Rendition was well directed, and I was glad to see the subject of torture along with the violations of the US Constitution, international law, the "Golden Rule", and plain common sense be covered by in this movie.
I did not think the ending was well executed, due to trying to weave an excessive number of story lines into a surprise ending. The number of story lines seems to dilute the points made by each other, and left me a little confused and disappointed at how unrealistic the ending was after all the effort to provide realism throughout the rest of the movie.
Somewhat like a one hour "Perry Mason" episode, everything has to fall into place when time runs out. The killer usually "spills his or her guts" once Perry makes his accusations, and any loose ends are tied up at a meeting in Perry's office or a restaurant with someone asking the appropriate questions and Perry explaining the answers.
I still had those questions at the end:
1) How does the "whistleblower" know he will get help from the Washington Post, and not find himself treated like a "terrorist"? It is an obsolete assumption that going to the newspapers for help will work, since the CIA and Operation Mockingbird have been exposed, and most of the media is bought and paid for by the CIA. In any case, the crusaders for truth in the media are few and far between, while the CIA propaganda experts and operators are now illegally planted throughout the US.
Even at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" (1970s?), Redford is asked if he thinks going to the NY Times will do him any good. Does anyone believe that things are better now?
2) What happens to the CIA analyst? Does he think he can just walk away from the CIA, or continue life as if nothing happened?
3) What happens with the Egytian and his family? Does he think they can continue working in America as an alien, as if nothing happened?
4) How many people will be able to get any help from a US Senator for their case? There were too many exceptional coincidences that allowed Reese Witherspoon's character to reach, pressure, and gain information from the right people.
I see this movie as having the "fairy tale" ending that going to the newspapers will expose all the problems, and everyone will live happily ever after. This loses focus on the point that "Rendition" with torture is illegal, unconstitutional, not supported by most Americans, not proved effective in providing intelligence, and not something an American would want to face from other countries. We should be handling "terrorism" as any other crime instead of creating a new category of crime that establishes petty tyrants who completely undermine the value of the Constitution and "due process" as an effective guide. The real crime is that our "representatives" refuse to listen to us, and continue to insulate themselves from the Constitution and the will of the citizens, while the media supports this "government knows best" attitude.
I did not think the ending was well executed, due to trying to weave an excessive number of story lines into a surprise ending. The number of story lines seems to dilute the points made by each other, and left me a little confused and disappointed at how unrealistic the ending was after all the effort to provide realism throughout the rest of the movie.
Somewhat like a one hour "Perry Mason" episode, everything has to fall into place when time runs out. The killer usually "spills his or her guts" once Perry makes his accusations, and any loose ends are tied up at a meeting in Perry's office or a restaurant with someone asking the appropriate questions and Perry explaining the answers.
I still had those questions at the end:
1) How does the "whistleblower" know he will get help from the Washington Post, and not find himself treated like a "terrorist"? It is an obsolete assumption that going to the newspapers for help will work, since the CIA and Operation Mockingbird have been exposed, and most of the media is bought and paid for by the CIA. In any case, the crusaders for truth in the media are few and far between, while the CIA propaganda experts and operators are now illegally planted throughout the US.
Even at the end of "Three Days of the Condor" (1970s?), Redford is asked if he thinks going to the NY Times will do him any good. Does anyone believe that things are better now?
2) What happens to the CIA analyst? Does he think he can just walk away from the CIA, or continue life as if nothing happened?
3) What happens with the Egytian and his family? Does he think they can continue working in America as an alien, as if nothing happened?
4) How many people will be able to get any help from a US Senator for their case? There were too many exceptional coincidences that allowed Reese Witherspoon's character to reach, pressure, and gain information from the right people.
I see this movie as having the "fairy tale" ending that going to the newspapers will expose all the problems, and everyone will live happily ever after. This loses focus on the point that "Rendition" with torture is illegal, unconstitutional, not supported by most Americans, not proved effective in providing intelligence, and not something an American would want to face from other countries. We should be handling "terrorism" as any other crime instead of creating a new category of crime that establishes petty tyrants who completely undermine the value of the Constitution and "due process" as an effective guide. The real crime is that our "representatives" refuse to listen to us, and continue to insulate themselves from the Constitution and the will of the citizens, while the media supports this "government knows best" attitude.