Eye in the Sky is a prime example of never judging a film by its trailer.
Whoever was in charge of putting together Eye in the Sky’s trailer should be immediately fired because they did a piss-poor job. Eye in the Sky has one of the most incredibly clichéd, over-dramatized, painfully manipulating trailers I've seen in a long while. The trailer makes the film look like absolute crap, and immediately removed any desire to see it, even if it was a free screening. Fortunately, I follow respective critics who are willing to see such films, and their bafflingly high praise for Eye in the Sky piqued my curiosity enough to view it—amusingly enough—while flying back from Yellowstone. To my surprise, Eye in the Sky ended up nothing like its shoddy trailer: it's a damn good film! A very thrilling piece of work with complexity in its political, ethical, and military decisions.
I haven't enjoyed a modern military film this much since...well, I don't think I've ever enjoyed one this much (most of them I consider predictably sub-par, unbearably manipulative cash grabs at modern events). Yet here, despite diving into current hot-button issues such as droids and civilian casualties for “the greater good”, Eye in the Sky is a film first, and military propaganda second. The film finds balance between drama and realism; the scenes rarely get over-theatrical, yet (or, perhaps because of this) consistently retain a strong sense of tension. The acting is all-around solid (Eye in the Sky being a much better end to Alan Rickman’s career than Alice Through the Looking Glass), yet it's the character complexity that really brings the film home.
Aside from a few one-note Americans, the cast play three-dimensional characters instead of military stereotypes. The soldiers have morality and sensibility over their actions, yet are shown following orders properly after all procedures have been cleared. The politicians are focused on appearances and political backlash, yet also reveal very human emotions and fears and genuine frustrations over making highly controversial decisions. A semi-humorous, yet all too realistic occurrence involves the politicians and leaders constantly referring to their higher-ups for the “political and guilt-passing” okay to proceed with events.
A major issue with modern military films is they often lose track of character (aside from their main character usually) in exchange for making statements and/or politically-charged messages. Here, Eye in the Sky manages to make complex characters alongside its morals—the latter ending up being effectively and surprisingly more vague than expected. The prevailing issue throughout the film is the military’s ability to takeout several most wanted terrorists (via remotely fired Hellfire missiles), at the high risk of killing an innocent child bystander. The arguments that result from deciding such choice are as fascinating as they are complex:
“You’re willing to save one life and risk the chance of letting 80 die?”
“I'd rather have to explain on the news how terrorists killed 80 than explain why our forces killed an innocent civilian child.”
“If they kill 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one child, they do.”
That is some deep stuff to contemplate, all with no definite, morally-clear answer.
MAJOR SPOILERS BEGIN: In one scene, British Colonel Powell (Helen Mirren), is told she cannot fire the missiles until the probability of the child being harmed is reduced to 50%. For Powell—who’s been obsessively after these specific terrorists for years (like Captain Ahab after Moby Dick)—the cost of one child is a fair price for the deaths of these mass murderers. As such, she tries manipulating the risk-assessment officer to reduce the percentage. First she tries appealing to his emotions; “I just want that child's odds to be as safe as possible”, but when the percentage won’t go any lower than 65%, she resorts to more drastic pressuring; “we’re too far deep into this mission to not let this happen.” Ultimately, the officer is swayed to only give the lowest percent (45%), while leaving out the high 65%, though it’s clear his conscious isn’t fully in agreement; “Colonel…you know it’s only an estimate.” MAJOR SPOILERS END
The only real negative I can give about Eye in the Sky is its overused melancholy soundtrack: the kind used in almost every modern military film where excessively disheartening music (usually some lady bellowing solemnly) is played over a depressing scene to make the audience feel extra sad (blah, I hate it). The film’s scenes are already powerful enough and do not need cheap musical manipulation to help emphasize the events. Sappy music aside, Eye in the Sky is an astoundingly effective modern military film. Above its complex political and military themes is an engaging thriller with a large array of interesting, well-acted characters. I can say with confidence the film's trailers do not, at all, represent the final project, and recommend Eye in the Sky as a surprise treat to anyone who likewise avoided the film based on its commercials.
