What a waste of my time!!!

Fantastic!

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Rebecca Marsh (Renee Sweet) is a reporter assigned a Halloween fluff piece. She asks people about HP Lovecraft and ends up investigating a cult.Much of the movie is found footage. It was amateur, The script and acting was bad. In one scene the car is shaking. The people are rocking back and forth. The shaking stops and we can still see Rebecca's head moving back and forth. Amber (Denise Amrikhas) had the best lines and provided some humor to this drab film. Renee appears to have learned acting from watching Bambi Woods' films with her deer-in-the-headlight stare and inability to read lines. Take a pass.I am certain Lovecraft would be rolling over in his grave, if he is still there.Guide: F-word. No sex or nudity. No hot redhead that is on the cover either.

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.

I have read everything ever written by Lovecraft including fragments and collaborations with other authors. It is sad that given the state of the art effects available today that no major studio can make a quality adaptation of any of Lovecraft's major works. Those that have been made thus far are either pure camp or pure crap. This film falls into the latter category. The acting is elementary school level because I have seen far better acting at high school productions. The plot borrows loosely from Lovecraft's "The Haunter of the Dark" by mentioning the tetrahedron stone and the Starry Wisdom Sect. Lovecraft's most important works always were set in New England with a few notable exceptions such as "The Horror At Red Hook". To film this story in San Francisco is to rob it of any chance of atmosphere. If you want to see a scary and suspenseful Lovecraft adaptation watch "The Dreams in The Witch House" which was an episode of "The Masters of Horror" television series. I believe it is available on Netflix for streaming. By the way, I gave this 2 stars instead of none because the Halloween interviews conducted by the reporter in the beginning of the film were somewhat amusing

Having friend in the movie business, I understand student films, and I've seen quite a few. Most of them make an honest effort to be good. They try hard, and sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. This fails. Miserably. I'm sick of low-budget filmmakers who think that not using a tripod makes their film "verite'." It doesn't. It makes it nauseating to watch. Add to that all the little details that make it irritatingly bad, such as: TV reporters wear makeup. Lots of it. Ms. Marsh appears to be wearing none. Editors have the messiest offices in the known universe. They don't look like a vacant office with a stack of newspapers on the desk. And who uses white out? (It was on the desk) If someone is so insane as to need a straight jacket, she is NOT going to be in a regular hospital bed. Why not just put her in a chair staring out the window? TV cameramen use tripods for on-the-street interviews. Always. And wireless mics, too.All this is just from the first 25 minutes. I couldn't stand to watch any more. The writing was abysmal (it would have been better to let the actors improvise), the camera work looked like a 5-year-old who stole daddy's camcorder, and the acting was... well, it was lousy too. A lot of bad actors, if they're well-directed (like Heather Graham), can still manage to not ruin a production, but the directing is so vacant that the acting really drags it down. Not that it had far to go.Don't waste your time on this. To see how to do a low-budget horror flick right, see the first Evil Dead.