Reptileenbu Did you people see the same film I saw?

Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

Senteur As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

slang-75283 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!).

KDCarson ***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!!

dutchchocolatecake 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.

JoeB131 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.