Answered the sentence "Everyone is a brewer of sin, and there is never an innocent person".
As a movie that plays with drones to counter terrorism, [Eye in the Sky] continues the semi-documentary combat style of [Hunting Bin Laden] and [Escape from Tehran]. The suspense from beginning to end, the cold lens language makes the movie show A sense of spectator close to a third perspective.
The documentary style is more evident in the surveillance of the terrorist's room. The use of high-tech weapons, such as beetles (actually tiny pinhole cameras), is military-enhancing and entertaining, driving the viewer's nervousness.
What is more touching is not only the terrorist scene, but the mental state of all beings in the intelligence unit.
While carrying out the planned bombing of terrorist dens, pilot Paul found a passerby who was selling biscuits halfway through the bombing area. Compassion caused all mission participants to face inner gladiatories - in the foreseeable greater A decision must be made between casualties and the survival of the living individuals in front of them.
In the whole incident, everyone showed their most unknown side - kind, cruel, decisive, selfish, indecisive, and behind the choice hides a more difficult choice - is to save others at all costs Affected your own job security? Or choose to ignore the life in front of you and be a cold-blooded knifeman?
The whole film adopts parallel montage cuts. Although a series of scenes are independent of each other in time and space, as the time line travels, the actions of all participants in this task in the second half of the film converge, and the intricate human background and tasks are realized. The complexities themselves are intertwined to create a powerful dramatic effect.
The film creates the illusion that the key characters are in the same room in the constant and close switching. At the breaking point of the plot, the characters have a dialogue in the air, and the dramatic tension is full.
Is political satire the point?
Everything seems to be under the moral judgment of the "eye of the sky". The questioning of human nature and the discussion of moral paradoxes make the film break away from the stereotype of conventional commercial films and have a larger pattern and temperament.
The film spares no effort in the irony and even the merciless sarcasm of the military and political personnel behind the scenes in many countries, which makes the film demonstrate the real-life revealing effect and the profound self-reflection function.
The female officer played by Helen Mirren is the deepest of many roles. She has always faced the subordinates - drone pilot Aaron Paul and boss Alan Rickman under the tough attitude of giving orders throughout the process. Under the pressure of her, she mechanically carried out the task in front of her, constantly calculating the survival probability of the little girl based on the percentage figures as the basis for her execution of the task, and the calculation of life was easily quantified numerically.
On the other hand, some people make a temporary claim of "propaganda war" - that is, if the terrorists die in the majority, the British authorities will lose the support of public opinion; and if they choose to save the little girl, they can exchange for humanitarian praise and corresponding support.
A rescue campaign is no longer out of purely humanitarian purposes, but has become an calculus of vested interests. All kinds of irony are self-evident.
The irony effect is especially prominent in the appearance of the British Prime Minister in the film.
Shouldn't Britain's top dignitaries make a glamorous appearance? What? The prime minister in the movie is not to mention this embarrassed appearance, and also arranged a plot of food poisoning. Although there is a slight suspicion of deliberately vilifying political figures, we ordinary audiences see it in our eyes and feel good in our hearts.
It is the greatest sin to have a shallow taste.
Apart from the political satire that the film can do, the director and screenwriter chose to turn around and avoid talking about it in the area that should have been covered more and discussed in depth.
Although we all know it is impossible to find a once-and-for-all antidote to today's terrorism and current politics in the movie, the little girl's sacrifice at the end is deliberately arranged, tear-jerking, but lacks a reasonable explanation inside, and all are blamed In the helpless act, it is inevitable that people will feel resentful.
Regardless of whether the selection of accidental interlopers to dominate the plot development is sloppy or not, just talking about the ending of sacrificing the little girl after a game is itself a pander to the mainstream attitudes of British and American people towards the third world, revealing that Out of the arrogance and hypocrisy of British and American countries.
The slow-motion processing at the end of the movie that echoes the beginning is better than sending a test tube of tears to the eyes of the audience. Such a deliberately cheap touch is not only redundant, but it will inevitably make people feel that it conceals the lack of persuasiveness inside, which is a kind of diversion. opportunistic move.
In this case, the war seems to be stripped of its blood, and the remarks that occupy the moral high ground and kill people without a trace are rampant again. In this way, how can justice be upheld? How will the soldiers who carry out the orders deal with themselves?
Faced with such a problem, [Eye of the Sky] obviously has a tendency to shirk. Rather than speaking up, it seems to be more willing to rest on its laurels in the traditional moral dilemma.
This bowl of chicken soup is more than spicy, but not mellow enough. After drinking it, it will inevitably make people feel like chewing wax. The good taste left at the beginning is also washed away by the bitter stamina.
View more about Eye in the Sky reviews
