Very well executed

Just perfect...

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

The movie is made so realistic it has a lot of that WoW feeling at the right moments and never tooo over the top. the suspense is done so well and the emotion is felt. Very well put together with the music and all.

With a good basic plot line, this film could have been so much better. Poor acting and pointless subplots droned it. Sean Bean sleep walks through the movie looking tired with a five-o'clock shadow, messy hair and rumpled clothes. His obese wife needs acting lessons as does the actor who played his son. Pointless infidelity and death of his father subplots make little sense. Amir Shah and his Parker Pen/bomb trigger spends most of his scenes eating and drinking at the home of the CIA contractor who killed his wife and son before finally revealing his mission. Not worth the time.

Nothing exceptional here, if you forget the unforeseeable ending. The terrific ending. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS The topic has already been told many times before, I agree, thousand times, where billions of psychopaths getting friends with the families of their victims before suddenly showing their real nature. Psychopaths usually the heavies of the films. Bad guys, or even cheeks - such as HANDS ACROSS THE CRADDLE, something loke this, starring Rebecca De Mornay, seeking revenge towards good families. The particularity here is that you can't prevent yourself to feel empathy for the poor father whose family was killed by the US drome, more or less lead, driven by the good family man Sean Bean. And you really feel anger, hate, so much pain when the two finally fight and the "bad guy" seeking revenge for his family death gets stabbed by the responsible for the poor guy's folk death. You feel something disgusting in your mouth, like a sort of dust taste. That's why I ask this question, who or where is the bad guy in this film? That's my question. For the rest of the feature, no surprise, except, I repeat, the ending.

This movie shows only one side of the issue, leading to viewer to sympathize with the antagonist. Where the antagonist might be equally guilty one could argue for outright supporting, hiding, and tolerating those among them who design to kill innocent people in the west. If you want a drama about the collateral damage involved in US actions against Terrorism, lets have it out on screen about the whole story. What a fantastic drama, and informative thematic event "Drone" could have been had it told both sides of the story.

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.