Kim Bynem I watched this and thought immediately of "Rendition" and "Unthinkable". I see the point the writer and director are making, and it's one I think needs to be made. About using torture, and the way the good guys so often seem no better than the bad guys.The ending I found glib, and possibly even flip. Like Sam Jackson in the aforementioned "Unthinkable". Which is no doubt a decent part of the point being made by the writer, using Fishburne's character.Still, I'll take "Rendition" or "Fair Game" over a movie like this. This isn't entertaining. It's a bit thought provoking. But it is not worth paying money to watch. Unlike the other two flicks I just mentioned.

Violet Weed How on EARTH can ANYONE rate this a 'good' movie with 'good acting'???Terrible acting, terrible movie. No 'twist' at the end, pretty predictable. I'm glad I was working whilst watching it or I'd have to admit I just wasted an hour or so of my time. I'm one of the '18% who rated it a '1' and I'd have made it a '0' but they don't let you. Ryan has a pretty face, but he could not act his way out of a wet paper sack and the girl has massively HUGE lips which I 'suppose' some men might find, err, 'useful' but she still has her teeth so, ah, not so much.I would not pay money to see this movie.

bright10 Well, although I had missed about ten minutes of the film I found it really interesting, with very good performances, especially on the part of Laurence Fishburne. However there is something hanging concerning the plot. Something has bothered me. Martin is presented in the film as an idealist, a dreamer who is trying to help the people in underdeveloped countries. However he seems to be involved in a scheme according to which innocent people will be killed. It is taken for granted that the CIA as well as the terrorists are accustomed to such tactics but they are not the tactics of an idealist. An idealist might sacrifice themselves but not innocent people. Yet it is worth seeing it.

JoeytheBrit This is one of those films that, given its single location and duel of wits between the two leads, simply cries out that there is a twist coming. When it comes, in the final five minutes, it does so having announced its imminent arrival somewhere between two minutes and 30 seconds before it actually turns up and so, to a degree, it fails. Having said that, prior to the sudden, almost inexplicable, shifts in attitude of the three main players, the film proves to be quite an intriguing tale of torture and deception that reveals its secrets in a coolly measured manner that successfully manages to reverse the viewers' near-automatic labelling of its protagonists. In this respect, at least, the film undoubtedly succeeds.Ryan Philippe, Laurence Fishburne and Colm Meaney are all given the opportunity to try on unfamiliar accents with varying degrees of success. Philippe comes off third best, but at least his effort is one that becomes less irritating as the film progresses. Considering the bulk of the story takes place in one location the film does well to prevent the viewer's mind from wondering, which is just as well considering some of the plot holes a small amount of reflection throws up. Perhaps the most unlikely development is the schoolboy trick with which Fishburne finally manages to obtain the information he wants. Philippe has withstood the amputation of all the digits from one hand, adroitly sidestepped all the more sophisticated techniques Fishburne & Co. have employed in their attempts to deceive him, but doesn't have the sense to at least have Fishburne write down just the Christian names to ensure he isn't bluffing? I can't see it somehow. And the idea of a terrorist plot to poison the world's fast food produce, while terrifying when first revealed, quickly becomes too problematic to stand up to scrutiny. Such a plot would require a level of logistical planning and strategy that makes the orchestrated bombing of the World Trade Centre seem positively simple in comparison.Despite these gripes, the film does manage to keep you intrigued long enough to see it through to the end – and the way that the viewer's point of view is manipulated by writers Chad Thumann and Laurence Malkin (who also directed) is extremely well done.