Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Beanbioca As Good As It Gets

Fatma Suarez The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

gavin6942 Back in the 1800s a lady gives birth to a monster. They decide that the baby is too ugly to name, therefore the monster is known as the "Unnamable"...While this film may only be casually connected to the Lovecraft story whose name it has, that really should not be held against it. Heck, many Lovecraft adaptations are quite loose and the 1930s film "The Black Cat" claims to be based on Poe, when it has no connection whatsoever.On its merits alone, this is a pretty entertaining and fun film, with a strange narration from one character who talks like a fictional pilgrim, a woman who claims to have an accent but is obviously just deaf, and a monster that is something between a goat and a woman, with demon characteristics mixed in.All in all, not a bad one... they might have shown the "unnamable" just a bit too much, giving it less mystery than it probably required. I have not yet seen the sequel, but now I am curious to see where it goes...

ObscureCinema101 It's really hard to screw up an H.P. Lovecraft story. Even if your movie is low-budget and you can't afford too many luxuries (i.e. good effects, acting, etc.), the film would probably still end up entertaining just because the man's work is so entertaining in itself. Unfortunately, not even that could save THE UNNAMABLE.Two college couples decide to check out the old Winthrop place for initiation into the fraternity/sorority. However, they discover that a hideous monster resides in the house and it soon begins to kill them off one by one. Can they stop it before it's too late? Granted, I have not read the seven-page short story by Mr. Lovecraft, but I'm rather certain something got lost in translation here. I mean, almost everything about the film is great, with great gore, great effects, a great score, good actors, and good camera-work. The problem is that the film simply cannot utilize all these things productively. The score is good, but completely out of place. The gore was good, but the deaths weren't too inventive. The monster effects are good, but the monster is not frightening. The actors are capable of good things, but the writing they have to work with is putrid. And the camera-work…well, that can't be the saving grace for a film.What angers me about THE UNNAMABLE is that it could have been great. There was a time in the beginning where I began to feel fear, but the score completely ruined it for me (at times it sounds exactly like Zelda). Also, the film just cannot decide whether it wants to be a fun popcorn flick or a serious horror movie, which leads to scenes that should either be fun or scary, and I can't tell which. Overall, this gives the film a very bland feel.Towards the end, the film takes a bizarre left turn into stuff like magical spells and even underground skeleton attacks! It sounds fun, but its relevance is never explained and it all happens in the blink of an eye! Then there's the non-reactivity of the characters. One girl sees a boy with his throat ripped out, and when help comes, she begins asking the other boy why people are more attracted to her friend than to her (?!?). Hello; you just saw someone BRUTALLY KILLED! REACT!!!Overall, THE UNNAMABLE is just a monster movie that's trying too hard to stand out, when all it needs to be entertaining is just play it like a straight monster movie. It's like those inspirational movies where someone goes looking for happiness when all that person really needs is right under his/her nose. Only THE UNNAMABLE never discovers that, and the audience pays for it. Fortunately, there's a sequel that looks, and, from what I have heard, is better than this.For the moment, this one's alright if you have nothing better to do.

preppy-3 PLOT SPOILERS!!! Another lousy movie "based on" an H.P. Lovecraft story. In the 1800s a woman gives birth to a monster baby. She dies in childbirth and the father abandons the house but casts a spell keeping the baby a captive within its walls. Cut to the 1950s. The house is abandoned and a bunch of idiots go in there for no good reason. Naturally the monster is around and they start getting killed. It's a good thing Randolph Carter (Mark Kinsey Stephenson) is around to figure out how to kill it. END Spoilers!Just horrible movie. It's very cheaply made and the "haunted" house looks like it was made out of paper mache--note how the walls shake when anyone bangs on a door! The script is stupid and boring and the acting is just dreadful. Only Mark Parra as Joel shows any acting ability. The rest of the the cast is beyond dreadful--especially Stephenson and Laura Albert. There's also a pointless sex scene to give us the obligatory female nudity. Even the gore is boring!Cheap, badly made, terribly acted. Avoid.

dementia13 H.P. Lovecraft's stories as a rule don't film well, and this is no exception. Considering that the original was really more of a short little episode than a story, that shouldn't be a surprise. It winds up being a pretty standard/mediocre monster story. It's a lot like "In the Woods", in that it looks like it's made by first-time filmmakers who don't know what they're doing, but unlike that abortion, this one actually has some things going for it. It's fairly gory, so if that's your thing, you won't be disappointed. The filmmakers wisely keep the monster off-camera for most of the film, and then when they finally reveal it, it's actually not bad. There's not a ton of suspense, though: it's the kind of movie where you know exactly who's going to die and who isn't, and all the characters are so hateful that you'd like to see all of them killed slowly. The dialog is insipid, even by horror standards, and seems to have been written by a confused person with lots of issues. Given how bad the script is, it might not be fair to point out the lousy acting. If you can get past the embarrassing script, it's got some entertaining qualities, but it's best recommended for teenagers.