A film detailing pitiable white people and their agonizing travails coming to a decision as to whether or not to strike a target all but ensuring collateral damage (specifically, a young Kenyan girl). Poor white people, you have it so rough. Oh, wait, you weren't the victims here.
Huh? Why the white people comment? It was about WAR not race. And terrorism. Mirren has never been better. And Rickman went out with a bang. Both of those soldiers that handled that drone were crying. They tried everything they could to save her life. Reality is civilians get killed all the time. That's what makes war and terrorism so bad.
2
The movie showed a fairly balanced view of the issues. However, there should have been a split-screen at the end, with that one girl playing in one-half screen, and a bunch of other children playing in other half-screen, who lived because the suicide bomber died.
I once asked an adult if he would have killed the shooter at Columbine HIgh School if he had a gun, and he replied he could not kill a kid. And so I replied, "So you would let this kid go on killing other kids?"
I once asked an adult if he would have killed the shooter at Columbine HIgh School if he had a gun, and he replied he could not kill a kid. And so I replied, "So you would let this kid go on killing other kids?"
It was an interesting movie, but the dilemma was not that easily seen. The live of one girl over the lives of 80 people in pending 2 suicide bombers attack (plus future lives of anyone that the terrorist masterminds will do in the next 5-6 years until the drones catch up with them again).
The only chilling part is when the female lawyer said "If Al Shabab killed 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one girl, they win the propaganda war". That is really the coldest and most cruel saying I have ever heard, coming from the legal leftist in the story. Probably she would not be so crash if it is not mere African lives being at stake, but Westerners lives.
In short, it was 2 hours movie about nothing. In reality people won't have a "fly sized drone camera" seeing the suicide vest. In reality, people would be willing to kill for a lot less than 80 vs 1 lives comparison; and with a lot less uncertainty.
Heck, how about a movie about that Brazilian civilians who was executed by British police due to faulty intelligence that he's a suicide bomber? They didn't even check his bag, just tacked him and executed him instantly. That is more morally vague remembering that British Police are RISKING THEIR LIVES tacking someone who they believed carried a suicide vest. That is courage, despite being misplaced.
The only chilling part is when the female lawyer said "If Al Shabab killed 80 people, we win the propaganda war. If we kill one girl, they win the propaganda war". That is really the coldest and most cruel saying I have ever heard, coming from the legal leftist in the story. Probably she would not be so crash if it is not mere African lives being at stake, but Westerners lives.
In short, it was 2 hours movie about nothing. In reality people won't have a "fly sized drone camera" seeing the suicide vest. In reality, people would be willing to kill for a lot less than 80 vs 1 lives comparison; and with a lot less uncertainty.
Heck, how about a movie about that Brazilian civilians who was executed by British police due to faulty intelligence that he's a suicide bomber? They didn't even check his bag, just tacked him and executed him instantly. That is more morally vague remembering that British Police are RISKING THEIR LIVES tacking someone who they believed carried a suicide vest. That is courage, despite being misplaced.
1
I didn't think I was going to like this movie but it was incredibly good. In light of the suicide bombings at the airport in Turkey, it's very timely. Making the kinds of decisions the military is often forced to make with regards to collateral damage proves not to be easy. I found the British minister's attitudes to be slightly irritating that they would rather 80 or more people died so the terrorists would look bad instead of them. It's never an easy decision given there was a child involved its just that I find their line of reasoning against it rather flawed. My only criticism of the film would be the reaction of the two airman involved in actually pulling the trigger. They wouldn't have be human if it didn't bother them but people in the military that hold that kind of a job are carefully screened. You need to be detached from your job as ugly as that sounds very much in the way medical staff needs to be detached when a patient of theirs dies. If you didn't set your emotions aside, you'd never be able to do your job. Civilian casualties I'm afraid are something that cannot be avoided in some circumstances.
Most people think that soldiers are "born killers" who will shoot on order, especially when their own lives and their friends' lives are at stake. But research into WW2 soldiers proved otherwise.
Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier.
This is because all social species have internal programming to prevent intra-species murder. They will fight, but not kill. Species without this instict are disadvantaged in evolution.
The reason why modern soldiers are so efficient at firing their weapons is due to modern military psychological conditioning which makes soldiers fire at as lifelike target as possible, thus detaching the act of murder as just "another target dummy". By the time of Korean war, 55% of soldiers shoot their rifle. By Vietnam War, 95% of soldiers do.
Marshall concluded in his book Men Against Fire (1946, 1978) that only 15 to 20 percent of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their own weapons at an exposed enemy soldier.
This is because all social species have internal programming to prevent intra-species murder. They will fight, but not kill. Species without this instict are disadvantaged in evolution.
The reason why modern soldiers are so efficient at firing their weapons is due to modern military psychological conditioning which makes soldiers fire at as lifelike target as possible, thus detaching the act of murder as just "another target dummy". By the time of Korean war, 55% of soldiers shoot their rifle. By Vietnam War, 95% of soldiers do.
Just because they cried? Come on. Showing emotion doesn't stop you from DOING YOUR DUTY. And they did that.
This is an incredibly good movie but, in the end, it is essentially a marketing piece for the purveyors of high tech arms and surveillance equipment of which hundreds of millions of dollars worth were merchandised and demonstrated for us with consummate subliminal skill. The business of war is an unforgivable outrage. Why does no one protest?
2
Protest to the suicide bombers, and they will first laugh at you, then cut your throat. "The other side" does not have your morals. Get it?
2
He can believe ok? John Lennon did. Giving peace a chance ISN'T A BAD THING...nor a dream. It can happen. Gandhi proved that...so did MLK.
A genuine tragedy.
The General gets the last word it would seem but for the film's director. The director sees in the young bread seller a better future, so much promise.
We should keep in mind how much people's intentions were undermined. How they were schooled into telling themselves that they had done all that was possible.
This film posed a seemingly straightforward choice between clear present danger and what may seem like a lofty ideal. And yet the compromise made is terrible. War corrupts everyone here.
The General gets the last word it would seem but for the film's director. The director sees in the young bread seller a better future, so much promise.
We should keep in mind how much people's intentions were undermined. How they were schooled into telling themselves that they had done all that was possible.
This film posed a seemingly straightforward choice between clear present danger and what may seem like a lofty ideal. And yet the compromise made is terrible. War corrupts everyone here.
Interesting that nobody picked up on the moment when the innocent girl - playing in her small yard - was challenged by a customer of her dad for playing with a hoop. That is what this movie is about - freedom! Cover your hair, your wrists, don't play, move about in fear... That is the underlying theme that is perhaps understated.
8
And that's what is where we find the tragedy. There are subtle hints that the girl's father has dreams of taking the family to London. Certainly he's preparing her for life in the larger world.
The cost of war is the loss of our humanity.
The cost of war is the loss of our humanity.
1
We Americans use this kind of cultural difference as part of the propaganda that supports our aggression. Sure, little girls should be allowed to play. Who would argue with that? But to present that as a motive for the kind of terror we visit upon the world's poor from Vietnam to the present is hypocritical fraud. We're in it for the oil.
3
While this film "doesn't dwell on geopolitical minutia" its politics stares over our shoulders both during and after viewing. One the the strengths of the film is that it implies the question "what are we doing in Somalia" without directly asking it.
The central theme played out through the life of the young girl is that when it applies to human life there is no such thing as 'collateral damage.' As I read the articles in the Times describing the lives and seeing the photos of the victims of the terrorist attack in Belgium I was struck at how seldom, if ever you see anyone that looks like Aisha? Certainly the wives and children of our allies in Afghanistan or Iraq are known to us and accessible these days through internet journalism. But we never see them. We don't know them as loving parents or children simply striving for a better life. And as a result we neither question their death nor morn their loss.
The fact that we did see this 'war on terror' through Aisha's eyes was significant. Yet I suspect that the deeply human dimensions of what we're doing will get lost in the clamor of the "astounding technological sophistication" of our current military operations.
A point possibly lost on many viewers is how the 'passing the buck' debate emerged in the aftermath of the totally unequivocal 'torture memos' from the Bush administration. Hopefully the audience will continue this debate and do so giving the 'geopolitical minutia' the prominence it deserves.
The central theme played out through the life of the young girl is that when it applies to human life there is no such thing as 'collateral damage.' As I read the articles in the Times describing the lives and seeing the photos of the victims of the terrorist attack in Belgium I was struck at how seldom, if ever you see anyone that looks like Aisha? Certainly the wives and children of our allies in Afghanistan or Iraq are known to us and accessible these days through internet journalism. But we never see them. We don't know them as loving parents or children simply striving for a better life. And as a result we neither question their death nor morn their loss.
The fact that we did see this 'war on terror' through Aisha's eyes was significant. Yet I suspect that the deeply human dimensions of what we're doing will get lost in the clamor of the "astounding technological sophistication" of our current military operations.
A point possibly lost on many viewers is how the 'passing the buck' debate emerged in the aftermath of the totally unequivocal 'torture memos' from the Bush administration. Hopefully the audience will continue this debate and do so giving the 'geopolitical minutia' the prominence it deserves.
4
Is this a thriller? A farce/comedy? It can't have it both ways!
Were we supposed to experience the moral difficulty of drone warfare? If so, it failed because of the unimaginable/unrealistic boneheadedness of almost all the characters. Was it a comedy? I saw nothing to laugh at.
I think the movie was an utter failure, I walked out halfway through.
Were we supposed to experience the moral difficulty of drone warfare? If so, it failed because of the unimaginable/unrealistic boneheadedness of almost all the characters. Was it a comedy? I saw nothing to laugh at.
I think the movie was an utter failure, I walked out halfway through.
1
If you walked out half way through, why should I trust you judgement?
12
am I the only person who noticed the HUGE contrivance of the way they would have us believe this drone operated? This type of drone CANNOT hover over the EXACT same spot with the EXACT same view for over 2 hours.. NOT POSSIBLE.. and incredibly annoying.
1
Yes, there were several contrivances that served the storytelling
2
although not well produced or directed, the moral dilemma of the screenplay stands on its own. and leaving the theatre i concluded, i'd rather see war fought in this focused manner, and yes, having the political people as well involved feeling the emotional responsibility of the realty of the outcome. rather than carpet bombing, nuclear warfare, or combat types of war that can outdate itself with this type of military action. thank god for technology.
2
After reading the review, I expected a much better movie than the one I actually saw. I found it very paint-by-the-numbers. Pity the poor actors who must have endured countless reaction shots -- while others debated, the silent characters had only to wordlessly express whatever emotions they were supposed to be feeling. Many of the audience members laughed more and more often as the movie wore on -- not a great testament to the effect the movie was supposed to have on the audience.
1
You pity actors for "enduring" reaction shots? I pity the African people who live this film's subject matter as a daily occurrence.
1
When killing the innocents you are creating radicals. If you don't kill the radicals the innocents will dye.
My 2 cents:
The short term-practical- Americans. The social conscious-overly cautious- British. The radicalized civilian 'traitors", two Brits one Yankee. The unconditional support from the weaker-most affected- friendly country host, Kenya. A global joint operation completely supported with (state-of-the-art) warfare equipment. The focused unwavering military performance. The unsecured, ineffective and politically dispersed executive branch high ranked decision makers. Human casualties become simply statistics. The rule of engagement are socially-politically biased, malleable an open for improvisation. And maybe the worst of the drama, not surprises though, the always accommodating useless lawyers...
My 2 cents:
The short term-practical- Americans. The social conscious-overly cautious- British. The radicalized civilian 'traitors", two Brits one Yankee. The unconditional support from the weaker-most affected- friendly country host, Kenya. A global joint operation completely supported with (state-of-the-art) warfare equipment. The focused unwavering military performance. The unsecured, ineffective and politically dispersed executive branch high ranked decision makers. Human casualties become simply statistics. The rule of engagement are socially-politically biased, malleable an open for improvisation. And maybe the worst of the drama, not surprises though, the always accommodating useless lawyers...
2
I was quite disappointed in this less than compelling production of "Eye in the Sky," and I would rate this 3.5 stars out of 5. This was a significantly weaker plot than "Good Kill," which I found very moving, and to which I gave a 5 star rating. Besides, this included gratuitous violence. The high octane cast was there only to score political points, certainly not to improve the telling of the tale. As far as the over-hyped accuracy of the weapons, we were shown the foggiest possible example, and nothing more.
This review literally summarizes the entire movie. All of the suspense, gone. I know reviewers have to toe a fine line. But this goes WAYYYYY past it.
9
I agree...I'm very glad I saw the movie before reading the review. I know it's difficult for reviewers to capsulize plot without giving away too much or too little, but this review tells too much and could hamper the viewing experience if someone has read it beforehand. Too bad, because I enjoyed the movie and thought it was very suspenseful.
13
I almost never comment, but signed in to say exactly what you've said.
Who wants an entire blow-by-blow description of a movie? Granted, it's easier to write than a thoughtful critique of performances, story, direction, editing, sound, cinematography... I expect much more from The Times.
Who wants an entire blow-by-blow description of a movie? Granted, it's easier to write than a thoughtful critique of performances, story, direction, editing, sound, cinematography... I expect much more from The Times.
6
I see many films and only read the first and last paragraphs to get a sense of the critic's appreciation and the subject matter. After I see the film, I read reviews and enjoy the dissection of plot, but NEVER before viewing. Same reason I don't watch trailers. I like to be surprised and not feel, oh, this is what he was writing about or what I saw. My advice, read reviews AFTER.
2
"Eye In The Sky" will show you why the West is bound to lose the war on terror. It's an endless flow of cheap videoscreen emotionalism and responsibility-avoidance, no matter how many civilians are being targeted by the suicide bombers. Islamic militants work out of civilian neighborhoods, using them routinely as human shields. They know collateral deaths make good propaganda, and that the Western media is squeamish and guilty. Can civilization really be this stupid? "Yes, We Can!!"
There is no civilized response to those who behave as unscrupulous barbarians but to kill them wherever & whenever the opportunity arises. They have no need of collateral damage to recruit other idiots to martyr themselves.
5
The movie should be required viewing for all Republican Presidential candidates who advocate scorched earth policy and killing the families of terrorists. The soldiers who execute these kill orders are left to deal with the psychological impact collateral damage can have. But maybe when the possible killing of one innocent causes us such torment it is an indication we have come a long way since dropping the atomic bomb on Japan.
6
Coming to a store near you, another terrorist. "Leave them be, they are just misunderstood."
When a terrorists kills someone you know, or a family member, you will change your tune, and it is coming soon.
When a terrorists kills someone you know, or a family member, you will change your tune, and it is coming soon.
The whole dramatic enterprise founders on the insupportable conceit that the British or U.S. would EVER launch a drone attack on the soil of a friendly nation like Kenya. It would require approval by the Kenyan government, which would never consent, given the political repercussions (and which repercussions would occur even without its consent, should such an attack take place).
It's also absurd because it would be just as easy for snipers to take out the suicide bombers immediately after they stepped from the house, with very little likelihood of civilian casualties in the wake of such a surgical strike (this is, again, the capital of a friendly nation where the resources to carry out such an attack are, at most, minutes away).
The characters' decisions, which form the film's raison d'etre and are typically what help propel forward both story and character development, ring hollow as contrivances striving to present dontroversy where there is none.
It's also absurd because it would be just as easy for snipers to take out the suicide bombers immediately after they stepped from the house, with very little likelihood of civilian casualties in the wake of such a surgical strike (this is, again, the capital of a friendly nation where the resources to carry out such an attack are, at most, minutes away).
The characters' decisions, which form the film's raison d'etre and are typically what help propel forward both story and character development, ring hollow as contrivances striving to present dontroversy where there is none.
3
Neither the British or American Secretaries have cell phones?
3
People are commenting about 'war' but this is not war, it's killing terrorists. Totally different. Terminology? ok 'unconventional' war. In that case, it's just words. If you are personally being targeted by terrorists you probably are grateful for these people. If not, well, armchair critic.
5
It's a good yarn, but it stretches belief in a sharing-and-caring military beyond the point of credibility.
10
They are like us, only more so..≥
1
"The movie still makes very clear the contrast between military personnel who want to discharge their duties as efficiently as possible, and their more cautious overseers who calculate the chances that the attacks could spur a diplomatic crisis, or worse."
Well, good. Because when you have soldiers armed to kill and no oversight, you get the gang-rape-as-weapon scenario to be found elsewhere on today's front page.
Well, good. Because when you have soldiers armed to kill and no oversight, you get the gang-rape-as-weapon scenario to be found elsewhere on today's front page.
11
My problem with being a drone operator would be uncertainty about the target, collateral damage, etc. But there is precedent. In WW2 we bombed cities and civilians. When the enemy hides next to a school or hospital, innocents are going to be hurt. The fault lies with the enemy, who won't fight in the open.
5
Oh, please. That's roughly equivalent to saying "God is on our side." What about all the innocent civilians that were fire bombed in Japan? By us. Or the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. How did we know there were enemy soldiers hiding near the churches in Dresden. The fault likes in war.
14
The fault is much larger, broader, deeper--i.e., congenital.
2
Ah, mon petit! The Japanese High Command had signaled unambiguously that it was ready to surrender 12-14 days before Hiroshima...& Dresden wasn't vital, notw/standing hand-crafted, post-facto rationales.
6
Don't know if I'll see this movie, though I love Helen Mirren.
It's does make me think how creepy it is that armies don't even have to be in the same country anymore to wage a war. It might be useful to return to the days of close fighting-- bayonets, swords, looking your adversary in the eye while you try to kill him. I don't know how many young people would join up if that were the case, but maybe nations would have to settle their differences through negotiation. I guess we've come way to far for that.
It's does make me think how creepy it is that armies don't even have to be in the same country anymore to wage a war. It might be useful to return to the days of close fighting-- bayonets, swords, looking your adversary in the eye while you try to kill him. I don't know how many young people would join up if that were the case, but maybe nations would have to settle their differences through negotiation. I guess we've come way to far for that.
4
Will remote operations make conflict more or less invidious? what if they gravitate toward Stuxnet-ish or EMP-like forms that could collapse the
world-grid & civilization therewith [Santa Fe-DARPA estimate 40 years to replace 400,000 burnt-out transformers]...considering depletion of surficial minerals already by 1929 CE, prospects would be grim; 6.5 of 7.4 BN would perish of starvation [or worse]...is jingo-gratification worth the tariff?
world-grid & civilization therewith [Santa Fe-DARPA estimate 40 years to replace 400,000 burnt-out transformers]...considering depletion of surficial minerals already by 1929 CE, prospects would be grim; 6.5 of 7.4 BN would perish of starvation [or worse]...is jingo-gratification worth the tariff?
1
This review makes me want to see this movie. I have always found my taste to be quite similar to Mr. Holden's. If the review hadn't been enough, Helen Mirren's appearance on Colbert the other night would definitely have sealed the deal; she's quite a lady, in more than one sense of the word.
4
It's like a " Homeland" redux. Even one of the actors from Homeland is in it. I was underwhelmed by the dragging out of the crisis, but seeing Alan Rickman for the last time on screen was worth seeing the film. What a loss.
3
"At what point does warfare by remote control become an impersonal video game in which the human element is overlooked in the pursuit of a so-called “good kill”?"
Same thing can be said about using a gun.
Same thing can be said about using a gun.
5
Eliminate the child from the movie and there would have been no conflict. Using the child to create a moral dilemna seemed too easy and sentimental and missed the central conflict-- how do you morally weigh fatal methodologies?
18
Alan Rickman's final film and Helen Mirren? I'll be there.
28
First. I will see ANYTHING with Alan Rickman in it. And with this being his final screen performance, it is even more of a imperative. His recent passing is a loss to both the Theatre and Film world.
As far as the theme of the movie is concerned, it couldn't have come at a more appropriate time; as the grunting task of general warfare slowly morphs into nothing more than a series of remote cyber-operations.
Helen Mirren looks pitch-perfect (as always), as does the supporting cast. Looks like a thumbs-up all around.
As far as the theme of the movie is concerned, it couldn't have come at a more appropriate time; as the grunting task of general warfare slowly morphs into nothing more than a series of remote cyber-operations.
Helen Mirren looks pitch-perfect (as always), as does the supporting cast. Looks like a thumbs-up all around.
16
Many years ago there was a Star Trek episode in which two planets waged a "clean" war that went on for ages as its very cleanliness removed the horrors of war (but not the killing). Captain Kirk destroyed the computers that controlled the war. The planets then had to find a peace or experience the true horrors of war. Every time I think about our current drone war I think of this. We have rid ourselves of the horrors of war, but have unleashed it on our enemy. In the meantime our military industrial complex (what an old term) is making money improving our ability to kill others and go home for dinner without even having to take a shower. Shame on us.
18
I will say this for drone warfare. It kind of makes the argument of a lot of NRA members that everyone needs guns in case of government tyranny pretty moot. If the government can unleash drones on you, your guns won't do you much good.
9
Civilians now own more drones than the military. In case of government tyranny, concealed-carry laws will be ignored. NDA will adamantly and effectively oppose any licensing or other infringements of the people's constitutional right to own drones.
1
Ned,
Okay, but civilians won't be able to have and operate drones as lethal as ones operated by the military. How are they going to create the technical infrastructure to do that?
I think that is one of the odd contradictions of gun advocacy. People say everyone should be able to have semi-automatic weapons, but they also argue for more spending for the military. At least a lot of them do. If you are really afraid of government tyranny, you should favor drastically cutting the military.
In the days when the Second Amendment was written, the technological capabilities of civilians and the military were not that different. Today there's a huge gap.
Okay, but civilians won't be able to have and operate drones as lethal as ones operated by the military. How are they going to create the technical infrastructure to do that?
I think that is one of the odd contradictions of gun advocacy. People say everyone should be able to have semi-automatic weapons, but they also argue for more spending for the military. At least a lot of them do. If you are really afraid of government tyranny, you should favor drastically cutting the military.
In the days when the Second Amendment was written, the technological capabilities of civilians and the military were not that different. Today there's a huge gap.
2
Sounds good and I'd like to see this one. Strikes me as a less preachy, more understanding view of drone warfare. Seems like it understands what a lot of people do not, that in war there will always be civilian casualties, friendly fire, and unintended collateral damage. But these are always balanced against the repercussions of not attacking; in this case, if they launch a drone strike, an innocent girl will likely be killed, but if they do not, then a hundred innocent people in a market will die instead. Killing one innocent to save a hundred is a very tough decision to make, but I think it's the right one, and it seems like this film doesn't preach that all military action is bad or anything silly like that.
4
'...In that movie, Ethan Hawke played a drone operator in Las Vegas increasingly sickened by having to deploy missiles that killed women and children...'
The majority of Americans who supported the Iraq War had no memory of the costs of war, as they were too young to remember Vietnam.
And, of course, without a military draft or a tax increase to pay for the war, they knew they would never pay any real price, so they could delude themselves that no one else would either.
There is 'collateral damage' in every war, no exceptions, and it is despicable and cowardly to blame soldiers for it, when the finger of blame should be pointed at those Americans who supported this misguided war.
The majority of Americans who supported the Iraq War had no memory of the costs of war, as they were too young to remember Vietnam.
And, of course, without a military draft or a tax increase to pay for the war, they knew they would never pay any real price, so they could delude themselves that no one else would either.
There is 'collateral damage' in every war, no exceptions, and it is despicable and cowardly to blame soldiers for it, when the finger of blame should be pointed at those Americans who supported this misguided war.
30
And those Americans who pay the taxes that fund all wars.
2
This issue is far more complex than its portrayal in the media.
Has there ever been a movie or tv show which portrayed a drone not being launched out of concern for innocent victims and the target then going on to kill far more innocents?
Or a drone strike being called off for similar reasons in favor of a commando raid and the commandos and bystanders being killed?
Has there ever been a movie or tv show which portrayed a drone not being launched out of concern for innocent victims and the target then going on to kill far more innocents?
Or a drone strike being called off for similar reasons in favor of a commando raid and the commandos and bystanders being killed?
3
Rickman's comment described at the end is key to this issue. I think that this kind of movie, story, presentation, whatever brings to the average person what the cost of war is that soldiers know from first hand experience. Of course, we always pay the price when it comes to the cost of war. Sadly, most of our leaders just don't believe it and certainly Donald Trump doesn't have a clue.
13
Re Mr. Trump, I agree. But look at the alternative, Mrs. Clinton, a warmonger of flexible ethics who brought about the collapse of Libya and lied about the circumstances surrounding the death of the ambassador and colleagues. She made Bush's misadventures in the Middle East much worse. Why could the Democrats not have offered up a better slate of possible candidates? Even Rand Paul looks good compared to these two. At least he had sensible things to say about U.S. military misadventures.
3
have you heard about Bernie Sanders?
6
Hillary Clinton did not cause the collapse of Libya.
12
How was Eye in the Sky "underrated"? I thought it was rather pedantic myself but the critical assessment was mostly quite positive.
2
Oops; I was referring to "Good Kill"...
3