Sam Neil plays John Trent, who is an insurance investigator currently investigating the disappearance of a famous author-Sutter Cane. Trent believes it's all just a publicity stunt, but he finds out pretty quick that he's wrong. I failed to mention that Cane's books literally drives his readers insane. They pretty much become zombies. Anyway, Trent finds where Cane is hiding, a supposedly fictional town from his books known as Hobb's End. Everything is very murky and odd at first, however Trent eventually pieces everything together and finds out that everything is not what it seems. And that Trent may actually hold the keys to reality as we know it.Throughout the film the idea of reality and insanity being one in the same is toyed around with. It's a clichéd topic to talk about, but Carpenter actually brings some meat to the idea and makes it a serviceable subplot. The rest of the film is influenced heavily by H.P. Lovecraft and carries this incredible sense of dread throughout it. Sam Neil is great as John Trent and Linda Styles is pretty good as his partner. Sometimes her acting is a tad over the top, but, for the most part, she fits very well in the role.The pacing leading up to the discovery of Hobb's End is great. We spend a good fifteen minutes with John Trent as he tries to piece together clues found in Sutter Cane's books. He eventually finds out that when the covers to his books are put together they create a sort of map to Hobb's End. It's all very interesting and the way in which Hobb's End is discovered is also very intriguing and smart."In The Mouth of Madness" is a good Carpenter vehicle, but in places it relies way too much on simple jump scares and gross out effects. Instead of Carpenter's typical minimalism, the picture is very big and effects heavy. Sometimes this works, like in the ending when reality comes crashing down all around John Trent. But, sometimes the effect feel unnecessary and the the usually minimalist approach would have been better for the film.All in all though, "In The Mouth of Madness" is a pretty good film. It's creepy and disturbing, but sometimes it's a little clichéd. However, after flop after flop from Carpenter-"In The Mouth of Madness" is a great return to form from John Carpenter, even if it's a little flawed in places.

THE GOOD:* The acting; * The first 15-20 minutes; * The 80's Heavy Metal-inspired soundtrack.THE BAD:* The story; * The special effects (even for a 90's film); * the "scare factor."During the commentary, Carpenter describes this movie as part of his "Apocalyptic Trilogy" (along with: THE THING and PRINCE OF DARKNESS). Now, THE THING is considered a classic re-make; PRINCE OF DARKNESS definitely -- at least, for me -- stands as a cult classic. This movie, however, is neither.The conceit, namely, an author's work becomes reality as he writes, is not a very original idea. Maybe, it was a novel (no pun intended) idea when H. P. Lovecraft was writing (to whom the film tips its hat) -- but, no longer. Moreover, the other conceit, namely, that a person realizes that he or she is actually a character in the author's work, is another mold-covered idea.The film is generally described as a "psychological" horror film. In other words, it ain't scary! What you will get is a lot of weird characters (e. g., an old lady with her husband handcuffed to her ankle), weird situations (e. g., not being able to find the mysterious town, Hobb's End), and weird dialogue (e. g., random people coming up and saying, "He sees you"). Remember, this movie was made just a few years after the success of T. V.'s TWIN PEAKS.If one were to never have watched this movie, I could not say that he or she had missed anything. A John Carpenter-enthusiast would definitely want to give it a viewing, except that that would probably be enough: a viewing -- just to say he'd watched it.As a _movie_, IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS is not bad. As a _horror movie_, though, it is not good. Carpenter seems to forget in this instance how to bring tension and scares to the audience. In the commentary, he pats himself on the back for having a dark figure -- an "extra" -- walk quickly infront of the camera as Sam Neill walks down a corridor the other way. "A cheap scare," he preens. "But, I like cheap scares." Noooo, John . . . NOT scary at all! And, that really is the whole problem with this film.I say: Watch it; enjoy it as the fluff that it is; and, forget it. There's better out there. If you were to purchase it, then I recommend buying it as part of Carpenter's trilogy mentioned above. It's certainly not worth the full price of a DVD.

As someone who has read all of Lovecrafts books I can assure you that this movie has a strong Lovecraftian vibe to it. And even the title seems to be some sort of homage to Lovecrafts work, I presume (In the mouth of madness -> Innsmouth ?) Or maybe I'm just over-interpreting things. Who knows?With that being said I really enjoyed the movie. It was refreshing and different. Sometimes the prospect of "not knowing what's real or not" is even scarier than straight up gore or monsters. After all the fear of the unknown is the ultimate essence of true horror. This movie had plenty of it so I can't complain.

Dr. Wrenn comes to interview volatile psych patient John Trent (Sam Neill). Trent was an independent insurance investigator. The movie flashes back to an ax welding stranger who tells him about successful horror writer Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow). Publisher Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) asks him to find the missing Cane. People seems to turn violent from Cane's books. The next book is suppose to be In the Mouth of Madness. Using the book covers, Trent discovers the location of Hobb's End, New Hampshire. Harglow sends editor Linda Styles (Julie Carmen) to join Trent on the search.This is more ambitious than most slasher horrors. It tries to bring in the nature of reality. It's rather disjointed with random apparitions. Essentially, nothing is real and therefore there is nothing solid to hold on to. Sam Neill is great but Julie Carmen is not particularly good. The premise is interesting but it's not that thrilling.