Wow! Such a good movie.

Overrated and overhyped

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Powerful gripping drama with faultless acting from Mumford and O'Leary. SPOILER: The "iron" is only dropped when for Mumford it becomes personal. Okay, so O'Leary's role reversal isn't totally convincing but this is a drama about ideas and the positions people take to adjust to their situations. And of course we are left to wonder if the target was a terrorist.

Totally unbelievable. Typical tripe from the Hollywood liberal establishment proselytizing their agenda. Two people like the two idiots in this movie would never be allowed to work drone missions. If we do in fact have people like those two working drone missions, our country is in deep trouble. One of the most horse poop movies I have ever seen.

This film raises thought provoking questions about the intersection of technology, morality and war. It deals with several different moral issues. The story line is that there are two people assigned to man a drone spy plane and they have to decide whether the person arriving at the site they are spying on is correctly identified as the Al-Qaeda terrorist they think he is, and they have to decide whether or not they should take him out if it involves killing other people including children. They are also aware of how the attack will be reported and spun (i.e. the other people will be considered as conspirators, even though clearly that isn't the case.) There are issues involving the idea of the ends justifying the means, as well as the psychological issues including the effects of these decisions on the people manning the drones. It also raises questions related to the use of drones and privacy and the fact that drones provide a way to look into every corner of the world, including ones normally considered private. It makes a great movie to use as a springboard for discussions.

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.