I don't get it - Five Fingers (2006) Discussion

[–] dutchthea 16 years ago

Well after he knew who they were they couldn't let him go. They never had the intention to let him go. They wanted the information from him and than "get rid" of him. And so they did.

If she can take it, so can I! Play it Sam!

reply

[–] JasMina87 16 years ago

But they could charge him with something and throw him in prison. For the CIA to just kill him of, I thought that was very unbelievable..

reply

[–] Favri 16 years ago

I think it makes sense, had they let him live they would run the risk of exposing their tactics, having a terrorist who is able to recognise them, risking that he somehow gets back in touch with his cell and, most importnantly, risking that he sues the CIA and the government for using such colourful interrogation techniques, which I'm sure even the most liberal Terrorism Act would not allow...

A question that sometimes drives me hazy: am I or the others crazy? - A.Einstein

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheTurkish 16 years ago

i see many people here wondering why did they kill him;are you for real people ?...what else could they do to him after they cut off his fingers,beaten him up,starving him,tortureted him..when you do something undercover like that it stays that way from the begining until the end...what should they do to him to keep you happy,let him go,get him a job to coz the terrorist one didn't suited him very well,some pocket money...if you watched the movie you would have seen that he wanted to infest all fastfoods in the country whith some killer virus...although i loved the movie,it was just incredibly great by my means ...pay attention to the movie don't eat popcorn and dream at jenna jameson

reply

[–] Dyellyc 16 years ago

well said! i agree.

reply

[–] aletannu 15 years ago

anyway... better dead than in prison :))

reply

[–] faithnomore70 15 years ago

the cia is well-known for pulling off dirty tricks, and if you combine that with other authorities, then you've got the perfect solution for infiltration.

reply

[–] MartinVagina 15 years ago

[citation needed]

reply

[–] Noir-82 15 years ago

I agree with everyone. That's just the nature of clandestine operations. Just because they got what they want doesn't mean everyone gets to go home to a fairytale ending of "happily ever after."

reply

[–] griff_consortium 15 years ago

If Jenna Jameson is in it I am watching it! She is one hott woman!

reply

[–] bossfanmrc1 15 years ago

It sure would be appreciated if people would be kind enough to include the word "SPOILERS" in the title of the thread, so as not to give the story away to those who have yet to see the film.

Just saying....

reply

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JustCallMeAndy 14 years ago

Its fairly clear that the CIA needed to get him out the way. Even if he had gone to prison, its possible he could have got word to the terror cell.
Even if not, he was a security threat to every agent that had taken part in the interrogation.
These kinds of methods are used widely by the CIA and i have no doubt much worse is taking place in our continuing war on terror.
I feel this movie perfectly shows how ruthless we in the west actually are.

reply

[–] aGuiltySoul 14 years ago

I rewatched this film today. As with any film that is in any way worthwhile, this film changes and refocuses the viewer upon further viewing. It's apparent from the moment he is "kidnapped" that he is a dead man awaiting his execution. During the chess game at the beginning, Ahmat laughs at Martijn for not smoking, "You're worried about your health?" he asks him, derisively.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

reply

[–] dagaul101 12 years ago

I find the whole torture thing pretty odd, I certainly hope no government agencies in the West would sanction such a thingSource:Movie Reviews - Five Fingershttp://moviereviews.noskram.com/2009/09/movie-reviews-for-five-fingers

reply

[–] jwstewartii 10 years ago

Since you posted that comment almost three years ago, I trust you have matured and realize every government in the west and the east will sanction such acts. Maybe not publicly but secretly - like the old Mission Impossible saying, "The director will deny knowledge of your actions."

We want to believe our government is moral and wouldn't stoop to such tactics, but the truth is they will do whatever they feel they can get away with in order to find the truth. Matjin towards the end revealed his true self when he spoke of his desire to contaminate the food supply of the U.S. It took removing his fingers before he gave up the info, but it worked.

Once they got the information, he had to be killed. To leave him alive would jeopardize the other agents' safety as well allow him to warn his co-conspirators. This story may have been fiction, but the acts committed were not. Our government is no different than the Taliban, the Soviets, the Nazis and others when it comes to getting information as serious as what Matjin carried. I'm not saying I agree with it; it's just human nature. Man has always used various means of torture to secure information. It's in our DNA.

reply

[–] aGuiltySoul 10 years ago

I'm not saying I agree with it; it's just human nature. Man has always used various means of torture to secure information. It's in our DNA.

I disagree with your conclusion...also that the information given up in torture is more than rarely valid. Keep in mind, he didn't give up anything while being tortured, only when he felt he had reached a collaborator. They could have spared him his fingers and wound up with an imprisoned source.

This film does NOT present a case for torture, just explores the scope of its use. However, it is dated as we now categorically know that US government agencies use torture, something that has been known by some for decades.

It's not what a movie is about, it's how it is about it.
RIP Roger Ebert

reply