It is not only a funny movie, but it allows a great amount of joy for anyone who watches it.

It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.

Lovecraft might not have been the best of writers, but he had a great influence on others and perhaps his greatest legacy was the invention of the Cthulu mythos that inspired and was inspired by such writers as Robert E. Howard, the writer of Conan the barbarian and Clark Ashton Smith, whom I prefer. His legacy was mostly the work of one August Derleth, who created the Arkham House publishing company with the intention to preserve and popularize Lovecraft's work, which he achieved as far as I can be a judge. I have read a fair amount of Lovecraft's work or tried to, as especially his longer works are a bore to read. The one that I still recall with a certain fondness is The case of Charles Dexter Ward. Whose namesake appears in the movie, just like others from other stories appear in the movie I personally think it is one of his best stories. The whisperer in the darkness I did not read, but the summary can be found on wikipedia. The movie takes liberty with the original story, probably because there isn't enough in the tale for a whole movie. Unfortunately this means that the movie has some unlovecraftian aspects, one of which is showing the monsters for a fair amount of screen time and another is showing a certain death(can't say which one because it might be considered spoiler). Two things you never see in a Lovecraft tale. But even from a movie making standpoint it would have been better if they hadn't shown both. It felt misplaced. Overall the story keeps in pace with the Lovecraftian mood although you feel that it lacks the budget. For instance, in once scene they needed a train to arrive and you can clearly see that it is a modern locomotive, even though they blurred it to hide that fact. And this made me wonder why they went through all the trouble to place the story in the thirties instead of keeping it in the modern day, like Lovecraft would have done. It seems nice that they tried, but there isn't really a reason.The movie shows a lot of talking, but it keeps the story going forward and there are some really nice shots that give a sense of weirdness that the should have used more often. One is where the camera looks down from the stair onto the professor while you hear nothing but the tic tic of a big clock. The trick that the professor uses to save the world is a neat one. How to save the world without firing a bullet. Pity is though: there is a big plot hole in the story.If you want to find it. Just have a look at the movie.. Nice effort.

First you need to know that they made this film to look like it was made in the 30's or so... even credits, music, etc. Also, if you put budget in perspective the Effects and the Acting is very good. Some complain of over-acting... but in the 30's they all over-acted... if you seen one, or just a little bit of an old movie you will know...OK, now the story: I thought it would be impossible to make an adaptation to Whisperer in Darkess, one of my favorite HPL... I was wrong... This movie gets very good the intention, but lacks something I don't know what... Maybe the dialog by letters was better and kept me on the edge of my seat... but the movie don't have it, it is like the movie starts after they exchanged letters and all...Also, I think in the HPL story they don't tell much what the aliens are doing or purpose... in this movie it is very well explained. The ending run away too far from original, could be a car instead of a plane... would be more realistic. But I liked, in a way this ending is more "lovecraft" than the original story...The only way it could be better was if they could get the "mood", the creepy atmosphere from description in the letters of the places, situations and all... (the only way I know to do it is by flashbacks, that would get too boring after the second letter and would have the fate of "The Resurrected" movie has.)In the end I give it 9, can't get any better for the budget and I dislike the little girl part...

Glad to see so many positive reviews, all of which I agree with. Well acted, well-crafted and should be a staple in film school of how to make a movie.As a Lovecraft devotee, the only point I'd emphasis is that this is the only adaptation, except for Dunwich Horror (1970), that works.Lovecraft's stories speak to the darkest midnight of the imagination and trying to translate that midnight to film is virtually impossible; many movies have tried with few successes.Dunwich succeeded by weaving that midnight into a far more conventional story of innocence, power and lust (Sandra Dee's tour de force with strong assists by Ed Begley and Dean Stockwell) and Whisper does the same within an homage to both Noir and '30s SciFi and Horror films. It works beautifully, even the dangerously hokey finale with its potentially disastrous revelation of ritual, monsters, frantic flight and circular denouement. A little beauty hopefully destined to be a cult classic.5-22-14 P.S. Just saw The Haunted Palace again on TCM - a favorite from my early adolescence and one of the best of American International's horror movies. Vincent Price was flawless.Mention it because it has a lot references to Lovecraft, from the name, Charles Dexter Ward, to the deformations of the locals. And, like Dunwich, it does have a brief scene (the opening) of a semi-clad maiden about to be inseminated by an Old One (or spawn thereof). Not quite as erotic as Sandra Dee's Tour-de-Force but getting there.Despite those references, Palace is not a Lovecraft movie. It's a well-made AI horror movie using the Lovecraft allusions to add depth but not to drive the plot, which centers on Price's character, Joseph Curwen, being possessed by an ancestor named C. D. Ward (who bears no resemblance to Lovecraft's character). Point being that, while it is a very successful horror movie, it isn't a treatment of any of Lovecraft's stories or characters. Its success as a horror movie does not equate to success as a Lovecraft-inspired horror movie.

I'm Sandy Petersen, and some people know me as a game designer (I wrote the original game Call of Cthulhu, for instance). I helped fund The Whisperer in Darkness, though I had no creative input (and expected none). The movie is, in my obviously prejudiced opinion, a masterwork of taking an unfilmable Lovecraft story, and getting it not only on film, but in such a way to make it accessible to those who have not yet read the tale. I don't understand the reviewer who says it seems like a mishmash of Lovecraft - has he even read the original tale? This movie was taken straight from it. Some characters are added to dramatize events which, in the story, are in the form of posted letters, but that certainly doesn't hurt the film. Yes there is a lot of dialog, but the camera is not static - things move, shadows lurk, and the dialog itself is terrifically ominous. It does not follow the near-standard Hollywood 3-act-play sequence, to its everlasting credit. Instead the sinister elements keep building steadily until they reach a climax and even feature an artsy epilogic montage. Just as with the story, the evidence before Albert Wilmarth (the main character) keeps growing until he can no longer deny his eyes. Even the revelation of the alien horrors is done bit by bit. First we see a footprint, then a blurred photo, then a shadow on a wall, then on a curtain, then a single leg, then a brief shot of one walking offscreen behind some humans. Ultimately we see them fully and they are worth the wait. But it's not just the aliens - every element of the story grows in this manner. As you learn the alien plan bit by bit, the horror and tension mounts. Every death in the movie was unexpected to me. As a long-term expert in horror films, I'm used to being able to peg who lives and who dies often in the opening credits, so this was a nice surprise. The movie has subtlety and class. One good example is the scene with the young girl, Hannah. Albert Wilmarth is hiding out with her in a barn, trying to avoid detection. He converses with her, and tells her of his own daughter, who died of influenza years ago. The scene is touching, but just before it degenerates into bathos, he offers to sing Hannah a song which he once sang to his own child, and Hannah shakes her head, and says, "No". Just in the nick of time! I saw an early version of the film, and this scene with the child is what convinced me to invest my money in this movie. The whole thing is very professional. It is not an action film, though it contains action. It is a cerebral horror film. There are no "boo" moments, and every moment segues logically into every other. It is a tightly knit coherent hole.