Eye in the Sky – War is…complicated.
Well, duh, tell us something we don’t know. Eye in the Sky does, by attempting to replicate the experience of warfare from afar that technology affords us. Specifically, the film follows the process and procedure by which joint forces of the United States, United Kingdom, and Kenya decide when and how to launch a drone missile strike at a particular target. If you ever felt remotely curious what people are debating, deliberating, or otherwise discussing behind closed doors, you can imagine that Eye in the Sky might be as close as you ever get.
I like the fact that this film seems more like a debate than an action movie. Probably the two biggest culprits on screen which complicate the delicate situation revolve around a lack of responsibility, and an inability to act quickly enough. When you find the person you’re looking for – in this case, a British citizen who also happens to be a Muslim terrorist – a lot of decisions need to be made, both militarily and politically. Do we decide to kidnap and detain? What’s happens when that’s not a possibility anymore, as the circumstances change to include a possible suicide bombing? When you start figuring out you need to bomb the place to hell with a targeted strike, will waiting too long introduce new civilians casualties and complications? The amount of contingencies and other factors that come into play is almost frightening to think about, and the lives of people you’ll never know or meet sit in your hands.
A lot of what makes the movie so interesting, and works so well, rests in the performances of all actors involved. One obvious highlight is Helen Mirren, who plays a general who wants nothing more than to kill this woman she’s been tracking for six long years. Alan Rickman, in his last performance, is a military minister who can cleave the difference between conflict and daily life which isn’t shared by the politicians in the room with him as they make these decisions. And, of course, tons of character actors and the like come out of the woodwork (including…that guy from Captain Phillips, whose name escapes me but you’ll know his face if you see it). And heck, even Aaron Paul does a great job showing hesitancy in a very tense situation as the actual drone pilot – i.e., the guy who “pulls the trigger” so to speak.
If anything, the only real problem I can lay on the film is that there’s a really weird melodramatic thing happening when the climax of the film finally happens. I won’t spoil anything, but suffice to say that it’s a little heavy-handed on the political commentary, even though I think it was conveyed effectively (show, don’t tell, and all that). I guess I would hope for something a little less “in your face”, and something more like we should come to our own conclusions as to whether they should, or should not, take action…but, it does show how disconnected we are from the events on the ground, that’s for sure.
I’d call this a recommendation, for sure!
Hail, Caesar! – Coen Brothers films always strike me as a little bit too weird sometimes, especially their “comedies”. I mean, I guess they’re supposed to be funny, but sometimes they’re just not. More like, they are just “out there” with tons of strange absurdities and bizarrely fascinating dialogue that substitutes as comedy. That’s not to say I don’t enjoy their work -I really do like the True Grit remake, and The Big Lebowski. Also, I sorta remember The Ladykillers being entertaining, but it’s been over a decade since I saw it. Just, that their premise and their execution often push directly against the norm of a film’s expectations. Sometimes, that works for a film being unorthodox for its own sake (Lebowski), but sometimes it just makes things awkward.
And in the case of Hail, Caeser, both tribute and lampooning of 1950s Hollywood, awkward takes central stage in nearly every scene. I mean, if you like homages to popular films of the 1950s, dance and song numbers, and the swords and sandals epics of the time, this might be for you, but I never felt engaged in what was actually happening. The ensemble cast overshadows Eddie Mannix’s story, that of a “fixer” who goes through a midlife crisis as to whether this job is worth his time given all the trouble he goes through. There’s a lot of individual parts, all funny in the abstract (and even contemplating things later, especially the parts about communism) that work, but nothing that’s contributing to some whole.
I guess what I’m saying is, this is a movie full of ideas, but none of them actually come to fruition in any real way. And with that said, I think I can say if you like Coen Brothers films, you’ll like this. If you think the setting and premise sound interesting, sure, you’ll like it. But I just didn’t love it. It’s a ramble and a tribute to the 1950s, and it’s pretty funny in parts, but isn’t really committed to anything.
