Eye in the Sky

great movie

!ff

...

cia

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. *****

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.

The film was a nice fantasy building up the tension. Will she / won't she sell the flat bread and avoid getting blown up. Questions to ask yourself: 1) Why wasn't the Kenyan government at a high level involved in decisions regarding the possible death of its own citizens on their own soil. the focus was on UK and US passport holders. Hello there were many Kenyans on the scene as well. Backdoor colonialism? Would the US or the UK like it of the Russians decided to launch a helfire missile attack on Chechyns in Washington or London without even conferring with the domestic authorities. Hollywood simpletons at their best 2) I wept... with laughter.. as I watched supposedly crying drone pilots so tortured with conscience. You just need to watch actual, live footage of US helicopter pilots in the Snowdon film to hear there audio high fives as they gun down terrorists plus an known Reuters Journalist and a civilian who comes and tries to help and his child. Their touch feeler comment being "Well they shouldn't be in a war zone should they". 3) And on what planet does a US drone pilot take orders directly from a UK military officer without a senior US officer intervening and have the Brits make contacts directly with their war department. The yanks are even colonising themselves now. 4) A hell-fire missile has a maximum velocity of 950 mph which is 1300 ft per second. Let's assume a very low speed of 1000 ft per second to allow for acceleration. The drone was at 20,000 feet which means a launch to impact time of 20 seconds. not 50 seconds as the film states. Maybe the missile had a stroke of conscience as well and slowed down to give the girl a chance and weep a few e-tears. Clearly the Hollywood producer simpletons can't even use google or a calculator. Anyway I guess the retail public likes to think that the entire political establishment of two nations is involved every time there is a drone attack. How, how very noble and civilised and carefully thought through it all is. Keep dreaming , war is ugly just admit it and get on with assassinations if that is the only way of winning. Films like this just make IS laugh.

After seeing the trailer I expected a highly-thrilling film. It was not. In fact, I was rather bored. I also like the work of Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman so was looking forward to this. I was sorely disappointed. About the only really interesting thing was realizing the scope of the intelligence personnel and equipment in place all around the world and how quickly they can all communicate verbally and visually. The premise was simplistic and I guess some writer's idea of reiterating the unfortunate consequences of conflicts between nations and unforeseen casualties, as if we don't already know that. I was not the least bit upset about the mission going forth and feel it should have been accomplished the first time. I was downright ashamed of our lieutenant and his unmanly attitude. I feel this was a whiny, liberal diatribe intended to make us all feel guilty but it surely did not work on me.

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!?

Eye in the Sky-720P