Eye In the SkyHD
Open iTunes to preview, buy, and download this movie.
About the Movie
Eye in the Sky stars Helen Mirren as Colonel Katherine Powell, a 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.” But as American pilot Steve Watts (Aaron Paul) is about to engage, a nine-year old girl enters the kill zone, triggering an international dispute reaching the highest levels of US and British government over the moral, political, and personal implications of modern warfare.
Rotten Tomatoes Movie Reviews
- Reviews Counted: 180
- Fresh: 171
- Rotten: 9
- Average Rating: 7.5/10
Top Critics' Reviews
Fresh: It's a lean, Lumet-like thriller that puts the moral calculus of drone warfare in its crosshairs.
Fresh: Eye in the Sky is compelling, offering the best elements of a drama and a thriller.
Fresh: Eye in the Sky is disturbing, but it's also balanced and ambivalent about what is right.
Fresh: Hood keeps the action tense throughout this nail-biter, which unfolds like a taut stage play. It offers no easy answers, only difficult questions about following orders and the cost of war.
Air Force "Drone" Pilot Opinion: Horribly Inaccurate With A Bogus Moral Questions - DON'T BUY/RENT!
First and foremost, I am a former combat "drone" pilot who actually flew combat missions for the US Air Force. I flew ISR and attack missions in support of Operations New Dawn, Enduring Freedom, and other missions in Afghanistan Iraq, and other places. While I looked forward to a film that would portray our world accurately, I was beyond disappointed to watch this film. Normally, the flagrant inaccuracies that plague war films don't bother me too much. After all, film is about storytelling. However, the myriad inaccuracies of this film unnecessarily force the viewer to reflect on the morality of using drones ("RPAs," "UAVs," or "UASs" to most military operators).
These inaccuracies - from understanding the blast radii and uses of different ordinances, to the simplest of things, such as the rank and patch of the American pilot - invalidate any moral question the film would have us consider. The morality of remote aircraft warfare this film explores is not reflective of the realities of RPA warfare. For example, a Predator or Reaper pilot does not use the same Hellfire missile for a building as he or she does for an individual in the open. Why? Because there are two different versions of the missile that create two different effects; one is thermobaric in nature for use in enclosed spaces (buildings), while another is fragmentation oriented, like a grenade, for use on soft targets in the open (an individual). The film supposes that one Hellfire missile suits both purposes. This is not correct. In fact, the thermobaric effects caused by the Hellfire "Sleeve November" that is used on buildings is designed specifically to NOT blow up the building. Instead, it creates a flash fire inside. When taking this into account in the real world, the harm caused to individual civilians in film is wholly inaccurate. To then extrapolite some moral questions from the film is to likewise draw the conclusion from "The Terminator" that creating robots is inherently evil. What?!
Even the more basic stuff was inaccurate. The lieutenant who is the American drone operator has been an officer and pilot an inordinate amount of time for a guy who's merely a "Butter Bar" - 2nd Lieutenant - the lowest officer rank in the Air Force. And from what I can tell, the only patch they got close to right on his uniform is the Air Combat Command (ACC) patch he wears on the right breast of his flight suit. Can you really trust the accuracy of a film whose researchers couldn't even get right the most basic of things?
Of important note is the fact that when civilians are in the picture, we do not fire ordinance. PERIOD. This is another reason there isn't a real moral question. WE DO NOT FIRE WHEN CIVILIANS ARE IN THE BLAST RADIUS.
How can we rely on this film to pose ANY moral questions? Or ANY questions for that matter? This films is awful. Really. I wish the producers had at least run a Google search before they made the film and at least gotten the basics right. Horrible. Truly horrible.
Insulting to Kenya
I live in Kenya and work in a hospital in Parklands. It looks nothing like the film has shown it, but even worse is the depiction of Eastleigh. We do not have Al-Shabaab soldiers in technicals or manning the streets with automatic weapons! The film is not only total nonsense, but is giving a false impression of a beautiful country. If it is possible to sue a film company for slander/libel, somebody in the Kenya Government ought to do it.
Hellen Mirren - a wonderful actress who ought to be ashamed for her part in this travesty.
Eye in the Sky
As a former USAF pilot my impression is that the people who know nothing about this weapons system will be favorably impressed and those with flight experience will not be.