Beyond the Wall of Sleep (2006) Online

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!!"

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.

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!

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!

Well, to be honest, it ended cool and very Lovecraftian, but dear god, what was the deal with that camera work?!?!?! If you ever eat some bad meat and need to "get rid of it" just watch this movie and use it for video ipecac. Some guy thought he was being really neat-o with the jiggly-wiggly tricks, but just managed making the movie so hard to follow that, if I wouldn't have been to hung over to get and and put in a good movie...well...I would have done just that.

That was some of the worst acting I've ever seen, and the only thing (to quote the cover) "truly disturbing" was the wig the main actor wore.

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.

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.

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!

I started to write a lengthy summery of the film, but realized someone probably would be doing that or has done that before me. Basically, my thoughts are as follows: Being a low budget movie maker myself I understand there are always complications and issues that arise with the making and finishing of a movie. This looks low budget and in my opinion, good on ya, for getting it done. How do I know that they had complications?

That leads me to my next train of thought:

I have never listened to a commentary track that was so honest and so to the point. When I watched it I meant to watch just a few minutes to see what these guys sounded like and ended up hearing the whole thing because they said anything, or so it seemed, that came to their minds. It sounded a lot like mine I made on an indie I did that is still waiting to get picked up. Nice job Filmmakers!

Before I go let me say that my worst and best thoughts on the movie.

Worst is that there should have been more close ups on the inbreeder and they should have done more with Edward going to the woods. It seemed disjointed.

Best comment is the shots of Edward and the brain girl. Great chemistry and it had such a classic movie making style. It really was terrific. I felt like I was watching one of the classics.

That's all. If you would like to be on my mailing list for my own film which I'm shooting end of July please send me a message through IMDb.

"Every man, and every woman is a star." ---Aleister Crowley

"Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?" --Edgar Allan Poe

Beyond the Wall of Sleep isn't going to be some timeless-classic, but it's a very solid piece of Lovecraftian cinema. A good-portion of the original 1919 short is present here, with some of the usual liberties taken. The bulk of the story is here: Joe Slater, a Catskills inbred is found in his home screaming indescribable-utterances, and begins attacking his neighbors who have come to see what the commotion is all-about. With super-human strength, he attacks one of his neighbors, ..."leaving behind an unrecognizable pulp-like thing that had been a living man but an hour before." In short-order, Joe is taken in-chains to an asylum by the State Police. It appears he has a growth on his back that resembles a face, and two-hands...as though someone was trying to escape his body. Things get-stranger from there. At times, the inbred seems to be inhabited by a superior-intelligence, babbling strange-utterances of no-known language.

In the film, Joe (played with skill by the great William Sanderson who is now seen as the Mayor in the Deadwood series) flees and is eventually caught by a sheriff's posse (changed to State police, led by Tom Savini), followed by a party of local inbreds. Things get-darker at this point. This is all fine-and-well, so I don't want to seem like some Lovecraft-fanatic splitting-hairs. Some alterations work, some don't. The face on the back is still there in the film, and while you might believe it is an undeveloped-aspect, Lovecraft didn't do much with it either.

One major-change works well: changing the narrator. In Lovecraft's tale, it is the intern who tells the story after it has happened--with the characteristic lack-of-context of how-much later it's happening, or even the name of the narrator himself. Nobody who knows Lovecraft well would say his writing was always good, but there were things that the filmmakers left-out that I found confusing. Namely, the nature of the being inhabiting Joe Slater. In the original-short, the being is not necessarily evil or malefic, though sometimes destructive and unpredictable. It's as though it struggles to merely exist in Slater's body, seemingly trapped in him. Evil? Maybe, though not on a cosmic-scale, that seems evident in Lovecraft's original short-story.

Quite the contrary, the being is attempting to destroy another being known as "the adversary" out of revenge. It struck me that the adversary is supposed to be like the devil, or some truly malefic-being, while the being inhabiting Joe Slater is of a lower-order in the cosmos. "Good" and "evil" become meaningless in the Lovecraftian cosmology, so I found this too-simple. The original short has the being leave Slater's body, becoming a star that attempts to eclipse and destroy the adversary-star in another realm of the cosmos. The tale ends with the "good" being losing, the event being viewed by astronomers as a nova, then dying.

Ironically, I believe this could have been done more-economically than the Cthuloid-being that was created with CGI. The tales becomes one of a summoning, when the original is really about the escape of an entity that has been trapped in the body of an imbecile. This, then, is probably my main-problem with the film, but the theme of dreams being more-real than our own reality is still present and well-expressed in the editing and imagery. The images of the children are very-interesting, because it reflects H.P. Lovecraft's cosmic-horror so well. The children are subdeities toying-with humanity, much like the Archons of the Gnostic-cosmology.

It should also be noted that early-Christianity held that all people had a star for themselves in the cosmos--it was what we became after death. The ancient Gnostics felt that a select-few people in the world were part of a "starry race", or "knowers" of the divine. They were supposed to hold a "divine-spark" within-themselves, and Gnostics (especially Sethians) believed they were not of this world, but of this race. How Lovecraft embedded similar-concepts in his shorts is a mystery, since most all Gnostic-texts have only come-to-light since 1945--eight-years after his death. I also have to wonder how Crowley had-access to these Gnostic and Hermetic-concepts, it is puzzling as many of the Gnostic-ones simply weren't considered even to exist. It's a shame, but this wonderful mystical-aspect is almost absent in the adaptation, and it bothers me. However, the film is still very good for Lovecraftian cinema. It accurately reflects how brutal turn-of-the-century America was, too.

I especially enjoyed the opening-prologue with the time-date slate, showing us when the recounting of the tale happens (1979). American Mental Institutions were notorious 100-years-ago, so the context of the tale is solid. Maybe some of the production-design could have been better, but this is micro-budget cinema and the film is a great achievement, nonetheless. The subplot with the trepanned-girl (lifted from "Hannibal"?) was good, but I thought could have been pared-back to the very-end, this might have been more-effective in making it unsettling. We should remember that the short is a little over four-pages, so its addition is understandable and sets-the-stage for the intern's and Joe Slater's fusion with an electronic-apparatus.

The gore is stupendous, and I really enjoyed the mixing of black & white photography with color (color denoting that Joe's dream-reality has intruded into our own). The super-fast editing was also very good, and there are some truly unforgettable-images in this film. But remember: this is low-budget cinema, it was probably made for a couple-million dollars, possibly less. But it works, it's respectable horror. Lovecraft is about imagination, unfortunately the makers of this movie forgot that this is the key to his horror.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Here's a comedy in disguise. At first I wasn't going to rent this film because I really only like comedies and am not into horror films all that much. But, the comedies I like are the hard to find, off beat humor, character based ones. That's why when I watched this (at the behest of crankmore112) I couldn't stop laughing.

this movie contains all the elements of hilarious comedy. The main actor wears a wig, the lead actress has her brain exposed and wants more sex all the time, but not sex that is normal sex rather sex through electronic wires in her head. She sits there and moans "more more" and the wig guy says, "just like a woman to beg for more." OMG, my girl and I just about fell out of our seat laughing.

Don't misunderstand me, if this is meant to be a horror work it failed. I do think the special effects are weak and the monster a little cooky at the end but for a low budget work its great fun for comedy reasons.

Greg

OMG - First off I am NOT a HORROR FAN AT ALL!!! My boyfriend made me watch this and all I can say is that it scared the beejesus out of me! I still can't get the image of the girl with the brain exposed out of my head and her voice when she would talk SO terrible.

There is actually a scene where she is hitting a severed head against a wall and singing to herself.

There was also really cheesy funny times in the movie which mellowed out the scary stuff, but it was more scary then funny for me. One funny thing that I will mention is that the main guy Edward starts screaming like a baby when he see's all his body parts outside the asylum. They were thrown away and he grabs one of them and starts crying "my brains." LOL

I'll never watch it again so I think that it did it's job. If you like to be scared or your boyfriend likes to scare you I'd add this to the list.

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.