Samir Horn (Don Cheadle) is an African-American Muslim who was born in Sudan and witnessed the death of his father in a car bombing when he was nine. He's raised by his mother in Chicago and spends some time in the Army in Special Ops. Eventually he sees action in both Afghanistan (with the Mujahideen) and fellow Muslims in Bosnia. Samir shows up in Yemen posing as an arms dealer and trying to infiltrate a terrorist network for a rogue CIA operative. Through the recommendation of a mutual acquaintance, Samir hooks up with a terrorist named Omar but before you know it they both wind up in prison after being captured by Yemeni government soldiers working in conjunction with the FBI.
After Samir and Omar escape from the prison aided by terrorist sympathizers, they escape to France where Omar introduces Samir to Fareed Mansour, Omar's boss in the terrorist network. Fareed is no Mohammed Atta (fanatic ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists) but rather an urbane yuppie-type who thinks nothing of drinking alcohol in front of Omar and Samir (supposed devout Muslims). Fareed justifies drinking of alcohol (a sin in the Muslim religion) by stating that it's necessary to blend in to achieve victory as the ends always justify the means. Somehow Aly Khan, an actor of Indian Muslim ancestry, seemed more like a stock Hollywood villain than a representation of an actual terrorist.
Even less convincing is Samir's ideological disagreement with Fareed while they're having dinner at an outdoor café. Samir makes it quite clear that he feels that Fareed has misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence. It's obvious that the film's screenwriters are trying to make the point that Samir represents the MAJORITY of Muslimsthat is, they are peaceful people who reject the methods of terrorists. Nonetheless, would Samir have risked blowing his cover by getting into an argument with the very man who he must prove his allegiance to? Omar ends up making excuses for Samir so he gets bybut the screenwriters cannot help but continually remind us (in the character of Samir) that the majority of Muslims reject violence (whether you agree or not with that idea, it just feels the point is made ad infinitum throughout the film perhaps in order to 'soften the blow' or 'balance things out' since the films' antagonists are indeed Islamic terrorists!).
Samir is depicted as a man who totally abhors the killing of innocents. However (and here is the big problem with the movie), he is willing to hook up with a lone rogue CIA operative (an intelligence contractor as he is referred to in the movie), a person who he knows virtually nothing about, and plants a bomb in the US consulate in Nice at the behest of this shadowy figure, which accidentally kills eight innocent people. It just seems that there are too many action-thrillers today that trot out the tired storyline of inter-agency government squabbling, especially between the FBI and the CIA.
How does this CIA guy pull off the bombing of the US consulate in France no less? To my recollection, most US embassies and consulates are pretty well-guarded. And why Samir would even take a chance in conducting an operation such as this when he knows that something could go wrong is beyond me.
While the rogue CIA operative must end up getting bumped off precisely because he is amoral and unprincipled, the FBI fares better here. The two agents, Clayton and Archer, are your typical good cop-bad cop characters. Archer is the bad cop and punches Samir a few times in an early interrogation scene in Yemen. But Clayton (Guy Pearce) is the 'sensitive' good cophe majored in Arabic studies as an undergraduate and ends up receiving important information from Samir via email at a critical point in the film's story.
I'm not sure exactly how Samir pulls it offand this is probably a first in the history in the fight against terrorismhe manages to arrange for 50 would-be suicide bombers to be on the same bus and they all blow themselves up at the same time. Then he also manages to shoot the two terrorist masterminds without any bodyguards being present (Note that the main boss, Nathir, again is no scary Mohammed Atta-typebut rather an ordinary businessman).
Traitor does a disservice in the fight against international terrorism. It makes it look all too easy with the good guys easily outwitting the bad guys. But in reality, terrorists such as the 9/11 conspirators were no pushovers; to remind everybody: they beat uswe didn't beat them! Some say that Cheadle's performance here was excellent. I would have to disagree. He comes off as too middle-class, too intellectual to be a former Special Ops guy who is able to infiltrate a gang of terrorists. All the preaching throughout the movie reminds me more of a college professor trying to convince a bunch of undergraduates that his cause is just.
In the end, 'Traitor' tries hard to be as politically correct as possible, arguing that the war against terror is not antithetical to the teachings of the Muslim religion. But it makes its argument in such a heavy-handed and obvious manner that the film becomes overly didactic. Coupled with a wholly implausible plot, 'Traitor' fails to convince us that we're watching a story that mirrors something that could have come close to happening in reality.
After Samir and Omar escape from the prison aided by terrorist sympathizers, they escape to France where Omar introduces Samir to Fareed Mansour, Omar's boss in the terrorist network. Fareed is no Mohammed Atta (fanatic ringleader of the 9/11 terrorists) but rather an urbane yuppie-type who thinks nothing of drinking alcohol in front of Omar and Samir (supposed devout Muslims). Fareed justifies drinking of alcohol (a sin in the Muslim religion) by stating that it's necessary to blend in to achieve victory as the ends always justify the means. Somehow Aly Khan, an actor of Indian Muslim ancestry, seemed more like a stock Hollywood villain than a representation of an actual terrorist.
Even less convincing is Samir's ideological disagreement with Fareed while they're having dinner at an outdoor café. Samir makes it quite clear that he feels that Fareed has misinterpreted the Koran to justify violence. It's obvious that the film's screenwriters are trying to make the point that Samir represents the MAJORITY of Muslimsthat is, they are peaceful people who reject the methods of terrorists. Nonetheless, would Samir have risked blowing his cover by getting into an argument with the very man who he must prove his allegiance to? Omar ends up making excuses for Samir so he gets bybut the screenwriters cannot help but continually remind us (in the character of Samir) that the majority of Muslims reject violence (whether you agree or not with that idea, it just feels the point is made ad infinitum throughout the film perhaps in order to 'soften the blow' or 'balance things out' since the films' antagonists are indeed Islamic terrorists!).
Samir is depicted as a man who totally abhors the killing of innocents. However (and here is the big problem with the movie), he is willing to hook up with a lone rogue CIA operative (an intelligence contractor as he is referred to in the movie), a person who he knows virtually nothing about, and plants a bomb in the US consulate in Nice at the behest of this shadowy figure, which accidentally kills eight innocent people. It just seems that there are too many action-thrillers today that trot out the tired storyline of inter-agency government squabbling, especially between the FBI and the CIA.
How does this CIA guy pull off the bombing of the US consulate in France no less? To my recollection, most US embassies and consulates are pretty well-guarded. And why Samir would even take a chance in conducting an operation such as this when he knows that something could go wrong is beyond me.
While the rogue CIA operative must end up getting bumped off precisely because he is amoral and unprincipled, the FBI fares better here. The two agents, Clayton and Archer, are your typical good cop-bad cop characters. Archer is the bad cop and punches Samir a few times in an early interrogation scene in Yemen. But Clayton (Guy Pearce) is the 'sensitive' good cophe majored in Arabic studies as an undergraduate and ends up receiving important information from Samir via email at a critical point in the film's story.
I'm not sure exactly how Samir pulls it offand this is probably a first in the history in the fight against terrorismhe manages to arrange for 50 would-be suicide bombers to be on the same bus and they all blow themselves up at the same time. Then he also manages to shoot the two terrorist masterminds without any bodyguards being present (Note that the main boss, Nathir, again is no scary Mohammed Atta-typebut rather an ordinary businessman).
Traitor does a disservice in the fight against international terrorism. It makes it look all too easy with the good guys easily outwitting the bad guys. But in reality, terrorists such as the 9/11 conspirators were no pushovers; to remind everybody: they beat uswe didn't beat them! Some say that Cheadle's performance here was excellent. I would have to disagree. He comes off as too middle-class, too intellectual to be a former Special Ops guy who is able to infiltrate a gang of terrorists. All the preaching throughout the movie reminds me more of a college professor trying to convince a bunch of undergraduates that his cause is just.
In the end, 'Traitor' tries hard to be as politically correct as possible, arguing that the war against terror is not antithetical to the teachings of the Muslim religion. But it makes its argument in such a heavy-handed and obvious manner that the film becomes overly didactic. Coupled with a wholly implausible plot, 'Traitor' fails to convince us that we're watching a story that mirrors something that could have come close to happening in reality.