Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
11 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
watch horror movies at night!, 20 Jul 2007
The first of these movies isn't available here in the US, so I bought the British two disc set. I already have an all region, PAL/NTSC dvd player (to enjoy more Last of the Summer Wine episodes than are for sale here), so that isn't a problem. H. P. Lovecraft is my favorite "straight" horror author. By that I mean that he didn't add humor or sex or detectives or anything else except supernatural horror to his stories. Well, maybe a little bit of architecture. Lovecraft was a master storyteller, an expert at creating a dense, horrific atmosphere with words. He was also a bit long-winded for a short story writer. Some of his sentences were longer than most authors' paragraphs. Lovecraft wrote in the 1920s and 30s. When reading his stories, you sometimes have to skip over a little bit of the casual racism that was rampant in America at that time. There's none of that nonsense in the (very short) short story of the same name that inspired the first movie. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the movie is based on the book. You can find that story in Dagon and Other Macabre Tales (if you can find it) and also in Wake Up Screaming: Haunting Tales of Terror. Great titles, aren't they? It's very difficult to turn a Lovecraft short story into a movie and they don't really try all that hard in either of these flicks. The first is more teen/twentysomething slasher flick than Lovecraftian horror. As in most such slasher flicks, any young person who has sex or gets high (on alcohol, in this case) is sure to die. In the second film, there is much less of Lovecraft's influence and anyone is fair game for the unnamable (but named) monster. I too like the first film more than the second. Together, they make an excellent way to escape reality for about three hours. That's provided, of course, that you don't have a weak heart and don't mind some blood & gore. I stopped watching the first movie to have a late night snack and to write this review, but it's almost time to continue now. By the time I get to the really scary part, it will be midnight, time to take my laundry out of the washer and put it into the dryer. I have to go outside to get to the laundry room. Outside in the dark. I'm recharging the batteries for my flashlight, but they won't be done in time. There was a slim crescent of eldritch moon earlier, but it's light has now been consumed by the dank, malevolent forest to the west. Just as well, as I have no desire to view the horrific, unutterably malignant entity that waits for me outside before it springs upon me and rips me asunder with claw, fang and unnamable appendages. Perhaps the neighbors will hear me screaming and, after spending the night cowering behind their barred and triple bolted doors, desperately praying to a God that the ancient extragalactic evils that stalk the night at will know nothing of, will creep out of their houses to investigate by the full light of day. But perhaps a beam of pallid moonlight will escape from between the trees and briefly illuminate the unimaginably nightmarish thing that waits for me in the dark, freezing my blood in my veins and stopping my screams in my throat. Gee, you don't think I read too much H. P. Lovecraft, do you? Nah, of course not. Pleasant nightmar... er, dreams. Heh, heh, heh.
|
|
|
8 of 10 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
very nice atmospere!!!!!, 2 April 2005
I saw the first movie when i was very young, and thought that it was great! As a Horror fan I always look for new things but this one only has al the classic,basic elements: An old deserted house, students exploring it, nude scenes, a ghostly presence, murders, running, screaming, HORROR! I think the special effects where awsome, off course this movie is from the late eighties! but give it a go The second movie ain't that great, off course that is my opinion! Enjoy.
|
|
|
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
This is exactly why Lovecraft hated film, 15 Jul 2008
These two films are the epitome of the bad film making that existed around the eighties. The first starts off just as you expect it to, with the argument in the cemetery as of the original story and makes use of the mystery of 17th century New England, but it isn't long before the film just sinks into a pitiful, low grade teenagers-have-sex-and-are-killed film. It might as well be a slasher. There is nothing Lovecraftian and nothing original about this film, and with the infuriating acting it makes for a dissapointing viewing. The creature itself moves in that annoying girly way that's supposed to be terrifying but really just looks stupid.
The second film is an altogether better attempt and actually contains a fair chunk at the beginning of a much more Lovecraft - worthy atmosphere, albeit one which is limited by a minimal budget. At the entry of the naked chick, which is great but detrimental to the horror genre, all the film's horror vanishes and slasher status resumes.
The only saving grace of either of these two is the surprisingly brilliant portrayal of Randolph Carter by Mark Kinsey Stephenson (and of course the addition of John Rhys Davies in 'returns' makes it seem all the more like the creators of the film were actually taking the project seriously), and besides the unnecessary love story at the end of the second film, the character really does bring the film to life.
It, unfortunately, is not enough to save either film, and so I would advise you to keep looking for a real horror film.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|