Sully

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. (01/02/2017)

Sully is a partially procedural drama and, in a second aspect, as is customary for Clint, a film about American patriotism, which, however, is conveyed in reasonable doses and with an understanding of human nature. It relies on the experienced Tom Hanks, who seems to have been born for such roles and does not have any significant weaknesses. The film has a reasonable length, a good screenplay, and a strong story. I would just note that I perceive the film not as a story about heroism, but about professionalism, which is, after all, very important in my profession. Overall impression: 75%. (01/02/2020)

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. (09/28/2016)

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. (01/30/2017)

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. (01/15/2017)