Unspeakable
Unspeakable
R | 01 December 2003 (USA)
Unspeakable Trailers

Despite vocal objections from Warden Blakely, prison psychologist Diana Purlow journeys deep inside the mind of serial killer Jesse Mowat in a desperate attempt to reveal the source of his psychotic tendencies.

Reviews
Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies
Asad Almond A clunky actioner with a handful of cool moments.
Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Lela The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.
td_destinee I thought the story was excellent, I liked the movie a lot. Pavan's story was amazing... it's truly "unspeakable"! Although some might not have liked the movie, but thats up to the director.. if he (thomas wright) hadn't edited so much of Pavan's work then it would have been a smashing hit in the box-office. I'm really excited of Pavan's work. He's displayed a lot of anger and darkness towards his own character that he wrote and played, that's what makes his work more interesting. I love writing too, I think it's a form of escape... from the world ... your own world... his story really appealed to me. A story like his was always in my mind ... amazing. I'd really love to meet him one day... one day ... Keep up the great work!! -taryn
RocketB52 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.
mischka4 Not the best movie I've ever seen but it's not the ABSOLUTE worst either. If some actual time had been put into developing the plot, working on the foreshadowing instead of dropping obvious things in places they obviously didn't belong in, if some of the ideas had been dropped to develop the better ones, than it could have been so much more. However, doesn't happen. The whole issue of the Governor is really just unnecessary. Sure he is the reason she had an abortion and there is an attempt at saying "she's the one because of it" but that could have been time better spent on the character of Mowatt himself. He's no Hannibal (although they try really hard don't they!) because as horrible as Hannibal Lechter is, you come to care about him a bit. She's no Clarice (again, very uncanny resemblances in the performances) and throwing in some psychic abilities, religious capabilities, doesn't change the fact that it is. I also found myself seeing a bit of Brutal Howell but again, not enough to matter. I didn't even care all that much when the guy dies in the beginning, even though they tell us we should. They don't show us. They don't show us anything except an eclectic mess of ideas and they tell you the important parts. I could see the writer developing his talent and over time doing something great but this one isn't it. That said, I didn't pay to watch it. I caught it late night on a movie channel and it's not so terrible that you wouldn't want to watch it if there wasn't anything else on but it would be a cold day before I'd pay any money to own it. It would insult the real movies in my case...
dvvidpro I haven't met Dr. Grover, nor do I have any association with any of the publicists for this movie.Just thought I'd be clear on this since so many of you seem to think that Grover has intentionally padded these pages with praises for his film.That said...Many of you take the time to truly watch a movie while some of you obviously just "FFW to the good parts".I have several comments about the movie since I've just watched it (after reading all the negative stuff by the way) and found it very interesting. I say interesting because you really have to use your brain on this one. It doesn't "spell it out" for you. If you want something spelled out, watch Elm Street or Jason ("Blood guts and gore galore" should have been the tag for those movies).Although there were some "problems" in this film, consider this. It was his first film. Anyone remember THX-1138???? Lucas' first film (technically... since he made it originally during film school, and re-made it later) Was strange to say the least. Who knew at the time that he would pump out such films as American Graffiti or Star Wars.I remember on May 24th 1977 that a certain "unnamed" movie critic said Star Wars was "poorly scripted mindless drivel that will fail miserably at the box office". May 25th 1977 - today (almost 30 years later) that man has been proved wrong. If I remember correctly, he was fired by the network affiliate he worked for for destroying their ratings.I'm not saying that Grover has the next "Star Wars" up his sleeve, but who knows.Production value, acting, sound, lighting, editing, continuity, blah, blah blah, blah blah. Have any of you actually made, or even worked on a Film? I would have to guess, "no" would be the answer. I have, and it's not an easy task. This made even more difficult by the short shooting schedule, small budget, etc...Some of you made comments about how the Warden and the prison were portrayed. Someone wrote. "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". These portrayals were actually quite accurate. Remember when Hopper took the gun from the guard? In a prison or jail situation NO ONE TAKES A FIREARM INTO LOCK DOWN!!!! That's why Hopper said he was in violation, and also why he (Mowatt) wouldn't have been shot on sight instead of being thrown to the ground multiple times. Also, the beating, and the situation was mild compared to the reality of prison. As far as the foul mouthed warden... Come on, lets be real here, many wardens are foul mouthed. I know all of this because I'm adapting the autobiography of a police officer who spent several years as a guard in a Texas prison into a screenplay. I discovered that he was advised by his attorney to delete certain things because of the possible scandal and lawsuits that would ensue.If you truly watch this movie, and use your brain, everything makes sense. Yes, even the bug in Hoppers head. And though there is a motion to repeal the death penalty in New Mexico, as far as I know it is still an option in that state even though it is by lethal injection. But, I understand this in the filmmakers mind. Being "shot up" is not as visually stimulating as "being fried".Someone else wrote. "The mysterious serial killer Jesse Mowatt's unusual "abilities", perhaps supernatural abilities, and just what or who he is, are never adequately explained". They didn't need to be explained! They just were, and because of the circumstances of the story they never will be fully explained as far as the surviving characters are concerned."There is something incredibly wrong with the Hollywood system". Just to remind everyone, this film was produced OUTSIDE of the Hollywood System. Someone at MGM must have liked it because they distributed it. And, if you think getting a film distributed is easy, go to one of the big name film festivals and ask some of the hundreds of filmmakers how easy it is. That is, if you can get between them and the studio people they are accosting with DVD's, treatments, scripts, etc.Enough ranting for now.Keep the dream... Live it when you can...