IMDb RATING
4.8/10
3.4K
YOUR RATING
College students check out a haunted house where in the 1800's an ugly monster called "the Unnamable" was trapped in a vault.College students check out a haunted house where in the 1800's an ugly monster called "the Unnamable" was trapped in a vault.College students check out a haunted house where in the 1800's an ugly monster called "the Unnamable" was trapped in a vault.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
Charles Klausmeyer
- Howard Damon
- (as Charles King)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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:
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
- 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
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!
Okay this film cost me £2 in some second hand store but it was worth it just as a lesson to aspiring film makers everywhere not what to do when making a horror film. So although its completely lame we can judge it on its superb script with classic lines such as 'ITS A BAT' as a piece of black cloth moves across the screen. Or 'What did you see something Unnamable perhaps?, however nothing beats the quiet girls reply to why all the guys fancy her friend Wendy 'its her big tits isn't it' before she looks down sadly and says damn. Also featuring such 80's classic characters as sweater wearing jock guy and mysterious guy with dodgy english accent. Get a group of friends together and this film will make you laugh more than most comedies today, and then check out...The Unnamable Returns....
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!...
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!...
Did you know
- TriviaIt took nine hours to put Katrin Alexandre in all the creature make-up.
- GoofsWhen Bruce is running from the monster with Wendy, he pushes her in the room and keeps walking away which makes no sense, since there is no reason for the monster to follow him and not enter the room and attack Wendy.
- Alternate versionsAvailable in both R and unrated versions.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Horror's Greatest: Tropes and Clichés (2024)
- SoundtracksUP THERE
Written and Performed by Mark Ryder and Phil Davies
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $350,000 (estimated)
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content