Unspeakable (2002) User Reviews

Over The Top Hopper

[tarbosh22000 · 5/10 · 12 May 2010]

"Unspeakable" is a laughable but entertaining horror\thriller.

The Plot: Jesse Mowatt (Pavan Grover) is a serial killer who is sent to the toughest prison in New Mexico. The Warden (Hopper) is one mean guy who spouts lines like "I am God!". The only person who could save him (I don't know why someone would do that but okay...) is Diana Purlow (Meyer) a scientist who has a device that can look into people's minds. Does she find the truth?

This movie is hilarious! Dennis Hopper goes so over the top you can't believe it. He also has a couple more "great" lines like ("I want to kill a hundred times over!" and "I want to grind your bones!") Meyer goes through the motions. Grover, who also wrote this mess, is very self-absorbed in the role. Fahey and Lance both make cameo appearances and they put in their usual good work. The ending is completely ridiculous. It involves ghosts, Fahey's character and abortion.

Overall, if you want to laugh, watch "Unspeakable".

For more insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com

You got that right

[blanche-2 · 3/10 · 5 November 2009]

The title is totally correct.

I'll say up front I am not a horror film fan. This film was not advertised as such; the description said it was about a woman trying to get a guilty man to confess. I'm a fan of Dina Meyer's, plus it had Jeff Fahey and Dennis Hopper.

What a bloody mess. I don't know what passes for blood in movies, but whatever it is, probably 90% of the budget went for it. That and raw liver. Yuck.

The story concerns some sort of brain machine that shows thoughts on a computer, that is used to study this superman, sort of the devil incarnate, who can exert mind control and is also psychic. One wonders why the Meyer character would have anything to do with this guy. Supposedly the woman realizes they are alike. Talk about bad writing. Personally I didn't see it.

Jeff Fahey plays the governor and a former lover of Meyer - actually, he isn't, but that comes out in this story. Back in the '70s, when Jeff Fahey was on One Life to Live, I stepped into an apartment house elevator and there he was. Very sweet, beautiful blue eyes. Twenty years later, I was invited to a reception by the artist Peter Max. As I stepped into the elevator to leave, a laughing, possibly in his cups man and someone else crashed into the elevator. Jeff Fahey. So we must have had some elevator karma.

That wasn't enough to get me through this movie. Trust me.

is he the true evil?

[azila · 4/10 · 3 August 2005]

I saw this movie this noon, and a few, if not many questions, popped out of me. the tag line of this movie was something like "nothing can ever silence the true evil." So it is implied that Jesse Mowatt was the true evil. Then how about the warden? He was something of a sadist and an evil, wasn't he? In the scene where Jesse controlled the warden with his will power and made him commit suicide, it is like indicating that the warden deserved it. if the warden really do, then Jesse Mowatt was doing something good, and it is not up to a "true evil" to do something good, if the story wanted to make a clear story.

Well, what can I say? It is not a impressive movie, even with all its scenes obviously aiming to create sensations, like a worm in the bloody brain, so on. It is a movie that after seeing it , no one would be thinking about it any more, like plain water, after you drink it, you only remember that you drank it, but with no memory of how.

besides, the characters were left unexplored. how big an influence had Mowatt's father left on him? how did Mowatt change from a human to a demon? we were told but not showed. one credit though, the acting was great.

Unwatchable

[A_Roode · 2/10 · 5 January 2006]

Valuable life lesson: You can't always judge a book by its cover. Usually that means beautiful things may be hidden by a ugly exterior. In the case of 'Unspeakable' it is the exact opposite. It actually hurts to write the following review because it pretty much admits I'm a superficial person who was suckered into watching a movie that was stashed in the box and write-up of a much more interesting looking film.

'Unspeakable' is a very nearly perfect storm of bad movie-making. Hampered by any number of problems, one of the worst is a ham-handed anti-capital punishment message that tries to put a human face on the issue. The problem is that it has a lot of competition and 'Unspeakable' does not stand up very well to it. In fact, it doesn't stand up well in a light breeze. Granted many movies aren't going to compare favourably to 'The Green Mile,' but in 'The Green Mile' similar themes are dealt with. Prisoners in 'The Green Mile' are treated compassionately and it becomes deeply effective in decrying capital punishment through the actions of a sadistically incompetent guard. In comparison, every guard in 'Unspeakable' is both sadistic and incompetent. The problem is that the film seems to believe that if one mean guard is good, 100 mean guards will be great. This, I assure you, isn't the case. If you were going for satire it might work. The tragedy (for the film makers -- and comedy for us) is that it takes itself extremely seriously and begins to implode at every opening.

Pavan Grover wrote the screenplay and there are glimpses of good ideas. There is an unfriendly look at religion, the nature of good and evil, the capacity for cruelty and the psychological and philosophical motivations for it. Finding these blurred and hidden themes though isn't worth the effort. There are clever aphorisms scattered like breadcrumbs for Hansel and Gretel but they don't lead anywhere.

I already mentioned 'The Green Mile' and that it is one of at least three superior films that 'Unspeakable' unsuccessfully compares itself to. From 'The Night of the Hunter' comes the tattooed knuckles of love and hate as well as an attempt at the cool charisma and menace of Robert Mitchum. From 'The Silence of the Lambs' there comes a psychiatrist and serial killer playing an information game.

There are many failures that contribute to 'Unspeakable' and its near total collapse. The dialogue is comically horrendous. The music sounds like the theme song for clowns at a carnival and it plays with full comic effect. As weak as the Grover driven script is, the Grover driven performance is even worse. He's dreadful and it spreads through the rest of the cast like a virus. The director needs to take some of the blame for his failure to reign in the actors and the script (although when your lead actor is also the writer and the producer ...). It is a vision less and clunky mess. The only bright light is Lance Henrickson. No matter how bad the film, he always approaches it with stoic and reliable professionalism. I'm amazed he didn't get swept up like Dennis Hopper and Jeff Fahey in the sea of bad things. Fahey turns in at best a bemused performance and is clearly remembering the good old days.

There was an exchange of dialogue near the end of the film between Henrickson and Meyer.

H: "You were really fascinated by him weren't you?" M: "Yeah, grotesquely fascinated. I probably could have studied him for years." H : "Yeah, but at what cost to your psyche?"

That's really what 'Unspeakable' is all about. Yeah, you could watch it. But at what cost to your psyche?

Lance Henrickson is far too good for a movie like this. Dennis Hopper is too good for a movie like this. Dina Meyer is too good for a movie like this. Jeff Fahey, I repeat, Jeff Fahey is too good for a movie like this. And let's be honest: you and I are too good for this. Life is too short. Go hug your kids and promise to protect them from all the bad things in the world. Start with 'Unspeakable' and you could do a lot worse. Take my word for it and avoid this dog at all costs.

This movie B L O W S

[amberbaer · 1/10 · 23 July 2005]

After searching the video store for 10 minutes - I settled onto this little gem of Hollywood barf.

There is no redeeming value to this movie at all - the scenes with the worm coming out of his ear and the one found in dead Dennis Hopper's brain are not even worth the paper that they were written on.

As for using the electric chair in a room full of guards who blindly watch the "warden" go insane, rip his face off, and be autopsied in a matter of hours is so unrealistically stupid that I find myself wanting the actors in this movie to be lined up together and pimp smacked for agreeing to appear in such a piece of drivel~! Writer, Producer, and Star of the movie...what can I say...he has the bad boy looks that Hollywood likes, but he better keep his day job as a doctor in order to have something to fall back on....because there is no way he should ever be allowed to write anything again! And if he does want to write something...collaborate with me, I've had better nightmares after eating Mexican!

A waste on so many levels!

[filmandlife · 1/10 · 2 February 2004]

This film is packaged as a psychological thriller, yet it has no thrills and the depths of the psychology used in the writing are that of a small child's capacity. The plot comes off very silly, and this film is a waste on so many levels. The film had a good dp, good director, a big name, and a good budget. So where did it go wrong, well the writing was terrible filled with cliches and babble and the plot really doesn't go anywhere. It almost seems like it is merely a ego stroke for the guy who is the writer, star, and executive producer. That is a bad combination, note to aspiring film makers... This is what not to do, filmmaking is an art developed through a team. Not an attempt to glorify one's own false perception of him/herself. It is sad when a film so badly gets so much money and produces such a bad product. Imagine 3-7 quality well thought out "true" indies could have been funded for this and they would have given society something. I was shocked to see name actors doing such poor cinema. Hoppers performance was a bit silly also, but I will chalk that up to poor writing. Like Bob Evans said "if ain't on the page it ain't in the picture." I would give this a strong D-, the only reason why it is not an F is it is destined to be a mystery science theatre film due to some accidental laughs. It is also a good learning tool for young filmmakers of what not to do...

GROVER is TERRIBLE!

[strogirl123 · 1/10 · 5 March 2004]

Hello, movie lovers... I, StroGirl (Astro fan to the EXTREME) would like to give my unbiased opinion of UNSPEAKABLE... Yes the movie is unspeakable, unspeakable as to how bad it really is. What makes the movie so bad? Well alot of things, however, all that is bad centers around Dr. Pavan Grover... The shocking thing is that Dr. Grover asked for millions to do this film, just as out of touch with reality as DR. EVIL... He should have asked for billions! Maybe then he could have made something that wasn't so bad... I mean with a billion dollars he could have got every big name in Hollywood to surround his lack of talent. The acting was a joke, especially Grover. Take it from a warm blooded American girl anyone who thinks Grover is hot has got real bad taste, he was creepy and that is just how he is that is not acting. And what is up with his lips? He reminded me of a Simpson's character, maybe a young Mr. Burns. The worst part for me was the fight scenes that looked like something out of a 1970's movie. The writing was absolutely the worst... This is not a horror because it is not scary, not a pyschological thriller because it has no real psychology or thrills, it is bad just bad that is it. I know why I have never seen Grover in a film before he is bad... Furthermore Hopper was terrible too! Maybe Grover rubbed off on him. This is not a spoiler but, some interesting moments to look out for: 1.) During the Mexican carivan scene first the guy drops his gun then a black man in a animal wrangle outfit walks into the shot, real bad editing... kinda funny though... 2.) Grover in the office fight scene is a riot 3.) Any execution scene in the chair is pretty funny too, in one the guys in the background crack up, also I don't think the writer (the Grover-inator)did much research on the electric chair. None of the electri-cuties (NOT!) had their head shaved? I guess Grover was too attached to his big hair to respect realism. There was no sponges... and no hood. Oh and there were like 50 people in the room, I guess the flesh burning smell is good? OH I love it when a writer says "the heck with realism, research, and writing a good script; all I care about are Zoolander-ish shots of me in the lead role." I could go on forever, but some dumb souls will see it, somewhere, sadly...

This guy must have shelled out a lot of money to hire PR shills.

[Aphostile · 10 July 2004]

It's hysterical how so many people have found it to praise this crapola so highly and have the gall to accuse people with OBJECTIVE negative opinions of having some kind of personal problem with this Pavan Grover guy.

I'm a big fan of Lance Henrikson and Hopper. I even fully admit Pavan Grover demonstrated clear acting talent and ability. It's just too bad he didn't decide to stick with what he is good at. He would have been hard pressed to pull a less competent and "Unpraiseworthy" screenplay out of his behind.

The problem with this movie began and ended with that ridiculous screenplay.

It was simply a nonsensical mess, with terrible dialogue that branched out in tons of directions with no development, focus, rhyme or reason.

If cinematography, production value, quality of actors, sound and special effects were all that mattered then it would be a good movie.

Horrible

[ericbailey1966 · 1/10 · 10 July 2012]

This movie was horrible.It was written,produced by a doctor who also acts in this as the killer.I like Dennis Hopper and Lance Henriksen so this is why I watched this movie.Don't waste your time watching this as I did.I expected a decent to average movie considering this movie has a couple well known actors.Dennis Hopper didn't do a very good job acting in this movie.He didn't have much of a script or plot to work with.Jeff Fahey(from Lawnmower Man) barely appears in this movie.Maybe 5 minutes.Pavan Grover is awful as an actor.He should stick to his day job as a doctor.This movie is not scary.It is not much of a psychological thriller as it claims to be either.Dennis Hoppers performance is not riveting either as it claims.Anyone that tells you this is a good movie is lying,doesn't have a clue what a good movie is,or wants you to feel the pain of watching this movie like they experienced.

Should be on WORST EVER list

[steve_skoal · 1/10 · 31 October 2004]

For those of you considering the rental (or god forbid, purchase) of this movie, I have strong advice - DON'T DO IT. This movie should be on the all-time worst list. Where should I start . . . First, the actors in this movie are guilty of phoning-it-in and accepting a paycheck. If you're a Dennis Hopper fan and considering this flick, don't do it. It was determined a long time ago he would appear in ANY movie for cash and this movie is further proof. I suppose the actors shouldn't be condemned completely for their performance, as the writer, director and producers bear the weight of blame.

The dialogue - more often than not, makes no sense. And please don't try to tell me this movie is delivering some sort of powerful message of good vs. evil and the grey area in between. It simply doesn't. It completely relies on clichés, inaccuracies (the death chamber/electric chair is one example) and stereotypes. The gross mistakes and overly clever dialogue (which is in fact, borrowed completely and incorrectly from other, more successful movies) completely distracts from the attempted emotional examination of abortion, death penalty, etc.

Any talk of the "hunk-quality" of the writer/star of this movie should be immediately dismissed. If I were to note the "beauty" of some model in "Beach Bimbos III" I'd be considered a sexist. This person should not be able to make another movie again.

Honestly, what recourse do we have when we buy/rent a product of such inferior quality? With the exception of this site and others we have none. Movies like this piss me off. They promote/promise something they simply don't deliver. And if it were anything else, we could file a complaint with the BBB or return for a refund.

Don't get me wrong, my wife and I enjoy this genre. But this movie just plain sucks. Don't waste your time or money. Don't fall victim like we did. Don't watch this thinking it's an 'indie film' or some sort of psychological thriller. Don't be tempted by the cast. Just don't watch this movie. It's crap and everyone involved in this mess/deception should provide an apology for stealing our time/money.

Appalling

[The_Dead_See · 1/10 · 6 June 2006]

An abysmally bad film. I can't comprehend how they got these reasonable actors to star in such a terribly conceived and executed movie.

The writing and editing is so bad it's as though a big fan blew all their scene index cards around and they just put the film together however they landed. There is no solid plot, nothing at all to hold your interest, no real theme, no cool moments, nothing memorable whatsoever.

I am quite literally stunned. This film goes right onto my worst ever list alongside 'Into the woods','Island of the dead', 'the off season', and most Uli Lommell and Uwe Boll films.

Great Performances

[saiboy108 · 10/10 · 22 March 2004]

What a great film! I loved all the performances in this film. Dennis Hopper always plays a great psychotic character, I always been a fan of Dina Meyer, and she is terrific in this film. I especially liked the actor who played the innocent man on death row, he was very sympathetic, I've seen him before in films, but don't recall his name. One of the main characters, Pavan was very captivating on screen. He acts with his eyes and had the whole bad boy charisma working for me.

So much emotion

[mattkosorok · 7/10 · 29 October 2004]

Dennis Hopper had to have fun with this one. It's clear he didn't take himself too seriously, and that's what really sold his character to me. I though Dina Meyer's performance in this moview was much better than her performance in Starship Troopers.

Lance Henriksen was a hoot. He seemed to have fun in this show. Too bad his Millennium series didn't work out.

Some folks rated this movie low. There were a few terrible parts, but I think the movie as a whole was moderately uncomfortable and rather tense ( which is great for a psychological thriller ). There are some scenes that are a bit goofy, but you can deal with them.

Dennis Hopper's final scene ( I won't wreck it for you here ) was absolutely superb. I was surprised how many recognizable faces were in this show. it's a good flick, and worth your time.

Self Indulgent, Malformed, and Pointless...

[alvarez972 · 1/10 · 29 September 2003]

I was requested to screen a part of this movie (roughly 4/5), and to give my honest review of it. When initially questioning about the film I was interested to see why a film made in 2001 took so long to be purchased, considering it was starring Dennis Hopper and was about serial killers, two appealing qualities? Who was this new actor Pavan Grover who starred in the film. After watching it I had no more questions.

TECHNICALLY: the film was sub par. It appeared like a B movie. The sound was terrible and one of my biggest annoyances was the continuity was unbelievably bad. I thought I was watching dailies, not a finished product. At one point you can see an actor drop his gun, and then the animal wrangler an camera leads a horse of camera.

DIRECTING: uh... I am not one to give directors too much credit, therefore I won't rip him. I don't think he had much to work with.

WRITING: I would be hard pressed to determine what was worse the corny dialogue or the pointless idiotic plot. The script was "unspeakably" drowning in psuedo intellectual psycho babble... And it gets old real quick to anyone with half a brain.

ACTING: Well the acting wasn't bad. Fahey was Fahey and Hopper was Hopper... Although I will give it to Hopper for keeping a straight face while reading terrible lines. Meyer impressed me, I really liked her. It appeared as if there was no thought or time put into casting anyone else and it made the production look amateurish. Pavan Grover the star of the film was laughable, and the character didn't do to much to help. This was this persons first film and I really don't know how he got cast, until I read the credits and I noticed he was the writer and executive producer also. Acting tip 1 yelling real loud doesn't make you a good actor.

CONCLUSION: If this stinker gets released somehow... Don't waste your money... And if someone wants you to go to a free screening, go see GIGLI at the dollar theatre. This is what happens when a void of talent meets a megalomaniac personality.

Embarrassing on Dennis Hopper's part.

[ben_wahlberg · 1/10 · 1 October 2005]

I don't understand what the point of making this movie was. Every part was drug out until it got annoying and boring. Honestly do not even think about renting because of Dennis Hopper's reputation. I know the man can act and he is very good at it, but this movie almost killed him. Honestly he was horrible at being a mean cop and it was overall just annoying. Not to mention Grover's part in the move. This was his big first acting appearance and it was pathetic. The man made a good plot for the movie but when it came down to actors and doing it....he was way in over his head. So all I'm saying is if that you really want to test it, if you really want to see how Bad Dennie Hoppper can be, then go ahead. I warned you.

WASTED $8 on A TERRIBLE FILM...

[ppnelson · 1/10 · 2 April 2004]

Ok... I am on a mission... I am a lover of film, and this movie got a lot of hype. Through research I have found that all the hype is coming from the funder of the film, Pavan Grover. I just wasted $8 bucks on this terrible B rate movie. AND I MEAN TERRIBLE!!! This is just dumb... DON"T BELIEVE A WORD YOU HEAR ABOUT THIS FILM IT IS PROPAGANDA!!! First off the most talked about thing I have heard of is the "realistic" execution scene. Oh my gosh, talk about an over statement... "Realistic?" First off, anyone who claims it to be realistic I would ask them if they had ever seen an electricution? Nope, didn't think so... Basically it was pavan shaking and yelling "AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!" no that is not realism! Furthermore, it was said that he as a film maker didn't have the hood so it would be in your face... Whatever... bad idea... It looks fake and cheezy. Oh and about pavan grover being a film maker... Someone needs to look up the definition on that. Film makers make films. They don't fund movies so they can be the star. In an interview Grover proclaimed "all the odds were against me", yes if you consider he has not talent he is right. But unlike real film makers who don't have rich momies to buy them films, pavan comes off as an ego maniac and a joke. And everyone in my theatre was demanding their money back. The writer of this film, COINCIDENTALLY grover, (first rule of good filmmaking don't cast yourself before the script is even done) did NO RESEARCH!!! And the film comes off very amateurish. However, that is overshadowed by just how bad the acting is and how stupid the dialogue and plot are. BAD BAD BAD!!! DO NOT SEE THIS!!! Don't be fooled this not an "indie" in the true sense of the word this is a rich guy who is obsessed with himself and fame. Fame he will never find, yet he happens to be rich or have rich ties and he is using them to be in movies. I heard it called a Hollywood blockbuster by someone, and i laughed... It only got in 15 theatres, what a joke! I asked a theatre person how it got in and they said quote "i think the guy that made the movie is paying to have it shown." There is a reason why MGM, notorious for buying bad films, didn't put any money behind it. The best thing about the movie is that grover only has about 20 lines, lines that he easily makes look really cheezy.. "Who put the bom in the bom ti bom, Thank ya Thank ya very much" The script had so many holes... Oh I need a pain specialist after watching it... In fact i would go for some electricution right now to put me out of my misery... I think grover should be encouraged to stay with being a doctor... Leave films to artists. It was reported that hopper loved the script and pushed it, however the word i heard from hollywood was that nobody will pass up 300k for a weekend of shooting to have a really small part of a film. I really doubt hopper considers this his best work. Also in a recent interview grover refused to tell the budget... I wonder why... He said "it looks like a 10 million dollar picture, for a fraction of the cost" Well grover will pay a bigger cost, a cost of having a bad movie. I heard the budget was like 4 million... The quality looks like a 1 million dollar film, a wasted 1 million dollars... The film really has no genre.. Not horror, not action, not sci-fi and not thrillers, it is a spoof of a bad film. I hope grover has someone that loves him... who really really loves him... and can slap him around, till his ego falls out of his poofy hair. DON"T WASTE YOUR $8 bucks... BUT IF YOU MUST SEE WHAT ALL THE FALSE PROPAGANDA IS ABOUT DEMAND YOUR MONEY BACK AFTERWARDS!!!

could have used a better editor...

[vhsiv · 23 July 2004]

Just a quick comment...

This is one of those films that I caught about 15 min. late on late-night cable. That missed 15 made all the difference. The clunky exposition - 'Tonight', '3 Days Earlier', etc., etc. - played no part in my first impression, and the film played as a straight jailhouse drama, with LESS ludicrous pseudo-science, fewer superhuman feats perpetrated by the arch-villain.

I was so intrigued that I programmed my Tivo to catch the West Coast feed of the film, and that was the good-bad mistake. This film would have been far more effective if they had eliminated the backstories at the beginning of the film and the wannabe 'Another Heaven' (2000) aspects of the Jesse Mowatt character. The director and the editor overplayed their hands there.

The pluses for this film are that the leads - Dina Meyer, Lance Henrickson, Jeff Fahey and even the writer/actor Pavan Grover turn in acceptable performances. I was especially impressed by Meyer here, in her capacity to convey sympathy, compassion, authority, fear, etc. Dennis Hopper's contribution however, is execrable: his lines are terrible, and he chooses to read them like a 'tough love' southern caricature.

The 'metaphysically-enhanced serial killer' is an overcrowded field. It has been done to death. If anyone is out there writing such stuff, it is best that they limit their palette - too many psychic powers and sci-fi gadgets can put a serious hurt on one's story. Otherwise, this one is well-enough executed, and ironically a full cut above the junk that's habitually ground-out by the SciFi Channel.

If it's a late night or early morning, definitely worth biding one's insomnia by...

5/10

Painful to watch

[mentalcritic · 1/10 · 18 November 2004]

I used to wonder why Dina Meyer was in almost nothing that I saw or heard of after StarShip Troopers. After seeing her appearance in D-Tox, I wondered a little more. Then I saw Unspeakable, and I need wonder no more. To call this a blemish on the resume of the entire cast and crew would be flattering. That a film studio, however independent or hard up for product, read this script and approved it would indicate that there is something incredibly wrong with the Hollywood system.

Dina Meyer plays some kind of psychiatrist who works for a group of advocates wishing to abolish the death penalty. She is basically the glue that holds this film together, because it has absolutely nothing else going for it. Lance Henriksen gets an extended cameo as her senior colleague, who thankfully gets very little to say here. It is Dennis Hopper, however, who gets the most serious beating in this farce.

Hopper has risen to fame in such roles as the sadistic policeman in Blue Velvet or the photographer in Apocalypse Now. In other words, as obnoxious characters that the viewer hopes will get killed in short order. In both of those films, he chewed up the scenery like he was suffering some kind of intestinal worm. By comparison, his performance here makes those ones look restrained. By the time his first scene is over, you will be asking what state leader in their right mind would hire this man to supervise a prison. In spite of Hopper's known tendency to overact, one can't help but lay most of the blame at Thomas J. Wright's feet.

The acting from everyone save Hopper, Meyer, and Henriksen is sadly reminiscent of daytime television. So too is the camera-work, where every frame seems to have a strangely underdeveloped tint that those who viewed Days Of Our Lives episodes from the 1980s will vaguely remember. In simple terms, the film screams cheapness with every fibre of its being, as does the DVD that I've seen it encoded to. If it wasn't for the fact that none of this was even remotely funny, Unspeakable could reside in the same schlock category as Manos: The Hands Of Fate.

The characterisation is another rotten point. Henriksen and Meyer get a couple of dimensions, but Hopper is so one-dimensional that he could have been played as well by a Lucasfilm computer. As he screams his tirades to all and sundry, one has to wonder if the character doesn't come from a hideous fantasy regarding the administrators of prisons dreamed up by a psychotic Michael Moore.

I gave Unspeakable a one out of ten. Don't even bother seeing it once. Its entertainment value is non-existent, along with its replay value. This is one of the few times I have wished for those hundred minutes back.

Unspeakably awful

[sc_taylor · 1/10 · 10 May 2005]

This movie is so utterly terrible I can barely bring myself to comment on it.

It is poorly written, ill conceived, badly acted! Agh. It is a poor imitation of silence of the lambs and even has the "beautiful" caring psychiatrist trying to understand the celebrity serial killer. Spare me such cinematic clichés! The killer is so utterly unconvincing. He looks like some cheesy 80s pop star and exudes nothing but blandness; where is the menace in this guy? And Dennis Hopper?! Wow! What were you thinking man?! Apocalypse Now! Easy Rider! Blue Velvet! Come on! I have seen many many films, but this must rate as the worst ever. If there had been a zero score possible on the voting scale, I would have awarded it. But I had to make do with a "1" - doesn't even come close to a "1"

Blarg! Mongo say BAD! BAAAAAAAAD!

[silfheed · 2/10 · 2 October 2005]

The worst movie I've seen in a very long time, granted I don't deliberately set out to find horrible movies to watch. Banal dialog, callow story telling sense, and (except for Lance Henriksen) tumid acting.. People who make these movies should be throughly castigated. (hey, the movie was terrible. Gotta have fun writing my review..). The first half of the movie is a mess, needlessly jumping around in time 3 days ago, an hour ago. The rest of the movie is filled with drastic over explanation of points the audience throughly comprehends and with 'intelligent dialog' that the majority of viewers actually found intelligent back when they themselves were asking the same questions when they were 9 years old. Pointless, confusing ending (she was the one who was supposed to be able to kill him because she had an abortion?? because..? Abortions are magical, mystical events that empower you to kill the metaphysical metapycho??) The tacky explanation of what happened to everyone after the end of the movie in the This-was-a-true-story manner of simply splashing some text is even more annoying here than in the 'true story' flicks. Production quality was good though ie. the autopsy scene, cinematography in general (cept for the shot-on-video look).

Shameless spoiler. I SAID: SPOILER!

[SeriouslyMike · 3/10 · 29 August 2004]

This is what you get if you have some second-league actors (Henriksen, Fahey, Hopper) and a mentally retarded screenwriter (or American, or American and mentally retarded). I thought it'll be better.

It wasn't. Nothing made sense: bug that got into Hopper's brain from nowhere, a prisoner that should be shot on the spot instead of being repeatedly thrown to the ground and mauled, hallucinations, sexual fascinations, litres of red paint, surviving the electric chair just to be finally shot by the key female character... As someone said here: "unspeakably bad film". Bad with capital, bold, red 'B'. 'B' as in 'budget'.

Fun Fun Fun 'til Daddy Takes Your DVD Player Away

[RocketB52 · 3/10 · 7 August 2006]

Oh, c'mon, everybody, where is the love? First of all, when you slide some title off the shelf that never made it to theatrical release with a cover that features Dennis Hopper staring out at you in all his squinty-eyed, slightly soulful I-Am-a-Raving-Lunatic intensity. . .brace yourself for the possibility that you may be making a terrible mistake.

Since the plot and writing credits have been hashed out already, I wont go into them, except to say I haven't seen so many people frothing at the mouth over a movie since they announced Michael Keaton was playing BATMAN way back in 1989.

Sure very little of it made any sense, but was it fun watching Dennis Hopper rip his own face off? Sure! There was a pretty woman for the men to look at, a hunky guy for the ladies to look at, a decent cast, sadistic prison guards, a crazed warden, bogus science, a corrupt politician, a real electric chair, an autopsy, brain maggots, falling brains. . .my gosh. Fun galore on an evening when you've got nothing better to do. Are these my standards for great movies? No, but I didn't rent this title to see a great movie, or even a good movie. But my idea of a totally irredeemable piece of crap is NAIL GUN MASSACRE. So I'll save my venom. Couple of stars for the rating, at least.

A Different Type of Movie.

[bludyred · 8/10 · 7 October 2004]

I've read a lot of negatives about this film. Some are justified, but there are positives.

It's about time we get some films that don't spoon feed us every little explanation of why things occur and tie it all together neatly in one little package suitable for morons who wish to be entertained instead of made to think. Often the most intriguing aspects of a book or film is what they don't tell us or show us.

Is this film pro or anti death penalty?

Is this film pro or anti abortion?

Is Jesse a saint or a devil?

The people Jesse allegedly killed all had secret sordid/criminal activities in their lives. Did they deserve to die?

Does he dispense justice or is it just retribution for what happened to him as a child?

The lawyer Pitchford talks of chaos or does good and evil balance out?

No easy answers here. The viewer is forced to make their own judgments. I'm reminded of the controversial short story by Harlan Ellison; "Croatoan". Both the pro and anti abortion advocates either praised or condemned it. That story wasn't about abortion; it was about choices, actions and consequences.

So is this film and that is refreshing.

Intriguing Story, Terrible Conclusion

[claudio_carvalho · 6/10 · 1 January 2007]

The scientist Diana Purlow (Dina Meyer) is performing experiments with the mind of criminals sentenced to death in the prison of the sadistic warden Earl Blakely (Dennis Hopper). She tests an apparatus she developed and capable of read minds in a man that claims to be innocent of a murder, but she is not able to convince her former lover and Governor (Jeff Fahey) to call off the execution. When the serial killer Jesse Mowatt (Pavan Grover) is arrested and sentenced to death, she convinces the warden to submit Jesse to her experiment. While working with the murderer, Diana faces pure evil in its essence.

"Unspeakable" is an intriguing story with gore and supernatural elements that unfortunately has a terrible conclusion. In the last five minutes, it is disclosed the character "Alicia", without any previous reference along the story, and I honestly did not understand why Jesse wanted Diana to kill him. For me, this conclusion is absolutely senseless. Further, there is a complete lack of explanation why Jesse had such abilities. Pavan Grover in the role of a diabolic serial killer pays homage to Harry Powell, the serial killer performed by Robert Mitchum in 1955 "The Night of the Hunter", with the words "Love" and "Hate" tattooed in his fingers. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "O Poder da Mente" ("The Power of the Mind")

"Unspeakable"...

[saldomher · 2/10 · 23 July 2006]

The beginning promises a lot, but right after the first five minutes, the movie becomes SLOOOWWW! The movie also puts on the table an interesting dilemma: are God and the Devil the same "being"? It questions weather God is really good, and if so, why does he allow so much pain and suffer in the world? (that sounds interesting!). Unfortunately, the movie does not go any further and, as somebody already commented: it is a straight jail-house drama between a BEAUTIFUL Dr.(Dina Meyer) and a dangerous and supernatural-empowered criminal who claims to be both God and the Devil in flesh and bones!(the actor Pavan Groover who funnily has appeared in only TWO movies!!). Dennis Hooper gives some life to this film with his so-of-him and characteristic acting (the one he has been giving us every since "Texas Chainsaw Massacre II") but it makes it seem rather funny than scary or thrilling at some points. As for the edition, acting, effects, etc. they are not the best. Moreover, it looks cheesy sometimes... and finally, the ending turns out to be...