mfnmbessert-224-279128 Everything the people behind the aquarium have been saying about 'In Search Of Lovecraft' is true. The film is pathetically, awfully, terribly, horribly bad bad bad bad. Just bad. I have seen better acting in high school plays than they have in this film. The camera-work is shoddy as hell, our three main "actors" are so bad at reciting their lines, that they forget what they are saying mid-sentence most of the time. It's like they made this in their fifteen minutes spare time that they had before work everyday. If I didn't know any better, I would think that this was some awful college project done by one of our three leads, but that terrible burden of responsibility lies with a man named David J. Hohl. The only redemption in this movie comes in the form of one actor named Saqib Mausoof, who is the only person in this entire film that seems to have read the screenplay and seems to know what the hell is going on. The film is so bad that you will struggle to focus on whatever vague notion of an idea is trying to be acted out on screen. I seriously love some bad movies, but this film is just painful to watch in so many different ways. I am going to vote a 2 because it perhaps had the slightest bit of potential if all you were to do was read the synopsis on what it's supposed to be about, and because it managed to make me laugh at how god-awful it was a couple of times but please avoid this dud at all costs unless you can tolerate some excruciatingly bad filmmaking.IN SEARCH OF LOVECRAFT -----2/10.

Matt Kracht Really, I'm being extremely generous in giving this movie a 3/10. It obviously deserves 1/10: the acting, directing, effects, and writing are all atrocious. However, there were a few good scenes (the old time 1930s scenes were kind of cool), one or two of the actors were passable, and the attempt to bring to life a Lovecraftian tale of horror is welcome, though it always seems doomed to ineptitude or mediocrity.In the end, I'd have to say that this movie is only for people who can overlook seriously bad filmmaking. I'm talking worse than your average Troma movie here. And if you can take that, then have at it. Maybe you'll find something to enjoy here.

Gary Carroll The acting in this movie is so incredibly horrid you will squirm with pain in your seat while you attempt to watch this movie. The lead reporter was so unbelievable and so detached from everything that when her co-actors deliver their lines that she forgets to react until she has to say her lines. Although it is understood that the camera work is from a portable shoulder camera, there is almost no consistency. The script continues to stress that the cameraman is one of the best yet the shot is constantly zooming in and out and changing targets. This lack of focus leaves the viewer with zero ability to become attached to any of the actors. There are a few moments during flash backs that are fairly well played out but definitely not worth the effort. Please do no waste 98 minutes of your life.

emc-9 I really liked this show. The beautiful female news reporter and her crew accidentally end up on the trail of what they thought were just fictional stories. But encounters with a few specialists in the occult reveal otherwise. The San Francisco locations set a very believable tone to the movie… The special effects sometimes have a bit of gore, but just right. Keep an eye out for the kitchen scene! The lighting and photography are excellent. The movie starts very low key in the first acts. A very creepy mode sets into the movie by the end. Shocking elements pop up unexpectedly. Everything you thought was fiction now turns out to be fact and you are in the middle of Lovecraft's ethos. It's a good scary movie for a date. Keep the lights low for this one! We watched it on a large screen for the best effect. The old time flashbacks were very nicely done as were the interviews in the old buildings.