There are two good things about this movie. The first is Tom Hanks. Though he is uncharacteristically quiet here, he does great service to his real-life counterpart, the stoic Captain Sullenberger of the famed "Miracle on the Hudson". His nuanced performance won't garner him many awards, but it's definitely worth a watch, if only as a sharp change from his melodramatic verve in Captain Phillips (2013). I'd say Aaron Eckhart is the other good thing about this movie, but he's not in it enough to achieve that recognition. Actually -- and I can scarcely believe I'm typing this -- Clint Eastwood's direction is pretty good. To clarify: Eastwood and his cinematographer Tom Stern imbue the film with such fabulous atmosphere that it often feels as though we are present. Given the chilly setting, thrilling disaster, and even the icy demeanor of our protagonist, the filmmakers have fashioned a movie saturated with blue hues and a distinctly IMAX-like visual approach. Smart move, guys.
Other than that, the latest Eastwood film is typically underwhelming. The six minute flight that made global news would seem to take center stage in this film, and while it does make up the "spectacle" portion of the proceedings, the heart of the film lies not with facts but with propaganda. Eastwood's libertarian worldviews seem to have, yet again, overcome his artistic sensibilities, amping up the NTSB investigations and turning them into such a circus show that I half expected Richard Gere to drop from the ceiling in sequins, crooning about razzle dazzle. Think I'm wrong? Read Sullenberger's memoir.
Before you crucify me for not permitting artistic license, I'd like to point out that I am always in favor of stretching source material, and for making necessary changes in adaptations. However, those changes have to serve the story, and the only thing Eastwood's changes serve is his own mistrust of governmental oversight and his glorification of brave white men. Captain Sullenberger was a hero, to be sure, but Eastwood didn't need to create a villain for him to battle. In fact, Sullenberger wrote highly of the NTSB, saying that he felt "buoyed" by their encouragement and their determination that he and his copilot had "made appropriate choices at every step". What Eastwood fails to recognize here is that the NTSB is also a hero; he sees its investigators as clowns, malicious fools wrapping their victims in red tape, clueless and petty in their investigation.
Maybe the real crime I'm angry about here is that Eastwood totally squandered the opportunity he had in casting Anna Gunn as one of those investigators. That could have been lovely.
The shallow story and stoic characters would have worked fine for the relatively short running time, but they still felt stretched too thin. By the second half, Eastwood allows the bizarre pseudo-courtroom drama to wallow in excess and melodrama, which doesn't come close to meshing with either the titular character or the story up to that point. That's not the only way in which Eastwood and writer Todd Komarnicki fail us, however: They also can't get a grip on the basic narrative structure. We are pulled back and forth in time, forced into a strange limbo where the trauma of the flight is revisited upon us time and again, each time seen from a new perspective. After about the third time, it feels like the film is just spinning the one good idea it has, hoping that each time it will stick a little more.
The scenes of the crash itself are pretty darn good, but we've also seen it before, and better. Remember United 93? Remember the first episode of Lost? Again, Eastwood masters his atmosphere in these scenes, and perhaps the most memorable bit is the chanting of the flight attendants, "Brace! Brace! Brace! Head down, stay down!" That effectively aroused gooseflesh on my arms. The other scene that stuck with me was the opening scene. Sully, viewing the Manhattan skyline, as a passenger plane careens through the towers before crashing and burning into a metropolitan building. It's only a fever dream of his -- what could have happened to all those lives on January 15, 2009 -- but it heralds a film in which Eastwood promises he won't be playing it safe.
And then he plays it as safe as he possibly could have.
Is it a bad film? No, and it's worth a watch. Just be aware that Eastwood is up to his usual tricks, by which I mean the film is almost dull. Be aware that it's not an accurate representation of reality. Be aware that in casting Tom Hanks in a movie about a real-life hero, Eastwood has ensured that this film is a feel-good, tension-less escape from an exactly opposite political climate.
IMDb: Sully
No comments:
Post a Comment