the film, will let you know how it works out. Right! I'm back from the film and i was pleasantly surprised. The Whispered in Darkness is a *very* faithful adaptation of Lovecraft's novel of the same name - perhaps too faithful, even. The film itself is apparently a low-budget, amateur's production, but the results are much better than the (pretty bad) 2005 Call of Cthulhu silent film, made by what i assume is the same bunch of guys - the Lovecraft Historical Society; it's shot in black and white, of course, but the acting is much better and easily on par with Hollywood's less- than-stellar performances, sure they don't have Seymour Phillip Hoffman, but it's not Cop Out either. As for the production values, more would have been better (especially the flight sequence, but hey), but one can hardly complain since it seems that Hollywood wouldn't touch a Lovecraft story with a ten foot pole. Now, for the script; it's good, it is - after all, it's a great Howard P. Lovecraft story - but this might be its undoing; while i really liked 2007's Cthulhu, as it was more "loosely" based on and it was really just profoundly inspired by HPL's story, tWiD is too close to the story which we have all read before. And of course nobody but a HPL fan is going to watch this, nor i believe will it get any airplay. Don't get me wrong, i enjoyed this film, but i think that "inspired by" is more appropriate than "straight out copied from" since the target audience already knows everything HPL has ever written, by hearth. Also, on a final note, i like to say that i'v always felt HPL stories just don't translate well into film, or for that matter into any social setting; they are great books, but to be enjoyed alone. Even Sandy Petersen's great CoC RPG was a great read, but when played with friends, it hardly ever gave the same spine-chilling thrills. Sorry to break it to the folks at the HPLHS. Maybe perhaps, it's time to bring to the screen some of Derleth's stories. Anyway, my final vote : 6/10 - you'd be really dumb to miss this. (add up to 2 points if you like HPL)