|
Posted on 07.30.10 by David @ 9:49 am
While Del Toro has been known to pump out some schlock to pay the bills, when he takes a personal interest in a film, like Pan’s Labyrinth and The Devil’s Backbone, he is one of the best directors working in the fantasy field today. And the material could not be better - as an H.P. Lovecraft fan, I’m of the strong opinion that At the Mountains of Madness is the best thing he ever did. It is also far more suitable for film adaptation than any of his other works, most of which are too short or too unfilmable. I thoroughly enjoyed the recent fan project, The Call of Cthulhu, but, married to Cameron’s money and special effects connections, this has potential to be the first truly great Lovecraft adaptation. Crossing my fingers … [By the way, lest there be any confusion, I do think Re-Animator is a great film, but not really a great Lovecraft adaptation, if you know what I mean.] ::: Deadline report Filed under: Movie News and People: James Cameron and People: Guillermo del Toro and People: H.P. Lovecraft Comments:
|
           |
I don’t usually like to report on quasi-substantiated rumors about upcoming projects, but this one has me excited. Fresh off the odyssey that was the non-filming of The Hobbit. Guillermo Del Toro has supposedly committed to film H.P. Lovecraft’s polar horror novella At the Mountains of Madness, to be produced by James Cameron. 
* 
as cool as i think this is, i think something like Shadow over Innsmouth would be ideal for a movie. I haven’t read MoM in years and doesn’t it take place in Antarctica or some remote polar environment? Either way, props to Guillermo for doing the film
Comment by spm — August 20, 2010 @ 3:37 pm
Stuart Gordon did a decent adaptation of Shadow Over Innsmouth called Dagon almost 10 years ago. It was hampered by a lack of budget, poor acting, and weak special effects (unless Raquel Merono’s enormous breast implants count as a special effect, in which case, bravo), but nevertheless amusing, and actually much closer to a real adaptation than the usual Lovecratian silliness.
Comment by David Austin — August 20, 2010 @ 3:59 pm