Sully: Miracle on the Hudson

The best new film since... Well, since Bridge of Spies. And it probably isn't a coincidence that Tom Hanks is also in it, because Sully is so very great in the first place, though not only because of him. I especially liked the ubiquitous tension and believable dramatic atmosphere. Whether the viewer knows in advance what happened on the Hudson or not (although after a few minutes everything is clear even to him), Eastwood's precise direction leaves him almost permanently shivering and waiting breathlessly for what will come in the next scene. We see the landing several times, but each time in a different way, and we never get the feeling that something is repeating itself, because the plot resembles a building kit made of many pieces that gradually fit together. Everything is carefully balanced - tension, pathos and humor - the main character is not a superman, but just an ordinary man who has done the incredibly right thing, but suddenly faces such pressure that he starts to doubt himself. What is admirable and commendable is that the film does not slip into any depressing drama full of regrets and question marks, but keeps its head above water and keeps winking at us: Don't worry, it will turn out well. It would be a shame to miss such an excellent film, as modest as its main character. (21/09/2016)

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. (02/01/2017)

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. (15/01/2017)

Very professional work by the whole crew. Captain Eastwood boldly erects a memorial to discipline, precise decision-making and perfect work of Chesley Sullenberger. I vaguely remember seeing something about the crash-landing in the Hudson on the Internet. Needless to say, it didn’t really affect me much, but the way Clint works with this topic is fantastic. Nightmares, doubts and an almost detective movie style finale when Sully takes control and again using his cool nerves to saves himself. Wonderful. And the movie flies past terribly fast. Tom Hanks is absolutely right, no unnecessary snivelling from his Sully, he is just down to earth, a real professional. A minimum of pathos, pure facts. Bravo! (26/09/2016)

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. (30/01/2017)