ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Humbersi The first must-see film of the year.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Mandeep Tyson The acting in this movie is really good.

CinemaClown The third & final instalment in John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing & Prince of Darkness), In the Mouth of Madness blurs the lines between reality & fiction to deliver a psychological shock that's twisted, trippy & terrifying in more ways than one, and it still remains one of the most underrated works of his career.The story of In the Mouth of Madness concerns a freelance insurance investigator who's hired by a publishing firm to conduct an enquiry into the disappearance of a popular horror novelist whose books are known to have disturbing effects on its readers. The ensuing search for the missing author takes him on a journey that has far-reaching consequences.Directed by John Carpenter (best known for Assault on Precinct 13 & Halloween), the film relies on our fear of the unknown to deliver the scares and packs a finely tuned & cleverly structured narrative that skilfully utilises the horror elements. It is bizarre, bewildering & unpredictable throughout while downright unsettling at other times, and the final reveal brings the story full circle.The script heavily references the works of H.P. Lovecraft and also includes nods to Stephen King's novels. The plot incorporates elements from both author's works, resulting in a story that can be summed up as a King narrative with Lovecraftian themes. The complex nature of the premise is as intriguing as it is suspenseful but Carpenter makes sure the film packs some good old-school scares as well.Infusing an otherworldly vibe to its imagery are the expertly designed & detailed set pieces while the sparsely populated remote setting where a big chunk of plot unfurls further contributes to its mystical aura. The images are sleek, polished & more refined than usually is the case with Carpenter films but then it also makes the details strike out with clarity, including the violent, gory & disturbing ones.Thanks to smart editing, the mystery is retained until the end while every twist n turn adds to its enigmatic structure. Pacing is spot-on, for its 95 minutes runtime is never felt. Also worthy of mention are its practical effects that have aged rather well over the years and though carefully utilised, they do leave an effectiveness of their own. And also complementing the visuals is its unsettling soundtrack by the horror maestro himself.Coming to the performances, In the Mouth of Madness features a reliable cast in Sam Neill, Julie Carmen, Jürgen Prochnow & Charlton Heston, with Neill stealing the show with a performance that only gets more unstable as plot progresses. His character isn't difficult to relate to, for his confusion mirrors that of our own. The remaining cast provide good support in their respective roles but Carmen's input is lousy & way over-the-top.On an overall scale, In the Mouth of Madness is a clever, riveting & mind-bending trip that presents John Carpenter in control of his craft and offers an experience that's as warped as it is demented. There are moments that get repetitive at times but its grip on viewers' attention is firm throughout. Its emphasis on atmosphere over gore impart it with an endurance that, in addition to its smooth camerawork, gives the entire picture an ageless appeal. Fresh, fascinating & frustrating, In the Mouth of Madness will one day have the respect it deserves.

Anonymous Andy (Minus_The_Beer) John Carpenter's output from the late '70s throughout the '80s was so brilliant and iconic that when he crashed, he crashed hard. To say the '90s were not kind to the legendary director would be a massive understatement. "Memoirs of an Invisible Man," "Village of the Damned," anyone? The exception to this rule would be "In the Mouth of Madness," one of the more satisfying H.P. Lovecraft adaptations not actually based on anything Lovecraft wrote. The script by Michael De Luca (a then-exec at New Line Cinema) pays dutiful homage to the writer's aesthetic, with perhaps more attention paid to the sprawling monstrosities that creep throughout the film than to narrative consistency.No matter though, as Carpenter is on his A-Game. The director brings with him the same visual knack that helped the film's spiritual brethren, "Prince of Darkness," rise above its equally nonsensical story. Also, there's that rocking (and admittedly dated) guitar- driven score provided by Carpenter himself to help nudge things along. Those opening credits, underscored by that oh-so-'80s guitar, has the feel of an icon from the previous decade stubbornly refusing to bow to trends as he enters the next phase of his career (think of '80s heavy metal acts digging their heels in in the wake of Nirvana). Like the film itself, the music feels out of step with everything else going on in horror cinema at the time, which only adds to its appeal. Private investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is tasked with tracking down prolific horror novelist Sutter Cane (a Stephen King-type), who has suddenly vanished under mysterious circumstances. Was he kidnapped by an axe-wielding fanatic? Has he finally cracked and retreated to his sleepy New England homestead? Or is this is all one great, big publicity stunt? Trent re-tells this story after the fact to a doctor (David Warner, ironically coming face-to-face with his "Omen" foe once again) in the mental hospital he now calls home. His tale involves a beautiful companion (Julie Carmen) and some truly grotesque creatures, in what ultimately culminates in one great, big mind-trick. Carpenter brings with him a great deal of mad energy. It could be said that "In the Mouth of Madness" is the director's last, glorious gasp before settling into a mid-career slump that he has yet to pull out of. The story isn't always cohesive, but the film pushes along with considerable enthusiasm, often failing to slow down and catch the viewer up. Does this really matter when the film is so visually stimulating and its monsters equally intriguing? Not the slightest bit. A great film to watch in the wee hours of the night before the inevitable slumber, "In the Mouth of Madness" has a lot to offer within its gaping maw.

Sooner_88 This movie blows my mind with its plot. I never knew I could take a liken to the horror that is H.P. Lovecraft. John Carpenter has changed my perception on that now. How was it?...AMAZING! No, to simple. Utterly and visually MADNESS!(no pun). Like really. How does something like this with just practical effects make such outrageous and horrifying monsters seem so real? I gotta appreciate this movie even more, because today's standards this movie wouldn't fly. At all. Period. CGI would made this film have no weight and look cartoonish at most. Sam Neill(an older actor that I enjoy watching I admit) does his best here feeling the dread and fear of paranoia, that he completely looks like he lost himself in the role. And you know what else? HE COULD OF! You see those thing on set, you would have something to be afraid of!! Again, making my point about the problems with today's horror.I never seen this movie beyond this review. Now? I have. And I'm happy to say I completed Carpenters Apocalypse Trilogy making me a complete fan for good. I enjoyed the hell out of this movie and respect Carpenter more than before. 9/10

peefyn There's references to both Stephen King and Lovecraft, but the movie itself is more a celebration of this kind of horror in general. The whole movie is about questioning one's own sanity, as the horror evoked by not knowing what is real, has been an effective trope in horror fiction for a long time. There's some slight attempts at connecting it to a philosophical level concerning subjective reality, but it never really gets all that interesting. I don't think the plot was meant to explore the limits of horror, fictional reality or anything like it, but rather to serve as a vehicle to unsettling scenes. And for that, it works alright.Sam Neil's performance is good, but Julie Carmen was not always that convincing, though it might have been on purpose. The best part of the movie is not the plot nor the actors, though, but the utter charm that Carpenter brings to most of his movies. The special effects and just the general looks of them evokes something special, though sadly it's not fear.