Les yeux dans le ciel

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.

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.

One of the best films centered on the war against terrorism that integrates today's truly amazing military and intelligence technology (highlighting drones and the people who guide them to the identification and surveillance of targets, pinpoint accurate missles, and collateral damage assessments/estimating programs), and the moral, ethical, legal and political conflicts of making such decisions within the "rules of engagement" by military and political leaders (and their advisors), that are executed by military, intelligence and field personnel when there is a high-likelyhood of collateral damage.

Film succeeds without being preachy or political, amazingly leaving the film goer to both live in the shoes of each character, and decide for themselves what they would do in the situation.

It is superbly acted and directed, the movie paced well so that it thoroughly engrosses the viewer, and builds a nail-biting tension throughout the duration of the film.

I imagine the majority of people who see this film will be both awed by some of the technology military/intelligence used today (although those used in the film may not actually be available, such as the flying beetle spy-cam) , and will have a greater appreciation for the complexities of decision-making involved, and its impact on both military personnel, politicians, and civilians.

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.

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.

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 side?