In the Mouth of Madness (1994)

Featured Audience Ratings

• Bob S

  
  Soft like yellow baby poop. Apparently, the only thing worse than being stuck in a hack Sutter Cane story is being stuck in a hack John Carpenter movie.

• El Hombre I

  
  I enjoy this one very much. It didn't do to well at the box office and critics and fans alike have panned this. I've always had a feeling that over time, it would find its' audience and be appreciated. In the Mouth of Madness is a spooky movie influenced in part by… More
  I enjoy this one very much. It didn't do to well at the box office and critics and fans alike have panned this. I've always had a feeling that over time, it would find its' audience and be appreciated. In the Mouth of Madness is a spooky movie influenced in part by H.P. Lovecraft, but make no mistake...this is all John Carpenter. The cast is unusually good for what is ultimately; a low budget horror picture. Make some popcorn, turn out the lights (and your phone) and enjoy Sam Neill as he slowly questions reality. You may question yours, also. <a href="http://s273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/?action=view&current=mm20.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj203/goji9000/mm20.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Melvin W

  
  John Trent: God's not supposed to be a hack horror writer.  "Lived Any Good Books Lately?" In The Mouth of Madness was a surprisingly good movie. From the critics response to it; it didn't sound like a great movie, but I found a lot to like from it. The story is… More
  John Trent: God's not supposed to be a hack horror writer.  "Lived Any Good Books Lately?" In The Mouth of Madness was a surprisingly good movie. From the critics response to it; it didn't sound like a great movie, but I found a lot to like from it. The story is very cool and Sam Neill makes everything very enjoyable to watch. John Carpenter's direction is solid and In The Mouth of Madness actually ended up being one of my favorite movies from him. It's not quite up to the level of Halloween, but it is certainly a better than average thriller.  The setup is absolutely amazing and for a while I wondered how Carpenter was going to wrap this thing up and make it seem satisfying. I didn't think he could. I was wrong. I found the ending to be a perfect ending to the story. It's brilliantly funny and sort of terrifying if you think about it. That brings me to the genre. I've heard this classified as a horror film, but I can't justify calling it that. It's a psychological thriller. It has a few horror elements, but a it's core it is a psychological thriller. What makes it a convincing one is the strong performance from Neill. For some reason I always think I'm going to dislike Neill; then I watch a movie with him in and I always love his performances. Here is no exception. He gives a performance where he has to play both a sane somewhat boring man and a crazy lunatic. He pulls them both off easily. In The Mouth of Madness is an extremely underrated and overlooked movie. I think the brilliance of the concept is lost amongst some in the crazy development of the characters and plot. Movies just don't get much cooler and fun than this. I loved this film.

• Cynthia S

  
  Maybe I needed to see this back in 1994 to appreciate it? I don't know, but it sure had that cheap 80's movie appeal to me. Just wasn't for me...even if it had Sam Neill in it.

• Zach B

  
  When it comes down to people that write for a living, there are two things that scares them the most. The first being that of an obsessed fan that will do anything to be with that writer. The next is when people take their literature so seriously that they go mad if anything should… More
  When it comes down to people that write for a living, there are two things that scares them the most. The first being that of an obsessed fan that will do anything to be with that writer. The next is when people take their literature so seriously that they go mad if anything should happen to the author. This is a story about what would happen if an author who writes horror (and is claimed to be more popular than Stephen King) disappears and when people read his latest book, they go mad. To be honest, this is less of a horror film and more of a tribute to the great horror classics of our time stretching from the aforementioned Stephen King to the great H.P.Lovecraft. Okay, in terms of direction, this is one of Carpenter's best from the 1990's. The tempo of the film is about moderate to fast. It keeps your attention which is something to say about Carpenter's films in the 90's. Acting wise, one of the weaker parts. To me, it seemed like the actors knew that they were in a film that would make money due to the director so they only give mediocre performances. While not the worst, it could have been much better. The script for the film is easily one of the most intelligent once that is in Carpenter's catalog of films. If you are watching this film for the first time, be prepared to hit the replay button to see the film for a second time. Trust me: This is a film that needs to be seen about two times to fully appreciate and understand what is happening. Now we finally have the score. For the most part, the score is like the acting: mediocre but it has his moments. So, overall, this is a rather intelligent film but lacks the complete qualities that it takes to make it great.

• Ken S

  
  Chalk full of both heebees and geebees. The last descent theatrical film Carpenter made. Cigarette Burns is pretty solid thou

• familiar s

  
  A fascinating fantasy movie with some great special effects, but, at times, it gets a bit too imaginary to hold your interest. The actress playing Linda Styles was terrible.

• Aditya G

  
  John Carpenter's less popular but brave film, "In the Mouth of Madness" has one of the most uniquely bizarre concepts I've ever come across in film. It is brave, because Carpenter probably had an idea that it wouldn't really appeal to many of the fans of his… More
  John Carpenter's less popular but brave film, "In the Mouth of Madness" has one of the most uniquely bizarre concepts I've ever come across in film. It is brave, because Carpenter probably had an idea that it wouldn't really appeal to many of the fans of his horror films, primarily because it is considerably different in terms of plot and execution from his usual horror fare. The story is told in flashback with John Trent (Sam Neil) being interviewed by Dr. Wrenn (David Warner) in a padded cell of a strange looking mental asylum that Trent has been confined to. Trent's strange story then unfolds.. Trent is an insurance investigator who has a keen nose for smelling out phony claims. Jackson Harglow (Charlton Heston) the director of a popular publishing house, calls upon Trent about a situation. Sutter Cane, a popular horror novelist has gone missing a few days before the release of his latest novel "In the Mouth of Madness". Cane's fans all over had started getting hysterical and violent since the demands for the latest book were not met. Harglow explains that they never got the final manuscript of the novel and that Cane had disappeared with it. Harglow further asserts that all he wants is his fare share of the claim if Cane is dead or the story if he is alive so he can go ahead and release the novel. The cynical Trent rubbishes these claims as a publicity stunt but takes up the job anyway and starts reading some of Cane's books for research purpose. He appears to be quite in awe of Cane's work as he starts experiencing bizarre nightmares about axe murderers and deformed creatures! Trent believes the whole thing is a setup and is determined to find out how and why. He stumbles upon a vague clue in the form of a location on a map as to where Cane might have gone hiding or "sent" to hide for that matter! On almost a whim, Trent agrees to go to this "lost" place with Linda Styles to keep him company. Trent and Styles then embark on a long road trip on a near empty highway and in their journey they experience some strange phenomena. After a series of mysterious happenings, they finally stumble upon a place that looks strangely like a place in Cane's last published novel, 'Hobb's End'. The town seems strangely deserted though, with very few people around. Things start to get increasingly frightening as both of them begin to realize little by little that almost everything around them seems to be straight out of Cane's novel...the places, the town names, the people! Has Cane created a little world resembling the world in his books? Or have our protagonists, by some unexplained phenomena, managed to cross the barrier between fiction and reality and actually become part of Cane's story? "In the Mouth of Madness" is the third film in what Carpenter calls the Apocalypse Trilogy. The first two of the trilogy were "The Thing" (Carpenter's best film in my opinion) and "Prince of Darkness" (considerably weak compared to the other two in the trilogy). Conceptually "...Madness" is unique and Carpenter gives this challenging theme a fairly chilling treatment. He also pays tribute to some of H.P. Lovecraft's work through this film. Carpenter's penchant for showing surreal, bizarre imagery is clear from "..Madness". Watch out for these excellent moments: one in the beginning when Trent is locked up in the cell and hears things and sees only shadows; or the recurring scenes which show him walking through dark alleys, trying to find out the contents of a hidden poster on the wall as he is interrupted by a disturbance around the corner; that particularly creepy sequence of the lone bicycle rider during their night journey to Hobb's End; or one of my most favourite scenes in which Trent is trying to escape from some zombie-like creatures in his car, yet no matter what turn he takes he ends up right in front of them repeatedly! There are moments like these that make "..Madness" a thrilling watch. Add to that an unsettling atmosphere and a fabulous background score by John Carpenter and Jim Lang that adds an extra special touch to this project. "..Madness" is not without its flaws though. What could've been a really solid film worthy of calling a masterpiece succumbs to the trap of horror cliché and some idiotic sequences involving slimy monsters chasing Trent through what looks like some kind of portal! The story also seems to lose its steam as well as its direction three-fourths into the film, seems to try very hard and almost ends up in the category of "weird for the sake of being weird"! Also there is a long monologue by an important character that tries to spoon-feed the baffled viewer and almost "educates" him/her about what the film is really all about! In spite of this education, the story dangerously tilts towards inconsistency..very much like one of Cane's stories which seem to change course at his whim. In spite of the negatives which are really very few in terms of quantity as well as quality, the positives save the film considerably and take it to its mind-numbing, goose-bumps-inducing finale, which I consider to be one of the most outlandish yet excellent endings to a film. Most of the cast do well, especially Jurgen Prochnow and the extremely freaky Julie Carmen. But it is Sam Neil who runs away with the film with his outstanding performance as the smug and proud insurance investigator who steadily finds himself helpless and unable to support his disbelief about the events taking place around him and slowly slips away into insanity! Watch this film. It isn't entirely about finding meaning in its story or tying up all loose ends neatly, as much as it is about stepping into the protagonist's shoes and losing yourself into a terrifying journey..literally "In the mouth of madness"!

• Stephen M

  
  Hmm, I thought I was going to really enjoy this movie and I just couldn't get into it at all. The production values are unusually high for recent(ish) Carpenter but the script is a mess and Sam Neill's monstrous overacting doesn't exactly have me wringing my hands with… More
  Hmm, I thought I was going to really enjoy this movie and I just couldn't get into it at all. The production values are unusually high for recent(ish) Carpenter but the script is a mess and Sam Neill's monstrous overacting doesn't exactly have me wringing my hands with concern for his character. A couple of very minor spooky moments excepted, I think I wasted my time with this one :(

• Conner R

  
  I don't find it to be some of John Carpenter's best work, but it is a good film. It is an extremely bizarre story that takes the viewer's very grasp of reality and skews it. Nothing is what it seems and it all becomes a loop hole. Sam Neill was great and was perfect at… More
  I don't find it to be some of John Carpenter's best work, but it is a good film. It is an extremely bizarre story that takes the viewer's very grasp of reality and skews it. Nothing is what it seems and it all becomes a loop hole. Sam Neill was great and was perfect at playing such vast range of emotions. It is definitely made for fans of the genre, but delivers on almost every account.

• Tsubaki S

  
  Quite good despise it's flaws. Carpenter's last decent film and proof that you can create creepy material without the need of using buckets of blood, or making all your characters into idiots that give their backs to derranged killers.

• Luke B

  
  The idea of such lowbrow horror spawning such madness, is a hard one to go along with. It's also never really clear how serious the film is about it's themes. The story of a man trapped inside a horror novelist's world is a great one for Carpenter. It means he can use… More
  The idea of such lowbrow horror spawning such madness, is a hard one to go along with. It's also never really clear how serious the film is about it's themes. The story of a man trapped inside a horror novelist's world is a great one for Carpenter. It means he can use all his skills and visionary tactics, to assemble some wonderful creatures/vignettes, even if the film as a whole fails to really capture. Neill is a fantastic lead, making his sane-man in an insane world (or vice-versa) easy to associate with. It does seem older than it is, probably because this really feels like Stephen King territory.

• _kelly .

  
  As a huge Lovecraft reader, I think the best film versions of his work are movies like these where the script is essentially fantastic fanfic. This film is hypnotically creepy and I loved every second of it. Mind you, in addition to my Lovecraft love, I am also fascinated with films… More
  As a huge Lovecraft reader, I think the best film versions of his work are movies like these where the script is essentially fantastic fanfic. This film is hypnotically creepy and I loved every second of it. Mind you, in addition to my Lovecraft love, I am also fascinated with films about novel authors and love the possibilities of a sanitarium setting done to delightful melodrama proportions like this one. Those goodies said, this is not an accessible film because it is essentially set inside the mind of a madman. If you hate dream sequences come alive and living scenes descending into nightmare, with all the odd and inexplicable dream logic intact, you will find yourself swamped by WTF? moments and not be able to enjoy the creepiness on display here. The ending for me is one of the few "twist" endings I find satisfying. The effects are top notch as one would expect from Carpenter. THE BIG FX EXCPETION: On principle, I disagree with showing full "Old Ones" or any such Lovecraft "deities" or "indescribable" creatures because they are MEANT to be indescribable and thusly impossible for us to even comprehend were one ever to be real and appear to a human, much less be possible for any human to replicate the experience - and to IMAGINE what these creatures could look like is an insult to Lovecraft's central driving theme of fear of the unknowable. In this film, the Old Ones on display are not an exception to this rule of "Don't show the top tier Lovecraft nasties" - they aren't indescribable horror finally and unbelievably realized, but instead just the exact sort of effects installation style you would expect from John Carpenter. I LIKE his style so I'm not as offended by what was done here to Lovecraft creatures so much as the horrendously awful CGI Dagon in Stuart Gordon's Dagon. To me, this is undeniably a horror classic and every horror fan should have this on their to-see list or objective "Best of Horror" lists. The real test of genuine greatness is that my dreams the night after screening this film were looping bits from the film with tiny touches of my own subconscious added details.

• Arash X

  
  Wow, I didn't expect this, I had a wonderful time watching this well-made fun movie & what makes it really great is its ambition & Sam Neill is always fun to watch but that woman was somehow annoying and the film has a few forgettable flaws, I'll definitely check out… More
  Wow, I didn't expect this, I had a wonderful time watching this well-made fun movie & what makes it really great is its ambition & Sam Neill is always fun to watch but that woman was somehow annoying and the film has a few forgettable flaws, I'll definitely check out Carpenter's other movies

• David L

  
  Some Minor Spoilers Here*********************************************************** I think In the Mouth of Madness falls into that column of John Carpenter films that fans of his will either love or hate and I could understand the points made for the latter. It is a little hard to… More
  Some Minor Spoilers Here*********************************************************** I think In the Mouth of Madness falls into that column of John Carpenter films that fans of his will either love or hate and I could understand the points made for the latter. It is a little hard to get into, at first, as being a very strong film based on the sharply timed shocks and paranoia of Carpenter's horror as a director as well as the ideas presented by the writer, and it does veer into going into the same wild level of deliriousness that soon enough becomes the lead character. But it's a work as well where Carpenter is testing himself, and succeeding in a carefree but controlled way, where he goes for having his cake and eating it too. He gets to throw up on the screen some grisly (and, as a possible tip of the hat to the groundbreaking effects from the Thing, a sometimes funny knock-off) special creature effects and with some masterful displays in editing through the images of abstractions into the character's subconscious, while questioning what he's doing all the time, or at least the genre he and others (notably Stephen King) make their bread and butter. It's a sort of slightly smarter pulp sci-fi/horror piece, not quite at the insane brilliance of They Live though perhaps in its more deliberate fashion a little creepier, as investigator John Trent (Sam Neill) is investigating the disappearance of a severely popular horror novelist, who's books sometimes make people go a little nuts. Trent sees this first-hand from novelist Sutter Cane's agent, who comes at him wielding an axe (it's one of those pure points in the film that mixed the macabre and satire) He thinks it's a hoax, and soon discovers that he may be in a (fictional?) town called Hobbs End in New Hampshire. What he finds, in typical Carpenter fashion, is describable as being a psychological flip-flopper, where Trent goes from thinking it's all a gag with it being very elaborate, to it suddenly not being, at all. Creatures (supplied wonderfully by KNB) start popping out, disgusting ones that aren't much human, and it even gets to Trett's female companion/literary liaison on the trip. Soon Cane is found in some dank cellar (Jurgen Purchnow, one of Carpenter's most chilling villains in how subtle he is), and he has a new book ready for Trett to bring to the world... This isn't quite where the film gets weird, though it's probably a little before or a little after this point, and the kind of weirdness I had been hoping to build up. Although it does get close for writer De Luca to being shaky with balancing really dark humor- however in small doses, and depending on how seriously one takes the more overt horror elements- and at the plight of Trent's mind-set in the midst of total Armageddon, Carpenter levels the playing field without missing too many beats. I kept having my mouth hang open either in a 'what the hell' mode or just in sort of plain shock. But it's an entertaining mix and match all the way for a genre fan, and Sam Neill is definitely up for the challenge of playing as well level-headed and rational Trett for the first half, then slowly but surely descending into his own subconscious state of peril- or, perhaps, Trent losing sight on what is perceived as reality or not. Only Neill could go between serious dramatic roles to films like this and Jurassic Park, where his characters' confidence as the practical pragmatist starts to waver as a descent into disaster goes further and further. What Carpenter ends on in the last section of his "apocalypse" trilogy isn't necessarily a closed-and-shut ending either; I sense that he wants things to be a little closer to the ending of The Thing where it's all doom and gloom but there's a wink to the protagonist's state of mind. Trett's last minutes wandering the streets and going into the movie theater watching himself doesn't really spell anything conclusive, I think, which adds all the more to the fun and intrigue. He could just be still in his hospital room, still in the world that dismisses Cane as pulp-sensationalist trash, albeit successful pulp-sensationalist trash (a little relevant today, eg Dan Brown), and not among the total bat-s*** mess that the world has become while locked in his padded room. It's a question left to the viewer, and a smart one to put up in a film that has by this point thrived mostly on its own sensationalism as well, tongue-in-cheek in the guise of crazy small-town break-out scenario. As a Carpenter fan, I say, bring it on.

• jd c

  
  If you haven't seen this yet then you're totally missing out. This is one of John Carpenter's best! "The story follows private investigator John Trent whose specialty is insurance fraud. He is called in by a publisher to investigate the alleged disappearance… More
  If you haven't seen this yet then you're totally missing out. This is one of John Carpenter's best! "The story follows private investigator John Trent whose specialty is insurance fraud. He is called in by a publisher to investigate the alleged disappearance of the phenomenally popular horror novelist, Sutter Cane. Having vanished with his most recent novel unfinished, Cane's publisher asks Trent to retrieve the work at stake. Trent thinks the whole thing is a publicity stunt but agrees to take the case. Trent, accompanied by Cane's editor, Linda Styles, eventually tracks the writer to the remote New England town of Hobbs End, previously thought only to exist in Cane's stories. There it soon becomes clear that the wall between fantasy and reality has blurred." This film pays tribute to the work of horror novelist H. P. Lovecraft. I just love anything that deals with Lovecrafts's work, he has so much that's going on with his stories, all the key elements(along with many great creepy characters), that make a horror story get the well worth attention it deserves. This movie is heavy on atmosphere. I'm talking about drenched in, all out, spooky ass atmosphere. Like I have said in another review, one of the most important key elements in a horror film is definitely the atmosphere. There are many creepy characters in this as well...a disfigured and angry police officer, a ghostly old and pasty faced man riding a bicycle, deformed and demonically evil little children, an old creepy woman who sprouts creature-like legs while chopping her husband up with an axe, and lots and lots more! This movie is just completely insane. It's an all out fun film to watch. The ending in this is completely brilliant too. It totally blew my mind. In the Mouth of Madness is a spooky and darkly atmospheric fun film to watch. If you're a horror fan and you haven't seen this one yet, you must get your hands on it as soon as possible. Even if you're not a horror fan...to anyone who hasn't seen this movie, Watch it Soon! Great film! Other Reviews: "In the Mouth of Madness combines excellent screen writing and superb acting with the psychosis of Lovecraft and the brilliant direction of Carpenter to create memorable psychological horror." - Best-Horror-Movies.com "In the Mouth of Madness made me sit back and say "Wow, this guy is amazing." The music, the monsters, the story, the ending-the film is just a genuinely solid movie all-around." - Oh, the Horror! "Another awesome film by Sam Neil and a great story by John Carpenter." - Obscure Horror "Man, oh man! The movie that kept me up at nights for a year, the movie I foisted upon my friends knowing all the while they'd never appreciate it like I do, the movie people keeps saying "Huh?" to when I tell them my favorite films." - The Cavalcade of Schlock "This was a great movie. I love these kind of what-if movies. I mean, what if what we read was real or somehow the line between fiction and reality was blurred? What if reality was just what everyone agreed upon? What is reality, anywho? All these questions are raised in the film." - Fatally Yours "In the Mouth of Madness might be one of the best things that Carpenter has done to date." - Evil Dread <a href="http://s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/?action=view¤t=MouthofMadness.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm89/JDHallowEEn/MouthofMadness.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

• Curtis L

  
  Great ensemble of b-movie actors, and awesome John Carpenter special effects. Otherwise, it was okay.

• Dean M

  
  John Carpenter's creepy take on a popular horror author who mysteriously disappears and the private investigator hired to locate him after his latest book causes readers to go insane. Carpenter draws a thin line between reality and illusion and keeps me guessing.

• Lafe F

  
  A very good 1990's John Carpenter movie. The movie has a great concept: A detective stumbles into a missing horror writer's fictional domain, which seems very real, and populated by insane people and things. There's lots of twisted imagery in this movie. The horror… More
  A very good 1990's John Carpenter movie. The movie has a great concept: A detective stumbles into a missing horror writer's fictional domain, which seems very real, and populated by insane people and things. There's lots of twisted imagery in this movie. The horror novelist Sutter Cane was a really creepy character. I didn't quite understand what was really happening, as we had dreams and reality nested within each other. I liked the speed-reading scene, where their faces were pushed into a glowing book with flipping pages. The old lady at the hotel and the aged man on the bicycle were disturbing images. Sam Neil, with symbols painted all over his face, was a memorable image. The ending was a great way to leave us hanging in Madness. It's a quality production.

• Drew S

  
  Here's an odd little film. It straddles the line between comedy and horror but is not particularly successful at either. There's a pronounced use of the H.P. Lovecraft mythos, but it's not expounded on, eschewing any use of the themes for some rather tawdry… More
  Here's an odd little film. It straddles the line between comedy and horror but is not particularly successful at either. There's a pronounced use of the H.P. Lovecraft mythos, but it's not expounded on, eschewing any use of the themes for some rather tawdry creature-driven scares. The characters are interesting, but undeveloped. In other words, In The Mouth of Madness is a film that functions, but only barely. Had the writers bid this script more attention, I'm sure that this movie would have been fantastic, even with John Carpenter's directing (which errs on the side of subpar). This movie simply doesn't accomplish anything except a few jump shocks, a handful of neat looking scenes and some scattered chuckles. The plot is confusing and the villain is lame, and there are massive gaps in logic - can't they just stop the evil book from going to press? The movie is almost instantly forgettable.

Read all 20 featured audience ratings