Movie Review: Rendition
Posted in movies on 27. Mar, 2008
A Plot Hole You Can Drive a Truck Through
(WARNING: plot points revealed)
Some movies have such blatant plot holes that you wonder how they ever get financed and done. Rendition (2007) directed by Gavin Hood is one such flick.
The film is about the secret renditions of suspected terrorists by CIA. It is well acted by such A-list actors as Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal, Meryl Streep, Alan Arkin, and other serious talent like Peter Sarsgaard and Omar Metwally.
But I still wonder how come none of these fine actors did not see the huge hole in the heart of this script and blew the whistle? It really ruined the pleasure of watching what's otherwise a perfectly fine production. Special mention goes to DP Dion Beebe's excellent cinematography.
Anwar El-Ibrahimi, an Egyptian-born naturalized American-citizen chemical engineer leading a perfectly happy middle class suburban life, is arrested by the U.S. National Security as he is entering the United States on a trip back from South Africa.
El-Ibrahimi is packed and secretly sent back to an unspecified North African country (shot in Morocco) to be interrogated under torture by the local secret service. Douglas Freeman, a rookie CIA analyst stationed in the host country has to take over the case when the real case officer is killed in a terrorist attack.
The only firm evidence that the authorities have about El-Ibrahimi's alleged involvement with the terrorists is the confirmed calls he received on his cell phone from this well-known terror chief.
Due to El-Ibrahimi's knowledge of chemistry they think he might have conceivably helped the terrorists build bombs — but why would a naturalized professional married to a beautiful American woman and with a great family would ever throw all that into the wind is never explained. The motivation is simply not there. But that is not yet the "plot hole" I'm talking about.
All throughout the story El-Ibrahimi is tortured to explain HOW COME he received those phone calls from the terror chief. El-Ibrahimi keeps denying any knowledge until he breaks down under heavy torture and starts to spill out the names of his co-conspirators.
Yet, CIA's Freeman googles the names and they turn out to be the members of the Egyptian national soccer team! They are all fake names provided after days of waterboarding and electric shocks.
Armed with that fact, Freeman, who has a guilty conscience about the whole affair from the very beginning, arranges El-Ibrahimi's quick release and his final return to his home, son, and mother back in the States.
And that's how the film ends!
But… WHAT happened to all those phone calls?! Why did El-Ibrahimi receive them from a well-known terrorist in the past if he was that innocent? That's never explained.
I think that's what the New York Times review of this film was referring to by "a third-act surprise that is less a plot twist than a logical unraveling." NYT continued: "You may spend the last 15 minutes rubbing your eyes and scratching your head in puzzlement rather than fighting back tears." My point precisely.
The film ends without resolving that CENTRAL QUESTION, leaving us with not only a hoodwinked Douglas Freeman but hoodwinked foreign and American counter-terror establishments as well. The film leaves you hoping that the real intelligence professionals who are protecting us are smarter than the Douglas Freeman character and I'm sure they are.
I still wonder… how come this film is approved, financed and made with this script?
