Sully reviews

Big Magilla
Site Admin
Posts: 15066
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
Location: Jersey Shore

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Big Magilla » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:16 am

The "miracle on the Hudson" occurred on January 15, 2009, a week before Obama took office. It was a great uplifting news story and an omen of hope for the future, a far cry from the despairing news that we are constantly bombarded with eight years later as Orange Hitler is about to succeed him.

To put it in perspective, the "miracle" which occurred seven years, four months and four days after 9/11 is now further away in time from today than it was to that horrible day, but seems like it happened only yesterday as it remains the only "good news" story the media has been fascinated with this century so far. As such, it as well-known a story as anything that has been fodder for a motion picture story. Does the film do it justice? Yes, and no.

Where the film succeeds is in the technical aspects of the short flight and its "landing" on the water. Where it fails is in the insipid, dull presentation of everything else. Laura Linney's performance consists of "I love you, get some sleep, I love you" over and over. Even Katie Couric and David Letterman come across as amateurish. If the film wasn't going to go into more depth of characterization, the least it could have done was give more depth to the rescue. Instead we get all that filler about Sully sitting in his hotel room, Sully sitting at the bar and Sully walking with his co-pilot and having awkward, inane conversations with his wife, "I love you, I have to go, I love you".

I don't know why Tom Hanks is even in the discussion for an Oscar nomination when he couldn't manage one for either of his superior recent performances as two other real-life heroes in Captain Phillips and Bridge of Spies. I think his interpretation of Captain Sully is respectable at best.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5959
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Thu Sep 22, 2016 10:28 pm

Uri wrote:
The Original BJ wrote:I also think the title is a subtle but nice touch -- you could easily imagine a movie version of this story titled "Miracle on the Hudson," attached to a version of this movie that was way more grandiose.


Alas - "Sully - A Miracle on the Hudson" IS exactly the title given to it in Israel. Distributors here are not that big on subtlety, I'm afraid.

Been meaning to say: great to hear from you, Uri. Had begun to worry we'd lost you.

Uri
Assistant
Posts: 987
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Uri » Mon Sep 19, 2016 12:03 am

The Original BJ wrote:I also think the title is a subtle but nice touch -- you could easily imagine a movie version of this story titled "Miracle on the Hudson," attached to a version of this movie that was way more grandiose.


Alas - "Sully - A Miracle on the Hudson" IS exactly the title given to it in Israel. Distributors here are not that big on subtlety, I'm afraid.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3869
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: Sully reviews

Postby The Original BJ » Sun Sep 18, 2016 4:49 pm

I'm closer to the dws/Mister Tee reaction in that I view Sully as a very solid bunt. I think the movie has some pretty clear limitations -- the story basically amounts to an anecdote, albeit an extraordinary one, and definitely feels like it's stretching to fill its ninety minutes. I'm definitely on Sabin's side on the "why did we need to see the plane crash twice?" issue -- for this structuring to work for me, I would have needed the second depiction to reveal some new piece of information, and I didn't think the movie gave me that. And the brief glimpses into the lives of the passengers/air crew felt a little like perfunctory time-filler.

But despite what I found to be a limited framework, I think the movie is pretty engaging -- as a non-fan of American Sniper, I actually would rate this Eastwood's most successful movie in a decade, even if it's not up to the level of his run of stellar efforts at the beginning of the millennium. The plane landing and rescue sequence (or sequences, rather, since we see bits and pieces at different points in time) are pretty impressively mounted, and the tone feels totally right -- this doesn't feel like we're in a movie disaster, but a real-life scenario in which everyone is panicked, but in which tragedy is averted through the professionalism of the air crew and the humanity of all involved.

And the movie's thematic terrain -- in which someone who never wanted fame, but receives it simply because he's doing his job to the best of his abilities, must suddenly negotiate it and the perils that go with it -- is genuinely compelling, and a perfect fit for this director. The scene in which Sully goes into the bar and finds it has already named a silly drink after him and his terrifying situation has a tone that's classic Clint Eastwood, and numerous other details (like Sully receiving a hero's welcome at the hotel when all he wants are his clothes cleaned) make the movie feel thoughtful throughout even if it doesn't amount to anything major.

I also think the title is a subtle but nice touch -- you could easily imagine a movie version of this story titled "Miracle on the Hudson," attached to a version of this movie that was way more grandiose. But "Sully" feels like the right title for this movie, which values modesty in its characterization of Sully as a regular guy caught up in circumstances way bigger than he ever imagined.

Warner Bros. really picked a good time to release this -- without much else for grown-ups in sight, it's managing a very solid box-office turnout.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6894
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Sabin » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:37 pm

Mister Tee wrote
Sabin wrote
Mister Tee wrote
I'm amazed by Sabin's harsh reaction. I thought this was the kind of movie most anybody could enjoy (the people I overheard leaving my showing were effusive about it).

How did you feel about the fact that the entire crash plays out in its entirety twice over? I can't get past the fact that I felt like I was watching water-treading exercised to get past the fact that this really isn't a movie.

But each time from a different perspective, and perspective was pretty much the movie's subject -- not just pilot vs. observer on the crash, but media vs. person involved re: heroism. I took different meanings from each telling.

I found the differences in perspective to be incredibly mild especially considering how the movie announces its unwavering sympathies towards Sully at the beginning and never wavers. I didn't gain any new insight from any repetition.

The only aspect of the film I enjoyed was the film's look. I won't call it a brilliantly shot film, but color-timing has been kind to Clint Eastwood's filmmaking and there is a gorgeous white/dawn look to the film that reminded me of Janusz Kaminski's cinematography at times which made it feel more immersive.
“This is something, as long as we live in a world where something means anything. I’m not sure we do anymore. It seems serious, but do we live in a world devoid of consequences now? This seems like a seismic event, but it might be nothing.” John Oliver

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5959
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:29 pm

Sabin wrote:
Mister Tee wrote
I'm amazed by Sabin's harsh reaction. I thought this was the kind of movie most anybody could enjoy (the people I overheard leaving my showing were effusive about it).

How did you feel about the fact that the entire crash plays out in its entirety twice over? I can't get past the fact that I felt like I was watching water-treading exercised to get past the fact that this really isn't a movie.

But each time from a different perspective, and perspective was pretty much the movie's subject -- not just pilot vs. observer on the crash, but media vs. person involved re: heroism. I took different meanings from each telling.

I won't argue that the film was probably conceived simply to spotlight a single, not-complicated event. But I thought it found a way to both celebrate that event and to create a story around it that didn't feel wooden as so many docu-dramas do.

It's possible I feel a closer attachment to the whole thing because it was an extremely closely-watched local story.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6894
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Sabin » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:24 pm

Mister Tee wrote
I'm amazed by Sabin's harsh reaction. I thought this was the kind of movie most anybody could enjoy (the people I overheard leaving my showing were effusive about it).

How did you feel about the fact that the entire crash plays out in its entirety twice over? I can't get past the fact that I felt like I was watching water-treading exercised to get past the fact that this really isn't a movie.
“This is something, as long as we live in a world where something means anything. I’m not sure we do anymore. It seems serious, but do we live in a world devoid of consequences now? This seems like a seismic event, but it might be nothing.” John Oliver

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5959
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Sep 16, 2016 4:11 pm

I'm amazed by Sabin's harsh reaction. I thought this was the kind of movie most anybody could enjoy (the people I overheard leaving my showing were effusive about it). It's not by any means the most insightful film of Eastwood's last two decades, but it may be the tightest, and one of the most gripping. The NTSB's reaction is probably over-hyped to create more drama -- it was their job to be skeptical, but the chairman does seem to tilt toward villainy -- but it works as a framing device for what is a fairly simple story, and sets in motion some interesting thoughts on how an actual accidental hero would feel about himself in the wake of his unexpected fame. The few individualized passenger characters are not the film's proudest achievement -- many fell into the category of "why even bother?" -- but they don't do significant damage. And the crash/rescue were truly compelling, for me.

None of this is to say it's a great film. It's more a rebuke to Hollywood-as-it-exists-today: that something like this, which we ought to be able to take for granted a dozen or so times a year, has become so rare that audiences flock to it as a godsend.

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby dws1982 » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:35 pm

A companion of sorts to Flags of Our Fathers--whereas Flags dealt more with perceptions of heroism, and what is and isn't heroic, this one deals with the consequences of what is a heroic act by most standards. In both movies, the question of whether the protagonist(s) acted heroically is called into question--by the protagonists themselves in Flags, and by the NTSB officials here. Both films have protagonists who are reluctant to be forced into the spotlight, frequently shying away from photographers and recognition. This definitely isn't my favorite Eastwood, but it is a good one, and the mid-film landing/rescue sequence may be one of my favorite sequences in Eastwood's filmography. There are echoes of John Ford in the way the so many random people--flight crew, passengers, police, Coast Guard, air traffic--band together save everyone after the forced landing.

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6894
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Sabin » Sun Sep 11, 2016 7:19 pm

I'm not sure if this is one of Clint Eastwood's worst films, but it is one of the worst scripts he's ever tackled. Unfocused and meandering to compensate for the fact that there really isn't much of a story here to begin with. Eastwood is not the right director for an emotional character piece like this. Maybe Ron Howard.

Very dull.
“This is something, as long as we live in a world where something means anything. I’m not sure we do anymore. It seems serious, but do we live in a world devoid of consequences now? This seems like a seismic event, but it might be nothing.” John Oliver

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 2834
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Precious Doll » Tue Sep 06, 2016 3:48 am

flipp525 wrote:
Precious Doll wrote:Saw this last night and all in all a good effort that never really soars. It's pretty much a one man Tom Hanks show with Aaron Eckhart the only other actor having a role of any substance. Poor Laura Linney is saddled with the Kathleen Quinlan role from Apollo 13.

Which actually brought Quinlan an Oscar nomination, crazy enough to imagine.


Yeah, that was an odd nomination. It felt like more her time time was spent looking up in the air. Laura Linney spends most of her scenes of the phone.
"I think he sexually assaulted a child and I don't think that's right…It's gotten very quiet in here, but that's true." Susan Sarandon on Woody Allen, Cannes Film Festival 2016

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5593
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: Sully reviews

Postby flipp525 » Mon Sep 05, 2016 5:23 pm

Precious Doll wrote:Saw this last night and all in all a good effort that never really soars. It's pretty much a one man Tom Hanks show with Aaron Eckhart the only other actor having a role of any substance. Poor Laura Linney is saddled with the Kathleen Quinlan role from Apollo 13.

Which actually brought Quinlan an Oscar nomination, crazy enough to imagine.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

User avatar
Precious Doll
Tenured
Posts: 2834
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby Precious Doll » Mon Sep 05, 2016 3:02 am

Saw this last night and all in all a good effort that never really soars. It's pretty much a one man Tom Hanks show with Aaron Eckhart the only other actor having a role of any substance. Poor Laura Linney is saddled with the Kathleen Quinlan role from Apollo 13. Dare I say but at times I felt like I was watching a Ron Howard film and perhaps it's the Tom Hanks connection. There are also shades of Flight.

I'd never heard of the story before but it was easy to guess where it was all going to go. None of the passengers on board the plane are remotely developed so I was disappointed to see that great character actress Marcia DeBonis wasted.

Special effects are impressive though there were a couple of scenes I would have preferred Eastwood not include in the film (you'll know which ones I mean if you see the film). Nomination wise I see zip but the cheesy song that plays over the end credits probably has a good a chance as any over original song this year.

Interestingly the film was very well attended for something that has had no publicity.
"I think he sexually assaulted a child and I don't think that's right…It's gotten very quiet in here, but that's true." Susan Sarandon on Woody Allen, Cannes Film Festival 2016

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 2824
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: Sully reviews

Postby dws1982 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 5:46 pm

Surprised by the length on this one. At 96 minutes, is this Eastwood's shortest movie ever? His movies are usually in the 2:10 range. Of course I'll be there first day.



Return to “2016”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest