This movie reflects on the validity of torture against the so-called War on Terror, by indirectly asking these questions:
1/ Is torture ever justified?
2/ Does physical torture produce any piece of information that serves to safe lives?
3/ If you could save the world or a hundred of civilians from a bomb by torturing somebody, would that torture be justified?
4/ If not, why it is allowed?
5/ If yes, is there any limit or point, even unthinkable, that cannot be trespassed?
The main assumption taken by the story is that we live in a double-standards hypocritical world that preaches one thing but does another, that wants the dirt to be removed by using the hands of the others, so those ordering the dirty job have not responsibility on it. The movie brought to my mind many of the questions posed by a recent documentary "The Secret War on Terror" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1866818/).
Australian Director Gregor Jordan, British Actor-Scriptwriter Peter Woodward and Israeli writer Oren Movermam have guts to reflect on the subjects this movie approaches, even more because the movie (a sort of complement to the TV series 24) is filmed and produced in the USA. However, being so, you also expect it to be politically correct, and at a certain point it is.
The good thing of the movie is that uses the different characters as pawns to make its point. Therefore, they are not linear or monochrome - nobody is innocent here, morally, but some of the characters are franker and have more integrity than the others. However, the line that separates them is very thin, and is trespassed back and forward by the two main characters: H., the interrogator, and FBT agent Brody, which are antagonists at the beginning, but two sides of the same coin at the end. H, the interrogator and torturer, actually hates his job, he is cynical about the clean-hands of those who want him to do horrific things without taking moral or political responsibility; H. has a soul, and he is somewhat another victim of the system. Agent Brody is a serious and decent woman, but once the situation turns for the worst outside, she too gets embedded and feels like torturing the terrorist herself; she ends thinking that torture is justified if valid items of info are got, otherwise not, but... that is not a position, really, that is still a dilemma. The terrorist, moreover, is not a dark-skinned middle-eastern, but a white sweet-looking American man, who loves his family, his country and his religion, who is willing and prepared to be tortured to get what he wants.
I found all the leading actors good in their roles: Samuel L. Jackson as interrogator 'H', Carrie-Anne Moss as Helen Brody, and Michael Sheen as terrorist Younger (Yusef). However, Sheen and Jackson outshine the rest. You cannot even believe that Sheen is the same actor who played Tony Blair in "The Queen", so good he is here. Jackson plays a very difficult role with sensibility (if that is possible) and humanity.
The atmosphere of the movie is aseptic and cold, distant and theatrical in a way. There is no warm colours or elements at all (beyond the blood), and it looks like part of a sci-fic grim future movie. However, that cold detachment is needed to follow what happens, because the level of violence is extremely high (although less gory you can expect), very disturbing and depressing. The fact that H. has some humanity and is a loving father, another victim of the system, sends a dangerous message, and unintentionally excuses the torturer.
The tempo of the movie is not good, and that affects it from mid footage until the end. I thought that the search for the bombs by the FBI was going to have more weight in the movie, as it was also challenging and interesting, but soon the viewer realises that this won't happen. A more balanced approach (FBI approach and Military approach combined) was needed, but the movie eventually opts for the second as main focus of the story. On the other hand, when the movie gets really-really interesting and challenging, when a new oh-wow twist appears in the story, the film ends. Ploff! As if the editor had cut the movie before its time by mistake. By doing so, the viewer, or at least me, wonders whether the director and writers had the balls to provide an answer to the moral questions they present in the movie. With this end, the answer is no. However, there is an alternative ending.
The alternative ending, actually the real ending (which is available in the USA Blue-Ray and DVD's extras but not in the one I saw in Australia!), shows that, after all, the writers and directors had the balls to give an answer to their questions and show that torture does not serve for anything if the terrorist has no moral or emotional breaking point, which is always the case. In fact, the end of the movie, the real one, says that the end does not justify the means and it is a waste of time. You better look for the bombs! I guess the American producers and the American establishment, or perhaps just the public, would not be happy with that sort of ending.
A thought-provoking film, claustrophobic and difficult to watch.
