Complicit

It was an average dialogue driven spy film that kept me waiting for a big climax and it may have been the most disappointing ending that I can ever remember seeing. I suppose it was attempting to have us question our societal ethics vs mass killing and terrorism, but all I could think about was how unfulfilled I felt and how I'd never get those two hours back. It could have been a pretty good movie, but it drove off a cliff.

As events unfurl the agent is shown to be as much a terrorist as the man he accuses. There is no suspected terrorist for the terrorist himself says the nature of terror is you do not know if there will be an attack it is not the attack itself, even if he was part of no plot he would still be a terrorist for terror is all in the mind. At one point the agent gives a ludicrous speech about free schooling (indoctrination) university (if you can afford it), libraries (true), as things that have been given by Britain. He fails to see that what is given can be taken away.

The agent level of intense delusion is that of the true believer, just like the man he is inTERROgating who acts by doing what is in his heart. Neither side knows anything about freedom the things they believe are salves for their wounded psyche's, their idea of freedom is based on control and control discredits, abuses, terrorizes and worse, while true freedom is freedom from coercion and THEN you are free.

Which isn't easy. To sustain a level of tension this gripping for an entire movie without resorting to timeworn plot devices can't be done by Big Hollywood. In addition it clearly takes direction that allows fine actors the time and space to deliver the brilliant performances that are the foundation of the film as they fix one's attention on every word and expression. Well done, all!

Big Hollywood would have taken the premise and injected the obligatory "Hot Woman" into the agent's life. And, of course, there would have been a climax expending hundreds of rounds of ammunition (at least). (As an example see "The Kingdom")They never would have left us with this ending for "Complicit". An ending which is congruent with the body of the film instead of a cinematic "backflip".

A little creative honesty for a change...Thank You.

One point about the antagonists: If you think of them both as soldiers you can realize both, by their own rules, are good soldiers. George Patton loved his country so did SS General Kurt Meyer (a dedicated Nazi). Both were skilled, however, relativity ends at this point.

One just happened to be fighting to preserve Liberty and the other ... Not. As for me, I reject the moral relativism described by another reviewer of this film. No one is morally perfect. However some act in ways that are not to be tolerated.

To me this was a very good piece of British drama. Understated yet intense, with enough suspense to keep you intrigued to the very end.

The plot is fairly simple. A MI5 agent suspects a person of interest he has been following is about to initiate an act of terror against Britain. The MI5 agent follows him to Egypt where the potential terrorist has been arrested. Then begins a game of cat and mouse about whether the suspect is a terrorist or not and is the MI5 agent right? Simple, but expertly done.

David Oyelowo is a fine leading man as he is in most things. Brooding with a wounded puppy dog look. But the show is stolen by Arsher Ali as the terror suspect. He acts the character brilliantly and he keeps you guessing until the end as to whether he is or not.

Like I said in the title, the pace may be slow for some. But it is shot beautifully, with some expert directing. This is not zero dark thirty, but it has the feel of a true reflection of what actually tracking a terror suspect would be like. Thoughtful and measured.

What is it about? I'm not claiming that this film doesn't have a point, but which one? The main character, an MI-5 analyst, is introduced at work, nodding off while reviewing and re-reviewing hidden camera footage of a particular suspected terrorist. He chases around London, searching for more detailed intel on his target, a Middle-Eastern man who-he is sure-is up to something. Part of his motivation is preventing a terrorist from succeeding at terrorism; part is to succeed himself, at last, at his career and make a major interception. To be noticed by his superiors. Unfortunately for him, he makes a few tactical errors, and the target turns out to be a British citizen with a thorough knowledge of his own civil rights. Who is succeeding at what becomes more and more ambiguous as the film comes to its end. Terror? or torture? It's a story with the ring of truth, told in a morose, silent, unsmiling fashion, and with one exception the audience is never quite sure who can be believed. The lone exception, an older man in the Egyptian anti-terror agency, to whom the hero goes for advice, is both the most candid, open and and helpful source he can find, and the worst mistake he could make. The film forces the viewer to decide between living with terrorism, picking and choosing who gets the protection of civil rights, and whether or not torture is acceptable. Take your pick.