The Whisperer in the Darkness (2011)

NIGHT 14

     "I've spoken to them, Wilmarth."

The Whisperer in the Darkness (2011) is an independent feature film based on the short story by the same name by H.P. Lovecraft. This is the second film by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, their follow-up to the featurette The Call of Cthulhu (2005).

This film is about Albert Wilmarth, a professor specializing in folklore who follows up on some strange events happening in the hills of Vermont and stumbles upon a conspiracy attempt to ensure he doesn't tell anyone of what he's been told or sees.

The production value of this film blows me away. This is an independently financed film by essentially amateur filmmakers and it really doesn't feel that way for most of this film. Thanks to the magnificently chosen props, locations, sets and even low budget effects that really sell the story the film is telling.

The execution of bringing this story to the screen is really quite impressive. I think the first two acts are absolutely brilliant, and really intriguing. It's easy to get drawn into the mystery. There's a slight problem with the story in the first two acts in that the viewer is pretty much always two steps ahead of our protagonist who apparently is quick to take anyone's word for pretty much the entire film. But even this kind of works in the film's favor as the viewer pretty much suspects the typed letter and the strange events surrounding it is a trap and then the surprise of Akeley actually being there works very well and adds a strange and eirey level of suspense.


And lastly I have to mention the amazing score in this film by Troy Sterling Nies who also worked on The Call of Cthulhu and as you may remember, the soundtrack in that film was one of my favorite things about it. And the score here is also quite impressive.

The worst part of this film is the third act. I agree that the original story (which this film is  pretty truthful up until the third act) ends in a way that wouldn't make for a great film. But to me it's painfully obvious that the story strays in the third act. The third act is riddled with story conveniences left and right. Hannah's father who just decides to spill tons of relevant information and exposition to Wilmarth right before conveniently killing himself is just plain bad writing. This isn't to say I hated everything in the third act, I thought what the filmmakers tried to do by adding Hannah was a pretty decent addition (though not executed the best way) and I like the twist at the end quite a bit. But like I said it's painfully obvious that the third act doesn't fit the rest of the film.

One of the biggest improvements from The Call of Cthulhu is the acting. Sure most of the cast of this film was in that one, but here you can actually see they can act, it was just the silent medium that was holding them back. Overall I was impressed with the entire cast of this film, but I really got to hand it to Matt Foyer. I was really impressed with his work in this film as our protaganist, Albert Wilmarth he offers a very charming and delightful lead for the viewer to follow and get sucked into the world.

The other thing I love about this film is the cinematography. The black and white cinematography is really amazing here, far better than a lot of big Hollywood productions in my opinion. Great camera angles, masterful camera moves and editing (also done by cinematographer David Robertson) and and masterful use of light. It's absolutely beautiful and really one of the major reasons you should watch this film.

The Whisperer in the Darkness (2011) is a great follow-up to The Call of Cthulhu (2005) I think the HPLHS is really on to something here and I can't wait to see what their next film production will be. I also wish more independent filmmakers were making films like this because if they were I'd think the state of contemporary film would be in a much better place.

4/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




That's it for my Lovecraft film streak this year on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies but tune in tomorrow for something different that is still heavily influenced by the work of Mr. Lovecraft.

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

The Call of Cthulhu (2005)

NIGHT 13

     "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming."

The Call of Cthulhu (2005) is an independent film featurette created and distributed by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society, based on the short story by the same name by H.P. Lovecraft. The film was created as a silent film in attempt to show what the film would have looked like if it was created the year the story was first published, in 1926.

This film is about man's attempt to understand his uncle's obsessive research around a recent cult and the journey it takes him on.

I really like the concept behind these types of movies, the (for lack of a better term) "new classics." Usually it has a high chance of failure but they always catch my attention, and I think it's because these types of movies are born out of passion and love for the old mediums and film techniques that have been lost and abandoned over time. Unlike most of those other ones though, I think this film is very successful and worth watching.

Normally a big flaw or give away in these types of films that they weren't created in the past and are in fact very recent is the production design. But I've got to do a shout out to the production design in this film because even though it's a low budget and independently funded, it's really pretty spot on here. Then of course I looked up the director and it turns out he's done props on several big Hollywood films and suddenly this made sense that he'd be looking at that!

I also really liked the cinematography in this film. It's more of a modern style of camerawork than anything that was made in the 20s' but it really works here. Nothing is too advanced that wouldn't have been possible in the 20s' but they're following camera rules and techinques established after this time. This was a smart choice integrating a modern style of camera work in the silent, black and white format is really effective.

For better or for worse, the creators of this film set out to make the most faithful film adaptation of a Lovecraft story and I gotta say, I think they really nailed it. After all the films I've gone through in the past week this is by far the most accurate and truthful adaptation.

The bad thing about choosing this story to make into a very accurate film adaptation is that the story doesn't easily lend itself to film storytelling at all. There's a reason this story was considered "unfilmable" and that is because it jumps around in time with multiple stories told by multiple narrators. And on top of that, trying to present this story as a silent film can be a little rough and hard to follow at times. There was definitely a couple parts I had to re-watch just to fully comprehend what was going on.

Most of the effects in this film were done right (a film full of practical effects is so refreshing in today's CG-obsessed world) but the "claymation" Cthulhu didn't fit the rest of the effects, I felt. I'm not saying I wish it was CG, but I wish it was a stop-motion model that was made of something a little more detailed or solid because it really sticks out. Luckily the film doesn't show too much of it but they could have gotten away with showing more... if the model looked better.

Another big thing that doesn't work in this film is the actors. The reason we had such big stars from the silent film era is because they had a real screen presence, great expression and pantomime and amazing looks. They needed these because without voice all they had! It's painfully obvious the difference between those stars and the actors that were hired on a modern day independent film budget, who have never had the opportunity to work in the silent medium before.

And the best thing about this film is the soundtrack. The score really works in this film and adds a ton to every single scene in this film. There was plenty of times where what I was watching on screen didn't move me as much as what I was listening to did. There's multiple names listed in the credits for music so I'm not sure if this was a collaboration or the songs were split between different composers. But whatever they did, it works.

The Call of Cthulhu (2005) is the product of an intense love for the work of H.P. Lovecraft. Instead of just paying tribute to his work by dropping references and mimicking his storytelling style, like in In the Mouth of Madness (1994), this film strives to be as truthful to the original story as possible and I think it succeeds because of that love and need to do the story justice.

4/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




Tomorrow we finish our 6-decade long Lovecraft film streak as we move on to the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's follow up film to this one, The Whisperer in the Darkness (2011) here on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies.

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Dagon (2001)

NIGHT 12

 

     "Fuck Dagon!"

 

Dagon (2001) is a Spanish, Lovecraftian, survival horror film directed by Stuart Gordon and based on the novella The Shadow over Innsmouth by H.P. Lovecraft. This is the final (as in most recent) film directed by Stuart Gordon that's based on a Lovecraft story following Re-Animator (1985), From Beyond (1996) and Castle Freak (1995). This film was apparently originally supposed to be his follow up to Re-Animator but he couldn't get the financing to make it until 15 years later!

Paul and his girlfriend Barbara are recent millionaires on vacation, boating somewhere off the coast of Spain. Things suddenly get bad very quickly for them though, when they hear chanting from a nearby medieval village and a huge storm quickly rolls in on top of them slamming their boat on some nearby rocks. Stranded, they go to the locals for help, but something's really not right about these people...

Unlike most contemporary horror films, Dagon (2001) is really good at showing just enough gore and monsters and leaving the rest to your imagination. Note this is in "The Good" section rather than "The Magnificent" section because it show just slightly too much sometimes (more on this in the next section...) This is also very restrained for Stuart Gordon who made the previous films I mentioned that are very much the "show everything for shock value" type.

I found I liked the simplicity of this film, it's literally just a survival horror for most of the film. Which is pretty refreshing in this day and age, but for the length of the film I could have used a bit more content.

Unfortunately one of the worst things about this movie is the cinematography. It's passable but there was quite a few times where I found myself confused about what was happening because the shot was just in too close. For example early on Paul & Barbara are trying to get to shore in a raft while a storm is coming. The raft gets a hole and they realize they're stuck between their origin and destination, the only problem? They have to tell us this. You know what would have been nice? A nice long shot to show us how far away they are from the shore!

This movie could have used a little more padding when it came to characters. We really don't know anything about our protagonist Paul, except that he's suddenly become very rich. I suppose this is to make him more of an everyman so that we can attach our own experience to his but... he's a rich nerd. Right off the bat that narrows down your relate-able audience quite a bit. Luckily this didn't ruin the film for me, but honestly who were the other two characters on the boat with them anyways? Their parents? I still have no idea! This is just another simple mistake that could have been fixed pretty easily early on in the film. Also since this was originally intended to follow Re-Animator it was written with Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton in mind for the leads, but by the time he got the money to make it the actors were too old for the parts, so it's possible that those actors could have brought more to the parts but who knows.

I liked the comedy in this film, but there's almost too little to justify it. I feel like they couldn't decide whether to make it a straight horror or comedy so instead there's just a couple really funny jokes here and there. You have to commit dammit!

The computer graphics in this film are god-awful. We're talking Sci-Fi channel original movie bad. Granted these are the still the somewhat early years of CG and the budget for the film isn't super high and it is used sparingly even, but I would have just done without. It more than anything else, dates the film really badly.

Also I really didn't like the ending. (SPOILERS obviously to follow...) I understand this is truthful to the original story but the reveal at the end of his familiar ties to this village is just way too late and convenient to be convincing. And we've been following this guy for an hour and a half and for him to just give up and give in at the last minute leaves a really bad taste in your mouth. You could have given him more in the story early on to tell that he has the possibility to go down that path (AND HIM HAVING A DREAM AT THE BEGINNING ISN'T ENOUGH.)

The thing Dagon does really well is create a very simple survival horror. The protagonist is very simply a normal guy and at no point during the movie does he do anything that you or I couldn't do. There's something really refreshing about this and it really adds to the actual horror of the movie. The film has a really good pace and things progressively get weirder for our protagonist at a good speed. When things get weird, he get's weirded out. When he thinks all is lost he starts doing bolder and more extreme things. This just works really well in the movies favor making the movie a very enjoyable ride the whole way through.

Also worth mentioning this was the final film of Francisco Rabal, who I didn't know at all but apparently he's one of the biggest Spanish actors who ever lived and you can really tell from his performance in this film. He really plays a great role as the drunk Ezequiel who ends up being a very unexpected ally for Paul. What a great way to go out, such a magnificent performance here.

Dagon (2001) isn't a great film, but it is a very good horror film, and definitely worth checking out if you have any passing interest in the weird and supernatural.

3.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!





We're slowly winding down on our string of Lovecraft films on the 31 Days of Macabre Movies, tomorrow we continue with the all-new silent film The Call of Cthulhu (2005).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Castle Freak (1995)

NIGHT 11

 

     "Rebecca is right, there is someone else in the castle!"

Castle Freak (1995) is a direct-to-video horror film very loosely based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story The Outsider. This is the third film by Stuart Gordon that is based on a Lovecraft story after Re-Animator (1985) and From Beyond (1986) and like those films, this film also stars Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton.

Castle Freak is about an American man who recently inherited a castle in Italy. Seeing this as a chance to repair his fractured family he moves them into the castle, but what they don't know is that someone or something is still living there...

If there is one thing going through these Lovecraft films has enlightened me of, is that I'm a huge fan of Stuart Gordon's direction. This may not be the best example of it, but this is proof that a good director can do miracles on a tiny budget. There is moments where the scene is basically "run after the actress down the hallway with the camera" but there's also much of this film with scenes where the mood is absolutely perfect. Unlike Re-Animator, this film has almost no humor to it, and for this story I think it really fits and also shows the range and versatility of Gordon's skill. There's a really nice crescendo to this film that really sets it apart from others like it.

As always, I'm a big fan of Jeffery Combs and here we see him in yet another completely opposite role of what he's played before for Gordon. Barbara Crampton wasn't bad either (there's parts to her character I really enjoyed) but it's safe to say we've seen the extent of her ability in these last couple films. Although I must admit that one of the things that made me want to see this film was that it had both her and Jeffery Combs in it again, so I can't be too negative. Surprisingly the supporting cast in this film is really decent too! Luca Zingaretti makes a very convincing and interesting local police officer, and the monster Giorgio played by Jonathan Fuller is very believable.

A lot of people would write this film off because of its "slasher" film elements, but I'd actually disagree. This film has everything a slasher film usually lacks: a nice build up, a great story behind it and a good resolution.

The exception to the good acting mentioned above is the daughter Rebecca played by Jessica Dollarhide. This isn't that uncommon with a low budget film and/or a young actor but having her opposite Jeffery Combs doesn't help at all. Unfortunately it looks like this was poor Jessica Dollarhide's last film and I don't think she was so terrible that she should have quit acting, she was just young!

Didn't care for the last ending fight with the monster. Putting it on the roof in the rain seemed like it was just trying to make it epic, when in actuality I found myself thinking how silly it was. And tying into that, I didn't love the ending either. It fits the characters but it just seems unnecessary and again attempting to be overly "epic."

So what makes this film so much better than all the others like it? A really tight story that has almost no added "fat" to cut. There's a very terrifying premise that is enhanced by the spooky mood of the first half, and the story also builds and crescendos very nicely (again much like Re-Animator) on multiple levels including madness of our protagonist, horror, gore and excitement level.

Castle Freak (1995) is actually a really good direct to video horror film, it shows how a director with real talent can share a compelling story and make a good film even on an extremely low budget. I highly recommend this widely unseen gem.

3.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




Tomorrow we finish Stuart Gordon's Lovecraft film streak as we move on to our 5th decade of Lovecraft films with Dagon (2001) only on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies.

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

NIGHT 10

     "Do you read Sutter Cane?"

In the Mouth of Madness (1994) is a Lovecraftian horror film directed by John Carpenter. Unlike the previous Lovecraft films I've reviewed so far, In the Mouth of Madness is not based on any one H.P. Lovecraft tale but contains countless references to much of Lovecraft's entire body of work and has an original story, told in a very Lovecraftian style.

John Trent is an Insurance Investigator, simply put he excels in exposing fraud. But when a series of weird real-life incidents start happening around a popular horror writer's work (and hitting a little too close to Trent's personal life) he embarks on a mission to try and find the missing writer and see if he can expose what's really happening with these weird events. Is it all coincidence, or just a big PR campaign... or could it be something bigger?

Most of the effects in this film still hold up really well! This is obviously due to John Carpenter being a master at what he does and loves practical effects. I think the only effect that doesn't really hold up as well is the model for Mrs. Pickman. Which is surprising because it's a pretty memorable part.

Once the film sets out all the pieces it then spirals into madness very quickly. Maybe this was the film's intent but I would have preferred there to be some more time before John Trent starts going crazy, some more vague area like well the entire film of American Psycho (2000) would have people going back over and over and debating about what is real and what's not and at what point everything goes to hell for our protagonist.

I also didn't like the end. It's a little too on the nose for me. I liked all the comments leading up into the end about how there's going to be a movie but to have the protagonist sitting down and watching events from the movie we just watched, that's a bit too meta for my taste. Granted, I can't think of a better way to end it personally, I just know I didn't love that one.

In the Mouth of Madness combines so many different Lovecraftian tropes together in one story that it really shouldn't work as well as it does. However under the veil of our protagonist losing his mind they all work super well together. The film starts in a madhouse and works backwards which is a very Lovecraftian thing to do, and there's tons of specific references to characters and creatures from lots of different Lovecraft stories. It really is the perfect love letter to H.P. Lovecraft.

These tropes combined with great directing equal legitimate horror, and a whole range of it too. From well earned jump scares to really creepy moods and moments. You want good horror, look no further.

I also feel like a lot of this film working has to do with how great Sam Neill is as our protagonist, John Trent. This was literally his next big movie after Jurassic Park (1993) and he's just as good in this as he was in that. He makes for a really interesting and compelling character that I think would've been a whole lot less interesting with a different actor in the lead, and this makes me want to see more of his films!

And lastly, the film only touches on it for an instant but I loved the point that Sutter Cane brings up about an author being closer to a God than religion will ever know. This is some really deep stuff, and even though it only gets swept in for a second if you want to ponder on it, there's enough there to warrant a re-watch. Awesome stuff.

In the Mouth of Madness (1994) is a great horror film by a real master director. There's so much of this film that shoudn't work as well as it does and I think this is all due to John Carpenter's skill. One of the best films about madness ever created.

4/5 Stars.

Happy watching!

Tomorrow we continue the Lovecraft-Stuart Gordon streak with the direct to video, Castle Freak (1995) on the 31 Nights of Macabre Movies.

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

From Beyond (1986)

NIGHT 9

     "It... ate... him!"

From Beyond (1986) is a science-fiction, horror film based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story of the same name. This is Stuart Gordon's follow up to Re-Animator (1985), this film also stars Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton as Gordon wanted to do something similar to Roger Corman's Poe cycle with a series of films based on one author's work with a re-occurring cast.

From Beyond is about a couple of scientists who build a machine to stimulate the pineal gland in humans in order to interact with and see creatures from another dimension. What could go wrong?

Stuart Gordon is a great director. His direction in Re-Animator wasn't bad at all, but the direction in From Beyond is a lot better (and in only a year too!). Unlike Re-Animator, every camera move in From Beyond has a purpose and it's just a lot tighter camera work all around.

It's great to see Jeffery Combs and Barbara Crampton again, and thankfully they're playing significantly different roles than in the previous film. The addition of horror veteran Ken Foree is an excellent treat also, I just wish they had some better material to work off of!

The dialogue in this film is pretty god-awful. It wasn't much better in Re-Animator but this film doesn't have as much of the comedic element (or at least it's not as purposefully present here) which is what helps with a lot of Re-Animator's shortcomings.

The effects in From Beyond are pretty bad. It's really a hard line to walk because much of the actual horror in this film stems from the physical (and gross) transformations you see right before your eyes. But unfortunately a lot of the practical effects and slimy rubber suits don't look great when you focus the camera on them for too long in a well lit room!

The story in From Beyond isn't inherently bad, in fact the premise is actually very interesting and unique. But to me it's very obvious that this was adapted from a short story because the actual core of the film is really smart and interesting but then the film has long stretches where nothing is happening on an intellectual level and instead we get lots of gory monsters and weird things that don't really make sense at all.

Unlike Re-Animator, the soundtrack of this film is completely fresh and original! Richard Band's soundtrack to this film is really quite great there was a lot of times where I found myself realizing the soundtrack was doing more for me than what was on the screen!

From Beyond (1986) is definitely the ugly, less-loved sibling of Re-Animator (1985) but you can learn a lot about what works in a horror film and what doesn't by watching them back to back!

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




The H.P. Lovecraft films continue tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we finally get into the 90s' with John Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness (1994).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

Re-Animator (1985)

NIGHT 8

     "Don't expect it to tango... it has a broken back."

 

Re-Animator (1985) (also known as H.P. Lovecraft's Re-Animator) is a cult-classic horror film directed by Stuart Gordon and based on H.P. Lovecraft's novel, Herbert West-Reanimator.

The story follows Dan Cain a bright, young third-year medical student at Miskatonic Medical School in Arkham, Massachusets who rents out a room to the strange, new transfer student, Herbert West. What he doesn't know is Herbert is about to create the greatest medical discovery of all time.

The direction in this film is really solid. This is Stuart Gordon's first big film and it's actually quite impressive. There's moments I thought could have been better if the director was more experienced (like the chasing the re-animated cat scene), but over all the film is quite good in that respect. His real ability shows in his skill at blending simple camera tricks, animatronics, acting, makeup and props to make for some very convincing reanimated corpses.

Yes this film is very gory, but in my mind it actually is just kind of a realistic amount of blood for the most part and it builds and has a nice progression as the film goes on and the events get more insane. This is actually gore done right as far as I'm concerned.

The theme of this film is mercilessly ripped off of Bernard Herman's intro theme to Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960). This is beyond tribute and in my mind huge copyright infringement and just plain not cool. So the movie loses points for that.

The only parts of the story I don't think work as well as the rest are that of the evil professor. I'm not sure if it's his acting or how forced it is in the story. I think this is a very important part of the story and it just ends up forced or over the top every time he's on screen.

Some of the effects and makeup don't hold up (not that they were that great in the mid eighties either, I'm sure), but it actually adds a lot to the camp and cult-classic nature of the film so I'm not sure I'd dock it as much as I would other films for this. And theirs parts where the acting and direction actually make the makeup and effects work effectively so that kind of cancels out a lot of this.

You should see Re-Animator just for the acting alone if nothing else. None of these guys were big named actors at the time and they're in a cheesy, extra gory, re-animation horror movie and they take the work very seriously. Bravo for that.

I love how the story is really simple, interesting and silly... it combines all three of those things in a really great way. I love the way it bookends almost unexpectedly, and I really like how it's essentially a tale about an unexpected friendship and how these two guys end up having to work together to defeat their greedy professor.

Re-Animator (1985) is a horror classic, and it's very clear why. Great story, convincing performances and a very fun premise all add up to a very enjoyable film.

4.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




There's even more H.P. Lovecraft films tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we continue with Stuart Gordon's follow up film to this one From Beyond (1986).

And be sure to check out J.W. Ocker's very interesting post from last week about what happened when he made his wife watch this film. It's a great read, and I think his wife is very correct on her opinions and observations of the film, over on his blog OTIS.

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links:

The Dunwich Horror (1970)

NIGHT 7

     "I never heard anything like that!"

 

The Dunwich Horror (1970) is a low-budget horror film directed by Daniel Haller, produced by Roger Corman, and loosely based on the short story of the same name by H.P. Lovecraft. After his last horrible attempt at directing a film, someone let him do another... and to surprising result! Also one interesting note: this film was at least partially written by Academy Award winning screenwriter Curtis Hanson who would go on to write L.A. Confidential (1997) and 8 Mile (2002).

The Dunwich Horror follows Nancy Wagner as she falls for the strange and mysterious Wilbur Whitley and fails to see he's got much more horrific plans in store for her.

The acting is this movie is either decently good or terrible. There's a huge divide. Ed Begley is great in his final preformance (wish they did more with him though...) and there's something I really dug about Dean Stockwell's version of Wilbur and even Sandra Dee as stranger bait Nancy was not bad either.

The Direction most of the time isn't bad at all. I liked how Haller interpreted the Monster's attack scenes and with nothing more than pure directorial skill, pulls off the effect he wants with next to no budget on the monster. It's pretty effective (in a 1970 kinda way). This is leaps and bounds better than his direction in his previous attempt at a Lovecraft film.

And over all most of this film is quite watchable. It's nothing profound, but it's actually successfully a very similar feeling to the Roger Corman-Poe epics. (I wonder if he studied them better this time, or just got more advice from Roger?)

Most of the dialogue is laughably bad (which as you know can be enjoyable in itself.)

And the rest of the acting is pretty freaking horrible, it actually seems like they picked non-actors right off the street for how bad some of these guys are. I must admit though, I did get kinda bummed when the grandfather dies because he's one of those actors that's so bad it's actually worthwhile every time he's on screen and after he died I knew the movie would be less funny after that!

As for the source material, once again this is pretty much very loosely based on the H.P. Lovecraft story. They took specific elements from the work and then basically made up their own story with those pieces.  Unfortunately they removed a lot of my favorite scenes from the original story and in it's place they added a whole lot of stuff that doesn't make sense. (Yay!) And riddle me this, why would you put this story in a contemporary setting? This is a story about spells and demons what part of that makes you go, "oh hey this would work better in today's world..."? I'm torn between thinking it was a lost drunken bet of some kind or because they had no money for sets and costumes and just shot with stuff they had. All in all the stakes just aren't that high throughout the entire film. And looking back it's just another mixed up (and less good) Satanic horror (just summoning a slightly different dark evil entity!)

I also think this story could have been more interesting if Nancy didn't just blindly follow Wilbur... she initially asks questions about his intentions and stuff and he just literally replies with random answers and whatever he wants (most of it's B.S.) and she just like... okay! Stranger danger lady! Jeez! Stranger danger!

Oh and lastly I have to mention the godawful ending that doesn't make sense at all! This movie just races toward such an abrupt ending in the end, like they were running out of film to use or something!

The magnificent thing about this one is how much better it is than Die, Monster, Die! (1965) and in only 5 years too, that's one hell of an improvement!

The Dunwich Horror (1970) isn't great but it is interesting and watchable, and probably far better if you MS3K it, or have a couple of beers first (...or do both!) ;)

2.5/5 Stars.

Happy watching!




My H.P. Lovecraft streak continues tomorrow on The 31 Nights of Macabre Movies as we jump a decade and move on to the 80s' classic, Re-Animator (1985).

Like this blog? You can support it by buying this film through these links: