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…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Something something trident.

Aquaman (2018)
(SPOILERS) If Aquaman has a problem – although it actually has two – it’s the problem of the bloated blockbuster. There's just too much of it. And the more-more-more element eventual becomes wearing, even when most of that more-more-more is, on a scene-by-scene basis, terrifically executed. If there's one thing this movie proves above all else, it's that you can let director James Wan loose in any given sandpit and he’ll make an above-and-beyond castle out of it. Aquaman isn't a classic, but it isn’t for want of his trying.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

You look like an angry lizard!

Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
(SPOILERS) I can quite see a Queen fan begrudging this latest musical biopic for failing to adhere to the facts of their illustrious career – but then, what biopic does steer a straight and true course? – making it ironic that they're the main fuel for Bohemian Rhapsody's box office success. Most other criticisms – and they're legitimate, on the whole – fall away in the face of a hugely charismatic star turn from Rami Malek as the band's frontman. He's the difference between a standard-issue, episodic, join-the-dots narrative and one that occasionally touches greatness, and most importantly, carries emotional heft.

Mountains are old, but they're still green.

Roma (2018)
(SPOILERS) Roma is a critics' darling and a shoe-in for Best Foreign Film Oscar, with the potential to take the big prize to boot, but it left me profoundly indifferent, its elusive majesty remaining determinedly out of reach. Perhaps that's down to generally spurning autobiographical nostalgia fests – complete with 65mm widescreen black and white, so it's quite clear to viewers that the director’s childhood reverie equates to the classics of old – or maybe the elliptical characterisation just didn't grab me, but Alfonso Cuarón's latest amounts to little more than a sliver of substance beneath all that style.

The wolves are running. Perhaps you would do something to stop their bite?

The Box of Delights (1984)
If you were at a formative age when it was first broadcast, a festive viewing of The Box of Delights may well have become an annual ritual. The BBC adaptation of John Masefield’s 1935 novel is perhaps the ultimate cosy yuletide treat. On a TV screen, at any rate. To an extent, this is exactly the kind of unashamedly middle class-orientated bread-and-butter period production the corporation now thinks twice about; ever so posh kids having jolly adventures in a nostalgic netherworld of Interwar Britannia. Fortunately, there’s more to it than that. There is something genuinely evocative about Box’s mythic landscape, a place where dream and reality and time and place are unfixed and where Christmas is guaranteed a blanket of thick snow. Key to this is the atmosphere instilled by director Renny Rye. Most BBC fantasy fare doe not age well but The Box of Delights is blessed with a sinister-yet-familiar charm, such that even the creakier production decisions may be vi…

I am so sick of Scotland!

Outlaw/King (2018)
(SPOILERS) Proof that it isn't enough just to want to make a historical epic, you have to have some level of vision for it as well. Say what you like about Mel's Braveheart – and it isn't a very good film – it's got sensibility in spades. He knew what he was setting out to achieve, and the audience duly responded. What does David Mackenzie want from Outlaw/King (it's shown with a forward slash on the titles, so I'm going with it)? Ostensibly, and unsurprisingly, to restore the stature of Robert the Bruce after it was rather tarnished by Braveheart, but he has singularly failed to do so. More than that, it isn’t an "idea", something you can recognise or get behind even if you don’t care about the guy. You’ll never forget Mel's Wallace, for better or worse, but the most singular aspect of Chris Pine's Bruce hasn’t been his rousing speeches or heroic valour. No, it's been his kingly winky.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

What you do is very baller. You're very anarchist.

Lady Bird (2017)
(SPOILERS) You can see the Noah Baumbach influence on Lady Bird, Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut, with whom she collaborated on Frances Ha; an intimate, lo-fi, post-Woody Allen (as in, post-feted, respected Woody Allen) dramedy canvas that has traditionally been the New Yorker’s milieu. But as an adopted, spiritual New Yorker, I suspect Gerwig honourably qualifies, even as Lady Bird is a love letter/ nostalgia trip to her home city of Sacramento.