Not Faithful
I´ve watched this movie because I´ve been hearing all good reviews and how it was the ´´most faithful Lovecraft adaptation´´. Yet, the movie has just finished and I´m obliged to say that I didn´t find it a faithful adaptation. Yes, the plot is there. It is, you could say, a literal representation of the story. But the movie lacks a fundamental element of the short story: terror and horror. Is this film terrifying or horrifying? Has really anyone felt scared while watching this movie? Could a truly faithful adaptation of Lovecraft not be scary or suspenseful?
I think the problem with the movie lies within the decision of the filmmakers of trying to do two things at once, and unfortunately not succeeding greatly at any. They tried to do, on one hand: a faithful representation of the plot of the short story; while on the other hand: they tried to recreate and homage 20´s silent films.
Not necessarily both attempts are incompatible, yet, in this case, they don´t work well.
The recreation of a 20´s silent film it´s obviously deeply hurt by the lack of budget. This is not an attack to low-budget films, believe me. I´m just stating a fact that even fans of the movie have recognize. The digital video doesn´t make believable that you are watching a 20´s film. You have to force yourself to believe that, but it´s quite evident that you´re watching a modern digital movie attempting to pass as a 20´s film.
But this problem doesn´t have much to do with this being an unfaithful adaptation. The point of the filmmakers trying to homage silent films and the 20´s era does indeed conflicts with the film being scary. Not that a 20´s film about this short story couldn´t be scary or a faithful adaptation. But here, the filmmakers (and many reviewers) justify the biggest mistake of the film, and the one that stirs away the production of being faithful to the book: Cthulhu. What are the feelings you get when reading of Cthulhu´s appearance on the book? What are the feelings you get when watching the stop motion Cthulhu? Is this a similar feeling?
This is the point where the homage to the 20´s special effects conflicts with the feeling of the book. Instead of scary, disturbing, unsettling, we get something that might range from not-really-scary to laughable. It´s interesting cinematographically speaking... but does it helps the mood of the story to have a stop motion cthulhu being exposed as some kind of homage to king-kong? It´s just an excess of special effects, just for the sake of it, or just for the sake of making an homage. The great masters of terror and horror in film have done it well: ´´don´t show´´ or ´´show less´´.
This is the director´s fault, because in his homage to 20´s era special effects, he breaks any attempt at having a serious scary story. And this also is probably a mistake related to the literal approach of the adaptation of the plot (If cthulhu appears in the book, then it HAS to appear in the movie). A good adaptation doesn´t need to be 100% literal.
So it´s not really a question of budget, but of creative decisions. This filmmakers weren´t trying to faithfully recreate Lovecraft´s moods, but just faithfully representing the events of the plot and making a 20´s film homage at the same time. The events of the plot are scary in the book because of the words of Lovecraft. On film, the words aren´t there to help, so the horror must come from the direction. But it never comes.
This is why for me this movie isn´t really a faithful adaptation and it should be stated that the film isn´t scary nor does it tries to be (two things Lovecraft does). I would recommend, nevertheless, to any Lovecraft fan to watch it, but knowing what they are up against: a non-horror adaptation of The Call of Cthulhu, witch follows the same plot as the book and it´s made in a 20´s silent film style (shot in digital).
It is a very interesting adaptation indeed and the filmmakers obviously have love and respect for Lovecraft´s work, but I cannot avoid feeling mislead but those many ´´faithful´´ labels that have been put over this movie.