Cthulhu (2007) Online

This "movie" was terrible. The DP should be shot. They clearly spent no time on development, rehearsal, or scouting locations. That the producer sold belongings to get this movie made is profoundly sad and I hope he received treatment for whatever malady caused him to feel such fervor for this film. Uwe Boll movies MIGHT be better and they are among the worst films around. I was especially disappointed in Cara Buono's performance as I have enjoyed her work before.

Characters smile at inappropriate times for no discernible reason. Camera work to set the mood was a complete failure and annoying in its presentation. Subplots are picked up and immediately ignored. Motivations are hazy at best. No special effects to enhance the story. Absolutely nothing of Lovecraft in this movie except the title. The highlight of the film was when I sent it back to Netflix. Ugh!

I really wanted to like this, especially with the glut of direct to video adaptations of Lovecraft stories (Beyond the Wall of Sleep etc) that are essentially student project level non-movies. But this is yet another example of a film that heavily relies on Lovecraft and yet totally jettisons any real relation to the author or his works, much less the sensibility behind them. It owes more to The Shadow Over Innsmouth than anything, and unfortunately that world was already realized in far better (yet still in woefully inadequate) fashion in "Dagon." To someone who loves Lovecraft as much as I, it's rather insulting this film is called "Cthulhu." There are ideas the writer and director were far more interested in, such as the main character's confused sexuality, than anything written by Lovecraft. So, why not drop the illusion of being a Lovecraft adaptation, and simply make the film that was there without him, since little in this film relates much to his writing? Answer? Because if you use his name and the titles of his works you gain free publicity and legitimacy. You will also let down legions of HPL fans because once again someone has made a film that seems to think it's own very uninteresting and pedestrian ideas have any place mixed in with the cosmic horror of Lovecraft. And worse, viewers who don't know HPL will once again be left with the opinion that "Gee, I guess he wasn't that good a writer." And with this sad example, you can probably add "Was Lovecraft gay?" to those questions.

This is a terrible adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Shadow Over Innsmouth." The acting was weak, the direction was weak, and the original content has been butchered. I saw this movie at the Seattle International Film Festival, and that was the worst mistake I made all weekend. If you want to see a film based on "Shadow Over Innsmouth," Stuart Gordon's "Dagon" is mediocre, but it's certainly better than this botched attempt. If you want to see "Call of Cthulhu," the silent film adaptation is great. But this? This film is a waste of time. I suspect the people who are writing 10 out of 10 scores are either friends of the director or shills who worked on the film. There is no earthly way this film is a 10. It stinks like a rotten pile of fish.

OK, I'm a long-time reader of H.P. Lovecraft, and I'll admit I have been disappointed again and again with film adaptations of his works. But this extremely loose adaptation of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth" would have Mr. Lovecraft spinning in his grave. The protagonist is a gay professor who travels the long two hours to his estranged mother's funeral. His homosexuality takes up a disproportionately large part of the movie, and I'm not quite sure why. Does it MATTER that he is gay? Isn't it rather cliché and a negative stereotype to show him in bed with a "street kid" and to include random Gus Van Sant-ish scenes of moody (and way too clean) rent boys on the "mean streets" of Seattle at the beginning of the film? What does that have to do with Fish-Creatures and Unutterable Horror!!? And why is he hooking up with his (straight) childhood buddy halfway through the movie and indulging in a loving sex scene with lots of back-patting and kissy-face when he is supposed to be investigating the suspicious disappearances of the locals at the hands of eldritch, nefarious creatures? Why was I subjected to a scene of the two friends as teenagers jacking off together at sunset under a pier? Where's Cthulhu??? I feel like I went to see "Brokeback Beach" instead of a chilling thrilling tale of the macabre. Who CARES if the guy is gay? I don't care! He can do what he wants on his own time! I just wanted to see scary stuff. Total monster screen time for this picture clocked in at about 30 seconds, unless you count Tori Spelling, then maybe you can bump it up to 15 minutes. Sigh...I don't know what these idiots were thinking. I won't even begin to relay the plot, because there wasn't one. I read a quote from the filmmakers that said they "didn't know anything about the horror genre and had no respect for it when they started this project." Well then, why did you make the film? Why choose Lovecraft to massacre?

I feel like I lost two hours of my life yesterday.

When I heard about this movie last year I was very excited, maybe this time they would make a good Lovecraftian movie. I've been a fan Lovecraft for over 20 years now, and have read all of his stories and seen almost all the movies based upon his work. And as a general rule, those movies have been pretty bad, with 2 or three exceptions. But lets talk about this movie. It's based loosely upon on "Shadow over Innsmouth". the good things about the movie are the underlying dread and the nihilistic view upon current world affairs. The settings are good(a gay main character is an interesting twist) and the filmmakers manage to make the movie look creepy in few places

But...the bad things are too many to ignore. The acting is very bad, the main protagonist gets very annoying as the movie goes on. The editing makes film disjointed in places. The photography is like on a America funniest home video and the script is badly focused. After 40 minutes you cant wait for the film to end. And I must mention Jason Cottle wig/hairpiece at the beginning of the movie, it's atrociously bad and very funny to look at. I realize that the movie was made on tight budget and I respect the filmmakers for trying to make the best movie they could. I see the potential but they are not there yet.

For me this movie was a total disappointment, because i made the mistake of having high expectations for it.

I was just at the "world premiere" of Cthulhu at the Seattle Int'l Film Festival tonight so this comment IS actually about the correct film. Someone connected to the film previously commented that some posts are not relevant or are about some other film - and gave a score of 10 while at it.

To be blunt: Cthulhu is not a good film. I had high hopes going in, as I do with all films shown at SIFF, but I was disappointed throughout and I know others were as well. From the mediocre-to-outright-horrible acting (except, ironically, for Tori Spelling who plays a sexy, baby-seeking blonde), to the lackluster script, to the 2 hour running time (note to director: you should be GLAD you were forced to reduce it to this length).... starting at the half-way point I could not wait for it to be over. Had the film been written and shot as a tongue-in-cheek comedic version of the story with intentional sarcasm, etc, it might have worked. But the combination of trying to make a serious film, plus the bad acting, makes Cthulhu not quite worth the celluloid it's printed on.

Kudos for Gildark for making ANY first film, especially because this one was made in my neck of the woods (and my neck of the woods needs more films made in it). But unfortunately it didn't work out - and Cthulhu likely doesn't have any chance of being commercially viable. If you're a Lovecraft fanatic you might have a different take altogether, but your numbers are probably too low to make much of a difference to help the film succeed. The rest of us just want/ed to be entertained by a good film. Will need to look elsewhere.

I did not have very high hopes about this movie. That was good. When I first saw the trailer I thought "Oh, for a private production by a bunch of college guys this isn't half bad" and then I found out that this was not the case. It was an actual production, a "real" movie. Oh hell.

The worst thing about this movie wasn't the sometimes really bad acting, not the tendency to always follow the rule "when not knowing what to do with the story, throw in a weird montage" or even the lack of an actual plot line. The worst thing was that in some scenes it got your hopes up. It was like "Oh, oh, here they can save it! They can make it all better! Just let them make this into... no. Not this time either." It was a never ending anti-climax.

And yes, the ending is yet another case of that sickness. They could have saved it a little there. They could have blackened out the last scene and then showed us just a silhouette way out in the ocean. Something that would make us understand that He is coming. That this really is the end. Instead they just goes "Let's finish this off quickly and disturbingly, come on!" This movie never ever demand any sanity rolls whatsoever, so you RPG fans can just forget to bring your D100 along.

This is really one of the most poorly made and written movies I have seen. The characterisations are weak and uninteresting, exposition is ham-fistedly thrown at you, conclusions bluntly presented and inconsistencies rife.

The director failed to make even the simple decision in how to pronounce 'Cthulhu' which has the effect of making the uninitiated think a new character is introduced.

The acting is weak, with the lead character switching between camp rage and comical bewilderment every other minute.

The 'horrors of a gay man in small town' allegory is completely misfired - unless gay men are often asked to seek out missing children and be raped by randy housewives.

HP Lovecraft seems to suffer from the eternal legacy of amateur fools attempting to make his works as Z-movies, of which 'Cthulhu' definitely falls into, and that is a shame as the original source material is so strong.

In summary, this is a terrible movie that has nothing in common with the original source material except for the lifting of certain names and places.

I really wanted to like this movie. I'm a big fan of the Cthulu mythos, and the preview actually looked pretty good.

Unfortunately, this is yet another disappointing release from HERE TV.

The frustrating thing is that the movie almost works. There are a lot of wonderfully creepy little details: the bizarre check out girl who passes the protagonist a warning note, the strange kids saying "I knew you'd be back", the crazy things being reported on the news.

Unfortunately, the film never really gels. I never felt scared, or even particularly interested in what was going to happen to the main character. About half way though the film, the plot breaks down almost completely and weird random events seem to take over everything.

The film was at least mildly interesting in a "what sort of weird stuff will they throw out next" sort of way, but never really worked as a story.

Cinematography varies from some very nice shots of the ocean to some very amateurish hand held stuff.

A true to life portrayal of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulu mythology has rarely been seen over the past 40 or so years, especially installment with decent budgets. The few attempts to capture this level of pure insanity have all fallen far far short and this rendition is no saving grace. "Cthulhu" centers around and gay college professor returning home for his mothers funeral, only to discover that his once serene hometown is now the backbone of a malevolent cult, and that he himself, plays a key role in their nefarious machinations. I mention the fact the he is a gay man merely because this is what this movie is about. You heard me, "Cthulhu" is more about a mans struggle between family and his sexual orientation, than about cult worship and the resurrection of ancient deities. Imagine if Lord of the Rings was more about the strong homo-erotic undertones between Sam and Frodo, and less about complete salvation of their entire world. If you can picture that, then you have "Cthulhu"; pretty much all 100 minuets of it I would say. The fact that he is gay does play into the overall storyline, but is overly focused upon, thus resulting in a incoherent story plagued throughout with poorly ad-libbed dialog and plot progression. The story involves several intense moments of emotion and terror, but poor writing and performance by the actors leaves these scenes lifeless and disorienting. One scene literally starts with a discussion about monsters and cult worship, and abruptly ends with argument about a severe lack of jelly on his PB&J. Its OK to feel like you need to read that last sentence again. One could argue that these moments are intentionally puzzling, as to capture the sense of insanity that The Cthulhu Mythos is most know for. Sorry guys not buying it. The direction choices are neither clever nor a foundation of the film fundamentals, what ever they may be, but rather a way of filling space between love scenes and ultimately dumbing down the entire film. However, beautiful imagery and a sparse, but superbly conducted soundtrack make for a stunning viewing experience. Unique and creative camera work establish the drama in more ways than the actors themselves, but a sever lack of music during several key points of the film does little to keep audience's attention during dialog heavy scenes. Anyone interested in a career behind a camera should invest the time into this film for its great camera direction, which though stylish and well refined, is not enough to save this film in its entirety. From the start of the film, audiences are left just far enough out of the story loop to leave you guessing. Guessing what? Perhaps whats going on? Perhaps why are some of the actors incredibly loud all the time, while others can barely be heard? Perhaps why am I still watching this movie? Perhaps the eeriness of devout hordes of ancient demon worshipers is a task that can only be handled by big budget studios and a top list cast. Or, maybe, you just need someone out there who actually wants to make a movie about the Cthulhu Mythos, and not just stick a big "Cthulu was here" sticker on a homosexual love story. If your going to make a movie about Cthulhu, make it about Cthulhu. Life, please don't send me deceitful crap like this again.

It is a sad thing that Lovecraft's writing style lends itself so well to camp and B-flicks and so poorly to artful and complex movies. At least, that is if you are to analyze the movies based on the Mythos. There are very few movies based on Lovecraft's work that surpasses your average B horror movie, and in this case, even though the movie itself looks and feels nothing like a B horror movie, it actually suffers more from it.

We are introduced to Professor Russ Marsh, a homosexual. Basically, that's all we ever learn of him, and it's a bit confusing that his sexual orientation takes up so much screen time. Him being gay does tie in with the story, but not to such an extent that the film makers should be forced to remind us of his orientation every five minutes, which is the case in this movie. At the very beginning of the film, the homosexuality bit feels almost a bit fresh for a Lovecraft film, however.

Over all, the intro to the movie is very moody and beautifully filmed. The car crash is not really much of a surprise, but it helps set a good atmosphere.

Everything falls apart once Russ reaches his home town in Rivermouth (Innsmouth?) county. Russ's father - who appear to be about five years older than Russ - is the leader of some odd cult, and also a horrible actor. He chastises Russ for being gay throughout the movie, and, despite the horrible acting, we are treated to a few nice scenes of a dysfunctional family. The bad acting seems to be the hallmark of Rivermouth county, and with the exception of Russ's childhood friend and soon-to-be lover Mike, the cast's performance ranges from mediocre to dismal.

Lovecraft's The Shadow Over Insmouth is picked apart and shuffled freely as the plot unfolds, and it seemed to me that all the good parts from the story were missing. The Shadow Over Insmouth had several set pieces that have been included in previous adaptations, so I can forgive the screenwriter for not including them, but the bits that are there are so few and far between that you never feel the presence of the Mythos, and you certainly don't feel that you're watching a film based off of a Lovecraft story.

Connecting global calamities like the melting of the polar caps and the war in the Middle East to the Cthulhu Mythos is a nice touch, but it is never delved into, and feels almost like the movie taking a five minute break while bombarding us with stock footage. Not resolving anything is very Lovecraftian, but this movie doesn't even attempt to create any plot or problems not to resolve. Over all, it feels really empty.

The biggest complaint that I have now and that I had when I first heard that this movie was being made, is that the film makers don't really seem interested in the subject matter. The nods to the Cthulhu Mythos in the movie seem stapled on more than anything, and it is quite obvious that no one involved in making the movie had any concept of the Mythos.

I suppose that in order to be able to watch any decent Mythos movies I need to keep turning to the HP Lovecraft Historical Society. They may not have any budget, but they have heart and a deep rooted understanding of the source material. I'd recommend watching The Call of Cthulhu by Andrew Leman and the HPLHS any day over this loose adaptation.

If you're looking for extremely bad acting and a long-winded introduction to the political views and sexuality of the director, this is your film! If on the other hand your intention is to watch a good horror film, try something else.

Don't believe any of the positive reviews here. They were most certainly written by people connected to this miserable production.

That's all I have to say about the movie, but this is my first review, and I didn't realize that one is required to write at least 10 lines! That seems sort of silly considering the fact that we're constantly being inundated with meaningless verbiage. Nice to know that this sort of nonsense is being "enforced by Law"...

I personally prefer the "Brevity is the soul of wit"-philosophy, but who cares, right?

Word among my wife's circle of friends was that the 2007 movie Cthulhu was wretchedly bad. If you are bad movie fanatics like we are, this was reason to place the movie on our Netflix queue. No question about it, Cthulhu is a stinker of a movie. However, it languishes somewhere between mediocre and abysmal. I have seen much worse than this, but certainly not recently.

Perhaps I would rate this clunker lower if it were not that some of the actors actually seem to be trying. Jason Cottle plays Russ, a reputedly brilliant university professor in the Pacific Northwest who is reluctantly drawn home because of the untimely passing of his mother. That and there is the small matter that Armageddon is at hand. While we see him driving home to the funeral, we hear on the radio all these terrible things about the end of the world, like rising sea levels and global anarchy. Not much of it is actually borne out on film though because that would, like, cost money, although the budget was big enough to include one overturned car.

Russ turns out to be gay, which is fine by him, but not so fine with his weird dysfunctional family. Russ's domineering father is particularly unhappy with his sexual orientation but as we learn later it is not because he is particularly homophobic. Nor does he seem particularly broken up by the passing of his spouse. Russ's sister Dannie (Cara Buono) tries to play family peacemaker, but everyone at the old homestead seems very concerned about Russ passing on his DNA to another generation. That's pretty hard when the idea of making love to a woman gives you the hives.

Russ does find himself rather curious when one evening he sees a row of hooded priests, looking like they came out of The Da Vinci Code, climbing out of boats and into an old warehouse along the wharf. Curiosity leads him inside where he finds outlined on chalk on the floor the names of many of the townspeople. What could it possibly mean other than they were being cheap? Should we care? For someone who seems to want to rush back to academia he seems to ask many questions and spends inordinate amounts of time in and under creepy warehouses. Part of his motivation for hanging around is to catch up with an old family friend, whom he conveniently seduces. Through his friend, he learns about a mysterious book that could explain all the weird things going on in town. A clerk at a convenience store warns him to stay away from the old warehouse by the wharf. However, if he is crazy enough to investigate the place would be please look for her younger brother who disappeared some years earlier? It turns out what Russ really has to worry about is Tori Spelling. Tori plays Susan, the friend who allegedly harbors the old book that explains the weird things Russ is witnessing. Tori's presence in a movie is almost an imprimatur of its badness. She is sort of like Adrienne Barbeau's was in movies a few decades back, and she comes with Barbeau's ample cleavage. Susan has a husband who is conveniently paraplegic and sterile. In fact, his visit is a setup because Susan is on a mission to become impregnated. Of course not just anyone will do, as we learn later. It's got to be Russ.

So Susan plays the role of hussy. This one seduction scene is very strange and is perhaps the comic highlight of this lowlife movie, rendering what is probably the silliest scene filmed in the last decade. Fortunately for bad movie buffs, there is plenty more here to wallow over. The movie is tangentially related to H.P. Lovecraft's horror stories wherein Cthulhu apparently is a pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings. No such critter is manifested here of course, as there was no budget for that, but there is a sort of Swamp Thing scene at the very end of the movie. Russ's father and his kind live near an island off Antarctica and spend most of their long lives in the ocean. They apparently manifest as humans from time to time, and use human females to procreate. Yeah, this is pretty convoluted but it explains why Susan is putting the moves on a gay guy.

The movie suffers from the classic symptoms of a bad movie: no budget to speak of, mostly unknown actors, an incoherent script, dialog that doesn't make much sense and a director (Dan Gildark) what doesn't give much of a damn. What's puzzling is that in spite of these problems some of the actors are trying to do something with the material. It is all for naught but perhaps it somewhat immunized them from having careers completely destroyed. Every actor is entitled to at least one clunker. Unfortunately, this one sinks like dead weight.

Cthulhu then comes across as something like a Coen Brothers movie if the brothers were drunk while making the film. It is undeniably an odd little movie. Do not spend too much time trying to connect the plot points because you really cannot. Marvel instead that even though this is a really bad movie, it could still be plenty worse.

If you like an occasional bad movie though, this is definitely one to add to your list.

This has got to be the worst film adaptation i have ever seen. After reading H. P. Lovecrafts "The call of Cthulhu" i got so excited thinking that this was going to actually follow that story. Within the first 15 minutes of the film i was slightly optimistic that it would put aside all of its rubbish and actually improve, but no. What i was then shown were scenes of a man being drugged and raped by a red neck hick who wanted a baby by any means necessary, man on man sex scenes and arguments about a man being gay.

The story has just been ruined. Anyone unfamiliar with the original story would have no idea how fantastic it was because, despite the film having a great concept they could have based it off, they just stole characters and perverted it.

How much irrelevance, swearing and sex scenes are the audience supposed to sit through?!

I was very impressed with the first hour of this movie. I thought.. finally, a very good Lovecraft film. But where is the Cthulhu monster??!!!! This is like a Jurassic Park remake with no dinosaurs. I was so disappointed. Especially with that stupid song at the end! I mean how misplaced a tune can be! I see the final music at the end as a warm welcoming and letting go feeling.. as the protagonist lets go and accepts his Cthulhu identity. But still... Hello??? ..The Lovecraft audience is expecting something much much more different here.

A Lovecraft story is, above all, about those that lurk beyond. A glimpse is not enough Lovecraft bluntly shows us these creatures or entities whatever they are. This is what makes him unique. This is also what makes him not taken very seriously during his life time. And now this movie completely ignores that aspect - which is like betraying Lovecraft, n regard to using the name Cthulhu as the film's title.

I am sure the director and the producer of this film are not trying to exploit the Lovecraft fans but unfortunately that's what it comes down to. I mean, at the very least, this film should not have been named ''Cthulhu'' man. This is wrong.

The gay theme is OK. Actually it fits very well considering the ''secret identity'' theme of the Inssmouth people and Cthulu cult. But overall, this film turned out to be a rather heartbreaking experience for me.

I bet Lovecraft himself would be most unsatisfied with this film.

I'm middle-aged, gay and familiar with the Cthulhu mythos. The problem with this film is everything. It's technically lacking. Only the photography is decent, in an artsy-fartsy but lifeless blue-green two-strip Technicolor cliché-of-the-last-five-years kind of way. The sound mix is so atrocious, there are characters whose words you will never hear and the DVD doesn't come with subtitles so you can't speed-watch the really boring parts while still reading the words. In spite of this, I just had to fast-forward through the forced coupling with Tori Spelling. There is only so much I can take in the name of cinema. I have no problem with the main character being gay. But did he have to be a depressing and depressed highly-strung nellie whose only expression is a kind of impression of a terminally-menstruated Sigourney Weaver in "Alien 3" as rendered by Michael McDonald of "Mad TV"? It's hard enough to watch a film where the hero never manages a smile but must he also seem manic from too much caffeine or possibly crack and generally out of shape and unattractive? Hint to indie producers: Modern audiences generally prefer good-looking people. The editing makes a point of destroying your last chance of actually getting involved in the story and understanding what goes on from one scene to the next, uncomprehensible flashbacks and dream sequences included. The atmosphere is made all the more creepy by the fact that all the actors are extremely amateurish and undirected. Also, this film is not about Cthulhu at all but a failed adaptation of "The Shadow Over Innsmouth". Finally the gayest character in the whole lot is the hero's father, which is itself very troubling. I've only managed to muddle through 50 minutes of the 110 minutes of this film so far. It already seems like an eternity, in a non-Euclidian way. I don't know if I'll make it through... Wish me luck. If you don't hear from me again, please notify my next-of-kin - those that don't have scaly skin anyway. Thank you.

Seems opinions are very extreme when it comes to this film. And I also overheard conversations after the films showing at SIFF in which people said they'd have to think about the film before they offered an opinion on it.

Maybe it's just me, but that seems to be an indication of good art. If people are thinking about it, talking about it, even arguing about it, it's left a far greater impression than a film that mindlessly entertains. And I am of the opinion that "Cthulhu" provides both cerebral and visceral fun.

Yes, the film takes some liberties with Lovecraft's work. Yes, maybe the title "Cthulhu" is a tad non-sequitur in a film that's actually about Dagon. These are minor complaints at best. The film is extremely well-made, funny, and surprisingly scary in parts (underground tunnel, anyone?). Jason Cottle and Tori Spelling are great (you heard me right), as is the fellow who played Tori's wheelchair-bound husband. The script is engaging and, refreshingly, the politics of the "anti-Bush" agenda are subtle, and there only if you want them. The story is the thing here, and that's what Cogswell and Gildark focus on. "Cthulhu" is a fragile, volatile coming home story first, an apocalyptic horror tale second, and thirdly, a blackly humorous metaphor for the regime that's currently choking the life out of the world. The Grand "Old One" Party, indeed.

I did not even know this movie existed until four years after it was made. As a Lovecraft fan I got it without hesitation. The Cthulhu concept is so cool it is hard to mess up but they still managed to do it. How you ask? By, among other things, having a flashback of two teenage boys jacking off together under a pier.

On the other hand the movie is creepy from time to time when the entire town except him seems to be part of the cult but it is ruined by changing the focus to homosexual exploration as soon as it started to catch my interest.

Avoid at all cost. Lovecraft must be turning in his grave. I am not being homophobic, it is just that when you watch something called Cthulhu you don't want to see Brokeback Mountain.

Of the half-dozen films I saw at this year's tepid Seattle Int'l Film Festival, the only ones that have really stayed with me since are 'Outsourced' and this, a local-spun sci-fi/satire/horror hybrid that might have been the festival's most bizarre -- and yet wholly charming -- entry. Judging by what I've read here, reaction is divisive (makes sense: I went with three other people to the encore screening, two of them loved it, one of them, not so much). Afterward I overheard a couple scratching their heads in the theater lobby, wondering how, exactly, one could classify what they just saw.

Which is what, I think, has stuck with me. It doesn't take off until the second act, really -- when Tori Spelling (who actually steals her scenes in a supporting role) shows up on screen, oddly enough, things start to get good. One scene near the middle at Tori's house is reminiscent of something like David Lynch at his funniest, and weirdest. The lead actor (Jason Coddle, who is in, I believe, every single scene) gives a wonderfully paranoid, intense performance. It was made on a shoestring budget, so we get rookie season, but what finally won me over in the end was the sinister mood the film builds, and sustains. Sinister is the word, more than scary, but if you've ever been to a small town in the middle of nowhere before and wondered what unspeakable evil lurks beneath those post offices and general stores, you'll at least be along for the ride.

I'd recommend it. It's fun and it's different. More movies like this should be at the multiplexes and on the shelves.

This movie was more SJW/'eco-pocalypse' fantasy than it was Lovecraftian fantasy. My only regret other than allowing myself to sit through this waste of digital space is that I could not give it negative stars in this review.

The best way to describe CTHULHU is "Kiyoshi Kurosawa's Shadow Over Innsmouth." It's a very deliberately-paced movie with long, moody takes and an emphasis on character drama. This film is a completely love-it-or-hate-it affair. People expecting gore and monsters will be disappointed, but art-house horror fans and David Lynch lovers will be in pure bliss.

H.P. fanatics will argue the merits of this one, but the filmmakers are the first to nail the bizarre fever-dream aspect of Lovecraft's writings. There's a lot of nightmarish imagery and nothing is explained or resolved by the end. And while this is a very loose adaptation, there are plenty of nods to the Cthluhu mythos to keep fans happy.

The acting is a little uneven and there are times when the movie feels TOO disjointed, but this cerebral effort is still the closest we've come to seeing true Lovecraft captured on film. Those sick of Stuart Gordon's camp-fests, will find much to love about Cthulhu.

I saw Cthulhu at The Seattle International Film Festival yesterday (its second screening) and really enjoyed it. It is beautifully shot. The story is fresh and compelling. The acting was very strong. I didn't quite know what to expect going in. I live in Seattle so was interested in the film as a homegrown project, but it's a great movie, and not just because it comes from my neck of the woods. A few parts of it do come across as campy, but I believe that is intentional and part of the fun. After all, the filmmakers have described it as a gay, post-apocalyptic, anti-Bush, horror film. (I mean, please. How do you say that without inserting tongue in cheek at least a little bit!?!)

To address those who don't like the film: it's non-traditional film; reasonable minds will differ because it is edgy and avant garde. I don't fully understand the vehemence some of the doubters are coming at this film with. But they're entitled to their opinions. I will say this: If you go see Cthulhu, you can expect a fully professional film, whether it's your cup of tea or not.

I was especially impressed by first-time director, Dan Gildark and look forward to seeing more from him in the future. I hope he continues to work in film and continues to work from Seattle. See this movie, especially if you've ever had a soft spot in your heart for the Northwest. The shots of Astoria and Seattle are some of the most loving portraits to this area that I have ever seen.

Thought rife with Lovecraft references and drawing heavily on The Shadow over Innsmouth this film isn't really a Lovecraft movie. Rather it is more reminiscent of Kafka's The Trial and has many similar elements.

The gay sex was unnecessary, we understood that the main character was gay, we didn't need to be beaten over the head. It was a good device though because it added to the overall feeling that he was an outsider. It served to sever his ties to his family and community.

As with good Lovecraft though, there's little to no monsters on screen but rather tension and reactions which create the monster in the mind. The scene in the tunnels was particularly effective as was the shop girl freaking out while refusing to tell him what was scaring her. I also thought that the brother-in-law with the Lovecraft chin was a nice touch.

In general this is Kafka meets Lovecraft more than a Lovecraft movie. If you judge it based on the original it certainly falls apart very quickly, but as an 'inspired' film it has good points. Perhaps future efforts will be better and I expect that the filmmakers learned a lot from making this movie. Namining it Cthulhu was a mistake though and by doing so they set themselves up to be held to an impossible standard.

I saw the film at Seattle International Film Festival (best film I saw at the Festival this year) This is a unique film, not everyone is going to love it, and you do have to accept that everything is not going to be presented to you in a neat package when you watch this film.

I having been to Astoria where much of the film was filmed, and a few people there think HP Lovecraft meant Astoria when he talked about his fictional New England town. I doubt Lovecraft even knew of Astoria, however the rise of the old ones is about a world wide event so I imagine there were other towns involved in the plot. And this movie seems to be a continuation of the plot of his books, not a movie of his book.

I also found the horror to be like Lovecraft's books left to your own mind rather then explicitly spoon fed to us, so thankfully you wont see buckets of blood in the movie.

There were a few funny moments that helped break up the film, some hints of plot that was left on the cutting room floor, some beautiful images, a great soundtrack. And finally some good acting, while it may be hard to imagine how a fish person is going to act at the end of the world the main actors did some fantastic performances, especially (to my happy surprise) Tori Spelling.

The film despite some press to the otherwise isn't overtly anti Bush, anti Religion or overly Gay. The film also doesn't try an tie up everything neatly for you, So if you like to think when you go to the movies and don't need your movies explained to you you might really like this film.

It gets extra points for being the first film of the Director, and independently filmed and produced in the NorthWest, but i would have loved this film even if it was a Hollywood film. But as I said this is a unique film, I am not sure Hollywood could make such a film.

I put off watching this for a long time. It couldn't be good. After all, it's supposed to be a Lovecraft movie. With Tori Spelling. I downloaded it on the off chance that she would get the 'Dagon'-treatment.

The first 20 minutes or so got my hopes up: So far, no Tori. Lots of strained shots, trying to be beautiful. It looked like a post-grad love project. Unfortunately, the following hour and a half can be summarised in bullet points:

• Tori drugs and rapes a guy. - The police chief quotes Yeats.

and, in a negative sense, the following disappointments: - No Cthulhu - No story - No tentacled, naked women and/or naked women being savagely violated by tentacled beings from beyond. (Ok, I admit: this one is more of a personal hobby-horse.)

All in all, this movie made me hope that Guillermo del Toro gets to produce that 'At the mountains of madness'-script he has purportedly been lugging around with for a number of years. That would probably be a worthy Lovecraft adaptation. This film is not. For my two hour's worth, just re-reading any Lovecraft story would have been infinitely better.