>and that is the point of the movie. You feel as
>though the movie fell apart in the end because you
>wanted a polically correct ending.

See, that's why Guy Pearce's character's reaction was strange to me, or Samir's freedom for that matter, because it seemed like an effort to put a positive spin on an ending that was not positive. He helped blow up American civilians. And they showed he was troubled by that, that it wasn't a victory to him, but I don't get why the American government, at least as represented by Guy Pearce, weren't after him for his involvement. Were they so happy he blew the ringleader away that they forgave his participation in deadly terrorist attack? Just didn't seem very realistic to me. It felt like one of those "you broke a lot of laws, but all is forgiven because you did one good thing and we see where you're coming from now" endings that lesser Hollywood thrillers use so much.

There is always
>gonna to be some loss of life in terrorist situations,
>IMO. Samir was a good fuy trying to the right thing.
>His motivation was his faith and father's philosophy(the
>film gave a few vague references). I think the film
>was trying to show that even the honest man sometimes
>got to make compromises. You wanted him to do the
>right thing for the greater good which was not his
>motivation.

It's not what I wanted him to do. Just what I expected him to do after the film seemed to establish earlier that human loss was unacceptable to him. But I'll admit I'm not sure on what his and Jeff Daniels' original plan with the bus was, so maybe he knew civilians would die all along, but if so I don't think they really established why he was okay with it now when he wasn't with the embassy.