The Unnamable (1988)

Yet another in the long line of "teenagers get killed in a deserted house" type films, this low budget entry benefits from having some nasty gore scenes which help to stop it from becoming totally worthless. The film begins in the past, with a man getting his heart ripped out by the demon that his daughter has become. A load of people dressed in old-fashioned clothes proceed to bury him. At this point I was actually happy when the film jumps to the present, as the low budget nature of the production just isn't enough to bring a historical scene like that to life...in fact, it just looked silly. By now we see that a tree has grown from the tomb (nice touch) and that the house is STILL abandoned. Pretty soon the usual group of sex-mad teenagers invade the place one night and proceed to get picked off one by one.Fans of H.P. Lovecraft will no doubt be disappointed by yet another relatively lacklustre adaptation of one of his shorts, as aside from a few character and place names, the film totally fails in dredging up the kind of oppressive atmosphere that his stories so brilliantly conveyed. With the film's title and all, you might expect the monster in this film to be some hideously frightening monstrosity, but instead it turns out to be a woman in a rubber demon suit, which is another disappointment and far from the spirit of Lovecraft's work.The film's two central characters are an odd and strangely likable pairing. One is Randolph Carter (played by Mark Kinsey Stephenson who reprised the role in the sequel), a quirky and sometimes irritating bookworm who eventually manages to dispel the evil. The other is Howard Damon, played by Charles King, who brings a touch of warmth and laughter to the role of the nervous hero. Sadly a gang of teenagers fill up the bulk of the film and it has to be said that their acting is awfully wooden. A quick browse of the IMDb reveals that three out of four of them have no acting careers and the other is a stuntwoman, whose lack of inhibition was probably the sole reason she got the acting job as it was.The impressive gore effects (for a low budget, anyway) are probably the best reasons to watch this film, and things do get very bloody. One jock has his neck torn open (the puddling blood from the wound is worthy of Fulci), another unfortunate victim has her neck snapped, a man's face is torn off along with his head and a final victim loses his brain all over the floor. Effective, yes, at being downright disgusting! Anyhow, the film has quite a fast pace and, although predictable, it kept me watching throughout. I would even go so far as to say that it is fairly enjoyable on a basic level, although not particularly frightening or atmospheric. A sequel followed five years later employing the skills of genre stalwarts David Warner and John Rhys-Davies, which for that fact alone I will be watching.

Once again another poorly handled H.P Lovecraft story. How? This movie is better with the sound turned off and I play music over it making the Unnamable some kind of far-out music video, because as a music video this movie is very exciting and funny and clever. O.K. moving on, yes I admit that I'm being overly critical, I mean its just a simple B-movie it can never be more than that, hey and I know that even A-movies rarely attain glory or greatness, by and large most movies are not very good. Maybe its too slow or the acting is bad or its the plot. And I know that the Film industry is a money-making enterprise first and foremost, y'know so I'm aware that my complaining about the Movie Biz is ridiculous akin to complaining about the weather, but we have so much potential, we could do so much with cameras, film and actors, with sets and soundtracks we can make each other laugh and cry and be inspired. With movies we have given birth to dreams which in turn gave birth to new movies, movies are a form of language but evolving much faster than language. For the music video version of The Unnamable, I played some Pavement, Cat Power and Andrew Bird, it was awesome! Totally Beautiful and genius, and I'm in no way taking credit for anything all I did was press play.

This low-budget horror picture inspired by a Lovecraft short story benefits from the sincere effort that went into making it. Also nobody seems to be taking things too seriously until the University student fun and games have gone past the point of no return. Corny and non-sensical elements can be overlooked in the name of entertainment here. The lovely monster (if you've read the story you have an idea of what it is like) is only the tip of the iceburg, for the story has one foot in Bluto Blutarski's universe and one in H. P. Lovecraft's. The effect, taken together, is charming if neither laugh-out-loud funny or terrifying.

I've often wondered why some authors like to primarily identify themselves with initials. In the case of H. P. Lovecraft, perhaps he foresaw how the future would be filled with substandard filmings of his writings, and it would be a way to distance himself from them! For a real cheapie, I guess it isn't bad; it's cheap, though less so than you'd think, and the monster design is passable. There are also some acceptable flesh-rippings and a decent amount of blood, at least in the unrated cut (the version I saw.) What it's really missing are characters we can bother to care about, and a tighter story with much more happening (including more explanation); don't be surprised if you find yourself picking up a book while you're watching it. I guess it must have found an audience, seeing how there was a sequel made several years later, but don't expect to read a user comment from me about it anytime in the future!