Unspeakable

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'.

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

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.

The script turns somersaults.. At first, it looks like an extra-ordinary script, involving the lead actors very late. But it turns out that there are good reasons why a screenwriter ought to introduce at least one main character from the very beginning. It takes about 45 minutes until you know in which direction the movie wants to go or wants you to go. I couldn't follow and didn't really want to.

Great cast, especially the female leading role (who slightly reminded me of Naomi Watts) and some good dialogue. At least I watched it to the very (bitter) end. As I work in a videostore with a huge choice of movies to watch, this is quite a compliment. 4 of 10.

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...