I’ve got writer’s block.
That’s a bit of a bummer, but hey-ho.
Anyway, I’m sitting here trying to think of a way in to review Eye in the Sky but nothing seemed particularly fluid, so d’you know what? I’m just going to write whatever comes into my head and structure be damned.
Eye in the Sky is excellent; it’s easily the best film I’ve seen all year – which is a huge relief after recently wasting over two hours of my life on that big pile of wank, Midnight Special – and one I would heartily recommend.
So what’s good about it?
Well there are a number of things.
For one it’s well acted, with the likes of Helen Mirren and the late Alan Rickman playing their roles with style.
For another the format – done in real-time over 100 or so minutes as the British & Americans plan a drone strike on a house filled with hostile targets in the friendly city of Nairobi – means that tension remains constant throughout and it moves at a surprisingly fast pace.
And perhaps most of all, it asks the viewer some moral questions. Is it alright to bomb a house in a friendly city? Does the elimination of high-profile terrorists who might be responsible for the deaths of scores of innocent people if they go free justify the potential collateral damage (cleverly represented as a cute little girl sitting near the house selling bread)? Is the detached nature of drone warfare a good thing? And should military decisions be left in the hands of self-serving politicians and lawyers more interested in winning the PR battle rather than getting things done?
It doesn’t give you the answers to these questions; you’re left to decide that for yourself. And I thought that was great.
So yes, I’d heartily recommend going to see Eye in the Sky, and if future movies I see in 2016 are as good as this, I’ll be more than happy.
And hey, it turns out I didn’t have writer’s block after all.