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 (14)
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.
()
Clint knows how to play the viewer. He has a very gentle and understated way of introducing a character you will like who will make the film fun for you. He also sets it in some sort of framework of human drama. Here, he didn't even have to make it up, here it was written by fate itself, so it's actually all the better for it. Maybe. A very good film, strong, can definitely play on the viewer's heartstrings, the acting is actually flawless. But I guess I've seen too many similar films that I'm not particularly blown away by it. The movie’s over and I know I won't watch it again or remember it tomorrow. Otherwise, if it ends up leaving something in me, I'm raising my rating. But at this point "only" a strong 3 stars.
()
With an excellent script, sensitive direction and the (once again) amazing Tom Hanks, Sully is subtle in the usual Clint Eastwood
style, relatable and intimate, just as the actual event deserved and its perception and understanding required. I strongly
considered giving it a fifth star, because it is a minor miracle what the director managed to do with the source material –
without any more dramatic emotions, but also without a single, even microscopic flaw in the movie’s beauty.
()
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.
()
Clint Eastwood as we like him the most: simple, economical, straightforward and this time almost without pathos. His reconstruction of a famous event is neither as overwhelmingly authentic as United 93 nor as classically cinematic as The Flight, it treads on the edge, somewhere in between, and it does a great job. Basically without a dead spot, every shot is a forward thrust. The accident scene is amazing, both in terms of atmosphere and visual effects. Another film where the great form isn't a crutch for a lack of screenwriting substance, but serves exactly where it's expected, something that very rarely happens in a film of this kind. If it weren't for Tom Hanks being a good guy in the 126th way (getting a little tired of it) and the final 30-60 seconds, it would be almost perfect.
()
Ads