THE GOOD:
* The acting; * The first 15-20 minutes; * The 80's Heavy Metal-inspired soundtrack.
THE BAD:
* The story; * The special effects (even for a 90's film); * the "scare factor."
During the commentary, Carpenter describes this movie as part of his "Apocalyptic Trilogy" (along with: THE THING and PRINCE OF DARKNESS). Now, THE THING is considered a classic re-make; PRINCE OF DARKNESS definitely -- at least, for me -- stands as a cult classic. This movie, however, is neither.
The conceit, namely, an author's work becomes reality as he writes, is not a very original idea. Maybe, it was a novel (no pun intended) idea when H. P. Lovecraft was writing (to whom the film tips its hat) -- but, no longer. Moreover, the other conceit, namely, that a person realizes that he or she is actually a character in the author's work, is another mold-covered idea.
The film is generally described as a "psychological" horror film. In other words, it ain't scary! What you will get is a lot of weird characters (e. g., an old lady with her husband handcuffed to her ankle), weird situations (e. g., not being able to find the mysterious town, Hobb's End), and weird dialogue (e. g., random people coming up and saying, "He sees you"). Remember, this movie was made just a few years after the success of T. V.'s TWIN PEAKS.
If one were to never have watched this movie, I could not say that he or she had missed anything. A John Carpenter-enthusiast would definitely want to give it a viewing, except that that would probably be enough: a viewing -- just to say he'd watched it.
As a _movie_, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is not bad. As a _horror movie_, though, it is not good. Carpenter seems to forget in this instance how to bring tension and scares to the audience. In the commentary, he pats himself on the back for having a dark figure -- an "extra" -- walk quickly infront of the camera as Sam Neill walks down a corridor the other way. "A cheap scare," he preens. "But, I like cheap scares." Noooo, John . . . NOT scary at all! And, that really is the whole problem with this film.
I say: Watch it; enjoy it as the fluff that it is; and, forget it. There's better out there. If you were to purchase it, then I recommend buying it as part of Carpenter's trilogy mentioned above. It's certainly not worth the full price of a DVD.
* The acting; * The first 15-20 minutes; * The 80's Heavy Metal-inspired soundtrack.
THE BAD:
* The story; * The special effects (even for a 90's film); * the "scare factor."
During the commentary, Carpenter describes this movie as part of his "Apocalyptic Trilogy" (along with: THE THING and PRINCE OF DARKNESS). Now, THE THING is considered a classic re-make; PRINCE OF DARKNESS definitely -- at least, for me -- stands as a cult classic. This movie, however, is neither.
The conceit, namely, an author's work becomes reality as he writes, is not a very original idea. Maybe, it was a novel (no pun intended) idea when H. P. Lovecraft was writing (to whom the film tips its hat) -- but, no longer. Moreover, the other conceit, namely, that a person realizes that he or she is actually a character in the author's work, is another mold-covered idea.
The film is generally described as a "psychological" horror film. In other words, it ain't scary! What you will get is a lot of weird characters (e. g., an old lady with her husband handcuffed to her ankle), weird situations (e. g., not being able to find the mysterious town, Hobb's End), and weird dialogue (e. g., random people coming up and saying, "He sees you"). Remember, this movie was made just a few years after the success of T. V.'s TWIN PEAKS.
If one were to never have watched this movie, I could not say that he or she had missed anything. A John Carpenter-enthusiast would definitely want to give it a viewing, except that that would probably be enough: a viewing -- just to say he'd watched it.
As a _movie_, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is not bad. As a _horror movie_, though, it is not good. Carpenter seems to forget in this instance how to bring tension and scares to the audience. In the commentary, he pats himself on the back for having a dark figure -- an "extra" -- walk quickly infront of the camera as Sam Neill walks down a corridor the other way. "A cheap scare," he preens. "But, I like cheap scares." Noooo, John . . . NOT scary at all! And, that really is the whole problem with this film.
I say: Watch it; enjoy it as the fluff that it is; and, forget it. There's better out there. If you were to purchase it, then I recommend buying it as part of Carpenter's trilogy mentioned above. It's certainly not worth the full price of a DVD.
