I tried To Like It...
Added 7/24/2009
With the star-talent involved in this movie, I thought "how bad could it possibly be?". I mean, Dennis Hopper (House Of 9, Land Of The Dead)? Dina Meyer (Starship Troopers, Saw 1-3)?? Lance Henriksen (Aliens, Near Dark, Pumpkinhead)??? Jeff Fahey (Psycho 3)???? How could it miss? Well, it crashed and burned in spectacular fashion! As the prison warden, Hopper does his best William Shatner immitation, only louder w/ a fake, hick accent! Meyer's psychologist was a dippy whimp! Henriksen showed up in a walking coma! Fahey made me believe that trees can talk! As for Pavan Grover's "Mowatt" character, he's supposed to be a serial-killer w/ psychic abilities, but alas, he looks too much like Rambo w/ Elvis hair to be taken seriously! UNSPEAKABLE has managed to be as godawful as THE HAPPENING, and that's no easy task! Sheesh...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Superb Acting
Added 6/29/2008
Dennis Hopper is Dennis Hopper...nothing more need be said ... he is always great. But, Pavan Grover took the movie and made it his own. Regardless of some other reviewers, I think he was great. The range of his acting was vast ... from revoltingly hostile to gently seductive. We will all be seeing a lot more of him. Now, the movie ... scary, a bit predictable but a great way to spend an afternoon.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
respect the effort, detest the result
Added 7/16/2007
This film tells the story of a scientist Dr. Purlow (Dina Meyers) who tried to use a radical (and somewhat farfetched) medical/scientific technology to "read" (for lack of a better term) the human mind. Though her efforts to use this on a human subject are initially rebuffed by the Governor (Jeff Fahey) with whom she was once romantically involved (which is almost a believable and nearly a relevant premise), she is finally able to test this on a captured serial murderer named Jesse Mowatt (Pavan Grover). During this process of neural/psycho-navigation, Dr. Purlow begins to increasingly suspect that Mowatt is something more than just a psychopath - he might even be a well of pure evil, with telepathic powers and perhaps even supernatural elements. O-kay...
I have two opinions on this film which may seem somewhat incompatible, at least at face value:
On the one hand, there is my strident dislike for this utter piece of crap movie. It is a weak, unimaginative, and poorly executed film - most particularly regarding the writing, directing, and acting, which is especially unfortunate in terms of the latter aspect because there is some talent among its cast (except for the lead actor, Pavan Grover, who also happens to be the writer and producer). Dennis Hopper is a distinguished actor who is capable of both handling complicated roles and effectively defining character archetypes. In this film however, he is reduced to over-the-top profanities and being a one-dimensional caricature which crosses into high camp, without the pizzazz. Dina Meyers (hubba hubba) may not be the greatest actress ever born, but she is consistently solid in her performances, as well as being gentle on the eyes. However, she cannot save what is a marginally written and poorly directed pile of offal. Lance Henriksen makes an appearance in the film as well. He is a talented character actor with a unique and effective presence (usually) as well as a wealth of experience, but he is basically on auto-pilot through the film's lame script and sub par direction. Tom Keogh's remarkably inaccurate and useless editorial review for Amazon.com is a disservice for those looking for the film that simply does not stand up to his misleading description.
But the star of the film and a main source of its most glaring weaknesses - is Pavan Grover, who got the job because of his intimate relationship with the producer and writer. Actually, I don't have a problem with this (self-nepotism?) approach; if someone organizes and produces and arranges the financing for a film, then it is certainly their prerogative to cast whomever they like - including themselves. And, there is a modicum of logic to the notion that someone so familiar with the script might have an advantage as an actor (Leigh Wannell did an adequate if not impressive acting job in his role in SAW). This is an effective approach only if the individual has any shred of talent as an actor, or if they are at least cast in a role for which they are not so remarkably ill-suited. Grover is neither. He has seemingly little or no ability as an actor, and is a dreadful choice for a role in which either a fair amount of ability and/or a considerable presence is required. What little "acting" manages to clunk forth from him must have come from the Derrick Zoolander school of theater villainy (mugging for the camera with a shifty-eyed, brooding smirk). For a guy whose character is supposedly so sublimely and purely evil that it portends a possible involvement of the supernatural, Grover instead just comes off more like a model pouting because they're out of his favorite brand of conditioner. He isn't menacing or ominous, and certainly isn't scary; just unintentionally comical and annoyingly creepy in his listless portrayal. In the film projects I have been involved with, I prefer to forego major acting roles myself because I am really not much of an actor. That's not to say Grover couldn't effectively portray a menacing villain in a film. There are roles in which he might be able to pull off adequately, provided they are better suited to his look and abilities. In spite of his apparent limitations at acting, he is certainly an intelligent man.
The other opinion I have about this film deals with my grudging respect for Grover, who is actually a doctor by training, but followed his dream of film-making and has been able to put together a feature-film project as a writer and producer - not to mention as the story's main antagonist ... too bad he sucks at 2 of these things (I hope for the sakes of his patients and his malpractice insurance provider he was a better doctor). Still, I have to respect the considerable effort if not the result. Grover's example is inspirational, not only to those of us who want to (or have) had a hand in film-making, but as encouragement that making something so awful can actually get a distribution deal.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
scary bad
Added 6/29/2007
What do you get when you take the storyline of the silence of the lambs, add one-dimensional characters, bad dialog, bad acting and a tacked on political message? Unspeakable.
1 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
A great idea, but...
Added 4/20/2006
Because I've heard excellent things about the actor/director of 'Unspeakable,' I hate to give it a low rating. But I was sorely disappointed at the lack of plot development. The idea behind the film, that of unravelling the mystery behind a twisted serial killer's mind, is compelling. However, none of the film's elements receive enough attention. The acting is good, but the script contains predictable and uninteresting dialogue. I expect a psychological thriller to engage my mind. This film fails to delve deeply enough into its plot to do that.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
I tried To Like It...
Added 7/24/2009
With the star-talent involved in this movie, I thought "how bad could it possibly be?". I mean, Dennis Hopper (House Of 9, Land Of The Dead)? Dina Meyer (Starship Troopers, Saw 1-3)?? Lance Henriksen (Aliens, Near Dark, Pumpkinhead)??? Jeff Fahey (Psycho 3)???? How could it miss? Well, it crashed and burned in spectacular fashion! As the prison warden, Hopper does his best William Shatner immitation, only louder w/ a fake, hick accent! Meyer's psychologist was a dippy whimp! Henriksen showed up in a walking coma! Fahey made me believe that trees can talk! As for Pavan Grover's "Mowatt" character, he's supposed to be a serial-killer w/ psychic abilities, but alas, he looks too much like Rambo w/ Elvis hair to be taken seriously! UNSPEAKABLE has managed to be as godawful as THE HAPPENING, and that's no easy task! Sheesh...
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Superb Acting
Added 6/29/2008
Dennis Hopper is Dennis Hopper...nothing more need be said ... he is always great. But, Pavan Grover took the movie and made it his own. Regardless of some other reviewers, I think he was great. The range of his acting was vast ... from revoltingly hostile to gently seductive. We will all be seeing a lot more of him. Now, the movie ... scary, a bit predictable but a great way to spend an afternoon.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
respect the effort, detest the result
Added 7/16/2007
This film tells the story of a scientist Dr. Purlow (Dina Meyers) who tried to use a radical (and somewhat farfetched) medical/scientific technology to "read" (for lack of a better term) the human mind. Though her efforts to use this on a human subject are initially rebuffed by the Governor (Jeff Fahey) with whom she was once romantically involved (which is almost a believable and nearly a relevant premise), she is finally able to test this on a captured serial murderer named Jesse Mowatt (Pavan Grover). During this process of neural/psycho-navigation, Dr. Purlow begins to increasingly suspect that Mowatt is something more than just a psychopath - he might even be a well of pure evil, with telepathic powers and perhaps even supernatural elements. O-kay...
I have two opinions on this film which may seem somewhat incompatible, at least at face value:
On the one hand, there is my strident dislike for this utter piece of crap movie. It is a weak, unimaginative, and poorly executed film - most particularly regarding the writing, directing, and acting, which is especially unfortunate in terms of the latter aspect because there is some talent among its cast (except for the lead actor, Pavan Grover, who also happens to be the writer and producer). Dennis Hopper is a distinguished actor who is capable of both handling complicated roles and effectively defining character archetypes. In this film however, he is reduced to over-the-top profanities and being a one-dimensional caricature which crosses into high camp, without the pizzazz. Dina Meyers (hubba hubba) may not be the greatest actress ever born, but she is consistently solid in her performances, as well as being gentle on the eyes. However, she cannot save what is a marginally written and poorly directed pile of offal. Lance Henriksen makes an appearance in the film as well. He is a talented character actor with a unique and effective presence (usually) as well as a wealth of experience, but he is basically on auto-pilot through the film's lame script and sub par direction. Tom Keogh's remarkably inaccurate and useless editorial review for Amazon.com is a disservice for those looking for the film that simply does not stand up to his misleading description.
But the star of the film and a main source of its most glaring weaknesses - is Pavan Grover, who got the job because of his intimate relationship with the producer and writer. Actually, I don't have a problem with this (self-nepotism?) approach; if someone organizes and produces and arranges the financing for a film, then it is certainly their prerogative to cast whomever they like - including themselves. And, there is a modicum of logic to the notion that someone so familiar with the script might have an advantage as an actor (Leigh Wannell did an adequate if not impressive acting job in his role in SAW). This is an effective approach only if the individual has any shred of talent as an actor, or if they are at least cast in a role for which they are not so remarkably ill-suited. Grover is neither. He has seemingly little or no ability as an actor, and is a dreadful choice for a role in which either a fair amount of ability and/or a considerable presence is required. What little "acting" manages to clunk forth from him must have come from the Derrick Zoolander school of theater villainy (mugging for the camera with a shifty-eyed, brooding smirk). For a guy whose character is supposedly so sublimely and purely evil that it portends a possible involvement of the supernatural, Grover instead just comes off more like a model pouting because they're out of his favorite brand of conditioner. He isn't menacing or ominous, and certainly isn't scary; just unintentionally comical and annoyingly creepy in his listless portrayal. In the film projects I have been involved with, I prefer to forego major acting roles myself because I am really not much of an actor. That's not to say Grover couldn't effectively portray a menacing villain in a film. There are roles in which he might be able to pull off adequately, provided they are better suited to his look and abilities. In spite of his apparent limitations at acting, he is certainly an intelligent man.
The other opinion I have about this film deals with my grudging respect for Grover, who is actually a doctor by training, but followed his dream of film-making and has been able to put together a feature-film project as a writer and producer - not to mention as the story's main antagonist ... too bad he sucks at 2 of these things (I hope for the sakes of his patients and his malpractice insurance provider he was a better doctor). Still, I have to respect the considerable effort if not the result. Grover's example is inspirational, not only to those of us who want to (or have) had a hand in film-making, but as encouragement that making something so awful can actually get a distribution deal.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
