The Unnamable I & II

The Unnamable (1988)
In an interview with Jonathan Ross, Sam Raimi explained that although there are two schools of horror that he respects--the show and the don't-show--he likes to mix them up. Why? Because people have pretty good imaginations, but then again, he can think up some pretty awful stuff too. What I like about Lovecraftian movies is that the writers and/or directors do have to think of some pretty awful creatures. I like seeing monsters; they're fun. The Unnamable thrives on withholding its nasty creature from you until the end (unless you were unfortunate enough to look at the stupid fucking box cover before watching!); the biggest shock is seeing the monster's tits.

The plot has a very constrained quality that struck me as uncomfortable at first. Nearly everything takes place in one abandoned house in the town of Arkham, where Miskatonic University students go and get murdered by a three-hundred year old creature summoned into being by a puttering sorceror. That is basically the whole plot. One of the students just happens to be a folklore scholar who knows what to do. A lot of mysteries occured to me at first: why is the creature staying in this house all this time? why hasn't a real estate agent gotten to this house? why hasn't anyone looted the place? how are doors closing and locking on their own? I was well-surprised when everything is efficiently explained without feeling forced. Basically, it's magic. As for the feeling of being constrained, that remains, but they manage to have enough interesting things happening on the small set that it is a negligible problem.

The biggest strength of The Unnamable, however, is the characters, and the screenwriter/director seems to get that. His protagonists have instantly recognizably distinct personalities that remains consistent to the end--at the expense of some psychological realism, I suppose. The pairing of Carter and Howard is actually strong enough that I think they could have easily held up a series of unrelated films where they go around Arkham dealing with its monster problems, kind of like Bob Hope and Bing Crosby crossed with Ghostbusters. The actors (Charles Klausmeyer and Mark Kinsey Stephenson) are just so perfect in these roles. I guess their agents weren't as smart as me, though--but, hey, who is?--because all they did after The Unnamable was The Unnamable II. So let's waste no time getting to that.

The Unnamable II (1993)
The sequel picks up right where the first left off, with the police arriving. Right away I know that feeling of constraint is thankfully going to be absent in the sequel, but it's replaced by a fear: this film isn't going to be as hermetic; it'll just be arbitrarily constrained to a few characters when it should be affecting many people. Just as the first film surprised me, so does this one. It manages to give a very plausible explanation for keeping relatively localized action that manages to be much more expansive than a single old house.

Another enjoyable feature is that the writer allows himself to indulge in Lovecraft mythos. The seeds had all been planted in the first film, the second just explores them in much more depth and observes how they grow. It even tries to offer some scientific grounds for the mythos, with quantum physics and molecular biology being thrown in. So, on a side note, if you've ever wanted to know what a demon from another dimension's blood cells look like, I can tell you they're black and gray.

This doesn't hold the film back from action. It is largely an extended chase sequence. The monster, it is found, has been overlapping a human body. Once separated, we're left with a young woman and a monster who desperately wants to get that body back. A chase ensues and many kill scenes. Strangely, it's not a very suspenseful movie; I think the first was more of a scare-based film. This is more of a monster movie. Yes, there's some gore and some suspense, but it wasn't as scary as the first.

There are some flaws. While the strength of the first film was the pairing of Carter and Howard, this film, subtitled "The Statement of Randolph Carter" suffers from separating Carter and Howard. Carter and the young woman run and try to find a needed spell, whereas Howard is left with precious little to do. The screenwriter had no idea what to do with him and it shows. Another problem is, as in the first, a lack of psychological realism, only much worse this time. Not only largely unphased by the ordeal of the first film, they return to the house and start messing around with the captured monster after diving gungho into the tunnels under the graveyard. Why? It's servicable to the plot and there's no time for psychologically plausible delays.

On the plus side, the young woman is, as you might have guessed, a hottie and she's naked the entire movie. And yet there's not one nude scene. You never see her breasts or her vulva, just her butt; she has very long hair. I liked this. It makes her more innocent and made me feel the film was respecting her. She goes a long way to making the film. She really feels like an innocent wood nymph, new in the world of Man. She looks like an innocent wood nymph, with magically plucked eyebrows and magically shaved legs. She is magically beautiful. She's overwhelmingly attractive, so very beautiful and shapely. A scene where she discovers how nice a bed sheet feels on her skin should have just about every warm-blooded male wide-eyed. It is one of the cutest and sexiest things I've ever seen. She's played by Maria Ford, incidentally.

We also get both John Rhys Davies and David Warner in this film. I have a feeling Warner had other scenes that were cut, because we only see him once. But there you go.

So, in summary, both very fun creature features with some cool characters--both the leads and supporting cast. I don't see any reason not to like these films. They're made with pure joy, they're made well, and they're deep enough in the Lovecraft mythos.