Although many viewers are thinking this film is offending Muslims, I personally do not agree with them.Michael Sheen was playing very well and he did a good job -as always- here. Samuel L. Jackson was very "deep" in this movie and his acting was excellent.The film grabs you and takes you to it's world. You are constantly thinking how the characters are going to behave and what choices they are going o make, at the same time you can't keep yourself from thinking "What would I do in that situation?' and so on. The ending was shocking but it could have been made slightly better(trying not to give any spoilers). The only cause that should keep someone from not watching this film would be mild gore and some torture scenes.
376 Reviews
Edgy, fast-paced, scary thriller
tha_mongoose26 May 2010
How much do we value our freedom? When faced with exceptional circumstances, how far will we go to ascertain the truth, to secure safety? To ensure national security? "Unthinkable" is a problematic movie, in that it gives no clear answers. The premise may be slightly extreme, if we consider what H (Samuel L. Jackson) gets up to, but then again, with some rationalizing we easily reach the conclusion that we simply don't know just how far America has gone in the legal torture business.
We do not intend to point the finger at America in particular. This applies to any and everyone. Faced with extenuating circumstances, what would we do? Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. "Unthinkable" is a very current, undebatably intense uneasy ride down a steep, winding and twisting tunnel.
In the end we are left with nothing. It is up to us to decide what is our moral charter.
Well worth your while. 8/10
We do not intend to point the finger at America in particular. This applies to any and everyone. Faced with extenuating circumstances, what would we do? Make no mistake, ladies and gentlemen. "Unthinkable" is a very current, undebatably intense uneasy ride down a steep, winding and twisting tunnel.
In the end we are left with nothing. It is up to us to decide what is our moral charter.
Well worth your while. 8/10
Where is the line?
Pjtaylor-96-13804414 August 2020
'Unthinkable (2010)' is, essentially, a morality play, a bleak exploration of the effectiveness and - more importantly - ethics of torture. Its themes are rather interesting and it stirs up a lot of interesting questions. How do you weigh one life against another? How far will you go to protect the innocent? If you have to cross the very line that defines you - as an organisation, a nation, a human being - to do it, where does that leave you? Are you better than that which you fight? There are no easy answers. It's all very intriguing and, in effect, rather grim. The ending (extended from its initial finishing point) signifies the flick's brutal overall outlook. It's an engaging experience but it takes a while to get going and is, on occasion, a tad 'schlocky'. It's never quite as compelling as its premise, despite its solid performances and generally good writing. Still, it's a solid affair that should get you thinking. That's not something that can be said about a lot of similar stuff. 6/10
An intriguing, gripping topical thriller
amesmonde22 October 2010
Time is ticking as three bombs are hidden in American cities, and a terrorist Steven Younger (Michael Sheen) is tortured for the information of their locations, however, is he telling the whole truth.
Genuine nail-biting performances from Sheen and Matrix's actress Carrie-Anne Moss as 'Brody'. Despite Sheens's less than convincing accent (which doesn't impair his great performance) you have to give him credit for this brave choice of acting job given the subject matter of terrorism. He is the modern alternative of Hannibal Lecter, reminiscent but more dangerous and excelling the normality of Gerard Butler's terrorist character Clyde Shelton in the recent Law Abiding Citizen (2009). Samuel L. Jackson is the perfect calmed, cold torturer Henry Herald 'H' Humphries. There is depth his character, ruthless yet a family man, emotionless, yet sensitive and the viewers moral standpoint can only decide if he is right or wrong.
Principles, religious beliefs, good and evil are questioned and touched upon in Peter Woodward's screen-play. It's also packed with Government, FBI, CIA and political conspiracies. With a great score that builds the tension, Unthinkable is intriguing and gripping as it unfolds at a pulse pounding pace with an ending to die for.
It's a topical thriller wonderfully directed by Gregor Jordan and certainly worth every second of your viewing time.
Genuine nail-biting performances from Sheen and Matrix's actress Carrie-Anne Moss as 'Brody'. Despite Sheens's less than convincing accent (which doesn't impair his great performance) you have to give him credit for this brave choice of acting job given the subject matter of terrorism. He is the modern alternative of Hannibal Lecter, reminiscent but more dangerous and excelling the normality of Gerard Butler's terrorist character Clyde Shelton in the recent Law Abiding Citizen (2009). Samuel L. Jackson is the perfect calmed, cold torturer Henry Herald 'H' Humphries. There is depth his character, ruthless yet a family man, emotionless, yet sensitive and the viewers moral standpoint can only decide if he is right or wrong.
Principles, religious beliefs, good and evil are questioned and touched upon in Peter Woodward's screen-play. It's also packed with Government, FBI, CIA and political conspiracies. With a great score that builds the tension, Unthinkable is intriguing and gripping as it unfolds at a pulse pounding pace with an ending to die for.
It's a topical thriller wonderfully directed by Gregor Jordan and certainly worth every second of your viewing time.
Controversial concept misses its chance to excel.
Dory_Darko7 November 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Unthinkable raises a question which has been an issue for many people all over the world for a very long time, and especially since 9/11. This question is, is it ever justifiable to torture an individual to save the lives of many? And if the answer is yes, how far can you go?
This issue is indeed a very sensitive subject and I think it takes guts for any filmmaker to put it out there in the open like Gregor Jordan did. Add to that the clever fact that he doesn't actually make a choice, but rather lets the audience decide on whatever they want to think and feel, and you have a pretty gutsy and controversial concept.
In a nutshell, this film is about a man of American descent who has become a Muslim and has now, as an act of terrorism, planted 3 nuclear bombs in 3 major American cities which will go off in four days. Screenwriter Peter Woodward made some very tactical decisions considering the characters in the story. They are all somewhat stereotypical, but this is no bother because they're all there for a reason. Carrie-Anne Moss, as an FBI investigator, represents the conscience, the sensitivity and the struggle to make the right decision. Samuel L. Jackson is her polar opposite; the brutal, rational, stone cold "interrogator" who does what he does because he's the only one who can and willing to do it. The means he is willing to go to in order to get his subject to talk are almost as unwatchable as they are unthinkable. This is quite possibly the most gruesome film I have ever seen, but that mostly has to do with the fact that the things you see are in fact very real. This stuff does happen, and it's way harder to stomach than any slasher horror movie because it sucks you in emotionally. Intelligence agencies and secret services the world over DO use these techniques, whether we like to believe it or not.
All of this sounds like a great opportunity to address a major issue and stimulate people to really think about it, doesn't it? One would like to think so, alas there is one big problem: bad writing. As hard as they try, the filmmakers do not, at any point, manage to evoke sympathy on either side of the fence. Not with the terrorist, for the complete lack of background and motivation, but neither with the people who try to stop him from executing his horrible plans that could claim the lives of millions of people. Especially Carrie-Anne Moss' character, Brody, is quite a pain in the butt because even though her struggle is understandable, quite simply because she's a decent human being, she comes off as kind of naive because she – from a professional point of view – is unwilling to sacrifice the life of one to save millions. Her constant interference gradually becomes increasingly annoying, up to the point that you just want her to get out of the way. However, Jackson's character H. turns out to be such a volatile psycho that you almost start to feel sorry for the terrorist! There is one scene in particular which throws you off so badly that you really don't know what to think anymore. I'll only say that it involves the terrorist's wife, and as much as I would like to warn you, I don't want to give any spoilers, but you can take it as a warning anyway... It'll make your skin crawl.
The rest of the characters are about as lively and relevant as cardboard-cut-outs, I've already forgotten about most of them, but they don't really matter to the story anyway. However, all of this could have still turned into a decent film, if it wasn't for one major flaw: the horrible ending. It's so incredibly hollow and unsatisfactory that it leaves you wondering why the hell you just spent an hour and a half watching a man being tortured, if there was absolutely no point to it?! It could have been worthwhile if only the filmmakers had any resolution to offer, but there is none. Why did the terrorist do what he did? We don't know. Did the agents accomplish anything? Not really. So what's the point? There is no point. It's just 90 minutes of torture, bad decisions and failure. That's it.
Overall, it's not all bad. There is some really good dialogue and despite aforementioned flaws and inconsistencies in the script, there are a few really good scenes which do involve one into the minds of the people on screen. The actors do the best they can with what they're given, Samuel L. Jackson is as reliable as ever and Carrie-Anne Moss is convincing in her role, which makes me sad to think that since The Matrix and Memento, she hasn't really had any memorable roles, and that's too bad because she is a good actress. Michael Sheen as the terrorist is good too, though it's hard for him to make his character a 3-dimensional human being because the writers offered him no history or character development whatsoever, but he definitely makes his character's "in-the-moment emotions" work from scene to scene.
So, final conclusion. I wouldn't really dissuade anyone from watching this film, you now know what to expect and it does offer some interesting food for thought here and there, but you should really understand that this film is pretty challenging, mentally as much as physically. And don't watch this if you're under 18. Seriously.
This issue is indeed a very sensitive subject and I think it takes guts for any filmmaker to put it out there in the open like Gregor Jordan did. Add to that the clever fact that he doesn't actually make a choice, but rather lets the audience decide on whatever they want to think and feel, and you have a pretty gutsy and controversial concept.
In a nutshell, this film is about a man of American descent who has become a Muslim and has now, as an act of terrorism, planted 3 nuclear bombs in 3 major American cities which will go off in four days. Screenwriter Peter Woodward made some very tactical decisions considering the characters in the story. They are all somewhat stereotypical, but this is no bother because they're all there for a reason. Carrie-Anne Moss, as an FBI investigator, represents the conscience, the sensitivity and the struggle to make the right decision. Samuel L. Jackson is her polar opposite; the brutal, rational, stone cold "interrogator" who does what he does because he's the only one who can and willing to do it. The means he is willing to go to in order to get his subject to talk are almost as unwatchable as they are unthinkable. This is quite possibly the most gruesome film I have ever seen, but that mostly has to do with the fact that the things you see are in fact very real. This stuff does happen, and it's way harder to stomach than any slasher horror movie because it sucks you in emotionally. Intelligence agencies and secret services the world over DO use these techniques, whether we like to believe it or not.
All of this sounds like a great opportunity to address a major issue and stimulate people to really think about it, doesn't it? One would like to think so, alas there is one big problem: bad writing. As hard as they try, the filmmakers do not, at any point, manage to evoke sympathy on either side of the fence. Not with the terrorist, for the complete lack of background and motivation, but neither with the people who try to stop him from executing his horrible plans that could claim the lives of millions of people. Especially Carrie-Anne Moss' character, Brody, is quite a pain in the butt because even though her struggle is understandable, quite simply because she's a decent human being, she comes off as kind of naive because she – from a professional point of view – is unwilling to sacrifice the life of one to save millions. Her constant interference gradually becomes increasingly annoying, up to the point that you just want her to get out of the way. However, Jackson's character H. turns out to be such a volatile psycho that you almost start to feel sorry for the terrorist! There is one scene in particular which throws you off so badly that you really don't know what to think anymore. I'll only say that it involves the terrorist's wife, and as much as I would like to warn you, I don't want to give any spoilers, but you can take it as a warning anyway... It'll make your skin crawl.
The rest of the characters are about as lively and relevant as cardboard-cut-outs, I've already forgotten about most of them, but they don't really matter to the story anyway. However, all of this could have still turned into a decent film, if it wasn't for one major flaw: the horrible ending. It's so incredibly hollow and unsatisfactory that it leaves you wondering why the hell you just spent an hour and a half watching a man being tortured, if there was absolutely no point to it?! It could have been worthwhile if only the filmmakers had any resolution to offer, but there is none. Why did the terrorist do what he did? We don't know. Did the agents accomplish anything? Not really. So what's the point? There is no point. It's just 90 minutes of torture, bad decisions and failure. That's it.
Overall, it's not all bad. There is some really good dialogue and despite aforementioned flaws and inconsistencies in the script, there are a few really good scenes which do involve one into the minds of the people on screen. The actors do the best they can with what they're given, Samuel L. Jackson is as reliable as ever and Carrie-Anne Moss is convincing in her role, which makes me sad to think that since The Matrix and Memento, she hasn't really had any memorable roles, and that's too bad because she is a good actress. Michael Sheen as the terrorist is good too, though it's hard for him to make his character a 3-dimensional human being because the writers offered him no history or character development whatsoever, but he definitely makes his character's "in-the-moment emotions" work from scene to scene.
So, final conclusion. I wouldn't really dissuade anyone from watching this film, you now know what to expect and it does offer some interesting food for thought here and there, but you should really understand that this film is pretty challenging, mentally as much as physically. And don't watch this if you're under 18. Seriously.
Weak writing saved by a good presentation
room10223 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I'm not sure how to rate this. I knew nothing about the movie before seeing it. The concept is an old one: Is it moral to kill/torture one man in order to save the lives of thousands? On the one hand they did a good job in presentation: Good acting (by Jackson and Sheen), good suspense, good direction and score, etc.
On the other hand, I have a problem with the writing. I wanted to torture the writer myself when he kept using the "Jesus, this is..." phrase. But I got even more annoyed by the way he simplified the thinking of Agent Helen Brody: she changes her mind every 10 minutes and it's just stupid. One minute she thinks torture is wrong, but 5 minutes later she says that he should do "anything possible", only to change her mind back 5 minutes later, and so on. Does she really need to see the 53 people killed in order to grasp the concept of a bomb and change her mind? And how come she cares about 53 people but later doesn't care about millions getting killed? In order to present the moral dilemma, they should have used a stronger character - one that doesn't change her mind all the time and that gives better dialogs than "you can't do that" and "it's not alright". In other words, the writer should have invested more effort in analyzing the moral dilemma instead of giving us one-dimensional characters.
So the writing is stupid, but as a whole the movie works.
5.5/10 Worth watching
On the other hand, I have a problem with the writing. I wanted to torture the writer myself when he kept using the "Jesus, this is..." phrase. But I got even more annoyed by the way he simplified the thinking of Agent Helen Brody: she changes her mind every 10 minutes and it's just stupid. One minute she thinks torture is wrong, but 5 minutes later she says that he should do "anything possible", only to change her mind back 5 minutes later, and so on. Does she really need to see the 53 people killed in order to grasp the concept of a bomb and change her mind? And how come she cares about 53 people but later doesn't care about millions getting killed? In order to present the moral dilemma, they should have used a stronger character - one that doesn't change her mind all the time and that gives better dialogs than "you can't do that" and "it's not alright". In other words, the writer should have invested more effort in analyzing the moral dilemma instead of giving us one-dimensional characters.
So the writing is stupid, but as a whole the movie works.
5.5/10 Worth watching
Think...If You Dare
TheAnimalMother19 January 2013
This film is great simply because it makes the viewer ask themselves important and tough questions.
If you are an open minded person, Unthinkable makes you think about things you definitely should ponder, even though you would probably rather not have to think about them.
This film essentially brings up the old adage that few things in this world are truly black and white, even though politicians, media, films, etc, usually like to pretend they are. We live in a complicated world of color where black and white makes grey. The truth or best options usually lie somewhere in the middle. Balance is truly the way of nature and those who are sane. These extremes of black and white thinking (Rights and wrongs) are as primitive as cave art. Yet still, this crap mentality is ingrained in humans across the world and still shoveled at us from countless sources, even though many of us know better.
The film as a whole goes a little over the top Hollywood (Rather than sticking to realism) in a couple of scenes. This is far, far from a perfect film, but it's tough questions alone make it well worth watching.
7/10
If you are an open minded person, Unthinkable makes you think about things you definitely should ponder, even though you would probably rather not have to think about them.
This film essentially brings up the old adage that few things in this world are truly black and white, even though politicians, media, films, etc, usually like to pretend they are. We live in a complicated world of color where black and white makes grey. The truth or best options usually lie somewhere in the middle. Balance is truly the way of nature and those who are sane. These extremes of black and white thinking (Rights and wrongs) are as primitive as cave art. Yet still, this crap mentality is ingrained in humans across the world and still shoveled at us from countless sources, even though many of us know better.
The film as a whole goes a little over the top Hollywood (Rather than sticking to realism) in a couple of scenes. This is far, far from a perfect film, but it's tough questions alone make it well worth watching.
7/10
Don't miss the point of this film like so many appear to ....
jaffacake2k26 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't have much of a clue about what this film was about when i watched it - other than is starred the iconic Samuel L Jackson and Carrie Ann Moss - and it was a 'Hollywood' film.
Only this Isn't a 'Hollywood' film. Unlike the usual formulaic production line fare that Hollywood usually cranks out - THIS film stands apart. It doesn't follow the same formula which so many do to get bums on seats. There isn't even a romantic sub-plot. (Which i found VERY refreshing!) Simply put this film attempts to explore moral boundaries ... Our own just as much as those of our on-screen protagonists. Unlike many people that watch this film I didn't come away feeling id been exposed to some 'liberal' or 'NWO' propaganda. Those reviewers seem to be suffering from a 21st century dose of 'reds under the beds' ...
The setting of the film could be ANYWHERE - the fact that its in America with a Muslim 'villain' is merely a reflection of its intended audience and social environment. The point of the film is: Is torture justifiable? How do you balance the morality of torture against its real world 'benefits'... ? The premise is: A man has planted nuclear bombs in 3 American cities. He is in custody and the US security services need to extract the locations of the bombs within 72 hours. So they begin to torture the man.
So how far do you go? Can you trust the information revealed? Who is 'good' and who is 'evil'? I don't want to spoil the film so will say there are many more variables which are featured ...
Some people have complained about the 'gore'. Personally i didn't find it 'gorey'. Especially with the likes of the SAW films out there! There are some sequences which involve 'blood' etc but these are well executed, brief and far from gratuitous. Much of the torture off camera as its the moral implications which are there to make you feel uncomfortable - not the visual ones.
This isn't a traditionally 'enjoyable' or 'entertaining' film. However i was captivated from the opening scene and was intrigued throughout. Its well acted, well scripted and well considered.
Its a shame that many people will not take away what they could and should from this film - but that is a reflection of then - not a reflection of Unthinkable!
9/10
Only this Isn't a 'Hollywood' film. Unlike the usual formulaic production line fare that Hollywood usually cranks out - THIS film stands apart. It doesn't follow the same formula which so many do to get bums on seats. There isn't even a romantic sub-plot. (Which i found VERY refreshing!) Simply put this film attempts to explore moral boundaries ... Our own just as much as those of our on-screen protagonists. Unlike many people that watch this film I didn't come away feeling id been exposed to some 'liberal' or 'NWO' propaganda. Those reviewers seem to be suffering from a 21st century dose of 'reds under the beds' ...
The setting of the film could be ANYWHERE - the fact that its in America with a Muslim 'villain' is merely a reflection of its intended audience and social environment. The point of the film is: Is torture justifiable? How do you balance the morality of torture against its real world 'benefits'... ? The premise is: A man has planted nuclear bombs in 3 American cities. He is in custody and the US security services need to extract the locations of the bombs within 72 hours. So they begin to torture the man.
So how far do you go? Can you trust the information revealed? Who is 'good' and who is 'evil'? I don't want to spoil the film so will say there are many more variables which are featured ...
Some people have complained about the 'gore'. Personally i didn't find it 'gorey'. Especially with the likes of the SAW films out there! There are some sequences which involve 'blood' etc but these are well executed, brief and far from gratuitous. Much of the torture off camera as its the moral implications which are there to make you feel uncomfortable - not the visual ones.
This isn't a traditionally 'enjoyable' or 'entertaining' film. However i was captivated from the opening scene and was intrigued throughout. Its well acted, well scripted and well considered.
Its a shame that many people will not take away what they could and should from this film - but that is a reflection of then - not a reflection of Unthinkable!
9/10
Tension-packed interrogation thriller
Leofwine_draca2 June 2016
UNTHINKABLE is a pretty interesting single location thriller about the efforts of a crack government team to get a terrorist to reveal the location of not one, not two, but three nuclear bombs which he has hidden in the USA. It's quite a gruelling viewing experience but one which works thanks to the high levels of suspense and a genuinely unforeseeable outcome.
I tend to avoid films like this one as they're often self-consciously preachy in their attempts to tell a message. UNTHINKABLE does have something of an anti-American vibe going on, but it doesn't really affect the outcome of what is an efficient thriller. The person holding the film together is Samuel L. Jackson, who quite wonderfully gives one of those barnstorming, larger-than-life performances that we used to see back in the 1990s. Jackson reminds me of Gary Oldman a little: both are actors who came to fame with their angry performances, but who Hollywood have subdued in the last fifteen years or so. It's great to see the old fire back.
The rest of the cast are all right, although not on Jackson's level. I don't like Michael Sheen very much and find him an odd choice to play the terrorist; I guess casting a genuine Arab actor in the role would have been too controversial. Carrie-Anne Moss does quite well as the protagonist although the straight role she plays is quite a boring one. Two character actors, Gil Bellows and Stephen Root, are both very good in smaller roles. There are some hard-hitting torture sequences in this film which I didn't see coming, and an against-the-clock climax which ratchets up the tension no end.
I tend to avoid films like this one as they're often self-consciously preachy in their attempts to tell a message. UNTHINKABLE does have something of an anti-American vibe going on, but it doesn't really affect the outcome of what is an efficient thriller. The person holding the film together is Samuel L. Jackson, who quite wonderfully gives one of those barnstorming, larger-than-life performances that we used to see back in the 1990s. Jackson reminds me of Gary Oldman a little: both are actors who came to fame with their angry performances, but who Hollywood have subdued in the last fifteen years or so. It's great to see the old fire back.
The rest of the cast are all right, although not on Jackson's level. I don't like Michael Sheen very much and find him an odd choice to play the terrorist; I guess casting a genuine Arab actor in the role would have been too controversial. Carrie-Anne Moss does quite well as the protagonist although the straight role she plays is quite a boring one. Two character actors, Gil Bellows and Stephen Root, are both very good in smaller roles. There are some hard-hitting torture sequences in this film which I didn't see coming, and an against-the-clock climax which ratchets up the tension no end.
An excellent "what-if" scenario that will make you think
prizm425 May 2010
Carrie-Anne Moss represents the average citizen watching this movie, having a facade of superior human rights beliefs (that we tend to have in western countries) that gradually get whittled away as the situation in the movie get more desperate.
How far are we really willing to go to save millions of people? When the entire country is at stake, how far is the US really willing to go with dealing with terrorists? We can claim our governments are moral and upholding human rights, but at the end of the day, the government can do whatever it wants. It doesn't need your approval, and it will do what it believes is required for self-preservation. This movie flaunts that idea.
Unthinkable has excellent mind-play and dialogue that really gets you thinking and challenges what we really believe about human rights.
How far are we really willing to go to save millions of people? When the entire country is at stake, how far is the US really willing to go with dealing with terrorists? We can claim our governments are moral and upholding human rights, but at the end of the day, the government can do whatever it wants. It doesn't need your approval, and it will do what it believes is required for self-preservation. This movie flaunts that idea.
Unthinkable has excellent mind-play and dialogue that really gets you thinking and challenges what we really believe about human rights.
Once is quite enough.
Deckard-1619 June 2010
The title of this movie could also serve as it's 1-word review. It is well worth watching if you are serious about films. But it very strong stuff that poses some serious questions about a subject that I don't like to think about; torture in the pursuit saving lives.
Samuel L. Jackson plays a shadowy U.S. Government operative who will go to any lengths to get info from a terrorist & his plot to blow up millions of people on our home soil. Michael Sheen (who memorably played David Frost in "Frost/Nixon") is that terrorist. Carrie-Anne Moss is an FBI agent caught in the middle of their deadly cat & mouse.
The movie's biggest strength is that we believe that Jackson's "H" is capable of doing ANYTHING to save innocent lives including the "unthinkable". Jackson, in words & action, really sells the role. This is some the best work he has ever done. Sheen shows why he is one of the most sought after actors today. Moss is strong as the movie's moral center -- a center that shows some very serious signs of disintegrating.
The tension is non-stop. The script is often heavy-handed, but for good reason. The direction is crisp & the editing sharp.
How this went straight to video echoes the question why last year's best picture Oscar winner got such poor distribution.
BE WARNED: the numerous torture scenes are very tough to take. They almost cross over into torture-porn (which I hate). I'm sure --I hope-- the filmmakers had plenty of debate about how far to take the violence. My usual disgust with such scenes was balanced by the way they drive home the debate of a very troubling issue.
I'm not ready to see this movie again anytime soon but I'm glad I saw it once.
Samuel L. Jackson plays a shadowy U.S. Government operative who will go to any lengths to get info from a terrorist & his plot to blow up millions of people on our home soil. Michael Sheen (who memorably played David Frost in "Frost/Nixon") is that terrorist. Carrie-Anne Moss is an FBI agent caught in the middle of their deadly cat & mouse.
The movie's biggest strength is that we believe that Jackson's "H" is capable of doing ANYTHING to save innocent lives including the "unthinkable". Jackson, in words & action, really sells the role. This is some the best work he has ever done. Sheen shows why he is one of the most sought after actors today. Moss is strong as the movie's moral center -- a center that shows some very serious signs of disintegrating.
The tension is non-stop. The script is often heavy-handed, but for good reason. The direction is crisp & the editing sharp.
How this went straight to video echoes the question why last year's best picture Oscar winner got such poor distribution.
BE WARNED: the numerous torture scenes are very tough to take. They almost cross over into torture-porn (which I hate). I'm sure --I hope-- the filmmakers had plenty of debate about how far to take the violence. My usual disgust with such scenes was balanced by the way they drive home the debate of a very troubling issue.
I'm not ready to see this movie again anytime soon but I'm glad I saw it once.
Jack Bauer would have solved it much faster
ddiament13 July 2010
What I remember from Action movies before 9/11 was that the good guys (Americans) would do anything to save the world, but keeping their traditional moral values intact, while the "Terrorists" where the ones that torture, kill or sacrifice human lives.
From 2001, I've seen all that changing, starting in Jack Bauer and that "all matters to save human lives and to keep the American way of life" motto.
And I will let my self be a little paranoid, but understanding Hollywood cinema as the fastest American culture spreader around the world and inside the US, I feel that all these new "tactics" used by our new "heroes" are somewhat a message "somebody" wants to spread.
And Unthinkable is the newest chapter of this new "American hero" thing. Basically our "hero" the murderer represented by Samuel Jackson, laughs at the tactics used by the US Army. Those tactics we couldn't believe in our eyes when watching the news about how the Army was "interrogating" at suspects in Guantanamo.
And that's all this movie about. A 90 minutes torture show for us, the rest of the world, to get used on torture and that you shouldn't look suspicious in an airport, because instead of taking you to jail, that could take you one or two fingers out.
And, oh. They should have called Jack Bauer, much much more effective.
From 2001, I've seen all that changing, starting in Jack Bauer and that "all matters to save human lives and to keep the American way of life" motto.
And I will let my self be a little paranoid, but understanding Hollywood cinema as the fastest American culture spreader around the world and inside the US, I feel that all these new "tactics" used by our new "heroes" are somewhat a message "somebody" wants to spread.
And Unthinkable is the newest chapter of this new "American hero" thing. Basically our "hero" the murderer represented by Samuel Jackson, laughs at the tactics used by the US Army. Those tactics we couldn't believe in our eyes when watching the news about how the Army was "interrogating" at suspects in Guantanamo.
And that's all this movie about. A 90 minutes torture show for us, the rest of the world, to get used on torture and that you shouldn't look suspicious in an airport, because instead of taking you to jail, that could take you one or two fingers out.
And, oh. They should have called Jack Bauer, much much more effective.
Makes you think....if you have never exercised that brain function before.
dontspamme-1130 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I can see why this direct rip-off from a season of '24' received so many negative reviews (although the rating average on IMDb still boggles me). This film engages in classic manipulation 101, by affirming and propagating some problematic cultural assumptions as facts, then blanketing over them with cinematic devices of distraction and sleight-of-hand.
The distractions are the A-list stars who attached their names to this film and the performances they give, without which the glaring holes and gaps in the plot and character motivations would be blatantly apparent. This is evidenced by a number of reviewers here who professed that they were on the "edge-of-their-seats" and captivated by this "thriller" despite the fact that they didn't understand why Younger did not seem to anticipate that his wife and children would be used as bargaining chips (when he supposedly anticipated almost everything else), or why Younger would turn himself in and risk the discovery of the bombs. These reviewers make the people who think that this film is somehow "anti-American" come across as slightly sophisticated, because I am fairly certain that actual military/contractor interrogators, who (should) understand that physical torture is a limited (and only one of many) interrogation technique, would find Jackson's character and his persistence on physical torture when it is clearly not working to be absurd and laughable. These reviewers are under the impression--manipulated by the film to think--that the film is about some moral reflection on whether torture can be justified if the situation is dire enough.
This is not what the film is about.
This film is about (melo)dramatizing certain assumptions and rendering them compelling and believable enough to be taken as fact. One such assumption is that only 'terrorists' face the possibility of torture in the name of US national security, which is a neat sleight-of-hand to obfuscate the fact that the majority of people who have actually been imprisoned and abused in the "War on Terror"--for example, in places like Abu-Graib, Guantanamo Bay, and other 'black sites'--are not guilty or even charged with any crimes related to 'terrorism.' But questions about how entire categories of people have become disposable in the name of security is blanketed over by the film which tells the audience that the only question we should be concerned about is whether we should prioritize morality or survival when confronted with the "ticking time-bomb" scenario. How did this 'scenario' come to be? It doesn't matter, the film tells us, because the antagonist is "Muslim"--as if that explains everything. What it explains is the other assumption the film affirms, that the writers and the producers hope no one will be conscious of, which is that all Muslims are 'suspect', and 'they' hate 'us'--an assumption that slides perfectly into a dominant cultural explanation for '9/11' and the subsequent 'War on Terror', as evidenced by some threads in the IMDb message forum where some posters have parroted all the tiresome rhetoric we've all heard countless times from government and military officials, talking sock puppets, and films.
There seems to be a 'commonsensical' notion floated by numerous reviews that something can be (cultural) 'propaganda' only if it can be easily recognized as such. If it's easily recognized as such, then it no longer fulfills that function. And the fact that so many people were entertained by this film without an inkling of its pedagogical function is a clear indication of the intensity of its manipulation.
The distractions are the A-list stars who attached their names to this film and the performances they give, without which the glaring holes and gaps in the plot and character motivations would be blatantly apparent. This is evidenced by a number of reviewers here who professed that they were on the "edge-of-their-seats" and captivated by this "thriller" despite the fact that they didn't understand why Younger did not seem to anticipate that his wife and children would be used as bargaining chips (when he supposedly anticipated almost everything else), or why Younger would turn himself in and risk the discovery of the bombs. These reviewers make the people who think that this film is somehow "anti-American" come across as slightly sophisticated, because I am fairly certain that actual military/contractor interrogators, who (should) understand that physical torture is a limited (and only one of many) interrogation technique, would find Jackson's character and his persistence on physical torture when it is clearly not working to be absurd and laughable. These reviewers are under the impression--manipulated by the film to think--that the film is about some moral reflection on whether torture can be justified if the situation is dire enough.
This is not what the film is about.
This film is about (melo)dramatizing certain assumptions and rendering them compelling and believable enough to be taken as fact. One such assumption is that only 'terrorists' face the possibility of torture in the name of US national security, which is a neat sleight-of-hand to obfuscate the fact that the majority of people who have actually been imprisoned and abused in the "War on Terror"--for example, in places like Abu-Graib, Guantanamo Bay, and other 'black sites'--are not guilty or even charged with any crimes related to 'terrorism.' But questions about how entire categories of people have become disposable in the name of security is blanketed over by the film which tells the audience that the only question we should be concerned about is whether we should prioritize morality or survival when confronted with the "ticking time-bomb" scenario. How did this 'scenario' come to be? It doesn't matter, the film tells us, because the antagonist is "Muslim"--as if that explains everything. What it explains is the other assumption the film affirms, that the writers and the producers hope no one will be conscious of, which is that all Muslims are 'suspect', and 'they' hate 'us'--an assumption that slides perfectly into a dominant cultural explanation for '9/11' and the subsequent 'War on Terror', as evidenced by some threads in the IMDb message forum where some posters have parroted all the tiresome rhetoric we've all heard countless times from government and military officials, talking sock puppets, and films.
There seems to be a 'commonsensical' notion floated by numerous reviews that something can be (cultural) 'propaganda' only if it can be easily recognized as such. If it's easily recognized as such, then it no longer fulfills that function. And the fact that so many people were entertained by this film without an inkling of its pedagogical function is a clear indication of the intensity of its manipulation.
Soulless tale that kills the thrills with clunky telling
moray-jones17 September 2010
Warning: Spoilers
It's a good premise - how far should we go to get information that will prevent a terrorist outrage? And the stakes are upped by making it 3 nuclear bombs due to go off, hidden in warehouses in America.
Samuel Jackson is a brutal information extractor/torturer. Carrie Moss is the FBI agent confronted with this ruthless approach that the government keeps secret.
But it seems that the makers assumed an exciting premise would make an exciting film with little more effort.
Jackson's ruthlessness is portrayed as hard won wisdom. He behaves like he's a psychopath, but actually it's just that he has a clear vision of the answer to how far you should go. He refers to one of the army's original interrogators as a 'petty sadist'. Not like Jackson who has a job to do and does it without letting his emotions interfere.
But this is so Jackson can to-and-fro with Carrie-Ann Moss. To my mind an extra dimension could easily have been added by Jackson's character actually getting excited by his torture work. Then we would have a mixed motive - of the authorities - as they would watch Jackson having joker-esquire fun with his victims.
And Moss is solid but boring. Yes, the woman is the one dragging her heels, unable to compute that the suffering of one man can be offset against the suffering of many, many more.
Just to keep us interested, why not have a woman as the torturer rather than the nurturer?
All-in-all, a bit of heavy handed pontificating, that seems to be there to make us think. Thanks for that.
Watchable, but far from great.
Samuel Jackson is a brutal information extractor/torturer. Carrie Moss is the FBI agent confronted with this ruthless approach that the government keeps secret.
But it seems that the makers assumed an exciting premise would make an exciting film with little more effort.
Jackson's ruthlessness is portrayed as hard won wisdom. He behaves like he's a psychopath, but actually it's just that he has a clear vision of the answer to how far you should go. He refers to one of the army's original interrogators as a 'petty sadist'. Not like Jackson who has a job to do and does it without letting his emotions interfere.
But this is so Jackson can to-and-fro with Carrie-Ann Moss. To my mind an extra dimension could easily have been added by Jackson's character actually getting excited by his torture work. Then we would have a mixed motive - of the authorities - as they would watch Jackson having joker-esquire fun with his victims.
And Moss is solid but boring. Yes, the woman is the one dragging her heels, unable to compute that the suffering of one man can be offset against the suffering of many, many more.
Just to keep us interested, why not have a woman as the torturer rather than the nurturer?
All-in-all, a bit of heavy handed pontificating, that seems to be there to make us think. Thanks for that.
Watchable, but far from great.
confused yet interesting.
dparmeggianig15 July 2010
Warning: Spoilers
This film revolves around a terrorist who has placed three nuclear bombs in urban areas of America. An FBI anti terror agent, and a utilitarian interrogator. Most of the film is played out in a secluded interrogation room while "H", the interrogator, goes further and further in his attempts to torture the location of the bombs out of the resilient terrorist. The FBI agent, played by Carrie Ann Moss is appalled, but she finds it harder and harder to oppose H's methods as the countdown nears its end. The two protagonists actually both approach each others standpoint near the end.
The film is quite well acted by all three major roles, at times more than well. It is well made and thrillingly composed in its way, and the torture scenes are always relevant to drive home the point of the flick, so they never seem superfluous or speculative.
The issue of the film, which is perhaps too clearly spelled out, is always lurching in the background. However here, also, lies one of the films biggest problems. It seems to be addressing the philosophical battle between deontological and utilitarian ethics, and at the same time, the political issue of the justification of torture. While the film still manages to be relevant, it becomes a little confused. I like that it ends in a question about being "human" and ethical, but the question should be more clearly stated. It would probably have served them better to focus on one of these issues at a time.
Also, the film is not completely devoid of plot holes or Hollywood excesses, but nothing that ruins the experience, or the plot. That the terrorist is a Muslim is perhaps a bit of a clichè, but i can't argue with the reality of it, and at least he wasn't a clichè of a figure, spouting jihad this and jihad that through his yellow teeth and swarthy beard.
Overall it works better as a suspense thriller with some ethical overtones than a brainy discussion of terrorism or its countermeasures, but that's OK. Good effort.
The film is quite well acted by all three major roles, at times more than well. It is well made and thrillingly composed in its way, and the torture scenes are always relevant to drive home the point of the flick, so they never seem superfluous or speculative.
The issue of the film, which is perhaps too clearly spelled out, is always lurching in the background. However here, also, lies one of the films biggest problems. It seems to be addressing the philosophical battle between deontological and utilitarian ethics, and at the same time, the political issue of the justification of torture. While the film still manages to be relevant, it becomes a little confused. I like that it ends in a question about being "human" and ethical, but the question should be more clearly stated. It would probably have served them better to focus on one of these issues at a time.
Also, the film is not completely devoid of plot holes or Hollywood excesses, but nothing that ruins the experience, or the plot. That the terrorist is a Muslim is perhaps a bit of a clichè, but i can't argue with the reality of it, and at least he wasn't a clichè of a figure, spouting jihad this and jihad that through his yellow teeth and swarthy beard.
Overall it works better as a suspense thriller with some ethical overtones than a brainy discussion of terrorism or its countermeasures, but that's OK. Good effort.
The clock is ticking, but he's not talking.
robobox24 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Samuel L Jackson deftly mixes charm and chill as a family man who's job requires he does whatever is necessary, when necessary.
It becomes necessary when it's discovered that somewhere in the US there are three nuclear bombs. It's Jackson's mission to extract their location from the captured Muslim bomb-maker (Michael Sheen) before they detonate.
While this may sound rather '24', the focus of 'Unthinkable' is on the psychological rather than the pyrotechnic and poses the post Guantanamo Bay question: How far can a civilised society go to protect itself? FBI Agent Carrie Anne Moss initially has no doubts about the answer to that question, and is appalled by Jackson's methods against an American citizen. However her beliefs (and those of the audience) are challenged as time begins to run out and the terrorist shows no sign of cracking.
"We're afraid, they're not. We have doubt, they believe." Observes Jackson, while pointing out that Sheen, although at the mercy of his captors, retains overall control of the situation. And Sheen, as a determined man resigned to his fate does well to evoke, if not quite sympathy, empathy.
"Unthinkable" is essentially a Morality Play that paints with a broad brush, yet works well as a taut Ticking Clock thriller.
It becomes necessary when it's discovered that somewhere in the US there are three nuclear bombs. It's Jackson's mission to extract their location from the captured Muslim bomb-maker (Michael Sheen) before they detonate.
While this may sound rather '24', the focus of 'Unthinkable' is on the psychological rather than the pyrotechnic and poses the post Guantanamo Bay question: How far can a civilised society go to protect itself? FBI Agent Carrie Anne Moss initially has no doubts about the answer to that question, and is appalled by Jackson's methods against an American citizen. However her beliefs (and those of the audience) are challenged as time begins to run out and the terrorist shows no sign of cracking.
"We're afraid, they're not. We have doubt, they believe." Observes Jackson, while pointing out that Sheen, although at the mercy of his captors, retains overall control of the situation. And Sheen, as a determined man resigned to his fate does well to evoke, if not quite sympathy, empathy.
"Unthinkable" is essentially a Morality Play that paints with a broad brush, yet works well as a taut Ticking Clock thriller.
Wow...A Must See Film, 9/10 Hands Down
calltawheed26 June 2010
Wow... this is one of the best films I have ever seen hands-down, regardless the low ratings many other reviewers have given it thus far.
While the premise of the movie is a bit far-fetched, the film itself is superb and has an excellent cast, great acting and a good script. Overall, the film is very realistic and thought-provoking.
While I completely understand why many assert that this is 137 minutes of pro-torture propaganda (like the hit TV series "24"), I completely disagree. I feel that more than anything, it shines a spotlight on the human condition. It captivates the viewer and forces us to question how far we are willing to go to save lives, and whether or not we are willing to sacrifice our vary humanity to do so. At what point are we willing to do the "unthinkable" and thereby give up some of the things that truly make us human?
Warning, this film is extremely graphic and at times hard to bear and while it is not for the faint-hearted, I still encourage every mature adult to watch it. I do not believe the extreme violence has been added for shock value or entertainment, but rather to shake the hell out of the audience in order to make them reflect upon their humanity and what it means to be human.
Also, while I do believe that having yet another film depicting the bad guy/terrorist as a Muslim does have the potential of perpetuating certain negative stereotypes about Islam and Muslims, I feel that the "bad guy" could have just as easily been from any another religious tradition or political ideology and I did not consider it to be offensive or deliberately anti-Muslim and I say this as a Muslim myself.
I was thoroughly engaged till the very end and was left absolutely speechless, staring at the screen. This was only the second time that has happened in my life and I am still absorbing and contemplating what I witnessed.
FINAL RATING: 9/10 hands down. A must watch film for every mature human being. But, I'd advise you to save the snacks until AFTER the credits roll.
While the premise of the movie is a bit far-fetched, the film itself is superb and has an excellent cast, great acting and a good script. Overall, the film is very realistic and thought-provoking.
While I completely understand why many assert that this is 137 minutes of pro-torture propaganda (like the hit TV series "24"), I completely disagree. I feel that more than anything, it shines a spotlight on the human condition. It captivates the viewer and forces us to question how far we are willing to go to save lives, and whether or not we are willing to sacrifice our vary humanity to do so. At what point are we willing to do the "unthinkable" and thereby give up some of the things that truly make us human?
Warning, this film is extremely graphic and at times hard to bear and while it is not for the faint-hearted, I still encourage every mature adult to watch it. I do not believe the extreme violence has been added for shock value or entertainment, but rather to shake the hell out of the audience in order to make them reflect upon their humanity and what it means to be human.
Also, while I do believe that having yet another film depicting the bad guy/terrorist as a Muslim does have the potential of perpetuating certain negative stereotypes about Islam and Muslims, I feel that the "bad guy" could have just as easily been from any another religious tradition or political ideology and I did not consider it to be offensive or deliberately anti-Muslim and I say this as a Muslim myself.
I was thoroughly engaged till the very end and was left absolutely speechless, staring at the screen. This was only the second time that has happened in my life and I am still absorbing and contemplating what I witnessed.
FINAL RATING: 9/10 hands down. A must watch film for every mature human being. But, I'd advise you to save the snacks until AFTER the credits roll.
The unthinkable is really unthinkable enough?
montera_iulian25 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this movie a couple of hours ago and I had no really major expectations. At the end I must say I enjoyed it and it was a great watch but I'm not so sure about the real message behind the movie.
The story is based on the ways of interrogation, the methods used and the directly result of it. "Younger", played by the well known actor Michael Sheen, sustaines that he has 3 nuclear bombs placed in 3 different cities across the U.S. territory. In order to reveal their locations he demands two things: one is that the U.S. Gov. won't further support financially or military any other puppet regimes or dictatorships in Islamic nations and the second is that the president will withdraw all the U.S. forces from all the Islamic countries. Of course, his purpose is not only that but to prove that the world is selfish, incoherent and self-destructive. Now I agree with almost all of that but why every movie that is based on terrorism must be about Islam? Why in every movie we need to condemn only the U.S.? There's not just the U.S. Gov. that enslaves other countries and there aren't just Muslim terrorists. It bothers me because it's such a cliché and it lowers my rating for the plot.
Samuel L Jackson delivers a strong, powerful and yet disturbing performance as an self-contracted interrogator who's social life is common to any other usual person despite his methods used in interrogating terrorists or spies. He decides that fizical and physical torture is the best weapon that he could use against a world where "we're afraid and they're not, we doubt and they believe". Despite his torture "Younger" still won't reveal the locations so "H" decides that is time to step up and do the unthinkable which after killing Younger's wife in front of him is to torture his kids in his presence. Along this on-going questioning and torturing sits H's opposite agent Helen Brody played surprisingly good by actress Carrie Anne Moss. She is convinced that even in times when you have no times so you appeal to no-limit situations we still have to remain humans even if that costs us 10 million lives.
This is where the question really stays: In such a situation would someone in this world saved 2 kids by letting other 10 million people being killed? I don't think there's a person in this world who would do that because it's illogical. Now the movie itself wants to send out a clear message. I don't know if it's just a tool of manipulation and all that but I don't want judge it based on my opinions of the world and conspiracies so I will judge it as it is, as the movie it is. It sends out two different messages: one is that sometimes the human beings during some critical situations tend to stop being that human and would do anything to survive, even the unthinkable but also that if the will of the enemy is strong enough even the unthinkable and the inhuman methods won't solve the critical situations that we might one day (hopefully not) face, proving that the inhuman methods aren't always the best methods.
Now enough with the story itself and the acting which were handled very well, the movie was edited pretty good for a low budget flick. The cinematography was good and there was no meaning in a great soundtrack or score to the movie simply because for me it was intense enough. The movie is delivered and the story is well built, the acting is strong so I'd give it a nice Must-See for 2010.
The story is based on the ways of interrogation, the methods used and the directly result of it. "Younger", played by the well known actor Michael Sheen, sustaines that he has 3 nuclear bombs placed in 3 different cities across the U.S. territory. In order to reveal their locations he demands two things: one is that the U.S. Gov. won't further support financially or military any other puppet regimes or dictatorships in Islamic nations and the second is that the president will withdraw all the U.S. forces from all the Islamic countries. Of course, his purpose is not only that but to prove that the world is selfish, incoherent and self-destructive. Now I agree with almost all of that but why every movie that is based on terrorism must be about Islam? Why in every movie we need to condemn only the U.S.? There's not just the U.S. Gov. that enslaves other countries and there aren't just Muslim terrorists. It bothers me because it's such a cliché and it lowers my rating for the plot.
Samuel L Jackson delivers a strong, powerful and yet disturbing performance as an self-contracted interrogator who's social life is common to any other usual person despite his methods used in interrogating terrorists or spies. He decides that fizical and physical torture is the best weapon that he could use against a world where "we're afraid and they're not, we doubt and they believe". Despite his torture "Younger" still won't reveal the locations so "H" decides that is time to step up and do the unthinkable which after killing Younger's wife in front of him is to torture his kids in his presence. Along this on-going questioning and torturing sits H's opposite agent Helen Brody played surprisingly good by actress Carrie Anne Moss. She is convinced that even in times when you have no times so you appeal to no-limit situations we still have to remain humans even if that costs us 10 million lives.
This is where the question really stays: In such a situation would someone in this world saved 2 kids by letting other 10 million people being killed? I don't think there's a person in this world who would do that because it's illogical. Now the movie itself wants to send out a clear message. I don't know if it's just a tool of manipulation and all that but I don't want judge it based on my opinions of the world and conspiracies so I will judge it as it is, as the movie it is. It sends out two different messages: one is that sometimes the human beings during some critical situations tend to stop being that human and would do anything to survive, even the unthinkable but also that if the will of the enemy is strong enough even the unthinkable and the inhuman methods won't solve the critical situations that we might one day (hopefully not) face, proving that the inhuman methods aren't always the best methods.
Now enough with the story itself and the acting which were handled very well, the movie was edited pretty good for a low budget flick. The cinematography was good and there was no meaning in a great soundtrack or score to the movie simply because for me it was intense enough. The movie is delivered and the story is well built, the acting is strong so I'd give it a nice Must-See for 2010.
Really enjoyed it
weemonk26 May 2010
What can I say? I'd heard nothing about this film until I had a look at some reviews on here, sounded like something which might be my cup of tea and had a decent cast......what a good film.
I have no idea why people have watched this and called it propaganda - it's a film! Granted, the subject matter is realistic and presents a scenario which could have already happened or could happen in the future. The film is very clever for this reason as it makes you ask yourself (or whoever you are viewing with) lots of questions. What would you deem as moral/acceptable? How far would you go to save the lives of thousands? Should we be governed by laws when dealing with people who have none?
Anyway....I'm not entering the debate but, for the fact this film gets you thinking and asking questions, it's a cleverly scripted film. It's also a tense and thrilling ride as you watch the events play out.
The cast all do a fine job with their parts and the direction is very good. Yes the film has some brutal scenes but it's all part and parcel to draw you in.
It's not often nowadays that you watch a film and have to think afterwards to fully appreciate the fact that you've just been entertained and watched something good....and that's what 'Unthinkable' manages to do.
Regardless of what film genre you're in to, this is definitely worth a look if you appreciate good cinema.
I have no idea why people have watched this and called it propaganda - it's a film! Granted, the subject matter is realistic and presents a scenario which could have already happened or could happen in the future. The film is very clever for this reason as it makes you ask yourself (or whoever you are viewing with) lots of questions. What would you deem as moral/acceptable? How far would you go to save the lives of thousands? Should we be governed by laws when dealing with people who have none?
Anyway....I'm not entering the debate but, for the fact this film gets you thinking and asking questions, it's a cleverly scripted film. It's also a tense and thrilling ride as you watch the events play out.
The cast all do a fine job with their parts and the direction is very good. Yes the film has some brutal scenes but it's all part and parcel to draw you in.
It's not often nowadays that you watch a film and have to think afterwards to fully appreciate the fact that you've just been entertained and watched something good....and that's what 'Unthinkable' manages to do.
Regardless of what film genre you're in to, this is definitely worth a look if you appreciate good cinema.
Torture is justifiable sometimes. Discuss.
krigler3 June 2010
"Unthinkable" is an argumentative essay on torture coated in a thriller. Samuel L. Jackson goes Jack Bauer on a Muslim terrorist (who, possibly in the name of political correctness, is a Caucasian American) to "find out where the bomb is". And, of course, "damn it, we're running out of time!" Meanwhile, Carrie Ann Moss plays "the reason character", representing the sane part of the audience, arguing that using torture on them means the terrorists have won. A premise several films and a handful of TV shows have explored in the past few years in detail.
The narrative proceeds in a clear and obvious trajectory, meaning there are no big surprises along the way, every twist and turn are visible far ahead. This is not to say the film is without tension, it's just once the characters are established, the story does not have anywhere to go but the predictable path. What make the movie a worthwhile watch are the performances. Although Jackson basically plays himself - which is always entertaining - Michael Sheen's acting is very sinister and suggestive, while subtle. The rest of the cast are doing a great job too.
Photography and directing are top notch, although that is to be expected from a production this size. Sometimes it's good to hear both sides of an issue, even if it's a grave one like the former US government's endorsement of torture. If it comes in the form of a well-paced, albeit not very surprising narrative, all the better. "Unthinkable" manages not to be too heavy handed and preachy, and that's welcome.
The narrative proceeds in a clear and obvious trajectory, meaning there are no big surprises along the way, every twist and turn are visible far ahead. This is not to say the film is without tension, it's just once the characters are established, the story does not have anywhere to go but the predictable path. What make the movie a worthwhile watch are the performances. Although Jackson basically plays himself - which is always entertaining - Michael Sheen's acting is very sinister and suggestive, while subtle. The rest of the cast are doing a great job too.
Photography and directing are top notch, although that is to be expected from a production this size. Sometimes it's good to hear both sides of an issue, even if it's a grave one like the former US government's endorsement of torture. If it comes in the form of a well-paced, albeit not very surprising narrative, all the better. "Unthinkable" manages not to be too heavy handed and preachy, and that's welcome.
The price of keeping our way of life
abermans24 May 2010
Watched it last night and was really impressed. This is the sort of film that gets you thinking about your own moral grounds... how far would you have gone in order to save 1000s of lives. The story is simple, realistic and very current which makes it really efficient. I do believe this sort of threat by a single/small independent group of terrorists getting hold of a dirty bomb is the one we should all be loosing sleep over.
It does require a fairly strong stomach and will get some people uneasy with some of the torture scenes but this is exactly the purpose of the film.
The acting by the lead roles is superb - both Jackson and Moss are playing at the top of their game. While the storyline is not likely to be politically popular and therefore I will be surprised if we'll see many awards headed up this film's way. Still, hats off for memorable roles for both of them.
I don't think that everybody can watch this film, I doubt my wife could sit through all of it without some serious cringing. The subject of the film however is important enough to suggest that anyone who can tolerate strong violence on the screen should make time to watch the film. While enjoyable it probably not a good word to describe this film, it is surely memorable and impressive.
It does require a fairly strong stomach and will get some people uneasy with some of the torture scenes but this is exactly the purpose of the film.
The acting by the lead roles is superb - both Jackson and Moss are playing at the top of their game. While the storyline is not likely to be politically popular and therefore I will be surprised if we'll see many awards headed up this film's way. Still, hats off for memorable roles for both of them.
I don't think that everybody can watch this film, I doubt my wife could sit through all of it without some serious cringing. The subject of the film however is important enough to suggest that anyone who can tolerate strong violence on the screen should make time to watch the film. While enjoyable it probably not a good word to describe this film, it is surely memorable and impressive.
Movies are an alternate reality
sjmutchie25 May 2010
I'm beginning to get sick of people comparing movies to reality. Yes, reality does inspire these movies, but then people act like reality is going to take movies seriously. YES, it is supporting torture and unusual punishment. YES, it is gruesome, but aren't all movies asking one question: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF-? Don't get your garter in a knot because this movie supports torture. In their reality, (which borderlines ours) they're doing what they think is right. So CALM DOWN.
*exhale* All right, now for the content of the movie: I thought all roles were played extremely well. Sam Jackson never disappoints, and Michael Sheen always excels. It was almost painful for me to watch him be brutally tortured, but the way he said his dialogue, and relayed his character made me want to be the one torturing him.
The scenes are a bit repetitive, yes, but try and find the significance of each scene. How is this torture different from the last one? It keeps me entertained. I found myself wanting to scream out, "WHAT THE-?!" many times, which is a sign that this movie kept me surprised and intently watching.
I would recommend this to anyone with a strong stomach, and no aversion to profanity. What would you do to save your country?
*exhale* All right, now for the content of the movie: I thought all roles were played extremely well. Sam Jackson never disappoints, and Michael Sheen always excels. It was almost painful for me to watch him be brutally tortured, but the way he said his dialogue, and relayed his character made me want to be the one torturing him.
The scenes are a bit repetitive, yes, but try and find the significance of each scene. How is this torture different from the last one? It keeps me entertained. I found myself wanting to scream out, "WHAT THE-?!" many times, which is a sign that this movie kept me surprised and intently watching.
I would recommend this to anyone with a strong stomach, and no aversion to profanity. What would you do to save your country?
Good performances, horrible writing, gratuitous violence, and not really about current torture debates.
lyta198230 May 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Good performances, horrible writing, utterly brutal and for no good reason. Unthinkable was utterly ridiculous in many ways. It was NOT in fact contributing to the torture debate; it was addressing how people might react in a worst case scenario. I think there are people who would feel differently about torturing a person who has admitted to setting nuclear bombs that would kill millions of people in three days time than torturing *suspected* terrorists, who *might* possess information on *possible* future terrorist actions. No matter how you stand on the matter, I think most people would agree these two very different situations warrant separate discussions. This movie is the political version of Armageddon, The Day After Tomorrow, and Zombie World (though Zombie World had far better writing).
Samuel L. Jackson rocks as usual, but his character is as monstrous as you'd expect. Though he makes a couple OK arguments in his defense. It's more difficult to judge his actions because we see him in an extreme worst case scenario, not any of the real life situations that drive the current torture debate. If it had dealt with some of these situations, the extreme violence may have been used more legitimately. As it is, the violence here is gratuitous and revolting.
To me, the film ultimately came across as very one sided (though I suspect this was not its intent). The biggest problem was the failure to make Yusef/Younger sympathetic in any respect. The actor Michael Sheen has an incredibly emotive face and good acting skills, but the character was just a wretched excuse for a human being and was given no back story to explain his actions. He was written too flat and while I think there are interesting things about him (which I will go into in more depth momentarily), I think these characteristics are accidents; the writers have him act in ways to progress the plot rather than writing out the character and having the plot evolve from him. This is a typical problem with poor writing.
The writers/director try to get the audience on Yusef's side by making his demands reasonable and stating that he loved his country. But in order for a person to be reasonable, his tactics must also be so. And setting up nuclear bombs to kill millions of people is simply not a reasonable. Yusef is also a narcissist. The action is all about him. He is a lone wolf, not working with any legitimate or terrorist organisation. It is *his* demands. Yusef is proud and believes he can fight a just war and right some major wrongs all on his own. Add stupid and naive to the list of character traits as well.
Finally, Yusef's lack of empathy made it hard to empathise with him. The children he murdered at the mall were "martyrs" but when it came to his own children he gave up his convictions to save them. While this may seem like an appropriate fatherly reaction, this made him a hypocrite. If he had allowed his own children to die, at least the audience could find some respect for him. But as it is, he caves. A true appropriate fatherly reaction would have allowed him to empathise with the fathers of his victims, and thus be horrified at his own actions. There is no visible sense of remorse at all in Yusef. There are two instances in the film, where other characters suggest that he may not have been the best father and husband. Again, his actions regarding his children at the end may be more about himself and things that are his than about any true humanity within him. It is a similar logic framing his reaction to the wrongs done to *his* country and *his* religion. Offences against his things warrant extreme measures, i.e. killing millions or abandoning his ideals.
It might have helped to sympathise with him if the audience new somethings about his conversion to Islam and his experiences in the Middle East. We are given no details about what particularly is bothering him so much as to legitimate (in his mind) the murder of millions. As it is he's just some a**hole who didn't like Middle East policy so he decided to blow innocent people up. In the end I wanted them to kill his wife and kids, just so maybe I could feel something for the character. But honestly, as disgusting and horrifying as the torture was, I kind of just kept thinking that the character himself was a hypocritical, narcissistic bastard with no empathy for other human beings and who was going to murder millions of people. Making the terrorist a Muslim was a desperate, lame attempt to make the movie politically relevant. He may as well have been a zombie terrorist (might have made the film more interesting).
Ultimately the movie was poorly written, unnecessarily violence and bloody, and rather irrelevant.
Samuel L. Jackson rocks as usual, but his character is as monstrous as you'd expect. Though he makes a couple OK arguments in his defense. It's more difficult to judge his actions because we see him in an extreme worst case scenario, not any of the real life situations that drive the current torture debate. If it had dealt with some of these situations, the extreme violence may have been used more legitimately. As it is, the violence here is gratuitous and revolting.
To me, the film ultimately came across as very one sided (though I suspect this was not its intent). The biggest problem was the failure to make Yusef/Younger sympathetic in any respect. The actor Michael Sheen has an incredibly emotive face and good acting skills, but the character was just a wretched excuse for a human being and was given no back story to explain his actions. He was written too flat and while I think there are interesting things about him (which I will go into in more depth momentarily), I think these characteristics are accidents; the writers have him act in ways to progress the plot rather than writing out the character and having the plot evolve from him. This is a typical problem with poor writing.
The writers/director try to get the audience on Yusef's side by making his demands reasonable and stating that he loved his country. But in order for a person to be reasonable, his tactics must also be so. And setting up nuclear bombs to kill millions of people is simply not a reasonable. Yusef is also a narcissist. The action is all about him. He is a lone wolf, not working with any legitimate or terrorist organisation. It is *his* demands. Yusef is proud and believes he can fight a just war and right some major wrongs all on his own. Add stupid and naive to the list of character traits as well.
Finally, Yusef's lack of empathy made it hard to empathise with him. The children he murdered at the mall were "martyrs" but when it came to his own children he gave up his convictions to save them. While this may seem like an appropriate fatherly reaction, this made him a hypocrite. If he had allowed his own children to die, at least the audience could find some respect for him. But as it is, he caves. A true appropriate fatherly reaction would have allowed him to empathise with the fathers of his victims, and thus be horrified at his own actions. There is no visible sense of remorse at all in Yusef. There are two instances in the film, where other characters suggest that he may not have been the best father and husband. Again, his actions regarding his children at the end may be more about himself and things that are his than about any true humanity within him. It is a similar logic framing his reaction to the wrongs done to *his* country and *his* religion. Offences against his things warrant extreme measures, i.e. killing millions or abandoning his ideals.
It might have helped to sympathise with him if the audience new somethings about his conversion to Islam and his experiences in the Middle East. We are given no details about what particularly is bothering him so much as to legitimate (in his mind) the murder of millions. As it is he's just some a**hole who didn't like Middle East policy so he decided to blow innocent people up. In the end I wanted them to kill his wife and kids, just so maybe I could feel something for the character. But honestly, as disgusting and horrifying as the torture was, I kind of just kept thinking that the character himself was a hypocritical, narcissistic bastard with no empathy for other human beings and who was going to murder millions of people. Making the terrorist a Muslim was a desperate, lame attempt to make the movie politically relevant. He may as well have been a zombie terrorist (might have made the film more interesting).
Ultimately the movie was poorly written, unnecessarily violence and bloody, and rather irrelevant.
The toughest, least compromising movie I have ever seen
taylorb-1529 October 2010
The toughest, least compromising movie I have ever seen. Went straight to video because it was thought, rightly, that the American public couldn't take it. Not for the faint of heart, but if you watch, you will never forget it. And the issues it raises both personally and politically for our country today are terrible and complex. Samuel L. Jackson., Michael Sheen and Carrie-Anne Moss have never been better. Extremely violent but not a moment is gratuitous. Look through your fingers, look away but do not give up on this film. There is an extended version, 90 seconds longer at the end. Don't watch that one, or at least watch the "regular" version first.
What would you do ?
tantaz4 June 2022
The movie isn't about what happens at the end, it's merely about a terrorist and a psychotic interrogator,
Samuel L. Jackson.
I found myself on the side of the interrogator and yelling at the screen to let him do his job.
Samuel L. Jackson plays this part perfectly.
I would do the same as he.
So I ask the question; What would you do in this situation, working for the CIA?
I found myself on the side of the interrogator and yelling at the screen to let him do his job.
Samuel L. Jackson plays this part perfectly.
I would do the same as he.
So I ask the question; What would you do in this situation, working for the CIA?
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
