Eye in the Sky (2016)

[CJohn]

Discuss it

[La Binoche]

I thought this would be boring, with a lot of dull military talk/strategizing. I was wrong. The director wrings every potential moment of suspense from the story. It's incredibly tense. It puts you right in the middle of a drone missile strike and is very easy to follow. There are a couple of heavy-handed moments in an otherwise very strong film. A-

[4815162342]

Very tense, riveting, and engaging.

 

I was pleased they resisted the temptation of typcasting Barkhad Abdi as an African thug character.

[filmlover]

A taut and nail-biting thriller about the moral decisions the people calling the shots have to make in drone warfare. Abetted with strong performances from Helen Mirren, Aaron Paul, and (in one of his final appearances) Alan Rickman. A-

[Water Bottle]

Best movie of the year so far.

 

A-

[Dementeleus]

Man, this was sensational. 

[JohnnyGossamer]

Expected to like this one, not love it. Ended up enjoying  it so much that I kind of loved it. The immediacy of and weight of the decisions, the tension, the emotion, gut-punch... Didn't think Gavin Good had it in him. Outstanding. A-.

Edited June 29, 2016 by JohnnyGossamer

[The Panda]

Very shocked that this movie came out of Gavin Hood.

 

This was an incredibly powerful film about drone warfare.  While it took a good 10-20 minutes or so for me to get into the movie, once I did, I was locked in.  The dilemma is portrayed in an incredibly powerful way, leaving no clear answers on whether what happened was right or wrong.

 

I nearly teared up near the end because it really makes you feel the weight of the decision when it happens.  Not to mention the way everything is shot and shown is very well done.  The performances are also subtle and top notch, Helen Mirren and Rickman and a few others would be on my personal awards radar. 

 

I don't know if I'd sit down and watch it again, it's a heavy film and leaves you unsettled by the end.  Eye in the Sky is a fantastic take at the methods and means of modern warfare.

 

A

[Goffe]

good movie, I just don't agree with it. 60/100

[Goffe]

On 30/06/2016 at 0:34 AM, The Pandaren said:

leaving no clear answers on whether what happened was right or wrong.

 

- Colonel Powell authoritatively ordering Sergeant Saddiq to file his report as a 45% CDE. 

 

- Mass murderer terrorists removing the jeep gun to accommodate the girl and take her to the hospital.

 

- General Frank Benson last conversation with Angela, where the last shot is her crying. 

 

- Angela herself (couldn't Brian Woodale serve as the counterpoint? of course not).

 

- The hospital scene followed by the credits.

 

It did take sides, these moments/characters above makes it clear where the movie is positioned.

 

Edited July 3, 2016 by Goffe

[mdot1982]

It was surprisingly good. I feel it dragged out a little bit as though they needed to hit that 90 min mark. Some tense scenes but the ending was lackluster.

 

C+

Edited July 4, 2016 by mdot1982

[Dementeleus]

7 hours ago, Goffe said:

good movie, I just don't agree with it. 60/100

 

6 hours ago, Goffe said:

- Colonel Powell authoritatively ordering Sergeant Saddiq to file his report as a 45% CDE. 

 

- Mass murderer terrorists removing the jeep gun to accommodate the girl and take her to the hospital.

 

- General Frank Benson last conversation with Angela, where the last shot is her crying. 

 

- Angela herself (couldn't Brian Woodale serve as the counterpoint? of course not).

 

- The hospital scene followed by the credits.

 

It did take sides, these moments/characters above makes it clear where the movie is positioned.

 

 

None of these point to any definitive "side". They're just an observation that military action -- no matter how justified -- is going to have a civilian cost, and that in almost every case, most humans are, well, human. They have some capacity for compassion, regardless of what faction or side they're on. Life isn't black and white, even when it's black and white.

[Goffe]

1 hour ago, Free State of Tele said:

 

 

None of these point to any definitive "side". They're just an observation that military action -- no matter how justified -- is going to have a civilian cost, and that in almost every case, most humans are, well, human. They have some capacity for compassion, regardless of what faction or side they're on. Life isn't black and white, even when it's black and white.

 

 

I got the movie. What I meant to say was that there was a blatant manipulation going on. EitS thinks to be impartial, when in reality it really is not.

[Dementeleus]

9 minutes ago, Goffe said:

I got the movie. What I meant to say was that there was a blatant manipulation going on. EitS thinks to be impartial, when in reality it really is not.

 

Every narrative movie ever made is manipulative. EITS chose to present the moral complications that result from military action (no matter how justified), that's all.

[The Panda]

On July 3, 2016 at 9:55 PM, Goffe said:

I got the movie. What I meant to say was that there was a blatant manipulation going on. EitS thinks to be impartial, when in reality it really is not.

 

Not really, I left the movie leaning more torwards the decision that was made (with the information they gave).  And this is from somebody who went into it disagreeing with drone warfare by quite a margin.  It made me think more on the subject than I had previously.

 

Plus, why are you assuming those were murderor terrorists that assisted the girl?  From my knowledge they were militants but not terrorists.

 

The movie does a great job at showing the politics behind today's warfare, as well as how complicated it truly is.  It was one of (if not) the most impartial modern military/war films I've seen in a while.