- Tori Spelling stars in ‘Cthulhu’, the terrifying reinvention of theic HP Lovecraft tale. When Russell (Jason Cottle), a gay college professor, returns to his small hometown to rectify his late mother s estate, he discovers the town embroiled in a sinister plot to take over the world, and his own destiny entwined with their plans. Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: HORROR Rating: R
Studio: Wea-des Moines Video Release Date: 03/31/2009The Oregon coast is a wild, rugged place of beauty and danger–and the unsettling backdrop for the film version of H.P. Lovecraft’s Cthulhu. Creepy and unsettling things lie just beyond view in the picturesque fictional town of Rivermouth (actually Astoria, where the film was shot entirely on location). For those who take solace in visiting the seaside, the film is even more unsettling. The story is based on Lovecraft’s novella The Shadow Over Innsmouth, though the script takes a few liberties, including making the lead character, Russ (Jason Cottle) gay–which in a small insular town can be a quiet horror show of its own. Russ is called back from the big city to Rivermouth after the death of his mother to be executor of her estate. While there he meets up with his best friend from school, and sparks fly. But there’s a dark thread running through the reunion, as Russ learns he’s but the latest to be affected by a particularly gruesome form of a family curse. “My son,” Russ’s father intones–and not in that good way, “this is your rightful place.” The film is uniformly well acted (including Tori Spelling as a townie with a really perverted side; when she says, “I’m not going to die without you,” you might want to start running), and the scares and shocks more than a little unnerving. Cthulhu takes its rightful place alongside Jaws as the film that won’t make you feel safe to go back in the ocean. –A.T. Hurley
March 5, 2010
#1
Chthulhu…. What should have been a homage for a fabulous writer was instead turned into a platform for various leftist ideas such as the collapse of the US, Global Warming and Homosexual themes. The first half of this movie is pointless to the story and more about a gay man being discriminated than about cosmic horror.
By the end of the movie it manages to create a sense of tension and fear. I can’t give it a 1 but its damn close. I must say my hopes for this movie were horribly dashed.
March 5, 2010
#2
A beautiful to look at film with a cool sound track I will have to find some of the music. Yes we could all do with a bigger budget, but as a fan of Lovecraft and willing to see films that try to use the terror of words and unseen or glimpsed actions, and living through those crazy times where I had no idea why the administration can mess things up so badly, like Katrina disaster recover, This movie just made sense of it all for me.
March 5, 2010
#3
“Cthulhu”
Looking at H.P. Lovecraft
“WELCOME TO THE END OF THE WORLD”
Amos Lassen
In “Cthuhlu” a lonely Seattle history professor is drawn back to the family he is separated from when he returns to the coast of Oregon to execute his late mother’s will. He finds himself reacquainted with his best friend from when he was a child and they celebrate a long delayed tryst. As he finds himself caught in an accelerating series of events, he explores aspects of his father’s New Age cult which begin to become significant and apocalyptic.
The film which relies on Lovecraft’s work and could have been an excellent film but the script and the actors seem to have lost any of the nuances from the original work. If it had been made as a parody of Lovecraft it might have worked but the film takes itself much too seriously. What is so frustrating is that the movie almost works. There are great creepy details but for some reason they fall flat.
Based on Lovecraft’s “The Shadow Over Innsmouth”, the movie takes some unnecessaty liberties. The protagonist is a gay professor which does not matter at all. In the original this was not stated but the movie spends a lot of time looking at his homosexuality and the only reason that I can figure this was done was so that the movie would appeal to a gay audience. It does not matter that he was gay and I just don’t see its importance here. This is no chilling tale of the macabre as it should have been and I have no idea where the script (or lack of one) was going.
The movie is deliberately slow paced with lots of moody photography and nightmarish imagery but nothing really happens.
From what I have read about the film it is either a “love it” or “hate it” movie. There does not seem to be any middle ground. When the movie is funny, it is funny and when it is scary, it is scary but just not enough.
Photographed as a hallucinatory nightmare, the film deals with a small town cult, the oncoming apocalypse and a plot about humankind returning to the sea. As I said the acting leaves much to be desired; the cast is made up of unknowns save Tori Spelling but there are signs of thematic relevance. The tone of the film is fine and the movie leaves the viewer disturbed.
March 5, 2010
#4
It’s amazing how many favorable reviews there are for this piece of offal.
Acting is poor, camera work is shoddy, sound quality is what I’d expect from a poorly funded student film…
This film felt like a very pedestrian “it’s okay to be gay” agenda film about overcoming alienation. I had no problem with the protagonist’s being gay, but that plot point took precedence over what should have been the primary crux of the situation. Apparently there was a global situation of escalating chaos and violence, much like our own but magnified greatly, but you really have to be paying attention to catch these tossed aside references. Mostly, they were in the background of the character confronting his family. There was no buildup of tension or dread, there was no sense that something mind-shatteringly alien was happening… Just a vague cult with Lovecraft words randomly thrown in.
I respect the different take they attempted, but it just didn’t come off. Like I say, there seemed to be some sort of apocalypse in progress, but any buildup was tossed aside as unimportant in lieu of lesser things, and then at the end there was a riot of at least a dozen people. There was one bit where there were very brief glimpses of potentially cool creatures, but the images flashed by too quickly for the viewer to be able to tell what they were supposed to be or anything. I could have rewound and paused, get a good look, but given the rest of the movie I was afraid they would just end up being something molded out of playdough.
March 5, 2010
#5
First off let me tell you I went into this movie with an open mind. I did know that the director was gay and is known for gay films. So here is the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of the movie.
Good-It is a decent modern version of “The Shadow over Innsmouth” Some of the acting was very well done and close attention to characters and details of the Mythos were touched upon in a very realistic and acceptable way. By far the actor playing Zaddock was the most convincing portrayal I’ve seen of the character. Effects were kept at a minimum witch really did the story justice and brought a more human element to it.
The Bad-Some of the actors really need to get out of the theatre and see what real people look like when they interact with others. A good example is (the main character)Russell’s sister. She had an overall phoniness to her that took away from the film. The same could be said of Tori Spelling’s performance. It’s as she just watched Courtny Love footage for a week and just smiled allot; the only positive about her is that she naturally has “the Innsmouth look”. Russle’s father who is completely opposed to his gayness in his first scene seems almost stereotypically flaming in his gestures that should have conveyed father/son endearment but came off as sexual and flirtatious.
The Ugly-I expected some homosexual content but I didn’t expect the entire movie to revolve around homosexuality. Lovecraft in any form is meant to be devoid of sexuality be it homo- or hetero-sexual. Often a Lovecraft movie is imbued with breast shots that make the true Lovecraft fan cringe. This is why introducing homosexuality as a major element into a Lovecraft story truly makes no sense. I don’t understand why gay directors feel the need to push it into the heterosexual audiences face. The modern world is already accepting and growing increasingly tolerant of others choices of lifestyles, that is why there is gay cinema, and it is totally acceptable. It’s as if the Lovecraft story is just a vehicle for the real movie the director wanted to make witch is the typical afterschool special about a father’s unacceptance of the son’s lifestyle choice. The gay issue just feels forced into the movie, as if two movies entered the cutting room but only one was allowed to come out. Even if the character remained gay the movie would have been better if the sex scenes were left out. The director really dropped the ball when thinking of his audience. If he was targeting the already small Lovecraftian audience, he just alienated most of them by making the movie overtly gay and putting them in a position that makes them feel uneasy, and not in a way you want to achieve in a horror movie. If he was targeting the gay audience, then as with the general populace of movie goers, would be wondering “What the heck is all this cult stuff about the old ones supposed to mean?”
In conclusion, the movie was a good adaptation of “The Shadow over Innsmouth”, but the gay issue seemed forced. The obscurity of both the Lovecraft and gay genres doesn’t lend a good materials for mixing the two. Aside from the director, How many gay Lovecraft fans are there out there? By today’s standards Lovecraft was a bigot and a racist- a product of his time period, and wouldn’t be accepted by the gay audience. Next time make two different movies and avoid confusion for all of us.