What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

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.

Not an action movie!I tend to like movies with onion layers to their central conflict, and this one did have them. It was not well written or acted though. Echoing the opening scene of WarGames, the movie explores the well- trodden dramatic area of 'orders versus morality' found so often in movies such as A Few Good Men.Better Dialogue, character development, and acting would add to this and crank up the tension. The perfect soldier (trainee) was difficult to believe as having moral qualms. The fundamental difference between warfare with piloted versus drone aircraft (in harm's way) was all but ignored with more of a focus on collateral damage. Well, F22's kill innocents too, so I have trouble understanding why the trainee has reservations. Assuming her strong education, not only in the military, but in theories of war and government, she should have come to grips with "following orders" long before she was put into this situation. The senior pilot (trainer) was a reasonable 1-dimensional character as the pizza- eating, video-gaming pilot that had no care in the world. The character growth and changes in point of view during the movie is sudden and slightly inexplicable. Additionally, the contact with the chain of command and the lack of support from the military for this pair of drone pilots was unbelievable.As all of the action takes place in a desert trailer, this movie would be better-suited to a stage presentation.

This movie shows two people in a room staring at monitors observing a terrorists house via drone cam. They talk a lot of bullshit, the airman guy tries to be as nerdy as can be, the female lieutenant is the emotional part and has pangs when the kill order finally comes. The setting is unbelievable, I don't know if a military drone control station looks like this, but I just can't believe it. Neither can I believe that the personnel is behaving like this, neither the immature guy nor the over-sensitive girl.The plot is so thin, you can't make yourself watch this. I had to fast forward through it. Nothing changes, except that the female officer takes off here uniform blouse towards the end, smacks the airman in the head and finally shoots the missile herself, killing the terrorist and his two kids. This was an awful movie. Good intentions, I'm sure, but it had a budget of probably $1000 and the writer should try another profession. No drama, no tension, no dilemmas or real ethical issues.

Overall I enjoyed this film. It's got a good feel to it in terms of suspense.Unfortunately, it's also a load of crap. There are no shortage of movies out there that were created for the sole purpose of making a political point. Some of them are even pretty good. But in order to make a good point, it's important to argue from a standpoint of reality.This movie steps aside from reality to make the assertion that the U.S. military cares not a lick for civilian casualties. They quite literally state it in plain English, they even go as far as saying that the rules of engagement support the execution of positively identified non-combatants.Do I really need to explain that this assertion is really just ridiculous in the extreme? I'm sure many here will defend this movie by saying we've done our share of civilian killing. While this is unhappily true, I will retort back to you that it did not happen like this. This particular example is really a stretch.Aside from their open disdain for the U.S. military, the writers make use of just about every philosophical and ethical argument for and against the use of drones. Is it really fair to wage war by pushing buttons? Is any sort of collateral civilian damage acceptable? Especially if we know about it ahead of time? Are we making asses of ourselves by using drones? Just how much obeisance are our soldiers required to give? Is there any heroism or shame left in our way of combat? And if so, is there any glory left in being a soldier? These are important questions that our new way of combat is forcing us to come to grips with. This movie would be a good one for class discussion, or to list the concerns involving drones for research and investigation.I applaud the makers for artfully and seamlessly making use of each ethical dilemma in their story.I also applaud the actors. In a movie like this, which can only be described as a psychological thriller, acting is the most important quality of the film. A range of emotions and believable characterizations are required, and both of our lead actors played the parts very well in my opinion.Despite that, I'm giving the film a score of only 7. I feel that the writers could have come up with a more believable reaction to the scenario. The reaction of the upper brass in particular just seemed unreal. Also, as I said before, this film reeks of open disdain for the military. It's OK to hate the military, but don't expect that your movie will be good if you let those feelings pour into your work. If you want to promote philosophical discussion, you need to remain objective. Otherwise, your work becomes propaganda instead.