Central Intelligence serve as eye witnesses to an attack that they have disturbed, in the newest film from director Gavin Hood. “Eye in the Sky” stars Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, a brash UK-based military officer in command of a top secret drone operation to capture terrorists in Kenya. Through remote surveillance and on-the-ground intel, Powell discovers the targets are planning a suicide bombing and the mission escalates from “capture” to “kill.” Things start to get crazy for the intel officers, But as American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage in a rebuttle attack, a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone triggering an international dispute, while reaching the highest levels of US and British government, over the moral, political, and personal implications of modern warfare. The world’s deadliest secret becomes a chess match of who strikes first, leaving no officer without life-changing decisions. “Eye in the Sky” is rated R for violent images and language.
Gavin Hood has crafted a modern day masterpiece with “Eye in the Sky” that really questions the kinds of situational terrors that surround our military every day. For a movie that comes out in April, it really does render that kind of Oscar like stature to the achievements it prevails in. It’s a bone-chilling suspense train that collides with social commentary for what goes on in our own world, and the kinds of things we take for granted living where we are. Whether you are for or against war, terrorist reponse, or surveillance, the film offers all of the facts without swaying in one direction or the other. The most important aspect of the script is in the decision to follow characters who sometimes have to make the decisions that really make it difficult for us an audience to get behind. Hood’s script asks us figuratively and literally if saving one life guaranteed to die is more important than saving eighty lives hypothetically. The question might seem easy from afar, but once you allow yourself to open your eyes as a viewer of Hood’s rollercoaster of cause and effect, this question and many others showcase just how polarizing the jobs of armed service protectors are. One of my favorite choices within the movie is the showcasing of just how far the United Nations have taken their spree of surveillance on countries with terrorist activities. The best kinds of socialistic films to me are the ones the not only open the eyes of its viewers by educating them on just how far this concept has gone, but also the kind that doesn’t need to beat you over the head with expositional dialogue. We see the terror that is coming behind every reaction in this film, and because of that, Hood puts us front and center in this terrible place, thousands of miles from where the button pushers make their final verdicts.
If the movie had one slight critique from me, it comes in a first act that is very uneven with the rest of the film. That’s not to say that the pacing is bad, quite the opposite actually. The movie needs to build the suspense of the issues one layer at a time, and sometimes that means sacrificing the real intrigue of the movie for the second half. That is the case with “Eye in the Sky”. The first half hour wasn’t very appealing to me, and that is understandable, for it’s in this timeframe when the film takes us through the different branches and aspects of the military just to make the simplest of decisions. It’s very informative on the chains of command, but it will have audiences testing their patience as to whether they can keep moving forward. I could’ve also used a little more character backstory during the opening scenes. I think if we get more than brief flashes of their lives, we can understand that these are everyday people like us who are forced to make the ultimate sacrifices day in and day out. That almost second side to everyone involved would make for more of a surprise in their change of attitudes from start to finish.
When the second and third acts start dishing out one plot twist after another, this film and its cloud of tension are as good as anything I have seen so far in 2016, but there are two impeccable reasons for this. The first is a heart-pounding musical score by Paul Hepker (Rendition). Several scenes build this aura of invisible claustrophobia around us, and that’s because Hepker expands the terror unfolding before our eyes and puts it in audio form, building and building each strike of the keys before the visual explosions on screen that push our senses to their peak. Paul’s final score during the third act summarized the very consequences on-screen, and the sorrow that we feel for the people caught in the crossfires who are victims of wrong place wrong time.
The second thing comes from a timeshare of exceptional performances from a strong veteran cast. Helen Mirren captivates as this colonel who is a little too eager to always push the trigger. Her character has good intentions, but she is a victim of being in the board room for too long, so she doesn’t always see the terrors unfolding on the ground beneath her. Aaron Paul also continues to add to a stellar decade that has him expanding his acting horizons. Aaron showcased great visual reactions, and the movie uses this depth to label him as the voice of reason within this growing cast of characters. His transformation from beginning to end is something to admire and feel great apathy for by the time it’s all said and done. The best performance for me though, came from Alan Rickman and his final live action role before his untimely death this year. Rickman’s performance serves as a reminder to just how many emotions he was capable of expulsing from the audience. He could make you laugh, cry, love and hate him at the same time, and there’s so much to his role in this movie that communicates to us that this is a man who has been at the helm of this job for far too long. Rickman’s role is one of great calculation, as well as taking the lives of every citizen in his country, and deciding what is best for them. Alan plays it with a stern command, while also offering a pleasing underbelly of great sarcasm that he has been known to shine for.
Overall, “Eye in the Sky” is an independent gem in an otherwise frightening weekend of movies. I greatly recommend it for anyone who loves a good political thriller, combined with crippling drama sure to leave you in a state of great shock. It’s an ethical standstill that offers no easy answers for the questions of morality that you will have hours after reacting to the final blow.
9/10