Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Eye in the Sky

7

BHBarryMar 19, 2016

"Eye in the Sky" stars Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul in this drama depicting the technical versatility of today’s drones in modern warfare and the ethical questions their use poses. Directed by Gavin Hood with a screenplay"Eye in the Sky" stars Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul in this drama depicting the technical versatility of today’s drones in modern warfare and the ethical questions their use poses. Directed by Gavin Hood with a screenplay written by Guy Hibbert, the film is blatantly one-sided in its efforts to convey the viewpoint of the writer and is almost amateurish in the manner in which his points are attempted to be made. One wonders why an actress of Ms. Mirren’s depth and talent would lend herself to the small and mundane part she plays except perhaps to allow the film to get the financing it needed and to help exhibit her personal and political point of view as well. In any event, the film, despite its shortcomings, makes for an interesting examination of the role of these unmanned aircraft and how and when they should be deployed. I give the a 7.0 rating, more for the information the viewer will receive from watching it as opposed to the quality of the film itself..… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

9

foxgroveApr 18, 2016

Drone warfare and the dilemma of various politicians and military personnel over whether or not to carry out a ‘capture or kill’ operation is the subject of this riveting spring coiled drama. When the targets they are monitoring in a house inDrone warfare and the dilemma of various politicians and military personnel over whether or not to carry out a ‘capture or kill’ operation is the subject of this riveting spring coiled drama. When the targets they are monitoring in a house in a small Nairobi village become an immediate threat to many lives, the debate over the life of one child becomes the focus of the film. The various officials dodge responsibility or ‘pass the buck’ not wishing to be culpable should the collateral damage end up falling at their door. Where the film succeeds so brilliantly is in the writing which offers a balanced presentation of a difficult situation. Political, military and moral considerations weigh in and all facets of human emotion are never far from the surface as depicted by a fine ensemble cast. Even the propaganda machine is assessed. That the film is nail bitingly tense has to be seen to be believed as director Gavin Hood contains the action in a few rooms trusting that his use of close ups on the actors faces will complete the turn of the screw, with just a little help from some judicious editing. Helen Mirren is in her element here. She is always at her best when portraying strong women in control, and her Colonel Katharine Powell can certainly be counted amongst those. In his last screen appearance Alan Rickman has one of the film’s best lines. Rebuking a colleague’s judgemental comments his ‘Never tell a military man the cost of war’ reply, is powerfully delivered. Also, his need to get the right doll for his daughter underlines the pointless trivialities that we all enjoy whilst, generally, remaining detached from the life and death game called war.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

7

BrianMcCriticJun 28, 2016

This is a film that is done extremely well and makes you really consider the strong moral dilemma these characters are going through. Finally I appreciated that the film does not sugar coat death. This girls life is in these people's handsThis is a film that is done extremely well and makes you really consider the strong moral dilemma these characters are going through. Finally I appreciated that the film does not sugar coat death. This girls life is in these people's hands and the film goes for it. B+… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

8

eagleeyevikingJul 9, 2016

Absorbing through the performances across the board as well as its tight, focused story, Eye in the Sky doesn't fully capitalise in debating both sides of the conflict as well as it could have.

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

9

Rebecca31May 3, 2016

Alan Rickman's last onscreen performance, this in itself should be reason enough to see the movie. Also starring Helen Mirren and some other faces you're sure to recognise. A military operation to capture terrorists, and let’s leave it atAlan Rickman's last onscreen performance, this in itself should be reason enough to see the movie. Also starring Helen Mirren and some other faces you're sure to recognise. A military operation to capture terrorists, and let’s leave it at that, honestly the less you know about this movie the better. Intense and gripping with superb performances, a definite recommendation.… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

8

horrorliefhebMay 15, 2016

-Eye in the Sky is a 2015 British thriller film starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman and Barkhad Abdi. The film, directed by Gavin Hood based on a screenplay by Guy Hibbert, is about military personnel facing the legal, ethical and-Eye in the Sky is a 2015 British thriller film starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman and Barkhad Abdi. The film, directed by Gavin Hood based on a screenplay by Guy Hibbert, is about military personnel facing the legal, ethical and political dilemmas presented by drone warfare against those using terrorist tactics, and civilians who are endangered by it. It was filmed in South Africa in late 2014.

-The film premiered at the 2015 Toronto International Film Festival on 11 September 2015. Bleecker Street distributed the film in theaters in the United States with a limited release on 11 March 2016. Entertainment One plans to distribute the film in theaters in United Kingdom on 8 April 2016. It will also release the film in Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand. It is one of two posthumous feature films starring Rickman, who died of pancreatic cancer in January 2016; the other is Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016).

--Critical response:

-Eye in the Sky has received positive reviews from critics. On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes the film has a rating of 94%, based on 140 reviews, with an average rating of 7.5/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "As taut as it is timely, Eye in the Sky offers a powerfully acted – and unusually cerebral – spin on the modern wartime political thriller." On Metacritic, the film has a score of 73 out of 100, based on 38 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".

-Rickman's performance was well received by critics, with Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times saying, "Mr. Rickman was never nominated for an Academy Award and it's probably a long shot for a posthumous Supporting Actor for this film -- but his work here is a reminder of what a special talent he possessed."

-Dr. Peter Asaro on Science & Film reviewed the accuracy of the advanced military technology depicted in the film concluding, "keep in mind that while some of the advanced technologies depicted are not yet out in the field, many are only a few years away from being a reality."

--See also:

• Good Kill, a 2014 film also featuring drone warfare… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful30

All this user's reviews

8

jeremypApr 3, 2016

A tense, reasonably educated and realistic movie about drone warfare. The action has been slowed down in order for talking heads to argue the issues, which works less and less as the movie progresses. British political sensibilities meetA tense, reasonably educated and realistic movie about drone warfare. The action has been slowed down in order for talking heads to argue the issues, which works less and less as the movie progresses. British political sensibilities meet American pragmatics. The biggest weakness is the drone pilot played by Aaron Paul, who seems free to over rule his superiors on a whim: an innocent in the target zone. 1 innocent to be balanced against dozens. The myth projected is that sensibility over rules pragmatics. It hasn't so far.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

SpangleApr 9, 2016

Director Gavin Hood delivers a fantastically poignant and thorough examination of the decision making behind drone warfare, as well as the ethics of the system we currently live with. Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul, and Barkhad Abdi,Director Gavin Hood delivers a fantastically poignant and thorough examination of the decision making behind drone warfare, as well as the ethics of the system we currently live with. Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul, and Barkhad Abdi, turn in very good performances here in this contemplative war thriller. Incredibly uncompromising, Eye in the Sky's dedication to showing you the unseen human element of warfare and the emotional turmoil it can cause is exemplary and commendable. Far too often, war films will avoid this exploration of human emotion and pain, instead focusing on action sequences. This is not the case at all with Eye in the Sky as it consistently considers the human aspect here and not just for the people behind the drones, but also the people on the ground who live near drone targets. In this way, Eye in the Sky has to be one of the better war films of recent memory. While not the best one of all-time, Eye in the Sky certainly ranks up there with the most emotionally damaging and haunting experiences I have had watching a war film. For this, Eye in the Sky truly is a winner. Incredibly dramatic, thrilling, and moving, it is a powerhouse of a film that feels like a punch to the gut.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

Compi24Apr 6, 2016

Director Gavin Hood returns to the realm of the political with "Eye In The Sky," an interesting pseudo-docudrama where calculation and compassion collide. Featuring great, understated work from both Helen Mirren and the tragically late AlanDirector Gavin Hood returns to the realm of the political with "Eye In The Sky," an interesting pseudo-docudrama where calculation and compassion collide. Featuring great, understated work from both Helen Mirren and the tragically late Alan Rickman, the film maneuvers gracefully betwixt multiple storylines, characters, and locales. And, while the movie's second act may at times feel pedantic, it's all there to set up a truly haunting conclusion that lingers like a dense fog in the viewer's conscience. Really fine work here from everyone involved.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

LeZeeJul 14, 2016

The modern warfare, and its advantages as well as drawbacks.

A new kind of war. When everyone is worried about robots might take over our jobs, it meant military as well. There was not robots in this, but a war fought from a safe distanceThe modern warfare, and its advantages as well as drawbacks.

A new kind of war. When everyone is worried about robots might take over our jobs, it meant military as well. There was not robots in this, but a war fought from a safe distance and soldiers don't have to be physically trained so well, even the geeks with the gaming knowledge can take over. So a film about the modern warfare where the casualty rate is very minimum and can be accomplished before any major assault take place.

From the South African director of 'Ender's Game' fame. This is slightly a similar theme, but a real world affair and a real time presentation. Initially I thought it was a remake of the Hong Kong film of the same name. We had seen drone attacks in the films, but they won't last for a few minutes. This film was entirely about how drone missions work that told with detail.

"Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war."

This was a very good film and they must make a sequel to it. This film will get a special status going towards the future. There were no physically exceptional performances, the stars' presence and their verbal expressions were stronger. So there many thrilling scenes with great lines, especially Alan Rickman's final dialogue. This film was his final film and he was excellent like the usual. Even the Abdi's role was small, but powerful and so Helen Mirren's, but Aaron Paul and the rest were decent.

The story was good, but I did not like the too much sentimentalised. Because all's fair in love and war. You won't make a film to please the terrorists and their sympathisers. Other than that it is a masterpiece. Surely worth a watch.

8/10… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

moviemitch96Apr 6, 2016

An interesting and timely film, this is the exact kind of stuff you read about or see in the news every day, and it doesn't get any more harrowing than this! The cast delivers solid and engaging performances, with Helen Mirren taking greatAn interesting and timely film, this is the exact kind of stuff you read about or see in the news every day, and it doesn't get any more harrowing than this! The cast delivers solid and engaging performances, with Helen Mirren taking great charge of every scene she's in! Aaron Paul also shines in his gripping role! It was also nice to see Barkhad Abdi again in another great role after Captain Phillips! And last but certainly not least, Alan Rickman also delivers a memorable posthumous performance! The story was rather tense for the most part. However, I thought that it started to become a little more predictable towards the end and the ending was a bit of a downer as well. Other than that, this was a great, well-acted, and well-executed thriller!… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

9

NerdConsultantApr 17, 2016

Eye in the Sky is an absolutely fantastic thriller that forces it's audience to confront modern warfare in fair and balanced way with great writing characters and some awesome performances from Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul who isEye in the Sky is an absolutely fantastic thriller that forces it's audience to confront modern warfare in fair and balanced way with great writing characters and some awesome performances from Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul who is the best he's been since Braking Bad. special mention should also go to Barked Abdi who between this and his oscar nominated perforce in Captain Phillips proves what a natural and organic actor he rally is. I hate when people describe a film as edge of your seat stuff but the tension in this film may make that term appropriate. i think this will be a rather divisive film because i suspect a few pro drone people may view it as left wing and a few propaganda and anti drone people may view it as right wing propaganda but that will be because it doesn't really take anyones side and is rather balanced and is a real credit to director Gavin Hood which proves that even directors of awful films (in this case X-Men Orgins Wolverine) can still make fantastic films.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

Unladenswallow0Apr 26, 2016

This is a movie about a british army colonel who has tracked a rogue syndicate of terrorists for six years, and now has the opportunity to wipe them off the face of the earth for good. What starts as a simple military flick actually soonThis is a movie about a british army colonel who has tracked a rogue syndicate of terrorists for six years, and now has the opportunity to wipe them off the face of the earth for good. What starts as a simple military flick actually soon metamorphoses into an intricate thriller that has you wondering what is going to happen next. I went in expecting there to be a load of "Agent down" "They've got us surrounded" "I;m reloading" etc etc, but there actually wasnt much of that. Instead there was an army general shopping for dolls, a foreign secretary taking a **** after some bad fondu curry, and some of the most circular bread you are likely to see in your lifetime. I was genuinely fraught with emotions toward the end of the film, i tried to balance in my head what i would do in such a situation were i in the shoes of those in power. It is often easy to waylay blame onto those in power for things that have gone wrong, however once you try to make that decision for yourself, the task becomes an altogether harder one. I Found this film to be enjoyable and is one of the biggest surprises of the year so far. I expected it to be a pile of **** and came out questioning my own existence, something i usually save for post masturbatory depression as i close my porn tabs. Anyway, i recommend this film very highly, it will surprise you if you let it.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

inkblowoutApr 26, 2016

It's a good movie, with excellent acting from Mirren, Rickman and Paul. I found that this movie gave a good message to the audience about war, drone warfare, choices and chain of command. Although sometimes I found the acting to be cheesy atIt's a good movie, with excellent acting from Mirren, Rickman and Paul. I found that this movie gave a good message to the audience about war, drone warfare, choices and chain of command. Although sometimes I found the acting to be cheesy at some points by placing subtle humor in certain scenes and some scenes could be referred to as filler (to possibly increase screen time.) but overall the movie got to the point really quickly and felt the audience thinking in the end.

It certainly left me hanging off my seat through some parts of the movie due to suspense and with a tearjerker ending with some negative comments about the movie. it does gives me the verdict that this movie was probably one of the best modern military movies I've ever seen.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

RvwFromUpHereMay 10, 2016

Who: Helen Mirren, Jesse Pinkman, The ghost of Alan Rickman, The Somalian guy from Captain Phillips, and Lord Friend Zone as British Foreign Secretary James Willett
What: Aaron Paul playing Jesse Pinkman if he flew drones, and Helen MirrenWho: Helen Mirren, Jesse Pinkman, The ghost of Alan Rickman, The Somalian guy from Captain Phillips, and Lord Friend Zone as British Foreign Secretary James Willett
What: Aaron Paul playing Jesse Pinkman if he flew drones, and Helen Mirren playing Walter White if he was a military commander
Where: The dangerous part of Africa...not like dangerous because of animals, but dangerous because of drones and stuff
When (Can I watch again): The next time you need a good moral dilemma to contemplate
Why: Though it does not live up to the caliber of film Sicario is, you definitely feel a nearly comparable vibe of tension and futility throughout; it's everything one could want in a thriller… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

smiyamotJun 30, 2016

A thinking movie, what is right? is it worth the cost? is it moral? are "we" as bad as "them?" No wonder this didn't do well in the theaters, who wants to go to a movie and use their brains? You have to be in the mood for this one or you'llA thinking movie, what is right? is it worth the cost? is it moral? are "we" as bad as "them?" No wonder this didn't do well in the theaters, who wants to go to a movie and use their brains? You have to be in the mood for this one or you'll be bored to tears. The "good guys" want to capture terrorists for trial but as the situation goes from bad to worse, bombing them seems the only recourse. But that brings up many questions of law, politics, world perception, and collateral damage. Are these discussions and decisions made in real life? I'm sure it is. A lot of great dialogue between the decision makers is balanced with lifelike action scenes.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

EpicLadySpongeApr 22, 2016

Another one of those films I keep on forgetting to make a review on. Eye in the Sky catches the eye in the sky by using secrets no one has ever used in movies before.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

masamunerikuApr 22, 2016

Our imperfections as human beings are what make us so interesting. This movie is all about decision making that involves different motivations and aspects: time, emotions, politics, law, moral, logic and human lives.

What intrigues me mostOur imperfections as human beings are what make us so interesting. This movie is all about decision making that involves different motivations and aspects: time, emotions, politics, law, moral, logic and human lives.

What intrigues me most is the fact that all the characters are trying their best to ultimately achieve the same noble goal. However the harsh reality is that there is no perfect solution. So when the characters are presented with the consequences of these imperfect choices then every decision carries its own evil.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

yosemiteApr 5, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. A film about a single event as it effects multiple characters. Tense, good pacing , good casting and a believable plot . It shows how future wars may be fought. Unmanned aircraft capable of taking out a single bed room thousands of miles away with the "button" in the hand of a low level soldier doing an eight hour shift on a base in the desert somewhere. The only character I felt was not creditable was the Aaron Paul character. Aaron, himself , did a good job but I don't think a soldier would hold his position with the conscience issues he had. Just as the judge asks a potential juror in a murder trial if he/she has a moral objection to Capital Punishment, the trigger man has to be able to follow orders that he knows may or will kill innocents. That aside , good film… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

9

JonZsuJun 26, 2016

It is one of the biggest surprises of the year so far. Intense, thrilling and fearless. Eye in the Sky is brutally calm but cold, every string of emotion is masterfully-controlled. There's hate and compassion, peace and war, politics andIt is one of the biggest surprises of the year so far. Intense, thrilling and fearless. Eye in the Sky is brutally calm but cold, every string of emotion is masterfully-controlled. There's hate and compassion, peace and war, politics and humanity, contradictory of many levels but works in perfect dramatic coexistence. It definitely could be ranked among the top movies of this kind in years.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

TVJerryApr 7, 2016

This film is told from a high level, literally. Mostly using drones for surveillance and firepower, a military officer (Helen Mirren) commands a mission to stop terrorists in Kenya. This is framed around tense discussions among governmentThis film is told from a high level, literally. Mostly using drones for surveillance and firepower, a military officer (Helen Mirren) commands a mission to stop terrorists in Kenya. This is framed around tense discussions among government leaders about the political issues of collateral damage. Meanwhile, in Nevada, the remote pilot (Aaron Paul) is tasked with firing the actual bomb and risking the lives of innocents. While the debate and consequential dilemmas are compelling, there's not much on-the-ground action. This is mostly carried out from remote locations, rendering the film more a moral/political debate with real-life consequences. The performances and tight editing help make this predominately intellectual interchange an absorbing experience.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

jlhg11Apr 14, 2016

Interesting to see people in the theater getting frustrated with the decision making even when the movie does all it can to personalize the pain of war through the cute little girl. I did laugh many times though. One can easily see how easyInteresting to see people in the theater getting frustrated with the decision making even when the movie does all it can to personalize the pain of war through the cute little girl. I did laugh many times though. One can easily see how easy it is to make those kinds of decisions in real life when you don't have that face looking back at you.
Of course the movie only tackled a simple dilemma. The real dilemma of course is why we even have this dilemma. Maybe a movie should be made called: "Money, Oil, and the Suicide Bomber."… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

TheKavehJApr 6, 2016

The best part about Eye In The Sky is the fact that it keeps you on the edge of your seat. The film is not action-packed, but there is a lot of thrill that comes from the film.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

nj06Apr 18, 2016

A fine movie that can actually keep attention of a grown-up person. The less you know about it in advance the better. The movie is clever, suspenseful, and the acting performances are outstanding, especially by Alan Rickman and HelenA fine movie that can actually keep attention of a grown-up person. The less you know about it in advance the better. The movie is clever, suspenseful, and the acting performances are outstanding, especially by Alan Rickman and Helen Mirren. It is not a perfect movie (no movie is) but it is perfectly suspenseful from first to last second. Different people will walk away from it with different views of what happened or should have happened. That makes this film perfect for a post-movie debate. Also, it is refreshing to see a movie without a manufactured villain. Instead we see a number of characters trying to make decisions with which they are charged with to their best of abilities under very stressful and time-constraining circumstances. We also get to see the aftermath and consequences of their decisions.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

7

aadityamudharApr 18, 2016

"Eye in the Sky" stars Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul in this drama depicting the technical versatility of today’s drones in modern warfare and the ethical questions their use poses. Directed by Gavin Hood with a screenplay written"Eye in the Sky" stars Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul in this drama depicting the technical versatility of today’s drones in modern warfare and the ethical questions their use poses. Directed by Gavin Hood with a screenplay written by Guy Hibbert, the film is blatantly one-sided in its efforts to convey the viewpoint of the writer and is almost amateurish in the manner in which his points are attempted to be made. One wonders why an actress of Ms. Mirren’s depth and talent would lend herself to the small and mundane part she plays except perhaps to allow the film to get the financing it needed and to help exhibit her personal and political point of view as well. In any event, the film, despite its shortcomings, makes for an interesting examination of the role of these unmanned aircraft and how and when they should be deployed. I give the a 7.0 rating, more for the information the viewer will receive from watching it as opposed to the quality of the film itself..… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

1

writetome51Jul 21, 2018

Pathetic. Basically a war movie as if written by a committee of ACLU lawyers. An entire movie devoted to a few politicians and military personnel bickering over whether or not to fire one missile at one small house. The inhabitants arePathetic. Basically a war movie as if written by a committee of ACLU lawyers. An entire movie devoted to a few politicians and military personnel bickering over whether or not to fire one missile at one small house. The inhabitants are known terrorists. One is preparing to strap on a suicide bomb vest. But the personnel can't agree on striking or not. Why? Well, first it's because one of the inhabitants is a US Citizen. So they keep on referring the decision to someone with higher authority. The general and colonel are basically saying 'For crap sake, this suicide bomber's gonna blow up a crowd of people, it's clearly a greater risk to not strike.' But the politicians say 'I'm still worried it's not legal, and even if it is, how am i going to explain it in interviews?' To which Captain Obvious responds 'If you're so worried about that, what the hell are you doing in this line of work?!' Eventually the decision is handed to the American Secretary of State who basically says 'What the hell are you wasting my time with this for? Of course you have clearance to strike.'
So finally they decide to strike, but then a girl shows up in front of the targeted house and starts selling bread. They're too afraid to risk killing the girl.
Would have been a good movie if it were treated as a comedy, with the exact same script.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

10

ClariseSamuelsMar 30, 2016

A film about drone warfare makes one think there will be many battle scenes, a lot of soldiers, and much blood and gore. But this film is different—this movie depicts how warfare is conducted in the board room by high-ranking militaryA film about drone warfare makes one think there will be many battle scenes, a lot of soldiers, and much blood and gore. But this film is different—this movie depicts how warfare is conducted in the board room by high-ranking military officials, cabinet members, prime ministers and presidents. It also depicts the high-tech kind of war that is waged with drones and surveillance equipment that can be as small as an insect as it flies through the air and silently enters buildings through windows and other apertures.

Helen Mirren plays Colonel Powell, who after six years of tracking terrorist extremists, has finally cornered three of her most-wanted in one building in Kenya. The original plan was to capture, not kill, until the surveillance “beetle” enters and transmits a horrific scene to Powell and her associates, as well as Lt. General Benson (Alan Rickman) in London who is watching the events on screen with other important British politicians—two terrorists are making their final video before they suit up with their explosive vests as they prepare for a suicide mission. The plan to capture, not kill, has to be changed almost immediately, for the military has less than an hour to release a “hellfire” on the building before the terrorists board their vehicles and head for their destination, which is most likely going to be a crowded mall. The hellfire will kill everyone in the building, as well as people in a limited perimeter around the building, a risk which is referred to as “collateral damage.” In order to change the plan, quick conferences are needed with British higher-ups, and because one terrorist is an American citizen, the Secretary of State has to be interrupted in China, where he is participating in a ping-pong tournament.

The approvals are quickly gathered, the sights are set on their target, the countdown begins, and then at the last minute, an innocent little Islamic girl sets up her table to sell bread smack in the middle of the dangerous periphery surrounding the building. Thus begins an agonizing process of calculating how to reduce the collateral in order to save the life of one child before an estimated eighty or so people are murdered in a crowded mall. The process is nerve-wracking, time is running out, and the British politicians are very squeamish about the whole idea of killing a child. Classic philosophical dilemmas are in this fashion presented—the Rousseauian argument that the goal of the state is the realization of the common good as identified by the will of a political community and expressed through its government; and the famous philosophical “Trolley Problem,” a thought experiment where the choice is to divert a train that is about to kill five people onto a track where it will only kill one, or do nothing. Although the choice to save many instead of only one may seem plausible, no one wants to be responsible for making that decision.

The weapons of war are depicted with fascinating realism in this film. Mirren is at her best as a high-ranking military officer who wants her country's enemies taken out at all costs; she is close to being ruthless. The late Alan Rickman as a senior lieutenant general is beautifully understated in his calm determination to do the right thing and guide the process from a conference room. He is formidable when he delivers a key line, “Don't ever tell a soldier that he doesn't know the cost of war.” And playing a Kenyan native who is recruited to be an undercover spy for the British is the unique Barkhad Abdi, who before starring in the film Captain Phillips had no previous acting experience—he is a joy to watch on screen.… Expand

5 of 6 users found this helpful51

All this user's reviews

8

Brent_MarchantMar 20, 2016

A suspenseful modern wartime thriller that debates the alleged "ethics" of combat with an interesting mix of tense drama and biting satire a la "Dr. Strangelove." The film admittedly drags a bit in the first 45 minutes, but, once the basicA suspenseful modern wartime thriller that debates the alleged "ethics" of combat with an interesting mix of tense drama and biting satire a la "Dr. Strangelove." The film admittedly drags a bit in the first 45 minutes, but, once the basic thrust of the story and its means for telling it become apparent, the picture becomes both gripping and humorous in a highly distinctive way. Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul and Alan Rickman give terrific performances in a chilling yet thought-provoking tale that gives us much to ponder about the nature of combat and its morality (if such a notion is even possible).… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

0

SkulbJan 24, 2017

An utterly deplorable movie. Almost as deplorable as anyone who liked it. If you boil away the well established and completely ludicrous American "foreign policy" of illegal spying and assassination, this movie can be described as a group ofAn utterly deplorable movie. Almost as deplorable as anyone who liked it. If you boil away the well established and completely ludicrous American "foreign policy" of illegal spying and assassination, this movie can be described as a group of the worst people in the world pretending to agonize over murdering some of the stupidest people in the world while watching it on camera. Only because one of the most innocent people in the world would die as well mind you, But still; agonize they pretend to do.
At one point one of the unfortunate actors appearing in this propaganda film even says that "al shabaab's" practice of suicide bombing discredits them and lets the USA win "the propaganda war". And anyone could see why, apparently except the very convenient "al Shabaab". And these morons are the people we have to lose basic liberties around the world because of. And these morons are allegedly such a threat, even though the most basic things don't occur to them, that we need to have an illegal, borderless world war against them. I don't know why anyone would take it seriously because it is satirically stupid. But it is actual US/NATO/western imperialist "foreign policy". We have all been shanghaied by a stationary barbarian invasion apparently. That's the only way I can explain the mindless stupidity that caused someone to make Eye in the Sky. Not one word about the real problem: crazed bombers in the west who are capable of spying on and murdering anyone at all, anywhere in the world at any moment. You just have to make onto a list, compiled in subjective fashion by more important crazed murderers, and you can be spied on and murdered. Call me a kook, but this doesn't sound much like a society of laws to me. It sounds like a society being run by the most insane people on the planet, who have been given, or have illegally seized, far too much power.

And to make the satire perfect they have employed Helen Mirren to play the lead spy and murderer. A bloodthirsty octogenerian Queen of the Mad Bombers who can't wait to illegally murder foreign and western citizens alike. The entire movie is about her nagging to get permission to murder people, and trying to bend the rules to be allowed to murder people. Of course this would never happen. The USA has murdered millions of civilians since WWII while calling it "collateral damage". They don't care about that. It isn't real folks. None of it is.

Don't watch this movie. Chances are your mind is already full to the brim of this nonsense and doesn't need a top-off.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

GinaKApr 3, 2016

As great an ensemble film as Spotlight, Eye in the Sky delivered what 10 Cloverfield Lane did not – constant suspense that held my interest for almost two hours. The acting was wonderful and often deeply moving, and the only reason I did notAs great an ensemble film as Spotlight, Eye in the Sky delivered what 10 Cloverfield Lane did not – constant suspense that held my interest for almost two hours. The acting was wonderful and often deeply moving, and the only reason I did not give it a perfect score was that I felt there were false notes in both the script and direction. The British were made out to be both people with more conscience but also more bureaucracy (and some might say cowardice) and dithering than the Americans, which I felt was both cliché and unfair. But then it was a British film, plus the movie would have been over in a half hour had the British not passed the buck around so much. True, one American also hesitated, but frankly this also seemed like a contrivance to delay things and to me was not believable. People die unnecessarily when someone in this American’s position hesitates and gets emotional. But regardless of all this, Eye in the Sky is taut and moving, and in its hedging way, tragic. Also the drone and spy technology in the film were fascinating.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

6

moviecritic68Apr 6, 2016

Movie set up at first as a very fast pace thriller but later fell into a slow paced repeating premise. Acting was adequate but overall the storyline started to drag on too much. I don't totally disagree with the current user score as it wasMovie set up at first as a very fast pace thriller but later fell into a slow paced repeating premise. Acting was adequate but overall the storyline started to drag on too much. I don't totally disagree with the current user score as it was entertaining but failed in too many categories for my liking.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

mickolopiMay 16, 2016

Such a boring American propaganda. They care about coleteral damage, but in the real world GB has so many colonials contries and killing so many civilians there, the same story is for USA goverment, but they want to sell so cheap and boringSuch a boring American propaganda. They care about coleteral damage, but in the real world GB has so many colonials contries and killing so many civilians there, the same story is for USA goverment, but they want to sell so cheap and boring story. The worst movie I have ever seen in cinema.… Expand

2 of 7 users found this helpful25

All this user's reviews

4

marco34laApr 2, 2016

This movie was way over-rated by some critics. It's pretty much a snoozer folks. If you want suspence and thrills about a drone operation - watch Homeland. This is more about political blundering, indecisiveness and ethics than suspense orThis movie was way over-rated by some critics. It's pretty much a snoozer folks. If you want suspence and thrills about a drone operation - watch Homeland. This is more about political blundering, indecisiveness and ethics than suspense or action. The dilemma was ridiculous and overly melodramatic... do we kill the world's top 3 terrorists and their active suicide bombers at the cost of losing 1 civilian child... or do we save the one child and let the top 3 terrorists and their suicide bombers go out (so they can go kill at least 80 cilivilians in a shopping mall or something). Sorry to me, it was a no brainer.… Expand

2 of 8 users found this helpful26

All this user's reviews

6

gfnyApr 1, 2016

A fair movie that could have been an excellent movie if not for the melodramatic tearjerker script. Good direction and acting, some good scenery, but bordered on the unbelieveable for the technical gadgets.

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

2

dante_bothermeApr 9, 2016

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I walked out of this movie. If it was even a little bit bit believable, I might have lasted another 30 or 40 minutes, but the more I watched the more aggravated I got.

First: I hate, hate, hate fiction in which the plot requires that smart people do obviously stupid things. That was the theme of the movie. Some might consider that to be funny in a sophomoric comedy, but it is simply unbelievable and annoying in a serious drama. Did I mention it was "annoying?"… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

0

Idiota150Jun 17, 2016

A film about spineless politicians who can't do math and a few crybaby militaries. Boring boring boooooring - no thriller, no suspense, no difficult decisions. Overrated and not worth the watch.

1 of 9 users found this helpful18

All this user's reviews

6

netflicApr 11, 2016

It’s a drone war movie where an international team of military professionals conduct surveillance of the few most wanted jihadists. The movie had a potential to be a very good one: an interesting idea, talented director and actors. If not theIt’s a drone war movie where an international team of military professionals conduct surveillance of the few most wanted jihadists. The movie had a potential to be a very good one: an interesting idea, talented director and actors. If not the script. It is over-simplistic, not realistic and too Hollywood-ish.

There is a bit of suspense and thrill there, but there *could be* interesting ethical and moral aspects to rules of engagement in modern warfare. That part was not well-written. Nevertheless, due to talented crew the movie was still watch-able.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

6

Q8MarrongGlaceJun 12, 2016

I wasn't disappointed in this movie but I was expecting much more and It could've been better , It started good all the way until the bug scene I won't talk about the details as I don't want to ruin the movie you'll know what I mean whenI wasn't disappointed in this movie but I was expecting much more and It could've been better , It started good all the way until the bug scene I won't talk about the details as I don't want to ruin the movie you'll know what I mean when you reach that scene , Then it began to slow down and head to another direction all the way to the end you'll know whats going to happen , that's why I was expecting more !
I just can't rate it 7/10 So on my opinion 6 is fair and reasonable for it… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

KamamuraOct 25, 2020

Simplistic propaganda for gullible audience. The fact that US drone attacks kill civilians on regular basis (including a whole marriage parade in Pakistan and Reuters camera man) means the safeguards and care for civilian lives are nowhereSimplistic propaganda for gullible audience. The fact that US drone attacks kill civilians on regular basis (including a whole marriage parade in Pakistan and Reuters camera man) means the safeguards and care for civilian lives are nowhere near the level displayed in the movie. The amount of checking and double checking in the movie actually borders on parody, moving the whole spectacle among other forgettable US pro-military apologist flics (a.k.a. propaganda BS). Points for decent acting and professor Snape. He deserve better movie for his last appearance on camera.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

EphantomeJun 22, 2016

The movie is very absorbing and the ethical dilemma provides an extraordinary suspense. However, as a Kenyan am disappointed in the way the movie portrays Kenya as an unstable country. All those Kenyan scenes were not acted in Nairobi whichThe movie is very absorbing and the ethical dilemma provides an extraordinary suspense. However, as a Kenyan am disappointed in the way the movie portrays Kenya as an unstable country. All those Kenyan scenes were not acted in Nairobi which made it exhausting to watch because the location mentioned like Eastleigh & Parklands don't even remotely resemble what was shown. In Kenya there are no militants moving around in trucks and what was portrayed was just annoying stereotyping.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

7

JyroJyroAug 18, 2017

A haunting movie at times, highlighting the inadequacies of drone warfare and its tendency to create collateral damage. Often slightly repetitive, although I admit it is difficult to maintain tension with this kind of story. Helen Mirren isA haunting movie at times, highlighting the inadequacies of drone warfare and its tendency to create collateral damage. Often slightly repetitive, although I admit it is difficult to maintain tension with this kind of story. Helen Mirren is awesome - playing a convincingly believable emotionless colonel.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

9

EludiumQ36Aug 28, 2016

Very well done film that focuses on the conflicting interests involved when targeting hostiles via Predator vehicles. This is one particular operation out of thousands, and it brings us in on the competing perspectives of the military,Very well done film that focuses on the conflicting interests involved when targeting hostiles via Predator vehicles. This is one particular operation out of thousands, and it brings us in on the competing perspectives of the military, civilian govt, and allied/diplomatic issues that can all arise during the prosecution of an operation. I rarely rate a film as a 9 or 10 so this one is pretty special as I rate them, and with a 90-min run time, you're not left looking at your watch/clock as to when it ends.… Expand