MPAA Rating: R/Genre: War Thriller/Stars: Helen Mirren, Alan Rickman, John Heffernan, Babou Ceesay, Carl Beukes, Jeremy Northam, Iain Glen, Monica Dolan, Richard McCabe, Aaron Paul, Phoebe Fox, Lemogang Tsipa, Kim Engelbrecht, Gavin Hood, Michael O’Keefe, Laila Robins, Vusi Kunene, Barkhad Abdi, Lex King, Warren Masemola, Ebby Weyime/Runtime: 102 minutes

I think it best to start this review off by politely asking all of you a hypothetical question. That question being what if you had the opportunity to stop a group of vicious and ruthless attacks on innocent people by some other genuinely wicked individuals? However, before you go ahead and answer I guess I should also add a distinct caveat to these proceedings. That being that in order to thwart these attacks which undoubtedly would claim innocent lives if permitted to go on, you also had to kill a young child that was inadvertently in the evil people’s midst while they are preparing their nefarious machinations. Thus I guess the real question I am presenting you with is which is worth more: the life of an innocent in the here and now or the hundreds of innocents in the possible future when trying to conquer evil on this planet? If you answered that there truly is no definitively “right answer” when it comes to this question you would be quite correct and I would applaud you for taking the time to truly think it over. For those of you however who love when a slice of cinema gives you the answer to complex questions like the one above whilst also being a film that will keep you on the edge of your seat whilst doing so then you too are in luck. I say that because the slice of cinema I am reviewing for you today, 2015’s Eye in the Sky, is that movie and so much more. To be sure, there are those out there who will look at this movie and see it in some ways as an updating of the classic nail biter Fail Safe from 1964 and honestly that’s a fair comparison in that both take certain elements of warfare and really put them under the microscope. Yet unlike Fail Safe’s story of a nuclear nightmare gone awry, this slice of cinema is one that focuses on a drone assault that quickly finds itself needing to take into account the possibility of collateral damage. Thankfully we see that not only does this slice of cinema never choose a side in the argument, but it also lets the audience make up their mind on just where they stand on this particular issue. Indeed it’s not often that an entry in the so-called “discussion movie” subgenre is able to keep from giving you a concrete stance whilst remaining quite engaging, but this is definitely an outlier to that particular rule. More than that though, this is also a phenomenally made on both sides of the camera film that I promise will have you, much like the cast of characters, debating with your fellow movie goer for a long time to come.

The plot is as follows: Taking us to a version, albeit fictionalized, of our own modern world, Eye in the Sky gets its riveting saga underway at a spot that we have all seen time and time again. That being in an HQ for one of the world’s military forces. In this case, the military op we are seeing unfold is a joint effort of America, Britain, and allies within the Kenyan military, but is being spearheaded by a British Colonel named Katherine Powell. The objective, we also learn, is the successful snatching of a trinity of highly sought-after terrorists who are among ten desperately wanted by the governments of the world so they can be held accountable for their crimes and some of their group. A group which includes a pair of converted British nationalists, a more recently converted young man who just arrived to Camp de Terrorist from the U.K., and an American as well. Yet for as good as the plan to snatch this group before anyone is the wiser seems to be going, we see that things start to go aloof when two things occur. The first is that the group suddenly decides to make way for a new locale thus inspiring Powell to change tactics and push for this to be a kill job rather than a simple snatch and grab and the second is that a little kid suddenly makes their way into the area that is to be the designated “kill zone”. As a result, we soon see that what was supposed to be a routine mission has now turned into a logistical nightmare. One that will involve everyone from Powell, Powell’s c.o., the British Attorney General, and intel officers on the ground where the job is to be executed all the way to the American Lt., a Steve Watts, who is the one operating the drone that will land the fatal blow should the kill be given the green light to proceed and which will all see them asking the same question. That being: do we proceed with this mission knowing that yes we might kill this innocent child, but also knowing that if we don’t the loss of life could potentially be significantly higher and much graver? Suffice it to say that by the end of the movie you will know one possible answer to this truly weighty question….

Now right off the bat, it should be noted that the work done behind the camera is no more and no less than a top-tier exercise in how to make a suspenseful slice of cinema done right. Indeed this starts with how film helmer Gavin Hood is able to conjure up an immense amount of unease via phenomenal work from the editing department at giving us a look at seemingly every group involved in the execution of one of these missions. As a result, we see that this slice of cinema is able to zip rather swiftly to a shot from the drone, soon moving on to the individuals who are flying the drone, back to the drone itself, swiftly turning its concentration over to a key member of the Kenyan team who is on the ground, and then giving us some of the finer moments in the film involving Mirren’s impatient push to get this done her way as well as Rickman’s ever rising irritability at the tedious and snail’s crawl-speed at the political machinations determining if this is a mission worth backing respectively. Along with that, the script for this particular film does a wonderful job of conjuring up a feeling of anxiety that is second to none due to how well it is able to duck and weave through the cast of characters and their respective points of view on how they think the mission ought to play out. Finally, it should also be said that through stylish and smooth camera work, the film is able to create some terrific juxtapositions between the real-world locations and the clinical and quite claustrophobic-inducing settings of both the briefing rooms as well as the operational console for the drone respectively. Suffice it to say that with a runtime of, including credits, an hour and 42 minutes, this slice of cinema might be fairly short in the grand scheme of things, but that doesn’t stop it by any stretch of the imagination from being a taut and quite anxiety-inducing slice of cinema. Indeed by providing the viewer with a vast array of perspectives, allowing us to witness what might be the legit manner in which decisions like these are reached, and by consistently switching up the various camera angles (with particular regard to the incredible utilization of certain spy cams) as well as the locales, we see that the crew behind the camera are able to slowly yet steadily elevate the suspense in the film until we get to the truly riveting climax. To be sure there are a few positive moments sprinkled in throughout the film’s runtime, but they are all there to help the film ease up on the suspense a bit before the crew then proceeds to take it to newer heights than it was at previously.

Of course, for as riveting as the work done behind the camera turns out to be, it is thankfully reinforced by equally as taut work in front of the camera by this film’s incredibly well-chosen cast of players. This starts with Aaron Paul who, as the extremely conflicted pilot of the drone, does a wonderful job at presenting for us a young man who finds himself torn between fulfilling the objective and listening to his conscience and manages to extend to everyone from Iain Glen, Jeremy Northam, Michael O’Keefe (Danny from 1980’s Caddyshack!) and even Barkhad Abdi who, as the main man on the ground where the op is taking place gets some truly potent moments in this. A fact that is due in large part to the fact that whilst everyone else involved in this will face some kind of psychological or political, or a mixture of both should this op not go entirely as planned, Abdi’s character is the only one who will have problems that are more than just a tad bit worse than that and as such the performance he manages to give here does a wonderful job of reflecting that in every minute of screentime he is given. Far and away though, the two performances from this slice of cinema that I think will leave perhaps the biggest impression on you are the ones given by Dame Helen Mirren and the late yet great Alan Rickman respectively. Indeed as the Colonel calling the shots on this particular op, we see Mirren and that distinct steely gaze of hers do a masterclass job of portraying this driven and extremely intimidating soldier who finds that she may try to keep every element of this mission under control, but all she is really doing is blinding herself to the fact that it simply isn’t possible for her to have 100% control of the situation. Suffice it to say that it is a truly incredible performance from an actress who, as far as I know, is just incapable of giving what might be considered a “bad performance” since she always manages to bring her respective A-game to every movie that she is a part of. As for Rickman….honestly dear reader it really did hurt my heart knowing that this was the last time I was going to get to see him on screen, but man did he knock it out of the park with this one! To be sure, all of his typical trademarks as a performer are here to play including the intellect, the drier than the driest martini wit, and of course his incredible degree of compassion. At the same time though, there are moments in this where Rickman will leave you absolutely mesmerized with particular regard to a monologue he gives on the true costs that war can have which will leave you in awe of the man and his skill as an actor. Yes, there are other actors who could have done this role, but Rickman plays it in such a way that, like Hans Gruber and Severus Snape, I cannot for the life of me see anyone but him portraying this character on the level that he is able to. Suffice it to say then that the work done by the cast in this film, no matter how big or small their role may be, is truly top-tier in every sense of the word.

All in all and at the end of the day I can safely say beyond a doubt in my mind that it would have not been difficult by any stretch of the imagination for the creative team both behind and in front of the camera on this slice of cinema to just pick a perspective on combat via drone and then proceed to showcase for us just how horrible going with the other perspective could turn out to be if deployed. At the same time I can also say that doing that would have resulted in a slice of cinema that we had all seen before and would therefore have been extremely simple to figure out thus negating the potential for any genuine suspense to be unfurled for us as movie goers. Thankfully, we see that instead of engaging in that distinct course of action, this slice of cinema does something rather distinct and chooses to operate in a center zone that is an equal blend of both thought-provoking and complex respectively. More than that though, this slice of cinema also showcases just how calamitous a situation can become both from engaging in certain actions/not engaging in certain actions to say nothing of showcasing every party involved before then dropping an ending that, without going into spoilers, doesn’t let anyone off this particular merry go-round easily right down to you, the movie goer. Suffice it to say that, even when you factor in truly potent work from both sides of the camera including a phenomenal performance in front from Alan Rickman in what was tragically his last live action performance, Eye in the Sky is a genuinely taut slice of cinema not because what it showcases for us is fictional. Rather, it’s because what it showcases for us is a genuine situation that could quite plausibly occur at any point in time at any corner of the planet. Food for thought to be sure, but also food that you will (or at the very least should) take your time to digest and process before moving on to your next particular cinematic entrée. Make of that what thou will dear reader…..On a scale of 1-5 I give Eye in the Sky “2015” a solid 4 out of 5.