In The Mouth Of Madness Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
Lived Any Good Books Lately?
Reality isn't what it used to be...
The efficient and skeptical freelance insurance investigator John Trent is hired by the publisher Jackson Harglow to find where the famous writer Sutter Cane might be. After writing a series of best-sellers in the horror genre, affecting the reason and causing disorientation, memory loss, and paranoia in readers, Sutter has simply vanished near the release of his new novel, "Horror in Hobb's End." There is mass hysteria of his anxious fans waiting for the new release, and John believes that his disappearance is a marketing strategy. John follows his instincts and travels with Cane's editor, Linda Styles, to New Hampshire, seeking for the apparently fictional town of Hobb's End. While driving along in the night, Linda reaches Hobb's End, and John discloses that Sutter Cane has unleashed a powerful evil force in the black church of the mysterious town, and his twisted imagination is changing the reality and perception of those who read his novels.
| Sam Neill | John Trent |
| Julie Carmen | Linda Styles |
| Jürgen Prochnow | Sutter Cane |
| David Warner | Dr. Wrenn |
| John Glover | Saperstein |
| Bernie Casey | Robinson |
| Peter Jason | Mr. Paul |
| Charlton Heston | Jackson Harglow |
| Frances Bay | Mrs. Pickman |
| Wilhelm von Homburg | Simon |
| Kevin Rushton | Guard #1 |
| Gene Mack | Guard #2 |
| Conrad Bergschneider | Axe Maniac |
| Marvin Scott | Reporter |
| Katherine Ashby | Receptionist |
| John Carpenter |
7.00 out of 10 (13018 votes)
Visitor Reviews
Carpenter's best
posted on 16 Jun 2009Wow this is truly a great film! Along with Christine this is John Carpenter's best to date. Sorry, but not a certain 1978 movie which I didn't think was all that great. But anyways this movie has some great acting, good special effects, and a good story to go with it too.
Slightly muddled H.P. Lovecraft inspired end of the world horror thriller.
posted on 10 Jun 2009In the Mouth of Madness starts in New York where freelance insurance investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is hired by an insurance firm to check the claim of Arcane Publishing who say that their best-selling horror author Sutter Cane (Jürgen Prochnow) has disappeared & is believed to be dead. The insurance firm feel it may all be a publicity scam & send Trent in to uncover the truth either way, after reading Cane's first five novels Trent becomes convinced that it's a con & after some inspired detective work feels he has the answer. The illustrations on the covers of Cane's books when pieced together form a map leading to the town of Hobb's End which is where all of Cane's novels are set. Trent is certain that is where Cane is & drives out there to prove it, however the fiction of cane's books & reality blur into one another as the terrifying things in the novels begin to happen for real including the end of the world & reality as we know it...Directed by John Carpenter who apparently calls this his third film in his self titled Apocalypse Trilogy after The Thing (1982) & Prince of Darkness (1987) & while I liked a lot of it an equal amount left me rather frustrated & unsatisfied, the potential for something special was here for sure but it doesn't quite work for several reasons. The script by Michael De Luca (who at the time was President of Production at New Line the company that produced In the Mouth of Madness) is very H.P. Lovecraft in it's style, ideas about evil forces from beyond reality, the end of the world apocalypse as it's engulfed by slimy monsters from beyond, all the Lovecraft references & the fact the majority of the story is narrated by a patient in a mental institute also comes straight from a Lovecraft novel. The first thirty odd minutes is rather good as the mystery surrounding Sutter Cane is explored & once the action shifts to Hobb's End itself the films gets weirder & weirder as fantasy & reality mix & lots of slimy monsters pop up all over the place. The twist that a very rational cynical man such as Trent is merely a work of fiction made up by Cane to bring about the end of the world is reasonable if a little uninspired while the final twist in which Trent goes into a cinema to watch the film we have just seen made no sense to me at all & ended things on a bit of a downer. The character's are alright although Linda Styles is a bit useless. The plot is interesting for sure, it's something different & tries to be mysterious, scary, gross & surprising & it almost succeeds but several loose ends & a plot that fizzles out as the film progresses stop it from being classic Carpenter in my humble opinion.Quite a lot of fantasy horror from the 80's & 90's did the whole blurring of reality & fiction & specifically focused on books the most popular of which were probably the rather excellent I, Madman (1989) & the not so excellent The Dark Half (1993) both of which featured killers from the pages of novels coming to life. There's some really stylish Lovecraftian imagery here with a wall of slimy tentacled creatures chasing Sam Neill being one in particular that stands out. The film has a few creepy moments, there's some impressive monster & creature effects on show although there's not really any gore. There's a good atmosphere & there are definitely a couple of unsettling scenes here but they are few & far between unfortunately. The town of Hobb's End is obviously a reference to Quatermass and the Pit (1967) in which the alien spaceship is found in a subway station named Hobb's End too.With a supposed budget of about $14,000,000 this was another box-office failure for Carpenter who just couldn't repeat his earlier critical or financial success he had with films such as Halloween (1978) & Escape from New York (1981). Although set entirely in the US this was actually filmed in Ontario in Canada. The acting varies, Sam Neill is alright but Julie Carmen as Styles is absolutely awful while veteran old timer actors David Warner & Charlton Heston have nice cameos.In the Mouth of Madness is a H.P. Lovecraft inspired end of the world John carpenter directed horror film that tries to mix reality & fantasy to mixed effect really, I thought it was above average for sure but overall the film didn't convince me & it felt a little muddled at times especially that ending.
Books really can take you anywhere...
posted on 04 Jun 2009A clever thriller that went virtually unnoticed during its theatrical release, "In the Mouth of Madness" features an intriguing premise, some genuine shocks and top-notch performances from its cast, especially Neill and Prochnow.Neill plays a slimy investigator who seems to thrive on bringing down fraudulent insurance claims. He is very skeptical, then, when he is asked to find a bestselling author who seems to have quite literally dropped off the face of the earth. Horror writer Sutter Cane (sound like any real-life bestselling horror authors?), whose books are so vivid they have caused some readers to actually go insane, has vanished along with the manuscript for his new novel. When Neill goes after him, he finds himself trapped in one of Cane's fictional towns, and then the real fun begins.Like Wes Craven's "Nightmare on Elm Street", this film works because it is able to bend the line between fantasy and reality; at some points the viewer is left uncertain whether the events of the film aren't just all in Neill's imagination. And the idea of a horror author being so popular that bookstores that sell out of his new releases are scenes of riots doesn't seem that far-fetched; after all, Stephen King's works are bestsellers as soon as they can be published.
A film of two halves
posted on 12 Mar 2009I call this a film of two halves as I fell asleep halfway through watching it and had to restart the tape when I woke up. Not many films have made me fall asleep and I wouldn't use that as a recommendation.I was quite incensed by the high votes attributed to this one (at date of writing the film has received a reasonably high 6.3) and surmise that this is because of the nature of the film. Horror/Carpenter fans will form a huge percentage of the audience, fans of neither will not see it therefore won't get to vote.I was looking forward to seeing this film, as the tale of a man who loses his sanity and becomes mentally enmeshed in a work of fiction is a strong and original idea. When the film was first released I read a review that claimed the film had "no bearing in reality". Rather a strange thing to say about a film that covers monsters, deities and insanity, but watching this movie you can see what he meant. None of the characters, even Sam Neill's lead, have any sense of depth or purpose. We never get to know or particularly like the characters, so we cannot empathise with any perils they may encounter. Maybe Neill lacks the necessary depth to pull off such a role - when I see him laughing maniacally I remember how much better Antony Perkins did it in Le Procès - but even strong actors, such as Charlton Heston (who plays a publishing manager with nothing to do, and not, unfortunately, someone who drops to his knees at the sight of the Statue of Liberty, damning everyone to Hell) fail to make this work.Music is important to set a tone in film. Musical snobbery is not an issue. The Ink Spots set off the Shawshank Redemption's pleasingly pedestrian pace, but here we have a "psychological" horror that is bookended by heavy metal. I have nothing against the genre, but it does not work for film, or at least this type of film. But then so many things do not work.Neill tracks down best-selling author "Sutter Cane", a man whom, we are told, is brilliant with words and description. Maybe they should have let him write the script. For the whole movie is populated by mindless gore, monsters with gnashing teeth, women with heads on backwards, walking spider-like in a bizarre mish-mash of Death Becomes Her and The Exorcist. Most importantly, it just isn't scary. Extreme close-ups and over-emphasised reactions with buckets of silly monsters and blood hurled at the screen. This could have been Carpenter's `Jacob's Ladder'. Instead it insults its audience and doesn't even compare to the worst of the `Halloween' sequels.Thankfully this film was the first part of a horror double-bill that included the satirical zombie shoot-em-up that is `Dawn of the Dead', so my evening wasn't a complete waste of time. Lastly, I've noticed that Sutter Cane's name is a malapropism of `Cutter Sane'. Coincidence?
Wow
posted on 01 Feb 2009Despite being weird, incoherent, and not particularly scary, In the Mouth of Madness has a strong level of creativity to it which makes it an interesting watch if you approach it with the right mindset. The story feels like a blend of, Adam Simon's 'Brain Dead' and David Cronenberg's 'Naked Lunch'. If you love either of those films than you will worship In the Mouth of Madness. To put it quite literally, this is a crazy movie.Insurance investigator John Trent is given the task of locating famed horror author Sutton Cane who has mysteriously disappeared. Cane is famous because his novels have such a profound effect on his readers that they get mentally unstable and even violent. After flipping through some of his books one night, John finds a clue to the author's possible whereabouts. He follows the lead which takes him down a strange path. Shortly after arriving at this destination, (an unknown town New Hampshire), he slowly begins to realize that he is inside the story of Cane's new novel, entitled 'In the Mouth of Madness'. The question is it real or is it in his mind, or is it something else.There are two ways to approach this story. You can choose to hate it, see it as bad filmaking with incompetent story telling, leaving you frustrated from trying to figure out if what you see is fantasy or reality. The other way would be just to watch it with an open mind, and let the art of movie making guide you through, without questioning the messiness.If you choose the latter way, I think you'll agree with me that the movie is not great, but it intrigues you to the level that you will find strange pleasure in watching it.
Fun Carpenter Insanity
posted on 17 Jan 2009I have lots of reasons not to like Mouth of Madness, but I find it charming in a fun, goofy, horror spoof-ish kinda way. It doesn't really have much point to it so it stumbles along pulling a rabbit out of its hat and other assorted magic tricks along the way . . . but ya know, I kinda liked it anyway, and the film feels right this way. The contrasting personalities of Julie Carmen and Sam Neill along with the villain Jurgen Prochnow (who somehow reminds me of Ernest Thesiger in Bride of Frankestein) are all fun to watch as they embrace this over the top, wacky little world.I love the dialogue - the bickering of Neill and Carmen. Sam Neill's character arc throughout the film. Prochnow's elusive and enigmatic presence - him driving poor Sam to the edge of sanity. Whether the writer's vision or the actor's improvisation, it has a certain flair that's entertaining to follow. Another aspect I love are things thrown in seemingly for the hell of it; spontaneity is always welcomed if handled appropriately. And if you had power over reality, what would you do? `My favorite color is blue.' Completely out of left field. Completely unnecessary. Great stuff. My biggest complaint is that I felt Carpenter went too far and showed too much in places, especially when Neill acquires the manuscript and the monsters chase him. An unseen force or fleeting glimpses would've worked better than what we do see (admittingly, it is brief glimpses . . . it's still too much). That pushes it over the line into overly-corny territory.
As silly and over the top as the previous weird occurrences are, Carpenter exercises just enough restraint to keep it hovering above the b-grade material that it's poking fun at. It's not a horror classic like Hitchcock's Psycho, Friedkin's Exorcist, or even Carpenter's own Halloween. It's not meant to be. In the Mouth of Madness was entertaining, that's all it wants to be, and that's all I need it to be.
Good Work John....
posted on 19 Oct 2008I think John Carpenter did a very good job in "in the mouth of madness" and I snub any one who says the film isn't good. It was a very clever film directed by most probably the greatest horror director ever. The cast was very well portrayed and although people criticize the film for its ending I believe that the ending is extremely well thought....Don't listen to the critics John, your still number 1
scares you unlike any other horror film will
posted on 04 Oct 2008Well, the concept of this film is what made it truly awesome. The questions "What is fiction?", "What is reality?", "Does life imitate art or does art imitate life?". These questions make this film truly terrifying. When even the characters in this film don't know what is reality and what isn't reality, the viewer has twice the amount of struggle. Great acting by Sam Neill and an effectively creepy storyline draw the viewer further into the depths of this film. Most of us know that John Carpenter is an outstanding director and he doesn't let us down on this one in that department, but some of the music soundtrack (the beginning and end credits) is a cheesy rock/heavy metal sound when Carpenter has been composing wonderfully simplistic and eerie soundtracks in the past (ala 'Halloween' & 'Prince of Darkness'). But the soundtrack is my only gripe about this film, so get up off your computer, rent this flick, and prepare for a dose of cinematic madness.
Wow.
posted on 28 Sep 2008What an incredibly strange movie. Seldom would I ever even consider writing a comment/review for a movie, but I feel moved by the Holy Spirit to spread the word of this piece of cinematic art. I can say in confidence that never have I seen a movie with such bizarre events taking place. Sure, they have some value for being something that you don't see in every movie, but, unfortunately, the movie, at the same time, takes itself way too seriously and not seriously at all. Plenty of times during the movie did I catch myself feeling embarrassed for watching this... film. I guess it's worth watching simply because it goes places other movies wouldn't dare to go, but, this isn't necessarily a good thing.
The best HP Lovecraft film done to date
posted on 25 Sep 2008In The Mouth Of Madness is without a doubt the best Lovecraftian movie ever made, even though it is an original script not taken directly from one of his works. There are a number of references to Stephen King in this film, but King himself admits to a deep love of all things Lovecraft; and the writer in the film, Sutter Kane, is closer to Charles Dexter Ward than Stephen King.New England settings, different dimensions, what you don't see is what will kill you (and thereby all of us), and the return of elder gods (or eldritch gods if you prefer) to reclaim this plane and planet as their own are all central parts of the stories and novels of HP Lovecraft. The scriptwriter does a wonderful job of combining so many elements of the Cthulhu mythos without ever actually referring to any of them as such.The third installment in Carpenter's apocalypse trilogy. The end of the world is coming. Soon! And we cannot stop it.
a big favorite of mine
posted on 26 Aug 2008Hey now, Sutter Cane is one of those writers where everybody is reading his stuff. In fact, they're mad about his stuff. So mad they're going absolutely berserk. And it seems he's disappeared, so along comes insurance investigator (Sam Neill) to find out where he's gone. This is one of those "life imitates art" (or something like that) kind of flicks, as whole scenes from Cane's novels seem to be coming true, including the small town of Hobb's End where folks ain't what they seem. This has plenty of weird and creepy stuff, including a bunch of eerie little kids running around, and nasty things tucked away in basements and such. A lot of this is borderline Lovecraft kind of stuff, and the more Trent (Neill) and Styles (Julie Carmen) dig, the more weird this gets. Any scene where a human body moves in an unnatural way gives me the creeps so when Styles walks backwards on her hands and feet with her head turned around it was quite satisfying, in a creepy kind of way, of course. OK, so there may be a plot hole or two, but hey, this is a horror movie, OK? I think this is one of my all time favorite Carpenter flicks, although some may not agree. 8 out of 10 stars, fer shure.
Now it seems like an un-original premise
posted on 06 Jun 2008In the year 2000, we have lived through the enormous blockbuster The Matrix, and its subsequent rip-offs such as the 13th floor. Both films make us want to question reality. The Matrix throws it in your face and makes you eat it for breakfast. In the Mouth of Madness is a little more subtle. It lets you do a little thinking on your own, and the result is a much more terrifying film. I saw the movie 3 years ago and it frightened me, and i don't find movies frightening very often. Then, i just bought the DVD a watched it again and realized how terrifying it really is. But this time I started to laugh with Trent. It's all you can do at that point, right? Are you somebody's character? Are you meant to interact with the people you know because it's been scripted? What does such knowledge mean? Who controls your world? Do you have a world? This is reality. This is not reality. This is the mouth of madness.
what is the reality or fiction?
posted on 31 May 2008john trent doesn't believe what he sees. he always think there is another reality behind of the reality which you see first. so his job is about to try to show peoples' lies tells for getting money as indemnity. one day they hear about books of writer sutter cane. the books are very popular and best-seller. they are about horror and science fiction. but very different from other horror books. sutter cane's books effect people badly. they make people so strange, scared and finally mad. because when people read those books, they can't differentiate what is the real and what is the fiction. but mr trent thinks all those people are stupid, they are just books and they don't show the reality, they are about fiction. but sutter cane don't like mr trent's idea. he doesn't agree with him. and he wants to show his power to him. faithless trent must believe what he sees. what can happens to a man when he can't differentiate the reality and the fiction? the film shows us that. and it does that in very different way by making you feel like john trent.
Absolutely amazing, mind bending horror film
posted on 05 Mar 2008This film was made before SCREAM turned all horror into self-referential sludge. This is a true horror film, and a credit to both Lovecraft and Carpenter. What truly made this film great was it's wonderful story-line and twisted imagery. Utterly surreal, and very creepy. Easily in my top five horror films of all time (the others are The Exorcist, Suspiria, Eraserhead and The Thing). Oh, and take a look at my nickname.
A real page turner!
posted on 28 Feb 2008This is, in my opinion, the best horror movie of the 90's! It has an incredible script by Michael De Luca and the direction of John Carpenter is top notch. It ranks with the top films of the genre, such as The Evil Dead, Phantasm and The Exorcist! Sam Neill gives a stirring performance as an insurance investigator that goes out looking for missing horror novelist Sutter Cane. Never knowing what is around the next corner and never liking what you find is what makes In The Mouth of Madness a very horrifying yet enjoyable 90 minutes.
The Cinema of John Carpenter: The Final Chapter in the Trilogy of the Apocalypse.
posted on 25 Feb 2008In the Mouth of Madness (1994) was the final chapter in the loosely linked trilogy of the Apocalypse. John Carpenter returns to the silver screen with another dark and depressing film (yay!). This tale is about the disappearance of one of the World's most sought after and best selling novelist Sutter Kane (Jurgen Prochnow). His publisher has hired a private investigator (Sam Neil) to look for the writer, Sutter Kane's latest novel is well over due. The consumers are waiting with cash in hand.After searching high and low, the investigator decides to look in to the writings of the novelist to search for clues into where he might be hiding. The clues lead to New England. Whilst searching in the North Atlantic area, he finds a strange town that's located in the middle of nowhere. What he discovers literally blows his mind. He finds Sutter Kane alright, and things that the living were never meant to see. The P.I. awakes some time later. Every thing is different. Confused, he tries to find the odd hamlet but it's like it's never existed. Weirdness and madness over comes the P.I. The World seems to have gone insane. People are going crazy over the latest Sutter Kane novel. The P.I. is also confused by the growing madness as well. He goes over the edge when he kills a Sutter Kane fanatic. Killing the fans puts the P.I. into a mental institution. But that doesn't stop his vision of the Apocalypse. While the world around him crumbles, he rots away inside a padded cell. What is going on in the P.I.'s head? Has he become part of the novel? Is he the story? Soon he hears the unspeakable beasts from the depths of hell rip through his asylum. When the carnage is over, the P.I. leaves his cell and finds a world that has been destroyed. Wandering through the remains of humanity, he hears the voices from a few survivors on the radio. After walking the streets for sometime, he stumbles across the movie version of Sutter Kane's last novel. To his horror he realizes that he's the star! Madness over comes the poor P.I. as he finally realizes the truth behind everything and just goes with it.Another classic film from John Carpenter. It's not as great as THE THING or PRINCE OF DARKNESS but it'll entertain you none the less. You'll need to bring your brain with you when you watch this movie. I recommend this final chapter of the Trilogy of the Apocalypse. You wont regret it!
Possibly the best cheese-horror movie ever made, but still that: cheesy.
posted on 05 Jan 2008There are two types of horror fans: those that want truly original, scary, and well-done genre pieces, and those who hail the old cheese-horror movies—like A Nightmare on Elm Street—as "classics" and anything new as "trash". In the Mouth of Madness tries to have it both ways. It uses some interesting, fresh ideas while also using tired genre clichés without any constraint whatsoever.The good: In the Mouth of Madness does have an intelligent point to make about how obsessive some people are with horror fiction (movie, book, video game, it doesn't matter) that very few horror movies would ever dare go. Some of the surrealist moments are the best I've personally ever seen, and I've seen a lot. The overall plot, while not really original, is not something that is overused in the genre by any means, and is very entertaining.The bad: Cheese—the majority of this movie plays out like a bad 40s B-movie, which is sort of is. The creature effects suck, even for their time, and a lot of the acting is insanely over-the-top and just downright funny. Some of the scenes even have laugh-out-loud horror montages that you've seen in so many b-movies it's just ridicules. I couldn't even talk half of this movie seriously. The very last scene of the movie almost even seems like a punch-line.Clichés—at one point in the movie a character says: "All horror movies have the same plug. Bumps in the night, axes, people turning into monsters . . ." and that is pretty much how the entire movie plays out. And while the movie continuously mentions Stephen King's name in passing reference, the screenwriter just doesn't seem to get it: this movie is nearly a rip-off of Stephen King's The Dark Tower books, as well as some of his short stories. It even has some near ripped-off elements of a few Dean Koontz's short stories, as well. But this movie simply isn't even half as well-done or original as wither writer's work.The ugly: I really wanted to like this movie, but the lack of originality and prevalence of cheese kept me from it. Even though this movie is worth watching, it's not worth paying money for. Just watch it on Cartoon Network whenever they play their Halloween lineup.0/10
spooky for it's time
posted on 12 Nov 2007This is a great movie. I like Sam Neil playing as the character John Trent. Perfect role for him. And if you liked him in this film you'd enjoy "Event Horizon". Generally, both creepy and truly frightening films. It's the year 2008 now, and I just saw this movie. Realizing the year it was made and watching it now almost fourteen years later, honestly made me realize the quality of the movie. It's a film that contains some good freakishness in it as well as some genuine horror. A generally one of it's kind film you probably won't see anything like it. Just the fact that it's not really comparable to those classic horror films like Halloween or Friday the 13th. Which you can't beat, those are great films of their own. "In the House of Madness" is genuine, probably won't have a sequel, but honestly could because it's possible. and if they came out with one I would definitely watch it.I regret seeing the film when I did and not any sooner. Now that I have watched it and enjoyed it I'll definitely be more likely to watch this again. It's definitely not a boring movie. Then, combined with it's atmosphere and story-line, becomes so much more intense.
2/3 brilliant, final third not so brilliant
posted on 22 Sep 2007It's hard to go deeply into the story of In the Mouth of Madness without spoiling it. It's best to know absolutely nothing at all. That was my experience with this film and I was completely blown away. The story is very original and inventive and also has a good critique about the influences of the horror franchise.The first 2/3 of the film are masterful, the old John Carpenter seems to have returned at full force. Effortlessly creating a creepy atmosphere, astounding visuals, some gross-out horror combined with a Chandleresque detective mystery, In the Mouth of Madness seems to be competing for the title of Carpenter's best ever film. But the final third is a letdown, the conclusion not satisfactory and the terribly slow pacing kills the momentum so memorably established before.Still, overall this is one effective horror film made by a master filmmaker. Although it misses the bull's eye, it ranks as the best of Carpenter's later works. He has a good cast to work with here; Sam Neill is terrific in the lead, Jurgen Prochnow is creepy and it's fun to see Charlton Heston in a small role.For horror fans and Carpenter disciples this film is a must see.
WATCH IT!!
posted on 24 Aug 2009Another one of John Carpenter's great horror movies. The movie revolves around a subject which most people think about, being in a book you've read. This makes it more chilling as the actors roam the land which they realize they are in the same land as the one they read about in Sutter Cane's book. Is it a real town which Sutter based his book on, or is it all their imagination. Watch and find out!!