Why, oh, why do good horror movies get forgotten? In the Mouth of Madness was not one I grew up with, but after discovering it on VHS a series of years ago and loving it, I was flabbergasted at how many people did not know if its existence. You know John Carpenter, right? The guy responsible for The Thing and Halloween (among many other goodies). You know Sam Neill? The lead in Dead Calm and Jurassic Park? You like horror movies with intelligent plots, creepy interiors, and interesting concepts? This should be your cup of soup, horror brethren.
Sam Neill plays John Trent--an insurance investigator (the ones who find out if people are gaming the insurance company...if only people knew the insurance companies were gaming the people--anyways...) who has been called to action by a book publisher (played briefly by Charlton Heston) to track down a notable horror novelist named Sutter Caine whose recent disappearance has triggered his fans to go into a frenzy (literally) concerning his undelivered newest book. Cane's editor, Linda, is also along for the ride as they piece together the circumstances behind Sutter Caine and who he ultimately is--leading them to a small New England town named Hobb's End. Fact and fiction meld together as Trent tries to keep his sanity In the Mouth of Madness.
The plot is wholly original and I loved how it always kept you on your toes. This isn't necessarily a DEEP film, by any means, but it's cohesive and pretty compelling. I still say that this is one of Carpenter's best films because of his attention to detail and the way that he makes the story so frightfully good. There are many fun self-referential bits--even Sutter Caine is an obvious Stephen King-er and the ending of In the Mouth of Madness is genius as far as I'm concerned. This also is the final piece in Carpenter's unofficial Apocalypse trilogy which started with The Thing in 1982 then Prince of Darkness (another forgotten classic) in 1987. None of these films have much in common except for some common themes of hysteria that I find pretty compelling to watch.
When I say "horror"--I don't mean that the movie will make you jump out or keep you on edge--but it does keep you guessing what's behind every corner. There are some cheap scares along the way (which keep things playful), but the bulk of the film is pretty creepy. This bursts with atmospheric complexity, which makes it an interesting watch. Carpenter never really gives too much away in the beginning...and even at the end he keeps some things ambiguous, which I really enjoyed. There are just some images that are hard-pressed to leave my head from the creepy old person riding around on the bicycle to the sheer amount of moments that are "WTF" moments that play with reality. It's really well done and it's not too gory or disgusting or stupid--it hits me JUST right.
Sure, there are some corny parts in it--this WAS made in the mid-nineties, but altogether the acting was pretty well done. Neill has always been one of the unsung heroes of movies as far as I'm concerned--and he carries himself remarkably well here opposite a series of no-namers. I love how you grow with the character a little and watch him unwind all the way through. The film looked like a bit of a challenge as there's a lot of bending sequences and a plot that's really clever, but he kept his wits and he's easily one of the biggest reasons to watch the film--to see him handle the whole mindf*ck.
There's not really too much else to say. In the Mouth of Madness really holds up and I think that the story is one of the best things going for it. I find myself hopelessly entertained by the experience. It's not an all-out ballsy film with a slick pace or crazy moments that have you on edge, but it's nevertheless bursting with creativity. The cast is pretty well done and there are many weird experiences that make the movie stand out in my mind as being one of John Carpenter's best offerings. There's no doubt in my mind that you'll find this memorable in an H.P. Lovecraftian sort of way--it's not how much is shown or understood, but by how much is taken away afterward.
4.5 out of 5
© Jason Haskins, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment