Drones

Not too many movies really make me think. This one did.

I don't know what motivated the people that made this film, but their work stuck me much deeper than I expected.

The main characters are two soldiers in a military installation where they are assigned to man a drone spy plane. They are searching for the "enemy" and when they find one the drone is equipped with weapons to "take them out." That's their job; find 'em and kill 'em. All with the push of a button.

Causing collateral damage (killing innocent civilians) is supposed to be just another part of the job. After all, the good outweighs the bad because the people they kill, will themselves kill even more innocents - think 911 - if they're not stopped.

This is a new form of warfare. In the "old days" you just dropped a bomb from the sky and never saw the people you incinerated. But now, super high definition cameras display the faces of the people you are about to turn into human hamburger on your computer monitor; up close and personal.

The drone team think they have spotted a super enemy. A high ranking member of the Al-Qaeda that is a must kill. There's only one problem: there are a house full of innocents at the same location. This includes women and children; even a baby.

Conscience begins to surface. Do they kill a dozen innocents to get this one enemy, or not? Think about what you know of Nazi soldiers who explained their actions by saying they were "just following orders."

The find and kill operation takes two people to complete. One cannot fire the kill shot without the other being in compliance. Listen to the kill or don't kill conversation between our two soldiers. Ask yourself the same questions that they ask. What would you do?

Don't get me wrong. I support the military. I am grateful for the men and women that have made the decision to; if necessary, lay down their lives to defend and protect this country. That means your life, my life, and the lives of all the people we know and love. Many heroic men and women have already laid down their lives in the service of their country. They deserve to be honored, they deserve our respect, they deserve our gratitude. They have mine.

But this film raises moral questions about how we fight Al-Qaeda that did not exist when we fought our enemies of the past. Push button warfare. How much "collateral damage" is acceptable? Is it acceptable at all? Is there a point of depreciating returns where we become as bad; or even worse than our enemies?

Take a look at the IMDb listing of the "stars" of this film. See who is ranked first, second and third. There is a reason for it.

There might be admittedly a deeper message in this movie - but the way it is presented (cover etc) one might wait for an action/war movie.

Instead your getting a discussion between two very dull characters sitting in a container, watching a video screen - in feature length. Under pretense of coolness the actors try (and fail) to transport any kind of feeling/reaction.

No action whatsoever, this seems to be some kind of no-budget movie which isn't even very ambitious. The storyline is so predictable that one could stop watching after 10 minutes without missing anything.

If I had watched this in cinema, I would have left after half an hour.

Not an action movie!

I tend to like movies with onion layers to their central conflict, and this one did have them. It was not well written or acted though. Echoing the opening scene of WarGames, the movie explores the well- trodden dramatic area of 'orders versus morality' found so often in movies such as A Few Good Men.

Better Dialogue, character development, and acting would add to this and crank up the tension. The perfect soldier (trainee) was difficult to believe as having moral qualms. The fundamental difference between warfare with piloted versus drone aircraft (in harm's way) was all but ignored with more of a focus on collateral damage. Well, F22's kill innocents too, so I have trouble understanding why the trainee has reservations. Assuming her strong education, not only in the military, but in theories of war and government, she should have come to grips with "following orders" long before she was put into this situation. The senior pilot (trainer) was a reasonable 1-dimensional character as the pizza- eating, video-gaming pilot that had no care in the world. The character growth and changes in point of view during the movie is sudden and slightly inexplicable. Additionally, the contact with the chain of command and the lack of support from the military for this pair of drone pilots was unbelievable.

As all of the action takes place in a desert trailer, this movie would be better-suited to a stage presentation.

Overall I enjoyed this film. It's got a good feel to it in terms of suspense.

Unfortunately, it's also a load of crap. There are no shortage of movies out there that were created for the sole purpose of making a political point. Some of them are even pretty good. But in order to make a good point, it's important to argue from a standpoint of reality.

This movie steps aside from reality to make the assertion that the U.S. military cares not a lick for civilian casualties. They quite literally state it in plain English, they even go as far as saying that the rules of engagement support the execution of positively identified non-combatants.

Do I really need to explain that this assertion is really just ridiculous in the extreme? I'm sure many here will defend this movie by saying we've done our share of civilian killing. While this is unhappily true, I will retort back to you that it did not happen like this. This particular example is really a stretch.

Aside from their open disdain for the U.S. military, the writers make use of just about every philosophical and ethical argument for and against the use of drones. Is it really fair to wage war by pushing buttons? Is any sort of collateral civilian damage acceptable? Especially if we know about it ahead of time? Are we making asses of ourselves by using drones? Just how much obeisance are our soldiers required to give? Is there any heroism or shame left in our way of combat? And if so, is there any glory left in being a soldier? These are important questions that our new way of combat is forcing us to come to grips with. This movie would be a good one for class discussion, or to list the concerns involving drones for research and investigation.

I applaud the makers for artfully and seamlessly making use of each ethical dilemma in their story.

I also applaud the actors. In a movie like this, which can only be described as a psychological thriller, acting is the most important quality of the film. A range of emotions and believable characterizations are required, and both of our lead actors played the parts very well in my opinion.

Despite that, I'm giving the film a score of only 7. I feel that the writers could have come up with a more believable reaction to the scenario. The reaction of the upper brass in particular just seemed unreal. Also, as I said before, this film reeks of open disdain for the military. It's OK to hate the military, but don't expect that your movie will be good if you let those feelings pour into your work. If you want to promote philosophical discussion, you need to remain objective. Otherwise, your work becomes propaganda instead.

This modern military drama reminded me of By Dawn's Early Light and Lebanon. In all three, we watch a military crew in charge of a combat vehicle who have some serious decisions to make based on limited evidence. The consequences for not using deadly force could be just as disastrous as using it, to potential casualties and also to the careers and even the freedom of the actors involved. In all 3 films, we are limited to only seeing and knowing what the people in the bomber, the tank, or in this case the drone control shed can see and hear. The atmosphere becomes ever more intense as the consequences of their choices become less and less possible to avoid. There are some technical shortcomings to the film, such as background music that often overpowers the actors' voices. I was still quite impressed with the plausibility of the situation, even if the exact circumstances of the setting are an extreme example of brinkmanship and interpersonal conflict that could most likely only appear in a script. The dialog is authentic enough to pass muster. There are no obvious plot holes, and both characters seem to be trying their very best to do the right thing ethically while considering the awful, irreversibly life altering consequences of being wrong. Worth seeing and worth thinking about, because war is always messy and soldiers will always have to make life and death decisions based on disturbingly incomplete knowledge.