Eye in the Sky (2016)

[Rick Kitchen]

I knew this film was going to be good because Helen Mirren is in it playing a kick ass character, and it's Alan Rickman's last live action film.  They both do excellent work.  And Aaron Paul has a great role as well.

 

Lots of interesting philosophical questions.  Do you take out potential suicide bombers who will likely kill tens of innocent civilians, but in the process, innocent civilians might die as well??

 

The political buck-passing was humorous as well as frustrating.  And I loved the spy devices they had.

 

[NoWillToResist]

I knew this film was going to be good because Helen Mirren is in it playing a kick ass character, and it's Alan Rickman's last live action film.  They both do excellent work.  And Aaron Paul has a great role as well.

 

Lots of interesting philosophical questions.  Do you take out potential suicide bombers who will likely kill tens of innocent civilians, but in the process, innocent civilians might die as well??

 

The political buck-passing was humorous as well as frustrating.  And I loved the spy devices they had.

 

I was completely on board with the strike (though of course it sucks that the little girl would have been a casualty) and the female politician was annoying the ever-loving hell out of me. However, one line of hers really made me say "hey, wait a minute, she has a point" and that was when she pointed out that they were talking about firing a missile and likely killing innocent civilians in a country with which they were not at war.

 

I also appreciated that they were likely fucked either way; if they don't strike and the bombers kill a bunch of people, they'd be damned in the court of public opinion (assuming the info went public) but if they do strike and the little girl dies, the terrorists can use that as a recruiting tool. That is a sticky political situation.

 

While I still thought the strike was necessary (greater good for the greater number), I was really intrigued at all the different angles the decision could be viewed from (political, social, military, propaganda, legal, ethical...).

 

I was pleased to see that the female characters covered a range of attitudes about the attack (the US politician(?) who was all DO IT!, the new military recruit who cried through most of it, Helen Mirren who didn't particularly like it but was determined to do it, and the UK politician who was against it).

 

And Alan Rickman killed it. He covered such a range of emotions. Utter loss and confusion at the dolls in the toy store ("apparently there's a difference?"), disdain and an "I'm surrounded by idiots" tone when dealing with people in power who won't make a fucking decision, quiet judgement when he rhetorically announced in the room that he hoped the entire mission wasn't being held up because the one obstacle was a little girl (i.e. if it were an adult male, would the same objections exist?), and quiet rage when telling the lady UK politician to never presume to lecture a soldier on not knowing the cost of war. Damn I miss that man. :(

[Browncoat]

I miss that man, too.  He was so great and nuanced in this role.

I really enjoyed this movie -- as much as you can enjoy a movie such as this one.  I was on the edge of my seat, but at the same time was pro-strike.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one, after all.

That said, I cared about all of the characters.  I cared about the little girl, and the guy from Captain Phillips, and the "eyes in the sky" remotely controlling the drone.  I don't think I ever really thought about the reality of PTSD from a remote operation, but something like that would haunt me.

The little spy tools were cool, too, though the battery life on those needs to be improved....