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.
