Opération Eye in the Sky

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.