X
- 1995
- R
- New Line Cinema
- 1 h 35 m
- 1995
- R
- New Line Cinema
- 1 h 35 m
Summary An insurance investigator begins discovering that the impact a horror writer's books have on his fans is more than inspirational.
Directed By: John Carpenter
Written By: Michael De Luca
- 1995
- R
- New Line Cinema
- 1 h 35 m
- 1995
- R
- New Line Cinema
- 1 h 35 m
In the Mouth of Madness
53
7.3
Where to Watch
Summary An insurance investigator begins discovering that the impact a horror writer's books have on his fans is more than inspirational.
Directed By: John Carpenter
Written By: Michael De Luca
Where to Watch
Top Cast
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 17 Critic Reviews
53
41% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
41% Mixed
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
18% Negative
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
Metascore
Mixed or Average
Based on 17 Critic Reviews
53
41% Positive
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
41% Mixed
7 Reviews
7 Reviews
18% Negative
3 Reviews
3 Reviews
While the pic doesn't really have meaty characters, the presence of Neill, Carmen, Heston and Prochnow lends an air of credibility that heightens the proceedings. The film is also blessed with an arsenal of special effects that work with tinker-toy precision.
In the Mouth of Madness may leave your spine a little short on tingle (any amount of irony always dissipates the scares), but it compensates by neither insulting your grey matter nor sparing your funny bone. In a genre more brain-dead than not, that's an awfully attractive trade-off. [03 Feb 1995]
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 58 User Ratings
7.3
76% Positive
44 Ratings
44 Ratings
19% Mixed
11 Ratings
11 Ratings
5% Negative
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
User Score
Generally Favorable
Based on 58 User Ratings
7.3
76% Positive
44 Ratings
44 Ratings
19% Mixed
11 Ratings
11 Ratings
5% Negative
3 Ratings
3 Ratings
Still my favorite horror movie of all time. Im a huge Lovecraft fan and the only person to come close to getting it right is John Carpenter. Though this isnt based off any of his books it is heavily inspired by his work and it shows. If you like Lovecraft work and want too see something that resembles it it in movie form this and The Thing 1982 are the closest you will get. I love horror that slowly steps on the gas then just guns it and never lets up. The practical effects for the most part are very well done. the only notable one i always kind of cringe at is the kid with the bad old man mask. Otherwise everything else is great.
I just love horror where everything just falls apart around a character and just keeps getting worse and worse. The acting is well done. the plot is good, and the horror element is perfect. I wish we could get more Cosmic Horror films like this.
Report
En la Boca del Miedo (1994)
Sinopsis:
John Trent es un cínico investigador que sigue el rastro de Sutter Cane, un escritor que desaparece y que, a través de sus novelas de terror, ejerce un extraño poder sobre sus lectores.
Opinión:
Probablemente una de las mejores películas de terror de la década de 1990, es retorcida, intrépida, alucinante y aterradora con una atmósfera escalofriante y envolvente que no te dejará pestañear ni un solo segundo, caray si de niño me asustaba bastante y sufría pesadillas, cosa que acabo de darme cuenta que no ha cambiado para nada...
Valoración:
5 de 5
Report
In the Mouth of Madness has enough menace and novelty to please fans of Mr. Carpenter's horror films (among them The Fog, Christine and Halloween) without the wider interest of an enchanting parable like Starman, which he also directed. Still, this is a film with the temerity to think big, if only for the magnitude of the wickedness it invokes.
The story ceases to make sense. It sounds clever on paper, but on screen it degenerates into a series of random scenes that don't connect until, by the end, there are more questions than answers, and more goo than resolution. [03 Feb 1995, p.J]
In the end the most interesting thing about In the Mouth of Madness is its weird relationship with itself -- its cheesy horror celebrating the power of cheesy horror, while pretending to be appalled.
Fans can console themselves with some disorientating creepiness as half-glimpsed monsters swarm and the fine melodramatic performances. But as the film descends into a babbling wreck you start to wonder whatever became of the directing talent that gave us Dark Star, Assault On Precinct 13, Halloween and The Thing.
A bewildering, boring assembly of rock-video-surreal nightmare sequences with more repetitive episodes than Groundhog Day.
From last few days, I have been watching John Carpenter's movie. I read alot of things about this movie and watched it. I liked the idea of the movie and it was different for that time and also ahead of it's time. For your info, this movie is now considered cult classic like Carpenter's other movies.
For me, the movie was nicely made and was dark and tense like Carpenter's other movies. There were many good tense scenes. The suspense is also nicely built up and there are alot of surprises.
If we talk about performances, everyone did their job nicely. Direction by John Carpenter was just like his other movies such as Halloween and The Thing.
This movie is too much underrated. The reason why movie didn't perfom good at box office was that it was ahead of it's time and audience failed to measure the significance of this movie.
Overall, the movie is good and different for it's time. I want this movie to be re-released/ remade just like Halloween so that we can enjoy the modern touch.
Report
This may be my favorite Carpenter movie besides Halloween of course. His Lovecraftian, Stephen King inspired tale of monsters and madness is terrifying and trippy. Sam Neil (Jurassic Park) stars as an insurance investigator looking for the missing author named Sutter Cane whose horror book series is driving people absolutely mad. While searching he accidentally stumbles upon the fictional town from his novels where the horrors seem to exist. The movie is unique in its premise and inspired in its execution. The movie works on many levels from its complex creature design to it's trippy rollout. Neil is fantastic in the lead and the perfect actor to take the audience along for his wild, scary ride. Although not initially successful critically or financially the film has since developed a deserved cult following and a reexamination by critics with justly successful results. Carpenter masterfully mixes his inspirations into a terror fueled apocalyptic nightmare. It's truly a modern horror classic.
Report
In this film, a great horror story writer has disappeared without delivering the complete copy of his latest book. The fans are going crazy, there are riots in the bookstores, the publisher is getting worried. It sounds crazy, in a world like ours, where people can go crazy on Black Friday, but they do not mind reading at all. Its in this context that the publisher hires John Trent, a private detective, to find the missing writer. Of course, things go wrong and the end is truly apocalyptic.
The film addresses, in essence, a remarkable theme: how can a writer, when supported by large publishing corporations full of money to invest, affect the mind and imagination of the reading public? Although reading today is something that has fallen into disuse for many people, there is still a wide swath of readers eager for a good story. The pessimism that emanates from the film can also reflect, largely, the concerns we have for the future of the world around us, which is full of problems that we cannot solve because there is always someone who has no interest in it because its to profit from the problem (environmental, humanitarian and other issues).
The film features the excellent participation of Sam Neill, who is perfect for the character he plays. In addition to its interpretation, and the pleasant doses of suspense and mystery, this film has little to offer and is far from being the best that Carpenter has ever given to his audience.
Report
Une chouette distribution, un peu trop chouette d'ailleurs pour un film qui échoue sur tous les tableaux puisqu'il n'est ni satanique, ni horrifique, ni surréaliste, ni même inquiétant... On saisit bien l'ambiance et l'histoire à la Stephen King mais là encore, l'aspect fantasque (ou fantastique ?) est traité par dessus la jambe et ne suscite en vérité que l'ennui ou au mieux un baillement poli.
Je ne suis pas un fan de Stephen King, loin de là, mais il faut lui reconnaître quelques idées intéressantes qui ont connu d'innombrables adaptations ; or ici, ce serait lui faire injure que de tenter de comparer cette affligeante médiocrité torchée par Monsieur Carpenter à la moindre création de l'écrivain américain.
Même en se cantonnant à la folie pure et simple, cet Antre échoue encore à en restituer l'essence et nous en décrire les rouages, y compris le décalage réalité/fiction totalement bâclé ici. Ainsi, n'importe quel film de David Lynch sait infiniment mieux retranscrire la folie, n'importe quel livre de Philip K. **** sait mieux nous faire partager l'effondrement de la réalité que ce pauvre film si mollement réalisé.
Voilà donc un **** mouillé qui a fait long feu et qui sent déjà le mauvais téléfilm à des kilomètres, ce qu'il ne fait que confirmer du début à la fin.
Report
Awards
Fantasporto
• 1 Win & 2 Nominations
Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA
• 2 Nominations
Cahiers du Cinéma
• 1 Nomination
