Watch Beyond the Wall of Sleep For Free

It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

And then I forgot and rented it again.Okay, so this is one of the few Lovecraft Adaptations that didn't star Jeffrey Combs. I would say this mess is Lovecraft flavored, but lacks actual elements of Lovecraft horror.An inbred idiot is brought to an asylum, and is found to be the conduit to a extra-dimensional horror that can be unleashed by the mad experiments of a young doctor.The problem with this film is that while it has William Sanderson in it, actually performing his lines like he thought about his character (one dimensional as it was), the rest were dinner theater rejects engaged in massive overacting that would make Shatner cringe. The dialog and action are just excuses to put gore into the movie, where they confusingly keep switching back and forth from color to black and white for no good reason.Again, there were some good actors in the MINOR roles who were actually kind of okay. Sanderson, the fat guy who played the sane doctor. But the main characters were hammy and awful and frankly, you didn't care about the script at all.

After reading the comments posted for this movie, I felt the need to add my opinion.I am a major Lovecraft fan, and have read all of his work I have been able to get my hands on. But the reason I recommend this movie to people has nothing to do with my love for Lovecraft.What really interested me about this movie was the way it made me feel. Most horror movies really go for a 1 second shock as they jump out to get you. Repeatedly through the movie obviously but a series of quick scares are the backbone of 99% of horror.Beyond the wall of sleep brought a creeping feeling of dread to me, with the exception of 5 min at the end, it never strayed into standard "BOO" horror lands in my opinion. It just got uglier and uglier making my soul feel dirty.I just felt it was an interesting approach to horror, although I don't know if it was the directors intention. I recommend this movie to anyone who considers themselves a fan of non-traditional horror stories.

This is one of those rare movies that is absolutely awful and yet somehow fascinating. To start, the acting is horrible, without any question. The plot is cheesy, as are both effects and cinematography. Despite this, I find it added to my list of "Good bad" movies, because I don't regret the time I spent watching it. I ended up giving it a 1 rating on its merits as a movie, but it is one of the rare cases of a movie I rate very low and yet would potentially recommend to a few of my friends.If you are someone who loves watching art movies, you might enjoy this film, or at least find it strangely intriguing. The imagery is good. The characters were just quirky enough to keep me interested, and the storyline is pretty twisted--especially at the end. Overall, I'd say don't rent this if you're looking for a horror movie. Rent it if you appreciate both B movies and the bizarre, and if you are able to go into a movie with absolutely no expectations.

"Every man, and every woman is a star." ---Aleister Crowley"Is all that we see or seem, but a dream within a dream?" --Edgar Allan PoeBeyond the Wall of Sleep isn't going to be some timeless-classic, but it's a very solid piece of Lovecraftian cinema. A good-portion of the original 1919 short is present here, with some of the usual liberties taken. The bulk of the story is here: Joe Slater, a Catskills inbred is found in his home screaming indescribable-utterances, and begins attacking his neighbors who have come to see what the commotion is all-about. With super-human strength, he attacks one of his neighbors, ..."leaving behind an unrecognizable pulp-like thing that had been a living man but an hour before." In short-order, Joe is taken in-chains to an asylum by the State Police. It appears he has a growth on his back that resembles a face, and two-hands...as though someone was trying to escape his body. Things get-stranger from there. At times, the inbred seems to be inhabited by a superior-intelligence, babbling strange-utterances of no-known language.In the film, Joe (played with skill by the great William Sanderson who is now seen as the Mayor in the Deadwood series) flees and is eventually caught by a sheriff's posse (changed to State police, led by Tom Savini), followed by a party of local inbreds. Things get-darker at this point. This is all fine-and-well, so I don't want to seem like some Lovecraft-fanatic splitting-hairs. Some alterations work, some don't. The face on the back is still there in the film, and while you might believe it is an undeveloped-aspect, Lovecraft didn't do much with it either. One major-change works well: changing the narrator. In Lovecraft's tale, it is the intern who tells the story after it has happened--with the characteristic lack-of-context of how-much later it's happening, or even the name of the narrator himself. Nobody who knows Lovecraft well would say his writing was always good, but there were things that the filmmakers left-out that I found confusing. Namely, the nature of the being inhabiting Joe Slater. In the original-short, the being is not necessarily evil or malefic, though sometimes destructive and unpredictable. It's as though it struggles to merely exist in Slater's body, seemingly trapped in him. Evil? Maybe, though not on a cosmic-scale, that seems evident in Lovecraft's original short-story. Quite the contrary, the being is attempting to destroy another being known as "the adversary" out of revenge. It struck me that the adversary is supposed to be like the devil, or some truly malefic-being, while the being inhabiting Joe Slater is of a lower-order in the cosmos. "Good" and "evil" become meaningless in the Lovecraftian cosmology, so I found this too-simple. The original short has the being leave Slater's body, becoming a star that attempts to eclipse and destroy the adversary-star in another realm of the cosmos. The tale ends with the "good" being losing, the event being viewed by astronomers as a nova, then dying.Ironically, I believe this could have been done more-economically than the Cthuloid-being that was created with CGI. The tales becomes one of a summoning, when the original is really about the escape of an entity that has been trapped in the body of an imbecile. This, then, is probably my main-problem with the film, but the theme of dreams being more-real than our own reality is still present and well-expressed in the editing and imagery. The images of the children are very-interesting, because it reflects H.P. Lovecraft's cosmic-horror so well. The children are subdeities toying-with humanity, much like the Archons of the Gnostic-cosmology.It should also be noted that early-Christianity held that all people had a star for themselves in the cosmos--it was what we became after death. The ancient Gnostics felt that a select-few people in the world were part of a "starry race", or "knowers" of the divine. They were supposed to hold a "divine-spark" within-themselves, and Gnostics (especially Sethians) believed they were not of this world, but of this race. How Lovecraft embedded similar-concepts in his shorts is a mystery, since most all Gnostic-texts have only come-to-light since 1945--eight-years after his death. I also have to wonder how Crowley had-access to these Gnostic and Hermetic-concepts, it is puzzling as many of the Gnostic-ones simply weren't considered even to exist. It's a shame, but this wonderful mystical-aspect is almost absent in the adaptation, and it bothers me. However, the film is still very good for Lovecraftian cinema. It accurately reflects how brutal turn-of-the-century America was, too.I especially enjoyed the opening-prologue with the time-date slate, showing us when the recounting of the tale happens (1979). American Mental Institutions were notorious 100-years-ago, so the context of the tale is solid. Maybe some of the production-design could have been better, but this is micro-budget cinema and the film is a great achievement, nonetheless. The subplot with the trepanned-girl (lifted from "Hannibal"?) was good, but I thought could have been pared-back to the very-end, this might have been more-effective in making it unsettling. We should remember that the short is a little over four-pages, so its addition is understandable and sets-the-stage for the intern's and Joe Slater's fusion with an electronic-apparatus. The gore is stupendous, and I really enjoyed the mixing of black & white photography with color (color denoting that Joe's dream-reality has intruded into our own). The super-fast editing was also very good, and there are some truly unforgettable-images in this film. But remember: this is low-budget cinema, it was probably made for a couple-million dollars, possibly less. But it works, it's respectable horror. Lovecraft is about imagination, unfortunately the makers of this movie forgot that this is the key to his horror.