Eye in the Sky

SPOILER-FREE MOVIE REVIEW

Eye in the Sky is a British drone-surveillance suspense thriller covering a covert operation to dispense of some suicide bombers with drone weaponry.

Boasting a stellar cast with a series of A-listers like Dame Helen Mirren, the late Alan Rickman (in what would be his last film appearance) as well as Emmy Award-winning actor Aaron Paul

With a cast like that, this movie certainly had a lot going for it.

For starters, the film succeeds in delivering the element of suspense throughout the 102-minute runtime.

It builds tension very well and maintains it with decent twists here and there as circumstances constantly affect the progress of the mission.

Where the film succeeds, however, is also where its most prominent flaws become noticeable.

The decent twists which build tension start to become a bit excessive over time and even ridiculous at some points, twists that I feel would have been better if they hadn't been included at all.

There are also many unnecessary cuts to and from other situations happening around the world which ruin the film's overall pacing and end up making the movie feel much longer than it actually is.

A good example would be the how the movie introduces us to the main characters at the start, where you end up with a "Oh, get on with it" in your mind instead of the "Oh, that character is interesting" that they were going for.

The extra drama that comes with these things end up making the movie overly-dramatic at times and gives off a sense that it's just trying too hard to be something bigger than it actually is.

Let's talk about the plot, and I felt that it was pretty decent.

A solid premise is matched with decent execution for the most part, and the emotional scenes which cover the lives of innocent civilians are impactful.

However, the story is focused solely on one particular event, which I feel is a bit underwhelming.

It would've been nice if perhaps they made that one event happen in say, the climax of the movie, instead of building up to it the whole time.

Not that it's a bad thing, but when the sub-plots just didn't have enough oomph to drive the movie forward, you kind of end up aching for more substance than what you actually get.

That brings me to the structure of the film, and to be honest, there is no real structure to it.

There's no real three-act structure, just a constant build-up to what they hoped would be an explosive climax.

Hence, this lack of structure just left me a bit tired due to the never-ending onslaught of political drama and unnecessary tension as the movie went on.

On to the characters, and there are times where characters end up doing things which just make you give out a loud sigh of frustration. A "Oh come on, did you really have to do that?", if you get what I mean.

There's also a character whom I just felt was totally useless and didn't need to be in the movie at all, and that honour goes to the actress who plays the British member of parliament present in the "war room" together with Alan Rickman and the Foreign Secretary.

I think her name is Monica Dolan. See, I don't even know her name, nor am I even bothered to really find out because all she did was argue with the Generals over decisions for courses of action to take.

Sure, some of her arguments were valid, but I found myself rolling my eyes every single time the camera panned to her because I'd have to withstand another lecture about politics and a whole lot of baloney which would sound more appropriate in a presidential election instead of a suspense thriller.

On to the rest of the cast, and I have to give plaudits to Dame Helen Mirren who was sublime as usual as Colonel Powell.

Her character was put under constant pressure throughout, and she conveyed the stress Powell was feeling superbly as she decided whether or not to call the shots.

It was also a good send-off for the late Alan Rickman, who put in a good performance. 

The highlights of his performance definitely came in the form of the frustrated and annoyed tone in his voice as he's met with frequent rebuttals and arguments from the annoying British MP among others in the "war room".

Nothing quite like a movie character who shares the same resentment you feel for another character.

I really liked Aaron Paul and Phoebe Fox as the drone pilots. They were fantastic and gave much depth to their characters who weren't written to be very fleshed out or developed as such.

The emotion they showed also conveyed the brutal and harsh message and truth about warfare and how it's a really dirty thing.

As for the "man on the ground", I would have loved to see more of the very talented Barkhad Abdi (who was nominated for an Oscar for his role as a pirate in 2013's Captain Phillips).

I felt that of the entire cast, his character was the most compelling as he had to deal with everything without the security of the bunkers that his superiors had.

Shame that he had such limited screen time.

Technically, the film doesn't have many flaws (other than one or two cheesy uses of CGI).

It's shot decently, has a decent soundtrack which delivers an adequate amount of excitement as well as tension, and the whole movie looks solidly made.

Direction-wise, Gavin Hood does a far better job here than in that shit show of a movie in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

He tells the story with clarity and with a good build-up of suspense which leaves you on the edge of your seat every now and then.

At least there's no horrific take on any of the characters *AHEM* MERC WITH NO MOUTH DEADPOOL *AHEM*.

I also can't help but comment on the marketing and promotional material of Eye in the Sky.

This movie was marketed as "From the director of 'X-Men Origins: Wolverine'" on numerous posters and trailers. Now, that certainly makes one extra interested in Eye in the Sky cos that was such a damn good X-Men movie (note the sarcasm).

I mean, who in the right frame of mind would have thought that stating that in the movie's promo was a good idea? I think director Gavin Hood would have been better off if that hadn't been stated in the poster, cos after all, less publicity is far better than bad publicity.

Mercifully, this movie isn't as bad as that one.

There's also this odd and very random quote from a critic which pops up in the trailer as well as poster, the quote "Helen Mirren is superb".

I mean, yeah the world knows she's superb. We've known that for a long time now. So to put that line in the marketing material for this movie kind of gives me a sense that they were really desperate to promote this film well enough for audiences to actually want to see it.

Clearly, they're making full use of the star power Dame Helen Mirren brings to the picture - as well as them making full use of the amount they paid to hire her.

All in all, Eye in the Sky succeeds in being the suspense thriller it wanted to be, and the movie is given much-needed depth thanks to its stellar cast and their performances.

However, the film is marred by constant unnecessary bits which serve to slow the movie down even more than it already was, along with parts which were just downright ridiculous.

It's decent enough, but I find that it's extremely forgettable. Not something I'd want to watch again nor is it a movie I deem worth even renting on iTunes.

I wonder if they paid Rotten Tomatoes to give it a 94% "Certified Fresh" rating on the website. More like a 50% or lower for me.

A really mediocre movie.

5/10.