Drone

This picture designed for thinking audiences, looks at modern warfare and should leave the thoughtful viewer with plenty to consider. Have we become too desensitized to push-button drone strikes from afar, and lost the ability to consider the innocent by-standers..the 'collateral' damage?

It's a well-made movie with strong cinematic visual elements (especially at the opening) good central performances, and bares its soul allowing us to see some of the sorry outcomes of assassination from a distance - this time, offering insights into family impacts from both sides. It won't please action fans but also doesn't outstay its welcome. For some, it might seem a little confusing at times but patient audiences should appreciate the overall impact and statements. One of the better Canadian productions.

There are two other drone dilemma movies, Good Kill and Eye In The Sky. Drone carries on the same theme, and is on par with them. If you liked those two movies mentioned then you'll like this one. The framing of the shots in Drone is special. Fantastic use is made of mirrors and arial shots. There is also a brilliant soundtrack with a tragic Eastern edge, which overlays really effectively on the main drama, almost all of which takes place in suburban USA. Initially we see the contrast between the two cultures, drawn with lovely vivid colour and detail. The theme of war is carried through with subtle, clever touches, such as a flag fluttering, domestic aircraft either seen above or heard in the distance, or a clever fusion of traffic sounds and a gameboy, creating an odd sound eerily like a barrage in the distance. It's all building up to something. My gripe with the movie is the over-complication of the theme of truth, as opposed to the main theme of collateral damage and responsibility. For me that was too much information serving only to overdramatise the story. The film wasn't a long one, which helped. I wondered at the wisdom of casting Sean Bean. It wasn't his acting so much, which was very good, but rather his character role. He seemed very untidy and unkept for a man at the forefront of new technologies, and seemed to be constantly fidgeting, as though he didn't know what to do with his hands. What the hell, maybe that was a hint at conscience. If so then it didn't work as well as other aspects of the movie mentioned above. It's a good movie, with just the right amount of tension, craft and thoughtfulness for its length, and of course, as we pilot a way forward in a new world of technologies we certainly need movies like Drone.

What was the accent that Bean was supposed to be using? it changed as the film progressed.

As for the storyline, well, the premise was good but the acting was second rate to say the best. The over emotional kid.... and the ending I've seen more exciting in made for TV movies . Plenty of time for it to have been controlled better and the twist, I'd guessed that was going to happen from the earlier dialogue.

Can't see why it was called drone, apart from that being his day job, better to have been called a little light drama of dinner.

I stuck it out to the end but, wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Most part of the movie is a picture taken from the sky. Real mechanical drone versus human eyes drone. Great comparison by the director. For the first 5 minutes, I was worried thinking I came to the wrong foreign movie. It is true thriller with a common theme but from a different angle. It is not really a military movie. Sean Bean's acting is excellent. He is secretive but covert. His facial expressions are amazing and his handling of stressful events are masterful. He lets himself helpless and vulnerable only at times and places were is heart is near and dear. The villain Amir SHaw ( Movie Name) is a talented actor who displays great control of his emotions most of the time. When he lost his composure he acted truly as a suffering madman. Every one had a part to play and they were wonderful. I am sorry to say the crowd attracting phenomenon was not there because of lack of commercial advertisement. I give this movie 6.5

Here are a couple of examples and they require an attentive mind to spot them. I see a man who wouldn't hurt a fly. To me I see not a gentleness but strong religious beliefs.

Another good example is of a man slowly and carefully washing himself using a pail of water. What I see here is ritual.

A third example, the most persuasive in the opening act, is watching that recently cleansed man walking out into the daylight, coldly and calmly past his still quivering victim along a waterway choked with floating garbage.

This is a movie that makes the viewer read between the lines.

You have to study the context and emotion, not a dialog heavy movie you can listen to in the background and accomplish other tasks.