“Drones” is a movie that takes
on the ethics of our new drone warfare in our war on terrorism. This is becoming a subgenre a while back I
watched the similarly themed “Good Kill”.
It’s nice to see that war movies can take on current warfare. “Drones” was directed by Rick Rosenthal who
also directed “Bad Boys”. Something has
happened to his career as “Drones” is decidedly on the other end of the budget
spectrum. Or maybe he was dedicated to
making a statement about our controversial use of drones to assassinate
terrorists (and anyone who happens to be in the vicinity). This statement came with a low price tag as
the movie takes place in a drone trailer and has a cast of basically two low
rent actors. The screenplay is based on
a stage play by Matt Whitten, who also wrote the movie.
The movie is set at Creech Air
Force Base in Nevada. It takes place in
real time. Veteran drone pilot Jack
(Matt O’Reilly) is introduced to Sue (Eloise Mumford) who is straight out of
flight school. When Jack asked why she
“washed out”, Sue explains that it had to do with a detached retina. It is also revealed that she is the daughter
of a general. Jack, on the other hand,
is a typical airman who is from the video game generation. She has to scold him for spending time playing
a drone game. He insists its part of
training. I bet the Air Force cooperated
with this film as a recruiting tool.
 |
| Jack and Sue discuss the role of conscience in drone warfare |
Jack has been stalking a “high
value” target named Khalil. This will
not be his first kill. He is hardened to
the job and counsels her to not think too much.
“A few fucked up dreams come with the territory”. This is a reference to collateral damage
associated with taking out the bad guys.
In this case, they are spying on a residence that includes women and
kids. Sue is squeamish about this which
leads to a discussion of duty versus conscience. The discussion becomes real when the suspect
arrives. Sue refuses to laze the target
because of the civilians and questions whether Khalil is really a
terrorist. Their commanding officer is
less than thrilled with this insubordination and insists that Sue get on
board. He orders Jack to physically get
Sue on board, which does not go according to plan because earlier we were
introduced to Sue, the boxer. Since
physical doesn’t work, perhaps psychology will.
Sue’s father general calls and informs her that Khalil killed her mother. Well, he was involved with 9/11, which was
how her mother died. So now we have the
other argument that justifies the duty argument – we need to stop them from
doing it again. Daddy is convincing, but
now its Jack’s turn to question the mission.
Is this going to be Khalil’s last birthday party and the worst birthday
party his family and friends ever attend?
“Drones” means well. It takes on a topic that deserves discussion
and covers the basic arguments in the debate.
The American public needs to hear out the debate and not just accept drone
warfare without a peep. However, the
topic could be covered better by a better movie. While competently acted by Mumford and
O’Reilly, the movie comes off as low budget.
The effects emphasize this as the views from the drone give little
impression that the drone is circling over the site. The low budget is not insurmountable for a
movie that is basically a play set in a trailer with two actors interacting,
but the plot takes some twists that are hard to swallow. It is also a very unrealistic take on the
personnel who participate in drone warfare.
I would assume that Sue would have been “indoctrinated” before being
placed in that setting.
If you want to see a good movie
on this topic, watch the much superior “Good Kill”. But watch either one so you can be more aware
of what is being done to protect America from the Khalils of the world. Then you can have an educated opinion on
whether the rules of engagement are righteous.
GRADE = D
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.