Unleashed is a movie with a premise so ridiculous you can't help but wonder if it's not some kind of secret genius. The central idea of the film is that a man has been raised as a dog, to be obedient and meek when collared and an unstoppable killing machine when let off the "leash" (There is no leash. It's a collar. The movie should be called "Uncollared." It's leash free. Where's the fucking leash?) Leave alone the fact that this is completely implausible unless the person in question were some kind of idiot-savant (A Rain-Man of kicking ass, as it were. "What channel is Wapner on? Someone get us some fucking Wapner or we're all going to die!") which this character isn't, really. Leave alone the fact that the guy was apparently taught Kung Fu despite NEVER MEETING ANYONE WHO KNOWS KUNG FU. Leave aside the fact that slavery is a broken economic system. The movie proceeds to pile on more ridiculousness. Like a mob boss who borrows from a small-time loan shark and then orders a hit on the guy for collecting (Doesn't money usually flow DOWN the criminal pyramid? Since when did Michael Corleone borrow money from Superfly and refuse to pay him back. What?!) Like a piano tuner who finds a strange man collapsed in a pool of his own blood, and instead of taking him to the hospital brings him home to meet his 18 year old step-daughter. (This is ENGLAND! SOCIALIZED MEDICINE!) Like an underground "Fight to the death" ring that gives the fighters $30,000 a win, which is not a lot of money to risk your life for, all things considered.
The movie goes so far off the scale of believability that you have to either say "Okay, this is obviously like a metaphor and shit" or you have to take the DVD out of the player and set it on fire. I'm not sure which is the correct reaction. I haven't finished the movie yet. But I do wonder how much of a "leash" we should give works of fiction in these cases. If something is balls to the wall ludicrous do you discount it or do you trust the artists to do something interesting with it and make a valid point?
I tend to point and laugh, but I'm a cynical bastard who nobody loves, and it's not necessarily the right way to go. Personally I've found that giving the benefit of the doubt provides the best entertainment result, while skepticism is more often correct. It's an interesting question in life, do you risk looking the fool in the pursuit of the best possible outcome or do you cut through bullshit in pursuit of truth even if you end up missing out because of it?