If this is what the makers of this film take from Lovecraft, I pity them. Lovecraft gives you the skeleton of something horrible and lets your imagination flesh in the rest. That's what makes him so fun to read. You come away from the story IMAGINING other worlds and endless possibilities. This movie leaves absolutely nothing to the imagination. In fact it takes particular delight in showing you every gory detail. This should have "Fangoria" on the top of the box not "H.P. Lovecraft's". If you are a fan of Lovecraft and want to see a good tale about Elder gods, don't rent this one. I know it's hard not to grab anything with "Lovecraft" at the top but don't fall for it. The makers of this film stuck his name on their product to get more viewers. You will waste your time and fall for their ploy if you rent this because you like Lovecraft. Don't say I didn't warn you.
61 Reviews
one of the worst horror flicks in ages
mono-151 June 2006
while there have never been any good lovecraft adaptations, this movie is certainly one of the worst. maybe if they'd condensed it to a 5 min video clip it could have been fun, but as it is, it only gets on your nerves. special effects are terrible, the actors are bad and know it, the narrator is pathetic, and the story is close to non-existent. to make things worse, you get the same fast-cut, nervous, overlayed gore/dream sequences a la blair witch project or saw every couple of minutes, always the same, always the same. plus, it has not much to do with the original story either. it has some light moments (maybe one or two), but in general, definitely not worth your time.
Not the greatest movie in the world!
phantomlord114 August 2006
Even though the H.P. Lovecraft is a great author, the person who directed makes bad films and makes a mockery of his books. This movie has the worst acting i have ever seen. Though, i will give it credit for its comic relief, but i can't not say it was the worst movie i've ever bought and regret it. So my words of wisdom are "don't buy this movie", you can rent it but don't buy it, it doesn't deserve to be next to Fight Club or even Josie and the Pussycats. The ending however came to a bit surprise, it was the only good part of the movie. I not going to tell you what happens, but if you want to follow along with the story a little better i recommend reading the book because its hard to follow. My overall rating: 3.
Oh dear...
lore-2119 November 2006
I found this on the $1 rack at the video store and said "ooh, Lovecraft." and thusly rented what I thought would be a fun movie to scare the crap out of myself with at 2am on a Friday Night.
Well, it scared me all right, but not with the unspeakable horrors usually expected of something with the name H.P. Lovecraft on it, but with some pretty horrific acting, poor sound equalization and camera angles even my mom could pull off. I expected cheese...you can't watch a movie like that and not expect at least 40-50% cheese but sheesh, there's a limit! It might have been OK had it not been for some pretty unimaginative camera work (a low budget is no excuse for doing nothing more than pointing and shooting, unless the budget didn't include bendable wrists or tripods) and the acting was so distracting that I lost track of what the heck was going on.
A couple of handsome guys in the movie didn't quite make up for the "What the *beep* just happened?" feeling when the end credits finally rolled around, leaving me with the thought that I could have bought some M&Ms with that $1 instead.
Well, it scared me all right, but not with the unspeakable horrors usually expected of something with the name H.P. Lovecraft on it, but with some pretty horrific acting, poor sound equalization and camera angles even my mom could pull off. I expected cheese...you can't watch a movie like that and not expect at least 40-50% cheese but sheesh, there's a limit! It might have been OK had it not been for some pretty unimaginative camera work (a low budget is no excuse for doing nothing more than pointing and shooting, unless the budget didn't include bendable wrists or tripods) and the acting was so distracting that I lost track of what the heck was going on.
A couple of handsome guys in the movie didn't quite make up for the "What the *beep* just happened?" feeling when the end credits finally rolled around, leaving me with the thought that I could have bought some M&Ms with that $1 instead.
Unwatchable (and that's not something I say often)
GlickGlidewell11 July 2006
In a normal movie, if your cinematography, lighting, acting, editing, script, sound mix and everything are abysmal, you try to fix them. But in a low budget horror movie, you can claim that's part of the TERRIFYING HORROR. This was badly shot in kind of a faux-Blair Witch style, with ugly high contrast lighting, sub-high school drama acting, jumpy headache-enducing editing, awful dialogue (not even good in that verbose Lovecraft way) and...I don't particularly remember the sound, but I'm sure it was bad. If your movie's mise-en-scene is "shittiness", you're not scary. You're just shitty.
Every time I go to a screening of student films, I wonder about the people who's movies are incompetent even after years of schooling. "Do these people really think they can work in the industry?" I wonder.
Apparently, the answer is yes.
They grow up to be Barrett J. Leigh and Thom Maurer.
Every time I go to a screening of student films, I wonder about the people who's movies are incompetent even after years of schooling. "Do these people really think they can work in the industry?" I wonder.
Apparently, the answer is yes.
They grow up to be Barrett J. Leigh and Thom Maurer.
Avoid at all costs
shargraves12 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
While this might sound harsh, you really don't want to sit through this - unless you are a Lovecraft fanatic. But even then - like me - you'll wish you'd never bothered.
SPOILERS This movie takes a fairly lame HP Lovecraft short story - too short to stretch to feature length as proved here - and makes a campy pantomime complete with terrible acting, ridiculous wigs and some cheap and nasty cgi.
It seems like a third of the film's running time is given over to nonsensical montage flashes. The same few images over and over again. It gets incredibly tedious. As does the music which seems to play away in the background through every second of the film regardless of any attempt at mood or atmosphere. (of which there is none)
The film makers are unable to tell any semblance of story, or write dialogue that isn't excruciating or even generate anything on screen resembling suspense resulting in a state of suspended apathy from the viewer.
There is one moment of interest - a few lines of dialogue from Tom Savini - but he's in it for around a minute.
Sadly - as I support low budget film making - this is the worst kind of home-made garbage. It's as if nobody involved had any clue about how to shoot a picture, or any creative talent. The whole thing is embarrassing to sit through. Somewhat akin to watching a few hours of family video - although that usually makes more sense - but of people you don't know or care about, doing pointless things for 80 minutes.
"Anducious" (sp?) the monster/genius/lump on a guys back is also dire - so anyone wanting a rampaging monster-fest (like a few other HPL adaptations have somehow become) will be disappointed too - in that it has about 10 seconds screen time before slumping pointlessly to the floor.
Which is exactly what I did after watching this flimsy, miserable, waste of film.
I can only presume the other user comments on here are from people involved in the movie trying to drum up interest. My condolences to them!
SPOILERS This movie takes a fairly lame HP Lovecraft short story - too short to stretch to feature length as proved here - and makes a campy pantomime complete with terrible acting, ridiculous wigs and some cheap and nasty cgi.
It seems like a third of the film's running time is given over to nonsensical montage flashes. The same few images over and over again. It gets incredibly tedious. As does the music which seems to play away in the background through every second of the film regardless of any attempt at mood or atmosphere. (of which there is none)
The film makers are unable to tell any semblance of story, or write dialogue that isn't excruciating or even generate anything on screen resembling suspense resulting in a state of suspended apathy from the viewer.
There is one moment of interest - a few lines of dialogue from Tom Savini - but he's in it for around a minute.
Sadly - as I support low budget film making - this is the worst kind of home-made garbage. It's as if nobody involved had any clue about how to shoot a picture, or any creative talent. The whole thing is embarrassing to sit through. Somewhat akin to watching a few hours of family video - although that usually makes more sense - but of people you don't know or care about, doing pointless things for 80 minutes.
"Anducious" (sp?) the monster/genius/lump on a guys back is also dire - so anyone wanting a rampaging monster-fest (like a few other HPL adaptations have somehow become) will be disappointed too - in that it has about 10 seconds screen time before slumping pointlessly to the floor.
Which is exactly what I did after watching this flimsy, miserable, waste of film.
I can only presume the other user comments on here are from people involved in the movie trying to drum up interest. My condolences to them!
quite possibly, the worst film i've ever seen...
thealtmangoodbye11 June 2006
so, I've sat through all of ed wood's films, and i'm still convinced this is the worst film I've ever seen, but also the most hilarious. the acting is sub-sub-sub-community theatre/high school acting class on a bad day style, and the directing appears as if the directors (it took two people to be this awful!) just got a bunch of new equipment and computer programs they wanted to screw around with. if you want a good laugh, and some great new catchphrases, and don't mind having no idea what a film is about and sitting through crappy scene upon crappy scene, then check this movie out. as horrible as it is, i almost recommend watching it to be flabbergasted by how awful the three main performances are. check out the wig on edward! i certainly hope tom savini was at least supplied with a delicious lunch for appearing in this trash.
If you need to fall asleep to something....
glitterstarcar13 July 2006
Boooo Hissss..... I want the last 2 hours of my life back. I think a majority of the budget went to the cover and the 10 second CGI. The acting was over the top, so melodramatic....I kept waiting and waiting and waiting....and waiting and waiting some more.....ehhhh....not even good enough to be creepy. I felt like had this movie the budget and the time, it could have been a lot better. Of course, that is true of almost any movie, but the story in this one wasn't the biggest of the problems. The acting seriously was like watching an uncomfortable Shakespeare play done by the local playhouse. Actually, that was a huge rip on local playhouse actors. The best part was William Sanderson, who does his best to rescue a sinking boat.
Not worth the effort!
jalfarmer21 July 2006
This movie is very loosely based on Lovecraft's original short story, and that only as a premise upon which the film makers desperately attempted to make a movie. Even the cover art of the DVD was misleading because none of the imagery on it ever appeared in the final version. Anyone who claims that this movie remains faithful to the original short story either read a different story or watched a different movie than I did. There was nothing even remotely resembling Amducious in the original story (where did that come from?), just as there was no rampant blood and guts, no conflict amongst the "alienists" in the asylum, no woman with an exposed brain (rip off of "Hannibal," no doubt), no brains in bottles, and no "evil" entity attempting to break through Sam's body. Taking some creative license is expected, but this movie just blatantly ripped off a Lovecraft premise and turned it into a lame joke. As a Lovecraft reader and fan I was offended and angry that his name and the title of his short story were stapled to this travesty just to sell tickets and DVD's. What a rip off! No, this is not a work of comic film noir genius and wasn't the least bit scary, people. If the DVD had any special features with the directors or producers stating that they were not really serious and that it was supposed to be more like a cheesy serial comedic send up with tongue firmly implanted in cheek I would go along with the joke, but I see no indication that the joke was intentional. Simply stated, this movie just plain sucked, and if I actually believed in such things I would have to say that H. P. Lovecraft is probably spinning in his grave.
The Single Worst Movie I've Ever Seen
thadgarrison22 July 2006
I've seen hundreds of B-horror movies and direct-to-DVD schlock, but this film has managed to take the trophy prize for worst ever. Trust me when I say that is NOT an easy prize to win. I've seen movies that I thought would make me tear the eyes out of my head...but, somehow, none can compare to "Beyond the Wall of Sleep."
When trying to make a list of all of the things wrong with this movie, the task becomes so overwhelming that it's easier to say that nothing is right with it. From the bad wigs to the 2nd-grade-school-play acting, it's just one abomination after the next until the credits roll. Parts of the film are actually unbearable to look at because the editing is so intentionally spastic and flickering, it feels like you're going to have a seizure. Other parts are so slow and unedited, you feel like you're going to hang yourself if they don't end. Suffice it to say that none of the movie manages to be in between those two extremes. Truly a terrible attempt at...whatever it was they were attempting.
Best line: "My brains!!!!"
When trying to make a list of all of the things wrong with this movie, the task becomes so overwhelming that it's easier to say that nothing is right with it. From the bad wigs to the 2nd-grade-school-play acting, it's just one abomination after the next until the credits roll. Parts of the film are actually unbearable to look at because the editing is so intentionally spastic and flickering, it feels like you're going to have a seizure. Other parts are so slow and unedited, you feel like you're going to hang yourself if they don't end. Suffice it to say that none of the movie manages to be in between those two extremes. Truly a terrible attempt at...whatever it was they were attempting.
Best line: "My brains!!!!"
Faithful Adaptation (Whether you like it or not!)
blackback6167 June 2006
Where do I start. Just rented this sucker last night and I'm flabbergasted. First off - "Citizen Kane" it isn't. And, I've seen comparisons to the master, Stuart Gordon, and I think that's just madness. They got a long way before they make something as chilling and hilarious as "Re-Animator." That being said, I have no idea what that turkey was referring to in saying that this was another bad adaptation. I'll agree - almost every Lovecraft film bears little to no resemblance to the stories they've been adapted from. I'll also agree that Gordon is the primary offender on this, as Re-Animator & From Beyond are both wildly different than the Lovecraft originals.
But, this story is a really close adaptation. They took some liberties, to be sure, but mainly because the freakin' story is only FOUR PAGES LONG!!!!! Anyway, I'd like to know if people who say it's not a close adaptation have actually read the story or not???? Let's go through a few points...
The original story is about a mysterious mountain man that is put in an asylum, has a strange growth on his back, is experimented on with a weird, home-made, electrical machine by the narrator of the story who is an intern. The experiments result in the dream world being opened up before the narrator in the real world and an other-worldly entity coming forth. (That's the story as it was written by Lovecraft.) Let me say this very clearly: EVERYTHING I JUST DESCRIBED ABOVE ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE IN THE MOVIE ADAPTATION! For my money, this is a first for Lovecraft films, say what you want about the painful acting and uneven writing. This is a FAITHFUL ADAPTATION. No one can dispute it. Now, where they change the story is to take it from a heady sci-fi story about another world being revealed and turn it into a monster movie. But, what the hell are you gonna do? Monster movies make money and people watch Lovecraft films to see some blood and Gothic horror. Plus, the story is completely vague enough as to inspire that type of take on it.
I'm giving the film a higher rating than I probably should - only because I'm angered by the claims that it's not what it says that it is. If you want to make a valid criticism - read the story first. Otherwise, your just some goth poseur who's probably not even read much Lovecraft and claims to be an expert only because they read half of "Mountains of Madness" once but couldn't get through it because they couldn't find their freakin' dictionary.
Believe me, there's plenty to get angry about in this film - just not the quality of the adaptation. Hell, just make fun of the bad wig!!!! That's enough material to base a negative review on right there!
But, this story is a really close adaptation. They took some liberties, to be sure, but mainly because the freakin' story is only FOUR PAGES LONG!!!!! Anyway, I'd like to know if people who say it's not a close adaptation have actually read the story or not???? Let's go through a few points...
The original story is about a mysterious mountain man that is put in an asylum, has a strange growth on his back, is experimented on with a weird, home-made, electrical machine by the narrator of the story who is an intern. The experiments result in the dream world being opened up before the narrator in the real world and an other-worldly entity coming forth. (That's the story as it was written by Lovecraft.) Let me say this very clearly: EVERYTHING I JUST DESCRIBED ABOVE ACTUALLY TAKES PLACE IN THE MOVIE ADAPTATION! For my money, this is a first for Lovecraft films, say what you want about the painful acting and uneven writing. This is a FAITHFUL ADAPTATION. No one can dispute it. Now, where they change the story is to take it from a heady sci-fi story about another world being revealed and turn it into a monster movie. But, what the hell are you gonna do? Monster movies make money and people watch Lovecraft films to see some blood and Gothic horror. Plus, the story is completely vague enough as to inspire that type of take on it.
I'm giving the film a higher rating than I probably should - only because I'm angered by the claims that it's not what it says that it is. If you want to make a valid criticism - read the story first. Otherwise, your just some goth poseur who's probably not even read much Lovecraft and claims to be an expert only because they read half of "Mountains of Madness" once but couldn't get through it because they couldn't find their freakin' dictionary.
Believe me, there's plenty to get angry about in this film - just not the quality of the adaptation. Hell, just make fun of the bad wig!!!! That's enough material to base a negative review on right there!
Hilarious
blue_scifi16 June 2006
My friends and I rented this movie thinking it would be a creepy adaptation of a good Lovecraft story, since a couple of us are Lovecraft fans. However, what we got was something very different than what we bargained for. In short, to us this was not a straight horror movie; it's a dramatic, sardonic comedy that just happens to have a horror-based plot. To me, its overall execution seemed more like a film noir parody than anything. One look/listen at the cheap visuals, low-quality audio, melodramatic acting, horrible scripting, and downright hilarious one-liners makes it fairly obvious that this is not a movie to be taken seriously. At least, we hope not. For what it is (or at least what we hope it is), it was very well-done in that it was pure entertainment, nothing more. If you want some gore, insanity, and slight creepiness to accompany your laughter, then this is the film for you.
Absolutely Terrible.
bestmoviealive23 July 2006
Everything about this movie sucked. How can someone even think this was good? The acting made my eyes bleed, the plot was just retarded, and the characters were just so stupid, I wanted them all to just die right then and there. This movie was suppose to be a horror flick, but it ended out being a comedy for me. Me and my friends just laughed at how terrible this movie was. The visual effects were the worst i've ever seen in a movie. Even if the budget wasn't that high, they still could of made it better. I mean come on, honestly, why did they waste movie and time making such a bad movie? I feel bad for everyone who lost an hour and 25 minutes of their life like I did. I want it back!
P.O.S. (can you figure out what THAT stands for?)
blueeyedguy259 July 2006
Well, I rented before I read the comments here so I wont add much more that hasn't already been said. A true Piece Of S*it. My DVD box has a different monster on the front not like the one shown here. On mine, he is a COMPLETE rip-off of Dr. Satan from Zombie's movie (he should sue 'em) and that worst part is--no creature even like that appears in the movie! Complete waste of time and money. Burn in Hell Lionsgate! Completely trashes Lovecraft's story. The only thing that made up for this diaper stain of a movie was the nice rack on one of the "mental patients". Check that out. She should have been that star of the movie. Warn all your friends to avoid this trash at all costs!
Ugh
krael746 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
What makes Lovecraft stories interesting to me is the great sense of foreboding and mystery they manage to build. It's difficult with this offering to get beyond the abysmal acting, over-the-top editing and extraneous atmospherics that feel anything but something out of a Lovecraft story. The eventual monster looks like it was hatched from a Playstation. All in all there is nothing good to say about this movie. Even the stab at tongue in cheek drowns in overall poor movie making, fake blood and gore. Obviously this is a low budget movie, and obviously the director intended to play for some of the over-the-top acting, editing and production, but when the result merely feels cheap, humorless and tedious, I don't think merely having a low budget is enough of a defense.
Doctor, My Eyes....
terrible227 November 2007
As I have learned from reading other comments, I am not alone in saying "Holy s**t!" this thing was awful... Again, great cover art but I've been fooled by that before. The thing that really amazed me, is that it had two directors. You would think that at least one of them would pull the other aside and say "Dude, this film is gonna suck..." I try to find something redeemable in all low budget films, but come on... This is simply terrible, and whom ever paid actual money to distribute this should be ashamed of themselves. The acting is some of the worse ever, there really is no story and production value does not exist. Good job on the artwork, now go away...
One of the worst movies I've seen.
Creeping-Death18 July 2006
Simply terrible, one of the worst movies I've seen, and I've seen several of the worst Mystery Science Theatre 3000 movies non-MST'd, like "Manos: The Hands of Fate" and "Beast of Yucca Flats".
It bares very little resemblance to the H.P. Lovecraft story of the same name, other than the name of the patient, Joe Slaader, and the location. Of course that means it follows the story as well as most other "Based on H.P. Lovecraft's" movies, but that isn't saying much. The sound is weird and echos throughout the movie. The acting was horrible, it would be difficult to find a movie where everybody overacted that much. The special effects are of 80's quality or worse. One guy even thinks he is all-powerful because he is the head honcho of a mental institution. If you're looking for a good "Based on H.P. Lovecraft's" movie, try "Dagon", it is much better than this movie, even though it's not exactly high-quality.
It bares very little resemblance to the H.P. Lovecraft story of the same name, other than the name of the patient, Joe Slaader, and the location. Of course that means it follows the story as well as most other "Based on H.P. Lovecraft's" movies, but that isn't saying much. The sound is weird and echos throughout the movie. The acting was horrible, it would be difficult to find a movie where everybody overacted that much. The special effects are of 80's quality or worse. One guy even thinks he is all-powerful because he is the head honcho of a mental institution. If you're looking for a good "Based on H.P. Lovecraft's" movie, try "Dagon", it is much better than this movie, even though it's not exactly high-quality.
This Film Was Nothing Spectacular But Nothing Awful Either
gavin69428 July 2006
Interestingly, when you look at the breakdown for how different demographics voted on the Intenet Movie Database, you will notice that the women voted this film about twice as good as men did in all age groups. I have no idea why this would be, but something to keep in mind, I suppose.
This is an H. P. Lovecraft film from someone besides Stuart Gordon (although I consider him the master of Lovecraft) and an admirable attempt. An intern in an insane asylum does brain experiments and stumbles across a being from another world ("beyond the wall of sleep"), who in Lovecraft fashion has tentacles on his chin.
Let me mention the negative qualities of this film. First, the acting was awful. Almost all the characters were exaggerated and over-acted in Broadway style. This does not bother me, though it does make it more difficult to get into a film and let yourself escape reality. Second, the director is not familiar with the adage that "less is more" because after using some quick scene cuts (I don't know the technical term) where we see about twenty different things in a minute, he uses this same technique about fifty more times in the film. Luckily I am not prone to epileptic seizures. And third, along with these quick flashes, the director also seems to think repetition of lines is helpful. If they had said "Mama had a baby and its head popped off" or "ring around the Rosie" one more time, I would have shot the television Elvis-style.
But it was not all bad. The imagery itself was excellent, setting the tone for an old asylum (from 1911) very well. The use of arcane artwork was excellent, and the monster from beyond was well-crafted. Oh, and then there was Tom Savini... a legend of horror in his own time. Sadly, his part was rather small.
I suppose if you are interested in an asylum film, this is better than many you could choose (though not nearly as good as "In The Mouth of Madness"). And if you like Lovecraft, this film is fine. And the Savini. I guess what I'm saying is take it or leave it, you're not likely to regret your decision either way.
This is an H. P. Lovecraft film from someone besides Stuart Gordon (although I consider him the master of Lovecraft) and an admirable attempt. An intern in an insane asylum does brain experiments and stumbles across a being from another world ("beyond the wall of sleep"), who in Lovecraft fashion has tentacles on his chin.
Let me mention the negative qualities of this film. First, the acting was awful. Almost all the characters were exaggerated and over-acted in Broadway style. This does not bother me, though it does make it more difficult to get into a film and let yourself escape reality. Second, the director is not familiar with the adage that "less is more" because after using some quick scene cuts (I don't know the technical term) where we see about twenty different things in a minute, he uses this same technique about fifty more times in the film. Luckily I am not prone to epileptic seizures. And third, along with these quick flashes, the director also seems to think repetition of lines is helpful. If they had said "Mama had a baby and its head popped off" or "ring around the Rosie" one more time, I would have shot the television Elvis-style.
But it was not all bad. The imagery itself was excellent, setting the tone for an old asylum (from 1911) very well. The use of arcane artwork was excellent, and the monster from beyond was well-crafted. Oh, and then there was Tom Savini... a legend of horror in his own time. Sadly, his part was rather small.
I suppose if you are interested in an asylum film, this is better than many you could choose (though not nearly as good as "In The Mouth of Madness"). And if you like Lovecraft, this film is fine. And the Savini. I guess what I'm saying is take it or leave it, you're not likely to regret your decision either way.
A lot defects but some moments of interest.
Tzsm986 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was taken over by two things. The first was the difficult to decode, rapidly edited dream scenes. The second was a relentless barrage of being told what was going on rather than getting to watch what was going on and figure it out for myself.
I found myself thinking of 50s - 60s British horror films while watching this. Many of those have a short bit of exposition, the kind of writing that is intending primarily to present information, by the main character to help bring together the disparate plot and background bits the viewer might need to make sense of the film. This film was dominated by exposition.
When the film backed away from the monologues and the dream sequences, and, opinions to the contrary aside, it did back away from these from time to time, it was engaging.
The acting seemed to me, in parts, to be a parody of 1910 era acting. The "severe doctor" routine is one I recall seeing in some silent films. It was usually directed toward a patient, not another doctor. Both Wardlow and Fenton seemed to be channeling this character while arguing. With the 1911 setting of the story I saw this as an interesting cultural feedback loop. I don't recall hearing the accents used in the movie at anytime when I was in the Catskills. To me, a former New York State resident, the accents were ludicrous and a real distraction.
*****Spoiler In Next Two Paragraphs*****
I'm a fan of Lovecraft's writing. I do not hate all of the movies based upon his work. I'm a Jeffery Combs fan based upon his Herbert West characterization. This was the most unusual adaptation I've seen to date. It certainly got to the heart of the obsessive nature of many of Lovecraft's main characters. When Eischel reveals the physical alteration he's made to himself it is more than just madness he reveals, he also lays bare his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve his ends.
This movie was at times difficult to watch for good reasons, i.e. - it was disturbing when it should have been disturbing. It was also difficult to watch for bad reasons, i.e. - the script or delivery of it was wooden or hammy. The best example of this came at the end when you could have gone to the kitchen and made coffee in the pause between the bulk of the last sentence of the script and the last word of the last sentence.
I found myself thinking of 50s - 60s British horror films while watching this. Many of those have a short bit of exposition, the kind of writing that is intending primarily to present information, by the main character to help bring together the disparate plot and background bits the viewer might need to make sense of the film. This film was dominated by exposition.
When the film backed away from the monologues and the dream sequences, and, opinions to the contrary aside, it did back away from these from time to time, it was engaging.
The acting seemed to me, in parts, to be a parody of 1910 era acting. The "severe doctor" routine is one I recall seeing in some silent films. It was usually directed toward a patient, not another doctor. Both Wardlow and Fenton seemed to be channeling this character while arguing. With the 1911 setting of the story I saw this as an interesting cultural feedback loop. I don't recall hearing the accents used in the movie at anytime when I was in the Catskills. To me, a former New York State resident, the accents were ludicrous and a real distraction.
*****Spoiler In Next Two Paragraphs*****
I'm a fan of Lovecraft's writing. I do not hate all of the movies based upon his work. I'm a Jeffery Combs fan based upon his Herbert West characterization. This was the most unusual adaptation I've seen to date. It certainly got to the heart of the obsessive nature of many of Lovecraft's main characters. When Eischel reveals the physical alteration he's made to himself it is more than just madness he reveals, he also lays bare his willingness to do whatever is necessary to achieve his ends.
This movie was at times difficult to watch for good reasons, i.e. - it was disturbing when it should have been disturbing. It was also difficult to watch for bad reasons, i.e. - the script or delivery of it was wooden or hammy. The best example of this came at the end when you could have gone to the kitchen and made coffee in the pause between the bulk of the last sentence of the script and the last word of the last sentence.
worst acting ever
juliast-120 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
first of all, i've seen better acting in high school Shakespeare productions. and there is NEVER good acting in high school Shakespeare productions. at first i couldn't tell if it was the acting or the writing that stank so abominably, but then i realized, it was both. it's just that the acting was definitely worse.
that fountain yount dude took the character of a mad genius and played it like a little emo b*tch. and that part where he's got that wire coming out of his head so he can conduct his "experiment"....he just looked ridiculous. not scary.
the movie was not without its decent parts. the black and white cinematography with the fevered flashes of color.... i mean it was clever. (perhaps the entire budget of the film was spent on such effects rather than to hire decent actors). and the image of a bloodstained girl walking down the hallway of a mental hospital, singing "ring around the rosie" and smacking a severed head against the wall was definitely cool, though i found myself wishing someone would put the top of her skull back on.
i won't say watching this film is a COMPLETE waste, and i look forward to finding the right opportunity to quote, "i'm not above f*cking you like a low-rent whore" (good line!), but, as a whole, I think H.P. Lovecraft would have been appalled.
that fountain yount dude took the character of a mad genius and played it like a little emo b*tch. and that part where he's got that wire coming out of his head so he can conduct his "experiment"....he just looked ridiculous. not scary.
the movie was not without its decent parts. the black and white cinematography with the fevered flashes of color.... i mean it was clever. (perhaps the entire budget of the film was spent on such effects rather than to hire decent actors). and the image of a bloodstained girl walking down the hallway of a mental hospital, singing "ring around the rosie" and smacking a severed head against the wall was definitely cool, though i found myself wishing someone would put the top of her skull back on.
i won't say watching this film is a COMPLETE waste, and i look forward to finding the right opportunity to quote, "i'm not above f*cking you like a low-rent whore" (good line!), but, as a whole, I think H.P. Lovecraft would have been appalled.
Fascinating to say the least
plentyoffishhere7 June 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is interesting. I love horror and love Lovecraft. I have an extensive collection of horror and am proud to say that I own every Lovecraft movie made. Even the short for Beyond the Wall Of Sleep put out years ago in Canada at a film fest. Thank you EBAY!
I hope this give me the credentials to review as I have never reviewed a movie publicly before.
With that said I disagree with the reviewer who posted before me. I watched this movie with low expectations as I based my expectations on its predecessors who have always fallen short of the mark. This one however I thought has a lot of merit. A lot of chutzpah as Shakespearians might say. It was overly flashy with the editing and the acting at times did stretch into the painful realm. but, I love it and the overall story that drove the movie. That is why I gave it a ten.
The acting is obviously meant to be a bit top heavy in style and the script is an interesting take on one of Lovecrafts most promising stories. Not an angle I would go with, but an interesting one at best. The inner cut between black and white and color works. I actually wanted to see more. I believe that the black and white world is the real world and the color world is the celestial other world (in this movie of the demon) as mentioned in the story. Well done!
The montage where Edward starts to understand what is going on is amazing. The music really added the punch of that moment and everything after that for me was just candy. I have seen a few comments of people turning this off half way through and that is a shame as I didn't think the movie really kicked in until half way through. But, isn't that what all Lovecraft stories are like? They never really begin until they are actually over.
The ending left a cliff hanger. Will there be another one? Personnaly I hope so as I really enjoyed this film.
I hope this give me the credentials to review as I have never reviewed a movie publicly before.
With that said I disagree with the reviewer who posted before me. I watched this movie with low expectations as I based my expectations on its predecessors who have always fallen short of the mark. This one however I thought has a lot of merit. A lot of chutzpah as Shakespearians might say. It was overly flashy with the editing and the acting at times did stretch into the painful realm. but, I love it and the overall story that drove the movie. That is why I gave it a ten.
The acting is obviously meant to be a bit top heavy in style and the script is an interesting take on one of Lovecrafts most promising stories. Not an angle I would go with, but an interesting one at best. The inner cut between black and white and color works. I actually wanted to see more. I believe that the black and white world is the real world and the color world is the celestial other world (in this movie of the demon) as mentioned in the story. Well done!
The montage where Edward starts to understand what is going on is amazing. The music really added the punch of that moment and everything after that for me was just candy. I have seen a few comments of people turning this off half way through and that is a shame as I didn't think the movie really kicked in until half way through. But, isn't that what all Lovecraft stories are like? They never really begin until they are actually over.
The ending left a cliff hanger. Will there be another one? Personnaly I hope so as I really enjoyed this film.
1 star movie with a 10 star commentary.
c10538-112 July 2010
OK. It's conceded that this movie is very low budget, cheesy to the max, and just plain bad. However, it's still worth watching, as it's got the most entertaining film director's commentary I've ever heard in my life. In fact, I'd never watched a DVD with a film commentary before I watched this one. Because of this film, I now watch film commentaries religiously.
The film makers, who I think were drinking when they recorded the commentary, give spontaneous, unscripted, razor-sharp comments about the trials of independent film-making, ragging on some of their co-stars along the way. Some of their observations were so hilarious, it caused me to laugh until I had tears in my eyes. (SPOILER QUOTE FROM THE COMMENTARY: "An independent film is like a piece of poop.") If you're familiar with MST3K or Mike Nelson's Rifftrax, it's basically what the film makers did -- they riffed their own movie.
Their commentary raises this from a bad, cheesy, low-budget horror film to one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen. Rating this movie a 1 star for horror and a 10 star for commentary, I give it a composite score of 6 stars, because the commentary really is that entertaining.
The film makers, who I think were drinking when they recorded the commentary, give spontaneous, unscripted, razor-sharp comments about the trials of independent film-making, ragging on some of their co-stars along the way. Some of their observations were so hilarious, it caused me to laugh until I had tears in my eyes. (SPOILER QUOTE FROM THE COMMENTARY: "An independent film is like a piece of poop.") If you're familiar with MST3K or Mike Nelson's Rifftrax, it's basically what the film makers did -- they riffed their own movie.
Their commentary raises this from a bad, cheesy, low-budget horror film to one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen. Rating this movie a 1 star for horror and a 10 star for commentary, I give it a composite score of 6 stars, because the commentary really is that entertaining.
What happened?
nykfynn26 August 2006
This film is a horrendous representation of a brilliant short story by the same name, written by H.P. Lovecraft. I read the story right before I saw the movie and was greatly anticipating seeing this story play out on film. What happened to the story? This is such a loosely-based movie that a viewer should be warned. If you read the story, just stare at your TV and imagine it playing out in front of you, I guarantee that will be much more entertaining than watching "Beyond the Wall of Sleep". The over-acting is horrible, simply put - I've seen better acting in porn. It will not attain cult classic status because of this reason. Plan 9 from Outer Space you can at least laugh at, this movie just made me want to sleep and hopefully that would allow me to miss the ending, but I stuck through it and was well disappointed. How this could win at a film festival whose mission statement is to promote the proper use of Lovecraft in cinema is beyond me. Save your money.
Terrible acting equals terrible movie
grandfunkfan7 February 2007
I have my own stereotypical ideas of how insane people might act. I also have my own ideas of how people who are possessed by demons or other beings might act. The acting by most of the main characters in Beyond The Wall Of Sleep does not fit in any category of acting except Bad Acting. Many of the lines are delivered as if being read for the first time with the actors following parenthetical guidelines and sideline instructions from their coach or stage mother. The actors portraying insane characters could pretty much get away with anything, but the so-called sane characters are not in the least believable. Sanderson is okay in his muttering portrayal of an inbred degenerate, but by far most of the other actors were simply horrible, over-emoting and stretching their facial expressions to comedic proportions. Horrible acting does not make a good horror show. Yount, as Edward Eischel, is perhaps the ultimate BAD actor. I noticed when I clicked on Yount's name that, at the time of this writing, there were no other filmography credits for Yount. Hopefully there never will be.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone as an example of what H. P. Lovecraft's writing can conjure in a fertile mind. For me, one of the biggest failings in all the Lovecraft inspired movies I have seen is the portrayal of the creatures. Usually the creatures are poorly made-up, poorly animated, and just overall not living up to the feelings of terror inspired by Lovecraft's writing. Beyond The Wall Of Sleep has believable horrific creatures, but the portrayal of humans is not to be believed.
I would not recommend this movie to anyone as an example of what H. P. Lovecraft's writing can conjure in a fertile mind. For me, one of the biggest failings in all the Lovecraft inspired movies I have seen is the portrayal of the creatures. Usually the creatures are poorly made-up, poorly animated, and just overall not living up to the feelings of terror inspired by Lovecraft's writing. Beyond The Wall Of Sleep has believable horrific creatures, but the portrayal of humans is not to be believed.
The BEst Crappy Movie
SheinkoM24 October 2006
Oh my god, I just watched this movie, Beyond the Wall of Sleep, and it must be a joke. It has to be. This movie was so shitty that my testicles blew up. The acting is worse than a high school play. The way it was shot makes you stand up and scream "what the f*ck" at the T.V. I read the damn short story and it was shitty too. Don't MAKE A SHITTY MOVIE OUT OF A SHITTY STORY. SCREW YOU WHO EVER WASTED MY TIME! OK, Now I'll actually explain why i feel this way. 1. The main characters wig keeps changing places. 2. No one on the box is actually in the movie. 3. Apparently anybody from the Catskills...is a retard? 4. No one says "im gonna crush your balls and throw you into the gutter.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
