Kattiera Nana I think this is a new genre that they're all sort of working their way through it and haven't got all the kinks worked out yet but it's a genre that works for me.

Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Lucybespro It is a performances centric movie

Moustroll Good movie but grossly overrated

Danial Carroll As with many Lovecraft fans, I feel that his work is a creative goldmine just waiting for the right film treatment. I've seen pretty much every film even vaguely adapted from his stories, and though most are ultimately forgettable, a few—such as Dagon and Cthulhu—have been watchable. Then comes along this one...As it got going, I found myself in awe of the quality. For a low-budget film, the production, cinematography, acting, sound, and script were all top-notch. I thought to myself, "FINALLY someone has made a good Lovecraft adaptation!" Unfortunately, this amazement did not make it to the end of the film. When we are first introduced to the Mi-Go (the monsters of the story), we are teased with shadows and fleeting glimpses, which are enough to send a chill up your spine. However, in the final act of the film, they decide to go ahead and reveal the creatures in all their CGI glory... though I honestly wish they hadn't. I get that independent filmmakers can't afford the sorts of FX that studio films can, but that just makes me wonder, why put them in at all? The film was perfectly creepy without it, and as soon as I saw the cheap CGI, I was taken completely out of the film. It wasn't just one scene either, but the entire ending. I could have cried.Had this film stuck to the "less is more" techniques it began with, I would easily have given it 10/10, but sadly, the cheap CGI tainted its perfection.

masterandoverlord 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.

btdie4 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.

Sandy Petersen I'm Sandy Petersen, and some people know me as a game designer (I wrote the original game Call of Cthulhu, for instance). I helped fund The Whisperer in Darkness, though I had no creative input (and expected none). The movie is, in my obviously prejudiced opinion, a masterwork of taking an unfilmable Lovecraft story, and getting it not only on film, but in such a way to make it accessible to those who have not yet read the tale. I don't understand the reviewer who says it seems like a mishmash of Lovecraft - has he even read the original tale? This movie was taken straight from it. Some characters are added to dramatize events which, in the story, are in the form of posted letters, but that certainly doesn't hurt the film. Yes there is a lot of dialog, but the camera is not static - things move, shadows lurk, and the dialog itself is terrifically ominous. It does not follow the near-standard Hollywood 3-act-play sequence, to its everlasting credit. Instead the sinister elements keep building steadily until they reach a climax and even feature an artsy epilogic montage. Just as with the story, the evidence before Albert Wilmarth (the main character) keeps growing until he can no longer deny his eyes. Even the revelation of the alien horrors is done bit by bit. First we see a footprint, then a blurred photo, then a shadow on a wall, then on a curtain, then a single leg, then a brief shot of one walking offscreen behind some humans. Ultimately we see them fully and they are worth the wait. But it's not just the aliens - every element of the story grows in this manner. As you learn the alien plan bit by bit, the horror and tension mounts. Every death in the movie was unexpected to me. As a long-term expert in horror films, I'm used to being able to peg who lives and who dies often in the opening credits, so this was a nice surprise. The movie has subtlety and class. One good example is the scene with the young girl, Hannah. Albert Wilmarth is hiding out with her in a barn, trying to avoid detection. He converses with her, and tells her of his own daughter, who died of influenza years ago. The scene is touching, but just before it degenerates into bathos, he offers to sing Hannah a song which he once sang to his own child, and Hannah shakes her head, and says, "No". Just in the nick of time! I saw an early version of the film, and this scene with the child is what convinced me to invest my money in this movie. The whole thing is very professional. It is not an action film, though it contains action. It is a cerebral horror film. There are no "boo" moments, and every moment segues logically into every other. It is a tightly knit coherent hole.