You must create a Free Account
in order to STREAM or DOWNLOAD this video
Eye in the Sky

Eye in the Sky

Welcome to the new front lineSep. 11, 2015 UK102 Min.R
Your rating: 0
9.2 1,693 votes

Video trailer


Gavin Hood


Helen Mirren isColonel Katherine Powell
Colonel Katherine Powell
Aaron Paul isSteve Watts
Steve Watts
Alan Rickman isLieutenant General Frank Benson
Lieutenant General Frank Benson
Iain Glen isForeign Secretary James Willett
Foreign Secretary James Willett
Barkhad Abdi isJama Farah
Jama Farah
Phoebe Fox isCarrie Gershon
Carrie Gershon
Kim Engelbrecht isLucy Galvez
Lucy Galvez
Jeremy Northam isBrian Woodale
Brian Woodale
Carl Beukes isSergeant Mike Gleeson
Sergeant Mike Gleeson
Monica Dolan isAngela Northman
Angela Northman


A military officer in command of a drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya sees her mission escalate from “capture” to “kill” just as a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone.

Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Eye in the Sky
Original titleEye in the Sky
IMDb Rating7.3 57,952 votes
TMDb Rating7.2 441 votes

(237) comments

  • Anton NeschadimSeptember 12, 2015Reply

    A great examination of moral reasoning and ethical decision-making!

    ”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!

  • maurice yacowarJanuary 7, 2016Reply

    Moral and political debate around drone attack on terrorists in Kenya

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Marc OnettoMarch 5, 2016Reply

    Damned if you do, damned if you don’t

    The great drama of balancing collateral damages versus the risk of
    inaction. Extremely well played by Helen Mirren and a fantastic
    supporting cast. The role of the military, the indecision and CYA
    attitude of the politicians, and the moral drama of the drone pilots,
    this film includes every element of the war on terrorism. And the way
    the plot unraveled makes it also a great thriller. Another dimension
    which is very well illustrated is the fantastic technology which we now
    have to combat terrorism. This technology did inspire the title of the
    movie: ”eye in the sky”. And beyond the drones, the film also reveals
    some other form of smaller eye in the skies technology which requires
    closer contact from the operators, this constitutes another element of
    the drama.

  • cdcrbMarch 11, 2016Reply

    don’t question what soldiers do

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • mlaimlai2March 13, 2016Reply

    Sky high in thrills!

    Here is a timely reminder of the consequences of war, especially with
    so many battles taking place at the moment. As it’s such a topical
    issue, the themes presented are realistic and engage the viewer in
    every aspect of the decision making process. It certainly helps when
    there’s Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman (his final live action
    performance) in the cast. In fact, all the actors deliver stirring and
    memorable performances that highlight how ethical dilemmas can
    determine the choices people make. The story provocatively asks if
    conscience can affect the judgement of military personnel.

    Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is a UK-based military officer
    who is in command of a top secret drone operation to capture terrorists
    in Kenya. Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground intel led by
    Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi), Powell discovers the targets are planning a
    suicide bombing. As a result, the objective is changed from capture to
    kill. American drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage
    but discovers a young girl who is in the vicinity of the target. Powell
    contacts fellow military like Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan
    Rickman), politicians and lawyers to determine whether to take action.

    It does take a while to set up the story with the opening scenes taking
    place in many different locations. All these places are represented by
    captions on the screen. Once the mission has been explained, the
    tension of the plot never lets up. The ‘Eye in the Sky’ of the title
    represents the drone or satellite imagery that provides a bird’s eye
    view of what is transpiring on the ground. These scenes are expertly
    handled by director, Gavin Hood. It could have so easily been boring
    seeing images from the sky but the fluidity of the camera movements
    ensures that the thrills are maintained throughout the deliberations.

    Credit must go to the cast for displaying the tensions and anxieties
    that some military personnel experience. Mirren hardly makes a poor
    choice when it comes to role selection and she is at her commanding
    best in this movie. Rickman will be missed after his untimely death
    earlier this year but this is a fine performance to bow out with. Paul
    also deserves recognition for expressing the uncertainty and morals
    that drone pilots can undergo. Abdi proves that his Oscar nominated
    performance in Captain Phillips was no fluke and acts with great
    determination here.

    Eye in the Sky is a thrilling and exciting insight of modern warfare.
    The conversations exchanged between the participants might be technical
    at times but the viewer gets the gist of what is happening through the
    superior acting especially by Mirren and Rickman. There’s also the
    action taking place on the screen that shows without a doubt how tense
    and indecisive things can be behind the scenes and on the ground.

  • GoneWithTheTwins_comMarch 16, 2016Reply

    In politics, it would seem that idleness is the safest play.

    At the Permanent Joint Headquarters in London, Colonel Katherine Powell
    (Helen Mirren) coordinates Operation Egret, an international effort to
    eradicate three of the top terrorists on the East African most wanted
    list. When their targets all arrive at a house in a militant-controlled
    district in Kenya, the original capture mission becomes shoot to kill,
    prompting uncertainty in drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul),
    impatience in General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman), and hesitation in
    Foreign Secretary James Willett (Iain Glen). As the politicians,
    lawyers, and military personnel wage arguments for and against
    consenting to the new parameters, a young Nairobi girl (Aisha Takow)
    enters the casualty zone, forcing all involved to weigh the
    consequences of their actions with that of inaction against the
    escalating activities of the terrorists.

    Al-Shabab, Sharia law, and extremist ideology are certainly timely
    topics to put on display for an involving debate. And ”Eye in the Sky”
    is certainly worthy of discussion, populated by stunning moments of
    tension and suspense as innocent lives in crosshairs are measured
    against potential victims of future violence. But instead of allowing
    the audience to see through the eyes of all the various players, in a
    game of political maneuverings versus military steadfastness, writer
    Guy Hibbert opts to show far more than necessary. In fact, his script
    goes to great lengths to divulge information to the viewer that isn’t –
    and shouldn’t – be available to the cast.

    Like ”The Net” or ”Enemy of the State,” this surveillance movie
    acknowledges the advanced technologies that allow for some alarming
    invasions of privacy and some useful tools against the bad guys.
    Strangely, the use of hummingbird and beetle drones, which use wing
    movements to mimic their respective animals and which are also built to
    scale, looks like something out of a sci-fi project. It doesn’t truly
    matter whether or not they’re based on real military machines; it’s
    instantly detrimental that their actuality is disputable.

    It also brings into question the motivations and morals of the people
    controlling those instruments, along with all the red tape and
    bureaucratic interferences that are supposed to serve as precautions
    against poor decisions. Clearly, this is where the realism lies. Here,
    however, the level of coincidence and the numerous, manipulative
    devices employed to heighten the chaos of this particularly cinematic
    group of choices and consequences are so exaggerated that they
    routinely border on comical. Just when audiences couldn’t imagine more
    politicians edging their way into the deliberation (there are already
    six different bases of operation and six corresponding teams),
    additional locations and statesmen are thrust into the fray,
    occasionally turning heated arguments into something of an
    unintentionally funny occasion (the U.S. government representatives
    are, humorously, the most ruthless in their conclusions).

    ”We have to know that we’re legally in the clear,” insists Rickman’s
    Benson, summing up the chief reason that tough decisions are rarely
    made with ease. In politics, it would seem that idleness is the safest
    play. And yet, despite the purposeful posing of ethical dilemmas, ”Eye
    in the Sky” isn’t content with portraying those controversial choices
    with ambiguous outcomes. Instead, the end result (and the finale of the
    film) is overly detailed, imparting an obvious sense of condemnation on
    the highly contended actions. It carries on too long, numbing the power
    of the tragedies while judging who is right and wrong for the viewer,
    rather than letting each individual come away with something different.
    In its hopes to be poignant, ”Eye in the Sky” loses track of its
    initial convictions, which consisted of placing audiences directly into
    the war rooms with the military leaders and the politicians as they
    hash out the rules of engagement and collateral damage estimates to
    determine an acceptable loss of life (a Sophie’s choice of sorts that
    most people could never fathom making).

    – The Massie Twins

  • seshtMarch 19, 2016Reply

    Not just looking anymore

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jmsamurai48March 19, 2016Reply

    ”Never tell a solider he doesn’t know the cost of war.”

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Baron WeerenMarch 19, 2016Reply

    Let’s Agree to Disagree…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • david-meldrumMarch 21, 2016Reply

    Complex, tense and true

    A few months after my friend was murdered by terrorists in a Kenyan
    shopping mall, I was watching TV. It was Homeland; there came a moment
    in the episode I found myself relaxing with that one evening where a
    character has a lead on a likely opportunity to kill a terrorist who
    was in the early stages of planning an atrocity. He pulls up alongside
    the terrorist’s car on his motorbike, ready to bomb the vehicle. As he
    does so, he becomes aware of a problem, someone in the terrorist’s car
    who is not supposed to be there. A child. He rides alongside the car
    for a while, caught in a terrible moment of indecision. Eventually he
    rides away, the opportunity untaken.

    Pre-Westgate, I would have been where most viewers would have been in
    that sequence – feeling the anguish, aware of the wrestle with
    conscience, willing him not to kill the child. But this was a new
    reality I was now in. There was no conscious mental process. Just this
    strong, distasteful feeling: take the shot. Risk the child’s life for
    the sake of those who will be killed. Kill the bastard. I remembered
    how I had felt, what I said in the aftermath of my friend’s murder:
    just give a few minutes alone with one of the perpetrators tied to a
    chair. It won’t take long.

    My anger’s intensity has relented since, but the wrestles of conscience
    don’t go away. This film’s cinema release presented me with an
    opportunity to see how, or if, I’ve changed. It tells the story of the
    hunt for members of Al-Shabaab (the group that murdered my friend).
    They are tracked by drone to a single house – the order to capture them
    is about to be given when it becomes apparent that they are preparing
    suicide vests for an imminent attack. The priority moves from capture
    to kill; the order to release the missile that will save innocent lives
    is on the brink of completion when a child sets up to sell bread
    outside the house in question. She will likely be killed if the missile
    is fired. The rest of the film is the moral, military and political
    dilemmas being wrestled with, passed up chains of command inside
    darkened rooms around the globe, all the while the clock ticking down
    to massive civilian loss of life. Actually, that depersonalises it.
    Yes, the clock was ticking – to the murder of my friend, all over

    The film articulates most of the dilemmas with which I have wrestled
    since my friend’s death. It justice to most of them, if not ever really
    articulating the political complexities involved. It’s economically
    directed, the lack of violence ratcheting up the tension to levels
    where you long for some sort of release. The performances are fine –
    this an ensemble piece, rather than a star vehicle. Helen Mirren does
    fairly well despite being miscast; I’d like to have seen more of the
    brilliant Aaron Paul as the soldier with his finger on the button,
    Barkhad Abdi is consummate, and every line Alan Rickman delivers makes
    us ache that at what we’ve lost with his death.

    The film offers no answers. Every option is flawed, every character
    compromised, every view has a valid alternative. The film asks all the
    questions I have … and leaves them hanging in a Kenyan dust-bowl,
    strewn with rubble and human remains. As a leader I empathise with the
    personal cost of taking decisions most have no understanding of; thanks
    to some nameless men and women with guns I now have skin in terrorism
    game, complicating to previously unimagined levels a decision I’ll
    never have to take. Some justice systems give – for good reason – the
    guilty and the judge the opportunity to hear the affect the crime has
    had on victims and those close to them. I understand that; but now I’ve
    been as close to violent crime as this, I also understand why such
    revelations should never be the only factor in sentencing the guilty.
    I, for one, would be too angry to be just.

    It’s strange to find myself intimately involved in the moral quagmire
    of violence. All I’ve come to know is that my cosy neo-pacifist
    principles no longer sit so easily or safely – I think I still hold
    them, but I hold them with alarming looseness.

    I watched the film on Palm Sunday evening, the first day of Holy Week;
    an inexorable journey towards an act of horrific, prolonged, violent
    innocent suffering. That knowledge adds to the mix that mine is a Jesus
    who knows what it’s like to be on the end of both unrighteous anger –
    his murderers’ – and righteous (the anger of His Father which he took
    the consequences of that day). He didn’t deserve that latter anger, but
    He took it anyway. It says to me that, along with some alarmingly
    violent expressions of anger in the Psalms – there is a place for this
    emotion which is often the least acceptable to church subcultures. It
    says that innocent suffering is right at the heart of what I have given
    my life to; it is identified with and wept over.

    The film left me in anger – and to an extent, that’s OK. It also made
    me fear that maybe the terrorists win even when we capture of kill them
    – they’ve reduced us in some way, whether in mind or deed, to their
    level, even for a moment. But then Holy Week, with its complexities and
    denials and political blame-shifting and violence and resurrection come
    along. I don’t understand it any more than I used – probably less so,
    in fact. But the week gives me a glimpse of when this will end, and
    that Someone at least understands. And that, for now, is just about

  • Anurag-ShettyMarch 21, 2016Reply

    A heartbreaking drama & edge of the seat thriller.

    Eye in the Sky is a movie about a drone strike operation in Nairobi,
    Kenya. Colonel Katherine Powell(Helen Mirren) is the chief military
    officer for this mission. The objective of the mission is, to capture
    some of the most wanted terrorists of Kenya. This mission is executed
    with the help of, Lt. General Frank Benson(Alan Rickman), Lt. Colonel
    Ed Walsh(Gavin Hood) & drone pilots, Steve Watts(Aaron Paul) & Carrie
    Gershon(Phoebe Fox). There are also government officials from the US
    and England who are supervising the operation. They are, Jack
    Cleary(Francis Chouler), George Matherson(Richard McCabe), Angela
    Northman(Monica Dolan) & James Willett(Iain Glen). The operation takes
    an unexpected & grave turn when a little girl named, Alia
    Mo’Allim(Aisha Takow) enters the kill zone of the missile about to be
    sent by the drone. This causes an international dispute about, whether
    to make the morally right decision or, to make the militarily correct

    Eye in the Sky is a fantastic film. The movie is a drama at its center
    but, it is also a thriller that will have the audience on the edge of
    their seat. The shocking climax of the movie, will move you to tears.
    The original script by Guy Hibbert is mind blowing. Director Gavin
    Hood’s skillful direction, perfectly portrays the tense vibes among the
    entire group involved with the operation. This is Gavin Hood’s best
    film as a director & is a complete change from the tent-poles(X-Men
    Origins: Wolverine[2009], Ender’s Game[2013]) he normally helms. The
    performances are the highlight of the film. Helen Mirren is outstanding
    as Colonel Katherine Powell. Mirren effortlessly portrays, Powell’s
    military nonchalance. Aaron Paul gives the best performance of his
    career as Steve Watts. Paul portrays Watts’ increasingly emotionally
    distressing plight, with grace & aplomb. Alan Rickman gives another
    flawless performance as Lt. General Frank Benson. Rickman adds some
    much needed humor to the proceedings. Alan Rickman was one of the best
    actors of his generation & he will be missed, dearly. Barkhad Abdi is
    great as Jama Farah. Phoebe Fox is brilliant as Carrie Gershon. Gavin
    Hood is impressive as Lt. Colonel Ed Walsh. Francis Chouler, Richard
    McCabe, Jeremy Northam, Monica Dolan & Iain Glen are good as Jack
    Cleary, George Matherson, Angela Northman & James Willett,
    respectively. Last but definitely not the least, Aisha Takow is
    spectacular as Alia Mo’Allim. Eye in the Sky is a must watch for
    everyone. Leave your kids at home though, as some scenes might be
    disturbing for them.

  • PWNYCNYMarch 22, 2016Reply

    Intense, dramatic story. Alan Rickman stars.

    This is Alan Rickman’s movie. He is the star, the cast person who
    carries the movie. The movie itself is excellent. It tells a compelling
    story and succeeds in building dramatic tension without becoming
    contrived. The conflict is presented plainly. Every character plays an
    important role. Yet, Rickman drives this movie. His performance as the
    general in charge of the operation should earn him at least
    consideration for the highest official accolades. One can argue that
    the story is contrived; that in real life the issues presented in the
    movie would not come up; that the movie, in effect, resorts to cheap
    theatrics to build tension. That would be incorrect. Decisions like the
    one dramatized in this movie are made all the time. Priorities have to
    be weighed; what is expedient is weighed against what is right,
    producing results that call to question our commitment to the law.

  • subxerogravityMarch 22, 2016Reply

    A detailed look about the stressful life of the people in the drone program.

    Ethan Hawke did a movie a few years back called Good Kill that was also
    about An Air Force drone pilot program. It was a more personal look at
    what stress can do to a pilot in this new war tactic. Aaron Paul of
    Breaking Bad fame plays the same type of character, only in the
    beginning of his career, as he’s about to go on the toughest mission

    It’s a far bigger look at the military tactics, the legal challenges
    and the political drama that happens in modern day Warfare. Helen
    Mirren plays a British General on a mission to capture a UK citizen who
    has been hanging out with Terrorist and uses a U.S Air force drone to
    find and confirm their whereabouts, but wen they discover the terrorist
    are making a bomb jacket, The General wants to change the mission in
    order to stop them, but it gets complicated.

    It’s an inside look on the bureaucracy that is war, and all the hoops
    that need to be jump through to make things happen. Mirren as the
    General is head of the mission and head of the ensemble cast. She was
    brilliant on showing how a modern age general works, in developing
    strategies in the war room.

    It was a very brilliant ensemble cast she leads as well, which includes
    the late Alan Rickman. It’s sad to know that this would be his final
    role, as he was simple yet brilliant on the screen, like a master craft
    man should be.

    Eye in the Sky was a good spy movie, that shows how advance we have
    become in technology. Its surprising to me that everything in the movie
    use to gather intel is done for real.

    And it’s very suspenseful. There were scenes in which the General had
    to wait for her legal team and a bunch of politicians to make up their
    minds, and despite no one getting shot at or blown up I was on the edge
    of my seat waiting to see what happens next.

    Also, a tear jerker. It exploits a weird concept of a happy ending, but
    that’s the grim truth of war, which is done realistically.

    Really good. Hope it gets an Oscar nod or something.

  • bruce-129March 27, 2016Reply

    Surprisingly better than I expected 7/10

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • chemingineerMarch 28, 2016Reply

    Moral Terror

    A suicide squad owing allegiance to al-shabaab is getting ready to
    embark on a deadly mission in Nairobi. Their actions are being
    monitored by a tiny drone camera, disguised as a beetle. Watching
    intently is a colonel (Helen Mirren) sitting in her plush drawing room
    in London. She is in touch with a pilot who is sitting inside a bunker
    somewhere in Nevada. His finger is on the trigger to launch a missile
    that can neutralize the terrorists. Welcome to the new-age of
    counter-terrorism, so deftly captured by Eye in the Sky.

    When the pilot is about to pull the trigger, a chirpy little girl walks
    into his cross-hair. She is selling bread and sets up a table adjoining
    the compound where the terrorists are holed-up. The moral compass of
    the pilot does not allow him to pull the trigger.

    The moral predicament is kicked upstairs. The quandary involving
    military, lawyers, bureaucrats and ministers spans time-zones across 4
    continents. As time ticks inexorably, the buck keeps passing back and
    forth. Sadly, the tension didn’t get to me, though my intellect was
    sufficiently tickled by the arguments. I felt I was watching from Moon
    or somewhere else in space.

    Eye in the Sky has an original premise but fails to grab the eyeballs.
    I left the theatre a bit sad and a tad scared.

  • GManfredMarch 28, 2016Reply

    Lawyers At War

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • planktonrulesMarch 30, 2016Reply

    Intense and gripping….

    As this film was playing, I noticed that so many people in the audience
    were on the edge of their seats or clutching the person next to
    them…”Eye in the Sky” is that gripping. Expertly directed by Gavin
    Hood (director of the Oscar-winning Best Foreign Language film,
    ”Tsotsi”), with an excellent story by Guy Hibbert as well as some
    amazing acting make this one of the best films of the year! Frankly…I
    was shocked how much I liked this film and the audience also seemed
    very pleased. This picture will be released widely in the coming weeks
    and I was fortunate enough to see it at the opening night gala at the
    Gasparilla International Film Festival in Tampa, Florida. With an
    opening night movie this good, expectations for the rest of the
    festival are very high.

    The film is set during a very short time period…nearly the actual
    running time of the movie. It takes place around the globe…in The
    United Kingdom, Las Vegas, Hawaii as well as Kenya! And, as the action
    heats up, through expert editing the film works very well…and you
    feel as if you are there watching the politicians and military
    personnel as they make their decisions and consider all the

    When the film begins, the Colonel (Helen Mirren) awakens from be in her
    home in Britain. She’s an early riser and in the next scene, she’s in a
    command center…looking over live surveillance footage being beamed to
    them from a drone flying over Kenya. At first, things seem pretty
    normal…and she and the folks in the US and Kenya are going about
    their jobs keeping an eye on some minor terrorists. However, suddenly
    the drone catches a glimpse of something very important…three of
    these people now under surveillance are among the five most wanted
    terrorists in the region…two Brits and an American who have converted
    to radical Islam. So the Colonel just orders the drone to take them
    out, right? Nope…not even close. Instead, it’s like you have an up
    close seat to watch the struggle between politicians and military men
    and women who have very different objectives and senses of duty as they
    determine what to do next. You see the Colonel go up the chain of
    command and you realize that the wars of the 21st century are often
    fought by committee…even in the case of one drone attack. It’s
    frustratingly slow and difficult. Soon, government ministers, prime
    ministers and generals (one of which is played by Alan Rickman in his
    final film) all get involved. And so, although they now all know that
    these bad folks are there, it takes nearly the entire film for the
    powers that bad make a decision. After all, this is in a city…and
    there’s bound to be collateral damage. These decision makers are not
    caricatures but folks who struggle with what to do next…especially
    when they can see a small child standing close to the house…and
    firing would probably mean her death. In many ways, although the film
    is chock full of amazing current technology and gadgets, the film is
    about people…people with enormous decisions ahead of them. Sounds
    tense, huh? It gets worse…one of their micro-drones gets a peek
    inside…and two of the folks inside this compound are strapping bombs
    to their bodies and it looks like they are leaving soon! And, to just
    kill these people would take out civilians as well…there just doesn’t
    seem to be any way around that, no matter how hard they try.

    What I love about this film is that it really doesn’t matter what your
    opinion is about the war on terror…the film has something for
    everyone. It provokes you emotionally, it makes you think about the
    morality of such warfare and it definitely knows how to push all the
    right buttons in the viewer. Never have I seen an audience so wrapped
    up in film as this one. I felt my chest tightening throughout and
    rarely have I felt tension build like it did in this one.

    Following this film, the director, Gavin Hood, did a question and
    answer session. I found this incredibly revealing. The biggest shock to
    me is that in the movie, there are micro-drones that look almost like
    birds or insects…and are about the same size. According to Hood, this
    is a reality…and they managed to use some amazing CG to make it seem
    as if they were really using these high tech gadgets. Additionally, I
    was surprised to hear that he never got all the participants together
    and filmed many of the parts separately over a very long period and
    then pieced them together. This was done for practical reasons, as
    unlike many of Hood’s recent films (such as X-Men Origins: Wolverine
    and Ender’s Game), this was an independent film and had to be made on a
    much smaller. So, the production company was only able to get Ms.
    Mirren for a week…so they quickly shot these scenes. Later, Rickman
    and others were brought on board and their scenes were filmed later.
    And as for the American, British and Kenyan locations…they were all
    done in Hood’s native land, in Cape Town, South Africa. Despite these
    shortcuts, there is nothing second-rate about the film. It looks great
    but more importantly its one heck of a wild ride! See this film…and I
    recommend you see it soon as a film like this works especially well up
    on a big screen.

  • Dave McClain ([email protected])March 31, 2016Reply

    ”Eye in the Sky” examines a complicated topic from above – without passing judgment – and still manages to be entertaining.

    When someone makes a movie about a controversial and
    emotionally-charged subject, many Movie Fans will view and evaluate the
    film through the lens of their personal beliefs on that subject.
    However, if a movie is made well enough that it doesn’t have an obvious
    point of view, or try to push a certain agenda, and its script and
    direction give a fair hearing to both sides of the argument, then it
    does what movies do best – generate intelligent thought and meaningful
    discussion. This is what the British drama ”Eye in the Sky” (R, 1:42)
    does for the topic of drone warfare – while still managing to be

    Nairobi, Kenya. Intelligence reports reveal the probable whereabouts of
    two or three highly-placed members of East Africa’s Al-Shabbab
    terrorist organization. British Military Intelligence Officer, Colonel
    Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), is in charge of a small military unit
    which is remotely monitoring the terrorists’ movements, as she advises
    her superior, Lieutenant General Frank Benson (the late Alan Rickman,
    in his final on-screen performance). Benson is in a separate location,
    also monitoring the operation, with a few high-ranking members of the
    British government. This is a mission to capture terrorists, to be
    carried out by Kenyan military forces. All these groups are relying on
    their ”eye in the sky”, an unmanned drone remotely piloted by U.S. Air
    Force 2nd Lieutenant Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), working with Senior
    Airman Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox) in a small metal building on Nellis
    Air Force Base (not specifically named, but the most likely location
    given the script’s references to Las Vegas).

    That UAV isn’t the only visual feed in this scenario – and that’s where
    things get complicated. Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi, in his first
    post-”Captain Phillips” film role), an undercover operative, is
    controlling a beetle-like device which is outfitted with a tiny camera
    and can fly into the house without being noticed by the house’s
    occupants. Farah’s video feed confirms that three long-sought-after
    high-value terrorist targets are inside that house… but that’s not all.
    This surveillance shows the terrorists outfitting two men with suicide
    vests, which each have pockets filled with a large number of pipe
    bombs. That revelation turns this capture mission into a kill mission.
    Most of the players are onboard with the change in mission, until a
    young girl is spotted selling bread a few yards from the targeted
    house. Her presence, and the developments that follow, trigger a series
    of discussions among peers, and up and down the U.K. and U.S. military
    and civilian command structures. As the window of opportunity for the
    UAV to fire its hellfire missiles shrinks and tensions grow, the
    military, political, legal and ethical dilemmas are considered, debated
    and anguished over in real time by soldiers and civilians on four

    ”Eye in the Sky” is a remarkable motion picture. The exceptional
    performances of this multi-national ensemble cast and the sensitive and
    well-paced direction of South African director Gavin Hood make for a
    quality film, while British screenwriter Guy Hibbert’s script makes it
    an important film as well. Hibbert uses a situation that is unique in
    some of its details to explore the multiple aspects and complicated
    implications of the large, multi-faceted subject of drone warfare. The
    script is smart enough to portray the pros and cons of both sides of
    these arguments, while not clearly favoring either. No easy answers are
    offered and some questions are left unanswered. Unlike 2015’s drone
    warfare drama ”Good Kill”, which made a show of presenting the pros and
    cons of drone warfare but was obviously very biased, ”Eye in the Sky”
    seemingly examines the morality play from above, and refrains from
    passing judgment.

    The story’s resolution will please some audience members, while
    angering others, but few Movie Fans will cheer the outcome when there
    is just so much to think about. Regardless of a given viewer’s reaction
    to this film, most will likely notice two things: (1) Western military
    and civilian officials at many levels care and work much harder to
    avoid killing innocents in the War on Terror than the other side does,
    and (2) No one on either side of the arguments presented in the film,
    or either side of this global struggle, walks away unaffected by the
    results of his/her actions. So, in the end, this movie does have a
    message or two to share, while its taut, thrilling portrayal of an
    engrossing story and its unflinchingly balanced presentation of
    important issues makes for an entertaining and thought-provoking film.

  • socrates99April 2, 2016Reply

    Perhaps the most disappointing movie this year, almost an insult too

    Alright I will concede it’s useful to see our drone attacks from the
    point of view of their collateral victims, and that part of this movie
    I do like, that’s not the main message here. The main thrust here is
    one I don’t begin to buy: that our chain of command is racked with
    doubt whenever it launches a drone strike.

    I might believe it happened once that way but there’s no excuse for
    presenting it here as if it were the norm or even an idealization of
    what happens. Rather, most Americans at least would be shocked at how
    many innocents die everyday due to our military. And though this movie
    is mostly situated in the UK, it’s altruistic parts are clearly meant
    to rub off on us.

    No, the country that attacked a Doctors Without Borders facility and a
    hotel full of foreign correspondents, killing some of each in both, is
    not racking itself with moral doubt.

    What we have here is a good old fashioned propaganda film. Hardly
    needed given our impotent press.

  • Thomas DrufkeApril 2, 2016Reply

    Collateral Damage

    Poignantly directed and masterfully acted, Eye in the Sky gets under
    your skin more powerfully than any news clip or article. It doesn’t
    hold back on the premise it delivers nor does it in the casts’ grounded
    performances. It’s one of the most thought provoking war dramas of
    recent memory, and a reminder of the talent of the late Alan Rickman.

    Gavin Hood directs the fictitious political war thriller about a secret
    drone mission to take out targeted terrorists in a Kenyan safe house.
    The mission is comprised when an innocent civilian is seen in harm’s
    way just on the outside of the house.

    The film is structured as a one-act thriller with plenty of moving
    pieces and decisions needed to reach the end goal of killing the
    terrorists. It’s ability to keep the audience engaged without any
    change of scenery is extremely impressive. It’s an ensemble cast led by
    Alan Rickman, Helen Mirren, and Aaron Paul, but there are realistically
    20 or so main cast members, and the screen distribution between them is

    It’s a film similar to Gone Baby Gone, where I don’t know that you can
    sit through the decision making process of this bombing feeling
    strongly one way or the other. You can see the thought process on both
    sides, which makes it both an engaging and timely watch. In all, I
    can’t see how anyone would walk away without an opinion on this
    difficult but important subject matter.

    +Strong cast

    +Poignant directing

    +Pacing, even with it’s structure


  • Zog HackendorftApril 2, 2016Reply

    A good movie, but real life is not a movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • KeatingMcCandlessApril 2, 2016Reply


    I would easily have given this film a 10 if it hadn’t opened so slowly
    with a rather confusing set of scenes that left us wondering what the
    movie was about. But after ten minutes, once the mission and issues
    became clear, it was one of the most riveting film experiences I’ve
    ever had.

    This picture should be required watching for students everywhere. The
    questions it raises are essentially unanswerable, yet, essential to the
    idea that any modern society can call itself ”civilized.” The
    performances are beyond superb.

    Alan Rickman’s final performance on the big screen is extraordinary.
    Nuanced. Complex. Perfect. Of course.

  • jadepietroApril 2, 2016Reply

    War Ain’t Easy

    (RATING: ☆☆☆☆ out of 5)


    IN BRIEF: A film that will cause some needed discussion about war and
    the lengths we will go to protect ourselves, even if the film lacks a
    balanced point of view.

    GRADE: B

    SYNOPSIS: Due to a high degree of civilians living near a terrorist
    group, military officials debate a mission, the bombing of a sleeper

    JIM’S REVIEW: War is hell. That’s a given. With a winner-takes-all
    mentality and the combative nature of the military, is there room for
    any moral doubt about the growing casualties caused by war and its
    brutal outcome? Should the collateral damage ever exceed or interfere
    with the on-going mission? Do we readily accept the decision to kill
    for the good of mankind? Red flags and all sorts of honorable questions
    are raised and endlessly debated in Gavin Hood’s seriously-minded war
    drama, Eye in the Sky.

    The film tackles the issue of drone surveillance as a tool to stop
    terrorism at any cost. The scenario pits the good guys, in this case,
    an English colonel (Helen Mirren), an American pilot (Aaron Paul), and
    a British general (the late Alan Rickman) against evil African
    terrorists set on causing more carnage. From the start, there is much
    debate and talk between the members of the military, diplomats, and
    politicians about differing ways to approach the target, a sleeper cell
    in Kenya that is manufacturing bombs. As the film progresses, more
    evidence points to this target as a haven for terroristic activity.
    Ready…aim…fire…That is, until a sweet little girl walks into the
    line of fire near the intended site, causing moral ambiguities to come
    into play.

    Now, right then and there, I suspended my belief as the film began to
    lose its grip on reality. The ethical quagmire never becomes a solid
    enough argument, especially with the military cast of characters
    involved. The philosophical conflicts plaguing the assembled parties
    should have made more of an impact to this reviewer, but did not. In
    Guy Hibbert’s literate screenplay, co-authored by Mr. Hood as well,
    that is not the case and the filmmakers stack the deck when
    personalizing the toll of war by focusing on an innocent child and her
    loving family (who also show their disdain for the Islamic fanatics).
    Manipulative and effective, but also partisan and ill- balanced, the
    film ups the ante when the rules of engagement begin to change and a
    mission to capture the targeted extremists becomes a shoot-to-kill
    assignment with many lives at stake.

    Yet Eye in the Sky makes many interesting points, especially with the
    behind-the-scenes encounters at various locales and the convoluted
    bureaucracy that works on an international scale to slow down the
    urgency in decision-making. Ethics and morals are frequent allies in
    this global battlefield and the film takes that message quite
    seriously, almost scoring a direct hit.

    The actors are all fine, although they are given very little dramatic
    scenes to play. Mostly, everything is too restrained, factual, and
    introspective. The cast is expected to deliver their monologues and
    look grim as the situation unfolds, but they fortunately add more depth
    to their characters than merely being talking heads playing devil’s
    advocates to each other. Particularly strong are Ms. Mirren (as
    always), Barkhad Abdi, and Mr. Rickman in his final screen role (what a
    talent, what a distinctive voice).

    Eye in the Sky can camouflage itself however it wants, but it is
    foremost, an ethics lesson disguised as a war movie. Its credibility
    stretches the limits, giving way to a predictable but unflinching
    ending. The film is gripping and thought-provoking. It deserves an
    audience for its sheer courage at discussing the consequences of war in
    an adult and realistic manner.

    Sadly, the average moviegoer should see this provocative film but will
    not. Nowadays, we need to be entertained, not disturbed. Comic book
    superheroes have replaced our real heroes. And the war goes on…

    Visit my blog at:

    ANY COMMENTS: Please contact me at: [email protected]

  • Troy_CampbellApril 2, 2016Reply

    Thought-provoking, riveting and tense.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • azmielkeApril 3, 2016Reply

    This movie is not to be missed

    I’ve seen this movie twice in 10 days. Immensely thought provoking and
    clarifying, all at the same time. I really cannot recommend this movie
    enough. I would strongly encourage parents with teens and young adults
    in the house to take them along.

    What an amazing curtain call for Alan Rickman! Great way to close out a

    Helen Mirren, IMHO, can do ANYTHING!

    The actress who portrays the child at the center of this dilemma, Aisha
    Takow, could well be on her way to her first Oscar nomination.

    This movie is neither pro-war nor anti-war. Filled with great insights.

  • ris1435April 3, 2016Reply

    Al-Shabaab propaganda film or unintended consequence?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • sol-April 3, 2016Reply

    Hard Decisions

    Having located a terrorist sleeper cell in Kenya, UK military forces
    have to contend with bureaucratic red tape, collateral damage reports
    and a possible child victim while authorising a strike to prevent a
    suicide bombing in this intense war thriller starring Helen Mirren and
    Alan Rickman. While the film boils down to a simple ethical dilemma of
    whether they can risk killing a little girl to save an estimated eighty
    lives (if the suicide bombing goes ahead), there is more to the film
    than just that. As arguments and counter-arguments are thrown back and
    forth between political leaders, military leaders and
    political/military advisors, the film highlights how important
    political implications are in decision-making, with Monica Dolan’s
    adviser character saying that they (the US and the UK) would ”win the
    propaganda war” if the terrorists killed eighty civilians rather than
    them killing one girl. The characters also take part in a lot of
    ”referring up”, with nobody wanting to take responsibility for the
    ramifications of their actions (or inaction). The tension in the air is
    hard to shake as things become increasingly time critical, and while
    events sometimes feel prolonged in ‘everything that can go wrong, will
    go wrong’ manner, it is a breathtaking and thought-provoking ride. The
    film is not, however, quite as neutral as it perhaps ought to be. Dolan
    comes across as obnoxious and ignorant for the most part and the two
    drone pilots are conveniently inexperienced, which makes it hard to buy
    the case for saving the girl considering that those three are the ones
    arguing for it. This slant towards taking action no matter what is
    interesting though as it serves to highlight how much can and does get
    in the way of military action in the YouTube era when public
    perceptions shape everything.

  • Edgar Allan PoohApril 3, 2016Reply

    Sometimes you roll the dice, and sometimes the dice roll . . .

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • ([email protected])April 3, 2016Reply

    Mirren & Rickman shine in taut nail-biting paramilitary thriller

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • DareDevilKidApril 3, 2016Reply

    Eye in the Sky Review: As Thoughtful and Timely as it’s Riveting and Gripping

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • socrates99April 3, 2016Reply

    Perhaps the most disappointing movie this year, almost an insult too

    Alright I will concede it’s useful to see our drone attacks from the
    point of view of their collateral victims, and that part of this movie
    I do like, that’s not the main message here. The main thrust here is
    one I don’t begin to buy: that our chain of command is racked with
    doubt whenever it launches a drone strike.

    I might believe it happened once that way but there’s no excuse for
    presenting it here as if it were the norm or even an idealization of
    what happens. Rather, most Americans at least would be shocked at how
    many innocents die everyday due to our military. And though this movie
    is mostly situated in the UK, it’s altruistic parts are clearly meant
    to rub off on us.

    No, the country that attacked a Doctors Without Borders facility and a
    hotel full of foreign correspondents, killing some of each in both, is
    not racking itself with moral doubt.

    What we have here is a good old fashioned propaganda film. Hardly
    needed given our impotent press.

  • Victoria WeisfeldApril 4, 2016Reply

    All the Thriller Elements, Superbly Combined

    Exactly what a thriller should be, Eye in the Sky has high stakes,
    conflicting motives, believable characters with a tangle of
    personalities, and a ticking clock. If you’ve seen the trailer for this
    film, you know that British and American military forces have put an
    ”eye in the sky”—an armed drone with a powerful camera—to track members
    of a terrorist cell in Kenya, including an American citizen and two
    Brits. It finds them. The rest of the film is ”what next?” When the
    terrorists are found to be preparing for more suicide bombings, what
    was intended to be a capture mission soon must be reevaluated—legally,
    militarily, and politically. Director Gavin Hood assembled a terrific
    cast, with Helen Mirren as the U.K.’s colonel in charge of the
    operation from an underground military bunker and Aaron Paul as the
    Nevada-based ”pilot” of the drone. Alan Rickman (so glad to see him, so
    unutterably sad he’s gone) is a British lieutenant general supervising
    the mission from a wood-paneled conference room, along with
    high-ranking British government officials (reminiscent of the crowded
    situation room when Osama bin Laden was killed). It’s a room filled
    with more indecision than people. On the ground in Kenya is a British
    agent played by Academy Award nominee Barkhad Abdi, whose life if
    caught isn’t worth the proverbial plugged nickel, the terrorists in a
    supposed safe house, the local Sharia law enforcement and security
    squads, and a neighboring family of innocents. Most of the movie
    concerns the deliberations of the groups in the bunker, in the
    conference room, and in the Nevada ”pilot house” as they see what the
    cameras can tell them—a lot, really—about what is unfolding inside the
    safe house. They’re aided by a facial recognition expert based in
    Hawai’i watching the same screens, attempting to verify the terrorists’
    identities. Because of the incredible detail of these images, the
    transitions from screens to street scenes (mostly from the point of
    view of Abdi) feel seamless. The key issues are ”collateral damage”—
    inevitable or unacceptable?—and whether a nation can pursue its
    citizens across friendly countries’ borders. Says Wired reviewer K. M.
    McFarland, ”it’s the best movie yet to tackle the legal and moral
    quagmire surrounding modern technological warfare.” That review also
    describes the degree of realism behind the movie’s rather amazing drone
    technology. In the screenplay written by Guy Hibbert, the military and
    the political leaders views’ on the situation differ irreconcilably.
    The U.K. military want to move; the politicians are cautious. Those
    views are flipped for the Americans. (Actor Laila Robins, seen locally
    on stage numerous times, plays a U.S. security official.) Filmed in
    South Africa in 2014, the staging of the safe house neighborhood
    carries a dusty realism that’s a stark contrast to the diplomatic h.q.
    and the high-tech pilots’ domain. Yet, the decision makers in those
    far-removed settings are not at all disengaged from the consequences on
    the ground. Alan Rickman’s final words to a recalcitrant politician
    are: ”Never tell a soldier he does not know the cost of war.”

  • jdesandoApril 4, 2016Reply

    Solid thriller and more . .

    ”Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost of war.” Lt.
    General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman)

    Eye in the Sky is about the cost, mostly the collateral damage, of
    drone strikes. And the eyes on earth are either misty or crying because
    a little girl is potentially going to be part of the damage to a
    Somalian compound in Kenya. Like Andrew Niccol’s Good Kill starring
    Ethan Hawke, this thriller emphasizes the damage to the soldiers who
    push the buttons.

    Col. Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is in charge of capturing an
    enemy, an objective that turns into ”prosecuting the target” (yes,
    jargon has to play a part in a story about essentially a military
    operation). Benson (Alan Rickman’s last performance, showing why the
    gifted actor will be missed) in Whitehall with the U.K. prime
    minister’s reps and other contributing command centers such as Hawaii
    for image analysis and Las Vegas for drone pilots give the drama and
    guilt a global feel while emphasizing the distance from the target and
    the menace of the quiet eye in the sky.

    Although the pic tends to the maudlin and unrealistic with some
    officers and experienced warriors literally crying over the little
    girl, basic anguish about the moral and legal components of war seems
    all too real. While Col. Powell pushes to have the chance of collateral
    damage be 45% rather than its probable 65% (”In war, truth is the first
    casualty,” Aeschylus, the film’s epigraph), she can only hope the
    little girl escapes the blast and civilian oversight accepts her

    I once thought the real sufferers were the grunts fighting mano a mano;
    I now see because of the realistic depiction of drone warfare in films
    like Eye in the Sky, the sufferers are also those who, thousands of
    miles away, pinpoint targets and pull triggers. Thank goodness
    filmmakers expose us to the kind of wars we now wage—when asked at the
    ballot booth to support or deny war on a global stage, we can make
    informed decisions.

    In addition, we can enjoy the thrilling chess game between bad guys and
    good guys back home and wherever

  • Quietb-1April 6, 2016Reply

    Decisions on the fly.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Jay HoffApril 6, 2016Reply

    impossible drone surveillance footage

    Am I the only person who noticed the HUGE contrivance of the way they
    would have us believe this drone operated? This type of drone CANNOT
    hover over the EXACT same spot with the EXACT same view for over 2
    hours.. NOT POSSIBLE.. and incredibly annoying! This MIGHT be possible
    if the footage was being provided by a fixed position satellite, but
    then that would be just another contrivance (that we would be able to
    place, or just happen to have, a surveillance satellite in this very
    precise and convenient viewing position, or perhaps had they used a
    quad-propeller drone that CAN hover like that; and then, obviously,
    they would have to operate the drone locally. 

  • bkrauser-81-311064April 7, 2016Reply

    A Challenging Think Piece About Modern Warfare

    What if every part of a weapon had a conscience? Everything from the
    hammer, to the bullet, to the trigger of a gun had to weigh the pros
    and cons of ”neutralizing” a target before a decision can be made.
    Without culpability, a well-oiled machine can do it’s job efficiently,
    effortlessly, heartlessly. But if we plug in the human element, and add
    in the collective experiences of multiple men and women, things become
    much, much more complicated.

    Eye in the Sky addresses these themes in a smart and effortless way,
    combining a stellar ensemble cast and a labyrinthine script by Guy
    Hibbert. The film starts with steely-eyed Colonel Powell (Mirren) of
    English military intelligence, tracking a cell Al-Shabaab terrorists.
    On the ground in Nairobi, Kenya, Damisi (Weyime) and Jama (Abdi) spy on
    the cell with various small drones and spy equipment. U.S. Air Force
    analysts in Hawaii reference the faces they see with a database of
    names while Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Rickman) supervises from
    London with several members of her Majesty’s government. The eye in the
    sky is a Reaper drone controlled from Nevada and piloted by 2nd
    Lieutenant Steve Watts (Paul) and A1C Carrie Gershon (Fox). What starts
    as a routine intelligence operation meant to increase situational
    awareness turns into an escalating debacle when Al- Shabaab leadership
    unexpectedly shows up, armed with explosives.

    The film asks a lot of it’s audience, forcing the viewer to consider
    the increasingly ambiguous situation through different lenses. There
    are objectors who bring up the legal ramifications of targeting British
    and American citizens, analysts who concern themselves with Collateral
    Damage Estimates, British officials who debate the possible political
    fallout, bureaucrats unwilling to be pull the trigger and military
    brass who worry if they do nothing lives will be lost. No matter your
    inclinations and attitudes towards drone warfare, each unique
    perspective is so well defined as to question if not outright challenge
    your worldview. Director Gavin Hood leaves no one off the hook, coolly
    analyzing every angle like a college professor using midwifery to
    garner understanding and empathy.

    Yet Hood gets lost in the tall grass when he ruminates on the few
    moments of black humor. Each time a brow-sweating bureaucrat or a
    confused politician worries about culpability, they decide to remand up
    to a higher authority. What results are elongated episodes of telephone
    which would be welcomed in a film resembling In the Loop (2009) or No
    Man’s Land (2001). Yet in a film that injects liberal amounts of
    humanism, largely with the involvement of an innocent Somali girl, the
    humor feels out of place.

    Thankfully if there is any cast who can pull off a film as morally
    ambiguous as Eye in the Sky without succumbing to farce, it would be
    this one. Aaron Paul makes a surprisingly nimble foil to Dame Helen
    Mirren’s ready, able and willing Colonel. As he is the only person with
    a finger literally on the trigger, Paul’s Lieutenant Watts is not only
    the most concerned about collateral damage, but ultimately the one who
    has to positively ID any victims of the drone’s payload. Alan Rickman
    gives a penultimate performance as the General and by all accounts
    balances his humanity with his experience as a military officer. While
    the character seems to dilute under moments of frustration, he ends his
    performance with the most powerful line in the whole film. As for the
    always dependable Barkhad Abdi; the character’s creativity and
    pragmatism not only serves an instant benefit to the plot but the
    physicality he brings to his performance elevates the noted character
    actor to one whose story I really want to see. Seriously Hollywood,
    give this guy the starring performance he rightfully deserves.

    Eye in the Sky is a challenging, suspenseful and rewarding think piece
    that aptly utilizes it’s talented cast. It tells the story of men and
    women who present nearly all the angles and algebra behind modern
    warfare in exhausting detail. While doing so, it does not insult its
    audience with clear heroes and villains but showcases a mosaic of
    humanity, warts and all. Grounded in realism and democratic in it’s
    message, Eye in the Sky is a small movie in need of a large audience.

  • phd_travelApril 7, 2016Reply

    Tense exciting frustrating

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Rachael lblakeApril 7, 2016Reply

    Eye in the sky is a political/war drama

    ”Eye in the sky” is a political/war drama about a British intelligence
    agent (Helen Mirren) who receives Intel that top East African
    terrorists are all residing in a house in Nairobi, Kenya. The task
    force is getting ready to bomb the house with a drone when their
    surveillance notices a girl selling bread by the house. The film turns
    into a compelling look at the philosophy of morality and the weighing
    of the loss of collateral damage against the risk for larger loss of
    life. Mirren and company refer up to get approval as to when to fire
    the bombs because of the moral implications there would be to bomb the
    house with the girl in such close proximity. I thought the movie
    presented a humanistic and fascinating look at the political and social
    implications of their decision and showed that there is great cost in


  • RichardAlaba-CineMuseApril 7, 2016Reply

    A thoroughly gripping film and a consciousness raising experience.

    The war film genre enables us to confront the realities of war by
    venting our inner fears and indulging our conceits of victory. But
    there are many kinds of war film. Depending on theme and purpose, war
    films can be a hybrid of the adventure, history, drama, thriller,
    science fiction and even comedy genres. They have recently morphed from
    trench-and-tank settings to globally dispersed and armchair directed
    war rooms with real-time engagement resembling a video game with highly
    sophisticated and deadly accurate killing technology. Far from fantasy
    war, Eye in the Sky (2015) raises moral and political dilemmas that
    potentially touch every citizen. Can you imagine one day democratically
    sharing the decision to bomb a target via your iPhone?

    The story unfolds over a few hours when Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen
    Mirren) and Lt. Col. Frank Benson (the late Alan Rickman) must convince
    their political masters to change a ‘capture’ to a ‘kill’ mission when
    they unexpectedly get the opportunity to wipe out several top ranking
    terrorists in Nairobi. After getting the necessary political and
    military approvals, a weak link opens up at the trigger pulling end of
    the chain of command when the soldier authorised to fire the missile
    sees a young girl near the kill zone. It’s a classic morality play: do
    you save the girl and risk losing the opportunity to eliminate several
    really bad people who are being fitted with suicide vests that could
    kill hundreds of innocents? The resulting drama appears fast-paced but
    is more notable for what does not happen rather than what does because
    buck-passing between decision-makers delays the critical moment. It’s a
    tense thriller matched by sharp camera-work in what feels like
    real-time, making the audience both witnesses and judges of the events
    as they happen.

    Mirren and Rickman are superb in their roles. Both skilfully portray
    the stresses and frustrations of working between the world of the
    professional soldier and that of the politician. This is not your
    standard war film and is more about the political dynamics of how war
    will be waged in the future. While miniaturised beetle drones
    transmitting high definition video from inside Satan’s den looks more
    like fantasy than war science, remember that similar things were said
    about the HAL 9000 computer in 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968). The
    history of Sci-Fi shows that today’s imaginings is tomorrow’s reality.
    So the moral dilemmas in this film are very real. Eye in the Sky stands
    out as both a thoroughly gripping film and a consciousness raising

  • virek213April 8, 2016Reply

    The Legal, Military, And Moral Implications Of 21st Century Drone Warfare

    With ground wars in Afghanistan and Iraq having killed nearly five
    thousand U.S. soldiers and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians,
    not to mention the hundreds of thousands more injured and maimed, the
    new kind of war against post-Al Qaeda terrorist groups like ISIS and
    Al-Shabab is being done from the air via drones. But the risk to
    innocent civilians is no less doing it that way than if there were
    actual troops with weapons on the ground. If anything, the implications
    of carrying out these operations from a distance are even greater in
    legal, military, and moral terms, because every action undertaken will
    eventually produce blowback that can become a seemingly never-ending
    cycle of killing and maiming by both sides in the so-called ”War On
    Terror”. This is what is explored in EYE IN THE SKY.

    Helen Mirren and the late Alan Rickman are the top British military
    officers in charge of going after a cell of Al-Shabab terrorists
    preparing for a potential suicide attack in Nairobi, where there happen
    to be two new recruits from Britain and another from the United States
    who had only recently become radicalized. The terrorists have ensconced
    themselves at a house in a heavily crowded residential area in the
    Kenyan capital, and are being closely monitored on the ground by a
    Kenyan operative (Barkhad Abdi, who portrayed the chief pirate in
    2013’s CAPTAIN PHILLIPS). Everything is confirmed and ready to destroy
    both the house and its occupants before they are able to carry out an
    attack that could kill at least eighty people, but the legal loopholes
    that they have to go through to be given the authority to carry out the
    drone strike are immense. And the moral implications intervene when a
    young Kenyan girl is seen selling bread on the street side of the wall
    near the safe house, making her a potential casualty, what the military
    calls by the all-encompassing Orwellian euphemism ”collateral damage.”
    And the two U.S. military officers (Phoebe Fox, Aaron Paul) who are
    piloting the drone and its missile are watching all this from their
    seats at an air force base near Las Vegas.

    Even when the strike is carried out after a lot of hand-wringing,
    resulting in the deaths of the terrorists and innocent civilians simply
    caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, the reverberations of what
    was done go well beyond the blast zone in Nairobi. When, after the
    strike, Rickman tells one of his government’s heads ”Never tell a
    soldier that he doesn’t know the cost of war”, he doesn’t mean just the
    dead people at the strike itself, but the psychological toll it takes
    on the military, both officers and soldiers alike, and the implications
    for the world at large It would be a fallacy, following how badly both
    the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were botched by our political leaders
    here in America who were blinded by their own venality and arrogance,
    to think that the costs of carrying out a successful strike don’t weigh
    heavily on the people in the military who are charged with approving
    such strikes and the soldiers or pilots responsible for carrying them
    out. This is the crux of the matter in EYE IN THE SKY, as shown by
    and screenwriter Guy Hibbert (FIVE MINUTES OF HEAVEN). Instead of being
    a rock ’em, sock ’em gung-ho action flick seemingly approved for public
    consumption by Bush, Cheney, et al, what we get instead is a very
    concise look at the military, legal, and, above all, the moral
    implications of our drone strike policies. Mirren and Rickman (the
    latter often known for playing ruthless villains, as he did masterfully
    in 1988’s DIE HARD) are excellent in their roles, even though they
    don’t share any actual screen time together, but that is not to
    diminish the contributions made by Paul, Fox, or Abdi. Nothing is done
    melodramatically or for the sake of showing the adrenaline lust for
    bloodthirsty proactive violence against undoubtedly cold-blooded
    inhuman monsters. For that reason, EYE IN THE SKY is a film well worth
    seeing and discussing.

  • elihistApril 8, 2016Reply

    Brainwashing in progress

    This film should have 0 ratings: because this film is mass manipulation
    – brain washing technique to make everybody believe that they care and
    they will consult before start shooting, that they will delay the
    killing in order to spare human lives however in reality on July 12
    2007 there is real footage of what really takes place , in the real
    footage they say while the ”eye in the sky” is watching he is carrying
    a weapon, in reality it is a camera but do they confirm that it’s a
    weapon? NO you will hear it, they don’t do that. As the reporter say
    there was only one man carrying a weapon but as you will hear they say
    six or seven individuals are carrying weapons, they were journalists
    and innocent citizens killed. In the movie the ”eye in the sky watcher”
    is shown as a caring, loving person, in reality as you will confirm in
    this real footage he didn’t consult or confirm to save human lives, the
    ”eye in the sky watcher” said ”come on fire”. Brainwashing works: 1.
    With this movie the repetition of this opinion will make you believe
    that the ”they” care about you, that they will find the right people
    for positions with high security clearance who really care about
    humans. As you will see in the footage that does not happen even the
    words they use insults like ”there it goes the death bastards” 2. In
    the movie they care about the girl who sells bread, in reality in the
    real footage as you will see what they should have done is to confirm
    who was inside the VAN before shooting that is their responsibility,
    the Van was carrying children, and those guys were just going to pick
    up the survivors of the shooting they didn’t have weapons as the eye in
    the sky watcher said. This movie is a total lie, it would have been
    different if the movie would at least attempted to show this footage so
    we can control better our governments leaders and bring them to justice
    when needed. Brainwashing in progress, is your mind for sale? 3. They
    portrait to the eye watcher as a hero who cares about girl, it melts
    your heart right, in reality see the real footage See a real footage at

  • Python HyenaApril 8, 2016Reply

    Eyes On Mirren.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jlj9675-1April 9, 2016Reply

    boring, whiny

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jaimegonzalezzApril 9, 2016Reply

    Excellent bird’s eye view of both technical and political details

    What I liked best about the film is how it exposes the logical vs.
    illogical nature of the arguments for and against drone strikes against
    Islamic fanatics intent on killing those who don’t submit to their
    will. The acting is superb, and the scenes of drones flying about their
    targets is unlike anything I’ve seen before.

    It would be wonderful if more movies like this were made, movies that
    touch on subjects that are real, contemporaneous and highly relevant.
    One can only wish, if only the Hollywood studios directed a fraction of
    their budgets away from the superhero nonsense that is so often served
    nowadays, and instead focused on serious films like this.

  • aschaad-tansApril 10, 2016Reply

    Thought provoking and wonderful

    ”Never tell a soldier he doesn’t understand the cost of war.” Alan
    Rickman’s final words in his final on-screen movie. This movie will
    make you question what you think you would do in a situation, and it
    makes you question the moral line you believe you have for yourself.
    When does that line get blurry? When does it get crossed?

    Alan Rickman is my all-time favorite actor. I say is because it will
    always remain that way. I would have seen, and bought, this movie just
    because he is in it and because I own all his movies. However, after
    seeing the trailer I know I would have also seen it if he hadn’t been
    in it. His performance is wonderful as always. The movie is dedicated
    to his memory, as he died shortly before its release. It’s his last on-
    screen movie and he did wonderful.

    Ellen Mirren is good as usual. She has to make a call that makes you
    feel a lot of different things.

    When does the life of one become worth it to save the lives of many?
    It’s the ongoing question in this movie, along with when politics
    should or should not be mixed with military operations. In a world that
    is at war, this is a question I imagine many of those involved asking
    regularly. We think we know what we would do, but do we? All throughout
    the movie I agreed with Alan and Ellen in what should happen, but even
    now that I’m back home I can’t think about how that makes me feel.
    There are a lot of movies coming out these days that are fluffy, or
    action filled or fun.

    There aren’t nearly enough movies these days that make you think. I
    love that this one did and recommend this movie to anyone who wants to
    see a truly good movie with truly strong acting by everyone from the
    extras to the main stars.

  • MisterWhiplashApril 10, 2016Reply

    memorable for its performances and its gray-area stance on moral terpitude

    Is it right to use a drone attack to shoot a bomb onto people? What if
    they’re planning a terrorist attack that could kill a hundred people,
    or more? You may argue that it’s better to capture them than to kill
    them, but most people would be fine with taking them out, no big loss
    for the innocents of the world they’ll destroy. OK, fine. What about
    those surrounding the blast? Call it collateral damage and call it a
    day, or what if the moral implications actually, you know, stick with
    you? Eye in the Sky takes what may be to some a big of a cheap shot
    with this issue: the filmmakers set up the story of a little girl in
    Somalia (who also happens to have a father/family situation that is not
    fanatical, and there’s a scene that makes sure we the audience know
    that) who has to sell bread on the street. Turns out she’s selling
    bread right outside of the house where a major terrorist (actually a
    few) are preparing for a suicide-bombing attack. We know this because
    the characters in various military positions – the pilot who will pull
    the trigger from a Nevada base (Aaron Paul), the officer who has been
    tracking the terrorists for months (Helen Mirren), and her superiors
    (the late Alan Rickman among others) who have to make the call as
    British and American super-powers. Strike and deal with the (possible)
    death of a little girl, or let them go and deal with the, shall one
    say, ‘propaganda’ problems in having people die by the terrorists and
    that those in power knew about it.

    In the trailer for this movie some critic compared this all to Dr.
    Strangelove, and of course it’s easy to see why: it’s a movie where we
    see the various perspectives leading up to a catastrophe. But the real
    comparison is not with anything satirical (I almost thought there would
    be more of some humorous commentary to the movie because of that quote,
    which isn’t the case), but the brother-film to Strangelove, also from
    1964, Fail Safe. That’s a much more sobering, serious and genuinely
    harrowing movie about how everyone who is witnessing something
    unfolding have to use things like patience and control and usually
    picking between the lessor of two options when going down a dark path.
    But unlike Fail Safe and that era, which was set in a cold war with a
    somewhat more abstract notion about America and Russia colliding in
    nuclear fallout, Eye in the Sky is about something sadly more common:
    the war on terror and its implications when fighting it from way
    outside of where it’s actually taking place, in comfortable rooms
    watching things happening on screens provided by a flying beetle with a
    camera and a drone.

    I liked how the movie makes you think about these issues of
    should-you-or-shouldn’t-you (there may seem to be a right answer for
    the hard-liners, on either side, but where you get more into the
    middle, which is where more people are, is where the ambiguity lies),
    while still being entertaining and engrossing. You get to see actors
    like Mirren and Rickman and even Barkhad Abdi (first time we’ve seen
    him since Captain Phillips, and showing he can play well outside of
    that potential typecasting) having to think on screen as well. They
    have to ponder, they have to decide, and it’s fascinating to watch
    people in a story dealing with consequences which will have actions –
    whether or not it’s for them, or their country, or for others, makes
    for compelling drama. Especially for Aaron Paul, who is the one who is
    seeing what everyone else sees but has more distance from (and hasn’t
    had to do something like this), it sets him for inherent drama: do I
    blow up this girl, or let them go? Do I stall for time or deal with
    pulling the trigger?

    These aren’t all necessarily new questions for a war movie dealing more
    with suspense and a ticking-clock scenario, and to be critical I wish
    the filmmaking was just a little more cinematic in a way – it’s shot by
    Gavin Hood like something that could be acceptable for a TV movie, less
    than a major theatrical film (but this may be from it being shot on a
    digital Red camera instead of on film, even with such high tech it
    looks kind of flat, except for Mirren’s scenes which have a slight
    tint). And I wish they had gone even *further* with the moral gray
    area; say, for example, if the little girl had been from a family that
    were more radical in Islam and weren’t OK with the little girl playing
    with a hoola-hoop, but the British and American officers don’t know
    that – what does that do for the audience?

    But what is here is still very good and worth seeing; one may want to
    go simply because it’s Rickman’s final screen appearance (in live
    action, not counting Alice Through the Looking Glass). He gets a final
    scene in the movie that is wonderful to experience – hoe he puts a fine
    point on the story in a way that is tragic and terrible – though he’s
    not the only reason to see it. If you’re up for a story that treats you
    like an adult and with the capacity to see people react and think on
    screen and not jump to conclusions (or, if they do, what that says
    about them and what happens if they have to backtrack and think again),
    this is admirable stuff.

  • rabbitmoonApril 10, 2016Reply

    Excellent suspense thriller

    I’ll leave it to the other reviews to discuss all the ethics/morality

    For me, the main strength of this film was that it was one of those
    films that’s made compellingly watchable by the fact that it just keeps
    building in suspense, continuously, until the end. You start small,
    little introductions to characters, then gradually layer upon layer of
    complication and tension is added. There’s not one wasted beat or
    moment. I love films like this, Die Hard is another example.

    Acting, writing, atmosphere, credibility was all just right for a two
    hour slice of tension building mayhem. Go see it.

  • hanhsoloApril 10, 2016Reply

    Gripping, but with an easy out

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Steve BApril 10, 2016Reply

    Sad, Important

    Well this film is a comment or maybe it just raises questions about
    drone warfare. Most modern war films have many violent scenes, many
    scenarios like the one they expose and examine in this film. In the
    end, the outcome makes me sad. The pull of what to do and what would
    you the viewer decide is the heart of things with this film.

    It is not a war film that moves quickly from event to event. As
    mentioned, it kind of focuses on one event and investigates everything
    about that event. Some folks will have no attention span for this type
    of moral/war, evaluation.

    I found it interesting and just sad. It made me think more about this
    subject matter. You will have to decide for yourself.

    I am not sure this will ever be one of those blockbusters, but it is a
    well made film that makes the viewer think about drone warfare.

  • steve beard ([email protected])April 11, 2016Reply

    Poses Questions

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Abby-9April 12, 2016Reply

    Helen Mirren’s Hair Makes Bid for Top Billing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • JimApril 12, 2016Reply

    Just one episode in the war against terrorism

    In this modern era, western governments try to avoid boots on the
    ground. Depending on aerial drones for surveillance and missile
    attacks. This film successfully shows the human cost to the soldiers
    and civilians involved in the process of executing drone attacks.

    This is not a video game. Drone attacks are preceded by extensive
    intelligence work and the impact area is displayed on live video. Where
    there are civilian casualties, it is not a clean kill.

    In this film, terrorists are about to carry out suicide attacks. The
    rules of engagement allow political leaders to authorize a pre-emptive
    strike. However, a single little girl (selling bread) is in the kill

    The civilians waffle as they pass the buck. The mission commander
    (Helen Mirren) is focused on her prey. The rookie crew of the drone are
    horrified. The drone pilot (Aaron Paul) had signed up because he needed
    to pay off his student loans.

    This film (just 102 minutes) is merely an episode in the war with the
    terrorists. Their brutal tactics necessitating a brutal response. Very
    few clean kills here because of the moral ambiguity of sacrificing a
    few lives to save many. No one walks away with their head held high.

  • ctowyiApril 12, 2016Reply

    Unsettling heart-parked-in-your-mouth film

    This is a white-knuckled heart-parked-in-your-mouth ”tick tock”
    suspense thriller. Hardly an ounce of fats lined a lean and mean
    explosive storyline, and this one is going to hit the ”career reset”
    button for Gavin Hood (even though his last effort Ender’s Game is
    quite decent).

    Eye in the Sky towers above Good Kill (2015) on so many levels. They
    have the same story premise and both are spins on drone warfare, but
    their similarities end there. I really thought GK was a decent film
    albeit a tad too heavy on melodrama histrionics and it ultimately
    became top down heavy in its underlying message of modern warfare. EitS
    on the other hand is a complete marvel. It is exactly what GK isn’t. It
    dares to ask probing ethical and moral questions but never cheapens the
    narrative by giving you broad-stroked answers; it will involve you
    totally and absolutely. We go through a minefield of moral conundrums
    and nobody will come out unscathed. The script is exceptionally probing
    and showcases all the legalistic, moralistic, ethical and political
    red-tape as parties, seated in situation rooms in different parts of
    the world (including a toilet), convened to decide whether a Hellfire
    missile should be launched. We see, almost in real time, the
    ramifications at every angle, from the innocent bystander, to the
    terrorists, to the people in suits and to the dude seated in a tiny
    room, his hands on the red trigger of a joystick. Innocence is indeed
    the first casualty of war.

    Another reason this film shines is its refusal to go down certain genre
    tropes. You won’t see the guy, who had squeezed the trigger to rain
    down destruction on collateral innocents, drown in alcohol and sucking
    in a line of coke. You won’t see a woman going home to hug her toddler
    to reassure herself that she did the right thing. You won’t see
    commanders giving you three-point sermons of ”it is a dirty job but
    somebody has to do it so that the world will be a better place”. There
    is such a raw and unsettling freshness to it. It may be a full-on
    talkie but I was gripping my arm-rests tightly and my wifey had her
    palms parked at her mouth, almost literally from the get-go.

    The acting is all round immaculate. Helen Mirren shines as a hard-nosed
    military officer with a tiny soft spot for her underlings. Few
    actresses can elevate a film just with their presence; Mirren is one
    for the ages. This must be the best role I have seen Aaron Paul in
    since Breaking Bad. His role isn’t easy, especially when he is stuck in
    a gamer’s chair almost throughout the film. His face displays so much
    range that you would feel his internal turmoil as his omniscient eye
    calculates whether it will be a good kill. Barkhad Abdi, last seen as
    the baddie in Captain Phillips, has a superb turn as an operative on
    the ground, proving he is not a fluke. This is also Alan Rickman’s
    final acting role and I literally count down the minutes that he will
    disappear from the big screen. The utterly memorable line he delivers
    with that quietly supercilious voice of his send chills down my spine.
    I am going to miss this fine actor.

    Eye in the Sky is superbly cerebral and morally thought-provoking; a
    suspense thriller for intelligent people. It is impossible to come out
    of this 102-minute film and not have your soul shattered in some way.
    This is one of those films you shouldn’t watch alone because you would
    immediately want to discuss with someone which side of the fence you
    would sit on and count the dire consequences. Is there even a right

  • bankofmarquisApril 13, 2016Reply

    Tense Military Thriller

    Gavin Hood’s tense thriller, EYE IN THE SKY will be forever remembered
    as the last film that the great Alan Rickman completed before his
    death. That is too bad as this film should be remembered for what it is
    – a tense military, political thriller with 3 superb performances at
    the core.

    EYE IN THE SKY tells the tale of Colonel Katherine Powell (the always
    great Helen Mirren) a British officer who has been trailing terrorists
    through surveillance in her high Security Bunker. She finally is able
    to locate 3 of the members of her most wanted list, with the aide of a
    drone pilot (Breaking Bad’s Aaron Paul) who is located in his bunker in
    Las Vegas. She orders a drone strike, but Paul’s pilot refuses to do so
    without ”higher authority” because of collaterol damage. Enter
    Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) who has to maneuver the
    legalities and the politics of this situation from his version of a
    bunker, a conference room.

    This set up suggests that this movie is dialogue heavy, and it is. It
    could easily be a stage play, with the different areas of the stage
    serviing as the 3 bunkers. Consequently, it falls on the acting
    shoulders of the 3 leads to pick up the slack of this movie, and they
    do it well.

    Director Hood was either good or lucky in getting veteran actor’s
    Mirren and Rickman for their respective roles. They inhabit each
    character with the appropriate sense of urgency (Mirren) and
    politically savy (Rickman) while Paul’s character is the baby-face of
    the group who holds onto his concerns with a tight grip.

    The short, 1 hour 40 minute length of this film helps with the tension
    as we do not have time to linger on anything and have to make a
    decision and move on to the next thing in rapid order.

    A tense, fast-paced movie with a moral quandary in it’s center, EYE IN
    THE SKY is a rather nice send off for Mr. Rickman.

    I, for one, will miss him.

    7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (of Marquis)

  • scottshak_111April 14, 2016Reply

    The girl and her bread

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • quincytheodoreApril 15, 2016Reply

    Masterclass in suspense and bureaucratic warfare.

    War has changed over the years, now it’s mostly fought in booth and
    meeting tables on far sides of globe. One would not think that this
    set-up works like a charm in creating tension, perhaps even better than
    any display of bullet spree in recent time. A collaboration effort of
    great cast portraying parties of many countries as they battle for
    morale and literally inches of survival.

    This is a scouting mission played by drone, the eye in the sky, as it
    follows extremist faction. It’s monitored by different parties with
    different agendas as the nature of the mission gets more volatile with
    each passing moment. Hellen Mirren and Alan Rickman are particularly
    amazing in their roles, pushing the seemingly cold yet necessary

    Barkhad Abdi serves as the ground unit, he’s the one who experiences
    the actual mission first hand. It’s ridiculously gratifying how the
    mission hinges on trivial stuffs one would take for granted and how the
    lives at stake merely go about their daily routines and never knowing
    that their fates are decided right that moment by strangers.

    There’s an intense argument when they need to respond with lethal
    force. It escalates extremely rapidly with many clashing ideologies,
    there’s no exact truth or right course of action to take, and nearly
    every compromise can be fatal. It’s exceptionally well done, even to
    the point that administrative squabble is done with appealing urgency.

    An exceptionally engaging thriller, ”Eye in the Sky” gives a
    perspective to espionage warfare and more importantly, genuine human

  • hendra090680April 16, 2016Reply

    To Engage or Not To Engage

    Moral dilemma is an experience a person occasionally encounters in
    everyday lives. This film definitely depicts the dilemma in such a
    gripping and enchanting way. ‘Eye in the Sky’ is a true and one of a
    kind example that clearly displays how difficult it is to make a
    decision when it must involve parties supposedly not involved.
    Complicated as it may sound, the film has a very simple premise, that
    is, Should an innocent be a collateral damage for the sake of saving
    more innocents? Are casualties of war something inevitable? Helen
    Mirren perfectly acts out the dilemma that we believe in her character,
    the guy from the Breaking Bad magnificently embodies the dilemma as
    well! This is a truly recommended movie released in the year of
    superhero movies that provides different yet of high quality movie.
    This movie is FOR EVERYONE to see and not to miss!!!!

  • cultfilmfanApril 16, 2016Reply

    Eye in the Sky

    What is one life worth? What if you had to make the ultimate decision
    of killing one innocent person to wipe out many that aren’t. Would you
    do it for the supposedly greater cause, or would the decision where
    there could potentially be innocent people hurt, or killed as
    collateral damage, would this affect your decision at all? This is some
    of the very important questions and issues that the new film, Eye in
    the Sky brings up. This is essentially a film about the powers that be
    in various different forms of government, who are tasked with the
    almost impossible decision of destroying one innocent person who would
    be caught in the aftermath of many that are guilty and that they want
    destroyed. The film doesn’t just toy with easy answers, or tries to
    make up it’s own either. This is a very delicate subject matter and the
    film gives much thought and depth to this question. What if they were
    to do nothing and not strike at all and the wanted people would get off
    completely free, but then could essentially kill many others with their
    acts of terrorism, or violence? If the powers that be did nothing to
    stop this, then essentially that would probably be their loss and a
    great victory for the people they are up against. Not to mention that
    it would bring much scrutiny upon them. However on the other side of
    the coin, what if you were to take them out with one single blast which
    would most likely destroy them, but could and most likely would kill an
    innocent bystander. This would perhaps give more sympathy to the other
    side and paint a more vicious and not so sympathetic form for our
    governments in this side of the world. The ultimate question really is
    a tricky one isn’t it? Here we have all the players from the colonel
    who wants this mission carried out as quickly and easily as possible,
    but then we also have other members of government to the people who
    will actually initiate the shots themselves who strongly question if
    what they are doing is morally right, or not. The film essentially
    shows that in war and perhaps in politics as well as times, that there
    are sometimes no easy answers. While the film in a certain regard does
    give us it’s own moralizing and tries to answer the question for us
    (which could possibly turn off some viewers depending on your political
    leanings), I still think these are important questions that the film is
    asking us and questions that should mean not only something to us the
    average viewers of the film, but also to the various forms of
    government and to those in charge who make these kind of decisions on
    an everyday basis. I will not give anything away, but as I mentioned
    above the film does in a sense provide us with their interpretation of
    an answer, or in a sense maybe it is saying there is no right, or wrong
    answer in this type of situation and in reality is just showing that in
    matters of war there is usually no winners, or losers because more
    often than not you will have innocent people killed and not so innocent
    people as well and is all that always truly justified, or warranted?
    Eye in the Sky has one of the strongest screenplays of any of the films
    I have seen in this still very young new year. It is a screenplay with
    top notch dialogue and situations that command your attention by giving
    us real life scenarios and complicated situations and making us
    thrilled as well as captivated to see just how it will turn out because
    ultimately as a viewer the film allows you to care about the casualties
    involved and knowing that either decision will end in loss of life. The
    acting all by very good actors here is performed flawlessly and is a
    great final film for the late Alan Rickman, who should be very proud of
    his work here. The film is edited in such a way that no single moment
    is wasted and everything counts for something and our interest and
    attention is held the entire way through. This is a film that is not
    only tremendously entertaining and made in the best way possible, but
    it also allows us to confront and ask our inner selves about what we as
    a person would do in this situation and the answer might frighten you
    and more importantly make you think which is what a great film does.
    One of the best films of the year so far.

  • kyliem11April 16, 2016Reply

    Simply superb.

    Helen Mirren steals the show as a hard nosed Colonel in the British
    army who finally gets the chance to apprehend a couple of terrorists
    that she has been tracking for years. It soon becomes apparent that a
    suicide bombing plot is being planned and things escalate to a drone
    kill situation, it’s then that things start to go wrong and an
    international dispute going all the way up to the prime minister takes
    place. I thought the suspense in the movie was full on, it was
    literally gripping all the way through. I was actually surprised that
    the rating on here was as low as it is, I rarely give a 9 (and never
    give 10’s) but this was thoroughly deserved. Highly recommended.

  • Dan HardenApril 17, 2016Reply

    To engage or not engage that is the question

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • rogerdarlingtonApril 18, 2016Reply

    A gripping film that forces you to think

    A British military operation is using an American Hellfire drone to
    target a suspected al-Shabaab group in Nairobi and we’re reminded that
    this terrorist group was responsible for the mass killing at the
    Westgate Shopping Mall in that city a few years earlier. OK, you have
    my attention – my son relocated to Kenyan’s capital almost a year ago
    for his work, I’ve visited the city twice now, and on each occasion
    been to Westgate.

    The operation is focused on a district of Nairobi called Eastleigh
    which is predominately inhabited by Somalis and known as ‘Little
    Mogadishu”, although the film was actually shot in South Africa, the
    home country of director Gavin Hood. I’m not sure that Eastleigh is as
    lawless as it is represented or that we have the micro-surveillance
    technology depicted but, in both cases, this aspect of the narrative
    serves to heighten the military and moral choices and the legal and
    political considerations facing all those in the ”kill chain” of
    command and underlines why so many of the characters in that chain
    constantly ”refer up”.

    To some extent, we have covered this ground before, as two years ago we
    had ”Good Kill” which showed the pressures on an American drone pilot.
    But ”Eye In The Sky” is different in three main respects.

    First, it shows one mission in a straight narrative told in near real
    time through a variety of technologies which creates a real sense of
    immediacy and tension.

    Second, we see the issues from multiple viewpoints including that of
    the British colonel in charge of the operation (the brilliant Helen
    Mirren), her point man in Whitehall’s COBRA room (the last performance
    by the late Alan Rickman), the drone pilot (American actor Aaron Paul),
    the man on the ground in Eastleigh (Somali actor Barkhad Abdi who was
    so impressive in ”Captain Phillips”), and various British and American
    politicians and advisers (the Brits shown as vacillating and the Yanks
    as gung-ho).

    Third, in a dialogue-heavy script, British writer Guy Hibbert offers no
    easy answers, constantly shifting the viewer’s inclinations one way and
    another, thereby emphasising that there is no straightforward trade-off
    between the chances of averting a terrorist outrage with the likely
    multiple loss of life against the algorithmic percentage estimates of
    collateral damage (that is, loss of innocent lives).

    This is not a comfortable film to watch, but it raises serious
    questions in a manner that manages to be gripping and forces the viewer
    to think hard.

  • AlanjackdApril 18, 2016Reply

    Tense and unsettling

    For a start I do not think it has anything to do with the fact that
    they used drones…this is just a moral on modern warfare.

    Excellentley cast and superbly directed, this is as tense an affair as
    I have ever seen on the big screen.

    It really takes you in to the feel of what happens in a war room
    ..things we hear about all the time brought to life in front of our
    very eyes.

    The only irony is Alan Rickman in my opinion gives the performance of
    his life as a tired and war weary officer…reminding me of Jack
    Nicolason in A Few Good Men..but a lot better.

    Catch this thriller at the theatre before it gets released on disc to
    take in the power of its cinematography. Movies like this need to be
    made to make us think about the insane world we live in.

    All in all a masterclass in modern day cinema.

  • comps-784-38265April 19, 2016Reply

    A Shakespearian Tragedy with Hellfire Missiles.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • aldamayopanjaitanApril 20, 2016Reply

    moral, legal and ethical trilemma done exquisitely

    So the audience is faced by this excruciating dilemma in a military
    operation, whether to kill one person as a collateral damage to save
    many others, or to let this one person live and risk losing more lives.
    Trying to determine the answer this difficult question are a collection
    of Reaper UAV pilots, military commanders, ministers, Prime Ministers
    and Presidents. What approach should you take in solving this issue;
    legal, political or ethical approach? And try finding a solution under
    the humongous pressure of time. Can you even stand your argumentative
    ground? Would you still have the courage and authority to give the word

    This is the situation in the film Eye in the Sky, starring the ever-
    stoic Alan Rickman as General Benson (God bless his soul),
    Macchiavellian-with-a-heart Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine, a drone
    pilot with a conscience Aaron Paul and of course our favourite Somali
    pirate Barkhad Abdi. The ensemble cast was directed flawlessly by Gavin
    Hood (of Ender’s Game reputation) in a very real-time, life-like,
    supremely tense to and fro manner. But truly, the film unraveled itself
    as more of a challenge for the audience for we are faced with difficult
    issues such as the role of international law as either a guide or a
    means to justify political actions, the role of States as a legitimate
    user of violence in a Rousseauean sense, and ultimately, when
    commmanders and ministers just can’t independently determine whether to
    kill or not to kill, we are faced with the ultimate moral question, is
    it ever justifiable for a human being to take another human being’s
    life, regardless of any justification provided by national interest
    and/or international humanitarian law.

    This film will challenge your views, it will expand your horizons
    precisely because NONE of the characters in the story possessed a
    higher moral and ethical ground than others. Every argument counts, and
    every argument could also be discounted. Every thought can be justified
    yet can be rebuked at any time. Such is the fickle nature of man,
    trying as they might to exercise the so-called powers of the state,
    just to end up trapped in the endless simulacra of moral, legal and
    ethical trilemma. Then again, despite all the moral, legal and ethical
    debates happening in the comfort of a government office or a far- flung
    military base, an extrajudicial killing is STILL an extrajudicial

    This might be one of the best antiwar film ever made. And for sure,
    this is the most important antiwar film for our era. I can’t recommend
    this film highly enough. if you plan to see only one film in 2016. make
    sure it’s Eye in the Sky.

  • davidgeeApril 20, 2016Reply

    Collateral damage has a face

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bob-the-movie-manApril 20, 2016Reply

    Political dithering and droning

    In ”Air Force One” (1997) Gary Oldman’s hijacking terrorist rebuffs the
    President’s daughter’s claim that the two are unalike – ”Why? Because
    he does it in a tuxedo with a telephone call and a smart bomb?”.
    Warfare has changed immeasurably in the last twenty years with the
    introduction of ever-more ingenious drone technology, allowing armchair
    generals to be just that… cosily dispatching bad guys from the comfort
    of their own fireside with a cigar and a brandy in hand. ”Eye in the
    Sky” addresses the issues associated with this capability, showcasing
    some of the technology used, the truly global distribution of
    operations, the stresses placed on drone operators and the political
    ramifications of being able to SEE everything happening in real-time
    and in great detail.

    The film focuses on an operation to capture a cell of the Al Shabaab
    terrorist group in Kenya, holed up in a highly defended suburb of
    Nairobi. Political ramifications result from the fact that two of the
    terrorists are British nationals and one is American born. Helen Mirren
    (”The Queen”) plays Colonel Katherine Powell (as a strong female role
    model that is to be commended) heading up the military operations. Alan
    Rickman is her boss, Lieutenant General Frank Benson, handling the
    politics within the ”Cobra” meeting in Whitehall. Flying the key drone
    itself, and being put under great stress, are pilots Steve Watts (Aaron
    Paul, ”Breaking Bad”) and rookie Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox, ”The Woman
    in Black 2”).

    While much of the action is ‘remote’, we also have feet on the street
    in the form of Somali-born Jama Farah (Barkhad Abdi), swapping sides
    from his terrorist role in ”Captain Phillips” to support the good guys.
    And finally adding a strong human angle is young Kenyan girl Alia
    (Aisha Takow) trying to enjoy her childhood amid the repressive Islamic

    This subject has been handled before: Ethan Hawke’s ”Good Kill” from
    2014 and the dreadful looking ‘B-movie’ called ”Drones” all focused on
    the mental state of drone pilots inflicting their video-games style
    justice from the safety of their US bases. Where ”Eye in the Sky” goes
    one better is in focusing on the tense triangle of decision-making
    between military, legal and political factors at play.

    ”Eye in the Sky” is an odd curate’s egg of a film – really good in
    places. The action scenes are well handled with nail-biting tension
    built up at times: never has the sale of bread been more gripping!
    Particularly tense are the scenes involving Barkhad Abdi who is (once
    again) excellent in his role as Hollywood’s ”go to Somali”! On home
    ground the film is less sure-footed. While Guy Hibbert’s story rightly
    balances the action with the dramatic tensions of the decision-making
    process, the dithering that ensues reaches almost comical proportions
    at one point, painting British government in a very poor and (I hope to
    God) unrealistic light. I can only dread to think what American
    audiences think when they watch this film! In comparison, the US
    politicians are portrayed as much more analytical and matter of fact.
    Probably frustrating the hell out of American audiences though will be
    the portrayal of their military pilots who – I would presume – are
    diligently selected and trained in real-life to ‘disengage brain and
    follow orders’ without question in a combat situation: not as featured
    in the film.

    A film like this lives and dies by the quality of its special effects,
    and these (by Mickey Kirsten and Vasili Rinquest) are up to snuff, with
    excellent highlighting of the ingenious drone gadgets in the military’s
    arsenal. Another shout-out should go to Megan Hill for some very tight
    and effective film editing in the action scenes.

    The director is Gavin Hood (”Ender’s Game”) who also appears as the US
    Lt Colonel in the film.

    Helen Mirren – not everyone’s cup of tea as an actress – is splendid
    here as the frustrated Colonel and many of the supporting cast also
    excel: Monica Dolan (so brilliant in the BBC’s ”W1A”) is brilliantly
    irritating as the Cobra voice of conscience! But this will be a film
    that will be remembered as the last for the late and great Alan Rickman
    who died suddenly of pancreatic cancer in January. Surely no actor was
    better at delivering such deliberate and clipped lines as Rickman, and
    he will be sorely missed. It is almost physically painful to watch his
    final scenes in the film, and he (nearly) exits with a fine and
    memorable last line of dialogue. R.I.P. Mr Rickman.

    In summary, this is a highly watchable and gripping film, regrettably
    diluted by an over-egged and unrealistic dose of political dithering in
    the storyline.

    (Please visit for the graphical version of this
    review. Thanks.)

  • Arik_PApril 20, 2016Reply

    Tranquilizer required prior to watching this Great movie

    90 gripping minutes of pure military VS the politicians drama with
    lives at stake!. Regardless the fact that a film with Helen Mirren,
    Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman almost has zero chance of going wrong, this
    film is a masterpiece of human compassion , thinking outside the box by
    those who understand all the facts, and from the other side showing the
    pure stupidity of the political establisments ”cover my behinds”
    attitude of the people we have voted for, in one way or the other to
    lead and protect us,mostly indeviduals who have no clue,or basic notion
    of what’s in front of them when fighting terror, as the most experience
    with terror they have is with a cockroach in their kitchens!! Myself
    and people around were tempted to shout out and tell AAron and Helen
    what they should do…but after all its a movie that although fictional
    unfortunately is based on real life . So take a Tranquilizer and enjoy!

  • tylervirtualApril 21, 2016Reply

    EYE IN THE SKY IS AN AMAZING SUSPENSE but flawed. + Video Review

    Let’s just start with all the good. This movie is an extremely
    suspenseful film about the morality of people. It’s a political
    thriller that is about two governments trying to agree on whether they
    should kill a terrorist group by hell-fire missiles, capture them, or
    not take the risk just because there’s a little girl nearby the
    building. It is a movie that is thought provoking and makes you
    question your own morality with the situation. I loved this aspect of
    the movie and the last two acts of the film are spectacular. The ending
    is by far one of my favorite endings of this year. This is all the good
    I will throw at the movie but like I said about the last 2 acts of the
    film yet I can’t say the same about the first act. The first act of the
    movie feels slow and is just a set up to the rest of the movie. You
    barely understand what is going on in the beginning of the film and
    don’t really feel engaged until about 20 minutes into it. The only
    other flaw I really see with the movie but it can be annoying is the
    way some of the suspense is built up. Most movies build up suspense by
    trying different things and giving the characters new obstacles. This
    movie builds suspense by doing the exact same thing about ten times in
    a row. The suspense is still building but at the same time it’s
    repetitive and predictable on what will happen next until you reach the
    conclusion. The ”same thing happening over and over” that I am
    referring to is the governments needing to get the approval by everyone
    for this missile strike!! I understand they want to be realistic but
    don’t sacrifice suspense and don’t annoy your audience just because you
    want to put the same obstacle in the movie about ten times. This was
    still a great movie though and the ending alone is worth the price of
    admission!! 7/10

    Video Review:

  • mgumsleyApril 22, 2016Reply

    Relevant political drama marred by overlong decision making

    Are our political leaders really the dithering, self seeking
    personalities that this film makes them out to be? We are all familiar
    with the few being sacrificed for the greater good; this film implies
    once the few become familiar, the decision process is marred.

    However, this is overall a very good and well intentioned movie,
    probably the finest that Gavin Hood has ever made. Of course, he is on
    familiar ground back in the continent of Africa and his empathy with
    the way this continent is used for the evil ends of extremist groups
    shines throughout.

    Generally speaking, I was more engaged with the first part of the film
    when the plot is set up, and Helen Mirren as a dedicated army colonel
    is chasing down Al Shabab in Kenya. The army has tracked down
    extremists to Nairobi and is sending in a drone to investigate a group
    of people heading for a house in the suburbs. Mirren wants to blow it
    up, the drone identifies a group of wanted terrorists, including
    British nationals, and slowly politicians get involved in the decision
    making process, and worse still, it looks as if a suicide bombing
    mission is about to happen.

    I really found all this most engaging. The birds eye view of the drone
    turned out to be fascinating, as Hood lets the cameras explore through
    the eyes of hummingbird and bug drones.

    Then the suits, i.e. the politicians start dithering…. and
    dithering… and changing their minds, often. The plot is further
    complicated by the need to reduce collateral damage, and when a child
    becomes involved in this, its a bit like Hood’s old Tsotsi movie again,
    with a bigger and more dramatic subject.

    The finale is stunning and almost redeems the pain that has gone on for
    about forty five minutes previously. Hood does a superb job of
    directing and the able cast, headed up by the no nonsense Mirren,
    graphically show us their emotional perspectives on the whole incident.
    Its just a pity that the story line gets caught up in a sort of time
    warp as the dithering goes on.

    Despite its flaws, its well worth watching, and I really would have
    liked to have given it a better rating.

    Mary Gumsley

  • Neil WelchApril 22, 2016Reply


    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • pcqgodApril 22, 2016Reply

    The new gray areas in modern warfare

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ is a timely, tension-filled story of a joint
    British/US operation to neutralize members of a terrorist cell in
    Kenya. The mission parameters change from capture to kill when the
    threat level rises, but things are complicated when a young
    neighborhood girl sets up her makeshift bread shop directly next to the
    building the terrorists are holed up in. Pretty much the entirety of
    the movie involves preparing for and the attempt to authorize the drone
    strike that the British military leaders (Helen Mirren and Alan
    Rickman) are determined to carry out. We see the physical, practical
    details (involving some technology that seems straight out of a James
    Bond movie) as well as the legal and political protocols that must be
    adhered to. The movie is so successful in immersing the viewer in the
    dilemma the military characters face that you feel their frustration at
    being thwarted by military protocols and indecisive politicians while
    simultaneously being terrified for the fate of the little girl. ‘Eye in
    the Sky’ shares many similarities with ‘Sicario’ in that it deals with
    a war, portrayed very graphically, in which the major characters
    largely travel in the gray areas of legality and morality.

  • Jackson Booth-MillardApril 23, 2016Reply

    Eye in the Sky

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • tenshi_ippikiookamiApril 24, 2016Reply

    Keeping humanity

    The idea for many people behind drone striking is that is a more clean,
    safe, and dehumanizing way of targeting ”enemies”. ”Eye in the Sky”
    plays to the convention and offers a very interesting view of the
    people behind those strikes.

    Mission: capture a group of terrorists Location: Kenya Participants:
    United Kingdom, USA and Kenya (UK leading the mission)

    What was in principle a mission to capture terrorists soon becomes much
    more than that as things don’t go as intended. The terrorists are now
    hiding in a house, they seem to be getting ready to realize a terrorist
    attack, and just outside the house, a little girl is selling bread.
    What will the people watching from the security of their offices do?
    What decisions will they take?

    ”Eye in the Sky” is a very good movie, that tries to humanize the
    people that take decisions, that have to choose what kind of outcome is
    the best. It also tries to offer a view of the people that live in
    those places that seem so far away to the Western viewer, like Kenya.
    It is a very cold movie, though, as it keeps a very detached
    atmosphere, not letting us forget what is really going on here: people
    deciding who deserves to live and die, and why.

    It has a couple of little missteps, that bring it closer to an action
    movie and distract from the building tension. This is a movie not about
    people running or things exploding, it is about feelings, about
    decision-making, about what we have to take with us after every
    decision we make, the consequences of our acts.

    The acting is top-notch. It helps when you have an amazing cast as the
    movie has, everyone offering the best of the best, even if their parts
    are small. The movie plays the ambivalence card very well, and gives us
    time to choose: how would we react in the same situation? What would we

    It is a hard movie, and it is not easy to sit through knowing what it
    is really talking about, but it is absolutely worth watching.

  • male-87209April 24, 2016Reply


    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • themadmoviemanApril 24, 2016Reply

    A pulsating, tense thriller that really makes you think.

    This is one of the cleverest and most unique thrillers I’ve seen in a
    while. On the one hand, it delivers brilliantly in giving you 104
    seriously nail-biting minutes, but on the other, it’s a film that
    really makes you think hard about the ethics, politics and consequences
    of war.

    In comparison to the normal Hollywood thriller, this is a much more
    reserved take on the genre. So, rather than following secret agents or
    soldiers right in the middle of battle (although there are some
    seriously cool MI6 gadgets), we follow the people behind the scenes,
    and see everything that goes behind making an important decision in

    That alone was really interesting to see, and with a fantastic cast
    portraying characters from all over the world that spend the entire
    movie effectively debating whether to push the button or not, you get
    an intriguing and amazingly engrossing insight into the world behind

    The way that this film plays out is fantastic too. It’s not necessarily
    a high-octane thriller, but it’s so effective at creating tension and
    suspense that you’re on the edge of your seat within the first twenty
    minutes, and then you’re there for the rest of the movie, making this
    one of the most consistently exciting and engrossing movies I’ve ever

    However, the reason that I think Eye In The Sky stands out so much as a
    brilliant film is because of how intelligent it is. Its screenplay is
    brilliantly written, and it manages to deliver the high intensity of
    this situation mostly through dialogue, but it also puts you, as the
    viewer, right in the hot seat on whether pulling the trigger is the
    right decision.

    You’ll inevitably have your own view as the situation begins to unfold,
    and I felt fully convinced that I was right about what should happen.
    However, this film challenges you brilliantly by introducing points of
    view from all across the political and military spectrum. It doesn’t
    present the idea that one decision is necessarily the best, but instead
    gives you all the possible solutions to the desperate situation with
    the clock ticking, and leaves it up to you to decide what should
    happen, a puzzle that I absolutely loved trying to solve as the film

    Overall, I was really impressed by Eye In The Sky. Not only is it a
    well-made thriller that’s hugely exciting to watch, but it’s also a
    brilliantly intelligent film that gets you thinking hard for its entire
    duration, pulling you deeper and deeper into the situation at hand,
    which was absolutely thrilling to experience.

  • Nathan OsbornApril 24, 2016Reply

    Eye In The Sky is a sobering, intelligent and nail-biting thriller

    From the opening title card to the final slow motion credit roll, Eye
    In The Sky is completely compelling, gripping and immersive viewing; a
    film the edge of your seat was made for. Refusing to shy away from
    relevancy, Gavin Hood expertly crafts the events that unfold, almost in
    real-time, which dissects the ethical, political and legal dilemmas
    posed by drone strikes against the terrorist using these methods and
    the civilians caught up in the crossfire. Demonstrating the different
    sides of these very real consequences and lessons,Eye In The Sky does
    so with a grit, power and resolution that should be admired.


  • PyroSikThApril 26, 2016Reply

    A Balanced Look at Drone Warfare

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Andrew MarshallApril 27, 2016Reply

    Slightly clichéd

    I was hopeful that Eye in the Sky would prove to be a really thought
    provoking movie. I sat through it and couldn’t help, but think that I
    should have been enjoying it more.

    The movie focuses on the mission to capture terrorists using various
    surveillance techniques. Various decisions need to be made about the
    mission which involves various senior people of British/Coalition
    forces. Helen Mirren plays Colonel Katherine Powell and isn’t really
    that convincing in the role.

    The main thing I found infuriating in the movie is that most of the
    characters seen (or unseen) seemed a little too stereotypical. The
    characters just didn’t seem real, so everything came across a little
    flat. It was a good idea for a movie, just not quite executed properly.

  • Figgy66-915-598470April 27, 2016Reply

    Superb tense and a great performance from Alan Rickman

    27 April 2016 Film of Choice at The Plaza Dorchester Tonight – Eye in
    the Sky. A film dedicated In Loving Memory of Alan Rickman, this
    military/political thriller is a moment in time look at the processes
    involved in authorising and executing a drone strike. Tense from the
    outset, we see a British Colonel and a US Colonel co-ordinating Intel
    and the frustrating dance they have to perform as they manoeuvre
    through the political, legal and moral minefields of taking one life to
    save many. Superbly acted by all, Helen Mirren as the British Colonel,
    was unsurprisingly outstanding in her part, Alan Rickman negotiated the
    political factions with an air of no nonsense military efficiency
    tinged with a sense of regretting being in the room at all. The best
    quote of the whole film comes from Rickman when he states ‘Never tell a
    soldier that he does not know the cost of war!!!!’ This 1 hour and 42
    minute film will have you glued to your seat and is so thought
    provoking that it makes your head spin. I think you should go and see
    it and form your own opinion.

  • babi_35April 27, 2016Reply

    Great movie… wish for a more detailed and realistic Kenya…

    Very very good movie….

    Great acting from everyone. Helen Mirren is a very credible army
    colonel and Aaron Paul shows the emotions through his eyes. A fantastic
    actor, glad he finally managed to shake-off his amazing portray of Jess
    in the (fantastic and much missed) ”Breaking Bad” and is now exploiting
    his full potential in other roles.

    This movie really make you think and keeps you on the edge!

    Only wish the South African director had put a bit more effort in
    recreating the real Kenya… e.g. some Kenyan license plates…
    nowadays very easy to use CGI to get real images of Parklands and
    Eastleigh, etc… That’s the only gripe we from Kenya have… 🙂

  • Kendell DavenportApril 28, 2016Reply


    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Zbigniew_KrycsiwikiApril 29, 2016Reply

    A fitting send-off to Alan Rickman

    Diverting responsibility throughout, one avoids making a decision about
    a bombing which could kill several terrorists, but also could kill an
    innocent young girl nearby, and shifts responsibility to someone else,
    who repeats the process.

    Minute details give the characters depth, but wisely handles everything
    seriously, avoids turning the plot into a comedy (one higher-up is
    taken sick, takes an important phone call while on the toilet, while
    Alan Rickman’s character begins his day by trying to find the doll his
    daughter wants.) Alan Rickman, in his final on- screen performance, is
    top class as always. A fitting farewell, and the film is dedicated to
    him, ”In loving memory of Alan Rickman”

    Kenyans show as much, or more, humanity than US, in the final scene,
    while filmmakers simultaneously show aftermath of war.

    And I see that worthless little bitch with two accounts, who goes
    around voting down everything in sight, is already plowing through the
    comments on this page already. ”0 out of 2 people found this comment
    useful”. F off and die, little punk bitch.

  • ArgemalucoApril 29, 2016Reply

    Eye in the Sky

    Eye in the Sky joints itself to the list of movies or TV series
    questioning and analyzing the use of drones to conduct long-distance
    attacks with sad consequences justified for the sake of the war on
    terror. The film Good Kill placed us on the chair of the drones pilots,
    comfortably set in Las Vegas while they destroy populations in the
    other side of the world; the TV series Homeland employs the same
    concept at least once a year; and the eighth season of 24 reversed the
    roles, with terrorists capturing British drones in order to attack
    London. In summary: it’s a provocative subject which is fertile for
    ethical discussions and ideological conflicts. And Eye in the Sky takes
    total advantage of that circumstance, with a premise which allows us to
    examine each step of the process, while we rethink our opinion with
    every new data and revelation. This means that Eye in the Sky isn’t an
    action film at all. I would consider it a political-military thriller,
    in which many scenes are set into boardrooms, operation centres and the
    previously mentioned metallic containers in Las Vegas in which the
    unmanned vehicles are controlled. And, sure, we also occasionally visit
    the city of Nairobi, in Kenya (even though the film was shot in South
    Africa), in order to witness the preparations for a terrorist attack,
    proving that cold strategic decisions always contemplate the reality of
    lives in danger, whether acting or ignoring the problem. The only
    complaint I have against this movie is the fact that screenwriter Guy
    Hibbert occasionally employs some slight manipulations. For the rest,
    Eye in the Sky is a fascinating look ”behind the curtain”, illustrating
    the incomprehensible scale of the decisions which must be made in
    situations in which it’s not possible to win… just losing less than
    the enemy. And, sure, the perfect performances from Helen Mirren, Aaron
    Paul and the sadly deceased Alan Rickman highlight the human part of
    the military apparatus, which is as essential as the tremendous
    technology employed in infiltration and espionage. So, in conclusion,
    Eye in the Sky is an excellent film which inspires reflections about
    subjects which, fortunately, we rarely find outside a video game. The
    pressed buttons are similar, but the consequences can’t be more

  • InaneSwineMay 1, 2016Reply

    An all-you-can-eat intellectual buffet

    The opening sixty seconds of the film set the tone perfectly: as the
    image of a young girl playing happily is soon juxtaposed with the sight
    of military vehicles that patrol the streets around her Kenyan home,
    the discomforting mood is established immediately, and is unrelenting
    over the course of the film.

    The majority of the film focuses on debates between several military
    and government figures, as they debate the logistics, politics,
    legality and morality of an attack to be carried out against
    extremists. The complexity of the characters, and indeed their
    predicament, is portrayed brilliantly through the actors and the
    script. Though I must confess that I haven’t seen a lot of Helen
    Mirren’s films, this is a striking role for her as the formidable
    colonel, whose screen presence is as commanding as her character. Alan
    Rickman, of course, is charming as usual, as he provides much needed
    moments of deadpan humour while ably and sensitively showing the burden
    the situation has on his character.

    Turning to Aaron Paul, I almost hate to mention his career beginnings
    in Breaking Bad. We all know he was phenomenal in that; yet it seems
    that every character he has played before or since has not been too
    dissimilar. One might have wondered whether he was a good actor, or
    simply good at being Jesse Pinkman. However, his matured performance
    here may allow him to escape that typecast, as he continues to
    exquisitely showcase his emotional range while maintaining the right
    amount of restraint as appropriate to his character.

    As the film continues, the tension builds and the plot thickens, the
    audience is scarcely given any time to relax, as the impossible
    situation multiplies in complexity and danger with each passing moment.
    What the film does so capably is to develop the viewer’s understanding
    of the military world, and the current situation which continues to
    threaten the real world. What is painfully obvious is that no matter
    how well trained the characters think they may be, nothing can truly
    prepare anybody for situations like these. Guy Hibbert’s dialogue is so
    well written and delivered, the viewer is constantly pulled between one
    side and the other; I found myself siding with arguments and characters
    I could never have seen myself agreeing with before.

    Accompanied by a simplistic yet foreboding musical score and sharp,
    calculated editing, Eye in the Sky makes sure action takes the back
    seat, while allowing for character exposition, expert suspense building
    and tearing its audience apart with moral challenges to which, as it
    becomes clear, there is absolutely no winner. This isn’t just food for
    thought – it’s an all-you-can-eat intellectual buffet.

  • Taryll BakerMay 2, 2016Reply

    A thriller that thrives in tension.

    Eye in the Sky is directed by Gavin Hood and stars Helen Mirren, Aaron
    Paul, Alan Rickman and Barkhad Abdi.

    Col. Katherine Powell, a military officer in command of an operation to
    capture terrorists in Kenya, discovers a complication through
    surveillance and intel that forces an international dispute in order to
    avoid collateral damage.

    Eye in the Sky is a vast look into how traumatic and extremely tough it
    is to work as a drone pilot in the military. Aaron Paul portrays his
    character wonderfully, and truly breaks from his most popular and
    beloved character from Breaking Bad with ease. Helen Mirren is
    brilliant as Powell and clicks perfectly with the story and the cast.
    Barkhad Abdi isn’t a terrifying Somali pirate in this movie, he’s
    actually on the ”good side” here as Jama Farah who works for the Kenyan
    military and works on the ground getting important intel that’s
    absolutely vital for the mission. Another realistic performance by
    another great newcomer. Alan Rickman shares with us his last chance to
    shine on the big screen and he does so with an impeccable charm and
    dignity. We have lost a magnificent actor and this serves as a nice

    The story and screenplay is fast-paced and heartfelt, with the tension
    forever rising sky high as the mission twists and turns until the very
    last couple of minutes. It’s no action movie, instead it deals with the
    excruciating struggle that our characters go through, with huge scenes
    of dialogue that never feel separated or disjointed with any previous
    scene. Imagine Captain Phillips and Sicario, but in the sky.

    The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos is subtle and smart with some
    stunning shots that are weaved into the story throughout the
    running-length. The sound design was also carefully thought-through and
    sat perfectly in between the music and dialogue. The usual explosions
    are often cut short to leave you in silence as you witness the
    aftermath unfold.

    Music by Paul Hepker & Mark Kilian is dark, gritty and tense yet so
    beautiful when the time is right. It’s simple in style, yet complex in
    the detail and sound design, bringing a great experience with or
    without the picture.

    My verdict; Eye in the Sky is a movie that must be seen by everyone,
    especially in cinemas so there are absolutely no distractions. This is
    one of the best modern warfare movies to date, and I’m sure most will
    agree with me when I say it’s a thriller that constantly keeps you on
    the edge of your seat.

    Eye in the Sky, 8/10.

  • J.E. O'BrienMay 9, 2016Reply

    taut mature thriller about impossible wartime decisions

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • amoore-4May 9, 2016Reply

    Starts well, then lectures, then bores…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Aminul HassanMay 10, 2016Reply

    Nail-biting drama… But the film’s morality is more dubious than it recognises

    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

    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.

  • HorrorliefhebberMay 15, 2016Reply

    Drone warfare with a side of legal, ethical and political dilemmas.

    -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

  • Who wins terrorists or alliance ?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • dvc5159May 18, 2016Reply

    Triple Cross

    What is the value of a single human life? That’s the question rattling
    in the mind of American USAF drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), who
    defies direct orders from British Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen
    Mirren) and Lt. General Frank Benson (the late Alan Rickman) into
    blowing up a terror stronghold in the middle of a crowded Kenyan
    neighbourhood, as an innocent civilian walks right into the kill zone.
    They are racing against time; the terrorists are readying up for a much
    deadlier attack. The harrowing decision, and the dispute that surrounds
    it, is the heart of this exciting and frustratingly compelling
    thriller, down to its haunting closing scenes.

    A dilemma like this, government politicians love to play the ‘blame
    game’. Powell is ready to strike without compromise, but she and Benson
    can only wait for the greenlight by hesitant superiors. Guy Hibbert’s
    script explores whether the politicians react as such to avoid the
    burden for approving such a strike, or to pat themselves on the back
    for averting loss of face. The subsequent moral, ethical and legal
    dilemmas slowly rile up all major characters like a boiling kettle.

    Director Gavin Hood (X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Ender’s Game)
    confidently crafts a gripping tale across continents where morality is
    given one hell of an endurance test, and invites the audience to debate
    with him. The work he has achieved with gifted thespians Mirren and
    Rickman (in one of his final roles) has resulted in a rock-solid
    morality play, and in a testament to his talent, Rickman’s final scene
    powerfully sums up everything Hood and Hibbert have to say on the

  • btucker3May 28, 2016Reply

    Very unrealistic!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Cecile PayzerJune 2, 2016Reply

    Excellent movie !

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • kristinaJune 2, 2016Reply


    Reminiscent of Good Kill – but the difference between can be summed up
    in a few words – British production vs American.

    Where GK succumbs to the usual US sentimentality and black/white
    ”answers”, the EitS remains guarded, cerebral and dares to leave many
    problems unsolved.

    Excellent acting, complex plot line and sustained suspense without
    cheap histrionics. Mirren is at her best when she renders a clipped
    English accent, Aaron Paul delivers what Breaking Bad promised, and the
    film is intelligently edited.

    Highly recommended.

  • chazviewJune 10, 2016Reply

    Not Great

    Went into watching this sort of blind, not having seen anything but the
    trailer beforehand. The trailer showed a robotic humming bird and a
    flying beetle being used by spies, I was expecting a roller coaster
    fast paced spy thriller.

    Turned out it was a very long dramatization of a single incident, with
    military officials and politicians doing a >lot< of discussing and debating about potential collateral damage. I wound up fast forwarding through much of it, very boring. The film pretends it’s making some sort of statement — but doesn’t really say anything. It also doesn’t entertain.

  • sfgebel3June 11, 2016Reply

    Powerful and Eye-Opening

    I wanted to see this film the minute I saw the trailer. I have started
    really getting into war films and political films. Then Alan Rickman
    died and I really really wanted to see this film.

    Eye in the Sky is about how complicated the chain of command is for
    making a single decision. Not that deciding to drop a bomb from a drone
    on to a house filled with terrorists should be an easy decision.
    However, it was eye-opening on just how complicated it is. From Steve
    (Aaron Paul) the American drone pilot waiting for the order to come
    from his commanding officer, A British woman named Colonel Powell
    (Helen Mirren), who is waiting for the order to come from Lt. General
    Benson (Alan Rickman), who is sitting in a room with the political
    officials in the American and British government. However, things get
    even more complicated when Steve notices a little girl selling bread
    could be a casualty. Now everyone is hesitating. Some hesitate because
    they fear for the girl’s life, some hesitate because they fear the PR
    implications of killing the girl or fear the PR implications of not
    killing the terrorists, and some people do not want any part in this
    decision and keep passing the puck.

    Several times I turned to see my mother mumbling on the edge of her
    seat just wanting them to make a decision. It only took me about a
    minute to realize this was not going to end well, which is not a
    spoiler as it’s kind of a given with the subject matter. All the same,
    if I had to describe this film in one would I would say ”Suspense”. We
    just keep waiting and waiting and waiting, and then something little
    happens like the government using spies to buy the girl’s bread to get
    her to go home, which does not go according to plan.

    I think many walked into this film thinking it was going to be about
    criticizing drone strikes, but I do not actually think that’s what this
    film is about. Sure it is about the extensive time, planning, and
    orders needed to fire a single drone. Sure you could argue that it’s
    about spies and using video drones in the shape of flies and birds to
    get clear video of terrorists creating bomb vests and sitting around a
    pile of guns. Yet, I would have to say the ultimately, this film is
    just about the game of steps. You know, one step forward and three
    steps back. Going around in circles trying to find the center.

    War should not be easy, but–naively so–I do wish stopping the bad guys
    was easier than it is. I do wish we weren’t so concerned with the
    perception of an action, but in a world that is always watching that is
    never possible. I know the film is called ”Eye in the Sky” and it is
    referring to the drone and the images used to put this strike in
    action; however, I think it’s more about how everyone is watching.
    We’re watching terrorists without being able to stop them. We’re
    watching politicians with their own agendas who think they can
    logically make a military decision without thinking like a soldier.
    We’re watching civilians who live in war zones and we’re watching
    people who are torn between doing what they know is right and doing
    what they know they’ll be able to explain to others later.

    Was I a little more emotional in this movie because I knew it was the
    last time I was ever going to see Alan Rickman act? Sure. Yes, he was
    one of my all-time favorite actors, and no, it’s not just because I’m a
    Potterhead. I liked his other films too. But it’s more than that. This
    is an important subject no one wants to talk about, which is of course
    why we made a movie about it instead.

    I think it was good, I feel like I learned something, but at the end of
    the day I still feel like I don’t understand anything. Welcome to war
    and politics.

  • mac-33983June 11, 2016Reply

    War is the background, choices and morals are the theme.

    I would recommend ignoring the stage settings of this film, this is
    neither about war not propaganda….

    From my point of view the director portrayed, successfully, a situation
    in which choices must be made an decisions must be adhered to,
    regardless of the choice. The director was clever enough to include
    characters who could play on the same level and other from above and
    below.. Each adhered to the rules but pushed them to the limit of their

    This was not about rivalry but moreover about the capacity of personal
    success based upon ones own morals…

    It’s like the game of chess played by many in the corporate world,
    beyond power and greed therein lies moral… For some moral is a far
    greater achievement… But at the end of the day, regardless of moral,
    decisions must be made and Helen Mirren played out her character

    I thoroughly enjoyed the film and would definitely recommend it to
    anyone who can see beyond the stage settings..

  • glennmonson-84244June 12, 2016Reply

    touchy feely political correctness at it’s finest

    Look I’m just as upset about collateral damage as the next person. I
    don’t want to to see innocent lives taken. But as usual these films
    never take in to account the lives taken by these terrorist
    organizations that every single person around them knows about. The
    idea that these controllers are so emotionally overwhelmed about a few
    innocents surrounding these terrorist strongholds is absurd. This
    country has spent millions and take painstaking efforts to minimize
    collateral damage. Where as no other country does, so spare me the pro
    Islam sentiment. This is just more liberal diatribe and anti western
    military when they should be despising terrorists.

  • Agradeep MandalJune 12, 2016Reply

    Good Movie

    Unlike Good Kill, which is more focused on a drone pilot’s life this
    movie is focused on a military joint operation between UK, US and
    Kenyan Forces against Al Shabab terrorists.

    This movie is about ethical conundrum of drone attacks and killing
    innocent people in the process.

    It’s an intense film well acted and it really reflects how difficult it
    gets to give clearance for an attack when an innocent life gets in
    close proximity to a target.

    There is a conflict between human ethics and achieving military

    Can 1 innocent life be sacrificed in order to save many? That’s the
    question on which the whole movie revolves around.

  • ammarshkJune 12, 2016Reply

    Did not display the classified memo of the Department of Justice—very unclear and repetitive, BORING

    The memo stipulates that the use of lethal force against a U.S. citizen
    who is a senior operational leader of Al Qaeda or an associated force,
    is legitimate if the following requirements are met: ”(l) An informed,
    high-level official of the U.S. government has determined that the
    targeted individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against
    the United States; (2) capture is infeasible, and the U.S. continues to
    monitor whether capture becomes feasible; and (3) the operation would
    be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war
    principles”,’* embracing: necessity, distinction proportionality and

    represented by NBC news

    Also, We already had the movie good kill–it just repeated… Why don’t
    we ever see the motives behind such attacks. The attacks are clearly
    politically motivated but for what purpose exactly? and How do these
    terorrists acquire the weapons—All of this is necessary and yet
    Hollywood hasn’t produced a single movie…

    All hail the Great American-British Propaganda

  • stonedraimJune 12, 2016Reply

    In war, the truth is the first casualty. Alan Rickman, R.I.P. thank You for all the memories.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • SashZHJune 12, 2016Reply

    Terrible! Watch Good Kill instead.

    Terribly boring. Good Kill is x1000 better. The plot of this movie is
    very simplistic and focuses on the way in which drone strikes are

    The acting in this movie was so-so at best. Not for a second did I
    believe that Helen Mirren is a Colonel in the army. She’s bumbling
    around all over the place, over-acting every scene. Surprising she
    would even play this role.

    In the end this film does a poor job of arguing for or against drone
    strikes. None of the characters evoke any emotional bond with the
    audience. For a truly sobering look at how misused drone strikes are,
    watch Good Kill instead.

  • iwatchtoomuchJune 12, 2016Reply

    A well polished ‘terd’

    I thought the premise may have been interesting but found the whole
    thing dull and sentimental. this is not an action movie it is basically
    set in three rooms where people talk and manipulate each other, lots of
    blank expressions and teary eyes do not a thriller make. I never felt
    any suspense or empathy for the characters. I was left feeling let down
    by the film which does not deliver on any level. Watch Good Kill
    instead which tackles the subject much better but without the ‘Bay-
    esque’ direction.I won’t reveal by when and by who but the phrase ‘good
    job’is used by someone who you should look up after the film ends .
    that is if you make the mistake like I did of actually watching it

  • help-71614June 12, 2016Reply

    well, well, well … big fake story

    The film could be well-filmed, and put spectator in pression. But the
    side purpose of this film is to make people believe there is a real
    discussion about killing or not thank to drone.

    And the all god dame movie is using or not the dame drone to kill the
    terrorist, and all British government is consulted before the hit…

    Well, according to what we kwon, thank to wiki leaks and other, this
    film is full of bullshit on this side.

    because we do know that US army consider family of terrorist as
    terrorist, and also by doing ”follow up” strike there are also
    considering people who help save other after drone strike as terrorist.
    and we also knows that US is considering a possible ratio of civilian
    losses so the all god dame movie doesn’t even exist in the real life,
    they will have kill the guys in 5 minutes.

    And as the side subject, which is strike in an not at war country, we
    also know that USA was doing so.

    this movie is trying to wipe in mind of people this reality showing
    then politics concern about civilian life, drones pilot who as never
    done that and feel guilty… and etc

  • zenophobeJune 12, 2016Reply

    Good Performances but rubbish premise and somewhat tedious

    I think the title says it all. Rickman and Mirren never disappoint when
    you see them and do well for their respective roles (love the zinger
    Rickman throws at someone near the ending) but like the top reviewer
    said, the idea that much agonized thought goes into the process by
    which drone strikes are carried out is such rubbish and unbelievable
    that the rest of the movie is just a drawn out agonizing exercise in
    the absurd. Which kind of makes the performance by Aaron Paul as the
    drone pilot and person who physically has to pull the trigger on a
    drone strike with civilian casualty consequences (sorry) a waste. Those
    of you who want to believe, then enjoy the movie and have a good cry.
    Somewhere there’s a drone pilot who just released his payload and is
    now munching on a bagel.

  • TheCrustyCurmudgeonJune 13, 2016Reply

    Boring, Unrealistic, overly emotional puff piece

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • continual-oneJune 13, 2016Reply

    Trite Liberal Hollywood Propaganda

    As some of the more perceptive independent thinkers have already
    pointed out, this movie is a typical bleeding heart, unrealistic
    ”morality” tale aimed at vilifying the US and the world’s fight against
    terrorism in general. The American politicians in the film were clearly
    made out to be bumbling, war mongering, and soul-less monsters with no
    regard for human life. War is hell. Innocent people die. The true ”bad
    guys” in the film were purposely distanced from the story-line so the
    film makers could project guilt onto the terrible technology plagued
    civilized Westerners.

    It’s really insulting to have this type of ”message” shoved down our
    throats constantly from the same Hollywood players. What a wonderful
    world it would be if everyone loved one another and supported one
    another and there were no bad guys. Unfortunately, that’s not the case
    and there will always be those that are willing to kill…and die, in
    the name of something.

    Shallow and pedantic. Currently ranked 7.6? C’mon…this is garbage.

    On one tiny positive note, Alan Rickman was great as usual. His
    character was the only one with any conviction or basis in reality.

  • zeynep bJune 13, 2016Reply


    I m not but the crows are laughing this disgusting propaganda.They are
    trying to say we are killing sensitively.Hımm i see they were so
    sensitive while invading Iraq and killing thousands of innocent people
    also again they are so sensitive while bombing Syria.I see, that means
    the kids that each father carries his kids body or lets say his or her
    body parts Americans or British they are so sensitive and sensitively
    killing and killed all innocent people bombed all innocent kids.

    we should understand this they are so sensitive that’s why France gains
    millions of dollars from African colonial not to mention u can count by
    your fingers of the countries that the UK didn’t use as a dominion and
    of course US ohhh they do this looking into your eyes and acts as if
    they do smth so normal.they always talking about extremist like boko
    haram or isis as if these colonizer countries don’t create and feed
    them.Ohh come on they do these killings on behalf of us.Believe it if u
    buy it.

  • kaimenkfJune 13, 2016Reply

    Absurd….propaganda for dummies

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Marron GlaceJune 13, 2016Reply

    It could’ve been better

    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 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
    ===================================== 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 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

  • Mohamed FaisalJune 14, 2016Reply

    Disturbed and Intrigued

    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.

  • mannin11June 14, 2016Reply

    Absolute tripe.

    I really wanted to see this movie after all the accolades it was given
    by critics. Just goes to show what a bunch of dimwits they can be when
    confronted by a cast of good actors saddled with a naff script. A
    quality production of a totally unconvincing story with a dodgy
    premise. When a handful of Islamic terrorists, including a radicalized
    British woman, gather together in a house in a village in Kenya, both
    British and American military are prepared to take them captive but
    change their plan to a kill mission on observing two of them being
    fitted with suicide vests. The pilot of a drone to be used to take them
    out decides to abort the mission when a small girl is seen selling
    bread outside the house. Instead of somebody shooting this moron
    through the head and following through with the mission an interminable
    series of dumb as a brick arguments takes place between the military
    brass and their respective British and American governments as to
    whether the killing of a small girl (selling endless loaves of bread
    that are replaced as soon as they disappear) is justified when eighty
    or more civilians might be killed by the suicide bombers. A couple of
    nifty twists fails to justify what comes across as a totally
    unconvincing story based on a low ranking pilot’s refusal to obey
    orders. When this halfwit is applauded for his actions at the end of
    the movie it comes across as merely laughable — at the very least he
    should either have been court-martialled for disobeying orders or
    (preferably) be put up against a wall and shot. And what kind of
    soldier lapses into tears when finally following through with an order?
    What a bunch of hand-wringing wimps inhabit this sorry story. The
    sledgehammer message (is one innocent death justified to save eighty)
    comes across as absurd in this day and age of widespread terrorism in
    the world. Good actors can’t save this godawful tale. And what a shame
    that this should be the wonderful Alan Rickman’s last. What a huge

  • jake_fantomJune 14, 2016Reply


    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • diggus doggusJune 14, 2016Reply

    garbage film nobody should watch

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • goodman528June 15, 2016Reply

    Excellent political comedy

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • wingheartillyJune 15, 2016Reply

    ridiculous democracy

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • orkneyislanderJune 15, 2016Reply


    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • PaineCircJune 15, 2016Reply

    shameless propaganda

    This movie is nothing more than official propaganda aimed at convincing
    the public of the usefulness and merits of war. The people behind this
    movie want people to believe that war and the military establishments
    are not the greatest sources of violence in the world. Although in our
    age, it is obvious (to anyone with an IQ over 50) that, whether their
    purpose is offensive or defensive, these vast powerful organizations
    exist only to kill human beings. That is why Propaganda is trying so
    hard to convince us otherwise… that war is exciting, an opportunity
    for good hearted people to prove their courage and competence. While
    recognizing warfare as monstrous (with its very nature of tragedy and
    suffering) is basic human decency, the sponsors of this movie want us
    to believe that the masters of war can be deeply troubled by the loss
    of one or two innocent lives during a military intervention. I wish to
    remind the mere fact that in Iraq alone (falsely accused of holding
    weapons of mass destruction), 500 000 kids were killed and Madeleine
    Albright officialy declared that she thought the price was worth it…
    the interview is on youtube. I rate this movie 1 not because the actors
    or the technical stuff didn’t do their job well, but because it would
    be morally revolting to debate the artistic achievements of a
    brainwashing session.

  • Red_IdentityJune 15, 2016Reply

    Engaging, effective, and surprisingly heartfelt.

    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.

  • rodrig58June 15, 2016Reply

    Suspense and morality

    Lieutenant Colonel Ed Walsh is a character in this film, played by
    Gavin Hood. Gavin Hood is also the director of the film, a very
    sensitive one and, especially, very technical (I wonder if everything
    we see exist for real, if all those miniature spying devices really
    exist, like the beetle, the little bird…) All the actors are at their
    very best. Helen Mirren(as Colonel Katherine Powell) is effective as
    usual. Alan Rickman(as Lieutenant General Frank Benson) (in his last
    role) is more relaxed and more reliable than ever. Good performances
    also by Aaron Paul(Steve Watts), Barkhad Abdi(Jama Farah), Monica
    Dolan(Angela Northman). Impeccably filmed(Haris Zambarloukos) and the
    music(Paul Hepker and Mark Kilian) creates the perfect atmosphere for
    the action we see on the screen.

  • roseliyaJune 16, 2016Reply

    Pathetic unrealistic emotional blackmail that will lose the war on terror

    I do not for one moment believe that this movie is true to real life.
    In real life people recognize that they are fighting a war and
    sometimes collateral damage is necessary to achieve a valid military
    goal. I resent being shown these military people running the ‘eye in
    the sky’ sitting there being emotional wimps with tears running down
    their face as they are supposed to follow orders. The whole movie is
    pathetic emotional blackmail that is designed to paralyze those who
    have to fight the real war against terror. In real war the idea is to
    destroy the enemy not yourself! If all soldiers acted the way these do,
    then the West will be destroyed – but perhaps that is the goal of the
    producers, writers and directors of this nonsense! Yes, let’s just sit
    around pondering the life of one human being while we watch terrorists
    carry out their evil goals!

  • arunanvinciJune 16, 2016Reply

    Tense, Gripping and Thoughtful

    A brilliantly constructed drama-thriller on drone attack and an equally
    great casting makes Eye in the Sky a must watch. Helen Mirren as the
    Colonel ready to attack a terrorist group (Al Shabhaha with obvious
    anecdote to Boko Haram) safe house in Kenya, Alan Rickman as the head
    of military waiting to get through with the orders and the familial
    ordeal of bureaucracy administration and Aaron Paul as the drone
    guider, form a competitive group to decide fate of a terrorist attack
    while debating the legalities and the systemic procedure. Movies like
    these evoke thoughts on whether the modern warfare is indeed a solution
    or a bane to tackle such situations.

    Gavin Hood’s coming of age movie as a director usurps some deep-under
    the carpet issues out to the open while giving the viewers bang for
    their bucks.

  • SnorreplopJune 16, 2016Reply

    Modern warfare 101

    We live in a brave new world where wars are fought in front of computer
    screens, lives are ended by mouse clicks, remote controlled drones
    carry the deadly loads that are dropped with pinpoint precision.

    This movie shows us a British-US operation where the implications of a
    possible drone strike are on display. The political and moral dilemma’s
    of the people involved are taken into account which makes it a
    reasonably balanced portrait of modern warfare from a western point of

    The cast consists of many well known British and US actors with Hellen
    Mirren, Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul on point, all pull their weight and
    deliver a well constructed and balanced movie.

  • headfellaJune 16, 2016Reply

    There’s Something In Your Eye

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • CANpatbuck3664June 16, 2016Reply

    Eye in the Sky is a Tightly Packed, White-Knuckle Thriller About a Divisive Issue

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • venisefilliesJune 16, 2016Reply

    It lacks the intensity of an action packed film but it’s not bad at all.

    All I can say for this film is Helen,Helen,Helen.I love this woman’s
    acting prowess I mean wow. Rickman was not too bad either.Congrats to
    Gavin for wearing his director belt for this one too. Kim’s accent
    sounds fantastic. I really wish that the people in charge of the kind
    of military strikes depicted in this movie were capable of considering
    innocent civilians like the little girl. In my view this film shows
    that while it can be considered there is no real way around sacrificing
    a few innocent lives for the greater good.

    This film is also a good depiction of the moral dilemma the role
    players who find themselves in similar situations face. One has to be a
    certain type of person to be able to do what is required under the
    circumstances and at any costs. My verdict, I really like this film
    even though it is a little slim on action.

  • Pier FrancoisJune 17, 2016Reply

    A decent drama build which asks for forgiveness

    I’ve felt sorry for the actors in this movie. They made it worth
    watching in spite of the poor plot. I saw the review that said ‘… the
    film’s morality is more dubious than it recognizes’ and quickly related
    to the comment. The story went out of its way to force making a point
    about the morality involved in the drone strike. In doing so, it
    portrayed the military and government as rookies who’d never been
    through this before and needed to explain to each other in detail all
    the implications; the collateral damage of the young girl and the
    propaganda war. The same could have been accomplished had the plot been
    written differently, with the government and military both keeping
    their credibility. The film conveyed a message, however without much
    realism in it. To have to see the British state official on the toilet
    with food poisoning, and the teary-eyed soldiers in front of their
    computer monitors while performing a task they are supposedly trained
    to do and deal with emotionally was asking a bit too much. The film
    seems to want the viewer to act like they know nothing about military
    execution and discipline and government policies to do with clandestine
    air strikes. Once the film thinks it’s absolved of this responsibility,
    it embarrassingly spoon feeds the viewer a serving of morality learned
    in a junior high school social justice class.

  • albertobalsam-45316June 17, 2016Reply

    Pie in the sky would be a better description!

    Unfortunately you cannot give zero or negative votes for drivel like

    The waste of talent like Helen Mirren in drivel like this is a

    Why oh why was that retarded terrible actor that played Jesse Pinkerton
    in Breaking Bad allowed a role in this? He ruined breaking bad and he
    was ridiculous in this – He has a face that would be perfect on the
    penalty spot at Wembley.

    The entire concept was ridiculous, it was like a war run by a bunch of
    left wing bleeding heart liberals, with Jesse Pinkerton Prick, a drone
    pilot, sitting almost in tears and refusing to fire off a missile on a
    bunch of terrorists due to the presence of a small African Child – We
    have all seen the reality of the US Army when they start taking out
    targets, it is like a whoop it up at a shooting gallery at the
    carnival! Not this bleeding heart drivel.

    Worst junk I have seen in a long time.

  • akash_sebastianJune 17, 2016Reply

    A timely wartime political thriller.

    A well-paced and ably-directed timely film that explores the legal,
    political and ethical dilemmas surrounding the almost impossible but
    necessary military decision-making process of drone use against
    terrorists, and the innocent civilians whose lives are affected by it.
    The best thing about the film, when it comes to wartime political
    thrillers like this, is that it isn’t preachy and shows the sequence of
    events in way that doesn’t dictate what’s to be thought or felt. It
    raises a lot of important questions and lets our mind do the pondering.
    Certainly Director Gavin Hood’s best work yet; combines the humanism of
    ‘Tsotsi’ and political intrigue of ‘Rendition’, and uses his experience
    and prowess on a well-written story to give us ‘Eye in the Sky’ (which
    is a brilliant name, by the way).

    The hilarious but important political bureaucracy and the focus on the
    life of one young civilian sometimes seem to be milked too much, but
    those aspects certainly help us see the entire situation in a broader
    light. The film doesn’t focus on numbers; it focuses on the
    responsibility and accountability of casualties each individual (in the
    decision-making process) is willing to take when two unpleasant
    outcomes are presented before them. And as Stephen Holden from ‘The New
    York Times’ points out, it’s ”unpredictable human behavior (that)
    repeatedly threatens an operation of astounding technological

    The detailed art design, the voyeuristic camera angles and shots, the
    thumping background score and well-timed silences, and crisp editing –
    all of these aspects play a big role in creating the feel of the film
    and pull us into its high-stakes environment. Since most of the film
    involves communication among people from different agencies, it
    wouldn’t have been effective without the impeccable cast that it has,
    especially Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman, in his final live-action
    role; he certainly does get a memorable ending line, ”Never tell a
    soldier that he doesn’t know the cost of war.”

  • acbuxtonJune 20, 2016Reply

    A slow, climactic, emotional watch

    For me this movie was a must watch. Loving indie movies and loving war
    movies seemed like the perfect match. The preview is a little
    misguiding, I must say. I thought the movie wasn’t going to be exactly
    what it was when I finally watched in, per the previews. Nonetheless,
    this movie hit me in many ways. The emotional thriller ride it takes
    the viewer on is quite a slow burning heart-attack. For me, the most
    important aspect of this movie was not only the different views between
    the factions of Parliament in the UK & Factions of parties of US and in
    the British Military, but the meaning of life. This movie, for me,
    stood for the meaning of life, not just in general, but as in 1 single
    person. How one person would be affected by an action that cannot be

    The characters and the cast were beautifully cast. Hellen Mirren was
    fantastic and I don’t think I’ve seen her in this type of character
    before. That being said, I believe this is must watch for those only
    who can sit through a slower movie, though heavy heavy weighted. It had
    several aspects of a movie from last year, Good Kill, with Ethan Hawke.
    Almost a Dejavu moment. A totally different plot/characters etc, yet
    still similar.

    I would had given 10 stars, however I feel as though more background
    could have been provided on pretty much everyone in the move. But An
    otherwise, well done!

  • sideriteJune 20, 2016Reply

    Autopsy of a drone strike

    The acting was top notch, the directing was good and the general feel
    of the film was of good quality. All that remains is to critique how
    accurate it was, and that is impossible unless you are a drone pilot
    (and not even then, since they don’t allow comments).

    The plot is simple: high value targets are all holed up in a house in a
    suburb controlled by terrorists. What started as a capture mission
    turns into a drone strike, only there is a tiny little African girl
    selling bread right next to the house. The movie is all about the
    military, political and ethical back and forth to authorize the strike
    or not. Powerful idea, but polluted by the Western cult for young

    Bottom line: felt overdramatized for a decision that was absolutely
    inevitable. They tried to pit a very juicy strategic payoff against
    something as banal as the death of a single individual, be it a child,
    but in the same time give all the people involved the benefit of the
    doubt that they did everything possible to save her. For that it felt a
    bit unreal.

    Oh, and by the way, it has nothing to do with Snowden or Manning. Just
    some teary eyed drone pilots.

  • Reza ShadpayJune 20, 2016Reply

    Good Thriller, with imaginary and Sci-Fi story!!!

    The plan of an ”anti terrorist capturing mission” by British military,
    changes to ”killing terrorist” when they recognize terrorists have
    suicide terror plan. But the ”killing mission” become complicated when
    a small girl appear near the terrorist place, and the American reaper
    air force pilot ignores the order of attack because that girl and asks
    for reconsideration and recalculation of the attack mission damages.
    Whole movie is about this challenge ”to attack and kill terrorists to
    save lot of others lives” before terrorists do their plan, ”or to save
    the small girl!!!” Mission is in hold because that!

    Yes, a little funny! saving a girl, in war, in terrorist war, and
    specially a black African poor girl who sells breads for making money
    for her family. An imaginary and Sci-Fi story! about how British
    (and/or Americans) governments and politicians care about a small girl
    life. Life of an African small girl!, not the daughter of ambassador of
    England in Kenya!

    From my view, in this movie which is a British produced movie, they
    tries to show us how nice and sensitive are these military generals,
    politicians and governments whom are war makers (and arm producers and
    sellers), In the name of Anti Terrorism!. Specially while they trying
    to show us even if England is joining to an arms and weapons
    exhibition, they produce and sell ”Soldiers Safety Products!”, not guns
    and weapons!, which is quite funny!

    This is the funniest part of the story of movie. But, also, in the
    movie, during conversations between Generals and Politicians, they
    exactly challenge this too. I personally have no idea if this movie is
    trying to show us this contrast or really they are trying to show us
    how nice these governments are!

    A British Colonel (Helen Mirren) wakes up in the middle of night (in
    England) (while her husband is in deep sleep) and informed that 3 key
    members of a dangerous terrorist group called Al-Shabab (means Young,
    Youth) are have seen and recognized in Kenya. Also an American soldier
    (Aaron Paul – Reaper air force pilot) he wakes up at night (in Las
    Vegas, Nevada, USA) for this mission. Movie starts with these wake ups!
    (Danger happens when they are sleep!)

    When British Colonel understands that one of these terrorist is an
    American citizenship, they tried to inform US Secretary of State
    (Minister for Foreign Affairs) before killing the terrorists. US
    Secretary of State is in China and playing Ping Pong! with chines, and
    also the conversation on phone (between US Secretary of State and US
    Ambassador in China) showing that USA does not care, while British do.

    ”Why the hell are you wasting my time referring this to me?” US
    Secretary of State says to his assistant.

    Also: ”His citizenship does not protect him!” and ”Tell the British, if
    they really do have two, four and five on the East Africa list in their
    sights, they have our full support to strike.” showing us that US
    Government does not care or take such important things seriously. They
    prefer to continue playing ping pong with China!

    Movie, shows us that politicians are sensitive, nice and cares about
    lives (or they care about general opinions), but Generals and Colonels
    don’t. Militarians prefer to get permission from the higher levels, but
    politicians considers how much an act costs for them! Though that it
    was the American solider who hold the mission because saving a small
    girl life.

  • paninithegreat1234June 21, 2016Reply

    a military movie which goes beyond

    This story based in Kenya , Drags in a poor little girl in to the
    storyline to give the movie a more socialist view. In many military
    movies what we see is mere destruction of livelihood due to political
    or terrorist reason. But what i see in here is a multitude of
    happenings which gives the real feel in a terrorist contained country.
    The way the director has come up with the initial introduction to the
    family was what inspired me. the restrictions on the kenyan’s for a
    local girl not to learn neither to play.was greatly depicted in 2 or 3
    situations. The family’s income was depending on dad’s cycle repairs
    and the bread which the child goes to sell everyday . So it shows in a
    real humorous way how war influences on people, families , different
    ethnics and mainly the young generation. Hats off for this. was a
    really nice movie, its a must watch.

  • Rohit Gahlowt ([email protected])June 23, 2016Reply

    a real dilemma where you would be forced to make difficult choices

    Would you be willing to kill a little girl if it meant saving the lives
    of 80 other innocent people? Would you willingly let a little girl die
    so you could also kill a terrorist in her vicinity who was about to go
    on a suicide mission?

    This is the question that the film tries to deal with, explain, ask us.
    As an audience we take up the two opposing sides. Kill her and save the
    other innocent people. Let her live as there is no way can we kill a
    little girl as that would be a media nightmare and the terrorists would
    win the propaganda war.

    This movie grips you from the very beginning and does not let go. For
    its running time I forgot that there was a world around me and that
    this was just a movie.

    And in spite of a straightforward plot there were plenty of the twists
    and turns within the world that was created and brought alive here.

    This reminded me of another film called Unthinkable which made the
    audience and the lead character face a similar dilemma. Both films are

    Both Unthinkable and Eye In The Sky are thrillers that stay with you a
    long time after they have ended. They may seem like American propaganda
    films but they are much, much more as these situations will be faced by
    security forces the world over.

    Put them on your must watch list. And spend some time thinking, what
    would you do in that situation?

  • JohnJune 24, 2016Reply

    Unrealistic, bleeding heart rubbish

    Things started out somewhat unrealistic in typical Hollywood fashion.
    Cool weapons and super drones that are helped by CGI because we all
    know they don’t exist yet. But let’s just go with the fantasy. Proceed
    to tracking a terrorist with a drone and then comes the question of
    what to do when a terrorist that is going to wipe out dozens of people
    is in the vicinity of a adorable Muslim girl. Basically the world stops
    completely for the possibility that adorable Muslim girl may be
    collateral damage.

    Proceed to endless talking about legalities, as if these things happen
    during a mission, not before. The talking is interminable. Some
    important things that happen are ignored when the story doesn’t want
    you to think about them, like the innocent man on the ground whom I
    won’t discuss. He just disappears for a good part of the film even
    though he’s the most likable character of all.

    This could have easily been a stage play that requires 4 sets and
    rotates between them. The compound, the air crew, the war room and the
    local intelligence room. That’s it. And for an hour it’s just about
    endless bickering while the imminent danger just stays on pause
    because… well…. the story couldn’t be dragged out into showing how
    endless bureaucracy is. Preposterous. Unrealistic. Silly. Stupid. What
    a waste of Helen Mirren and the young talent of the man on the ground.
    A very sad last film for the great Alan Rickman, also great underused.

    Truly terrible and a waste of time. Ridiculous claptrap.

  • smiladhiJune 25, 2016Reply

    2 hours of mendacity , complete waste of my precious time

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jaron-dukeJune 25, 2016Reply

    It was good until it wasn’t

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Ruben MooijmanJune 26, 2016Reply

    Questions about modern warfare

    This is the story behind the short newspaper articles we read now and
    then, like: ‘Top terrorists killed by US rocket attack’. We read those
    stories without really knowing what goes on behind the scenes. This
    film shows us how those drone attacks really are carried out. And in
    doing so, it touches upon a lot of moral dilemmas. Should politicians
    have the last word about these attacks? Is it allowed to kill people
    who haven’t yet done any harm, but are probably going to carry out a
    suicide attack? Is it acceptable that innocent bystanders are killed as
    well? If so, how many? Does it make any difference if the terrorists
    are US or UK citizens? The film shows that the answers to some of those
    questions come down to mere statistics. If the probability of civilian
    casualties within a certain range from the point of impact is over 50
    percent, the attack is not allowed by the rules of engagement. If it is
    less than 50 percent, the attack can be carried out. But what if an
    innocent little girl will almost certainly get killed, a cute girl who
    minutes before was playing with a hula-hoop? Some characters in the
    film defend the case that one little girl’s life is a small price to
    pay for saving many possible victims of a suicide attack. The ice cold
    British colonel who is in charge of the attack, played by Helen Mirren,
    is one of them. But the politicians who must give the operation the
    green light, are not so sure. One of them even is prepared to take the
    risk of letting the suicide attacker go, in order to save the little

    Apart from dealing with these moral issues, the film is also providing
    lots of suspense. Time is ticking away while the politicians are
    hesitating, the army colonel is pushing for a quick decision, and the
    terrorist are planning their attack. A very smart script feature is
    that the little girl is selling loaves of bread in front of the
    terrorist’s house, which means that everybody is waiting for
    bread-buyers to turn up, in order for her to be able to go home and
    clear the ground for the attack.

    This movie seems to tell the story almost entirely in real time, which
    is something I like very much. Films in real time have something
    special about them. Viewers are more easily drawn into a story without
    time lapses. Another nice feature is the use of incredibly
    sophisticated technical devices. I don’t know if these devices are real
    or made up by the film makers. They are so spectacular that it’s hard
    to believe these things really exist.

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ is an exciting war thriller, but goes beyond that and
    asks important questions about modern warfare. The good thing is that
    it’s up to the viewer to give the answers.

    One afterthought: the one thing I didn’t like at all is the title. It’s
    a lame title, better suited for a James Bond movie. It’s not hard to
    think of something better. ‘Operation Egret’ is an obvious one. Or what
    about ‘Clearance’? It has a nice double meaning – clearance for the
    operation to go ahead, and the clearance of terrorists on the ground.

  • simone6403June 26, 2016Reply

    It’s all there: military, civil authority, political, moral doubt, technology, et al

    I’ve read the reviews and seldom have seen such diverse reactions to a
    film. The pendulum swings wide here with comments ranging from
    terrible, unrealistic, rubbish, propaganda, characters not suited to
    the role (have I missed any?) to superb. How can one film spawn so many
    different reactions! My only conclusion is that many have watched this
    film with a preconceived opinion about drone warfare, if not war
    itself. This ”don’t confuse me with facts” obscures the brilliance of
    the script and the cast (not the least of which is Helen Mirren who is,
    well, Helen Mirren says it all.) And to those who might say she is too
    old for the role, what is this, another Barbra Streisand was too old to
    play Yenta? Get a life! Don’t you have anything else to throw at it?
    ”Eye in the Sky” is probably technically accurate in it’s display of
    state-of-the-art technology, or at least as accurate as civilians are
    able to know. The essentials of the film are the roles of the military,
    civilian authority, political consequences, the moral doubts that exist
    in a civilized culture, often at odds with one another. It weaves these
    elements together and the viewer is forced to consider which is right
    or wrong. But in the end there is no right or wrong. It is the
    contradictions that exist in a democracy and the one that leads to the
    decision to bomb the ignorant killing bastards, even with collateral
    damage. We as civilized nations, not without faults, some serious, have
    to endure this. Those forces are clearly evident in this film, and the
    viewer must go along for the ride. I would encourage a Must Watch.

  • gbose-588-283139June 26, 2016Reply

    Silly film

    The film was a nice fantasy building up the tension. Will she / won’t
    she sell the flat bread and avoid getting blown up. Questions to ask
    yourself: 1) Why wasn’t the Kenyan government at a high level involved
    in decisions regarding the possible death of its own citizens on their
    own soil. the focus was on UK and US passport holders. Hello there were
    many Kenyans on the scene as well. Backdoor colonialism? Would the US
    or the UK like it of the Russians decided to launch a helfire missile
    attack on Chechyns in Washington or London without even conferring with
    the domestic authorities. Hollywood simpletons at their best 2) I
    wept… with laughter.. as I watched supposedly crying drone pilots so
    tortured with conscience. You just need to watch actual, live footage
    of US helicopter pilots in the Snowdon film to hear there audio high
    fives as they gun down terrorists plus an known Reuters Journalist and
    a civilian who comes and tries to help and his child. Their touch
    feeler comment being ”Well they shouldn’t be in a war zone should
    they”. 3) And on what planet does a US drone pilot take orders directly
    from a UK military officer without a senior US officer intervening and
    have the Brits make contacts directly with their war department. The
    yanks are even colonising themselves now. 4) A hell-fire missile has a
    maximum velocity of 950 mph which is 1300 ft per second. Let’s assume a
    very low speed of 1000 ft per second to allow for acceleration. The
    drone was at 20,000 feet which means a launch to impact time of 20
    seconds. not 50 seconds as the film states. Maybe the missile had a
    stroke of conscience as well and slowed down to give the girl a chance
    and weep a few e-tears. Clearly the Hollywood producer simpletons can’t
    even use google or a calculator.

    Anyway I guess the retail public likes to think that the entire
    political establishment of two nations is involved every time there is
    a drone attack. How, how very noble and civilised and carefully thought
    through it all is. Keep dreaming , war is ugly just admit it and get on
    with assassinations if that is the only way of winning. Films like this
    just make IS laugh.

  • landon_gellertJune 26, 2016Reply

    Terrible. Would rather have watched 3 Homeland re-runs.

    I’m seriously shocked that the ratings for this movie are as high as
    they are. This movie lacked a plot, character development, and fell
    completely short on evoking any emotion other than humorous disbelief
    of its existence. The political hierarchical conversations were
    disgracefully inaccurate and it’s crap like this that convinces me
    Hollywood will make anything to make a buck. I’m disappointed to see so
    many good actors agree to be in this movie especially Alan Rickman…I
    hope this wasn’t his last film before he died…but I will say his last
    line in the movie may have been the only one worth the film it has
    recorded on.

  • FryHighJune 27, 2016Reply

    Selling bread in a post 9/11 world.

    A fascinating and moving tale of a young Muslim girl in Kenya selling
    flat breads. She’s a very dedicated seller. Braving armed Islamic
    militants, finicky buyers and hellfire missiles.

    This movie is about ten years too late with it’s moral questions. The
    thresholds struggled with have long been crossed.

    I was hoping to see more of the drone spy tech, as the movie trailers
    alluded to. But all we got was a snapshot of the drone program from ten
    years ago.

    I doubt such worries, as presented in the movie, exist now. Still a
    decent distraction…

  • Tony Heck ([email protected] 27, 2016Reply

    One of the best movies of the year, I highly recommend this. Makes you think, feel and debate. That’s the sign of quality.

    ”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.

  • Muriithi ChrisJune 28, 2016Reply

    A Movie by a lazy director, a blogger script writer starring Daenerys’ friend zone guard

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • toddxdavisJune 28, 2016Reply

    Engaging story with the wrong actors

    Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman are great and were great in this movie.
    Surround them with people like the that guy from Breaking Bad (how does
    he get jobs?) and there is nothing a great actor can do. Shakespeare
    could fix this.

    The movie tried to make the viewer emote unnecessarily. For no good
    reasons. Weigh the life/death conundrum? Wonder if saving lives is
    worth taking lives?

    The best scenery and action was on the ground on the scene. The people
    living life and the bad guys guarding the house were the entertainment
    (let’s not forget, it is entertainment we are after).

  • lavatchJune 28, 2016Reply

    The Cost of War

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • justarandomoviefanJuly 1, 2016Reply

    A Lesson in Collateral Damage in Asymmetrical Warfare

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • willrapanosJuly 1, 2016Reply

    Very crappy movie that doesn’t make sense and to many drones

    The movie does not have a point besides just them playing with drones
    and it reminds me of splinter cell and feels like a long intro and
    makes you want to play the movie because it feels like a video game
    accept that its a movie. It has no story and no point at all.this movie
    has no similarity to any other movie I’ve had ever watch in my life
    time and it needs to be vanished from the movie market and it’s so
    boring I’m falling asleep as I watch it . I recommend to people who
    want to watch this movie do a favor and do not watch it. It’s a time
    waster and there’s no point to it please put watch it and watch
    something else

  • Russell WardJuly 1, 2016Reply

    Disgusting apology for drone strikes

    I am disgusted by this film. It is an appalling apology for the use of
    drone strikes. It uses an entirely contrived scenario of UK involvement
    in a drone strike in Kenya to stop a ”ticking bomb” of a suicide bomber
    assumed to be setting out to kill scores of innocents at a shopping
    mall. The whole process is feminized, with women’s feelings for a
    potential little girl’s death as collateral damage affecting the
    mission and giving the impression their is healthy moral oversight. The
    film seems to be saying it’s a hard choice to conduct targetted
    assassinations like this, but it’s worth it for the greater good of
    saving more lives. It only gets the one point instead of zero from me
    because it mocks the callous disregard of the onlooking US personnel
    having no qualms about letting the drones rip with their deathly
    destruction. Still I would have liked some suggestion that US drone
    strikes have killed far more innocent civilians than targets, thus
    serving as a recruiting seargent for extremists, and that they almost
    always violate international law and the sovereignty of other nations.

  • Kevin MJuly 2, 2016Reply

    Starts out great … then it gets cliché and banal

    From what I gathered, this movie was trying to lecture and question
    morality; however, in my opinion, it misses and fails. It started out
    as something thrilling and then it got dragged on way too long that
    toward the end, I have lost complete sympathy on whatever the story was
    trying to convey.

    In another words, it is ridiculous. Basically, they were debating
    between ”sacrifice little now to prevent future disasters” and ”save
    little now and then deal with the disasters what may lie in the
    future.” I find that is ridiculous is not because I think there is an
    obvious choice that is by far feasible, that is because it is
    pointless. I find it illogical that some ppl try to value one person’s
    life more than others. I find it ridiculous that some ppl try to
    justify innocence as something more and it is trite to use innocence to
    buy sympathy. We are in war. Why do ppl question morality or decency in
    war? One way or other, ppl die. If that little girl was a 40 yr old
    man, would it change? I think it would.

    The movie is too shallow to amuse avid movie goers.

  • LA CarlsonJuly 2, 2016Reply

    Intelligent, thought-provoking

    Is there anything better than having Academy Award winner Helen Mirren
    and the late Alan Rickman in a movie together? They are front and
    center in a story about drones, war, decisions and heartache. This
    adult movie succeeds in spades in being a drama, a meditation on the
    mental and physical perils of war and the introduction of drones into
    our society. Aaron Paul and Barkhad Abdi (Captain Phillips) have small
    but significant roles as well. Easily one of the best movies I’ve seen
    this year. This movie is relevant in light of the increased violence we
    seem to wake up to each day. At its core it is about the juxtaposition
    of protecting citizens against evil in the world and evaluating the
    collateral damage which often comes with those decisions. It should
    give the compassionate viewer much to think about.

  • essence-71588July 2, 2016Reply

    It made my stomach turn

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Harry T. Yung ([email protected])July 2, 2016Reply

    Thought provoking

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • darkreignnJuly 2, 2016Reply

    An interesting premise, but an unrealistic movie

    The one thing that ”Eye in the Sky” can boast of having is a fantastic
    cast, including Aaron Paul, Helen Mirren, and the legendary Alan
    Rickman. And for the most part, the acting is strong. Alan Rickman
    delivers a powerful performance, which should be of no surprise to
    anyone, and he has a chilling final line that perfectly sends off his
    character. Aaron Paul does well as the drone operator who doesn’t want
    to strike for fear of hurting a little girl. He expresses a lot of
    emotions through his eyes and facial features, and it was truly
    heartbreaking to see his character trying to maintain his
    professionalism and restrain his sense of human morality while being
    engaged in an awful situation. Helen Mirren, on the other hand, just
    looked bored and it seemed like she was phoning it in for an easy
    paycheck. Other than her though, the acting was good across the board.

    Unfortunately, the acting is pretty much the only thing I enjoyed
    watching, because the movie itself was absolutely ludicrous and the
    ethical question that is being asked – is saving the life of one
    innocent little girl immediately worth more that saving the lives of
    potentially 80 innocent men, women, and children down the line-
    shouldn’t have even been a question at all.

    Anyone in their right mind would easily be able to understand that when
    80 or more lives are on the line, you take the shot, even if there is
    an innocent that will be killed. And I get what was happening in the
    film, no one wanted to take the legal culpability for killing a child,
    but come on, in real life the missile would’ve been fired within the
    first five minutes of realizing that major terrorists were in the
    building. And the level of discussion and arguing that these characters
    involve themselves in regarding whether or not to fire because of the
    safety of one person is preposterous, and completely unbelievable. One
    character even says that she’d rather save the life of one girl than
    save the lives of 80 people, and at that point I rolled my eyes so hard
    that they popped out of my socket.

    Also, the film gets frustratingly repetitive when characters who don’t
    want to make a decision tell the others to ask someone else, like the
    Prime Minister, to decide for them. If I had a nickel for every time a
    character in this film passed the baton to another person, I’d be
    bathing in hundred dollar bills. I can only assume this was done as a
    tactic to add stress and pressure to the escalating situation, but all
    it did was annoy me as a viewer because of the stupidity of it all.

    ”Eye in the Sky” has moments of mild excitement, mostly thanks to
    superb performances by Alan Rickman and Aaron Paul, but unrealistic
    character decisions and an unbelievable plot disengage the viewer and
    ruin what could have been a cerebral and mature white-knuckle thriller.

  • gradyharpJuly 4, 2016Reply

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

    As technology advances, war doesn’t. There is nothing heroic about war
    though heroic actions take place every minute in the form of soldiers
    and leaders who must make both long range and split second decisions
    which never are wholly correct because war is death vs. life, the
    saving of some lives by destroying others, and such decisions are ones
    that a world without war would not face. Every war (or now as we are
    all too aware ‘simultaneous wars’) introduces new weapons – either more
    power (as in the atomic bomb, etc) or more sophisticated spying. This
    film is about the endless war on terrorism and the use of drone cameras
    (carried in drone planes, drone beetles, drone humming birds) that aid
    in directing destruction into more specific areas rather than simply
    bombing an entire city or village or country.

    Gavin Hood directs (and plays a significant acting role) this
    screenplay by Guy Hibbert, very correctly titled EYE IN THE SKY – a
    film that reveals all the permutations of drone spying and targeting
    enemies. The story Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), a UK- based
    military officer in command of a top secret drone operation to capture
    terrorists in Kenya. Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground
    Intel, Powell discovers the targets are planning a suicide bombing and
    the mission escalates from ”capture” to ”kill.” But as American pilot
    Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage, a nine-year old girl
    enters the kill zone triggering an international dispute, reaching the
    highest levels of US and British government, over the moral, political,
    and personal implications of modern warfare. The majority of the film –
    as we watch a group of terrorist ready themselves for a suicide attack
    – takes place in the offices of the British and American decision
    makers who simply cannot resolve the question of strike with a known
    casualty result in the periphery of the staging facility we have been
    observing. The key figure in the struggle as to whether or not to carry
    out orders to missile bomb the compound is the very green new soldier
    (Aaron Paul) who simply cannot agree to carry out orders when those
    orders would mean the death of a young girl selling bread near the

    The struggle for power in decision making includes Alan Rickman (his
    farewell performance as he died in January 2016), Richard McCabe,
    Jeremy Northam, Monica Dolan, Michael O’Keefe, Laila Robins, James
    Alexander, Kim Engelbrecht among others. There is a brilliant cameo by
    Barkhad Abdi as the Kenyan attaché who spies with his own set of drones
    (beetle, hummingbird, etc) and cares for the little bread-selling girl.
    A brilliant movie about a horrifying situation – one that seems we will
    continue to hear about as this terrorist threat grows. Grady Harp, July

  • thesar-2July 4, 2016Reply

    The Needs of the Many…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • DavidJuly 5, 2016Reply

    The politics and moralities of a difficult war

    War on film seldom speaks the truth they say, the ones that have
    actually been in one. So how then is war, and how is it conducted? Only
    those who’ve ever been in one can tell and the rest of us are left to
    guess and speculate. Perhaps for the best. Eye in the Sky is a film
    about a different kind of war, a more modern and difficult to judge. In
    Kenya two British and one American citizen have been tracked, all
    converted to acts of terrorism. British, American and Kenyan
    intelligence services are working close together. But when the time has
    come to strike, everything is not as simple as they thought. Alan
    Rickman here does his last live-action film with others including Helen
    Mirren and Aaron Paul.

    I really liked Eye in the Sky. Actually in the same way I liked the
    Danish film A War. It offers a different angle on war. Not the heroic
    one where everything is black and white, there is a good and a bad
    side. Here they go deeper and enter the fields of laws, how we got the
    right on our side to do this and will it create legal and political
    consequences? Eye in the Sky focus on the games behind the war. Who
    makes the decisions and how is the relationship between different
    countries. Very interesting and thoughtful.

    Eye in the Sky works very much with editing between the different
    locations, USA, UK and Kenya. Excitement is not built from action but
    created from drama and editing. I like that. It means that there is a
    thought behind ever sequence. Everything from the trivial choice Alan
    Rickman’s general character has to make about which doll to buy for his
    grandchild, to Aaron Paul’s character’s more serious scene where he
    demands another control on collateral damage for the mission. This film
    like so many others can of course not give us straight view on what it
    is to be in a war, but I still like this kind of film because it
    doesn’t exactly show us how it is. It lets us figure it out for
    ourselves and form or own opinions. Who had the right on their side in
    the end? I think it is up to each and every one of us to decide.
    Rickman exits with a great film and is truly one of the strongest
    characters. A tight and very exciting war thriller.

    David Lindahl –

  • Movielover TruthJuly 5, 2016Reply

    What this a parody?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • aharmasJuly 6, 2016Reply

    They can see everything and their hands are tied

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • HellmantJuly 7, 2016Reply

    There are no bad guys (or good ones), just people doing their jobs.

    ‘EYE IN THE SKY’: Four and a Half Stars (Out of Five)

    A military drama/thriller flick, about a compromised drone strike
    operation; due to the possible collateral damage of a young girl. The
    film was directed by Gavin Hood (who’s previously helmed movies like
    written by Guy Hibbert (I’m not really familiar with his resume at
    all). The movie stars Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Barkhad Abdi and Alan
    Rickman (in one of his final film roles). It was a decent hit at the
    Box Office, and it got almost unanimously positive reviews from critics
    (as well). I loved it too.

    The film tells the story of a military operation, designed to capture
    terrorists in Kenya; by using top secret drone surveillance. When the
    officer in charge, Colonel Katherine Powell (Mirren), learns that that
    the terrorists are plotting a suicide bombing, she changes the
    mission’s objective from capture to kill. This causes some moral
    dilemmas, for everyone involved; especially when a 9- year-old girl
    enters the drone strike area. The entire operation is put at risk,
    while Powell struggles to get clearance to go through with the attack.

    The movie is intense, thought provoking, and entirely emotionally
    involving. The cast is all top-notch as well; especially Paul and the
    late Alan Rickman. It’s also nice to see Mirren doing what she does
    best again, as another strong female lead too; in a military thriller
    flick (like this) as well. Hood’s direction has never been better, and
    the script is brilliant. What I like most about the film though, is
    that it’s completely relatable (and believable); there are no bad guys
    (or good ones), just people doing their jobs (all with completely
    rational, and mostly compassionate, ideas and opinions). It’s one of
    the best movies so far this year!

    Watch our movie review show ‘MOVIE TALK’ at:

  • J. Alec WestJuly 7, 2016Reply

    Mostly good.

    Welcome to war in the 21st Century – where the warriors sit in front of
    computer consoles drinking coffee as they (or their superiors) decide
    who lives and who dies. Whether you kill someone with a rifle or a
    mouse click, you’ve killed. So, there is no moral dilemma in the
    killing part that didn’t already exist prior to computers.

    On collateral damage, well … let me say something that’s politically
    incorrect. People who live in countries with oppressive rulers have 3

    1) Stay behind and join a resistance movement to overthrow the rulers.

    2) Flee (refugees).

    3) Stay behind and tacitly ”accept” their oppression.

    If the people in category 1 are killed by so-called ”friendly fire,”
    that would be morally hurtful … as it should be. The people in
    category 2 probably aren’t around to be killed. But the people in
    category 3? Edmund Burke is famously quoted as saying ”The only thing
    necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” So,
    if people like that get killed, tough. They made their own bed and must
    now lie in it. And if they have innocent children who end up being
    killed, it’s THE PARENTS’ moral dilemma, not the fault of the people
    fighting the oppression.

    Sadly, it’s people in category 3 who end up being used as human shields
    – primarily so oppressors can ”blame” their enemies for collateral
    deaths. And like I said, I have no sympathy for people in category 3 –
    especially parents of children in that category who may ”say” they love
    their children but, by virtue of their non-resistance, prove otherwise.

    I’m a Vietnam vet who knows what war is like. And as Alan Rickman’s
    character so eloquently put it in the film, ”Never tell a soldier that
    he doesn’t understand the cost of war.” Had it been me in front of that
    keyboard, I’d have clicked the mouse with no regret … knowing that
    I’d killed 3 people responsible for the deaths of countless others. Or,
    as Spock put it once in a Star Trek movie, ”The needs of the many
    outweigh the needs of the few … or the one.” I took away 2 stars from
    this review primarily because of the interactions between British
    political persons – and their hesitation to do what was ultimately the
    right thing to do. It reminded me a lot of Monty Python’s ”Life of
    Brian” movie. Brian is crucified and Judith pleads with the People’s
    Front of Judea to ”do” something before he dies. Their response? John
    Cleese (the PFJ leader) says, ”Right! This calls for an immediate
    discussion!” Uh-huh.

  • tedg ([email protected])July 8, 2016Reply

    Three Distances

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • leonorjalotoJuly 9, 2016Reply

    Great thriller and good acting

    This movie got a hold of a strong moral dilemma. Ethics play a key role
    on the plot, and throughout the movie one can identify with the
    different points of view presented, and with the position of the
    different decision makers – I rather identified with the position of
    the non-decision makers. The legal and political web entwined in
    warfare nowadays gives us at the same time a certain level of comfort –
    knowing that a single crazy commander can’t have free access to mass
    destruction weapons – and at the same time it must play a core role
    when the time to act is due. Nobody wants to make this kind of choices,
    and bear the consequences. That being said, the casting was done a
    little bit on the safe side – but the safe side is a good side. The
    actors are great and they are perfectly fitted for the roles. The
    cinematography is also meritorious. Overall, a very entertaining and
    praiseworthy movie, with some food for thought.

  • polska-93284July 10, 2016Reply

    Makes you think

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • richi mahapatra ([email protected])July 13, 2016Reply

    The Question

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • nama chakravortyJuly 13, 2016Reply

    Gripping & Intense!

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ is a Gripping & Intense Thriller, that makes you
    think. Its thought-provoking as well as its brilliant. And The Stellar
    Cast, led by The Late/Great Alan Rickman, are in top-form!

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ Synopsis: Col. Katherine Powell, a military officer in
    command of an operation to capture terrorists in Kenya, sees her
    mission escalate when a girl enters the kill zone triggering an
    international dispute over the implications of modern warfare.

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ is a tale of war, violence & authority. We get to see
    the people in suit, trying to get rid of the evils of our society, but
    have to decide to weather kill them instantly of wait till an innocent
    girl leaves the zone. Its a very thought provoking film about how every
    life matters & how one has to take a decision, in such drastic,
    turbulent times.

    ‘Eye in the Sky’ warms up slowly, but once it does, oh boy! The
    second-hour is spell-binding. I was engrossed & hooked onto my seat.
    The culmination, too, leaves a huge impact.

    Guy Hibbert’s Screenplay is truly superb. The proceedings are gripping
    & engrossing. Gavin Hood’s Direction is very well-done. Amongst his
    best works! Cinematography is top-notch. Editing is sharp. Art &
    Costume Design are pitch-perfect. Background Score is fabulous.

    Performance-Wise: The Late/Great Alan Rickman commands the screen. He’s
    simply flawless as the Lieutenant General. He’s truly missed! Helen
    Mirren is extraordinary, yet again! What a captivating performance!
    Aaron Paul is first-rate. Barkhad Abdi is once again in good form. Iain
    Glen leaves a mark. Others lend remarkable support.

    On the whole, ‘Eye in the Sky’ makes for a Solid Watch!

  • innocentdevilskillerJuly 14, 2016Reply

    OMG, what an effort to defend terrorism through drone strikes on poor people

    OMG, how well the director of this film tried to get sympathy for the
    terrorists who are behind these drone attacks (all the drone operators
    including who authorize these kills), these drone operators wont shy a
    second to press trigger to fire on any of our territories or anywhere
    else in the Muslim world, they killed millions already that includes
    children, women, youth etc, so this film is more of a joke, convincing
    people that with this terrorism to eliminate a single person and
    killing 100’s or 1000’s present around them is ”OK” because they are
    able to save others ”REALLY”

    You are starting a war which will never going to end and your children
    will going to pay a heavy price for which you have started and brought
    to our children and youth, do you think the father who’s daughter died
    in the film in reality will forgive anyone who involved in it, he will
    be a upcoming suicide bomber hopefully as can’t expect him to forgive
    you as he has only one thing to live for which is her daughter to raise
    her and look after her through his small business of bicycle and in a
    way its a true story that you do kill innocent people like these in
    these drone attacks who have small things really to live for and you
    even take that from them as well, and once he also became a suicide
    bomber so obvious threat for you and then you will going to plan
    another drone attack and will going to kill 100’s or 1000’s around him
    and preparing few more bombers yourself from everyone attack, because
    if you kill someone family how you think you will get away, obviously
    one day you will be accountable for sure, it just matter of time so
    wait for your turn or there is only solution stop selling arms as that
    is the only earning way for the USA and supplying them to Daesh,
    Taliban etc and other countries and stop these drones you will going to
    see peace otherwise u will pay like we are paying now.

    I have heard somewhere TO Every Action there is an Equal and Opposite
    Reaction 🙂

    Best of luck USA and other’s who are supporting these killings.

  • Reno RanganJuly 14, 2016Reply

    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 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.


  • docraj77July 15, 2016Reply

    One of the greatest movie

    It’s been a while since I’ve seen a thriller movie which is based on
    Intel is being gathered and decisions are planned and executed in
    today’s world. I must say that this is the most brilliant movie I have
    even seen after a long time. Usually today’s thriller and action movies
    are so predictable but this one is really based on how things exactly
    happen based on the observations and executions done politically,
    legally and ”militarily”. My eyes were just set on the movie and
    nothing else as this movie is excellent.

    Every actor in this movie have done an exemplary performance. Very well
    planned and executed movie especially the end scene where the parents
    begging the army guys to save their daughter was such a heart breaking
    scene where I believe anyone watching it will be moved to tears. Such
    movies should not only get nominated but also win each and every award
    especially in the direction and picture category. Great job to the
    director Mr. Gavin Hood. Keep up the good work sir…..

  • chrislawukJuly 16, 2016Reply

    A Chilcot soap opera

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • blanche-2July 16, 2016Reply

    acceptable losses

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • 851222July 18, 2016Reply

    First Rate Thriller

    Greetings from Lithuania.

    ”Eye in the Sky” (2015) is superb thriller from start till finish. This
    is a movie which will keep on the edge of your seat during the whole
    time and will question some morality questions as well – did they did
    the right thing? In my opinion, absolutely.

    Performances were superb by all involved. Directing as well as writing
    and editing are first rate – not a dragging second for a whole 1 h 32
    min, it is a superbly involving thriller.

    Overall, i loved the previous film ”Rendition” by Gavin Hood – he
    should stick to this material and not to some pop corn flicks aka.
    ”Wolverine” – ”Eye in the Sky” is one of the years most simple and
    unforgettable thrillers that everyone will definitely should see. Great

  • raoadi1014July 18, 2016Reply

    Excellent film!!!! If you love movies…don’t miss it.

    Eye in the Sky is a nail biting thriller…One of the best films i have
    watched in recent times. Very intriguing plot where-in a colonel
    (played excellently by actress Hellen Mirren) has to strike a missle in
    a house which has 3 most wanted ppl on their hitlist and are from a
    terror group called Al Shabaab . Also she has to ensure the impact of
    the strike is minimal as there are other civilians around the
    place…… Lot of political implications and difficulties arise when
    she has to negotiate with seniors and the other bureaucrats as they
    hesitate to give her clearance for the mission. The script,
    photography, editing and the direction is just top class and the film
    manages to keep u edge of the seat till the end. Few films manage to
    achieve this feat…i can only remember the last film which managed to
    do this- Captain Phillips. Performances are also excellent in the film.
    Hellen Mirren who plays a senior Colonel is brilliant. She suits the
    role completely. There is also Aaron Paul from Breaking Bad fame and he
    is superb. There is also Barkhad Abdi (the pirate leader from Captain
    Phillips). he plays his part well….Lastly Alan Rickman as the Lt.
    General was fantastic. The dialgoue which he says in the end will make
    you break into an applause. Eye in the Sky is one of the best
    thrillers. Its tense, gripping and shocking. Superb Stuff. If you love
    movies…Don’t miss this at any cost.

  • Danae V. LambrosJuly 19, 2016Reply

    Thought provoking film about war and collateral damage

    This was the thinker’s movie about war and the costs – in human lives –
    on both the virtual side ( ”eye in the sky”), and those on the ground.
    What I liked about this film is that there are no easy answers to the
    questions it raises but does not answer. A stellar cast, tight script
    and solid directing makes this a thriller worth watching. It’s not an
    easy task to create a successful film that deals with all of these
    complex issues and leaves on the edge of their seat. What are the moral
    implications of war, including the killing of innocents to prevent the
    deaths of more innocent lives, as well as the political, government,
    military and ethical imperatives that complicate the chain of command
    in split-second situations? This film does an excellent job of
    exploring these issues within the context of drone warfare. Two thumbs
    up. Leave it up to the Brits to make an intelligent and timely film
    about this controversial topic. Alan Rickman does indeed have the best
    line in the film, a fitting tribute to such a wonderfully talented
    actor who passed too soon.

  • sbuchholz5741 ([email protected])July 23, 2016Reply

    Fire! Fire! Fire!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Rameshwar INJuly 23, 2016Reply

    Timely moral debate with breakneck pacing, slick editing and terrific acting makes it a must watch

    With its drawn out debates on the speculated possibilities and moral
    dilemma, it is more like a ’12 Angry Men’ of the current times having
    similar stakes but added urgency. A thrilling combination of drama,
    suspense and action genres coupled with slick graphics and the right
    talent pooled in from old and new generations alike.

    Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) is overseeing an operation to
    follow and capture a possible terrorist in Kenya with the help of an
    unmanned drone being flown by a rookie Pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul).
    Once they identify the terrorists and learn their motives of an
    immediate suicide bombing, the capture mission converts to kill. When a
    little girl enters the kill zone, the mission objective gets blown into
    an international debate on moral and social implications.

    The hero of the movie is its terrific screenplay that is interesting,
    quick paced and best of all – even. The writing brings about all
    possible debates like doing anything for the greater good, value of
    human life, accountability of decision makers and implementors etc.,
    and also beautifully portrayed by a talented ensemble cast led by
    veteran actors Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman (his last movie) and well
    supported by budding actors like Aaron Paul and Barkhad Abdi.

    It starts off in a slightly disconnected manner and one might hastily
    assume that they are about to see something similar to Ethan Hawke
    starrer ‘Good Kill’, but it quickly raises the stakes both in action
    and drama before plunging into an excellent debate driven by reason,
    objective and moral consciousness. The urgency to make a decision from
    the hesitant decision makers adds to the suspense. Background score is
    apt, cinematography is eye pleasing and editing is top notch.

    Timely moral debate with breakneck pacing, slick editing and terrific
    acting makes it a must watch.

    PS: While it is good to see such military officers and bureaucrats
    thinking ethically and morally focused on a common objective, it is
    highly unrealistic considering the real life statistics of collateral
    damage making it a dubious propaganda piece.

  • Kevin Lea DaviesJuly 24, 2016Reply

    The moral cost of collateral damage.

    Eye in the sky is not a war film. The scenes that take place have a
    military context, but this movie is not about terrorism, catching the
    bad guy, or even preventing further acts of violence from men and women
    who hate the western world. This film is about the consequences of our
    actions as a nation, and our willingness to let good people die in the
    name of freedom and security.

    What this film brings to the viewer is a rather realistic view of the
    quagmire of legal and moral responsibilities shared by various
    government and military bodies. There are so many moments in this film,
    that make the viewer question what is right and what is wrong. Many of
    the decisions of military action is done by people in offices, crewmen
    stationed halfway around the world, and politicians with their own
    agendas. Here we witness the intricacies of this process and the impact
    these groups of people have on the third world, where most of the
    foreign enemy lives. But so do a many people and families, whom lives
    are forever altered by the actions of just a few men and women in who
    consider it their job to protect the people and interests of their own

    Helen Mirren portrays Colonel Katherine Powell of U.K. Special Forces.
    Her mission is to discover the location, and carry out the possible
    termination of 3 terrorists at the top of various global watch lists,
    currently spotted in Kenya. To do so, she will be leading a joint
    operation between several offices. A team of U.S air-force drone pilots
    providing over-watch (Phoebe Fox and Aaron Paul), Kenyan Special Forces
    on the ground (Barkhad Abdi), while relaying details to U.K Head of
    Command based in London (with Alan Rickman). It’s a well blended cast,
    and each person brings something unique to the table. I personally
    enjoyed seeing Mirren’s determination in her role, one originally meant
    for a male lead, but her cocksure attitude and resolve to complete her
    mission resounds in her performance. Barkhad Abdi was a very nice
    addition, he shows a lot of heart in his actions, and as a Somali
    national he uses his language skills to bring authenticity to the
    screen. Alan Rickman, of course, should be mentioned not because of his
    untimely passing, but because of the broad spectrum he brings to the
    screen. His voice resounds authority in his role, and in his final
    scene he delivers a fantastic line about the lives of soldiers I don’t
    think anyone should miss.

    For those of us who have served in the military, have family members
    who do, or support our seemingly endless and idyllic war on terrorism
    abroad, I recommend you watch this moral tale. Director Gavin Hood
    designed it to make you think about the consequences of our actions
    abroad, and the absurd hypocrisy of ending innocent lives abroad in our
    pursuit of freedom and security at home.


  • valleyjohnJuly 25, 2016Reply

    Ridiculous but watchable

    Eye in the sky is about a British colonel (Helen Mirren) who requests a
    drone strike to take out a group of terrorists in Kenya who are
    planning a series of suicide bombings. While trying to get political
    getting permission a 9 year old girl turns up to sell bread right
    outside the building which they plan to blow up. To say this film is
    dumb is an understatement. It’s full of characters who look like they
    haven’t been in their job for more than five minutes despite supposedly
    being experts in their fields. Helen Mirren doesn’t look like a Colonel
    , Aaron Paul is no drone pilot and Monica Dolan is doing her W1A
    character. You also have to wonder if the drone technology is anything
    like we see in this film. Despite cameras being twenty thousand feet
    above or inside a mechanical bug ( no i’m not joking) the pictures are
    in perfect HD quality. It’s not a terrible film. In fact it is quite
    watchable but you have to take your brain out before watching otherwise
    you will find yourself picking holes in it constantly. If you really
    want to see a film about drone attacks , Good Kill starring Ethan Hawke
    is the much better film.

  • The WatcherJuly 30, 2016Reply

    Terrible soft anti self defense propaganda movie

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Kevin TanAugust 2, 2016Reply

    The true war is not in the battlefield, it is in the conference room.

    How many calls does it take to release a single hellfire missile? How
    many approvals does it take to sanction the potential death of an
    innocent in order to kill high-profile terrorists and therefore prevent
    a terrorist attack from happening? For an average citizen, all these
    logistics seem to be a straightforward ”due process.” Eye in the Sky,
    however, tells that it is never simple. It is a meticulous decision
    making done by military personnel and government, all of whom having
    their own moral and political ideologies. Director Gavin Hood (Ender’s
    Game, Tsotsi) and screenwriter Guy Hibbert offers no easy choices here.
    Eye in the Sky is a highly compelling thriller film that opens doors
    for conversation the moment you leave the theaters.

    Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) commands an operation tasked
    with capturing a group of high-level Al-Shabaab extremists meeting in a
    safe house in Nairobi, Kenya. When Powell’s team discovers the
    terrorists prepping suicide vests inside the compound, she decides to
    change the mission objective from ”capture” to ”kill”. However, such
    revision in the ”rules of the engagement” requires approval from
    several officials across the globe. Circumstances further escalate when
    a native young girl (Aisha Takow) enters the blast radius. Meanwhile,
    drone pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul), along with his partner Carrie
    (Phoebe Fox), shoulder the burden of clicking the trigger and
    unleashing the hellfire missile. In this time-sensitive political buck
    passing, everyone has a chance to play god and decide the fate of
    others’. No matter what decision they choose, one thing is for sure:
    there will be ramifications and no one will leave emotionally

    Eye in The Sky builds its momentum in an excellent pace. Although the
    characters are in different locations, the use of phone and conference
    calls make them appear as though, they are all in the same room. As the
    philosophical ping-pong ensues, this film removes any bias and
    empathizes on each key player. Helen Mirren’s steely- eyed character
    embodies a methodical conviction that is clearly not driven by blind
    militarism. Her presence alone elevates this film. Alan Rickman, in his
    final on-screen performance (that alone should persuade you to see
    this), plays a veteran who has experienced war both as a general and as
    a soldier. In his controlled, dry voice, he delivers the film’s most
    memorable quote, ”Never tell a soldier that he does not know the cost
    of war.” Aaron Paul may be confined sitting in his quarters for most
    parts, but he effectively displays anxiety (similar to his role in
    Breaking Bad) that you can feel the internal turmoil going on in his
    head. This film also proves to be gripping on a ground level with the
    tense action scenes courtesy of Barkhad Abdi (last seen as a ship
    hijacker in Captain Phillips) playing a Kenyan operative who controls
    the black beetle drone – the film’s ”eye in the sky”.

    So much is going on in this film beyond the moral case of ”sacrificing
    an innocent’s life for the greater good.” Before it jumps to the
    ”acceptable” collateral damage, the characters debate on the legal and
    political facets of the situation: Do we have the legal right of
    killing terrorists by drones and depriving them of the due process?
    Supposing that the innocent girl dies and a footage ends up on YouTube,
    who wins the propaganda war? Making such a calculated risk requires
    that lawyers agree on the legality of the ”strike” and for politicians
    to step in to see how it will play in the media. Frankly, there are no
    right and wrong answers, only points and counterpoints.

    Eye in the Sky could have delivered more emotional impact if it delved
    more in its characters on a personal note. Still, it is impossible to
    come out of this film without your soul shattered in some way. The film
    ends with the line ”Get some sleep. See you in 12 hours.” These
    characters may be able to get back to safety of their homes but guilt
    and sorrow will follow them wherever they go. Eye in the Sky proves
    that waging a war from the comforts of your chair is no easier than
    fighting on the ground. The true war is not in the battlefield, it is
    in the conference room.

    Full review:

  • chaos-rampantAugust 3, 2016Reply

    Morality play

    Films are direct embodiments of what they are, we need only take an
    honest look. Some viewers have held this one up as important debate
    that brings attention to cruel double-binds of war, others have decried
    it as one-sided propaganda. But what do the mechanics of how it has
    been put together reveal?

    We have viewers watching a movie that poses a grave moral conundrum
    unfold across screens, top military brass and politicians in various
    rooms as they contemplate a drone strike. If they decide to strike,
    innocents will die. If they don’t, suicide bomb vests are being
    prepared inside the house, innocents will die soon after. We are
    viewers watching viewers watch a morality play about what to do.

    It is a morality play; the particulars all simplified to make obvious
    the specific moral response. The setting has been simplified for the
    same narrative economy as every play, a jihadist hiding house surveyed
    from the sky. The innocents who stand to die are reduced down to a
    single little girl, who we have seen before as cute and loved by her
    parents. The desired reaction is reduced to the drone operator shedding
    tears over a magnified image of the little girl as he fights orders to

    What to make of all this, those of us who would rather confront ugly,
    complicated realities anyway? Would there be a movie at all if it was a
    gangly, ugly twentysomething or a middle- aged street vendor we had to
    mull over? Having bureaucrats obligingly swap opposing points of view,
    is there something to actually contemplate in all this?

    There is no debate here. It’s the kind of debate we would be having in
    the scenario with having to decide to push the red button that kills a
    hundred people or the one that kills two hundred. We have simply
    arrived too late, given the controls too late. We should be asking, how
    did it come down to where these two are our only options, or are they?

    Look, film has the power to purify and bring to light, but where are
    you going to point? You have the opportunity to hover over the world,
    swoop from above to magnify and project back to screens all over the
    world. And it’s a complete waste when there’s nothing more to take back
    home beyond a mere somnolence, beyond a flimsy sense of ‘humanity’.
    Spielberg has made a career out of this, choosing to find just those
    historic moments when the world is tearing itself up, often war, never
    trying to find the moral impasse where it lurks next to us and doesn’t
    make itself obvious, in mundane reality, then lazily uses the world at
    its most cruel and senseless to bludgeon the viewer with how cruel it
    all is. It’s a cynical thing.

    The moments that test or betray humanity do not begin with having to
    decide what button to press. They begin on a mundane day with two
    people talking.

  • Tom LindeAugust 4, 2016Reply

    Please consider…

    …The meaning of the title. During the prolonged moral debates, can
    anyone claim the God perspective?

    Near the end, the sun’s brilliance is again prominent. Perhaps
    suggesting those underneath feel the glare of that same eye.

    The opening scene is of bread, nourishment, being drawn out of a fire.
    Near the end, another character is picking up something for his child
    too. Nice framing.

    Overall, the repetitious interruptions of dialogue over action gets
    tiresome, but of course this is the point of the story. I suggest not
    watching this as a thriller – though it is thrilling – but as comment
    on morality and trauma in war. No level of technology will bring us
    above it.

  • Sankari_SuomiAugust 4, 2016Reply

    Alan H. Rickman’s last stand?

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • TxMikeAugust 7, 2016Reply

    12 Angry Men in the modern drone warfare game.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • karthikmangipudiAugust 9, 2016Reply

    One stupid piece of propaganda

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Kamran EfendiogluAugust 10, 2016Reply

    Unrealistic and full of clichés… Tell me something else…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Nicole1062August 12, 2016Reply

    Missed opportunity

    Good acting and a good story but just not credible. Possibly one of the
    first movies to tackle the risks of collateral damage in tough military
    decisions but missed the target by implying that everyone at a senior
    level would halt their decisions because a little girl might get
    injured. The decision on how to proceed was apparent, and morally
    justified from the start. Perhaps it would have been better to focus
    the audience on how they set parameters for collateral damage rather
    than making it a prolonged debate about rescuing a young girl! It would
    have been good to see a study of the real moral and ethical impact of
    having to make the decision to ‘push the button’ on a non military

  • LeonLouisRicciAugust 15, 2016Reply

    ”If only it were that simple.”

    So Many Questions….So Little Time.

    There’s Plenty of Suspension of Disbelief as well as Suspense in this
    Film that is Layers from Reality and is Inevitable when a Story asks so
    Many Important Moral, Political, and Ethical Issues in such a Confined

    Second, on a Technical Level, perhaps for the sake of the Viewer, the
    High-Def Images Displayed by the Drone and the ”Beetle” are Impossibly
    Sharp, Clear, and Stable.

    This is a Movie so Deep in Concerns of the Heart that it Completely
    Overwhelms the ”Collateral Damage” Preconception that it becomes
    Totally Unbelievable and Forced into the Narrative to make its
    Philosophical Points. This is Juxtaposed with Military Counterpoints
    and ”The Beat Goes On”.

    In the End it Tries Vigorously with Nail-Biting Emotion to Tell its
    Story with the ”War on Terror” Suicide Bombers on Screen (never in
    closeup) to be the ”Ticking Time Bomb” that Haunts, but Hardly ever
    Seems the Forefront Fascism that is the Cause of the Mission in the
    First Place.

    The Gut-Churning Fate of the Innocent Little Girl, who just wants to
    Sell Bread and Play with Her Hula-Hoop is the Cosmic Heart of Humanity
    that Pleads for Peace in a World almost Always at War. If She Dies,
    like so many Before Her, were all of Their Deaths and Mutilations be
    Worth the Wars, it seems some Think so, although it does not End the

    There Never has been a ”War to End All Wars” and the Sacrifices Tallied
    to Justify Victory Remain in the Crypt of Computational Statistics with
    Percentiles and Talk of Fog and Patriotism.

    In Today’s ”War” Fanatical Religious Fundamentalism is just One More
    Factor that makes this the most Abhorrent of the Human Condition,
    ”Tribal Warfare” a Tragic Concern for Anyone with a Heart that Bleeds.

    The Fourth World War will be Fought with Sticks and Stones, No Matter
    the Debates that Preceded.

    Note…Although unfortunately the weight of the subject and material in
    this fine Film caused a distraction to the task at hand, to be clear,
    the Movie is definitely important and worth a watch.

  • The CouchpotatoesAugust 19, 2016Reply

    Big Brother is watching you

    I truly enjoyed this movie. The least you can say is that there is
    suspense. Maybe they make it too long with the suspense, I even caught
    myself talking to the screen that they should damn push the fricking
    button. But it worked for me, I never got bored watching Eye In The
    Sky. And even though, like many other humans, I think every war is
    completely useless and fought by people that will never risk their
    lives anyways, because the only thing they do is making others doing
    the dirty job. Eye In The Sky is the perfect example of modern warfare.
    Colateral damage is just a word to give them a clear conscience. War on
    terrorism should be fought differently. There are enough examples of
    known terrorists they watch for years before taking any actions. Those
    people should be removed out of society way earlier. Before damage is
    done. Anyways, the movie is pleasant to watch, with good actors, with
    the right amount of suspense. A good one in this genre.

  • prism9August 21, 2016Reply

    Seemingly accurate portrayal

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • (ronanmeire)August 21, 2016Reply

    Helen Mirren makes the cut yet again…

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jc-osmsAugust 21, 2016Reply

    Give us this day our deadly bread

    Yet another ”black-ops” movie in a recognisably topical world
    trouble-spot, this time Kenya, where religious fundamentalists have as
    we all know carried out in recent times a series of executions, suicide
    bombings, kidnappings and more. As ever, both Britain and the U.S. are
    keen observers of any suspicious situation which might lead to
    catastrophe with both up-close and remote eyes on developing events in
    never-ending, undercover surveillance. This film dramatically, probably
    over- dramatically posits the moral dilemma which political
    decision-makers have to consider before pushing the engage button,
    namely how many lives can be discounted as acceptable collateral damage
    to potentially save many others from almost certain death from a
    suicide bomb attack.

    Played out in what seems like real-time, the tension is ratcheted right
    up to the dramatic climax as you won’t believe how much you’ll want a
    little local girl to sell her wares of half a dozen or so loaves. We
    see clearly how gung-ho military personnel are keen to go in for the
    kill even to the point of manipulating subordinate staff to their will,
    being prepared to lie to ministers to advance their sometimes dubious
    case and to do so sometimes recklessly, with a disregard for human life
    and respect for the political process of government. Politicians are
    shown to be often dithering and conscience-stricken, ultimately in
    thrall to the power and conviction of the generals, as here.

    For me, I found these characterisations to be a little obvious and
    stereotypical, especially with the military tail here seeming to wag
    the governmental dog, which I think over-simplified the situation.
    While it makes for gripping edge-of-the-seat thrills, I felt that using
    the young girl’s unwitting and untimely location to sell her bread to
    pose the moral dilemma at the heart of the film, a conclusion only
    confirmed by the introduction of a second child who arrives on the
    scene near the end.

    I found though that there were too many coincidences to swallow in the
    narrative, none more so than the afore-mentioned children
    inconsiderately making themselves unintentional human targets. The use
    of drones, particularly the mechanised flying mosquito operated by a
    local agent on the spot seemed too far-fetched with hints of ”Mission
    Impossible” and the late Alan Rickman’s home-based General surely
    wouldn’t have been so uncaringly belligerent as here.

    Putting these matters aside, this was still a convincing, broadly
    credible political thriller. well acted by principals Rickman and Helen
    Mirren. With camera shots from multiple perspectives and lots of
    expository dialogue in soldier-speak, it’s also a tech-thriller which
    keeps the tension going right up until the end.

  • SafetylightAugust 24, 2016Reply

    A Fairytale About Technology and Nonexistent Good People.

    This story could not have happened in our world.

    The technology doesn’t work.

    And I’m not talking about hovering drone planes and science fiction bug

    I’m talking about simple physics.

    There’s no such thing as ”real time”. Light moves fast, sure, but with
    transmissions between satellites and through processing and routing
    hardware back and forth, UAV pilots report up to a TWENTY second delay.
    -According to ”Kill Chain: Drones and the Rise of High-Tech Assassins”
    by journalist Andrew Cockburn.

    That’s the hard reality.

    Pull up a clock and watch the second hand move 5 ticks. In a critical
    situation, (or even mundane; a UAV cannot land on pilot controls
    because of this; up to 2/3 of drones when they crash, do so on
    landing), broadcast delay becomes a significant factor in how this
    technology can be employed, what it is good for, and what it is not.

    So that’s the whole film rendered fantasy right there. Nearly every
    major scene in this film required *magic* to exist.

    Moreover, this being the case, drones have to be programmed for
    missions before they engage. Pilots are there for the micro decision
    making only, and then they are dealing with cloud cover, a not-hovering
    camera, and low-quality resolutions optimized for speed, which makes
    positive IDs a game of total guesswork. Described as looking down from
    20,000 feet through a drinking straw, ”Is that a dog, child, woman or a

    It’s easy, when you’re trigger happy, worn down by military life and
    heavily propagandized, to be willing to ”confirm” a grainy blob on a
    screen for the benefit of the report. But making a film like this
    something even remotely related to actual events in the real world? No

    From an interview with a retired UAV pilot:


    Why isn’t he with the Air Force anymore? There was one day, he says,
    when he knew that he wouldn’t sign the next contract. It was the day
    Bryant walked into the cockpit and heard himself saying to his
    coworkers: ”Hey, what mother___er is going to die today?”


    So with all of that make-believe in place, (and I can’t imagine for an
    instant the creators were truly that ignorant when they made it), it
    begs the question, ”What was the real intention here?”

    Propaganda, of course! Just try getting a big film budget approved when
    you aren’t willing to play ball. So beside all of the make-believe
    technology, this film was a sickly sweet course of lies about how much
    the government cares. Bzzt! Sorry. NONE of the decisions are made that
    way, and nobody in higher offices are cringing or worrying over these
    kills. That’s the pure self-calming wishful thinking of a public trying
    to reassure itself that its government isn’t run by psychopaths.

    As with the ridiculously expensive high-tech surveillance package sold
    to and enshrined with almost religious fervour in the US military
    during the Viet Nam days, (look that up; it’s insane. The U.S. dropped
    tens of thousands of sensors all over the jungle with the idea that
    they could remotely track troop movements. How clever! Except that it
    didn’t work. The Viet Cong learned early on that you could take this
    stupid tech and manipulate the enemy by driving a single truck past a
    vibration sensor a hundred times to make it look to U.S. brass like a
    whole convoy was en route to somewhere it wasn’t, or by sprinkling
    urine on other select chemical sensors to create whole ghost
    battalions. -But nobody was allowed to talk about these shortcomings.
    It HAD to work; the money was too big and the investment of jobs held
    too great a momentum to stop that runaway stupid train.)

    This whole ”Modern Warfare” thing with UAVs is just the same. It
    doesn’t work; it can’t deliver on its promises but the money train
    isn’t going to stop because winning wars and precision bombing was
    never the goal, just the ad copy in the DARPA brochure. Keeping a
    multi-billion dollar river of cash and jobs and egos flowing is the
    goal, and don’t kid yourself about it. -When military brass threaten a
    shooting coup when some hapless British minister tabled the idea of
    cutting back on military expenditures, citing job loss as the primary
    concern, you get a picture of the real forces driving war culture. The
    victim countries are just a required component.

    And propaganda films like this one are also a required component to
    keep the public happily nodding along to the whole circus.

    Sadly, looking at the numbers on this piece of fantasy, it appears to
    be working.

  • TdSmth5August 29, 2016Reply

    Should have been stronger

    The English are running some operation in Kenya to capture some
    Al-Shabaab members on their most-wanted list. In charge of the
    operation is some female senior citizen named Powell. She is joined by
    a guy from Legal and a guy who calculates the risk of collateral
    damage. Her tired and unenthusiastic boss–Benson–is running the
    operation by several ministers. Apparently they have no drones so
    America is providing the drones run from Las Vegas. There are two drone
    operators, a girl who pilots the drone and a guy who reads checklists
    and communicates. In Vegas as well is their boss accompanied by some
    inferior laptop bombardier. In Hawaii is the facility that provides
    facial recognition and confirmation that the guys there are looking at
    are actually the one they are looking for.

    They are watching a house in Kenya were several bad guys are meeting.
    The English are looking specifically for an English radicalized couple
    and an American. On the ground in Kenya are the military ready to
    engage and a guy, Jama, and a female running decoy camera drones around
    the house. Adjacent to the compound is the house of some regular Kenyan
    who fixes bikes and makes hula hoops for his daughter to play with. His
    wife makes bread that the little girls sells around the corner. The
    entire neighborhood has been taken over by Al-Shabaab and every one is
    at risk who doesn’t follow their views. The regular Kenyan family is

    So far they’ve identified all the bad guys except the English female.
    Then a person shows up but they can’t see her face. Jama has to rush to
    the street, impersonate a street seller, and operate a
    caterpillar-shaped drone to fly in the house so that the female can be
    identified. She is indeed the one they are looking for. When the camera
    flies to other rooms in the house they find explosives, suicide vests,
    and a camera. The bad guys are planning two suicide bombings. That
    changes everything for he English. The mission originally was to
    capture the radicalized English. Now Powell demands the authority to
    launch a missile on the house. Her Legal disagrees since that was not
    the original mission, not to mention that they are acting in a foreign
    friendly country. Benson supports Powell, but the politicians aren’t
    sure so they ask the foreign minister who is at some weapons convention
    selling for some company. He suggests they contact the American
    Secretary of State, who in turn is playing ping-pong in China. He
    doesn’t understand why the English are even debating this. Some neocon
    contacts the English politicians to assure them that killing people,
    including American citizen is cool.

    Little by little everyone warms up to the idea. Until the little Kenyan
    girl sets up her table to sell bread right in front of the Al-Shabaab
    compound. That changes everything for the drone pilots who demand a
    second ID confirmation, mainly to give the girl time, much to the
    chagrin of Powell. The way she sees it, the bad guys are ready to blow
    up a bunch of people and there’s no time to waste debating.

    She forces her statistics guy to forge the numbers so the girl has a
    45% of getting killed. That pleases most involved and Powell, who by
    now is for some reason directly communicating and bossing the drone
    pilots around, orders the hit. Thanks to Jama, the girl sells all her
    bread and slowly starts packing up, that’s when the missile is fired.

    Eye in the Sky is a somewhat exciting movie that dramatizes Utilitarian
    ethical arguments. Is it OK to sacrifice the lives of a few in range of
    a drone missile to presumably save the lives of many who would be
    killed in suicide bombings? The movie centers the issue on the life of
    the one girl ignoring all the other bystanders. It also adds some more
    interesting political arguments. If the suicide bombings take place,
    Al-Shabaab would be solely responsible, but if the missile kills
    innocents, the English would have to answer. Or in turn, the English
    could be blamed for doing nothing when they knew that suicide bombings
    were about to take place.

    These are all fascinating ideas but the movie didn’t manage to make
    them as compelling. There’s the issue of realism for me. Usually I
    don’t fault movies for being unrealistic, but here it bothered me a bit
    especially since we are talking about serious current issues and the
    movie does try to present itself as realistic. To begin with, the whole
    idea that the English, traumatized by the fact that they’re not an
    empire anymore yet pathetically proud to be America’s poodle would
    suddenly care about poor dark people out of the blue, after their rich
    history, is laughable. Of course the same could be said about the
    teary-eyed drone pilots but at least there’s some precedent that
    country 18 year-olds aren’t all that thrilled to be stuck in the role
    of joystick killers. I can’t make sense of what is going on with the
    chain of command here. Then there’s the second-rate acting by
    first-rate actors that also distracted me. As the debate gets more
    intense, the quality of the acting drops.

    Otherwise, the movie looks good like most of the war on terror movies,
    it’s sharp and crisp with rich colors and good contrast and it all
    takes place during daylight. Music initially is good and adds to the
    tension although it also sounded familiar, but then it too dropped in
    quality. Eye in the Sky could have been a fascinating, strong, and
    controversial movie instead it settled for the melodramatic.

  • katyhunAugust 31, 2016Reply

    Very Intense

    Very good film. Great performances all round, particularly from Mirren
    and Rickman. Starts off a little slow, but when the central conflict is
    underway it becomes one of the better war films in recent memory.
    Interesting moral dilemma at the core of the film that offers no easy
    answers. For much of the time the film encourages us to see the
    military leaders as the villains, until the end when the film gives us
    much greater insight into their motivations. A more intelligent and
    thoughtful war film than most viewers are used to I think.This is my
    review of a very good film.Solid little thriller. The last act was
    surprisingly quite tense. Good performances too

  • aechambersnovelistSeptember 1, 2016Reply

    Tense & Thought Provoking

    Helen Mirren and the late, great Alan Rickman, along with a good
    supporting cast, do what they do best in this tense war film. I barely
    recognised Aaron Paul and I welcomed the appearance of Hood himself in
    the movie. Good job one and all.

    I am an admirer of Gavin Hood’s work and he takes a relatively simple
    story and creates a taut tension with viable characters. To his credit
    he lets the story unfold in real time and some may say the pace is too
    slow. I certainly screamed in frustration, but for other reasons too!

    I don’t usually watch war films, but I’m glad I saw this, as it raises
    a number of salient points about drone warfare, government and the
    military. It’s not a gung-ho movie, but an intelligent, thought
    provoking view of the casualties of war.

  • s3276169September 3, 2016Reply

    Tries to add a moral layer to an immoral practice…..

    Eye in the Sky tries to add a moral layer to an immoral practice.

    This is a contrived film that applies a caring moral compass to the
    notion of drone bombing (or any kind of bombing in domestic situations
    for that matter). Where every care is taken to avoid killing the
    innocent, whilst balancing this need up against ”the greater good”.

    The reality this film tries to establish is marred by both unresolvable
    practical and moral considerations.This film focuses in minutiae on the
    life of one individual but ignores the bigger picture. Obvious random
    factors that simply can not be accounted for when bombing in built, up
    civilian areas. People randomly moving into and out of a target zone
    (this is hinted at in the film), people living or working unseen inside
    structures next to a target zone.

    Not to mention the flow on effect from ”collateral damage”. The father
    or mother walking past a target zone who is debilitated or killed who
    might be the soul provider for their family. A young pregnant women who
    looses her unborn child or is killed outright. People who die from
    suffocation, buried under rubble. Not to mention the psychological
    effect living under the constant threat of unseen death from above has
    on a larger population and the economic damage done to a local economy.

    Simply put, there’s no justification for this. I’ll also add, if the
    West stayed out of these regions to start, with, I believe, its
    unlikely these scenarios would arise. The concept of politicians being
    reluctant to employ drones is also, for the most part, something of a
    myth. Drone strikes have increased in both frequency and number, in
    recent years. Statistically, the vast majority of those killed,
    innocent bystanders.

    The quality of acting in this film is for the most part excellent. It
    employs a good cast including wonderful Alan Rickman, an actor I
    enjoyed watching over the years. May he rest in peace.

    A thoughtful, engaging film in some ways, that may be well intentioned
    but I can not get past the feeling its skewed in its perspective. In my
    opinion, it takes a somewhat blinkered view, that mostly overlooks the
    glaringly obvious. A five out of ten from me.

  • susannathomSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    Absolutely Sickening Anti-Western Propaganda!!

    This is perhaps the most infuriatingly insipid film I’ve seen in years.
    It glorifies a bunch of twisted Pollyanna crybabies whose values are so
    warped, that they’d allow potentially hundreds of innocent people to
    die just so (metaphorically speaking) this cute little puppy that’s in
    the way doesn’t get hurt. In telling its sickeningly perverted story,
    the producers manage to make the West the bad guys and gloss over the
    barbarities of the terrorists, if not even make the terrorists the
    heroes of this filth. One can only pray that the real people who are
    responsible for our safety have some testicles instead of these
    teary-eyed freaks that can’t seem to shoot a water pistol without
    breaking down sobbing. An incredible low point for Aaron Paul’s career,
    he should be ashamed to allow himself to portray such an unmitigated
    wimp. I truly, truly hope that all responsible for producing this
    garbage get treated to the thank-you’s of Al-Shabaab some day.

  • keith reissSeptember 4, 2016Reply

    Well done, but trash.

    This film depicts the horror of a single death in the process of
    removing a significant cell of terrorists. The notion is as trite as
    could possibly be. And as inappropriate is it could be. I suppose the
    film makers would have us give the evil doers a free hand. The operate
    in civilian areas and of course we should not attack them (at all).
    That is the pathetic message. Alas, the allies would not have won the
    war against the Germans or the Japanese given such a ridiculous
    precept. And the teary USAF UAV flight controller gals was another
    demeaning element of this flick. Obviously innocent life matters, but
    the greater purpose of protecting civilization from evil intending
    domination trumps the bleeding heart point of view. Do not wast your
    time with this!

  • SnoopyStyleSeptember 5, 2016Reply

    complicated morality of modern war

    Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren) leads a British operation to
    capture valuable Al-Shabaab terrorists in Kenya who are British
    citizens. It’s a global effort with a US drone operated out of Vegas
    and monitored in Pearl Habor. There are local government operatives
    with state-of-the-art naturalistic drones camouflaged as a humming bird
    and a beetle. Lieutenant General Frank Benson (Alan Rickman) guides a
    group of British government leaders. The suspected terrorists leave for
    a Al-Shabaab controlled slum where the government military is reluctant
    to deploy. Soon, surveillance finds the group preparing suicide bomb
    vests and the mission escalates. After much debate, the kill order is
    given but USAF pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) sees a little girl
    selling bread.

    Director Gavin Hood tackles the complicated morality of the modern war.
    The politicians debate. Their hand wringing is tough to watch. The
    legal arguing is frustrating. It depicts the global disconnected nature
    of today’s war as well as the guys on the ground level. Barkhad Abdi
    does another ethnic Somali character as a Kenyan agent. There are a
    couple of things I would alter. There is no need to concentrate on the
    little girl living or dying. Leaving it unknown would have been much
    more compelling. Also Aaron Paul should not be playing a rookie. It
    would be more compelling for a veteran to demand additional assessment.
    It hints for deeper meaning. They’re minor alterations that are not

  • EternalkidSeptember 7, 2016Reply

    Politically-driven GARBAGE

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • leonblackwoodSeptember 18, 2016Reply

    Full of intensity and drama! 5/10

    Review: I quite enjoyed the intensity throughout this movie, and I’m
    sure that the subject matter and overall outcome, will rise a debate
    from its fellow viewers. Colonel Katherine Powell (Helen Mirren), is
    quite a radical officer, who sends commands to 2 other officers, Steve
    Watts (Aaron Paul) and Carrie Gershon (Phoebe Fox), who are controlling
    drones, which are set to take out a group of terrorists. The only
    problem is that there is a young girl selling bread in the area, so the
    question is, do you take out the terrorists, which will damage the
    young girl, or do you wait for her to sell the bread and leave the
    area? This is the intense part of the movie, which I quite enjoyed, and
    you have this whole politics element which seemed like each politician
    just wanted to pass the buck to each other. Whilst waiting for the
    critical commands from there superiors, Steve and Carrie are hoping
    that the girl gets out of the way so they can stop the terrorists, who
    are being armed with suicide bombs. It is a ”edge of your seat”
    storyline, which is portrayed well by the top cast but once you know
    the outcome, I can’t see people watching it time and time again. Its
    good to see different the sides of war, and the collateral damage which
    can cause such a big impact on innocent families but the question still
    remains, is one girls life really worth saving, for the cost of a group
    of suicide bombers, who can cause mass destruction! Although the movie
    is based on saving a young girl, there are much more people in the area
    who will also be damaged, or killed by the hellfire, so the movie was
    definitely an eye opener, and quite enjoyable, especially as it was
    Alan Rickman’s final movie. Enjoyable!

    Round-Up: With so many different locations, and a low budget, South
    African born, Gavin Wood, 53, done a great job putting this intense
    drama together, and he chose the right actors to play there roles. His
    previous movies include, A Reasonable Man in 1999, A Desert and
    Wilderness, Tsotsi, Rendition, X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Ender’s
    Game in 2013. He certainly has covered a few genres in his career and
    he has worked with a variety of actors, so this movie was a great
    choice, after the disappointing Ender’s Game. He showed a different
    side to Helen Mirren, who at 70 years old, is still pulling out great
    performances, and with the use of today’s technology, he was able to
    show how drones are the future of war. After sadly losing Alan Rickman,
    who died of Cancer in January 2016, it was good to see that his last
    movie was pretty decent, although he will be remembered for playing
    Hans Gruber in the original Die Hard. With Colin Firth as the producer,
    I’m sure this film will rise eyebrows and make people think how much
    Big Brother is watching.

    Budget: $13million Worldwide Gross: $19million

    I recommend this movie to people who are into their drama/war/thrillers
    starring Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, Alan Rickman, Barkhad Abdi, Iain
    Glen, Jessica Jones, Bob Chappell and Phobe Fox. 5/10

  • bob the mooSeptember 18, 2016Reply

    The narrative dramatics are a bit forced, but it still mostly works even if it never is as smart as it wants to be

    A film spent mostly in rooms with people talking to each other over
    screens hardly sounds like the most riveting thing, but mostly this
    film manages to overcome that. We have a sort of moral-maze thriller
    with a ticking clock scenario of highly desirable terrorist targets in
    one place while a drone loaded with missiles is above. If this sounds
    like a fairly easy call to make, then the film continually stumps that
    decision with some tough moral decisions (which are real on the ground,
    not theory in the plot), political shoulder-sloping, individual
    opinion, and individual morals.

    In some ways this does work, because it keeps tensions going, and it
    also encourages the viewer to think about the decisions being made.
    Truth be told though, I wanted it to be better than it was in that
    regard. Too much of the drama feels forced or overly engineered, with
    the stakes always seeming to be raised in one direction or the other.
    In doing this it also forces interesting points to become polarized to
    the extremes, and in the end it becomes a bit too simplistic in its
    delivery – with the concluding scenes and the footage under the end
    credits showing this very clearly.

    The starry cast all do well though, considering that they are mostly
    debating and talking. The standouts are Rickman’s droll delivery in his
    last on-screen performance, but more importantly is Barkhad Abdi, who
    is given the only ‘action’ of the film and is engaging in his heroics.
    All told though, the film does mostly work in the moments, but it
    pushes its narrative too far and has too much which seems forced,
    sentimental, or simplistic (or all three). Makes for a dramatic watch,
    but not one that lingers in the mind.

  • Netrapal DasSeptember 18, 2016Reply


    I watched this movie just because of our beloved and now dead Prof.
    Snape a.k.a. Alan Rickman. The movie is nothing but sham. I don’t think
    any government operates under such circumstances as shown in the movie
    let alone the US government. I don’t know maybe its just me, but the
    way this movie was presented looked very clumsy and at best
    presentable. That’s maybe because the movie had a tight budget. But
    still, one should try to at least make it worth a watch. My verdict, go
    for it if you want to, but, ditching it wont kill you either. I have
    now started finding better movies through It not
    only suggests great movies to watch, it also tells where you can watch
    the movie online.. Highly recommended.

  • Miguel NetoSeptember 23, 2016Reply

    You will never be forgotten Alan Rickman.

    Gavin Hodd is a very regular director, always stay with him behind
    foot, the image he gave X-Men Origins Wolverine, which is one of the
    films most criticized based on Hq, more Eye in the Sky it does work OK
    , since the film is OK, the cast is good, Helen Mirren great as always,
    Aaron Paul very well, it is very sad to see Alan Rickman, since this is
    your last job, and he is very well, even a sadness see that he was very
    good in this movie, his death was a big shock, Barkhad Abdi who was
    amazing in the film Captain Phillips, this very well here, I am very
    happy that he is doing more film, etc., the picture is good, the pace
    is a little slow, the script has problems, the development of the
    characters are not as good, and even with a good cast, some actors were
    well affected by the script, Eye in the Sky is a watchable movie, not
    among the best of the year, more ta far from a bad movie. Note 6.8

  • HitchcocSeptember 23, 2016Reply

    So Many Layers

    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.

  • david-546September 25, 2016Reply

    It was great! It was not so great!

    I really enjoyed this film. Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman were a
    delight to watch. There was considerable tension and suspense in the
    film. The moral ambiguity of the fog of war was fascinating. The
    supporting cast were all great in their spots. On that basis alone I’d
    highly recommend the film.

    But when one really thought about it as good as Mirren and Rickman were
    the credibility was a bit stretched that both at their age would still
    be positions like that. Mirren’s position for sure would have been
    occupied by a man (no offence to women that is just the way it is). I
    can’t imagine either the US or the Brits having that kind of moral
    ambiguity. They usually don’t seem to care a lot about collateral
    damage. They either deny the collateral damage or if caught out they
    say oops we made a mistake and promise to investigate or they just
    dismiss it as nonsense we were killing terrorists.

    I can’t imagine those two that were playing the pilots who had to pull
    the trigger hesitating like that. They’d be court martialled. It was my
    first reaction as I said you’re kidding you can’t decide that your job
    is to pull the trigger.

    I may agree with the moral ambiguity about bombing so called terrorists
    (remember one man’s terrorist is the other man’s freedom fighter – and
    the US and Britain don’t live there – the people live there its their
    country not the US’s and Britain’s). So when you hear that the US
    bombed a hospital in Afghanistan or bombed Syrian troops and then they
    say oops we made a mistake my reaction is no you did not make a mistake
    you knew what you were doing.

    The US and Britain have got us into these wars because they want to
    control these countries. But they now are risking WW3 because of their
    desire to control and exercise hegemony over these countries. And yes
    over Russia as well. The moral ambiguities depicted in the film may
    have made for great film drama but I doubt the US and Britain really
    care. They want to win no matter what the cost in lives. The US since
    2001 have spent $4.5 trillion on the wars and cost the lives of
    millions as well as contributing to the refugee disaster. No one can
    tell me that Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria and Yemen today are
    better off today then they were under Saddam, Qaddafi and Assad and
    others. They may have been brutes but they kept things in order. Their
    mistake was to challenge US hegemony over the Mid East. But the US does
    such a great job of manipulating the population they make it sound like
    it was their fault.

    But Mirren and Rickman were a delight to watch and on that basis alone
    I enjoyed the film.

  • kosmaspOctober 5, 2016Reply

    Ground Tactics

    It’s really a tough watch and if you are more an entertainment kind of
    person, this won’t be for you. But if you like your tension filmed
    movie to have a voice, to be critical, to challenge you, to get you to
    the edge (not only of your seat). You should be aware that while this
    is fictional, it’s very likely that scenarios like this have happened
    in some form or another.

    The movie also is good at depicting it’s story in a confined space and
    a confined time, that is more than believable. Which also is true for
    the characters portrayed in this. Everyone has an agenda and everyone
    has their own ”right”. It’s tough and I wouldn’t want to have to make
    such decisions, that’s for sure.

  • adonis98-743-186503October 7, 2016Reply

    In Loving Memory of Alan Rickman

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • stevenharkerOctober 17, 2016Reply

    Exploring the consequences of modern warfare

    This film explores the morality of drone warfare and basically lets
    you, the audience, decide. I doubt if I’ll see a more gripping and
    thought provoking film this year. The director has managed to create an
    film that has many edge of the seat /fingernail biting moments about
    people located in different rooms around the world talking to each
    other on telephones and looking at computer screens. The bad guys are
    the bad guys, no question but everything else is shades of grey. Helen
    Mirren disproves any notion that women are the weaker sex. Alan
    Rickman, in his last role, brilliantly shows his talent with a
    collection of dry one liners that add a satirical layer to the film. He
    also gets the chance to deliver possibly the best put-down speech to
    politician. Basically, you’ve got the Brit, American and Kenyan
    military plus the terrorists. Then you’ve got the local Kenyan people
    just trying to survive. You could argue that the American politicians
    are shown as being gung-ho whilst their Brit counterparts come across
    as not having a pair of balls/ backbone between them but both the Brit
    and American military are shown as real three dimensional people,
    especially the drone pilots. One of whom has only just qualified. They
    are all aware of the consequences of their actions. For the drone
    pilots this isn’t simply a more elaborate video game and, although
    physically remote, through technology they are arguably closer to the
    the target than many other soldiers in a war zone. Go watch it and make
    up your own mind about the rights and wrongs of drone warfare.

  • zafar142007October 29, 2016Reply

    A tight suspense thriller about drone strikes and their impact

    The film peers through the eyes of a military drone and mulls about
    ‘Collateral Damage Estimates’ (CDE). The film-makers have done a good
    job in showing the nature of drone strikes from the viewpoints of most
    involved parties–the collaterals, the generals, the drone pilots, the
    CDE soldiers, the politicians and the soldiers on the ground. Such an
    intense buildup from all parties needs a compelling climax, and the
    movie does not disappoint. The subplots involving the Kenyan
    population–children mainly–are realistic, well acted and blend subtly
    into the urgency of the mission. You root for the girl with the Hula
    hoop. Alan Rickman’s last role as a general is done with the usual
    perfect dialogue delivery and poise.

    Overall, a watchable film about the heart of the contemporary topic of
    drone strikes.

  • eddie_bagginsNovember 8, 2016Reply

    A tense look at modern warfare

    War as we know it has changed forever. Forget in your face battles or
    skilled pilots taking to the skies, now it’s all about warfare from
    afar and most importantly to modern day capabilities, drone warfare in
    which someone sitting in the comfort of an office chair deep in the
    dusty plains of Nevada can lay waste to 100’s on the other side of the
    world and all they need is a few gaming skills and hand eye

    This aspect of modern warfare has been touched upon in such films as
    Andrew Niccol’s Good Kill and now with Gavin Hood’s Eye in the Sky (one
    of the years sleeper hits) the aspect of drones in the war playing
    field and also the increasing political red tape surrounding such tools
    of destruction, comes to the forefront in this often impressive but
    equally so frustrating white knuckle thriller that takes place over the
    space of a couple of tension riddled hours.

    Offering an insight into how operations are often run these days, the
    task at hand in Eye in the Sky showcases a joint operation between
    England, America and on the ground officers in Africa, Hood’s film
    starts off in a somewhat disorientating fashion as we’re thrust from
    place to place and character to character before his film finds its
    groove in the middle section to make us feel as though we to are part
    of this operation to take down wanted terrorist figures before they set
    about enacting more acts of terror of the world.

    In amongst the team tasked with leading this operation to success is
    Helen Mirren’s stoic and determined British Colonel Katherine Powell
    and Mirren handles proceedings as well as to be expected although she
    is outshone by the late Alan Rickman in his final live action role as
    the equally determined Lieutenant General Frank Benson and Aaron Paul
    as American drone pilot with a conscience Steve Watts. It’s a tricky
    balancing act for Hood to juggle all these components and while Eye in
    the Sky offers some intriguing moral questions the tale is often
    frustrating in execution (although this could be on purpose considering
    the infuriating nature on getting clearance from everyone on
    everything) and its emotional manipulation involving a poor bread
    selling child is a fairly weak way to get a point across.

    Falling somewhere between a quality Hollywood thriller and an upper
    market BBC tele-film, Eye in the Sky opens the viewers eyes to drone
    warfare and our world climate but you can’t help but feel as though
    there’s still a further quintessential drone film to be made despite
    the experienced casts best efforts to elevate the material here.

    3 bad prawns out of 5

  • chowdarobNovember 12, 2016Reply

    Politically Correct Hogwash

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • jtindahouseNovember 17, 2016Reply

    Focus is what makes it great

    Often films like this try to do too much. They dart from country to
    country, character to character and story to story. It’s almost
    impossible to keep up with all the plot lines and character motivations
    and story arcs. At the beginning of ‘Eye in the Sky’ I thought it was
    going to fall into that same trap. But instead it was simply setting up
    elements for one story. And it resulted in a very fine film.

    There’s an ensemble cast at play here and they all perform
    exceptionally well. Helen Mirren is the lead role, if you had to pick
    one. I read that her character was originally intended for a man. I can
    understand why, as I watched I kept thinking this was a very tough and
    cold-hearted woman we were witnessing here. She pulled it off perfectly
    though. The real star of the show though, in his last ever live-action
    role, was Alan Rickman. The man could act. His line delivery truly sets
    him apart. An amazing talent that will be sadly missed.

    What makes this a great movie is that it’s immensely simple, and yet
    intricately complicated all at once. The audience is always kept in the
    loop. Every decision a character has to make, is also a decision the
    audience is silently having to make in their own head at the same time.
    It’s a hard-hitting film that makes no apologies for what it is. I
    absolutely loved this film and am very glad I got the chance to see it.
    One not to be missed.

  • FreakNumberOneNovember 22, 2016Reply

    Manipulative, intellectually dishonest, cowardly

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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.

  • germtan-52947December 2, 2016Reply


    The review by malmukman totally nailed this movie and all the ”ethical
    questions” around it. We’re in a real war. No military personnel fights
    a war like the way it was portrayed in this movie. The military does
    not target the innocent and yes, there is collateral damage. But
    terrorists DO target the innocent.

    This movie makes the military look ridiculous. They are trained to
    engage in war. They know that and while I’m sure it breaks hearts to
    see innocent people die, they know their actions will save more lives.

    I’m not sure what the purpose of this movie was other than to spread

    If you want a suspense military action terrorist movie, watch Zero Dark
    30. That’s an honest to God realistic way we have to fight the war on

  • hecklDecember 7, 2016Reply

    The ultimate 1st world problem

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • davideo-2December 18, 2016Reply

    Hugely rewarding military/political thriller

    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

    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. *****

  • Mr-FusionDecember 21, 2016Reply

    Good luck taking your eyes off of this one

    I had a good reason for seeing ”Eye in the Sky” and it certainly wasn’t
    because it’s a drone warfare movie. I mean, how exciting could that
    possibly be, especially with almost everyone tied down to a desk.
    That’s where the real surprise comes in because this is riveting; a
    taut nail-biter that never fails to keep eyes on the screen. I greatly
    enjoyed this. As a Hollywood movie, I’d recommend this to anyone.

    That’s less so for its political commentary, which I think is actually
    pretty muddy. I’m not sure where I stand on that. I don’t think drone
    engagements are so cut-and-dried, but it makes for hearty moralizing.
    But I also don’t want to send the wrong message about the politics.
    This isn’t ”They Live” or ”Red Dawn” and I think that one can still
    walk away from this movie with their views left unscathed. It’s just
    that the presence of that one little girl feels contrived in a dramatic
    narrative sense.

    Regardless of all of that, this is clearly made by the performances of
    its cat, which is uniformly solid. Which brings us to the reason this
    came over my radar in the first place. This is the final performance of
    Alan Rickman; and while he doesn’t have the room-staling freedom of
    type-A Helen Mirren, he was my favorite aspect. Not just that voice,
    but the very gravity of his presence. This was a fine note to go out
    on. Godspeed, sir.


  • glilleyDecember 25, 2016Reply

    A little hard to take seriously

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • WildBullWriterDecember 31, 2016Reply

    A stunning movie in every way, and highly recommended

    A stunning movie. Surely one of the best I’ve seen this year, certainly
    in the top 10, or even the top 5. It deeply delves into the military
    and political processes underlying drone warfare, but does so in a
    highly dramatic and highly personal way by focusing on one instance of
    use, told from the points of views of all those involved, both directly
    and indirectly (that is, those who will be labeled as ”collateral
    damage”). What is equally stunning to me is that I accidentally
    stumbled across this movie, had heard nothing about it until I saw it
    listed here on Amazon Prime. That the movie has not been in the front
    of public discussion (both cinematic and political discussion) is
    alarming, actually, for that indicates how little thought is being
    given to the this major change in warfaring strategy and its impact on
    both the military people executing it and the human beings directly
    impacted. It is superb in every way: the writing, the acting, the
    directing, the producing, the camera work, etc. I highly recommend the
    movie to everyone.

  • MohrwynJanuary 1, 2017Reply

    Impressive – very impressive

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • (gsygsy)January 6, 2017Reply

    Good, but could have been better

    Serious, compelling but perhaps over-schematic thriller concerning the
    ethics of warfare.

    Although the drone technology on display is up-to-date, the movie
    itself is redolent of American ‘moral debate’ films made after the
    Second World War. ‘TWELVE ANGRY MEN’ is probably the most famous, but
    the one that came to mind when watching ‘EYE IN THE SKY’ was John
    Frankenheimer’s equally taut ‘SEVEN DAYS IN MAY about a military coup
    threatening the White House, in which the arguments pro and con are
    represented by characters played by Burt Lancaster and Kirk Douglas.
    Here we have more participants, more points of view to take into
    account before Helen Mirren, in command of the military operation, can
    give the order to Aaron Paul for a lethal strike on an enemy.

    The issues are presented clearly, as is the jockeying for primacy. But
    the clarity is, perhaps deliberately, a distancing factor. It prevents
    emotional engagement, which the filmmakers then try to recover through
    non-stop music and heartbeat sound effects. The result is a bit of a
    muddle artistically.

    However, the movie is expertly filmed and edited. It is definitely
    worth seeing, not least because it is Alan Rickman’s final screen
    performance, and he is absolutely brilliant .

  • Gordon-11January 11, 2017Reply


    This film tells the story of an urgent military and diplomatic
    situation, where two suicidal bombers are observed by aerial
    surveillance to be ready to attack. The military officials and
    government officials from both the United States and the United Kindgom
    try the hardest to untangle themselves from the legal and diplomatic
    challenges in the shortest time frame, in order to stop the suicidal
    bombing from happening.

    ”Eye in the Sky” shows mostly shots in a briefing room or in a street
    corner somewhere in Nairobi in Kenya. Despite the mostly limited
    locations, the story is well composed and well told, making it very
    suspenseful and thrilling. The constant debate, both in the film and in
    the viewers minds are palpable, as everyone try to assess the urgency
    of the situation and assess which is the lesser of the evil. Moral
    issues are at stake as well, making the assessment even more complex. I
    think ”Eye in the Sky is very engaging and captivating.

  • Daniel LiangJanuary 13, 2017Reply

    Very Captivating and Intriguing

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Leofwine_dracaJanuary 15, 2017Reply

    Surprisingly suspenseful morality play

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • bleak93January 21, 2017Reply

    truth vs fiction

    Eye in the Sky, while well acted and well made for a Holly Wood movie,
    is far too one-sided to be taken as anything resembling reality in
    recent years. Given the fact that most order-following cowards sitting
    behind their super gaming consoles will ”prosecute” (quite the
    euphemism for what is full-on MURDER) anyone who they’re told to ”take
    out” by their commander/owners at the drop of a pay check makes this
    movie misleading and very close to propaganda and indoctrination.
    Still, it does portray the unethical, narcissistic, morally vacant ”top
    brass” somewhat accurately which gives it some merit.

    There are only two characters on the Western side in this movie who
    know the difference between what is morally Right and what is morally
    and ethically Wrong. While a third comes close, he/she doesn’t have the
    conviction to say NO. You’ll have to watch it for yourself and decide
    who I’m talking about. Calling someone a ”soldier” who is not in actual
    combat (or the imminence of combat) where his/her life is being
    threatened by the enemy is language abuse and mind-control and the Alan
    Rickman character has no business make the claim he makes at the end.

    But the movie does show that murdering innocent women and children at
    the behest of psychopathic ”commanders” will take it’s toll on their
    souls. At least it should. No wonder so many order followers have PTSD
    and/or commit suicide. IF THEY EVER learn the difference between Right
    and Wrong and FINALLY decide to say NO when told to do something they
    know, in good conscience, is Wrong, then they will have taken their
    first right step forward in their spirits’ evolution toward the higher
    planes of existence. And the world will be that much better for their
    bravery. If not, well congratulations for making the world a safer
    place for billionaires and trillionaires. Nice job. Well done!

    ”41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes” ~The
    Guardian, 11/24/14 (which means those are very conservative numbers
    then and now). Ask any Pakistani wedding party what they think of
    drones. Unless they’ve all been blown to bloody shreds by someone
    sitting a thousand miles away and so therefore are unable to respond,
    they’ll tell you that they’re scared stupid and their government won’t
    do anything about them because the CIA has their government in it’s
    pockets. Yeah, pretty damn brave order-following there.

  • alindsay-alJanuary 25, 2017Reply

    A good film that looks into the morality of war

    After watching the film good kill a few years ago I thought that drone
    strike films didn’t have anything interesting to show but I actually
    ended up quite liking eye in the sky. The premise of this film sees a
    military commander try to get approval to launch a drone strike even
    though there is a potential high risk of casualty. Helen mirren plays
    the military commander in this film and she is really good in this
    film, she has allot of edge to her character and you have sympathy
    because she is really put in a no win situation. Her character can come
    across as a bit antagonistic in this film but I take it as a leader
    under the stress of this highly volatile situation. Aaron Paul plays
    the drone controller in this film and he possibly gives his best ever
    performance in this film, considering he is just sat looking at a
    screen for the majority of the film he really delivers a strong
    performance that makes you care about his character and situation. This
    is the last ever live action performance from the amazing Alan rickman
    as he plays the military director In this film an like usual he is
    great in this film. He adds allot to his character in this film and his
    delivery of his lines sometimes sends chills down your spine. Barkhad
    Abdi from captain Phillips and Ian glen from game of thrones are both
    in this film in slightly smaller roles but they are both really good in
    this in their roles. The story has a really interesting take on digital
    warfare and you see the different points of views being displayed as
    you pretty much understand all of them. Unfortunately, this film has so
    much going on with different characters from all over the world that it
    can become a bit confusing and a bit too much to follow or care about.
    The script has some decent dramatic and humorous dialogue but none of
    it stands out as being very memorable and it doesn’t help elevate any
    of the characters. The style of this film is a bit of an odd one, the
    last 20/30 minutes of this film is some of the most intense thrilling
    scenes I have seen in recent memory that had me biting my nails. But
    the first 30\45 minutes is some of the most boring cinema I have seen
    in recent memory an I swear I almost fell asleep. I ended up enjoying
    eye in the sky and think if you like some intense drone strike films
    then you should probably watch this film.

  • kraftkarenFebruary 20, 2017Reply

    The Wages of Dithering Are Depression

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • eddiesterlingFebruary 23, 2017Reply

    Yet another waste of my time

    Hand-wringing; lip quivering; teary-eyed; worthy twaddle. And strangely
    devoid of tension. Heaven help us … if our security was in the hands
    of such duffers there would be little hope for the civilized world. I
    suppose I should have been alerted when I saw Helen Mirren was in a
    leading role. Won’t get fooled again …

  • bowmanblueMarch 2, 2017Reply

    A ‘war movie’ for modern times

    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.

  • molsmith13March 4, 2017Reply

    Deeper Issues

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • doxxman5March 22, 2017Reply

    the POV of a flying drone

    Eye in the Sky is a great modern war movie about the horror of how easy
    it is to kill in this day and age. We are flown thought the eyes of
    robots the size of roaches or dragonflies, armed with microphones the
    size of ants and equipped with bombs that can be detonated from half
    way across the world. The horror is not that we have enemies that are
    trying to overthrow our government, the horror is in that human
    decision making can be irrational and one tiny mistake could set off a
    chain of events that could very well send the world into chaos. All we
    can trust is our conscience and to know when to aid a person who has
    lost what it means to be human.

  • Kim AlsosApril 16, 2017Reply

    Crybaby soldiers!

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • JamesApril 22, 2017Reply

    Powerful, much-needed, immaculately-good storytelling and presentation

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • Fallen EyeMay 10, 2017Reply

    Man Made Gods.

    *** This review may contain spoilers ***

  • eeerwin3May 25, 2017Reply


    The movie teaches you how officials take way too much precaution before
    launching drone attacks. Innocent casualties are unfortunately
    unavoidable and they are totally justified. Next time you see mass
    murder by drones you should know that this was carefully evaluated and
    was ultimately the right thing to do. Disturbingly obvious that this is
    US/UK propaganda.

Leave a comment

Name *
Add a display name
Email *
Your email address will not be published