Complicit

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

Strong Acting from David Oyelowo and Ali Asher Compel this British TV-Movie. It Has a Clean Directorial Style that is "Matter of Fact", Sleek and Without Frills.

Those Expecting Hollywood like Antics Spicing up the Story of a Terrorist Suspect and His "Enhanced Interrogation" Concerning a Bio-Weapon on the way to the UK, are going to be Disappointed.

It is Basically a Two-Character Study set Inside MI5 and the Battle of Wits between Spy and Suspect. The Bureaucratic Bloat and Red Tape are the real Villain of the Piece. The Strength of the Film relies on a Realistic Approach and as Entertainment some May find the Film Flat and somewhat Boring.

But the two Leading Characters Never let That Happen. It's an "Edge of Your Seater" as the Race Against Time and the Rage Against the Machine that the Agent Displays, albeit Internally, makes this a Compelling and Topical Movie that is Worth a Watch.

Emotional roller coaster. Superb acting keeps viewer on edge. End sucks. Either give me ending that proved our man a hero, or give a sequel.

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.

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.