Call of Cthulhu Film

[Sigokat]

For those that don't know, in 2005, the HPLHS made a low budget black and white, silent film called The Call of Cthulhu. Its 47 minutes long and stay on line with the plot of HPL's famous story.

The film is worth seeing for HPL fans, but do not expect anything spectaular. It is the "best" adaptation of a Lovecraft story, but considereing the rest of the trash that has been made that is not saying too much.

The movie is filmed digitially which takes away from the idea that it could have been filmed in the 1920s when the story takes place (something the filmmakers say they wanted to accomplish). Also with the low budget, the actors aren't great, and some of the special effects are pretty bad (dream sequences, ocean scenes and Island).

If you want to see Cthulthu...you won't be disappointed. This is the only version of media (even the game he did not make an appearance) where Cthulthu actually appears. Now remember, low budget. They used claymiation and stop motion animation to film his sequences, and while its decent I've seen far better from Ardmann Animations back in the 90s before they were made famous (in the US at least) by Wallace and Gromit and Creature Comforts.

So, yes, its worth it. I enjoyed the 47 minutes that I spent watching it last night. There are some bad moments (like I never felt scared or terrified like when you read Lovecraft's works), but if you keep in mind that they were working with about a $50k budget you'll understand some of the problems with the film.

And look for the "warning" at the beginning. Kind of funny.

[Tony H]

This was a great little film. You can sense the dread in it. It is filmed silent movie style do the acting is meant to be over exaggerated like it was back in the day.

A lot of love for the source went into this. The filmmakers chose an old style of filmmaking to accommodate their budget.



Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[Keith the Elder]

I thought is was great too. Very authentic appearing style.

[PicardRex]

I'll have to look for this, it sounds like it could be good. Lovecraft certainly was a talented writer, its a shame there has been so few good adaptations.

A question for Sig, do you consider all other adaptations crappy? I thought Dagon was quite good. Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, while not strictly Lovecraft, was definitely one of the better movies involving his stuff. Also, did you ever see the Necronomicon? Not the best, but worth a watch.

[Scott Hajek]

"Call" is worth watching. I bought the DVD to support it. I'm sure they could've generated a much larger budget had Kickstarter been around.

Re: other adaptations... "Re-Animator" is still the best.

[fpw]

As I understand it, they limited themselves to the technology and effects available at the time "Call" was first pubbed.

[Brian]

"Call" is worth watching. I bought the DVD to support it. I'm sure they could've generated a much larger budget had Kickstarter been around.

Agreed. Worth a watch at the very least.

Re: other adaptations... "Re-Animator" is still the best.

Again, agreed. Re-Animator has a definite creep factor to it.

[Sigokat]

I'll have to look for this, it sounds like it could be good. Lovecraft certainly was a talented writer, its a shame there has been so few good adaptations.

A question for Sig, do you consider all other adaptations crappy? I thought Dagon was quite good. Carpenter's In the Mouth of Madness, while not strictly Lovecraft, was definitely one of the better movies involving his stuff. Also, did you ever see the Necronomicon? Not the best, but worth a watch.

I do not consider them worthy of the Lovecraft moniker. I did enjoy In the Mouth of Madness and I watch it quite often and I see it more as an ode to Lovecraft than an interpretation (even loosely) of his work (the monsters of course are what everyone says is Lovecraftian and a few similiarities to Pickman's Model and some other stories).

Its been a very long time since I've seen Re-animator and Dagon, but I remember them being more gore-fests than Lovecraftish. And Necronomicon...I had to turn it off...couldn't stand it.

But I admit that Lovecraft has got to be extremely difficult to translate to film...even CoC wasn't as "true" as any Lovecraft fan would hope.

As much as I would love to see ATMOM be made, another part of me hopes it never is because the terror and fear of ATMOM just cannot be translated.

But that is all my opinion. It others like the other movies thats fine (I can agree to disagree and RESPECT other people's opinions.)

[Sigokat]

As I understand it, they limited themselves to the technology and effects available at the time "Call" was first pubbed.

Except it was filmed digitally.

[PicardRex]

I do not consider them worthy of the Lovecraft moniker. I did enjoy In the Mouth of Madness and I watch it quite often and I see it more as an ode to Lovecraft than an interpretation (even loosely) of his work (the monsters of course are what everyone says is Lovecraftian and a few similiarities to Pickman's Model and some other stories).

Its been a very long time since I've seen Re-animator and Dagon, but I remember them being more gore-fests than Lovecraftish. And Necronomicon...I had to turn it off...couldn't stand it.

But I admit that Lovecraft has got to be extremely difficult to translate to film...even CoC wasn't as "true" as any Lovecraft fan would hope.

As much as I would love to see ATMOM be made, another part of me hopes it never is because the terror and fear of ATMOM just cannot be translated.

But that is all my opinion. It others like the other movies thats fine (I can agree to disagree and RESPECT other people's opinions.)

I agree about In the Mouth of Madness, I think I even read somewhere that it was Carpenters intention to do it more as an homage. As for Re-Animator, yes its a gore fest, Stuart Gordon's movies usually are, even so it has a certain charm. Dagon I thought set the atmosphere rather well, which to me was always one of the more important aspects to Lovecraft's stuff.

Necronomicon is definite cheese, I guess I just have a liking for stuff like that. Though the last segment, which was really why I recommended it, was the best.

As for ATMOM, I hesitate to think what Del Toro would make that look like, assuming its his version you are referring to. While he certainly has a flair for the odd, its too whimsical for my tastes. Thats also the reason why I wasn't too thrilled when I heard he was supposed to do the Hobbitt.