Opinion. I think Lovecraft is a very interesting (and slightly damaged) human, and that he is important for the poetic universe he's built. The saga of Randolph Carter is quite beautiful, and reminds me, in his themes, of Tolkien's "Feary". Or even various Terry Gilliam themes about escapism and the hope of opening a door on another, richer, fantasy/reality dimension.
His approch of horror, with the focus on the unspeakable, and the fragility of human mind in front of entities which mere alterity is a threat in itself, is also something very important. That being said, I think that these concepts work better than their implementations. Lovecraft doesn't strike me as a very good writer, technically. I find his prose heavy and redundant, relying too much on assaults of adjectives to convince us that something is scary. And his plot twists or last minute reveals are extremely predictable. I generally find him clumsy, and am forced to read him in some sort of "forgiving" mindset. I'm more "yeah, I see what you're trying to do, and it's cool", than "aargh". I like his ideas more than his actual texts. Well most ideas. The guy was hilariously racist, but, again, I think he wouldn't have thought up this universe without these morbid fantasies of purity and contamination.
So, generally speaking, I see Lovecraft as a source, a "real deal", but worthy more because of his influence on later fictions than by his own direct production. He contributed a lot to shape modern horror and fantasy, the whole "lovecraftian" style.
That said, it's difficult. Lovecraft often failed as being lovecraftian, because he used to set up his tales for unspeakable sanity-crishing non-euclidian horrors, and then made the mistake of describing them. Bug-eyed spaghetti plates with elephant legs and wings, okay, whatever. His followers did worse : they made these entities defeatable, even if temporarily (like Blofeld or Dr. Claw). They made stories, and games, with heroes fighting evil cults, saving the day, etc. And then, there's the movies. The movies can't, by nature, stay at the "unspeakable" level (okay, David Lynch can, but he's insane so that doesn't count). So, I'd say, the potential that Lovercraft established has never -or seldom- been actually tapped, even by Lovecraft. But at least, he has brought its interest to attention, and has clearly, deliberately, pointed at a thing that is very worthy to aim at. And dangerous, because easy to ridicule when you fail.
Now, there's quite a few productions that have lovecraftian aspects, with these limitations. Games, of course, let you struggle, defeat monsters, etc, which miss the point. Still, the good ones I'd think of are often mentionned :
- Dark Corners of the Earth
- Shadow of the Comet
- Cthulhu Nation.
Cthulhu Nation is a browser-based RPG, like Urban Dead and Shartak, but much more story-driven, with quests, investigations, etc. It's actually very cool. But it's not free (at least not past a certain point). I really advise Lovecraft fans to give it a try, it's really a work of love :
http://www.cthulhunation.co.uk/
And I'd say that Penumbra had a very strong lovecraftian vibe, in its atmosphere and the nature of its scares. A movie such as In the Mouth of Madness can also approach this universe better than direct adaptations (such as the goofy and too humourous Dagon, the cheesy Necronomicon, the laughable From Beyond, and the unrelated Reanimator), but, In the Mouth of Madness scared me as a kid. I've rewatched it recently and was much more 'meh' than first time.
So, all in all, I think that Lovecraft is great for the elements of thought and imagination that linger after reading his stories. He's good food. This excuses his style, and the cheesy "tales from the crypt" aspect of most of his stories.
There. Lots of words. Because ambivalence. TL;DR -> Good, bad ? Well, interesting, charming, important. Disappointing if you expect literary genius. Overrated ? Yes. No. Both.
Will he scare you ? No. But he'll manage to make you wish he would. He might even make you spontaneously pretend, out of respect for the nature of his attempt.
Also :
Sam and Max.
