Drone (I) (2017) User Reviews

Very Well Done - Better than expected

[jacob2i · 8/10 · 27 May 2017]

Based on the comments I read here, I wasn't going to watch this movie. One even said this was basically the same as the movie I.T. which is silly. They are two entirely different stories.

Yes. They both involve psycho's but I.T.'s psycho is truly going psycho for the most flimsy of reasons. I couldn't even finish watching that movie.

This movie however really delves into a legitimate reason why someone would do what the antagonist did in this movie.

It avoided a paper thin presentation of the Muslim's rage against the guy who killed his family by drone strike. And it had a totally different take on the possibilities where this movie could end up. I'm saying it like that so I don't ruin the movie.

The acting while not stunning was quite good. The writing was actually understated which I liked. The response of the government to this situation seemed more plausible than some movies that are so over the top.

This should be rated higher, at least a solid 6.5 to 7.0. In my mind, this movie is worth an 8.

A good movie like Eye In the Sky or Good Kill

[robertemerald · 7/10 · 9 June 2019]

There are two other drone dilemma movies, Good Kill and Eye In The Sky. Drone carries on the same theme, and is on par with them. If you liked those two movies mentioned then you'll like this one. The framing of the shots in Drone is special. Fantastic use is made of mirrors and arial shots. There is also a brilliant soundtrack with a tragic Eastern edge, which overlays really effectively on the main drama, almost all of which takes place in suburban USA. Initially we see the contrast between the two cultures, drawn with lovely vivid colour and detail. The theme of war is carried through with subtle, clever touches, such as a flag fluttering, domestic aircraft either seen above or heard in the distance, or a clever fusion of traffic sounds and a gameboy, creating an odd sound eerily like a barrage in the distance. It's all building up to something. My gripe with the movie is the over-complication of the theme of truth, as opposed to the main theme of collateral damage and responsibility. For me that was too much information serving only to overdramatise the story. The film wasn't a long one, which helped. I wondered at the wisdom of casting Sean Bean. It wasn't his acting so much, which was very good, but rather his character role. He seemed very untidy and unkept for a man at the forefront of new technologies, and seemed to be constantly fidgeting, as though he didn't know what to do with his hands. What the hell, maybe that was a hint at conscience. If so then it didn't work as well as other aspects of the movie mentioned above. It's a good movie, with just the right amount of tension, craft and thoughtfulness for its length, and of course, as we pilot a way forward in a new world of technologies we certainly need movies like Drone.

The Confessional

[lavatch · 24 August 2017]

In the bonus segment of the DVD version of "Drone," there was a deleted scene that was instructive in defining the dysfunction of the Wistin family. The teenage son named Shane is being counseled at his high school, and he opens up to the psychologist about his home life. The youngster is grieving over the death of his grandfather, but the grief extends to Shane's frustrating relationship with his dad with whom the youngster is unable to communicate.

The inclusion of this deleted scene in the final film cut would have explained more completely the backdrop for the troubled Wistin family that was left vague for filmmgoers. And the core emotion of guilt is what drives the parents of Shane: the guilt of the mother Ellen who is having an affair and the guilt of the father Neil who is a contractor for the CIA involved in drone strikes in the Middle East.

The film opens in Miramsha, Pakistan on March 21, 2016, where innocent civilians are killed in an American drone strike. On the one-year anniversary of the strike, the scene shifts to Renton, Washington where on the fateful anniversary, the Wistin family will be confronted by Imir Shah, whose wife and daughter perished in the strike.

Unintentionally, the serious drama lapses into near comedy, due to the naivety and indeed stupidity of the husband, who fails to perceive the danger posed by Mr. Shah, arriving at his home with a briefcase and claiming that he wishes to spend $16,000 for a used boat! No other motives about the stranger's bizarre appearance on his property occur to the dim-witted Neil.

Without a doubt the most interesting character in the film is the inventive Imir Shah. He succeeds in evading the feds in entering the country. He skillfully tracks the top secret work activities of Neil. And he shadows Ellen, capturing her on camera with her lover Ted. In the most moving part of the film, Imir helps Neil with the preparation of the eulogy for his father, suggesting that funeral speech should open with a childhood memory and then address the three constituent elements of how the dead live on in our memories through (a) their good deeds; (b) charity given in the spirit of their good name; and (c) the knowledge they leave behind that benefited others. Those words of wisdom seemingly had never been considered by Neil.

The heart and soul of the film is the confessional that occurs in the Wistin family. Yet the aftereffect of the family's newfound understanding seems shallow. Neil was in violation of the Geneva protocol. Will his whistleblowing actions serve to expiate his sins? Will they be anything more than a drop in the bucket with regard to the covert operations of the CIA? Similarly, it is not clear if Ellen will be transformed from the experience. Her background is in ethnology, and she teaches "comparative cultures" at the local community college. Will she become any more enlightened from the traumatic encounter in her home?

The family member who appears to have the greatest humanity is young Shane, who fittingly sends out a toy ship into the lake with a nobel tribute paid to his grandfather: "I'll see you in Valhalla, gramps!" Shane is in the best position to transform his life out of the ashes of the secrets and lies of the Wistin family.

Disappointing

[startingfromscratchlv · 3/10 · 3 June 2017]

What was the accent that Bean was supposed to be using? it changed as the film progressed.

As for the storyline, well, the premise was good but the acting was second rate to say the best. The over emotional kid.... and the ending I've seen more exciting in made for TV movies . Plenty of time for it to have been controlled better and the twist, I'd guessed that was going to happen from the earlier dialogue.

Can't see why it was called drone, apart from that being his day job, better to have been called a little light drama of dinner.

I stuck it out to the end but, wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

A Movie with a Message.

[tsmith-40140 · 10/10 · 7 August 2017]

Some reviews is based on how well acting and all the bull people like to critique about. This is my first review. I never post reviews, but this movie hit me hard. This movie has a message that is told well and anybody with a soul that watch this film will feel sadness about the world we live in. I'm a proud American, but wrong is wrong. How can a country that is considered so great, send drones to countries that's live in poverty. I don't think you can tell me a reason for this way of killing, that will change my mind. This movie will be swept under a rug, because it tells a shameful truth about America in a very disturbing way. So this movie will never get the proper recognition it deserves.

true to its name

[xoxo411 · 31 May 2017]

Most part of the movie is a picture taken from the sky. Real mechanical drone versus human eyes drone. Great comparison by the director. For the first 5 minutes, I was worried thinking I came to the wrong foreign movie. It is true thriller with a common theme but from a different angle. It is not really a military movie. Sean Bean's acting is excellent. He is secretive but covert. His facial expressions are amazing and his handling of stressful events are masterful. He lets himself helpless and vulnerable only at times and places were is heart is near and dear. The villain Amir SHaw ( Movie Name) is a talented actor who displays great control of his emotions most of the time. When he lost his composure he acted truly as a suffering madman. Every one had a part to play and they were wonderful. I am sorry to say the crowd attracting phenomenon was not there because of lack of commercial advertisement. I give this movie 6.5

Drone On...

[markjhanson · 1/10 · 22 May 2017]

This is a totally unoriginal story. Very similar to the recent Pierce Brosnan film IT. This narrative has been played so out so many times in so many films you can skip the unsurprising ending. If you want to save a dollar just watch the trailer, you have the whole unimaginative story.

Sean Bean & Patrick Sabongui are excellent actors and their performance are first rate considering the material but the rest of the film is a complete dud and hard to watch. Looking on the producers list of past films he is not known for ground breaking or original stories and this is waste of 90 minutes of your life.

A Very Good Watch

[faran08 · 10/10 · 19 July 2017]

Slow in the start, basically building up for the climax, but last half hour conversation's very precise selection of dialogues, moments and very good acting by both main leads put you in their socks. The movie ends at a very strong note i.e. The man successfully made Neil realise that this is how his victims actually look like while dying. and a very serious message we do not realise now a days is that people are not collateral damage. They're people not things.

A movie with a heart and a story to tell.

[debabrata4747 · 9/10 · 1 September 2017]

A very beautiful movie, perfectly shows the life in a first world country and things which are taken for granted there. There are some sub plots which have been tied in perfectly in the end. But this movie is not about any country but about the people living in them and their sorrows and losses and how killing in the name of war has become so cold and calculated and if someone finally speaks up against that coldness he is labeled as a traitor and the general people don't give a fcuk. Beautifully directed, beautiful acting by Sean Bean and specially Patrick Sabongui, that guy was the tragic hero. In the end it is the villain who turns to be better than all the other characters.

A Life Lesson

[pedrobritto · 10/10 · 13 August 2017]

This film is a real life lesson with xenophobia approach. Congratulations Canadians producers. Its a really good movie for everybody to watch. The film provides a good basis for a reflective thinking about US military practices. However, for a good understanding I advise that this film be viewed quite calmly - and if necessary, return some scenes to better understand as the film evolves. Attention is essential for understanding the message.

False moral and unrealistic premise

[Extinctive · 3/10 · 31 May 2017]

The acting didn't seem all that special, to be perfectly honest. It was unclear why they were all so troubled and tired. Was it that grandpa died? The characters were not very rounded, not well formed. It was a messy script, more suited for an episode of a B-class TV-series. And above all stands; The core of the story seems entirely fabricated in order to discredit whistle-blowers worldwide. How much did they get paid extra by the US-gov to make this movie? It tries to make it look like leaking or whistle-blowing by definition is unredacted, unchecked, unedited before going public. In *all* war-related leak cases known to the world this was never the case. The leaks have always been checked for names of (like in this movie) drone-operators and the likes, in order to not have them become endangered by the leak, and to have the whistle-blower remain innocent of indirect murder and such.

Thus far there has not been 1 proved case of endangerment of people involved in the leaked information, making this movie rather unfairly assuming a lot of false info.

The strangest part of the story however is the fact that it blames Islamic hackers for the breach of NSA data, which has never happened for real. The leaks came from the inside, from within the NSA/CIA/FBI.

Dreadful garbage

[matty-j-1 · 2/10 · 3 June 2017]

Don't waste your time. The storyline is reasonable, but the implementation is awful. Painfully slow for the first hour or more, then all rushed at the end. Acting is woeful, with the exception of the 2 male leads. The wife is hopeless, and the son is worse.

What could have been a reasonable film is so poorly done that you'll be lucky to sit through it.

could have been better

[AziziOthmanMY · 5/10 · 21 June 2017]

The movie was slow to develop, Sean and Patrick acting was OK, but the ending was good. I've seen a couple of movies with the same theme but this was a bit interesting as it involves interaction with the victim's family.The Neil's family crisis was highlighted too early to begin with i thought Imir's character should be develop further on. Worth a watch at least once.

Great in the work out of Vancouver BC Canada.

[tcb3773 · 8/10 · 25 August 2018]

A little slow at times but overall a movie worth sticking through. Very much enjoyed it, great work by in Indy crew out of Vancouver. #supportvancouver

great movie

[babuscars · 9/10 · 23 April 2018]

It's all about becoming conscious....whatever it takes for the other guy to see the world as you see it.. great movie

Collateral damage...

[stronald1 · 10/10 · 25 March 2019]

... has names, lives and faces. The point of the movie is made through exellent directing and acting. Even when things seems slow, it serves it's purpose very well by letting things grow on the viewer. This movie feels longer than it is, but in a good way! I can only guess why the rating is so low.

A powerful film, superbly directed

[lisasummers-30851 · 10/10 · 16 July 2017]

This is an honest, powerful film, unflinching in its examination of violence and the false dichotomies created when we cast ourselves as heroes, and other human beings as the "enemy."

Director Jason Bourque focuses his lens on American "contractor" Neil Wistin (Sean Bean) who is at once removed from, and directly responsible for the loss of innocent lives literally blown apart by the missiles launched from drone aircraft he pilots remotely. We witness a day in Neil's life, where, from a sparsely-furnished office, he directs a drone to fire a missile into a Pakistani city, causing "collateral damage": another man's wife and daughter are killed. Neil then goes home to his own family in the suburbs where, in contrast to the warm, vibrant images of Pakistan, colors are drained, washed out, as bloodless as the violence Neil appears to inflict thousands of miles away.

But as Bourque makes clear in his film, the loss of human life – the loss of a wife, a child – is far from bloodless. We are shown the impact of Neil's remote violence up-close and it is as immediate, raw and disturbing as it should be.

The camera lingers on mirrors, suggesting that our own culpability is reflected back to us. This is a difficult idea to accept, and one that is bound to make people uncomfortable – as it should. Bourque raises some difficult topics of conversation that his own characters prefer not to discuss at the dinner table. This is not a film about polite conversation. It is about the disturbing realities of modern warfare, and the very real pain we inflict on others. In Drone, the political is made personal. And the inescapable conclusion is that we are all victim to our own prejudices.

Good story, great reflection

[eyefordetail · 7/10 · 29 October 2017]

When I looked at the poster I thought: A war movie focusing on drone warfare. Sean Bean in there made me watch it. I was quite surprised to find a drama that addresses real issues. And quite a poignant one as well. The pace of the movie and the initial suspense created carried through very well. The score I found to be exceptional, building the drama subtly but methodically. Yes, there are many places it could have been better. But overall a good watch with a well-told story that builds to a surprising climax. Patrick Sabongui was excellent. I would love to see him in deeper movies, as he has the talent to achieve much more (than Flash and Shooter). I would rate this as a good family movie, as it makes you think about the world we live in. Intolerance, building International tensions and as Roger Waters aptly said: "The bravery of being out of range".

Work of Art

[morganem-73320 · 10/10 · 3 September 2017]

The only criticism I would give is that it should have had a different title. The title attracts gamers and those too young, to have had enough life experience to have developed the empathy required to understand the film. The feel is that it must be based on actual experiences.

It reminds me of the Irish films, from two decades ago, with much better tech. The actors are expressive without a lot of meaningless dialouge required by people who don't interpret facial expressions. This was a beautiful use of the camera, to make you feel what the characters are going through as if looking through their eyes. The film is rich in culture, believable characters, with brilliant lighting and sound that gives just enough anxiety, not to be outputting, but draw you in.

This is not a film for idiots.

How far would you go? What is right? What is wrong? Is it right to do? Is it right to not do?

[markthomassintek · 8/10 · 14 August 2017]

REVIEW - DRONE

What is right? What is wrong? Is it right to do? Is it right to not do?

A film exploring the issues of collateral damage 'innocent people' being killed when drones have been used.

The film touches on the moral aspects of drone warfare but concentrates on turning the subject from the glorification of drone warfare and puts the question in your lap, what would you do if your wife and child were killed by a drone?

How far would you go? What is right? What is wrong? Is it right to do? Is it right to not do?

After 15 minutes I noticed how well the filmmaker uses imagery

[michaeljtrubic · 7/10 · 27 May 2017]

Here are a couple of examples and they require an attentive mind to spot them. I see a man who wouldn't hurt a fly. To me I see not a gentleness but strong religious beliefs.

Another good example is of a man slowly and carefully washing himself using a pail of water. What I see here is ritual.

A third example, the most persuasive in the opening act, is watching that recently cleansed man walking out into the daylight, coldly and calmly past his still quivering victim along a waterway choked with floating garbage.

This is a movie that makes the viewer read between the lines.

You have to study the context and emotion, not a dialog heavy movie you can listen to in the background and accomplish other tasks.

Do you feel it ?

[tomsawyer-01858 · 8/10 · 28 May 2017]

When you push the button from thousands of miles away to kill in Pakistan and elsewhere with the rockets of a drone. The collateral damages, do you feel them when you pushed the button. No you don't.

Statistically there were about 2.500 kills by drones from the CIA in Pakistan. With a minimum of about 180 innocent children blown up by American thumbs in ten years. (https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2017-01-01/drone- wars- the-full-data)

That's what the movie is about, it's well directed, played, everything comes very naturally, straight forward, there is no fake story, this is not a thriller, this has nothing to do with an eye for an eye.

Eye in the Sky was about the same subject, but much more inventive on the story to make it thrilling. This movie is different, so it's a good idea to watch them both in a short interval.

It's an important movie, about a subject that has been avoided by mainstream media's, and the message the movie gives is up to the big lie they spread about war against terror.

Drones attacks is terrorism. And the only answer to that is to feel it, to feel the crime.

Or would you like someday see a presumed terrorist blown up by the CIA in your neighborhood? With acceptable collateral damage on a western territory ?

I know the topic makes many US citizens look away and hide behind the official allegations of their Governments. Which makes this movie so unpopular.Some comments expect this movie to be entertainment. Are they out of their mind ?

Well it is intellectually challenging, it is calling up for everybody's personal responsibility, with a very clear statement against any kind of violence, and that makes it interesting and of great philosophic and educational value

And about the Muslim who wouldn't hurt a fly. It's rather indicating a strong attitude against violence than a strong religious belief. It made me smile when he captured the fly by covering it with a reversed glass. I'm doing that, but instead of letting it fly again in the room, I set a piece of paper underneath, open the window, move the glass with the insect captured inside by the covered paper, and give it back its freedom in nature. And I don't believe in any afterlife, nor any god.

A surprisingly good film...

[phil-932-237806 · 8/10 · 26 March 2019]

It's quite refreshing to see a film these days nicely shot with out the dreaded use of "shakycam". I was expecting a Shaun Bean film to be shaking around all over the place. Well worth a watch if you like to see good cinematography and splendid acting...

I expected much better

[deloudelouvain · 5/10 · 12 February 2018]

The ingredients to make a good movie were all there but in the end Drone is just an average movie. Not awful though but certainly not great either. The cast and the acting were not bad, just not award winning acting let us say. I was expecting a lot more action but besides the first ten minutes where there is a bit of action the rest is all a bit too slow and sometimes a bit boring. It could have used a bit more suspense to keep it interesting. Also the story was too far fetched to make it believable, like there is no way a guy would just find out who exactly from the CIA would bomb his family. Not even an advanced spy would come with that information, let alone a random guy. The story was just too slow and not believable enough to make it a great movie.

Cringiest movie I've seen in a long time

[nilsschlickelmann · 2/10 · 19 June 2017]

The story line seemed very promising. But this is one of the corniest movies I've seen in a long time. The acting is terrible, even from Sean Bean.

The music does nothing but emphasize the oppressing atmosphere created by the awkward dialogue.