20131009: Horror Review--The Call of Cthulhu

The Call of Cthulhu

1. Fundamentals, reception.
1. American live action film 2005, NR, 48 minutes, horror, mystery, thriller.
2. IMDB: 7.1/10.0 from 4,863 users; estimated budget, 50,000 USD.
3. Rotten Tomatoes: 100% on the meter; 79% liked it from 4,352 audience ratings.
4. Netflix:  3.1/5.0 from 114,994 users.
5. Directed by: Andrew Leman.
6. Starring: Matt Foyer as The Man, Ralph Lucas as Professor Angell, Ramon Allen Jr as Louis, Leslie Baldwin as Mrs. Johansen, Daryl Ball as Officer Cassidy, John Bolen as The Listener.


2. Setup and Plot
1. A Boston archaeologist sorts through his dead great-uncle's papers.  He finds information about the Cthulhu Cult.  


2. The great-uncle was a psychiatrist.  One of his patients was a young man named Henry Wilcox.  Wilcox reported dreams; the shrink asked that he record the dreams for discussion.  When Wilcox failed to appear one day, the great-uncle tracks him down to a mental ward.  Wilcox had lost his memory of his obsession.


3. The present day nephew skips to other parts of the great-uncle's stored papers, which included newspaper clippings, and visits to conferences.  At one conference, a policeman presents an artifact to some scholars.  One man had seen the same sort of piece in Greenland in Esquimaux (sic) territory.  Another described odd goings-on in a swamp near New Orleans where children were disappearing.  In both cases, there was a chant that named Cthulhu.  A similar artifact was at the site of a cult fire dance where cannibalism was being practiced.  The investigator came with police; the dance was dispersed; arrests were made.


4. The nephew keeps reading.  This seems to be a common mistake made by actors in Cthulhu films.


5. He follows the notebooks, and goes to places described in the notebooks.  He locates a Cthulhu statue, and gains more information than what was in the notebooks.


6. The effort eventually drives the nephew mad.


3. Conclusions
1. In graduate school at Indiana University, I saw a dozen or so silent black and white films at the Auditorium, which had a large screen and a huge pipe organ of fine sound quality.  The organ player was not only a skilled musician, but also a BW film buff of broad experience.  The films were A list when they were released, and were often in 1.85 or wider format.  They looked like movie films, not television.  The film actors and directors were experienced and skilled at making the best silent films.  These experiences were rather rich; I felt like I was catching a glimpse of the silent era during its height.
2. Why go to so much effort to make something that looks so bad?   The black and white silent era is over.
3. One sentence summary:  Instead of the production values of The Artist, we get garage-style visuals.
4. Two stars of five.


4. Scores
1. Cinematography: 4/10 Presented in black and white in the 4:3 aspect ratio. Full of simulated scratches and floating dust.  Ugly, unnecessary, counterproductive.


2. Sound: 6/10 This is a silent film with musical accompaniment and inter-titles.  The music was fairly good for the onscreen action.


3. Acting: 4/10 Without voice, these actors seemed to be lost.


4. Screenplay: 4/10 Too many dream sequences and flashbacks.  A lot of this looks like Freudian themes with visuals in the style of Dali.