3 Comments For This Post

1. ydnasllew Says:
   March 29th, 2008 at 12:34 am

   Actually they explained that terrorists will frequently pass his cell phone to a stranger so the intelligence will track that person’s calls rather than his own.

2. Gary Says:
   March 29th, 2008 at 10:57 pm

   Thanks for your feedback. I think you’re referring to the scene in Senator Hawkins’ office where the Senator tells his aide Alan Smith: “You know these guys. They give away the cell phones. They switch numbers. He [i.e., the terrorist Rashid Salimi] could have passed the phone to somebody related to Ibrahim. We don’t know… But there could be a connection.”

   At this scene the stress is on the fact that nobody knows for sure what exactly happened or might have happened. Both the Senator and his aide Smith are clearly SPECULATING about the various possibilities rather than stating any proven facts. On the basis of such speculation the Senator orders his aide to back off from pressing the Ibrahimi’s case with the CIA because it could have a high political cost for giving support to a possible terrorist.

   There is nothing in the film which confirms for us the audience that Ibrahimi’s phone was indeed used without his knowledge in order to implicate him.

   Thus the plot hole still remains unanswered: how come the NSA tracked down Rashid Salimi’s phone calls to Ibrahimi’s cell phone if Ibrahimi is innocent? The screen writer Kelley Sane has set up a nice puzzle for us but finished the film without solving it.

   If we assume that Ibrahimi’s cell phone was used without his knowledge that also raises another set of logical issues.

   If his phone is stolen, why didn’t Ibrahimi get another new phone for himself? Well, I admit that’s a rhetorical question. Obviously he must have gotten a new phone because we see him using it earlier in the movie.

   So why did Ibrahimi not mention the fact that he had lost his cell phone in the past and got himself a new one? That would certainly be a lead that both the CIA and Fawal’s local boys would pursue and check out before torturing Ibrahimi.

   But instead, Ibrahimi prefers to keep silent and does not give any indication that he has lost his phone. He prefers to be tortured to disclosing a very important fact that could prove his innocence. It just does not make sense.

   Another logical non-sequitur involves the non-linear time line. The second time the explosion scene is shown, Fatima Fawal has just arrived at the plaza, running away from her Father. But at that point Douglas’s partner Dixon is already dead and thus Douglas cannot again arrive at the plaza in his official car with Dixon sitting next to him. Not especially when in the scene right before that Douglas is dragging Ibrahimi out of the prison. So Rendition has got that time line totally wrong as well.

   However, I have to correct one mistake that I’ve made in my review: Ibrahimi holds only a Green Card and is not a naturalized U.S. citizen. I apologize for the inadvertent error. But that does not change my central argument that this film has a serious logical flaw at its core, despite otherwise excellent writing, good directing, and a truly fantastic and appropriate soundtrack.

3. I like Pie Says:
   May 22nd, 2008 at 6:12 pm

   well, I think you have seriously deviated off what the movie was about. The movie wasn’t about solving the phone call at all. matter of fact, it is actually vital to leave the phone call question unanswered. The movie was about the act of “rendition”, we all know the us gov do this, but do we think its ethical or necessary to protect this nation? No one in America (I hope) would support torturing an innocent man, and most would say torture is ok if the man was CONFIRMED of being a terrist and torturing him will gain information that will prevent 9.11. Now if the phone call question was answered. so Anwar would either be guilty or innocent right? there would be no gray area. But the question is not answered, so we don’t really know if he is guilty or not, he has no clear motives and he passed the polygraph but yet the phone calls… (just like some people in real life that were renditioned) . and WE are left to judge the moral of torturing a person because MAYBE he is a terrist with some life saving infomation. IS THE ACT OF TORTURING A MAYBE GUILTY MAN MORAL? CAN WE LIVE WITH THAT? this is what the movie is about.

   on your second question on the reply…heres how. The movie is shot in mixed up timelines ON PURPOSE. this is not the first time a movie is shot like this, so don’t have a fit. This is the real time line.

   Fatima meets terrist boy(forgot his name).
   Fatima runs away.
   Fatima discovers boy is terrist trying to hill her father.
   Fatima try to stop but fails and both die.
   Douglas boss dies in car at same time.
   Father don’t know Fatima dies because aunt is away for work for 6 days.
   During this 6 days Anwar is captured and tortured.
   Aunt come home, no Fatima and Father find out where terrist boy lives from Omar the friend.
   Father goes to house recognize terrorist boy and remember the video of the explosion and knows daughter is dead.
   At the same time CIA agent release Anwar.

   Douglas and boss appears again because its a “memory” sort of, there was only ONE bombing.

   Also no there is no possibility that Anwar’s phone was stolen or lost. But there are possibilities that the terror chief gave the phone out to other people to lose heat. And in the end Anwar said in the bathroom that his uncle who LIVES in Egypt have no money, so its a possibility that he could’ve accepted a free or bargain “dirty” phone from somebody and used it to call Anwar.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website