Eye in the Sky (2015)

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.

Fmovies: "Eye in the Sky" is an excellent examination of ethical decision-making and action within the complexity of the military and government structures. Explored through a complex ethical scenario, this work is illustrative of many important aspects of the process (such as moral sensitivity in military and government, moral reasoning, motivation, character, ...) as they are portrayed and examined through the decisions, judgements and actions of the various participants and stakeholders. This movie is very well paced and is supported by a stunning cast! The action scenes really make this into a thriller. Great to have Gavin Hood return to TIFF with this excellent work, ten years after "Tsotsi" made a splash here in Toronto!

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.

Eye in the Sky fmovies. "If Al-Shabab kill 80 people we win the propaganda war. If we kill one they do." Colonel Katherine Powell (Mirren) has been tracking a terrorist cell for years and finally has found her chance to capture them. After the discover 2 suicide vests in the house the mission changes from capture to kill. Drone pilot Steve Watts (Paul) is about to fire when he sees a young girl in the kill zone. He refuses to fire unless the can assure her safety. This sets off an international dispute as to what to do. This is a great movie. Unbelievably tense and really makes you think and wonder what is the right thing to do. This movie does a really fantastic job of giving two convincing sides of the argument and you really aren't sure what is the right answer. In that sense the movie has to be incredibly realistic. Up until the very end you aren't sure how the movie is going to end up, and that really adds to the tension and the quality of the movie. This is one of those movies that you just want to tell everyone about and make them watch it. Overall, one of the best movies of the year, I highly recommend this. Makes you think, feel and debate. That's the sign of a quality piece of work. I give this an A.

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. *****

Great movie that doesn't have to rely on tons of CGI to sustain interest. Instead, there is just a handful of characters, and they discuss about consequences. It's a discussion that won't happen in reality, of course, but the characters represent the different viewpoints in the drone killing process, and they do it very well. As another comment said: you have never seen a Skype call this gripping. This is great cinematography.

Had it just been a discussion about the moral ambiguity of drone strikes, the movie would not have convinced. Where the movie shines, IMO, is its portrayal of uncertainty. Reality cannot be manipulated, and can certainly not be taken for granted. The outcome is not decided in the discussion, but afterwards, and we have to face it. That can make you reluctant to act to the point of cowardice, or all gung-ho, but it doesn't make a difference in the end.

So, is there a happy ending? It doesn't matter. Live with the pain.