The Thing on the Doorstep

People seem to be praising this film simply because it is truer to the Lovecraft story than usual; but then is someone simply reading the story aloud a better film? If you can't make believable characters, can't think of any other narrative way to tell your story beside constant tedious voice-overs while a guy wanders around a poorly designed set, can't create tension or mood or illicit good performances from actors who are obviously trying then you haven't made a good film. One definition of "amateur" is "Lacking professional skill or expertise" and this is the perfect example of amateur with no budget. Horribly photographed, poorly directed (even the compositions are usually bad) and with some of the worst student level editing and "special effects" I've even seen. They might have followed the plot of Lovecraft but they failed at everything else.

First of all I have never been a fan of Lovecraft, alhough I have been a horror fan almost all of my 74 years, and I have read hundreds of horror books, possibly thousands. (Favorite author at SIX: Edgar Allan Poe.) I decided, how bad can this movie possibly be? This is most boring horror movie I have ever seen. The only thing remotely "frightening" was a woman tied to a chair; believe me it was NOT scary, just ridiculous. But. still I tried for an hour, until I was ready to fall asleep at 1:00 PM, after having a nice lunch while watching this. Worse acting and directing in a movie, in my 62 years of watching horror movies. I give it a ZERO.

I review this from the standpoint of having read most of Lovecraft's work. As with all of his screen adaptations, this story should have been true to the period. Lovecraft's time, was well suited to his Gothic horror. It's hard in the 21st century to translate this. That being said, I thought this movie was more faithful to the script, than most screen adaptations of his work. One scene involving the narrator's wife, does stretch credulity. But otherwise, the producer and director deserve credit, for being faithful in spirit to Lovecraft. Most of what I have seen in the adaptations, is camp at an extreme level that to me is a disgrace to his memory. I give this an 8, due to it being more true to Lovecraft than any such adaptation I have ever seen.

I wanted to like it, as I do every HPL movie I come across.

And the actors all try. They're not nearly as bad as many of the budget outfit butcheries of Lovecraft stories.

But even though the effort is there, it's still not a very good movie.

Not sure why people say it's a faithful adaption. I didn't find it really even close to the original story. I guess they're using other butchered Lovecraft stories as the yardstick. Maybe it's just because that's a shorter HPL story and there's just not enough story content to fill around 1.5 hours.

In my opinion, unless you're a hardcore Lovecraft fan, you can pass on this one.

What really made me get into this picture was the fact that I had that wonderful tingling working up my spine into my psyche, a quality you don't see in horror movies much anymore. The scenery, the music and the fantasy sequences all made for a fairly well made horror film. The use of not so famous actors made the story line more believable too. Of course there a lot of unexplained circumstances to the point where you didn't know you were dealing with the supernatural or just the ramblings of a not quite all there antagonist, as in Edward. I'm glad I watched this one. There aren't too many out there that I'll give the time to.