User Reviews

One cannot help but give full marks to the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society for their efforts to bring H. P. Lovecraft's eerie stories to the screen in a manner in keeping with the texture and mood of the original material. Although there have been other attempts to film Lovecraft stories, most have generally been unsatisfying failures due to misguided attempts to modernize or glamorize them. Not so with HPLHS, who have gone out their way to keep faithful to the period and locales in which the tales were set, even going so far as give the film the feel of an early-1930s black-and-white movie. Even their logo is an homage to the the old Universal Studios logo of the early 1930s (the studio which produced such classic horror movies as Frankenstein, Dracula and The Mummy), replacing the familiar airplane-circling-the-earth with a dirigible.

The plot involves Albert Wilmarth, a college anthropology professor specializing in folklore, who becomes intrigued by a series of unusual newspaper stories reported from a rural part of Vermont after a period of particularly heavy rains. It seems that bodies have been observed washing down from the mountains in the swollen rivers, bodies which are, reportedly, neither human nor animal. The bodies apparently also recall, among the older inhabitants, old tales of strange beings that live in remote parts of the hills, beings that are neither human nor animal, and possibly not even of terrestrial origin. Wilmarth begins his investigation into these stories on the basis that they are nothing more than mere interesting folklore, but soon finds himself dealing with something far more sinister.

Admittedly, the producers of the movie added some material and characters not present in the original story. In fact, the short story actually ends at a point only about one hour into the film. However, the original version was, after all, only a short story, and I suppose the makers felt that they had to add some material to the plot in order to expand the short story into a full-length movie. nevertheless, the movie still does a far better job of evoking the feel of H.P. Lovecraft's writing than any other movie versions of his works, with the only possible exception being the resent silent film version of The Call of Cathulhu, which was made by the same producers.

One addition to the film is a debate staged between the protagonist, Professor Wilmarth, and Charles Fort. While that was not a part of H.P. Lovecraft's original story, it is interesting period touch because Charles Fort was actually a real person, a celebrated and controversial author of the early 1900s who was known to contemporaries as "The Mad Genius of the Bronx". Fort, who died in 1932, wrote about what are now called paranormal phenomena before that term was even invented, and is credited, among other things, with coining the word "teleportation".

In 1928, Miskatonic University folklore professor Albert Wilmarth enjoys debunking theories of the occult, even though he is roundly trounced – on radio, no less – by Charles Fort when they have a debate on whether certain stories in Vermont that have come to light following a flood are based in fact. He has also been carrying on correspondence with an intelligent, yet fearful, farmer in Vermont, who insists that the strange beings seen in the floodwaters are real, and are all around his farm. Wilmarth is curious, especially after he finds the original manuscript of a very rare book of folklore collected in Vermont back in the 1800s, containing stories which seem to correspond to what his farmer correspondent, Henry Akeley, has described in his letters. So when he receives a strange letter from Akeley that completely up-ends the farmer's previous fears about alien creatures and that invites Wilmarth to come to the farm to discuss the wondrous things that he has learned, well, Wilmarth can't possibly turn the invitation down. But when he arrives in the hills of Vermont, the local folk he meets all seem downright hostile, and when he arrives at the farm, he finds that Akeley himself is not well. And that is just the beginning of the discoveries that await him....

This film, created by a collective called the HP Lovecraft Historical Society, is clearly lovingly made – done in black and white and in the style of the early 1930s, it tells one of Lovecraft's more evocative tales and then expands upon it. (Lovecraft's story ends at about the one-hour mark of the film, which continues for another 40 minutes or so.) The atmosphere is terrific, and the style of the story-telling really permits the audience to feel themselves back in the early 1930s, even up to the various mad-scientist gadgets that evoke such classics as the lab in the original "Frankenstein" film. The monsters are more or less what one might expect to see in an early 1930s film based on an HP Lovecraft story, but that doesn't make them any less menacing or eerie. You don't need to be a Lovecraft fan to love this movie, though it wouldn't hurt; you probably don't even need to be a fan of old movies. You just have to love movies, especially ones with great atmosphere and straight-up acting and a storyline that keeps you involved every step of the way. Highly recommended!

Really enjoyed the clean look of this film in black & white, and also the sound editing. This is probably the classiest example of what can be achieved with a limited budget when the filmmakers obviously have a love of the material which shines through. The script is faithful to Lovecraft yet it does cuts down on a lot of the excessive verbiage to make it somewhat more palatable to a modern audience. The pace progressively builds and does pay off. The standout performance is from the adorable Autumn Wendell "Hanna Masterson" who embodies the film and is very effective at being terrified, yet innocent at the same time. A perfect fit to a film which achieves the same things.

It is so hard to find a good Lovecraft movie. But this one is excellent. It does not rely on cheap jump scares or the like. It builds up a creepy atmosphere that scares you by suggesting the unimaginable otherworldly. Just like Lovecraft, it presents a vision of superior forces beyond the control of humanity. The acting is great and the screenplay is very fluid. The set design is amazing as well. Sadly, the digital effects are rather noticeable and cheap. Especially on the creatures. I would have really liked to see some good old stop motion, especially on a film that looks so eerily like an old 30s or 40s horror movie.

I am an avid fan of the writings of Lovecraft, well, and anything Lovecraftian in general, and happened to come across "The Whisperer in Darkness" by sheer luck. I didn't have my hopes up, because most previous movies based on Lovecraft stories had been off key or had too much focus on special effects and putting the ominous dread of the core of the story in the background.

However, as with the 2005 version of "The Call of Cthulhu", I was more than genuinely surprised in a good way with the 2011 film version of "The Whisperer in Darkness". This was right on the spot in every aspect; focusing on the storytelling, the build up of the cosmic dread and the despair of the protagonist.

The actors in the movie were doing good jobs bringing the story to life through their characters. And director Sean Branney really capture the essence of the timeless writing of Lovecraft.

However, personally, I am not overly keen on movies in black and white, as colors add so much more flavor to the movie experience. But keeping it in black and white works well enough for the movie, given the thematic setting of H.P. Lovecraft's mythos and universe.

"The Whisperer in Darkness" is a MUST watch for any fan of Lovecraft. And I rate it a solid seven out of ten stars. If the movie had been in color, the rating would have been eight. Visuals are important in the movie media.

It is notoriously difficult to bring a Lovecraft story to the screens without reinventing pretty much everything. The reason for that is that the emotional tension in his stories is all based on what he tells you the characters feel. He doesn't really construct a horror environment as much as place people who are easily scared, disgusted or appalled in circumstances that are usually light sci-fi.

Created by the same team that did The Call of Cthulhu in 2005, it is a black and white movie, only this time not a mute one. The story it is based on is also longer, but then so is the movie.

I liked it, but then I kind of understand what H.P.Lovecraft was all about. For other people I think this would be a waste of time.

I accidentally came across this film and was intrigued by its title, so I watched it. The first quarters of the film are engrossing in excellent black and white. The last part of the movie disappointed me, particularly the creatures,

"The Call of Cthulhu" by the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society was an absolutely sublime film. Making it a black-and-white silent film to appear as though it were made in the '20s-'30s was a stroke of genius, and the film stays very close to the source material without being boring. So when it was announced that they were doing a follow-up film, adapting Lovecraft "The Whisperer in Darkness," I was beside myself with joy to the point of being giddy.

Unfortunately, "The Whisperer in Darkness" fails to live up to the high water mark left by "The Call of Cthulhu." Instead of a silent film, this one is done more in the style of a '50s black-and-white horror film. While I don't take issue with the style they chose, they still make some very odd choices that left me feeling a little cold and at times saying, "Huh?"

So, where does the problem arise? I started to wonder if I remembered the original story correctly. Then realized that I had. They not only make adjustments to the story, but treat the story as only acts one and two, creating a completely original third act. While I understand the adaptation aspect of movies and am more tolerant than many seem to be because I understand that a direct one-to-one translation of most literary works to the screen would, well, suck, the change in tone in the third act is enough to give the audience whiplash. The final act goes straight into traditional horror and action that seems like something more out of the Call of Cthulhu RPG as opposed to the slow-burning weird fiction of the unknowable that Lovecraft is most well known for.

This leaves us with one of the most inconsistent movies I've seen in recent memory. The tonal change is so drastic that it's clear the different parts of the film were written in two completely disparate time periods. As such, this film is kind of a let down after "The Call of Cthulhu." I strongly recommend seeing that one over "The Whisperer in Darkness" and only recommend this one for hardcore Lovecraft fans.

An adaptation of Lovecraft's story of the same name, which I have read. Within seconds, I pegged this as the work of the people who made The Call of Cthulu (director Brannery wrote and produced that film). I liked that one, but felt it was perhaps too slavish to a short story which didn't really lend itself that well to such a literal adaptation. The Whisperer in Darkness perhaps lends itself a lot better to such a treatment, and this adaptation is therefore quite good. It's been probably ten or eleven months since I read the story, so I don't remember it perfectly, but I think this is very faithful (the ending seems different, but I can't recall how the story ended that well). This is very creepy, with nice black and white photography. I don't much care for CGI monsters, but, for some reason, I think they look quite good in black and white, and the flying crab aliens look very good. The acting is amateurish throughout, but I did like Matt Foyer a lot in the lead. He has a great look for this movie. Highly recommended.

This black and white SF mystery is in every aspect designed to conjure up the experience of reading Lovecraft. Lovecraft is respected both with the story and atmosphere, which makes the film one of the rare true adaptations of this great horror-fantasy author. Its style resembles Film Noir quite a lot, and only quality of the picture breaks down the illusion that you are watching a movie from the first half of the last century. Even the opening and the ending credits are archaic. This is an independent low-budget film, produced by "The H. P. Lovecraft Historical Society". Despite the low budget and unknown actors, the film is very well shot and acted, and the lack of money for quality CGI is offset by excellent directorial tricks that are, at least for my taste, far more effective in intimidating than the technically costly, but essentially cheap CGI explicitness. Unfortunately, towards the end, they decided to break the tension, gradually built with quality hints, by an explicit depiction of extraterrestrial beings. But even that did not turn out to be so bad to completely spoil the experience, although I would personally prefer if they have abstained from this move. Overall, I am very pleased and I would like to see more of such adaptations of my favorite authors in the future. The only thing from this century with which I could compare it, on the basis of personal experience, is the video game "Undying" by Clive Barker from 2001. If you played it and liked it, you will probably like "The Whisperer in Darkness". If you did not, and you like this movie, you should try out the excellent interactive horror of my favorite video game.

7/10

I really wanted to like this, and in the beginning I did. It starts off with a coupla nice scenes, that are lifted from HPL's short story and set the tone. The "aged film" effect looks quite poor, but I appreciated the effort to make it look like an old movie, with the pompous acting and static direction, etc. And all the Lovecraftian references added in, with a knowing wink.

Then, they skip to the end of the original story just 30 mins into the film. The story works because of all the letters exchanged between the two main characters. Here, when they meet, the viewer doesn't know any of that, as they're just barely mentioned, in passing.

After that, the movie goes off the rails. Characters that are not even named in the story take centre stage. Ridiculous plot points that Azathoth knows why anyone thought they'd work... Unfunny comic relief scenes. And a poor man's Indiana Jones. Don't get me started about the ending. Worst of all, it doesn't get scary. Not one bit.

I was beyond disappointed, but mostly sad, as the original story has enough strong material to make a good, atmospheric, suspenseful, SCARY (low-budget) movie. Instead they added one hour plus of their own, sub par, material and ludicrous dialogue. Even the one thing that holds the story together, the actual "whisperer in darkness", is done as wrong as one could possibly get it.

I don't know if the movie would work for someone who has not read the story. I doubt it, as they skip two thirds of it. It certainly did not work for me. I spent the last half hour hoping Cthulhu would turn up and take me so I don't have to endure any more of it.

This one came as a mighty pleasant surprise. It's a B-movie, make no mistake, with cheap SFX and wooden acting but it's superbly charming in its comic-book fake seriousness. , The faithful reconstruction of pre-WWII university & rural life and the obvious and unwavering love of Master HPL's work are commendable, as is the protagonist's astounding performance - he goes through the entire film with a despondent, "Why Me" expression on his face. B&W certainly helps, making the movie stylized, at times almost dreamy and otherworldly -to borrow Master HPL's beloved word. An entertaining flic? You bet.

Lovecraft might not have been the best of writers, but he had a great influence on others and perhaps his greatest legacy was the invention of the Cthulu mythos that inspired and was inspired by such writers as Robert E. Howard, the writer of Conan the barbarian and Clark Ashton Smith, whom I prefer. His legacy was mostly the work of one August Derleth, who created the Arkham House publishing company with the intention to preserve and popularize Lovecraft's work, which he achieved as far as I can be a judge.

I have read a fair amount of Lovecraft's work or tried to, as especially his longer works are a bore to read. The one that I still recall with a certain fondness is The case of Charles Dexter Ward. Whose namesake appears in the movie, just like others from other stories appear in the movie I personally think it is one of his best stories.

The whisperer in the darkness I did not read, but the summary can be found on wikipedia. The movie takes liberty with the original story, probably because there isn't enough in the tale for a whole movie. Unfortunately this means that the movie has some unlovecraftian aspects, one of which is showing the monsters for a fair amount of screen time and another is showing a certain death(can't say which one because it might be considered spoiler). Two things you never see in a Lovecraft tale. But even from a movie making standpoint it would have been better if they hadn't shown both. It felt misplaced.

Overall the story keeps in pace with the Lovecraftian mood although you feel that it lacks the budget. For instance, in once scene they needed a train to arrive and you can clearly see that it is a modern locomotive, even though they blurred it to hide that fact. And this made me wonder why they went through all the trouble to place the story in the thirties instead of keeping it in the modern day, like Lovecraft would have done. It seems nice that they tried, but there isn't really a reason.

The movie shows a lot of talking, but it keeps the story going forward and there are some really nice shots that give a sense of weirdness that the should have used more often. One is where the camera looks down from the stair onto the professor while you hear nothing but the tic tic of a big clock.

The trick that the professor uses to save the world is a neat one. How to save the world without firing a bullet.

Pity is though: there is a big plot hole in the story.If you want to find it. Just have a look at the movie..

Nice effort.

Good movie. In some ways, a masterpiece.

The works of H.P Lovecraft are generally thought of as "unfilmable". In some respects that is true. First, they would appeal to such a small fan base that any major studio that would put some money into it would go bankrupt. Another reason is that Lovecraft, for all his imagination, wasn't really that good as an author. Many would disagree on that one. But that's the truth. A good novel, novella or short story need a beginning, a middle and an end. Lovecraft rarely delivered more than two out of three.

Anyway, The Whisperer in Darkness was a pleasant surprise. The script was good, the acting was surprisingly good, and they made a decent work with the cinematography. It is an independent movie and the special effects was what you could expect. But there were no obvious anachronisms. The props and miniatures looked real. The monsters looked like something straight out of a horror movie from the first half of the 20th century.

Shooting in black and white/monochrome added to the atmosphere.It gives the movie a "aged" or vintage look and feel, and that's the master stroke in my opinion. It actually do come off as an old horror flick from time to time.

All in all, it's worth watching. I've seen worse - especially when we're talking Lovecraft adaptations.

This adaptation of the classic H.P. Lovecraft story had a lot of potential, however weak acting limited the enjoyment factor to me. A lot of the players were just plain poor actors or were guilty of blatant over acting to include the narration. The supporting players were much better actors than the main players which was a bit frustrating. The cinematography and sound was great. The music was effectively used in creating the right feel for the film. Presenting the film in black and white was very effective in adding to the noir and 1930s feel. I don't want to go into any further details as I don't want to give any of the story away to those who may be unfamiliar.

Firstly I'd like to say that this isn't going to be everyone's cup of tea. It is a modern film done in the style of old horror movies, not just in that it is black and white but also in some of the directing, set design etc. However as a portrayal of a H.P. Lovecraft story it is somehow right that it is done in that fashion. However there are some parts of this which would have been better done in a more modern thought.

The basic storyline is based upon a Lovecraft classic an the main elements of the story are kept in place, with some considerable embellishment, it was after all just a short story. These embellishments are broadly in keeping with the Lovecraft style and his Mythos.

I liked this film more than I was expecting, which is a present surprise. I am seldom overwhelmed with attempts to translate Lovecraft to the screen, it seldom works. This one however did work but still was far from perfect. Some of the acting was very poor and trivial details also hurt the film.

Finally, the ending just didn't work for me. Even though I know what they were trying to portray because I have studied a lot of Lovecrafts works, the way it was achieved in the storyline was poor.

I give this a 7 because it is a good film, but its style may put a lot of people off and it ends poorly.

I saw this film as part of the "Imagine" film festival 2011 in Amsterdam. I booked it out of curiosity, wondering how a modern film maker would treat the 1930's source. I must confess that I'm not fond of most Lovecraft's stories. Though not having read any within more than 30 years, I'm still stuck with an impression of adjective-overloaded descriptions of monsters and their attributes. Many alternative books and stories in this same genre that I've read, attracted me much more. I'm prepared to accept that my reading sample was wrong and my bad impression is just as wrong.

The film makers decided to run the film in black&white, which did not hinder me at all. It even seemed the natural way after some minutes. I'm very glad that we got sound with the film. I hate intervening text boards showing the dialog, known from silent movies. In anticipation I was a bit afraid that parts of the film would develop slowly, not unexpected given the original material, but my fear proved completely unjustified.

The director was present at the screening and answered several questions during the final Q&A. We learned about the 350K$ budget, financed by the film makers out of their own pockets. They did the same for their previous 47 min short "The Call of Cthulhu", which paid itself back eventually. Understandably that several corners were cut for reasons of costs, but their love for Lovecraft did make up the rest. The editing of the material, as well as the pace in which the story develops, were adapted to match current speed expectations. Nowadays we cannot bear to watch 15 minutes of people reading letter fragments to each other, and this part of the original story was visualized differently for good reason. The finale shows a lot of action, and even some monsters. What these aliens look like, has been described by Lovecraft in much detail. These monsters could not be left out, or it would have left us strongly disappointed (said the director).

Back at home I discovered the original story in my own book collection. It was bought a long time ago (1978), and I completely forgot having it. When re-reading the story, I saw some changes by the hands of the film makers in order to liven up the original. As mentioned above, the exchange of letters between Akeley and Wilmarth has been dramatized considerably. And with good reason, otherwise we certainly would have dozed off. Further, the final outdoor scenes don't appear as such in the original story, and has been invented by the film makers, if only to show a few alien monsters and to introduce some action scenes. Maybe somewhat detached from the original, especially the plane scene, but such liberties occur often enough when turning a static book into a motion picture.

When leaving the theater, I gave an "excellent" score for the public prize competition. I can only applaud the design decisions by the film makers, choosing for black and white (no problem) but with sound (very good), and properly pacing the story to maintain a modern tempo throughout its duration. In other words, to a reasonable extent truthful to the 1930's style of film making, but not to such an extreme that it would be tedious for viewers A.D. 2011.

For me this was just seen as a movie, and not as part of a fan following or culture.

The movie is cheaply made with actors performing like those from a small town theatre troupe.

I could only imagine what a Spielberg or Cameron could have done with the same story.

I've seen the other Mythoscope offerings and while I found them 'entertaining', I didn't have too high a bar of expectation.

This movie blew that bar away. The producers chose good actors, made judicious use of current tech FX and CGI and wedded it to the true strengths of Black & White Media.

Color is wonderful in its own way: It explodes across the screen and fills the eye. The Movie will do all the Imagination for you. The viewer just sits back and enjoys the ride.

Black & White, however, is the true suitor to Horror & Suspense. It doesn't fill the eye-- instead B&W subconsciously invites the imagination to fill in the blanks-- to populate the shadows, to imagine the colors, to wonder what it would REALLY look like. This is why so many of us still prize the Old Outer Limits over its newer color cousin. Or as another example-- even in color, the scariest monster moments occur in the semi-Dark.

The movie took liberties with the story-- as other reviewers have noted-- but HPL would have approved, I think. The story picks up speed and becomes more adventurous and action-oriented towards the end.

The sights of the Alien/MiGo are carefully and sparingly dispensed-- and even when fully revealed are exceedingly well done. Creepily NOT-human and NOT-of-this-earth.

And underneath it all, the imagined alien technology was well researched. Creepy, Dark and Unpleasant. In HPL's world, WWII had not happened yet. Dreams of technology were still running along the old Pulp adventure storyline we see in old series like "Tales of Tomorrow". And if anything, their view of technology was cold, outré and alienating.

This movie is a MUST for HPL lovers. For those who've never read HPL, it can seem a bit...slow.

But if you're willing to give this flick a chance-- play it late at night...when it's raining. Mood is everything.

Judging by the low reviews that most movies based on Lovecraft's writing achieve -- on this site and elsewhere -- it must be very difficult to make a movie that works. On the whole, I don't think that Lovecraft's stories lend themselves well to visual presentation -- they rely for their effect on their (often rather overblown) descriptions of characters' mental states and experiences. Such things are notoriously difficult to translate into film.

Whisperer in the Darkness does not really try to replicate the emotional tenseness and claustrophobia of the stories. It isn't particularly scary, or even disturbing. It is, however, amusing and engaging, and tells a Lovecraft story with reasonable fidelity. Mostly, I think, it works because it's presentation -- 1930s writing and acting, but made with modern cinematography -- is so unusual.

The movie is made by the same folks who gave us the "Scary Solstice" album, containing such Christmas favourites as "Rudolf the Red-Nosed Mi-Go." So we know that the movie isn't going to be too self-important or pompous. I get the impression that it was made by people who love Lovecraft's work, but aren't in awe of it.

I suspect that Lovecraft would have hated this movie -- he seems to have been a relentlessly gloomy, self-interested man, with no sense of humour whatsoever. The idea that anybody would make a light-hearted, gently mocking adaptation of his stories would have appalled him. Still, his loss is our gain, I think.

To appreciate this movie I suspect that the viewer needs to be a fan of Lovecraft's work, but not an acolyte, if you see what I mean. An interest in early 20th-century science-fiction/horror cinema certainly helps as well.

All these high ratings are amusing. This film is very talky and super slow pacing. Nothing much happens until the ending. The production come sctoss like a stage play for the most part. I think i had 2 naps and woke up in time to see the final 20 minutes. Yawn. Rather unimpressive. Definitely not the worst HP Lovecraft adaption to screen but definitely one of the most boring horror films I've watched lately. Only for die hard fans with a high tolerance for cheesy micro-budget horror movies. Better to read his books. These just don't translate well on the big screen or on your TV screens. Like an old Twilight Zone espisode that lasts too long to hold your interest. Cured my insomnia problem though.