Missed opportunity. The back and forth in timelines through flashbacks plus hallucinations of how things could have gone wrong make this a bit of a mess. I am surprised to say the least, because Clint Eastwood is an old school director whose movies - as dumb as this may sound - usually start at the beginning and close with the end. This one does not and it's confusing. I realize it's hard to create drama, when you know the outcome, but I've seen dozens of "true events" movies where this was handled better by far less accomplished directors than Eastwood. That being said the acting was good, which happens when you cast Tom Hanks in the main role. Aaron Eckhart performance was solid as well. No complains there. The main problem I have with the movie is that it's focus is the investigation of Captain Sullenberger in the aftermath of his heroic landing on the Hudson river. An investigation I was not even aware was going on. It seems like constructed drama where there was none. Through the whole investigation I was sitting there thinking: He landed a plane on a freaking river! That should be the focus. THAT'S where the drama is. Using the NTSB investigation as the focal point of the movie did not do the real Sully justice. In the end of the investigation we learn that he made a split second decision, that saved the lives of 155 passengers and that all alternatives would have led to a deadly crash. Wow, what a great reveal. It seems like the movie is trying to validate Captain Sullenberger as a hero when there was no doubt for anyone that he was. So why make the film? Yes, the spectacular water landing lends itself to be made into a movie. The investigation does not. I give this 6/10. Without Hanks this would have dropped below 5. On a side note: Anna Gunn complains about the hate from fans, yet she keeps playing these roles. I find that amusing.
Review by Galileo5BlockedParent2016-12-08T11:09:27Z
Missed opportunity. The back and forth in timelines through flashbacks plus hallucinations of how things could have gone wrong make this a bit of a mess. I am surprised to say the least, because Clint Eastwood is an old school director whose movies - as dumb as this may sound - usually start at the beginning and close with the end. This one does not and it's confusing. I realize it's hard to create drama, when you know the outcome, but I've seen dozens of "true events" movies where this was handled better by far less accomplished directors than Eastwood. That being said the acting was good, which happens when you cast Tom Hanks in the main role. Aaron Eckhart performance was solid as well. No complains there. The main problem I have with the movie is that it's focus is the investigation of Captain Sullenberger in the aftermath of his heroic landing on the Hudson river. An investigation I was not even aware was going on. It seems like constructed drama where there was none. Through the whole investigation I was sitting there thinking: He landed a plane on a freaking river! That should be the focus. THAT'S where the drama is. Using the NTSB investigation as the focal point of the movie did not do the real Sully justice. In the end of the investigation we learn that he made a split second decision, that saved the lives of 155 passengers and that all alternatives would have led to a deadly crash. Wow, what a great reveal. It seems like the movie is trying to validate Captain Sullenberger as a hero when there was no doubt for anyone that he was. So why make the film? Yes, the spectacular water landing lends itself to be made into a movie. The investigation does not. I give this 6/10. Without Hanks this would have dropped below 5. On a side note: Anna Gunn complains about the hate from fans, yet she keeps playing these roles. I find that amusing.