Kidnap, rendition and torture. Sounds fairly plausible to me.

Rating: 9/10 (24 July 2005)

In the age of kidnap and rendition, this movie could easily be asking a more indirect question about blind revenge and skewed perceptions. People being people will always attempt to divert blame for their past follies on to handy fallguys. It's human nature to be spineless and cowardly. And the more wealth and power you have, the more spineless and cowardly you can afford to be.
I get the feeling that this movie has been getting such a panning on these boards because it makes a lot of the (predominantly male) hypersensitive homespun grinches a wee bit uncomfortable. In a world of paedophile priests and an explosive growth in reported child abuse in so called civilised countries, it's a brave film maker who is prepared to jab a red hot needle into the psychotic nerve of the beast called daddy. It's a film about base human nature with all its banal idiotic miscalculations, feeble excuses and self deceit. Which is a fair premise to work with.
A film is just some actors jabbering at a camera on some sets. The meanings and motives are in the eyes of the cinema-going or DVD renting beholder. Is it disgusting? Or maybe the hordes of apoplectic critics are just disgusted at their own reactions to these particular triggers?
It's a film. It's a work of fiction. Don't gun down your workmates in the morning.