Skip to main content

You just got hugged by a total stranger.

Sully
(2016)

(SPOILERS) The only intriguing thing about Sully entering production was how Warner Bros could wrap a movie around a non-existent story (Birds! Brave Wing Commander Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger lands on a river! They’re all safe! – okay, that’s 10 minutes filled; curiously, with all this spare time, no one thought to tell the birds’ story, a tragic plotline Pixar likely wouldn’t go near). Half that poser was answered by Clint Eastwood taking the gig, a director who can stretch any given material beyond the bounds of narrative sense simply by omitting to employ an editor. The other half? Well, you have to sort-of admire the rigour with which the same crash (I mean, forced landing) is repeated again and again and again, as if it somehow merits the same level of analysis as the JFK assassination. Which was more than twice the length (the film, that is), never once became boring, and still could have been (possibly I exaggerate) twice the length again.


Sully isn’t bad as such, but for all that Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart are dependable and solid and all, and that some of the plot motors work in an appreciably cranking-up-the-clichés way – “Why don’t we employ Mike O’Malley as Mr Nasty National Transportation Safety Board guy, since he always plays a Mr Nasty, especially in true life movies? Why, look how nasty he was to nice Mr Smith in Concussion; he could be really nasty to nice Mr Hanks here, and so elicit maximum sympathy for Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger, who doesn’t exactly need much of the stuff anyway, obviously, since everyone simply adores him” – and that there is, in the sheer fact of the incident, a genuinely impressive kernel in respect of the ditching that retains interest, it is utterly, utterly wafer thin.


I knew far in advance, because of all the reviews, and the two-month transatlantic lag in release dates (Sully is doing better than I expected outside of its home turf, so brand Hanks must still have some life in it; either that, or everyone simply adores Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger globally), that much of the picture revolved around Sully’s perceived, exacerbated tribulations at the hands of the crash investigators, and that his PST of running through different outcomes in his head over what he might have transpired (disaster porn, basically) further beefed things up. But even with these attempts to inflate drama into a flaccid scenario, to suggest a dramatic arc, Eastwood can’t really bring himself to force the story too far into the bounds of hyperbole; it just isn’t his style.


I mean, he can’t really paint a portrait of a man who underwent extreme vilification when everyone in fact adoringly proclaimed him a hero, so the doubt has to be a sneaking doubt. As a consequence, the possibility that the simulations of the crash showed him to be in error by taking the course of action he did becomes the main dramatic thrust, the truth pivoting on Sully’s 40-year reputation and experience. Thus, the final scene gives us the works of tension-laden climaxes, of live pilot sims, of Sully launching into a marvellously praiseworthy speech, and of astonishing last-minute news that the recovery of the engines has confirmed Sully’s claims. And even then, Clint can’t work up that much in the way of excitement.


Indeed, much of this is so sheepishly half-slung, it could be a TV movie, particularly with Eastwood’s appallingly drippy, tinkly piano sugar-coating it. There’s even footage of the actual Sully and reunited passengers come the credits, representative of a culmination of all the prior revering affirmations of the wonders of NY’s finest coming together. As someone says, being nothing if not on the nose, but the movie’s nothing if not that, NY needed a positive plane story…


Occasionally, there’s a glimmer of another, more probing level; the suggestion of self-doubting what one knows to be true in the face of cross-examination and hindsight, for instance. But it’s only a glimmer, and nothing ever comes of it because of Sully’s staunch self-belief. Hanks doesn’t put a foot wrong, but honestly he’s less interesting here than he is A Hologram for the King; serious Hanks is reliable, but never astounding.


Eckhart rocks a seriously mighty tache, in a slight, subordinate role he makes the most of. Elsewhere (very much so), I hope Laura Linney was well paid because her role is entirely ghastly and entirely on the other end of a telephone.


That the picture is already being named on end of the year Top Ten lists (AFI, National Board of Review) either says something about the unquestionable elder statesmen status of Hanks and Eastwood or the ease with which simple wholesome platitudes and life-affirming incidents are gorged on by dupable critics. There’s nothing here that’s all that great, nothing here that’s all that awful (the score aside; although, with all the money thrown at computer games these days, you’d have thought the air industry could throw a few bucks at better flight sim graphics).


Clint’s 35th feature as a director is adequate, overlong (despite being a very short movie by today’s standards) and terribly inoffensive, so I guess it makes an effective contrast to the inadequate, overlong and controversial American Sniper. It’s a decade now since Eastwood’s made a really good movie, though, and with him heading towards 90, I suspect more average fare is in inevitably on the cards. Perhaps, as with his contrasting perspectives on the Pacific conflict, he could now turn his hand to retelling Sully from those seagulls’ POV?


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Imagine a plant that could think... Think!

The Avengers 4.12: Man-Eater of Surrey Green
Most remarked upon for Robert Banks-Stewart having “ripped it off” for 1976 Doctor Who story The Seeds of Doom, although, I’ve never been wholly convinced. Yes, there are significant similarities – an eccentric lady who knows her botany, a wealthy businessman living in a stately home with an affinity for vegetation, an alien plant that takes possession of humans, a very violent henchman and a climax involving a now oversized specimen turning very nasty… Okay, maybe they’re onto something there… – but The Seeds of Doom is really good, while Man-Eater of Surrey Green is just… okay.

Why are you painting my house?

mother!
(SPOILERS) Darren Aronofsky has a reasonably-sized chin, but on this evidence, in no time at all he’ll have reduced it to a forlorn stump with all that stroking. And then set the remains alight. And then summoned it back into existence for a whole new round of stroking. mother! is a self-indulgent exercise in unabated tedium in the name of a BIG idea, one no amount of assertive psued-ing post-the-fact can turn into a masterpiece. Yes, that much-noted “F” cinemascore was well warranted.

You better watch what you say about my car. She's real sensitive.

Christine (1983)
(SPOILER) John Carpenter was quite open about having no particular passion to make Christine. The Thing had gone belly-up at the box office, and adapting a Stephen King seemed like a sure-fire way to make bank. Unfortunately, its reception was tepid. It may have seemed like a no-brainer – Duel’s demonic truck had put Spielberg on the map a decade earlier – but Carpenter discoveredIt was difficult to make it frightening”. More like Herbie, then. Indeed, the director is at his best in the build-up to unleashing the titular automobile, making the fudging of the third act all the more disappointing.

This isn't fun, it's scary and disgusting.

It (2017)
(SPOILERS) Imagine how pleased I was to learn that an E Nesbitt adaptation had rocketed to the top of the US charts, evidently using a truncated version of its original title, much like John Carter of Mars. Imagine my disappointment on rushing to the cinema and seeing not a Psammead in sight. Can anyone explain why It is doing such phenomenal business? It isn’t the Stephen King brand, which regular does middling-at-best box office. Is it the nostalgia factor (‘50s repurposed as the ‘80s, so tapping into the Stranger Things thing, complete with purloined cast member)? Or maybe that it is, for the most part, a “classier” horror movie, one that puts its characters first (at least for the first act or so), and so invites audiences who might otherwise shun such fare? Perhaps there is no clear and outright reason, and it’s rather a confluence of circumstances. Certainly, as a (mostly) non-horror buff, I was impressed by how well It tackled pretty much everything that wasn’t the hor…

Let the monsters kill each other.

Game of Thrones Season Seven
(SPOILERS) Column inches devoted to Game of Thrones, even in “respectable” publications, seems to increase exponentially with each new season, so may well reach critical mass with the final run. Groundswells of opinion duly become more evident, and as happens with many a show by somewhere around this point, if not a couple of years prior, Season Seven has seen many of the faithful turn on once hallowed storytelling, and at least in part, there’s good reason for that.

Some suggest the show has jumped the shark (or crashed the Wall); there were concerns over how much the pace increased last year, divested as it was of George RR Martin’s novels as a direct source, but this year’s succession of events make Six seem positively sluggish. I don’t think GoT has suddenly, resoundingly, lost it, and I’d argue there did need to be an increase in momentum (people are quick to forget how much moaning went on about seemingly nothing happening for long stretches of previ…

It could have been an accident. He decided to sip a surreptitious sup and slipped. Splash!

4.10 A Surfeit of H20
A great episode title (definitely one of the series’ top ten) with a storyline boasting all the necessary ingredients (strange deaths in a small village, eccentric supporting characters, Emma even utters the immortal “You diabolical mastermind, you!”), yet A Surfeit of H20 is unable to quite pull itself above the run of the mill.

He’s a good kid, and a devil behind the wheel.

Baby Driver (2017)
(SPOILERS) Pure cinema. There are plenty of directors who engage in superficial flash and fizz (Danny Boyle or JJ Abrams, for example) but relatively few who actually come to the medium from a root, core level, visually. I’m slightly loathe to compare Edgar Wright with the illustrious likes of Sergio Leone and Brian De Palma, partly because they’re playing in largely different genre sandpits, partly because I don’t think Wright has yet made something that compares to their best work, but he operates from a similar sensibility: fashioning a movie foremost through image, supported by the soundtrack, and then, trailing a distant third, comes dialogue. Baby Driver is his most complete approximation of that impulse to date.

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

Don't worry about Steed, ducky. I'll see he doesn't suffer.

The Avengers 4.11: Two’s A Crowd
Oh, look. Another Steed doppelganger episode. Or is it? One might be similarly less than complimentary about Warren Mitchell dusting off his bungling Russian agent/ambassador routine (it obviously went down a storm with the producers; he previously played Keller in The Charmers and Brodny would return in The See-Through Man). Two’s A Crowd coasts on the charm of its leads and supporting performances (including Julian Glover), but it’s middling fare at best.