the audience applauded

Awesome Movie

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Where to begin, as we discuss "Extraordinary Rendition"? Perhaps it might be best to start with the film's positive aspects, and then move onto its negatives. So, here are its PRO's: The performances of the three main leads are quite brilliant. Omar Berdouni - an excellent actor who (with the exception of...say...the big part he played in the first episode of Channel 4's Bernard-Hill-narrated "Ancient Egyptians" several years ago) has of late played numerous characters in 9/11-tinged films (such as "The Kingdom" and two Paul Greengrass films, "United 93" and "Green Zone") and TV shows (notably the BBC drama "Occupation") - plays another character set in a post-9/11 world, only this time is the main focus of the film, instead of a supporting player. From start to finish, Berdouni imbues his thinly written character with enough believability and sympathy for the viewer to care for him as he is plucked from the streets of London, and thrown headfirst into a terrifying and inexplicable situation of endless fear and torture. Berdouni never overdoes it; he keeps his character's emotions cool and calm at the start, and when he is subjected to his horrific ordeal, his anger, frustration and fear can all be seen bubbling under the surface, until cracks start to appear - and when those cracks do break, the result is truly poignant. Ania Sowinski does very well with what little she has to work with, as Berdouni's character's wife. To begin with, her character isn't objectionable at all, and is well above being just a serviceable wife character for the main male protagonist to bounce off of at the film's start. Unfortunately, by the film's end, her character becomes terribly predictable and unreasonably whiny, for reasons that the film never takes the time to explain (if it even has a reason with which to help explain her ultimate behaviour). But the real star of the film, once again becoming a major scene-stealer (even for such a dark role), is Andy Serkis. He plays a haggard, fatigued and despicable interrogator, whose job it is to extract the information he believes Berdouni's character has, but clearly doesn't have. Serkis doesn't play this person as a straight-up evil bad guy - by his own word (which may or may not be true), he's a man with a family, trying to earn his keep through this job that he hates. True to his character's form, he almost makes you think that this might be true, and almost makes Berdouni's character think that he did something to deserve the punishment he goes through. As for the torture scenes, they are as about as horrifying as you might expect. Eventually, the process of having seen so much of this horror played out before your eyes (the most unsettling torture scene being the one involving "dry drowning") leaves the viewer exhausted - probably something the film-makers fully intended. But now for the CON's: As hinted above, the script isn't particularly well fleshed out and written. The characters are mere sketches of proper human beings, leaving the actors to have to try and do the fleshing out themselves. The story is provocative and disturbing, but it lacks the proper hefty dramatic weight needed to make it stick in the mind. As well as that, the structure of the story aims for a Christopher Nolan-esque non-chronological story jumble, which in this film's case makes the proceedings occasionally confusing. There's no real need or reason for this shuffling of story chapters to take place, other than for some stylistic verve. Unfortunately, the film doesn't really have the metaphorical meat on its bones, nor the running time, nor the budget, for this to work properly. The editing, meanwhile, is almost unwatchably choppy. If you've seen the "Transformers" films and think their editing is too slipshod, then prepare to re-evaluate that opinion. And overall, the film feels just far too rushed. Its running time is only 77 minutes! Even an episode of "Sherlock" is longer than this. All through the film, I kept catching myself thinking that a lot of the scenes needed to be slightly longer, to allow the atmosphere of each scene to breath and be fully appreciated. It's hard to explain with words, but if you ever see the film, you'll know what I mean. In the end, it's a film with admirably dark and provocative themes, pulled off with a tiny budget, great acting, and which does what it sets out to do - shock, disturb and make you think. But technically, it could've been done so much better, with a better eye for characters, atmosphere, tension, and drama...

I read the case for this film and thought this sounds good. I check out reviews on here and thought could be very good but I was bitterly disappointed. This film struggles to keep you watching it. It is almost like they didn't know where to focus their attention. The acting wasn't amazing, its also a really short film (almost as if they were struggling for enough film time) it was just a really bad film. Makes a lot more sense on why I was able to buy it from pound land now. I DO NOT recommend this film unless you are looking for something to write a bad review about on here, in which case its perfect.Low budget, little talent and just not well made.That's 77 minutes of my life I would like back please

In the last few years, torture has become an indelible part of the film industry. Exhibit A: Saw, Hostel or any season of 24 from Day 2 onwards. Exhibit B: real-life footage that ends up on the internet. After 9/11, such material, while still disturbing, is no longer a rarity, but almost a customary element to insert in genre pictures (horror and thrillers, especially if political). As the latest addition to this trend, Extraordinary Rendition provides very little that hasn't already been told, its basic plotting and documentary-like execution making it come off as a poor man's 24.Instead of examining the methods that are used to extract information from well known terrorists, Jim Threapleton's feature focuses on the secret sections of governments all over the world that abduct innocent people and throw unfounded accusations at them. One such innocent person is Zaafir (Omar Berdouni), a London-based teacher who is found brutally beaten at Heathrow Airport in the movie's opening sequence. As he recovers and his girlfriend tries to get him to tell everyone what happened, those events unfold on the screen: we are shown the kidnapping, the container where he is held at first, the plane that takes him somewhere in the Middle East, the terrifying procedures that are used on him while a mysterious interrogator (Andy "Gollum" Serkis) continuously asks the same questions about some criminal Zaafir is supposed to know.The torture sequences are gruesome, and the added realism coming from the hand-held cameras and grainy cinematography ensure Threapleton manages to shock viewers with his argument: every day people are randomly abducted and harmed in all possible ways simply because they come from certain places or are associated with somebody who in return is associated with somebody else. This point of view is reflected very well: the interrogator never supplies any actual proof of the fact that Zaafir really knew the terrorist his organization is looking for, strengthening the theory that the poor fella was taken just because he was an Arab. That it never is specified what government Serkis works for also contributes to conveying the idea of this kind of thing being common everywhere.And yet... something is missing, and that's because the director gives too much attention to the wrong section of the film:like I said before, torture is not that hard to see nowadays, meaning the largest chunk of the movie eventually becomes wearing. Too much time is wasted on the "during", while Threapleton should have cared more about constructing the "before" (providing a solid back-story that would have made the protagonist easier to empathize with) and, more crucially, the "after", analyzing the effects of these illegal actions. Sadly, that is merely a footnote in the narrative, leaving audiences understandably unimpressed by a flick that has important things to say but is unable to articulate them convincingly.

I suppose one of the things about living in a developed country is having things nicely packaged.If I eat meat, I don't want to be presented with vivid descriptions of slaughterhouses. News programmes can show pictures of fighting in Iraq, but detailed close-ups of severed limbs are inappropriate. But if I think food has caused unnecessary suffering or illegal cruelty I might want to know. If our boys abroad fighting for king and country have raped or pillaged, I expect them to be brought to justice. No gory details, you understand. Just do something about it.Words package things. In some cases, we can always work it out if we want a bigger picture. Foie gras. Eliminate an enemy target. Regime change. Go to the bathroom. Spare me the details.So what about phrases like extraordinary rendition? waterboarding? Well I can explain these, I think. Extraordinary rendition is when a terrorist suspect is transported to a foreign country. Waterboarding - there's been some human rights arguments over whether that's torture or not. You pour water on someone. They worry they're drowning. Doesn't sound very nice, but not like pouring acid on them or the really nasty stuff.The truth is, we don't have the vocabulary for things we've never imagined. Not just the words. The emotional vocabulary is lacking.Extraordinary Rendition follows Zaafir, a London-based academic. Suddenly he is snatched from the streets, locked in a shipping container, drugged and abused. He wakes up in a foreign country where he is tortured. Various details of his life come forward where erroneous assumptions could be made. As director Jim Threapleton says, "It's about the footprints we all leave in our lives. Whether it's your credit card statements, or destinations you travelled to in your year off, or an email you may or may not have opened. Under scrutiny, that can be misinterpreted or appropriated to an agenda." Eventually, Zaafir is released without charge.The film uses flashbacks and flash-forwards to tell the three segments of his life. His normal life as a teacher with friends and family. His traumatised self when he returns (and his uncompreheding wife). Horrific experiences abroad.That horrific segment is simply quite graphic. Waterboarding ceases to be a concept, hiding behind nicely packaged words. It's scary sh*t. Not that they stop at that. They do the more traditionally 'really nasty stuff' too.Extraordinary Rendition comes from a minute budget and no little integrity. It is careful not to point accusatory fingers (the truth is always more complicated), but equally careful in its researching of hundreds of cases. It was made with the assistance of Amnesty International. At the Edinburgh UK Premiere, producer Andy Noble was careful not to overstate facts (but he was equally knowledgeable and demonstrated a firm grasp of the data on the many real cases from which the story was inspired).The main drawback of Extraordinary Rendition is its narrative structure. As soon as we know the three different sections of Zaafir's life, not a lot is added by way of plot development. I also felt the story should stand on its own without the addition of background drumming and wailing for added effect (although the diegetic sounds of a person being tortured in an adjacent room were very effective.) As a work of fiction focussing on human rights, as a protest film, it is first rate. But as cinema entertainment it may well be swamped by similar themed films using larger budgets. Like the Hollywood version (called simply 'Rendition') due for mainstream distribution only months after the release of this film.