Movie Review: “Rendition” (2007)

Rendition

The Essentials

Title: Rendition (official site)
Directed by Gavin Hood
Written by Kelley Sane
Running Time: 2 hrs. 2 min.
Release Date: October 19th, 2007
MPAA Rating: R for torture/violence and language.

The Plot of “Rendition”

When an Egyptian terrorism suspect “disappears” on a flight from Africa to Washington DC, his American wife and a CIA analyst find themselves caught up in a struggle to secure his release from a secret detention facility somewhere outside the US.

The Story of “Rendition”

After a terrorist bombing kills an American envoy in a foreign country. An investigation leads to an Egyptian who has been living in the United States for years and who is married to an American.  He is apprehended just as he’s about to return home from a business trip.  The U.S. sends him to the country where the incident occurs for interrogation which includes torture.  An American CIA analyst who has just become an operative and is on his first real field mission observes the interrogation and is at odds whether to keep it going or to stop it because he doesn’t agree with the methods being used to gather information from the suspect.  In the meantime, the man’s wife uses her contacts and tenacity to attempt to find out what happened to her husband despite being pregnant.  Unfortunately, the CIA does not want to help her and refuses to give her any information.

The Review of “Rendition”

Rendition PosterI wish there were more to say about this film than what is written in the “Story” section of this article.  Unfortunately, there really isn’t.  The synopsis of this film accurately tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the movie and about what you’re going to get when you watch it.

Rendition is full of great performances as you might expect from a film starring so many prestigious actors.  Unfortunately, none of the great performances come from Jake Gyllenhaal who is primarily the heart and soul of this picture.  Gyllenhaal appears to be sleep walking through half the picture and fully enveloped in dream land the other half.  I’ve seen more believable emotion from muppets.

With the lead actor seemingly mentally and emotionally MIA during most of the picture the onus is on the rest of the cast and the script to carry the film.  Unfortunately, the cast can only do so much with a mediocre screenplay.  The plot is formulaic and predictable with the only exciting change being in the way the film was organized.  You’ll know what I’m talking about if you’ve seen it (and I don’t want to ruin it for those who haven’t), but the screenwriter or the director or the editors (not sure who thought this one up) pulled a nice trick out of their bag when putting the film together that really made me do a double take.  It’s a shame it was one of the few moments in the film that was truly enjoyable.

The film wasn’t nearly as preachy as I feared it would be which is good.  At the same time, I didn’t find myself compelled to feel sympathy for the abducted Anwar El-Ibrahimi (Omar Metwally) either.  Here’s a man who’s not a citizen of the United States who has contacts with people in a country that has terrorist ties and he doesn’t want to talk about it.  I mean, they pick this guy up and start asking him questions and he suddenly can’t remember anything that might be important - but he loves America - been here 20 years or something.  I don’t know about anyone else, but if the CIA starts asking me questions about people who might be terrorists I’m giving them names and email addresses and phone numbers and physical descriptions.  I’ll tell them where they like to eat and hang out and what part of their bodies are ticklish.  Not Anwar.  He can’t remember anything.

The torture scenes didn’t really elicit sympathy either.  The whole time I was thinking that it didn’t really look that bad.  I kept wondering if I could stand those tortures - as they were depicted in the film.  I think I could.  If this is the stuff we’re doing that people are using to say that we torture our prisoners…well, case closed - we’re not.

The look and feel of the film was first class, but it wasn’t enough to make up for everything else.  Reese Witherspoon, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, Peter Sarsgaard, and a bunch of others who spoke mostly in a foreign language did their best to maintain the momentum of the film but every time it seemed the action was just about to get going and the story was just about to take off the movie would hit a long period of dialog (again, mostly in a foreign language) where they attempted to explain everything to us.  It grew burdensome after a while

By the time the film ends with the ending you knew would come all along you no longer really care about the El-Ibrahimis (if you ever did) and you certainly don’t care about Douglas Freeman, Gyllenhaal’s character.

Watch “Rendition” If…

You’ve ever been illegally abducted by the CIA and “questioned” about your involvement with alleged terrorists…just to see if your tortures were worse than the ones depicted in this movie.


Rating: 3.0/10

Like this story? Share it!
Digg Sphinn del.icio.us Facebook Mixx Google De.lirio.us Fark SphereIt StumbleUpon Technorati TwitThis

Related posts

Viewing 4 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    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.

    Steven's last blog post..Top 100 Movies: Mars, Sir Anthony, and Mel
    • ^
    • v
    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.
    • ^
    • v
    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.

    Steven's last blog post..Top 100 Movies: Mars, Sir Anthony, and Mel
    • ^
    • v
    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.

Trackbacks

close Reblog this comment
blog comments powered by Disqus