Smartorhypo Highly Overrated But Still Good

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Invaderbank The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

rzajac Carpenter really does cut an interesting figure wrt to the tone he explores in his work. I've enjoyed some of his work, like "The Thing" and "They Live". They're cozy blends of high-concept, decent writing, clever pacing, and fine production."Mouth" is another thing. To my tastes, it sorta regresses to what I guess they call "gothic horror"; general creepiness, incessantly stinging, monsters, slime... just the interminable presentation of the vile and impending-ly violent.Well... that's not my cup of tea. I never found that kind of stuff compelling. Carpenter obviously exerts himself mightily to make it so--and that's impressive. So I don't fault the flick by as many stars as I might have.If you go for this stuff, it may be a cut above the usual "horror" fare out there.Whatever the case may be, I hope the foregoing clues you in on the kind of flick "Mouth" is.

mwidunn-95-631875 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.

tylergerard I saw this movie 3 times with my friends at the old Manors in Newcastle and of course we loved it, this movie just shows how Mr Carpenter never lost his natural aptitude and talent since he threw the classic anthology Body Bags at us a year earlier. I think I came across writing this review by listening to the soundtrack and inspired by the opening theme for the film. Sam Neill is superb and Julie Carmen still has that look in her eye and gives off the scent since the great 80s sequel Fright Night. The scene of the guy on the bike with the long white hair was creepy and wouldn't fancy passing him during the day let alone at night, there are a few memorable moments and maybe stay with you but not hauntingly. This is a creepy atmospheric,dream-like horror story which rolls into the satisfying horror of the mid 90's. And by the way " This is not the ending. You haven't read it yet"

SnoopyStyle 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.