This was a pretty decent movie, based on our times in the 2010s, dealing with radicalization and terrorism - and how it may, or may not be countered.The acting was fine throughout - and in particular Michael Sheen as the terrorist. I was wondering where he had gone after his great roles as Brian Clough, Tony Blair and David Frost. For me, this was a great come-back.I was drawn to compare this film to "Eye in the Sky", another film concerning the morality of decisions that have to be taken in our modern world of terrorism and counter terrorism. I think "Eye in the Sky" is superior in many ways and highly recommend it if you haven't seen it. Having said that, "Unthinkable" remains a film deserving attention, even if it is rather linear in its treatment.

After an Islamic terrorist by the name of "Stephen Arthur Younger" (Michael Sheen) is captured by local police at a shopping mall it is discovered that he has planted at least 3 nuclear bombs that are set to explode in a few days in at least 3 American cities. This results in the military taking over the investigation and beginning their interrogation of him. However, since time is of the essence the State Department sends in an expert named "Henry H. Humphries" (Samuel L. Jackson) to obtain this information from him and he is allowed to use almost any methods necessary. Also with him is an FBI agent by the name of "Helen Brody" (Carrie-Anne Moss) who doesn't condone some of his tactics--which Henry uses to his advantage. However, when the deadline fast approaches Henry goes even further and this results in all kinds of difficulty for everyone involved. Now, in my opinion, this film revolves around the question of how far should a civilized society go to extract information from a person who is intent on killing innocent men, women and children without any regard for basic human decency? And if the answer to that question is that there are no limits then the conclusion becomes—at least from this film's perspective—that civilized society in question is actually no better than the terrorist. However, it could also be argued that a person who is willing to kill so indiscriminately and with no regard for his victims is actually no better than an animal and therefore has no right to be treated with respect or civility. Be that as it may, this film might provoke a totally different response on the part of the viewer and if that is the case then I totally respect that as well. In any case, this was an interesting movie and I have rated it accordingly. Above average.

The film portrays the US military as incompetent fools and the FBI agent questioning whether torture is really necessary to reveal where a terrorist has hidden 3 nuclear bombs in US cities. Frankly if this scenario ever came to pass, any sane President would give an order to get the information whatever it takes. I would have all the US military as portrayed in the film relieved of their commands at once and have Jackson's H go to work on the terrorist with a blowtorch and hot needles. With 20 million lives at stake I cannot imagine what moral dilemma this poses and I could easily do it myself and burn the kids limbs off in order to get the information. As for the female FBI agent with morality issues, what the hell is she doing there anyway, apart from telling us torture doesn't work. Actually it does, just ask Liam Neeson in Taken.

Most reviewers (pro and con) miss the real point of this excellent movie....it's not really about the bomber or the torturer. We can't see ourselves as either (I hope). But we could be any of the surrounding cast of characters. And if that was you, what would you do?1) Walk away? Some did. 2) Support the torture? Some did. 3) Stop the torture? Some tried. 4) Both support & oppose the torture? Some did.And you? What would you have done as (? insert name ?)?And me? Probably # 2. And Hillary? Donald? Bernie? Ted?Sadly, this scenario has probably played itself out already (Abu Graib?). And more sadly, will again.