Complicit

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.

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.

I lost a family member in Man arena. People who have nothing but hatred for our way of life, our culture in our country, should have no rights. I don't care about the ethics& their human rights, when they wants us all dead

I've often seen Islamic terrorists on television recently, ranting and raving their pathetic personal manifestos which don't even interest 0.000001% of Muslims, let alone the general population. They're hypocrites too... Spouting off about how corrupt the West is but quite happy to partake in our generous benefit system to fund their dangerous propaganda.

The Jihadist as depicted in this brilliant film is one such irredeemable parasites... Banging on about his 'human rights', but plotting to blow us all up simultaneously. What about the 'human rights' of those poor innocents who are blown to smithereens by a brainwashed idiot in a war they have no part in whatsoever?

No wonder the lead character, played with great gravitas by David Oyelowo, finally cracks under the pressure of dealing with all this bullsh*t and goes beyond official protocol to stop this evil guy's plans. From his superiors (In name only) blanking him, to bona-fide evidence he painstakingly uncovers ignored, what dude wouldn't become so frustrated he'd contemplate ditching the kid gloves and trying something more extreme?

Of course, it ultimately blows up in his face, but I think the fault lies firmly at the door of his employees. If they had established a dialogue with him earlier and not left him completely out of the loop, he wouldn't have felt the need to go rogue, ending up with bad consequences for everyone, apart from the nasty, two-faced SOB who wants to murder us all.

Anyway, personal opinions aside, this is a fine piece of work, from the intelligent and realistic way events unfurl, to the skillful plotting which keeps you on tetherhooks throughout. There are also several interrogation sequences that are as dramatic and involving as any scenes involving just two people I've seen in years. Excellent. 8/10

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.