Watch Drones For Free

Don't listen to the Hype. It's awful

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

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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.

when i was out to buy movies i stumbled over "drones." What i already can tell is that the DVD cover is far off from the actually content. Don't get all thrilled up for an action packed movie, because this is a REALLY slow paced thriller mainly taking place in a container house filled with drone gear. Drone operator Sue Lawson and Jack Bowles are tasked to kill a high value target, but Sue starts to question the motivation for killing him. Now for the real question, would i recommend this movie for other people. Yes i would. Despite it is mediocre at many points, the Pacing is rather slow at the start and i miss a deeper story of Sue and Jack, but if you look away from simple mistakes the writing is good, and the escalation of the problem is great. This movie is for the one looking for a somewhat quiet movie, and the ones wanting to ask themselves how such a simple job can be so hard.

There might be admittedly a deeper message in this movie - but the way it is presented (cover etc) one might wait for an action/war movie.Instead your getting a discussion between two very dull characters sitting in a container, watching a video screen - in feature length. Under pretense of coolness the actors try (and fail) to transport any kind of feeling/reaction.No action whatsoever, this seems to be some kind of no-budget movie which isn't even very ambitious. The storyline is so predictable that one could stop watching after 10 minutes without missing anything.If I had watched this in cinema, I would have left after half an hour.

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.