BootDigest Such a frustrating disappointment

JinRoz For all the hype it got I was expecting a lot more!

Suman Roberson It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

bobfromdorset Forget the lowly rated reviews condemning this enactment of a serious subject! The main story is to demonstrate just how many radicalized Muslims are active in what is still thought of as a civilized country.....kenya. This film requires attention from the off and delivers through excellent direction and generally brilliant acting. It demonstrates that obstacles can be overcome but sometimes at a cost that isn't acceptable to everyone especially liberals most of whom need a wake up call as to whats occurring and the consequence of inaction.

jeremy3 Although not very realistic, the film asks very compelling moral questions. A British Colonel (Helen Mirren) is placed in charge of ordering two American pilots to strike a house in Kenya filled with known terrorists. The problem comes in the face of an innocent girl who is selling bread to feed her family, and that there is at least "a sixty percent chance" she will be killed if the house is struck by a missile. Because the terrorists have strapped themselves with bombs to commit an act of terrorism after leaving the house, a moral battle ensues. Some members of the British and American Governments and Militaries are supportive of striking the house, while others do not want to risk killing the little girl. Progressively, higher ups to the American Secretary of State and the Prime Minister are suggested to be consulted because no one knows what decision to make. The British Colonel decides to manipulate "kill ratio" by having the possibility of the girl being killed as low as "45%" in one spot of the house. The strike is finally made and the girl is killed. The British Colonel disobeys the wishes of the British Government to have a British woman who married one of the terrorists captured, and orders the British woman in the house to be killed by another missile. There were a number of flaws in the movie. Firstly, a pilot would not be able to refuse an order to launch the missile. Secondly, the British Colonel is portrayed so evilly that she starts to side track the message of the movie. Lastly, nothing is mentioned about the fact that the Kenyan Army is on stand by and could easily have seized the vehicle that the terrorists were in when they left the house. Still, I have to say it was a good movie that asked tough questions. There is no doubt that these extremists are very bad people and a danger to all around. Yet, launching a missile is not an exact science. It cannot be predicted exactly how much damage will be caused. More importantly, these terrorists are operating around a lot of innocent people. It is a tragedy seeing innocent people killed in war, and never easy. Lastly, pilots have to deal with the realities. The two pilots were from opposite ends of the country, and had never participated in a combat mission. At the end, they both have only twelve hours to report back to duty. We never find out what happens after that, but either the pilots will just serve out their duties or grow from their experience. These terrorists are really bad and dangerous people, but lots of innocent people die wars. Hopefully, this movie will make people think seriously about reality and that can only help themselves grow in understanding what war is. It is the individual's choice how to respond.

proud_luddite A British military operation works with the U.S. and Kenya to prevent a suicide bombing by known terrorists in Nairobi. The efforts for a drone attack are thwarted as an innocent nearby civilian could possibly be killed in the attack."Eye in the Sky" is neither pro-war nor anti-war. Or maybe it could be called both. The various arguments on all sides are compelling and credible. The viewer feels as conflicted as most of the characters in the film.There are two characters who have no qualms on where they stand. On one side is a British military colonel (Helen Mirren) who believes the attack should go ahead regardless of civilian casualties. On the other side is a British political official (Monica Dolan) who believes there must be no risk at all of civilians being killed. (Interestingly, these characters never confront each other.) In between is everyone else in the military, political and legal spectrums who debate the dilemma: is it okay for a small number of innocents to be killed if it can prevent more innocents to be killed later on? Despite some extreme views, the viewer rarely if ever feels judgment toward any of the characters. Their humanness is real.As decisions must be made quickly due to time constraints, "Eye in the Sky" is a thriller. It could also be considered a suspense where one of the mysteries is who is right and who is wrong. Guy Hibbert's screenplay is very rich in its moral questions, making this film's story superior to the many other military films of recent years. It includes a relevant topic and very powerful dialogue. Even the details of fundamentalist bullies in Nairobi are subtle with their impact. It is also notable for showing a believable (and non-propagandistic) human side to those in the military who must make extremely difficult decisions.Director Gavin Hood keeps the tension alive with astute skill. The detailed use of advanced spying technology is also thrilling. In addition to Mirren and Dolan, the rest of the cast contribute greatly to this fine production especially the late, great Alan Rickman. In the final scene, he delivers a line that is the perfect conclusion for a great film.OUTSTANDING ACHIEVEMENT: Screenplay by Guy Hibbert

peter-26111 Good acting but so over the top in terms of moral dilemmas Don't want to spoil things but very unrealistic especially when military men start to challenge direct orders