Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Whisperer in Darkness DVD
34 views
Skip to first unread message
icarp...@aol.com
Dec 20, 2011, 9:33:59 AM12/20/11
to
I just got my copy last night, watched the movie and was blown away.
High quality Lovecraftian movies are in short supply. Most of us agree
that The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian
movie. Straight up adaptations of HPL are even rarer. Not surprising,
as most of HPL's works are rather wordy and cerebral, with little in
the way of action or human interaction to hold interest on the screen,
and all those unfortunately indescribable creatures. Previously, with
The Call of Cthulhu, The HP Lovecraft Historical Society showed that
this is an art best left to those who are true fans of these stories
(I include Mr. del Toro and regret the shelving of At the Mountains of
Madness as much as anyone). Well now the bar has been set even higher.
The Whisperer in Darkness is by any account a resounding triumph. I
would even say it deserves a nod at the Oscars for adapted screenplay,
although that will never happen. A larger studio may have had a bigger
budget or marquee stars, but there is no way anyone could have made a
better film.
Of course this movie is an *adaptation* so it is not exactly the same
as the novella/short story on which it was based. I think the changes
and compromises wrought by the screen play authors Sean Branney and
Andrew Leman do a superb job of conveying the Lovecraftian cosmicism
and the important aspects of the story, while allowing the film to
work as a piece of cinema. They added some human interest, by
introducing a young girl, the daughter of one of Akeley's neighbors,
and also gave the work some thrilling action sequences.
The creature effects by Jason Shulman, Chris Peterson and Jon Gourley
merit special praise. On a shoestring budget they developed Mi-Go that
and terrible to look at and fascinating to watch. Wisely the director
does not tip his hand by revealing the Mi-Go too soon. The use of
black and white photography allows for lighting and cinematography
with a period feel. Atmospheric music by Troy Sterling Nies
marvelously enhances the tension.
I think all of the performers were wonderful.Too bad Matt Foyer won't
receive any special awards for his incredible and believable
performance as Wilmarth. I think child actress Autumn Wendell as
Hannah deserves particular kudos, as does Caspar Marsh as Hannah's
father and Andrew Leman as Charles Fort (in fact the entire sequence
in Arkham had me shaking my head in appreciation for the talents of
the entire cast and crew).
I have read HPL's story countless times and yet I was absorbed from
the opening sequence to the ending credits. I think anyone who loves
thoughtful horror or science fiction could find much to appreciate
here, even those who are unfamiliar with Lovecraft or who have never
heard of HPL's story.
As I said, this is a resounding triumph, an achievement for the ages.
All of us are in debt to the HPLHS. I cannot wait to see what they do
next. I only regret there was no widespread distribution on the big
screen. Maybe this can gets run on an adventurous cable channel to
give it the exposure it so rich deserves. Bravo to all.
Matt
High quality Lovecraftian movies are in short supply. Most of us agree
that The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian
movie. Straight up adaptations of HPL are even rarer. Not surprising,
as most of HPL's works are rather wordy and cerebral, with little in
the way of action or human interaction to hold interest on the screen,
and all those unfortunately indescribable creatures. Previously, with
The Call of Cthulhu, The HP Lovecraft Historical Society showed that
this is an art best left to those who are true fans of these stories
(I include Mr. del Toro and regret the shelving of At the Mountains of
Madness as much as anyone). Well now the bar has been set even higher.
The Whisperer in Darkness is by any account a resounding triumph. I
would even say it deserves a nod at the Oscars for adapted screenplay,
although that will never happen. A larger studio may have had a bigger
budget or marquee stars, but there is no way anyone could have made a
better film.
Of course this movie is an *adaptation* so it is not exactly the same
as the novella/short story on which it was based. I think the changes
and compromises wrought by the screen play authors Sean Branney and
Andrew Leman do a superb job of conveying the Lovecraftian cosmicism
and the important aspects of the story, while allowing the film to
work as a piece of cinema. They added some human interest, by
introducing a young girl, the daughter of one of Akeley's neighbors,
and also gave the work some thrilling action sequences.
The creature effects by Jason Shulman, Chris Peterson and Jon Gourley
merit special praise. On a shoestring budget they developed Mi-Go that
and terrible to look at and fascinating to watch. Wisely the director
does not tip his hand by revealing the Mi-Go too soon. The use of
black and white photography allows for lighting and cinematography
with a period feel. Atmospheric music by Troy Sterling Nies
marvelously enhances the tension.
I think all of the performers were wonderful.Too bad Matt Foyer won't
receive any special awards for his incredible and believable
performance as Wilmarth. I think child actress Autumn Wendell as
Hannah deserves particular kudos, as does Caspar Marsh as Hannah's
father and Andrew Leman as Charles Fort (in fact the entire sequence
in Arkham had me shaking my head in appreciation for the talents of
the entire cast and crew).
I have read HPL's story countless times and yet I was absorbed from
the opening sequence to the ending credits. I think anyone who loves
thoughtful horror or science fiction could find much to appreciate
here, even those who are unfamiliar with Lovecraft or who have never
heard of HPL's story.
As I said, this is a resounding triumph, an achievement for the ages.
All of us are in debt to the HPLHS. I cannot wait to see what they do
next. I only regret there was no widespread distribution on the big
screen. Maybe this can gets run on an adventurous cable channel to
give it the exposure it so rich deserves. Bravo to all.
Matt
Ramsey Campbell
Dec 20, 2011, 10:16:04 AM12/20/11
to
On Dec 20, 2:33 pm, "icarpen...@aol.com" <icarpen...@aol.com> wrote:
> I just got my copy last night, watched the movie and was blown away.
>
> High quality Lovecraftian movies are in short supply. Most of us agree
> that The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian
> movie.
> Matt
> I just got my copy last night, watched the movie and was blown away.
>
> High quality Lovecraftian movies are in short supply. Most of us agree
> that The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian
> movie.
THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT for me!
icarp...@aol.com
Dec 21, 2011, 1:52:10 PM12/21/11
to
On Dec 20, 9:16 am, Ramsey Campbell <ramseycampbel...@gmail.com>
wrote:
...by most of us, of course I meant me! I will agree with The Blair
Witch Project, and also the original The Wicker Man with Chrstopher
Lee from 1973 and the original 1979 Alien movie.
I now have a copy of Die Farbe and will watch it the next day or so
Matt
wrote:
Witch Project, and also the original The Wicker Man with Chrstopher
Lee from 1973 and the original 1979 Alien movie.
I now have a copy of Die Farbe and will watch it the next day or so
Matt
avid fan
Dec 22, 2011, 1:48:43 AM12/22/11
to
On 21/12/11 01:33, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
> The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian movie ??????
I think it is a bit of stretch.
Does not look like I will get my order before Xmas.
> The Thing by John Carpenter is the best overall Lovecraftian movie ??????
I think it is a bit of stretch.
Does not look like I will get my order before Xmas.
avid fan
Dec 26, 2011, 9:42:23 AM12/26/11
to
On 21/12/11 01:33, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
> I think all of the performers were wonderful.Too bad Matt Foyer won't
> receive any special awards for his incredible and believable
> performance as Wilmarth
My copy has not arrived yet. I am sure it will during the next week.
> receive any special awards for his incredible and believable
> performance as Wilmarth
Yes I am kind of disappointed that I did not get it for Xmas, but I hope
this means that HPLS have done well from this film. Which means more
films. I had never read this story or even heard about it.
It is one of Lovecraft's best works.
Didn't they strike the jackpot when they cast Matt Foyer in that role?
I am only going by the trailers, but Matt Foyer says more with one
facial expression than a hundred lines of dialogue.
What about Die Farbe? What did you think? You said you were going to
write a review. It is just like the colour to me. I can't get away
from it. I watched it, I liked it and a put it away. Then it was like
an itch, I had to see it again.
The opening sequence is bizarre and disturbing. But what did they do?
It gets to you but how did they do it?
At first when they are playing Americans who just happen to have German
accents and the opening scenes were over exposed. I thought oh dear.
Once the film gets going there is something different about it. There
is some thing about the framing and the sounds and the tension and the
acting, and the music that just pulls you in.
I keep playing the damn thing. I must have seen it twenty times. It
gets to you.
avid fan
Dec 29, 2011, 9:23:22 AM12/29/11
to
On 21/12/11 01:33, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
> I just got my copy last night, watched the movie and was blown away.
>
Got my copy today
>
Hey Matt why did Boyce kill B67?
I mean he was not in a position to do anything about it.
Great ending huh?
icarp...@aol.com
Dec 29, 2011, 9:56:00 AM12/29/11
to
> Hey Matt why did Boyce kill B67?
I think it was just callous cruelty, used as a plot device to help
reveal to Wilmarth that the Mi-Go were lying.
> Great ending huh?
I know they tampered with the story, but they were making a movie, and
it had to work as a movie first and foremost. HPL never did dialogue
very well or human interest, so when they added the character of
Hannah, and the great action sequences, it worked for me because it
worked as cinema.
The ending actually caught me off guard but sure did add to my
enjoyment of the whole film.
Is it too much to ask for their next movie to be The Shadow Over
innsmouth?
Matt
avid fan
Dec 30, 2011, 6:19:51 AM12/30/11
to
On 30/12/11 01:56, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
>> Hey Matt why did Boyce kill B67?
>
> I think it was just callous cruelty, used as a plot device to help
> reveal to Wilmarth that the Mi-Go were lying.
But they did not end up taking over the world as all the the characters
>> Hey Matt why did Boyce kill B67?
>
> I think it was just callous cruelty, used as a plot device to help
> reveal to Wilmarth that the Mi-Go were lying.
were convinced that the tunnel was set up for.
Even Akeley they were keeping his body alive the only logical reason
would be that they would be able put his body back to together at some
stage.
The Humans were the evil ones.
>
>> Great ending huh?
>
> I know they tampered with the story, but they were making a movie, and
> it had to work as a movie first and foremost. HPL never did dialogue
> very well or human interest, so when they added the character of
> Hannah, and the great action sequences, it worked for me because it
> worked as cinema.
>
> The ending actually caught me off guard but sure did add to my
> enjoyment of the whole film.
It does not have a theatrical ending. Wilmarth finds the Mi Go are
real and he leaves.
>
> Is it too much to ask for their next movie to be The Shadow Over
> innsmouth?
>
That story has got a great theatrical ending. The only thing is that
> Is it too much to ask for their next movie to be The Shadow Over
> innsmouth?
>
it has already been done pretty well with the movie Dagon.
I would like the Horror at Red Hook, That has never been done properly.
blackw...@gmail.com
Jan 13, 2012, 10:17:44 AM1/13/12
to
Given a VERY tightly fixed budget that leaves very little in the way of spending money, there are very few films that I will purchase when they are released. For most films, I will either see if I can borrow a copy off of a friend to see, wait until it is broadcast over the television, eventually buy a copy or some similar means. The exceptions I usually make are related to my favorite authors or a favorite work - if an adaptation of one of their works is released I try desperately to secure a copy. Inevitably, there are times my enthusiasm leaves me disappointed. The film producers decided to add-on another hours worth of plot and action and even to introduce female characters not in the original story (I guess they are striving to impress Stuart Gordon).I love the story, although I will admit it always felt like Lovecraft's typewriter ran out of ink and he simply quit writing. Still, source material is source material, and you SHOULD stay true to it. If you are going to elaborate and add several more chapters to the story, do not use the original name. Part of my love for their first feature-film (THE CALL OF CTHULHU) is just that - they stayed true to the source-material. Don't get me wrong - the acting is fine, the look of the film is definitely of that period...... But if you are wanting "pure Lovecraft", you should go elsewhere.
icarp...@aol.com
Jan 14, 2012, 6:58:31 AM1/14/12
to
On Jan 13, 9:17 am, "blackwingb...@gmail.com"
experience (and I say this as a devotee). I think they were trying to
secure some commercial success. For my part, I was OK with the changes
as it worked as a movie. At the high budget end the best example like
this I can think of is Jaws, where the book was so so and the movie
was a great improvement.
On the other hand, I can see what you mean, as I still have issues
with the Lord of the Rings movies, and how they were tampered with by
Peter Jackson. Some things bothered me progressively as the trilogy
went on and still bug me ow, 10 years later.
Matt
<blackwingb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given a VERY tightly fixed budget that leaves very little in the way of spending money, there are very few films that I will purchase when they are released. For most films, I will either see if I can borrow a copy off of a friend to see, wait until it is broadcast over the television, eventually buy a copy or some similar means. The exceptions I usually make are related to my favorite authors or a favorite work - if an adaptation of one of their works is released I try desperately to secure a copy. Inevitably, there are times my enthusiasm leaves me disappointed. The film producers decided to add-on another hours worth of plot and action and even to introduce female characters not in the original story (I guess they are striving to impress Stuart Gordon).I love the story, although I will admit it always felt like Lovecraft's typewriter ran out of ink and he simply quit writing. Still, source material is source material, and you SHOULD stay true to it. If you are going to elaborate and add several more chapters to the story, do not use the original name. Part of my love for their first feature-film (THE CALL OF CTHULHU) is just that - they stayed true to the source-material. Don't get me wrong - the acting is fine, the look of the film is definitely of that period...... But if you are wanting "pure Lovecraft", you should go elsewhere.
The problem is 'pure' Lovecraft might not make a good cinematic
> Given a VERY tightly fixed budget that leaves very little in the way of spending money, there are very few films that I will purchase when they are released. For most films, I will either see if I can borrow a copy off of a friend to see, wait until it is broadcast over the television, eventually buy a copy or some similar means. The exceptions I usually make are related to my favorite authors or a favorite work - if an adaptation of one of their works is released I try desperately to secure a copy. Inevitably, there are times my enthusiasm leaves me disappointed. The film producers decided to add-on another hours worth of plot and action and even to introduce female characters not in the original story (I guess they are striving to impress Stuart Gordon).I love the story, although I will admit it always felt like Lovecraft's typewriter ran out of ink and he simply quit writing. Still, source material is source material, and you SHOULD stay true to it. If you are going to elaborate and add several more chapters to the story, do not use the original name. Part of my love for their first feature-film (THE CALL OF CTHULHU) is just that - they stayed true to the source-material. Don't get me wrong - the acting is fine, the look of the film is definitely of that period...... But if you are wanting "pure Lovecraft", you should go elsewhere.
experience (and I say this as a devotee). I think they were trying to
secure some commercial success. For my part, I was OK with the changes
as it worked as a movie. At the high budget end the best example like
this I can think of is Jaws, where the book was so so and the movie
was a great improvement.
On the other hand, I can see what you mean, as I still have issues
with the Lord of the Rings movies, and how they were tampered with by
Peter Jackson. Some things bothered me progressively as the trilogy
went on and still bug me ow, 10 years later.
Matt
avid fan
Jan 22, 2012, 7:43:41 AM1/22/12
to
On 14/01/12 02:17, blackw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Given a VERY tightly fixed budget that leaves very little in the way of spending money, there are very few films that I will purchase when they are released. For most films, I will either see if I can borrow a copy off of a friend to see, wait until it is broadcast over the television, eventually buy a copy or some similar means. The exceptions I usually make are related to my favorite authors or a favorite work - if an adaptation of one of their works is released I try desperately to secure a copy. Inevitably, there are times my enthusiasm leaves me disappointed. The film producers decided to add-on another hours worth of plot and action and even to introduce female characters not in the original story (I guess they are striving to impress Stuart Gordon).I love the story, although I will admit it always felt like Lovecraft's typewriter ran out of ink and he simply quit writing. Still, source material is source material, and you SHOULD stay true to it. If you are going to e
laborate and add several more chapters to the story, do not use the original name. Part of my love for their first feature-film (THE CALL OF CTHULHU) is just that - they stayed true to the source-material. Don't get me wrong - the acting is fine, the look of the film is definitely of that period...... But if you are wanting "pure Lovecraft", you should go elsewhere.
What works on a short story does not work on film.
> Given a VERY tightly fixed budget that leaves very little in the way of spending money, there are very few films that I will purchase when they are released. For most films, I will either see if I can borrow a copy off of a friend to see, wait until it is broadcast over the television, eventually buy a copy or some similar means. The exceptions I usually make are related to my favorite authors or a favorite work - if an adaptation of one of their works is released I try desperately to secure a copy. Inevitably, there are times my enthusiasm leaves me disappointed. The film producers decided to add-on another hours worth of plot and action and even to introduce female characters not in the original story (I guess they are striving to impress Stuart Gordon).I love the story, although I will admit it always felt like Lovecraft's typewriter ran out of ink and he simply quit writing. Still, source material is source material, and you SHOULD stay true to it. If you are going to e
laborate and add several more chapters to the story, do not use the original name. Part of my love for their first feature-film (THE CALL OF CTHULHU) is just that - they stayed true to the source-material. Don't get me wrong - the acting is fine, the look of the film is definitely of that period...... But if you are wanting "pure Lovecraft", you should go elsewhere.
You cannot have a film that does not show the MiGo and has Wilmarth
believing that the MiGo were real then runs off in Akeley's car?
He does not even connect Alkeley's cylinder to find out what happened.
Film had a great ending.
avid fan
Jan 22, 2012, 7:54:56 AM1/22/12
to
On 14/01/12 22:58, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
> The problem is 'pure' Lovecraft might not make a good cinematic
> experience (and I say this as a devotee). I think they were trying to
> secure some commercial success. For my part, I was OK with the changes
> as it worked as a movie. At the high budget end the best example like
> this I can think of is Jaws, where the book was so so and the movie
> was a great improvement.
Add The Red Dragon
> The problem is 'pure' Lovecraft might not make a good cinematic
> experience (and I say this as a devotee). I think they were trying to
> secure some commercial success. For my part, I was OK with the changes
> as it worked as a movie. At the high budget end the best example like
> this I can think of is Jaws, where the book was so so and the movie
> was a great improvement.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0091474/
the later version followed the book more closely and added things that
did not make sense.
blackw...@gmail.com
Jan 22, 2012, 1:12:21 PM1/22/12
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:43:41 AM UTC-5, avid fan wrote:
> You cannot have a film that does not show the MiGo and has Wilmarth
> believing that the MiGo were real then runs off in Akeley's car?
> He does not even connect Alkeley's cylinder to find out what happened.
>
> Film had a great ending.
Maybe they should have picked a different story then. Call me a purist, but.....
> You cannot have a film that does not show the MiGo and has Wilmarth
> believing that the MiGo were real then runs off in Akeley's car?
> He does not even connect Alkeley's cylinder to find out what happened.
>
> Film had a great ending.
blackw...@gmail.com
Jan 22, 2012, 1:13:04 PM1/22/12
to
On Sunday, January 22, 2012 7:43:41 AM UTC-5, avid fan wrote:
> Film had a great ending.
That was about an hour after what it should have been.
icarp...@aol.com
Jan 22, 2012, 10:25:37 PM1/22/12
to
On Jan 22, 12:12 pm, "blackwingb...@gmail.com"
You just cannot be pleased then. A film is its own piece of art, an
adaptation of a work not the work. View it as a meditation on HPL,
using HPL's story as a jumping off point.
Matt
adaptation of a work not the work. View it as a meditation on HPL,
using HPL's story as a jumping off point.
Matt
avid fan
Feb 2, 2012, 5:38:29 AM2/2/12
to
joy to read it.
The MiGo something new. At first I thought flying Lobsters yeah right
by the end of story I The cylinders - HPL what an imagination!
First time (to my knowledge) that HPL ref to the King in Yellow
something I know you love.
Come on can't we find some common ground?
Shadow over Innsmouth is probably going to be their next work. Great
ending. Slow beginning. Films are different they need punchy beginning.
(Look at The Thing Beginning of the movie Helicopter chase explosions
gun shots. Kick ass ending.)
avid fan
Feb 2, 2012, 7:19:51 AM2/2/12
to
I notice though that you have been silent on Die Fabre.
Ok I think it is excellent. On such a tight budget there are a few
holes. There is something about the European way of telling a story
which is darker. Without the obligation of having to make it look like
a 1930s film. (Judging by the cars I think it is set in 70's). Even
though it is a black and white film I find the scenery very beautiful.
The use eerie sound and simple stop motion incredibly effective.
Yeah sure Americans speak with German accents at the beginning. The
acting is first class. Young Ammi Pierce deserves special mention so
does old Ammi Pierce.
If you do not like it, fine just say so.
Please start another thread with your opinion.
IMO "The Whisperer in Darkness" is much more complex but as good as "Die
Farbe"
avid fan
Feb 2, 2012, 7:38:12 AM2/2/12
to
happy with shadows of lobsters and Wilmarth stealing Akeley's car?
Blackwingbear I have high respect for you. Be a bit reasonable.
If I was in that situation I would have pissed off too. I would not
have plugged in Akeley's cylinder. It is not good cinema. They needed
Hanna to force Wilmarth to stay.
blackw...@gmail.com
May 27, 2012, 11:45:56 PM5/27/12
to
On Saturday, January 14, 2012 6:58:31 AM UTC-5, icarp...@aol.com wrote:
> On the other hand, I can see what you mean, as I still have issues
> with the Lord of the Rings movies, and how they were tampered with by
> Peter Jackson. Some things bothered me progressively as the trilogy
> went on and still bug me ow, 10 years later.
THANK YOU.... I'm glad someone gets my point. Don't misunderstand me - the HPLHS has done more for Lovecraft than I can begin to say.
> On the other hand, I can see what you mean, as I still have issues
> with the Lord of the Rings movies, and how they were tampered with by
> Peter Jackson. Some things bothered me progressively as the trilogy
> went on and still bug me ow, 10 years later.
blackw...@gmail.com
May 27, 2012, 11:42:44 PM5/27/12
to
On Thursday, February 2, 2012 7:38:12 AM UTC-5, avid fan wrote:
> Blackwingbear I have high respect for you. Be a bit reasonable.
I'm sorry if my disagreeing seemed unreasonable. Really, if it had toted itself as a LOOSE adaptation of HPL I might not have minded so much. I guess in some ways I am a purist to source material - when I first saw Stuart Gordon's films I was disappointed also. It took a few viewings to get "in his groove".
> Blackwingbear I have high respect for you. Be a bit reasonable.
0 new messages