Review of Unthinkable (2007) by Tom P — 18 Dec 2010

H: That man over there killed 53 people, some of them women and children and yet somehow I am the villian.

Colonel Kerkmejian: You keep your mouth shut, you maniac! You're fucking evil!

H: Oh, and he's not?

H: Now, I remember 15 to 18 pounds of nuclear material missing, can't you fucking count?... 4 1/2 times 3 is 13 1/2... times 4... is 18.

Steven A. Younger, (Sheen) is a captured American Muslim terrorist who has planted 3-nuclear bombs in 3-US cities, and it is Henry Herald "H" Humphries' (Jackson) job to interrogate Younger to locate the bombs. H (he wants to be called) does things other interrogators would never dream of doing, and he has the backing of the government because he gets results.

So you say you've seen movies that made you think. Hmmmm...........Well this one will negate all you have seen in the past. Let's see how you do with torture. Is it justified ? Well, watch and think about it.

Because of the torture aspect, this is probably the most intense movie I have ever watched. Of course, along with the torture is the screaming (sometimes that was me) and the blood and gore factor. Still with us?

The thing that makes this almost really real is that the cast believe all that they are doing, whether it's to stop the torture or let it continue. Still deciding? Keep telling yourself "its only a movie.".

This may be Samuel L. Jackson's finest moment and an Oscar nomination would not surprise me. I was expecting more pontificating from him as he is prone to do. Oh, he did some of it, but it came in spurts and not a long diatribe. And, they made sense too. Does that make sense? Hmmm.... As for Michael Sheen, well, he may have second thoughts about signing on to this type of movie in the future. It's a far cry from playing Britain's Tony Blair or David Frost. A far cry indeed. Carrie-Anne Moss as FBI Agent Helen Brody is new to me and it was fun to see her change sides, change back and then change back again. Cool.

Now, what could it be that would be UNTHINKABLE? That is the title of this movie. Think about it.

The ending didn't surprise me because of what was learned in the almost final scenes. It actually made sense.

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.

The story of a white american muslim, who claims to have planted three nuclear bombs in large cities of the US, threatening to kill millions. He is interrogated and tortured by an 'agent' who uses every possible mean to crack him into revealing the location of the bombs. It's a hard and brutal 'game', which challenges ever possible definition of right and wrong, as well as lawful versus criminal behaviours: how far would you go, based on a 1% chance the the bombs really exist and may kills millions, to protect those? And when even the most brutal acts of torture don't break your subject, what becomes the next 'unthinkable' boundary of human decency, which marks the difference between the terrorists and the order? Where do you stop? The movie goes really far in asking these questions and - correctly - leaves the answers to each viewer for him/herself.

A convert to Islam sends the U.S. government a tape showing him in three non-descript storage rooms, each of which may contain a nuclear bomb set to detonate in less than a week. Helen Brody, an FBI agent in L.A., is tasked with finding the bombs while a CIA "consultant," known as "H," interrogates the suspect who has allowed himself to be caught. The suspect, whose wife and children have left him and disappeared, seems to know exactly what the interrogation will entail. Even as "H" ratchets up the pressure, using torture over Brody's objection, the suspect doesn't crack. Should "H" do the unthinkable, and will Brody acquiesce? Is any Constitutional principal worth possible loss of life?

A psychological thriller centered around a black-ops interrogator and an FBI agent who press a suspect terrorist into divulging the location of three nuclear weapons sets to detonate in the U.S.