I can't believe that it took me so long to watch this movie. It has practically everything I love in it: Lovecraft, Stephen King, and a ton of references to look for and spot and conjecture about. In short, I'm very disappointed in myself for not watching it sooner. In my defense, I had no idea it was even about a book, so, there ya go.I loved the plot to it. It was creepy and took many unexpected twists and turns. Reality itself gets distorted in interesting ways that did not come across as cheatery and contrived. It also raises some interesting questions about readers and the free will of the characters in fiction.Sorry, a small digression here. Just pretend for a moment that it's true (c'mon, you can do it, you guys read horror and sci-fi. I know you have imaginations). That a fictional character is aware of what is happening to him or her. They realize this but can't do anything about it. They are forced to live through whatever unimaginable horror the author can think of to inflict upon them. I can't imagine anything more horrifying. I'm not really talking about meta-horror, exactly, because to me it's a different kind of awareness.Anyways, you didn't read this to get my half-assed attempt at midnight psychology. You want to hear about the movie. It starts out with a bang and the pace keeps up until the last fifteen minutes or so. It does start to slow down a bit near the end but it's a necessary slowness so it's acceptable. The plot stays on point throughout without any digressions that don't add to the movie.The effects are top-notch and some really managed to give me the creeps. Some of the creepier ones are also the most simple. Maybe not simple to pull off but in the plot they're somewhat minor happenings but add to the general atmosphere and general creepiness. The bridge into Hobb's End. The changing picture. Simple, but very effective. And the creature effects? Excellent.Sam Neill is very believable as the cocky insurance investigator, totally convinced he is the master of his own, cynical view of the world. Julie Carmen is very able in her role, if a little lat at times but since I've never seen her in anything else I'm not really sure if that was an acting choice or her typical acting ability. Jürgen Prochnow is perfect as the "author" of the end of the world. Oddly enough, this is not the first time Jürgen has brought about the Apocalypse. The first time was in a movie called 'The Seventh Sign" (which I'll be reviewing soon). He's perfect as the elusive Sutter Cane. Even the secondary characters are played well.And of course, all the references. I'd love to point out as many as I noticed (and I'm pretty sure there's more I didn't) but since some are plot points I don't want to spoil anything for you. I don't like to assume that just because a movie is older then it's ok to tell the whole story. Suffice it to say that there are many and Lovecraft and King fans alike will have many happy egg hunts.There is only one part that I don't get and it bugs me: SLIGHT SPOILER AHEAD BUT A MINOR ONE - How on Earth did he figure out that the book covers make a map? Was it wiping the ink under his eyes? I have no idea.

I'm a huge fan of John Carpenter and i strongly believe that this is one of his best (my number 3 after Halloween and The Thing) and most underrated movies. It's a dark, scary, Lovecraftian story and at the same time a clever allegory about what does reality consists of. Perhaps it's the words. Very atmospheric and disturbing, directed perfectly (great editing as well), with Sam Neil just amazing in perhaps his best performance and due to me the best acting in all of Carpenter's movies. 9/10

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.

31 Days Of Horror: Day 28John Carpenter's In The Mouth Of Madness may just be one of the director's most underrated films. It's certainly one of his most effective and intelligent. It's got a story with in a story mentality to it, a handful of really gruesome practical effects, and a story worth telling. Sam Neill plays Trent, an insurance investigator hired by a book firm to locate a missing horror author who owes them an unpublished volume. The author in question is Sutter Kane (more than a few references to Stephen King are slyly dropped), played by classic villain actor Jürgen Prochnow, who's never been eerier, given a meaty, theatrical role to play here that he fits like a glove. Trent is led to a small, deserted New England town, where the weirdness really starts. Kane has, through his horrific novels, somehow tapped into an ancient, Lovecraftian evil from the dark recesses of the space between our dimension and others, and now it wants out. It's bringing his work to slimy, squirming life and bending the rules of reality for everyone in our world. It's a super fun concept that keeps you interested the whole way through, and visually puts on quite a show as well, giving us a parade of all sorts of impressive horrors. Charlton Heston shows up as the head of the book firm, David Warner as a sceptical psychiatrist, and wiry John Glover is priceless as the world's most awkward asylum doctor. Carpenter makes a bit of a departure from simplistic, single idea driven frights and tries his hand at high concept, large scale horror. The result is a highly unsettling, really fun piece that ranks with his best.