Eye in the Sky (2015) User Reviews

Disturbed and Intrigued

[Faisalbatcha · 8/10 · 14 June 2016]

This movie was all of a sudden for me. "GoodKill" was the previous movie I saw which was made on the pilot behind the control's of the drones. But this took the movie to another level and did not let it stay stagnant.

I went into watching this movie with no idea, apart from the fact Aaron Paul and Helen Mirren are in it. It took me on a edge of the seat, nail biting suspense to understanding of all the decisions and effort that goes into putting a mission into effect.

If you wanna see a rare movie, shot splendidly, beautiful cast, perfect emotions and acting - this is a movie to watch. It might even crack your tears up if your so engrossed into the role these actors play in this movie.

One to watch, and I feel one to definitely own in Blue Ray.

A 'war movie' for modern times

[bowmanblue · 8/10 · 2 March 2017]

Not so long ago, all 'war movies' consisted of armies of infantry storming one beach/desert/jungle (delete as applicable). And, to be fair, there was little else that happened in a war. However, in today's high-tech times, 'war' can be fought from the 'comfort' of our own homes (okay, military bases, but how long before our soldiers are allowed to work from home?!). The story here goes that Britain has finally got the intel on a handful of its most wanted terrorists who are amassing in a house in a suburban African district. Should they just use an American-based 'drone' to wipe them out, or is the civilian casualty rate going to be too high? Helen Mirren thinks the former.

The cast boasts Breaking Bad's Aaron Paul on the cast list (and, of course the last performance of Alan Rickman), but it's Mirren who steals the show. She seems to revel in playing the British colonel who is willing to 'take out' the extremists at all costs. Aaron Paul isn't in it as much as some people may hope, but does well with what he's given (which is basically spending the whole film sitting in a chair!). Alan Rickman is as awesome as ever and it's a shame we've lost him too early. Plus we do see what's happening 'on the ground' as it were and the film's unsung hero is a Somalian operative who seems to give a performance filled with more heart and feeling without uttering a word of English than most English-speaking actors.

If you're hoping for an action-packed blast-a-thon of a movie then you'll be very disappointed here. Like I say, it's a war movie of our time. Some people may say that this is a fault, but basically the whole movie is people sitting around in offices debating the ethics of using technology in this way. The film is basically an 'ethics piece' which debates both sides of the argument. I have no problem with films like this, as long as they remain – reasonably – neutral and do their best to put both sides of the argument across. This one does this pretty well, however it does tend to lean towards 'nuking the site from obit' (ala Ellen Ripley) simply because its bigger stars seems to share the same opinion. However, there are plenty of moments where both sides of the argument make good points to support their opposing views.

This film won't be for everyone. Like I say, you have to be in the mood for something which is slow (but without being boring) and filled with messages (without being preachy). It does show how 'war' has evolved to a PR machine as much as something that is simply fought using a bigger army than your opponent. If you're up for something a little more thought-provoking then definitely give this one a go.

Gripping, Tense, Thought-Provoking & HIGHLY RECOMMENDED!

[Instant_Palmer · 8/10 · 18 June 2019]

One of the best films centered on the war against terrorism that integrates today's truly amazing military and intelligence technology (highlighting drones and the people who guide them to the identification and surveillance of targets, pinpoint accurate missles, and collateral damage assessments/estimating programs), and the moral, ethical, legal and political conflicts of making such decisions within the "rules of engagement" by military and political leaders (and their advisors), that are executed by military, intelligence and field personnel when there is a high-likelyhood of collateral damage.

Film succeeds without being preachy or political, amazingly leaving the film goer to both live in the shoes of each character, and decide for themselves what they would do in the situation.

It is superbly acted and directed, the movie paced well so that it thoroughly engrosses the viewer, and builds a nail-biting tension throughout the duration of the film.

I imagine the majority of people who see this film will be both awed by some of the technology military/intelligence used today (although those used in the film may not actually be available, such as the flying beetle spy-cam) , and will have a greater appreciation for the complexities of decision-making involved, and its impact on both military personnel, politicians, and civilians.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

A tense, but unrealistic, film

[mongbei · 7/10 · 7 August 2022]

The British have some wanted terrorists in their sights, tracking then in Nairobi. The Americans are brought in for their technical abilities (drone flying and targeting) and the fact that one of the terrorists is an American citizen.

The intention is to capture the terrorists, but the plan has to be changed to eliminating them instead. The politicians are very hesitant in taking the decision, and there is much concern about collateral damage, but in the end they go ahead and send a couple of missiles in to finish the baddies off. In doing so, a young girl is killed.

The acting is good and believable. The pace of the film is well done with tension sustained throughout.

However, it is a fantasy. It is unlikely that there is so much concern about collateral damage as the film makes out. The Kenyan government would have been more involved. There is no part of Nairobi that has people driving around with guns mounted on Toyota Landcruisers - the director is wanting to suggest Nairobi is like Mogadishu, it isn't.

Good Movie

[agradeep006 · 8/10 · 12 June 2016]

Unlike Good Kill, which is more focused on a drone pilot's life this movie is focused on a military joint operation between UK, US and Kenyan Forces against Al Shabab terrorists.

This movie is about ethical conundrum of drone attacks and killing innocent people in the process.

It's an intense film well acted and it really reflects how difficult it gets to give clearance for an attack when an innocent life gets in close proximity to a target.

There is a conflict between human ethics and achieving military objective.

Can 1 innocent life be sacrificed in order to save many? That's the question on which the whole movie revolves around.

Engaging, effective, and surprisingly heartfelt.

[Red_Identity · 15 June 2016]

It surprised me quite a bit. Political war thrillers have been so overdone, but this one really managed to work by narrowing its scope. With films like this, and real-life disasters that kill dozens of people, it's easy to overlook the importance of every single human life. This film is aiming to remind us of just how significant, and atrocious, times of war are, and rightly so, the film does not come with any easy answers. I loved how the film was completely focused on one single event, and while I can see how some might think it was stretched out too much, I felt like moral and emotional weight of the situation on all of these characters called for it. Maybe I would say that the film gets a bit too sentimental at times (we don't need to be reminded with the many shots of the characters' faces or the music), but for the most part it really works. And oh Aaron Paul, you're just the perfect actor to play characters who are trying to help children.

Nail-biting drama... But the film's morality is more dubious than it recognises

[ahassan-12342 · 6/10 · 10 May 2016]

Director Gavin Hood's previous film, the underrated Ender's Game, focused upon the increasingly virtual, high-tech surveillance and disengaged nature of modern warfare. These elements of Ender's Game are clearly visible in the director's latest thriller offering, Eye in the Sky. The story here involves disparate groups of military and political personnel scattered around the world, all watching the live stream of a terrorist compound in Nairobi and debating whether or not to fire a drone into a heavily-populated ethnically Somali suburb of the Kenyan capital.

The operation is shown to be a joint British and American backed mission and the debate revolves around the collateral damage a drone strike would cause. The collateral damage is given a human face through a young girl who has set up a bread stall near the compound. Eye in the Sky's original title was "Kill Chain" and the reasoning becomes evident as the rest of the film involves people referring up the chain of command to avoid making a decision. The running time consists mainly of people talking to each other on phones and via video screens, however Hood manages to make these scenes some of the tensest, most cinematic, Skype calls you will ever see.

Eye in the Sky highlights the "hawk" and "dove" nature of the politicians of the two countries involved, one memorable scene being the US Secretary of State angry that his game of table tennis is interrupted because the British are dithering. However, the film's demonstration of realpolitik was weaker and has been presented far more successfully in Armando Iannucci's In the Loop, a film based on the run-up to the Iraq War. The film also lacked any strong, coherent argument against the drone strike apart from the contrived little girl selling bread nearby; not touching at all on the long-term consequences of dropping a bomb on a Somali suburb. The film reduces the complicated morality of drone warfare to a simplistic choice: it's either this little girl or a terrorist attack in a busy shopping mall. There's no concern however for civilians nearby who aren't cute children, or that the potential civilian casualties from this attack could be used by Al Shabab to garner more support amongst the population.

Alan Rickman is fantastically dry in his last on-screen role as a British Lieutenant General and Aaron Paul is also very impressive, despite spending the majority of the film in a Portacabin with his finger hovering over the trigger. But while Eye in the Sky may be one of the year's most gripping thrillers, the film's morality is more dubious rather than ambiguous.

Unsettling heart-parked-in-your-mouth film

[ctowyi · 9/10 · 12 April 2016]

This is a white-knuckled heart-parked-in-your-mouth "tick tock" suspense thriller. Hardly an ounce of fats lined a lean and mean explosive storyline, and this one is going to hit the "career reset" button for Gavin Hood (even though his last effort Ender's Game is quite decent).

Eye in the Sky towers above Good Kill (2015) on so many levels. They have the same story premise and both are spins on drone warfare, but their similarities end there. I really thought GK was a decent film albeit a tad too heavy on melodrama histrionics and it ultimately became top down heavy in its underlying message of modern warfare. EitS on the other hand is a complete marvel. It is exactly what GK isn't. It dares to ask probing ethical and moral questions but never cheapens the narrative by giving you broad-stroked answers; it will involve you totally and absolutely. We go through a minefield of moral conundrums and nobody will come out unscathed. The script is exceptionally probing and showcases all the legalistic, moralistic, ethical and political red-tape as parties, seated in situation rooms in different parts of the world (including a toilet), convened to decide whether a Hellfire missile should be launched. We see, almost in real time, the ramifications at every angle, from the innocent bystander, to the terrorists, to the people in suits and to the dude seated in a tiny room, his hands on the red trigger of a joystick. Innocence is indeed the first casualty of war.

Another reason this film shines is its refusal to go down certain genre tropes. You won't see the guy, who had squeezed the trigger to rain down destruction on collateral innocents, drown in alcohol and sucking in a line of coke. You won't see a woman going home to hug her toddler to reassure herself that she did the right thing. You won't see commanders giving you three-point sermons of "it is a dirty job but somebody has to do it so that the world will be a better place". There is such a raw and unsettling freshness to it. It may be a full-on talkie but I was gripping my arm-rests tightly and my wifey had her palms parked at her mouth, almost literally from the get-go.

The acting is all round immaculate. Helen Mirren shines as a hard-nosed military officer with a tiny soft spot for her underlings. Few actresses can elevate a film just with their presence; Mirren is one for the ages. This must be the best role I have seen Aaron Paul in since Breaking Bad. His role isn't easy, especially when he is stuck in a gamer's chair almost throughout the film. His face displays so much range that you would feel his internal turmoil as his omniscient eye calculates whether it will be a good kill. Barkhad Abdi, last seen as the baddie in Captain Phillips, has a superb turn as an operative on the ground, proving he is not a fluke. This is also Alan Rickman's final acting role and I literally count down the minutes that he will disappear from the big screen. The utterly memorable line he delivers with that quietly supercilious voice of his send chills down my spine. I am going to miss this fine actor.

Eye in the Sky is superbly cerebral and morally thought-provoking; a suspense thriller for intelligent people. It is impossible to come out of this 102-minute film and not have your soul shattered in some way. This is one of those films you shouldn't watch alone because you would immediately want to discuss with someone which side of the fence you would sit on and count the dire consequences. Is there even a right side?

So Many Layers

[Hitchcoc · 7/10 · 23 September 2016]

I can't see this film as an insider. I don't know enough about the realities of drone warfare. I would be surprised that those chosen to do the jobs would be so indecisive. Either you do the work of finding the worst of the worst and act on it, or you don't do it at all. To be so badly trained for the possibility of dealing with civilian casualties should probably be grounds for never being in this position. I'm not saying there is no room for compassion, but, let's face it, the people they were honing in on we're capable of a thousand times worse activity. The movie is contrived because if the bread salesman had been an emaciated, middle aged woman, I doubt that there would have been hesitation. It pulls at our heartstrings, right. The person I was most fearful for was the man who put his life in danger again and again, using devices to spy on the little compound. But he is also victimized by the filmmaker. He is careless with his remote control device, allowing that little boy to become a nuisance. What is the lesson here? What do we want to do with suicide bombers? Is all life sacred or isn't it? Those are the questions we need to confront.

The new front line

[TheLittleSongbird · 8/10 · 16 August 2018]

'Eye in the Sky's' main attraction was not for me the fascinating subject. It was not because of my love for the genre. It was because of the immensely talented cast, Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi and Aaron Paul have been great and more in other things, with my main reason for seeing 'Eye in the Sky' being Rickman in his final screen role before his ultimely death two years ago from pancreatic cancer (a loss still very deeply felt).

While not a flawless film as such, and it has proven to be a film that has polarised viewers, 'Eye in the Sky' is truly impressive. There are many fine things and its best elements are superb. What some have found heavy handed, dull, dubious morally and one-sided, was to me a film that was gripping, tense and one that approached its subject matter intelligently and strived not to be too conventional or too simple. Can totally understand the polarisation though, it's a controversial subject in the first place and it was always going to be very hard for any film how to approach it, 'Eye in the Sky' does this well.

Maybe the sentimentality towards the end is a touch too much and maybe the message was hammered home a little too thickly.

Otherwise, there was nothing to fault 'Eye in the Sky'. Where it most excels is with the casting, with Helen Mirren being cast against type and doing so with authoritative steel. Aaron Paul is as great as he was in 'Breaking Bad' and Barkhad Abdi shows his versatility in a role different to the one he had in 'Captain Phillips'. Alan Rickman however gives the best performance, he is commanding and splendidly droll and there was an element of poignancy too knowing that it was his last performance.

The film has nail-biting tension and suspense, unfolds deliberately but never dully (was actually on the edge of my seat the whole time) and was never hard to follow while not ever getting simplistic. It made a real effort to be balanced and handles a difficult subject with tact and intelligence, with it not overdoing or trivialising the full impact of the situation and bravely not falling into clichéd genre tropes or providing easy or over-convenient answers. The main point and moral is generally made effectively. The script is thoughtful and well written and some of the film is also very heartfelt and brings a lump to the throat.

It is a very well made film visually, having the right amount of grit and stylishness and capturing the claustrophobic confinement of the setting with authenticity. The direction is always at ease with the material and doesn't lose control or let go.

Although, truly impressive. 8/10 Bethany Cox

Relevant political drama marred by overlong decision making

[mgumsley · 7/10 · 22 April 2016]

Are our political leaders really the dithering, self seeking personalities that this film makes them out to be? We are all familiar with the few being sacrificed for the greater good; this film implies once the few become familiar, the decision process is marred.

However, this is overall a very good and well intentioned movie, probably the finest that Gavin Hood has ever made. Of course, he is on familiar ground back in the continent of Africa and his empathy with the way this continent is used for the evil ends of extremist groups shines throughout.

Generally speaking, I was more engaged with the first part of the film when the plot is set up, and Helen Mirren as a dedicated army colonel is chasing down Al Shabab in Kenya. The army has tracked down extremists to Nairobi and is sending in a drone to investigate a group of people heading for a house in the suburbs. Mirren wants to blow it up, the drone identifies a group of wanted terrorists, including British nationals, and slowly politicians get involved in the decision making process, and worse still, it looks as if a suicide bombing mission is about to happen.

I really found all this most engaging. The birds eye view of the drone turned out to be fascinating, as Hood lets the cameras explore through the eyes of hummingbird and bug drones.

Then the suits, i.e. the politicians start dithering.... and dithering... and changing their minds, often. The plot is further complicated by the need to reduce collateral damage, and when a child becomes involved in this, its a bit like Hood's old Tsotsi movie again, with a bigger and more dramatic subject.

The finale is stunning and almost redeems the pain that has gone on for about forty five minutes previously. Hood does a superb job of directing and the able cast, headed up by the no nonsense Mirren, graphically show us their emotional perspectives on the whole incident. Its just a pity that the story line gets caught up in a sort of time warp as the dithering goes on.

Despite its flaws, its well worth watching, and I really would have liked to have given it a better rating.

Mary Gumsley

One of the best movies of the year, I highly recommend this. Makes you think, feel and debate. That's the sign of quality.

[cosmo_tiger · 9/10 · 27 June 2016]

"If Al-Shabab kill 80 people we win the propaganda war. If we kill one they do." Colonel Katherine Powell (Mirren) has been tracking a terrorist cell for years and finally has found her chance to capture them. After the discover 2 suicide vests in the house the mission changes from capture to kill. Drone pilot Steve Watts (Paul) is about to fire when he sees a young girl in the kill zone. He refuses to fire unless the can assure her safety. This sets off an international dispute as to what to do. This is a great movie. Unbelievably tense and really makes you think and wonder what is the right thing to do. This movie does a really fantastic job of giving two convincing sides of the argument and you really aren't sure what is the right answer. In that sense the movie has to be incredibly realistic. Up until the very end you aren't sure how the movie is going to end up, and that really adds to the tension and the quality of the movie. This is one of those movies that you just want to tell everyone about and make them watch it. Overall, one of the best movies of the year, I highly recommend this. Makes you think, feel and debate. That's the sign of a quality piece of work. I give this an A.

Absorbing but not realistic

[chris-knightley · 7/10 · 13 November 2020]

The armed forces and political leaders would have established rules of engagement and operation well in advance so the agonised protracted dilemma about loss of life would not have been faced in real time.

Manipulative, intellectually dishonest, cowardly

[FreakNumberOne · 5/10 · 22 November 2016]

Since 2008, around 2800 people have been reported killed in drone strikes. The vast majority of those strikes run up the chain of command and back down relatively quickly, and are carried out without hesitation.

But you'd never know any of that watching this film, where prominent, decorated, diplomats sit, white-knuckled, solemnly carrying out their duty to get a single drone-strike right. You may infer from the film that this happens commonly, or even for every strike. If that were the case, strikes would take up a significant amount of these poor people's time. The unusually high-level nature of this strike is never addressed.

Conveniently, the British have their finger on the trigger, not America. Conveniently, it's not the British Airforce pulling the trigger, but the American. So there's an international inversion happening that keeps this film from being important, valid or thought provoking.

A Non-American has to make the hard call and kill for the greater good, which lets us off the hook. Conveniently, the drone-operators, who are American, get to be the heroic conscience of the film. They just won't take the chance of accidentally killing a young girl. They're just too valiant and honorable. They stand up to the chain of command, but a Britt is at the top, which makes their act hollow and without statement.

The melodrama is so dishonest, so clearly politically manipulated, I am baffled that anyone would ever take this film seriously. Alan Moore once said the film V For Vendetta was made by "people too timid to set a political satire in their own country." Well this is a film about the American drone program that doesn't have the guts to discuss the American drone program. Five stars given for being exceptionally well made. Five stars withheld for being insultingly brazen propaganda.

Lawyers At War

[GManfred · 28 March 2016]

In this the 21st century, wars are fought in large part by lawyers. Split second decisions have to be kicked about and sent to higher ups and second-guessed by lawyers. No one in command wants to make the call.

The spectacle of kibitzing lawyers is on full display in "Eye In The Sky", an exasperating film dealing with a drone strike in Kenya. The target is located and the drone is ready to strike - except that the commander of the strike (Helen Mirren) can't get clearance for the reasons mentioned above. All concerned dither and kick the can to someone else. Compounding the problem are two wimpy, tremble-chinned drone operators who are obsessed with collateral damage, despite the fact that the damage would be worse if the mission is not carried out.

The hero of the film is none other than perennial baddie Alan Rickman, who tries to fight through all the feckless opposition to the strike. It is an aggravating 102 minutes to sit through and is probably a good illustration of the gymnastics the modern military has to endure to get anything important done. It is Rickman who nails it when he says, "Never tell a soldier he doesn't know the cost of war". It is almost worth the admission to hear his supercilious voice say it, in this mostly talking talking picture.

A great examination of moral reasoning and ethical decision-making!

[anton-neschadim · 10/10 · 12 September 2015]

"Eye in the Sky" is an excellent examination of ethical decision-making and action within the complexity of the military and government structures. Explored through a complex ethical scenario, this work is illustrative of many important aspects of the process (such as moral sensitivity in military and government, moral reasoning, motivation, character, ...) as they are portrayed and examined through the decisions, judgements and actions of the various participants and stakeholders. This movie is very well paced and is supported by a stunning cast! The action scenes really make this into a thriller. Great to have Gavin Hood return to TIFF with this excellent work, ten years after "Tsotsi" made a splash here in Toronto!

Gripping and intense film with plenty of intrigue , tension , suspense , twists and turns

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 28 June 2019]

Nail-biting , tense and dark anti-war drama with magnificent acting by all-star-cast , acceptable production design and masterfully realized by the always original and professional Gavin Hood . British Army Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) wakes up early in the morning and hears that an undercover British/Kenyan agent has been killed by the Al-Shabaab terrorist group. Powell takes command of a mission to capture three of the ten highest-level Al-Shabaab leaders , who are meeting at a safe-house in Nairobi , and a British couple , among them . Soon their crew gets selected to execute a mission from the Army . From Northwood Headquarters-based fighter pilots turned drone pilots control the bloody terrorists by remote control for 12 hours a day . But these drone raids are different than first-person shooter video games , these are lethal machines to kill . Lt Steve Watts (Aaaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) are flying the U.S. drone the sky above Nairobi , they are who will ultimately pull the trigger . The risked mission feels wrong because the strikes are executed indiscriminately . But the high staff (Jeremy Northam , Alan Rickman , Laila Robins , Iain Glenn , Michael O'Keefe) are biginning to question the mission. And from somewhere in the U.S. Midwest to pull off the deadly execution . Do they carry out the assignment knowing there will be collateral damage? . They are fighting a war without end .If you never face your enemy, how can you face yourself . The commander is in England. The drone pilot is in America. The terrorist is in Kenya. And the authority to strike is up in the air. Welcome to the new front line. The longer you watch, the less clearly you see.

Exciting and enjoyable modern-war drama includes intriguing events , intelligent dialog , brilliant cinematography , appropriate sets and sensational performances .This nail-biting film contains thrills , suspense , intrigue , plot twists , and results a be pretty interesting . It was originally conceived as a tense as well as amazing thriller about the possibility of collateral damage at a case of terrorist slaughter . ¨Eye in the sky¨ bears remarkable resemblance to ¨Good Kill¨ (2014) by Andrew Niccol with Ethan Hawke , January Jones and Bruce Greenwood , dealing with similar issue , but under another view-point. Across the movie results in a long debate among those in charge - in London there is Powell's commanding officer : Helen Mirren , Lt. General Frank Benson: Alan Rickman , a junior minister : Jeremy Northam and the British Attorney General ; the British Foreign Secretary is at a trade conference ; and the U.S. Secretary of State : Michael O'Keefe is in China - on whether they can proceed . All of them begin to question the ethics of this twisted mission , and the executioners also question their job as drone pilots . The premise is the following : if the kill mission is approved to cause an astonishing massacre and even things go wrong when in the "kill zone" happens the sudden appearance of a little girl selling bread . The cast is frankly well , giving nice performances such as : Helen Mirren , Aaron Paul , Alan Rickman , Phoebe Fox , Jeremy Northam , Michael O'Keefe , Laila Robins , Barkhad Abdi and Gavin Hood himself as Lieutenant Colonel Ed Walsh . The motion picture was well directed by Gavin Hood , he is a notorious secondary actor and filmmaker . As a director he has got a great number of hits ; such as : Tsotsi , Rendition , A reasonable man , Ender's Game , Official secrets and X-Men Origins: Wolverine . Rating : 7.5/10 . Above average , well worth seeing .

Intention vs. reality

[theovosse · 9/10 · 29 July 2018]

Great movie that doesn't have to rely on tons of CGI to sustain interest. Instead, there is just a handful of characters, and they discuss about consequences. It's a discussion that won't happen in reality, of course, but the characters represent the different viewpoints in the drone killing process, and they do it very well. As another comment said: you have never seen a Skype call this gripping. This is great cinematography.

Had it just been a discussion about the moral ambiguity of drone strikes, the movie would not have convinced. Where the movie shines, IMO, is its portrayal of uncertainty. Reality cannot be manipulated, and can certainly not be taken for granted. The outcome is not decided in the discussion, but afterwards, and we have to face it. That can make you reluctant to act to the point of cowardice, or all gung-ho, but it doesn't make a difference in the end.

So, is there a happy ending? It doesn't matter. Live with the pain.

A thoroughly gripping film and a consciousness raising experience.

[CineMuseFilms · 7/10 · 7 April 2016]

The war film genre enables us to confront the realities of war by venting our inner fears and indulging our conceits of victory. But there are many kinds of war film. Depending on theme and purpose, war films can be a hybrid of the adventure, history, drama, thriller, science fiction and even comedy genres. They have recently morphed from trench-and-tank settings to globally dispersed and armchair directed war rooms with real-time engagement resembling a video game with highly sophisticated and deadly accurate killing technology. Far from fantasy war, Eye in the Sky (2015) raises moral and political dilemmas that potentially touch every citizen. Can you imagine one day democratically sharing the decision to bomb a target via your iPhone?

The story unfolds over a few hours when Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) and Lt. Col. Frank Benson (the late Alan Rickman) must convince their political masters to change a 'capture' to a 'kill' mission when they unexpectedly get the opportunity to wipe out several top ranking terrorists in Nairobi. After getting the necessary political and military approvals, a weak link opens up at the trigger pulling end of the chain of command when the soldier authorised to fire the missile sees a young girl near the kill zone. It's a classic morality play: do you save the girl and risk losing the opportunity to eliminate several really bad people who are being fitted with suicide vests that could kill hundreds of innocents? The resulting drama appears fast-paced but is more notable for what does not happen rather than what does because buck-passing between decision-makers delays the critical moment. It's a tense thriller matched by sharp camera-work in what feels like real-time, making the audience both witnesses and judges of the events as they happen.

Mirren and Rickman are superb in their roles. Both skilfully portray the stresses and frustrations of working between the world of the professional soldier and that of the politician. This is not your standard war film and is more about the political dynamics of how war will be waged in the future. While miniaturised beetle drones transmitting high definition video from inside Satan's den looks more like fantasy than war science, remember that similar things were said about the HAL 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The history of Sci-Fi shows that today's imaginings is tomorrow's reality. So the moral dilemmas in this film are very real. Eye in the Sky stands out as both a thoroughly gripping film and a consciousness raising experience.

Good military suspense

[SolidYohanK · 8/10 · 31 October 2020]

I've watched the movie on watcha. and, feels it was a good military suspense with a message. ( whatever a viewer agreed that or not)

I know some viewer are criticizing it's not real enough. but, why it should be? It's not a documentary, nor a debate. It's just a movie. It has enough suspense, high tech weapons, and several messages we could think about. (Even it has Jessie Pinkman.)

If you are a military suspense fan. You won't regret it. My rating is 8 (RECOMMENDED)

Political dithering and droning

[bob-the-movie-man · 7/10 · 20 April 2016]

In "Air Force One" (1997) Gary Oldman's hijacking terrorist rebuffs the President's daughter's claim that the two are unalike – "Why? Because he does it in a tuxedo with a telephone call and a smart bomb?". Warfare has changed immeasurably in the last twenty years with the introduction of ever-more ingenious drone technology, allowing armchair generals to be just that… cosily dispatching bad guys from the comfort of their own fireside with a cigar and a brandy in hand. "Eye in the Sky" addresses the issues associated with this capability, showcasing some of the technology used, the truly global distribution of operations, the stresses placed on drone operators and the political ramifications of being able to SEE everything happening in real-time and in great detail.

The film focuses on an operation to capture a cell of the Al Shabaab terrorist group in Kenya, holed up in a highly defended suburb of Nairobi. Political ramifications result from the fact that two of the terrorists are British nationals and one is American born. Helen Mirren ("The Queen") plays Colonel Katherine Powell (as a strong female role model that is to be commended) heading up the military operations. Alan Rickman is her boss, Lieutenant General Frank Benson, handling the politics within the "Cobra" meeting in Whitehall. Flying the key drone itself, and being put under great stress, are pilots Steve Watts (Aaron Paul, "Breaking Bad") and rookie Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox, "The Woman in Black 2").

While much of the action is 'remote', we also have feet on the street in the form of Somali-born Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi), swapping sides from his terrorist role in "Captain Phillips" to support the good guys. And finally adding a strong human angle is young Kenyan girl Alia (Aisha Takow) trying to enjoy her childhood amid the repressive Islamic regime.

This subject has been handled before: Ethan Hawke's "Good Kill" from 2014 and the dreadful looking 'B-movie' called "Drones" all focused on the mental state of drone pilots inflicting their video-games style justice from the safety of their US bases. Where "Eye in the Sky" goes one better is in focusing on the tense triangle of decision-making between military, legal and political factors at play.

"Eye in the Sky" is an odd curate's egg of a film – really good in places. The action scenes are well handled with nail-biting tension built up at times: never has the sale of bread been more gripping! Particularly tense are the scenes involving Barkhad Abdi who is (once again) excellent in his role as Hollywood's "go to Somali"! On home ground the film is less sure-footed. While Guy Hibbert's story rightly balances the action with the dramatic tensions of the decision-making process, the dithering that ensues reaches almost comical proportions at one point, painting British government in a very poor and (I hope to God) unrealistic light. I can only dread to think what American audiences think when they watch this film! In comparison, the US politicians are portrayed as much more analytical and matter of fact. Probably frustrating the hell out of American audiences though will be the portrayal of their military pilots who – I would presume – are diligently selected and trained in real-life to 'disengage brain and follow orders' without question in a combat situation: not as featured in the film.

A film like this lives and dies by the quality of its special effects, and these (by Mickey Kirsten and Vasili Rinquest) are up to snuff, with excellent highlighting of the ingenious drone gadgets in the military's arsenal. Another shout-out should go to Megan Hill for some very tight and effective film editing in the action scenes.

The director is Gavin Hood ("Ender's Game") who also appears as the US Lt Colonel in the film.

Helen Mirren – not everyone's cup of tea as an actress – is splendid here as the frustrated Colonel and many of the supporting cast also excel: Monica Dolan (so brilliant in the BBC's "W1A") is brilliantly irritating as the Cobra voice of conscience! But this will be a film that will be remembered as the last for the late and great Alan Rickman who died suddenly of pancreatic cancer in January. Surely no actor was better at delivering such deliberate and clipped lines as Rickman, and he will be sorely missed. It is almost physically painful to watch his final scenes in the film, and he (nearly) exits with a fine and memorable last line of dialogue. R.I.P. Mr Rickman.

In summary, this is a highly watchable and gripping film, regrettably diluted by an over-egged and unrealistic dose of political dithering in the storyline.

(Please visit bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks.)

Hugely rewarding military/political thriller

[wellthatswhatithinkanyway · 10/10 · 18 December 2016]

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is drafted to military HQ, after intelligence confirms reports that a suicide bombing mission that could take out up to eighty people at a shopping mall is soon to go ahead in Nairobi, Kenya. The evidence is credible enough in her eyes, and those of her colleague Lieutenant General Benson (Alan Rickman) to launch an air strike on the terrorist plotters before they carry out their plan, but when a young girl sets up a bread stall around the target zone, American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) finds himself compromised, and Colonel Powell is thrust into a complex situation where she has to take opinions down the chain of command.

In the modern age, with the terrorist threat level at severe, and attacks being thwarted around the globe almost daily, you have to wonder what's going on behind the scenes to keep us all safe, and hope that those responsible have the ability to make the right decisions, and don't abuse the position unnecessarily. But the thing you cannot forget is, they all are only human, and are in a position not many of us could handle. Eye in the Sky hones in on one such scenario, and gives us a riveting insight into the sort of situation that could unfold.

This is not some wistful, happy ever after tale, this is a depiction of the real life cost of war, and the film isn't afraid to lay bare the nitty gritty of real life tough decisions and the hard, brutal consequences they have. Director Gavin Hood manages to wrap us up in the situation as if it's happening right in front of us, and the result is a genuinely suspenseful, intelligent and unpredictable thriller of the sort you just never see as much of nowadays, where everything seems to be more about style than substance. There are no easy answers, and everyone is caught up in an unenviable place, where every reaction/outcome is morally complex, the result of being in such an impossible state of affairs.

Performances wise, in a role that its all too obvious would usually be played by a man, Mirren owns the lead role, displaying the sort of steely eyed, no nonsense grit that gives it such conviction regardless of gender, and in what we all now know was his last role, Rickman leaves us on a high note, delivering the sour, clear cutting persona we all knew him for, and so well. A supporting cast including Paul and a host of others offer dependable leverage.

This is one of the best, most rewarding and pleasantly surprising thrillers I've seen in a long time, and I'd urge you to see it. *****

complicated morality of modern war

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 5 September 2016]

Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) leads a British operation to capture valuable Al-Shabaab terrorists in Kenya who are British citizens. It's a global effort with a US drone operated out of Vegas and monitored in Pearl Habor. There are local government operatives with state-of-the-art naturalistic drones camouflaged as a humming bird and a beetle. Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) guides a group of British government leaders. The suspected terrorists leave for a Al-Shabaab controlled slum where the government military is reluctant to deploy. Soon, surveillance finds the group preparing suicide bomb vests and the mission escalates. After much debate, the kill order is given but USAF pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) sees a little girl selling bread.

Director Gavin Hood tackles the complicated morality of the modern war. The politicians debate. Their hand wringing is tough to watch. The legal arguing is frustrating. It depicts the global disconnected nature of today's war as well as the guys on the ground level. Barkhad Abdi does another ethnic Somali character as a Kenyan agent. There are a couple of things I would alter. There is no need to concentrate on the little girl living or dying. Leaving it unknown would have been much more compelling. Also Aaron Paul should not be playing a rookie. It would be more compelling for a veteran to demand additional assessment. It hints for deeper meaning. They're minor alterations that are not absolutes.

Starts well, then lectures, then bores...

[amoore-4 · 4/10 · 9 May 2016]

This film has talented star power and an interesting premise, albeit this type of film has already been done, but where it fails is the inaction by Aaron's character and his unwillingness to follow orders. His actions challenge a direct order, and in real life scenario under these circumstances this would not happen.. he would be removed. It becomes a moral lecture on when it's right to take a life. The movie could easily have been a one hour show but it spends too much time debating and discussing the 'hit', all because a little girl is in danger. I mean, gimme a break... there are seriously bad people conspiring in the building in question and can be taken out with a accurate strike from the drone.

I'm not sure about others who saw this movie, but I was starting to squirm in my seat and mule out loud.. "just press the damn button"!! The movie fails not because it isn't well acted or the story has no potential. It fails because it is unrealistic. The trigger man would not see one girl as sufficient collateral damage when many high risk targets are at stake, targets that have not been in one place for years!

If you like a movie that tries to show the sensitive and caring side of a young inexperienced man whose job it is to carry out orders from a group of senior experts who've dedicated their life to tracking these terrorists but is allowed to stall the decision at the risk of losing the shot by dithering over the possibility (they debate percentages of death ad nauseum) of a cute a little girl dying, then you'll like this movie. But I think most of us know the post 9/11 world we live in and how lucky the military would be to finally after years eliminate a number of known terrorists with one strike and not dedicate 45 minutes of a movie to hand-wringing and needless prevarication. It didn't make me yawn so much as make me angry... see it if you like, and tell me if you don't start pushing an imaginary button on your theater arm rest...

Very unrealistic!

[btucker3 · 28 May 2016]

VERY unrealistic! How many people have to argue about collateral damage? It shows too much drama over political/legal power vs military objective. Political correctness wins unfortunately on this film. Cannot see how the writers and directors can argue SO much with military orders and how the military in the film can blatantly disregard orders. Then the strategy turns to playing the game and they still do not win. Wonders of cinema and technology do not overstretch the challenge of war for the betterment of all people, especially when we are not on a level playing field. What is the point of writing all this to make sure we point out the plot in 10 lines!?