Eye in the Sky review by Adrijan Arsovski - Cinema Paradiso
With questioning morals and an overall moot war message aimed at no one in particular, Eye in the Sky still manages to thrill audiences enough so they sit through a whole cinema viewing session. Its dragging decision-making part certainly doesn’t help the ordeal, but at least acknowledges that there IS an ordeal in the first place.
As we wake up every day, we witness enormous advancements in technology, how it’s used and how it shouldn’t, but the goal of war still stays the same. Now, we won’t argue about the ultimate goal for victory on the battlefield (cough: resources) – instead we’re going to ask ourselves the penultimate question: what is war and how it plays out in the life of everyone involved?
Eye in the Sky asks these questions, but it’s really hard for anyone who hasn’t seen the horrors of war with his own eyes to come up with a reasonable answer. Then again, is there a difference between ancient conflict and modern warfare?
The main difference is in the advancements of technology. Biological, tactical and even nuclear warfare impose themselves as THE elephants in the room, with world leaders avoiding in-depth discussion with the public for reasons very clear to all of us: these are tacky subjects able to inflame even the kindest of leaders by as little as a simple misunderstanding, or even errors in translation.
Eye in the Sky is everything about this, and more. It raises the question of the so-called ‘collateral damage’ conundrum, the corrupt bureaucracy of the world organizations and the inept decision-making of intelligence agents when put under pressure.
It does this by introducing three countries working side-by-side: Britain, Kenya and America whose representatives include Colonel Katherine Powell (played by Helen Mirren), Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) and Lieutenant General Frank Benson acted by the late Alan Rickman among others. All actors come as believable enough to re-ignite the audience’s interest after a prolonged decision-making part in the middle, and they succeed in doing so. Out of the bunch, perhaps Helen Mirren is the least believable in her portrayal of a high state official.
The thriller aspect of the movie comes not out of amazing action scenes and prolific explosions – rather it’s the conflict of attitudes that brings the drama to whole new heights. Time is also of the essence, and if a decision is not being made, there can be even bigger consequences than sacrificing one life to save many.
To conclude, and Eye in the Sky is a worthy film of one’s attention, regardless if one agrees with the moral sermons postulated forth all throughout the movie’s running time.