Eye in the Sky

If it weren't so long and were basically shortened to just the finale, the last half hour, it would be great, and it would be intense. But this way, the message gets lost in the layer of unnecessary baggage, which is kind of meaningless. However, I liked that the filmmakers decided to go for a grittier ending rather than some kind of American happy ending. (23.08.2016)

The military rhetoric conveyed by Gavin Hood is clear, snappy and lucid, but it’s hard to say to what extent it is realistic, but it’s got pace and the build-up is good. If it weren't for the clichéd element in the middle of the film, this would have been a solid spy drama that combines some interesting attributes. Firstly, technological gadgets of all kinds, but also a political-legal level and a probe into the powers of political leaders. Alan Rickman is superb and Helen Mirren is good in a surprising badass role. I was also pleased with the fact that they got down to business and didn't just talk. (24.01.2017)

Gavin Hood surprised me with his excellent work on X-Men Origins: Wolverine, so I was curious to see how he would handle a film set in a war environment. I think he succeeded brilliantly. The cast is exceptionally strong, with Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman delivering brilliant performances. Aaron Paul has only a supporting role, but he showed that he has acting talent. It’s true that fans of action moments and shootouts won’t find many such scenes here, but that’s not what this film is about. The film highlights the political decisions that are constantly made during war. Because of that, it was very interesting, as there aren’t many films on this topic. I give it 80%. (06.07.2016)

An interestingly conceived anti-terrorist film. I guess the reason why it was so different was that it was British. Helen Mirren nailed her character perfectly, as she always does. Alan Rickman and Jeremy Northam were equally excellent, and I really enjoyed the story itself. The shifting of political responsibility between ministers was really well-portrayed. The best thing about the whole film was the lack of melodrama that I would have been faced with if it had been an American production. (20.02.2017)

Capturing of a wannabe global bureaucratic (and political) process precedes a possible counter-terrorist drone attack on the territory of a friendly state, when it is necessary to make Sofia's choice whether to strike despite the casualties of the civilian death toll. Time is running fast, the tension is growing, politicians are trying to get rid of responsibility, participants are having twinges of conscience, a higher principle is starts to play important role. The start was perfect and the first half is flawless. But there is one weak point. Namely, the more the footage is advancing the less distance Hood keeps and the movie starts being too emotional in a forced, cheap and unnecessary way. Seemingly cold or even depersonalized purely procedural approach would be much more appropriate, because in this way the movie explicitly says to the viewer what he/she should think and feel. And at the end of the day it would be much more impressive and chilling in a way Greengrass or Lindholm does it if done differently. In any case, it's a decent war drama, which, despite the fact that everyone is sitting all the time, has a furious pace, you won't get bored and it has something to say (it just says it too literally). They could have taken more out of the topic than only a "decent war drama", but to achieve that someone else than Hood, who has no style and likes routine, should have been behind the camera. (09.07.2016)