El señor del mal

I have heard some people say that H.P. Lovecraft's works are unfilmable. I guess that I would say that they did a worthy job with "The Unnamable", but aside from the fact that another movie with a grotesque monster's property getting invaded by horny teens seems a little silly, the people here can't really act (well duh; these movies don't star Katharine Hepburn). Particularly laughable is the line "You're very brave." And if you remember the rules laid out in "Scream", you can guess which people survive here.

So, this is pretty much a way to pass time. For better efforts at filming Lovecraft stories, there's "Die Monster Die!" and "The Dunwich Horror".

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!

If I start writing all that's wrong with this movie, it would be faster for you to watch the movie and make your own conclusions than to read my review. So, I'll just make a few notes about what's good in it:

• The movie is based on H.P. Lovecraft and, although this is one of the worst adaptations, Lovecraft is still Lovecraft, and it is very hard to destroy it so much to be unwatchable.

• Dancer Katrin Alexandre and team that takes credits for the look of The Unnamable did an excellent job and made one of the best monsters in the history of cinematography. Unfortunately, it's shown in its full glory just briefly.

• Few moments of naked Laura Albert.

Everything else is mediocre and boring, so I recommend this only to the most hardcore fans of Lovecraft and '80s B-production horrors. For the rest of average audience this is just another crap.

5/10

This movie is scary at sometimes, but at other times it's gory. I just love the gore murders! They're pretty cool! You get a ripped-out throat, decapitated body, broken neck and more! See this film if you're looking for some gore!

Apparently, in olden times (the 1800's?) a monster killed its human father in gory fashion. Fast-forward to modern times (1988), and a group of college students decide to spend the night in the creaky house where the awfulness took place. Bloody horror soon unfolds.

Let's face facts, in a movie such as this it's all about the monster. So, is this particular beastie up to snuff? Well, yes. It's clear that 99% of the low budget went into the costume / makeup and gore effects, which explains the ultra-cheap sets and pitifully bad "flashback" sequences.

Of course, before we get a good look at the creature, we must endure an eternity of dullness, and a dump truck load of malarkey, mostly provided by the idiot behavior of the victims. The only semi-interesting character is Randolph Carter (Mark Kinsey Stephenson), a role that the likes of Jeffrey Combs would have played to the hilt! Overall, not a terrible way to waste an evening.

EXTRA POINTS FOR: The Miskatonic University sweatshirt, that any true Lovecraft fan would want!...