Pop Critics: Movie Review: “Rendition” (2007)
Steven
· 1 year ago
Come on Jason. You are kidding, right?
Just watched this last night and I agree with you about Jake's performance and the story itself. Pretty predictable except for the trick.
But I am really surprised about your comments about the torture scenes. Unless you have some special training I have to ask if you are kidding about being able to take what they did to him: water boarding, electorcution, solitary confinement in (literally), a hole in a wall, etc. Oh yeah, before that he was he was captured, had a bag put over his head, was interrogated, flown to another country, stripped, beaten, etc., etc.
SPOILER AHEAD . . .
Also, his refusal to give any information? Well, HE DIDN"T HAVE ANY. That's why he wasn't giving any info until he couldn't take it anymore, and then it wasn't accurate and was only given to stop the torture. Any information he did have, like about the ATF (I think) work he did, he gave it to them. He didn't know anything about the person he was being questioned about, so he couldn't answer any questions about it. For all he knew, if he lied, the torture would get worse or he would be killed.
Not the greatest movie, but I would urge anyone who hasn't seen it to take a look.
I'm not saying that I could actually resist those tortures in "real life." I'm saying I could resist those tortures as they were portrayed in the film. They simply didn't look or come across (emotionally) as being very extreme. Perhaps it was the rating of the film or just the overall mood of the movie...I'm not really sure. I just didn't feel as though the character were suffering the gross injustice that I obviously should have felt.
As for the questioning... I disagree. The man is from Egypt and is a world traveler who has contacts all over the globe. He should have been more forthcoming with information especially once they started asking about specific people. If he were really innocent there was no reason not to speak candidly about who he talked to and when he had talked to them. I think the screenplay could have done a much better job of making this man appear more innocent by making him appear to cooperate more. His complete cooperation would have won my sympathy and would have completely changed my opinion of the film.
Steven
· 1 year ago
I see your point to a point :-) This by no means was the dentist scene from Marathon Man, but I think they depicted sufficiently terrible tortures to get their point across. Moreover, Gyllenhaal's performance could have made a difference in this area had he showed some emotion.
I think the filmmakers were trying to keep open the slight possibility that Anwar may have been a terrorist or sympathizer until Gyllenhaal's character Googles the information he provided. That was a mistake on their part. They should have made it absolutely clear from the start that he was innocent.
That being said, I still disagree about the questioning issue. They asked him about the ATF and he gave them names. He passed a polygraph. The agent who questioned him initially believed he was innocent after extensive questioning. When they ask him about the one specific individual who they have information about, (the individual who allegedly made calls to his phone) he answered honestly - he didn't know who it was.
Like the character in the movie, I would have a really hard time giving up information about family and friends, who I believe are innocent, to people who so easily made me disappear. That was the point of the exchange regarding Anwar's uncle. If they can do it to him, who's to say his uncle, other family members or friends aren't next?
Like I said, the filmmakers made some mistakes, but I think it gets its point across regarding due process and torture, which is the most important thing in a film of this nature.
I see your point and I understand the point they were trying to make. I just feel like they failed to make the emotional connection they needed to make in order to make the film work.
They did try to cover some of the basis by having characters talk about the polygraph and such. I just didn't connect to this character in the slightest. I'm sure if I was someone who was in a similar situation as that character (foreigner living in America, married to a citizen, etc.) I would empathize. However, I'm not in that situation so I just kept thinking that he should just tell them everything and anything that might possibly be important...but then, I guess that's the point of the movie.
I still didn't think it was very effective filmmaking.
All Comments
Just watched this last night and I agree with you about Jake's performance and the story itself. Pretty predictable except for the trick.
But I am really surprised about your comments about the torture scenes. Unless you have some special training I have to ask if you are kidding about being able to take what they did to him: water boarding, electorcution, solitary confinement in (literally), a hole in a wall, etc. Oh yeah, before that he was he was captured, had a bag put over his head, was interrogated, flown to another country, stripped, beaten, etc., etc.
SPOILER AHEAD . . .
Also, his refusal to give any information? Well, HE DIDN"T HAVE ANY. That's why he wasn't giving any info until he couldn't take it anymore, and then it wasn't accurate and was only given to stop the torture. Any information he did have, like about the ATF (I think) work he did, he gave it to them. He didn't know anything about the person he was being questioned about, so he couldn't answer any questions about it. For all he knew, if he lied, the torture would get worse or he would be killed.
Not the greatest movie, but I would urge anyone who hasn't seen it to take a look.
Steven's last blog post..Top 100 Movies: Mars, Sir Anthony, and Mel
As for the questioning... I disagree. The man is from Egypt and is a world traveler who has contacts all over the globe. He should have been more forthcoming with information especially once they started asking about specific people. If he were really innocent there was no reason not to speak candidly about who he talked to and when he had talked to them. I think the screenplay could have done a much better job of making this man appear more innocent by making him appear to cooperate more. His complete cooperation would have won my sympathy and would have completely changed my opinion of the film.
I think the filmmakers were trying to keep open the slight possibility that Anwar may have been a terrorist or sympathizer until Gyllenhaal's character Googles the information he provided. That was a mistake on their part. They should have made it absolutely clear from the start that he was innocent.
That being said, I still disagree about the questioning issue. They asked him about the ATF and he gave them names. He passed a polygraph. The agent who questioned him initially believed he was innocent after extensive questioning. When they ask him about the one specific individual who they have information about, (the individual who allegedly made calls to his phone) he answered honestly - he didn't know who it was.
Like the character in the movie, I would have a really hard time giving up information about family and friends, who I believe are innocent, to people who so easily made me disappear. That was the point of the exchange regarding Anwar's uncle. If they can do it to him, who's to say his uncle, other family members or friends aren't next?
Like I said, the filmmakers made some mistakes, but I think it gets its point across regarding due process and torture, which is the most important thing in a film of this nature.
Steven's last blog post..Top 100 Movies: Mars, Sir Anthony, and Mel
They did try to cover some of the basis by having characters talk about the polygraph and such. I just didn't connect to this character in the slightest. I'm sure if I was someone who was in a similar situation as that character (foreigner living in America, married to a citizen, etc.) I would empathize. However, I'm not in that situation so I just kept thinking that he should just tell them everything and anything that might possibly be important...but then, I guess that's the point of the movie.
I still didn't think it was very effective filmmaking.