Directed by:
Clint EastwoodScreenplay:
Todd KomarnickiCinematography:
Tom SternComposer:
Christian JacobCast:
Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Mike O'Malley, Anna Gunn, Jamey Sheridan, Ann Cusack, Molly Hagan, Holt McCallany, Chris Bauer, Patch Darragh (more)VOD (2)
Plots(1)
On January 15, 2009, the world witnessed the "Miracle on the Hudson" when Captain "Sully" Sullenberger glided his disabled plane onto the frigid waters of the Hudson River, saving the lives of all 155 aboard. However, even as Sully was being heralded by the public and the media for his unprecedented feat of aviation skill, an investigation was unfolding that threatened to destroy his reputation and his career. (Warner Bros. US)
(more)Videos (8)
Reviews (15)
No excuses, no messing around, only sensitively dosed pathos and no clichés. Through a cleverly constructed structure the movie doesn't beat about the bush, in other words it directly portrays the conflict of a man who while flying the aircraft without engines failure accomplished seemingly impossible and who is subsequently, under the pressure of others, begin to doubt whether by chance what he did, on the contrary, was not the worst possible solution and unnecessary bravery. Hanks proves again that he has no competition overseas when it comes to the box of "ordinary good guys next door". It hit the bull's-eye and is gripping at all times, during the freezingly calm and controlled crisis landing itself, in the moments of the beginning of panic and after it, during the intense questioning in front of the commission and during the self-searching wandering through frozen New York. Although it might seem like a Zemeckis' Flight at first glance, it is much closer to Greengrass’ United 93.
()
A well-constructed drama that diversifies the relatively straightforward story with a few cleverly timed changes in perspective. Eastwood directs conservatively and keeps pathos in check, which pays dividends several times in the process when we return from the "present" to the deck of flight 1549. The only problem is the character of Sully, who is so one-dimensionally humble, good and self-doubting, that in order for the film to function as a drama at all, it must demonize the NTSB investigators. Everyone around the miraculous flight does their job 100%, the film is literally an ode to ordinary working Americans who trust their asses more than computers or institutions. But I feel that making the NTSB into a group of biased, manipulative and unwilling suits is very controversial, even in the case of a "fictional dramatic reconstruction". Especially when among them are many former pilots and it is demonstrably usually very difficult for them to bear the failures of their colleagues. This way, it seems that the accident was surrounded by professionals, except for the investigators. Why this excursion? Sully is actually a very sparse and a single-stranded film. Entertaining but simple. But I wish it well - I could not tear myself away from it.
()
Sully is a partially procedural drama and, in a second aspect, as is customary for Clint, a film about American patriotism, which, however, is conveyed in reasonable doses and with an understanding of human nature. It relies on the experienced Tom Hanks, who seems to have been born for such roles and does not have any significant weaknesses. The film has a reasonable length, a good screenplay, and a strong story. I would just note that I perceive the film not as a story about heroism, but about professionalism, which is, after all, very important in my profession. Overall impression: 75%.
()
Sully is an ingeniously constructed portrait of a disciplined professional who is haunted by doubts about whether he did the best job he could do. Eastwood composes the image of the central “miracle” and the portrait of the protagonist from several flashbacks, each of which accentuates a different level of the event and are then collectively mirrored in Sully’s final speech highlighting the merits of the crew. Though, thanks to Hanks, Sullenberger is a more charismatic personality than he seems to be from the way he describes himself in the book on which the film is based, he is still a rather ordinary working man of firm principles and unchanging rituals, not a hero who humorously comments on every difficulty and effortlessly overcomes every obstacle. Thanks to that, Eastwood is able to see the concept of heroism in a different light. Anyone can become a hero regardless of the brilliance of their character traits, if they “just” do what they do best. 80%
()
Isn’t Clint Eastwood overdoing it it a bit with the nationalism? OK, I can take a war movie about a famous American flag, I can even take the story of an American sniper, whose life is quite tough, but is it really necessary to shoot a detailed reconstruction of how a plane landed on the Hudson River eight years ago? I’m not surprised that without the opening and closing credits this movie takes hardly 90 minutes because there really isn’t much to add. And I have to say that I didn’t really like the digital effect scenes involving the plane. Maybe fifteen years ago, but today? Thank god Tom Hanks was cast in the lead role because he’s not going to get any worse. But for the rest, I don’t want to see that ever again.
()
Ads