Eye in the Sky (2015)

The critic finds the film morally serious and highly suspenseful, with strong prospects as an entertaining drama. Aaron Paul’s performance is singled out for giving the story psychological weight.

Leydon finds the film a rivetingly suspenseful, hugely entertaining political thriller, though he notes it stops short of becoming full-blown black comedy. He praises its sharp editing and the standout, economical performance from Barkhad Abdi.

Sexton finds the film thoughtful, timely and expertly made, with a serious bearing on current events. He especially praises its tense, complex portrayal of the moral dilemmas surrounding drone strikes.

Richards finds it a tight, thought-provoking moral thriller that leaves viewers wrestling with difficult questions. He praises the fluid editing for keeping its fast pace coherent across characters separated by distance.

Linden finds the film a fully involving, tense drama that draws viewers into troubling moral questions. She praises the screenplay’s thoughtfulness and the director’s ability to sustain suspense without softening those questions.

Lee finds the film an effective, tense thriller that explores drone warfare without dictating what viewers should think. He praises its brisk storytelling and escalating suspense, while noting that some scenes feel flat and Alan Rickman is miscast.

Sragow presents the film as a tense, morally engaged thriller. He praises its willingness to explore the complexities of drone warfare.

The review presents the film as thought-provoking and suspenseful. It singles out the nail-biting tension around life-or-death decisions involving drone warfare.

Brennan finds the film tense, focused, and sharp in its examination of modern warfare, though its human drama is shaky. He praises its inventive use of surveillance imagery to expose the distance between decisions and their consequences, but faults its schematic characters and mawkish finale.

The review finds the film an engaging, morally serious thriller, though its earnestness can limit it. It singles out the tense ethical dilemmas around a drone strike as its central strength.

The URL identifies a TIFF 2015 roundup that includes Eye in the Sky, but the blocked page does not reveal the critic’s verdict. Its specific praise or complaint cannot be verified from the available page.

The critic finds the film smart, tense and surprisingly pointed, despite its textbook approach. Rickman’s performance is singled out for its ability to hold weariness, frustration and bemusement in one expression.

The review finds the drone drama weighed down by familiar terror-plot clichés, despite its tense setup. It praises Helen Mirren and the ensemble, but says the film could have used a clearer vision.

Grierson finds the film manipulative and heavy-handed, with its supposed moral complexity giving way to aggravating rhetoric. He praises the performances and suspense, but faults the contrived use of a child to heighten the stakes.

Hammond gives the film a strongly enthusiastic verdict, calling it an entertaining and thought-provoking thriller. He especially praises Gavin Hood’s sustained, Hitchcockian suspense and the performances of Helen Mirren and Alan Rickman.

The critic finds the film tense, entertaining, and an effective conversation starter about drone warfare. She particularly praises Aaron Paul’s emotionally grounded performance and the film’s ability to dramatize debate through dialogue.

Chitwood finds the film an engaging, intelligent thriller, though its melodramatic ending weakens the effect. He praises the tense exploration of drone-strike decision-making and the ensemble performances.

Ziemba finds the film a smart, taut thriller offering welcome moral complexity, though its Western perspective limits the story. She praises the suspenseful examination of bureaucratic decision-making and singles out Barkhad Abdi’s performance as captivating.

The critic praises the film as a taut drama that keeps its premise simple and opens a debate about responsibility in modern warfare. He singles out its execution for praise, though he says Helen Mirren does not fit the role.

The review finds the film a tight, captivating thriller, though its bureaucratic delays can be infuriating. It singles out the tense ethical debate and the clever surveillance technology as especially compelling.

The critic finds Eye in the Sky an effective, morally complex thriller about the costs of drone warfare. Its tense build-up and attention to the human consequences of a strike stand out, while the barbed satire is less successful.

The critic finds the film compelling and entertaining, though not entirely original. They praise its moral tension and grounded character details, while faulting generic storytelling and manipulative music.

The review text is unavailable, so its verdict cannot be established. No specific element praised or criticized is accessible.

Douglas finds the thriller’s tension undermined by repetitive discussions and too much talking. He praises the ground-level scenes in Kenya for making the situation feel more personal.