Enemigo invisible

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.