In the Mouth of Madness
1.5/4
Starring: Sam Neill, Julie Carmen, David Warner, Charlton Heston, Jurgen Prochnow
Rated R for Images of Horror, and Language
John Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness" doesn't work. In fact, it starts to fall apart almost as soon as it starts. Which is a shame since this is a good idea for a movie. To be fair, pulling off a story like this takes a deft hand in the writing and directing categories, but it can be done. Watching this movie, I kept thinking of how much better Wes Craven did something similar with "New Nightmare."
When the film opens, a man is being dragged into an asylum by two orderlies. A physician named Dr. Wrenn (Warner) wants to help him. To do that, the man has to tell him everything that happened to get him to where he is now.
The man's name is John Trent (Neill). He's an insurance investigator who can sniff out a con better than anyone. But he works alone and on his own terms, much to the displeasure of his old employer. He has a new job. Sutter Cane (Prochnow), the mega successful horror writer who is the cash cow of a major publishing firm headed by Jackson Harglow (Heston), has gone missing. Harglow cannot afford to delay publishing Cane's new book, "In the Mouth of Madness" any further. Cane's fans are already going insane after reading the novels. Any publisher with common sense would have told Cane "thanks but no thanks" under the circumstances, but not Harglow apparently. Together with Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Carmen), he goes on a quest to find the reclusive writer. It's a journey he'll wish he'd never undertaken.
A film that blends fantasy and reality is difficult to make. On that basis, I admire director John Carpenter and screenwriter Michael De Luca for their brave attempt to pull it off. But they don't. A film like this must have consistency. Otherwise, it will seem like it's making itself up as it goes along, which is eventually what happens. It's actually obvious what they were trying to do with this story, but they don't pull it off. I wasn't scared or interested in what happens. All I cared about was when it was going to end.
Sam Neill may seem like the perfect actor for this role; he seems always on the verge of doing something scary. However, not even an actor as talented as he can save such a poorly written character. That's more than can be said for his co-star Julie Carmen, who is dreadfully boring. A femme fatale she is not. David Warner and Charlton Heston turn in solid supporting performances while German actor Jurgen Prochnow does his best to raise the nape hairs.
The film contains some gruesome special effects, but they are mixed in terms of effectiveness. Some are certainly creative, but others are not. None of them have aged well, and they look goofy rather than scary. Some bear some similarity to the ones used in Carpenter's 1982 shocker, "The Thing," but while those still have the capacity to shock, these do not.
In addition to a screenplay that is poorly written and a lead actress who is less interesting than a mannequin, the film has other problems. There are more than a few editing gaffes that add to the confusion. A movie can be symbolic, hint at darker things lurking in the future or keep its cards close to the chest, but that means it has to get the balance right. This movie doesn't.
In the end, this movie fails because it's frustrating rather than scary. And boring.
Starring: Sam Neill, Julie Carmen, David Warner, Charlton Heston, Jurgen Prochnow
Rated R for Images of Horror, and Language
John Carpenter's "In the Mouth of Madness" doesn't work. In fact, it starts to fall apart almost as soon as it starts. Which is a shame since this is a good idea for a movie. To be fair, pulling off a story like this takes a deft hand in the writing and directing categories, but it can be done. Watching this movie, I kept thinking of how much better Wes Craven did something similar with "New Nightmare."
When the film opens, a man is being dragged into an asylum by two orderlies. A physician named Dr. Wrenn (Warner) wants to help him. To do that, the man has to tell him everything that happened to get him to where he is now.
The man's name is John Trent (Neill). He's an insurance investigator who can sniff out a con better than anyone. But he works alone and on his own terms, much to the displeasure of his old employer. He has a new job. Sutter Cane (Prochnow), the mega successful horror writer who is the cash cow of a major publishing firm headed by Jackson Harglow (Heston), has gone missing. Harglow cannot afford to delay publishing Cane's new book, "In the Mouth of Madness" any further. Cane's fans are already going insane after reading the novels. Any publisher with common sense would have told Cane "thanks but no thanks" under the circumstances, but not Harglow apparently. Together with Cane's editor, Linda Styles (Carmen), he goes on a quest to find the reclusive writer. It's a journey he'll wish he'd never undertaken.
A film that blends fantasy and reality is difficult to make. On that basis, I admire director John Carpenter and screenwriter Michael De Luca for their brave attempt to pull it off. But they don't. A film like this must have consistency. Otherwise, it will seem like it's making itself up as it goes along, which is eventually what happens. It's actually obvious what they were trying to do with this story, but they don't pull it off. I wasn't scared or interested in what happens. All I cared about was when it was going to end.
Sam Neill may seem like the perfect actor for this role; he seems always on the verge of doing something scary. However, not even an actor as talented as he can save such a poorly written character. That's more than can be said for his co-star Julie Carmen, who is dreadfully boring. A femme fatale she is not. David Warner and Charlton Heston turn in solid supporting performances while German actor Jurgen Prochnow does his best to raise the nape hairs.
The film contains some gruesome special effects, but they are mixed in terms of effectiveness. Some are certainly creative, but others are not. None of them have aged well, and they look goofy rather than scary. Some bear some similarity to the ones used in Carpenter's 1982 shocker, "The Thing," but while those still have the capacity to shock, these do not.
In addition to a screenplay that is poorly written and a lead actress who is less interesting than a mannequin, the film has other problems. There are more than a few editing gaffes that add to the confusion. A movie can be symbolic, hint at darker things lurking in the future or keep its cards close to the chest, but that means it has to get the balance right. This movie doesn't.
In the end, this movie fails because it's frustrating rather than scary. And boring.
Comments
Post a Comment