Complicit

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.

Review: This movie seemed to have a very glum undertone which doesn't change throughout. Its based around an MI5 agent who suspects a UK citizen of plotting a terrorist attack. After spending some time pieces his evidence together, he finally gets the help from his agency to track the suspect down. Once they finally find the suspect, they try there utmost to get a confession, but he just won't budge. I was expecting some twists and turns throughout the movie but it just seems to go down one road which becomes boring after a while. In most of the scenes, your watching the agent looking lost and confused, without much help from anyone else. The ending made the English intelligence service look really bad because it showed that there were more worried about there reputation than protecting there country, which isn't a good message to put in a movie. Average!

Round-Up: David Oyelowo isn't a household name yet but he has started in some big movies. From Selma, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Interstellar and Jack Reacher, he can afford to do low budget movies which have a deep message, like this one. The main fault that I found with the film was the slow pace and the fact that it seemed to go round in circles. Arsher Ali, who plays the suspect, has recently been in the Missing series, which got high reviews, but he's yet to blown up on the movie scene. I personally think that this movie needed some other interesting character to make the investigating more intense and dramatic. Its based around 2 characters who will stand up to there beliefs, against all odds, but it didn't show how far they were truly willing to go. With such a deep subject matter, the director should have done a better job.

I recommend this movie to people who are into their English dramas based around a MI5 agent whose trying to get a terrorist suspect to admit to his crimes. 3/10

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.

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.

Slow and boring and in the end totally pointless without a successful conclusion. Well acted and perhaps realistic but not very entertaining