Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

Really Surprised!

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

First - Never judge a book by it's cover.. how true.. Cover show combat soldier with drones above his head.. no combat, no ground soldiers, no drones shown... just two Air Force Soldiers in a Box...This was suspenseful if one is to believe that even the low standards of some recruiters, that two people with no military fiber, discipline to even common sense would be place in a position requiring quick action and understanding of mission.The only thing I can think of is that this story was written by someone with no military history in his life. This made the scenario, hopefully, very unrealistic. Saying that; the suspense was fairly good if these two idiots would carry out the mission... NOT AN ACTION MOVIE as the DVD/Blu-Ray cover shows... just a suspense drama... as such, about half marks 4.5 to 5 stars..

I'm guessing the folks that made this movie are impressed with themselves for having the nerve to deal with such a timely and deep moral issue. Should they take the shot? The writers created a very provocative scenario that forces the choice of killing non-combatants along with the terrorist or letting the terrorist go. A long debate ensues where the characters agonize over whether to take the shot. The story's scenario is fantasy, the actions of the crew are inexcusable, and the "dilemma" faced by the crew isn't new or timely.1. The scenario where they have to shoot because the relief aircraft was diverted is unlikely at best. They are flying in a combat zone. The diverted aircraft is the only asset available in the entire area? There are no ground units, manned aircraft or unmanned aircraft from other serves available to delay the shot until the target is clear of non-combatants? If the target is that important, they would have found something somewhere to provide coverage.2. Members of the armed services usually do not have the luxury to debate the morals of lawful orders, and they are never given the option to ignore them. The chain of command would never have tolerated a junior officer and an enlisted airman ignoring orders for that long. If they were feeling generous, I guess they may have allowed one "I can't do it" but the idea of senior officers trying to reason and begging for a lieutenant and an enlisted airman to act is fantasy. This would be especially true with a high value asset like the unmanned systems. The security forces would have quickly appeared to provide a replacement crew.Military members are not given the option to ignore lawful orders. They are often not provided with why orders are given, and this still doesn't allow them to ignore the order. Requiring the chain of command to provided detailed explanations for every order would be ungainly and pointless. Sometimes obeying an order is a bit of an act of faith that the chain has access to information on which it is basing the order.3. The "dilemma" faced by the unmanned aircraft crew is not new. War is violent, destructive and weapons often hit noncombatant targets. Aerial bombing and artillery are obvious examples. It mystifies me why so many have the impression that flying a plane remotely somehow changes the dynamics of the process. Bomber pilots didn't ride their bombs to the targets, they lined a building up in a site and pushed a button. Artillery crews set angles to their guns, set the fuse, add that charge and yank a lanyard. As for the watching a target die, infantryman and snipers have been doing it for centuries.In the unlikely scenario presented in the movie, would the scenario have been less of dilemma if the unmanned aircraft hadn't been able to take the shot and something more conventional had been used to kill the terrorist? Would artillery or missile fired from a manned aircraft have resulted in fewer deaths? Or if an infantry unit had been used, would the terrorist have surrendered simply because he was near children? What if the terrorist was still killed, but managed to kill an U.S. soldier or two? Or what if he had been allowed to escape because he was near non-combatants. Would the morality of refraining from the shot justly any US soldiers or other local non-combatants he later killed? Even in the movies' unlikely and unpleasant scenario, the unmanned aircraft allowed the threat to be eliminated without exposing friendly forces to danger.War always poses many moral questions to our nation, our government and our armed forces and these questions should be asked and explored. This movie makes up an irrelevant and unlikely situation, deals with it in a completely implausible way, and the only moral dilemma it creates is why the characters were allowed to behave badly for as long as they did.

Overall I enjoyed this film. It's got a good feel to it in terms of suspense.Unfortunately, it's also a load of crap. There are no shortage of movies out there that were created for the sole purpose of making a political point. Some of them are even pretty good. But in order to make a good point, it's important to argue from a standpoint of reality.This movie steps aside from reality to make the assertion that the U.S. military cares not a lick for civilian casualties. They quite literally state it in plain English, they even go as far as saying that the rules of engagement support the execution of positively identified non-combatants.Do I really need to explain that this assertion is really just ridiculous in the extreme? I'm sure many here will defend this movie by saying we've done our share of civilian killing. While this is unhappily true, I will retort back to you that it did not happen like this. This particular example is really a stretch.Aside from their open disdain for the U.S. military, the writers make use of just about every philosophical and ethical argument for and against the use of drones. Is it really fair to wage war by pushing buttons? Is any sort of collateral civilian damage acceptable? Especially if we know about it ahead of time? Are we making asses of ourselves by using drones? Just how much obeisance are our soldiers required to give? Is there any heroism or shame left in our way of combat? And if so, is there any glory left in being a soldier? These are important questions that our new way of combat is forcing us to come to grips with. This movie would be a good one for class discussion, or to list the concerns involving drones for research and investigation.I applaud the makers for artfully and seamlessly making use of each ethical dilemma in their story.I also applaud the actors. In a movie like this, which can only be described as a psychological thriller, acting is the most important quality of the film. A range of emotions and believable characterizations are required, and both of our lead actors played the parts very well in my opinion.Despite that, I'm giving the film a score of only 7. I feel that the writers could have come up with a more believable reaction to the scenario. The reaction of the upper brass in particular just seemed unreal. Also, as I said before, this film reeks of open disdain for the military. It's OK to hate the military, but don't expect that your movie will be good if you let those feelings pour into your work. If you want to promote philosophical discussion, you need to remain objective. Otherwise, your work becomes propaganda instead.

This is the first movie I've seen, or even heard about, that focuses entirely on military drone operators and their distant targets. Yes, there are lots of contrivances and manipulations, as well as misogynistic tones to the film, but I thought the filmmakers maintained a good deal of tension throughout and there are plenty of twists and turns here.I don't know if there is a specific agenda here or what the exact rules-of- engagement are for military drone strikes, but as noted by two reviewers before me on this site, the movie made me think as the drama unfolded and various concepts were presented on either side of the drone attacks, which I believe will be debated for many years to come.Eloise Mumford stars as Lt. Sue Lawson, who's on her first day at her job as a military drone console operator, at Creech Air Force Base, in Nevada. She's the daughter of a 4 star general, a trained boxer, and was "top stick" at the Air Force Academy before a detached retina forced her out of the skies.Matt O'Leary co-stars as Airman Jack Bowles, who's the more experienced of the two. He's the pilot at the drone controls, and has already had 23 successful "target prosecutions" over the past 11 months.The movie is almost entirely focused on their one shift to track a suspected terrorist Mahmoud Kahlil, in Afghanistan, and eliminate him with a missile strike. With Kahlil's parent's home being surveilled, it becomes apparent that Kahlil should be joining them and other family members for his birthday.However, as the tension mounts for a possible strike, a rift develops between Lt. Lawson and Airman Bowles which threatens the whole operation, despite direct orders from a supervising Colonel. As mentioned, this will lead to various dramatic twists and will escalate into a startling and disturbing ending.In summary, I thought the director Rick Rosenthal, as well as writer Matt Whitten, maintained good pacing throughout as well as a strong sense of realism. I feel this film will be controversial for many, as it raises a number of questions about drone strikes currently being used by the military.