Drone

REVIEW - DRONE

What is right? What is wrong? Is it right to do? Is it right to not do?

A film exploring the issues of collateral damage 'innocent people' being killed when drones have been used.

The film touches on the moral aspects of drone warfare but concentrates on turning the subject from the glorification of drone warfare and puts the question in your lap, what would you do if your wife and child were killed by a drone?

How far would you go? What is right? What is wrong? Is it right to do? Is it right to not do?

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.

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

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.

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.