Originally Posted by Make Them Die Slowly
That's the thing that really pisses me off about Gordon et al, they have a genuine passion for Lovecraft but due to commercial pressures, budget etc they just mangle the man's work. Yet at the same time I appreciate the blatant exploitation of the Lovecraft name to make a few bucks. In my opinion outside of CoC, the best Lovecraft films are the ones that don't attempt tell his stories but rather take themes and ideas to create something informed of his work yet also outside it.
Lovecraft is hard to nail on film not because of any narrative aspects, but because the elements that mark him out ie his hyperinflated prose style and depressing cosmic nihilism, have no real cinematic equivalent. It's difficult to get the feeling of encountering words like 'squamous' or 'cyclopean' or 'eldritch' in the context of a movie. Half of Lovecraft is his style. As for the other half... it's easier to evoke the ontological unease that runs through most of Lovecraft in prose, a medium which lends itself to abstraction more than film. 'Reanimator' probably worked because the story it was based on wasn't all that 'Lovecraftian' in the scheme of things. So I agree, a literal approach to this stuff probably isn't going anywhere.