Bridge of Spies

Well What can i say? Spielberg did it again! This is a film that has that instant feeling you just love it and you're watching something truly special. And its a true story, and i'm a sucker for true stories. The story its another great lesson to be learned by humanity, and the screenplay does an outstanding job telling it. It has all the ingredients Spielberg is known for, the hope in humanity, the believe in the mans power to change the course of history for the good, the true selfless, and so on. The cast is beyond perfect, and everyone gives amazing performances, but of course Tom Hanks steals the show, he gives one of his most likable performances, in the end the character helps a lot. Its just a bigger than life character which fits like a glove in Tom Hanks. The other characters are also amazing, but the one that stands the most to me, even if hes not the one to appear the most, is the Russian spy (Mark Rylance) hes just one of those characters that his so unique and likable that is amazing. The production values are just top notch as one would expect from a Spielberg film. The visuals are hauntingly beautiful and perfectly illustrate the feel of the cold war. The film is amazingly shot, there's a scene with an aircraft that is breathtaking. The special effects are perfect. The production design is bound to be nominated for an Oscar, special attention to the Berlin settings. The score is another hit for Thomas Newman, though the film has this amazing atmosphere were there's very little score and the one there is is mainly in the final minutes. This gives a very authentic and realistic feeling to the film, its like you are really rgere. Thats why i was surprised that the length of the score is almost 50 minutes! Overall the film has a lot in common with Lincoln, its really the perfect follower to that amazing picture. This is one of those films where you just get lost in the story, it's a very immersive film, a true masterpiece thats bound to get a ton of nominations from the academy.

Hanks gives a very satisfying, watchable and assured performance, with just the right amount of hokum, homely and wily in judiciously balanced proportions,Because this is Hanks we're dealing with, audiences know what to expect. it's terrific craftsmanship, pure storytelling gusto and that Midas- touch ability to find grounds for optimism everywhere, Steven Spielberg has dramatised a true-life cold war spy-swap drama, starring Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. Those brought up on John Le Carré might perhaps expect from this moral equivalence, shabby compromise and exhausted futility. But Spielberg, with his gift for uncynicism, uncovers decency and moral courage amidst all the Realpolitik. He works from an excellent screenplay by up-and-coming British dramatist Matt Charman, a script punched up in recognisable places by Joel and Ethan Coen.

How Steven Spielberg went from the king of summer thrills to the most boring director in Hollywood is a problem that's perplexed me since I pried my eyes open through Lincoln. We all know the man can make a great movie. Most of us grew up on a diet of E.T., Jaws and Indiana Jones: spectacular event films with all the entertainment oomph of a theme park roller coaster. Then, Spielberg hit middle age and wanted to make important films for grown-ups. He made Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan and Munich, but he also made Minority Report, A.I and War of the Worlds – pretty decent action films with big star power. It looked like Spielberg had come of age with a sharpened skill set and a slightly deeper world view, but the more high-brow Spielberg gets, the duller his movies become... Inspired by real life events, and apparently a footnote in a JFK biography, Bridge of Spies tells the story of an insurance attorney named James Donovan. A mild-mannered family man plucked from a Norman Rockwell painting, Donovan is as American as the flag itself – and it's a trait he waves at every opportunity, from gratuitous speeches about the American Constitution to his acceptance of a case he is destined to lose. In the opening act, we watch an older man (Mark Rylance) take his easel on the subway, sit in the park and paint, and very carefully remove a fake nickel from the underside of a park bench. The nickel is hollow, and written on a tiny piece of paper within, is a series of codes. The man's name is Rudolf Abel, and he's arrested for treason and espionage just a few moments later. Given the year is 1957, Abel's fate looks bleak. The Rosenbergs were executed just four years earlier after being convicted of similar charges, and Abel refuses to cooperate with the CIA, making him delectably disposable. These days, he'd probably just disappear, but back then, America still believed its own propaganda and the notion of due process. It must appear as if Abel is getting a fair and just trial, which is where James Donovan comes in... It feels a little like a greatest hits album, but the scenes with Mark Rylance have real pop. The two men have an interesting dynamic as ideological warriors who landed on different sides of the battlefield, and it's the only part of the film that has any real traction because everyone else is locked in a freezer of Cold War archetype. Spielberg capitalizes on the common ground, offering up timely and inspirational rhetoric concerning the importance of due process, Constitutional rights and freedoms, and the American way, but like Lincoln, the big speeches have all the subtlety of a Broadway musical... Abridged from Ex.Press.com

BRIDGE of SPIES, Spielberg // Starring Tom Hanks in Lukewarm Coldwar drama. Summary: Uninspired Spielberg Mountain from Molehill with pitiful Hanks in Pain throughout. Viewed at Colisée cinema, Marrakesh, Friday Dec. 4, 2015. By Alex Deleon. With so many intriguing Cold War subjects up for grabs one wonders what made Steven Spielberg choose this relatively minor Cold War incident as the subject matter of his latest directorial effort. The background: In the summer of 1960 an American high altitude spy plane was shot down over the Soviet Union and pilot Gary Powers who bailed out and survived was interned by the Russians. At about the same time a big time Russian spy with US citizenship was arrested and put on trail for treason in the USA. Idealistic New York attorney James Donovan (Hanks) defends him in court and is then recruited by the CIA to facilitate an exchange of this spy for captured U2 spy plane pilot Powers in Berlin. The exchange took place in divided Berlin on Feb. 20, 1962 at the height of the Kennedy administration six months prior to the Cuban Missiles crisis. The foreground: The result: a big disappointment with a heavy handed script by the Coen Brothers and some very bad acting in a long tedious dragged out attempt to elevate this subject to the level of Greek tragedy with Tom Hanks pulling slightly different variations of a pained face in every scene he's in, which is most of the picture. Greek tragedy this is not, although we are compelled to feel a little sorry for Hanks when his steadfast defense of the American Constitution is met with hate, derision, and even death threats from his fellow Americans, and then he has to hide his dangerous spy exchange trip from his own family when he volunteers to go to Berlin on a thankless top secret mission to ease cold war tensions and save an American college student stranded in East Berlin into the bargain. En somme:to sum up -- From The combination Spielberg/Hanks and the setting in Berlin, a city I know so well, I expected much more. This turned out to be a routine, almost soppy Hanks performance and a very routine uninspired turn by Spielberg at the helm. First of all I remember the era of the film very well and it did not seem to me at the time to be nearly the momentous event it is built up to be in this film. If lawyer Donavan (Hanks) was in the news for a while it certainly wasn't a very big while, and the spy exchange at the bridge was merely seen as a minor event in much more momentous cold war Events of the time such as the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1962 and The Cuban missile crisis in October 1962. I remember thinking at the time that it was nice for our side to admit for once that We also Spy and thought that might be the ball Spielberg would run with. But the mawky family drama we are given, and the overall talkiness with little backup action, plus the building up of the the exchange on the Berlin bridge in freezing winter weather to an event of Superbowl proportions simply does not have the drama we are supposed to think it had. Overall, a dud that fails to go off in a stagy unrecognizable Berlin. Recommended only for die-hard Tom Hankniks who sympathize with Mr. next-door America, no matter what he does. As for the Cold War political background -- Google tells it much better. (Google, Gary Powers, U2 incident) Alex, Marrakesh. :

Hanks, Alda, Spielberg, the Coen brothers. What can go wrong? Apparently, quite a lot. Strengths first: the meticulous recreation of the 60's across two countries is breathtaking. The streets look 60's, the people look and talk 60's, the atmosphere is 60's. It's immersing and awe-inspiring. Now the weaknesses: 1) Lots and lots of exposition. I understand that the millenials are expected to not know the history from 50 years ago, but come on - if someone doesn't know/love history they aren't going to see this movie in the first place. Stop wasting our time with exposition. 2) Poor acting. This must be the weakest performance from Tom Hanks I've seen in years. The guy is sleep-walking through the role, and everyone else is wooden and not worth mentioning, except for Alan Alda who steals every scene he's in. Amy Ryan is just awful I'm sorry to say. 3) Too long. Way too long. Should've ended with the exchange taking place. We don't need the "happy end" through vindication - it's completely implausible too. 4) Not focused. The pilot's story is completely surplus to requirements and insignificant - it doesn't add anything to the narrative. We don't really need to see the pilot until his first scene in captivity. Instead, the time should be spent on character development of which there is absolutely none. 5) Predictable. Yes, the story is well known and we all know how it ends, but this means that the unpredictability needs to be in the nuances. The little things that aren't part of the written history. But everything is predictable, nothing is captivating. 6) The treatment of the story. The script is by the Coen brothers but it has John Le Carre written all over it. It's a classic Le Carre-like spy thriller (thriller, not action). There have been fantastic film adaptations of Le Carre, so we know it can be done. Sadly, on this occasion Spielberg fails to deliver. 4/10

What motivated Steven Spielberg to go ahead and take on a project such as "Bridge of Spies?" I've read that it was simply his nostalgia for the Cold War era, firmly ensconced in his childhood memories. Unfortunately, the vehicle to tell that story—the combined tale of the capture and trial of Soviet spy Rudolph Abel and swap for the downed US pilot Gary Powers on Russian soil—packs little punch due to its obvious lack of suspense. The "Bridge of Spies" narrative can be easily summarized in a short paragraph: the US government unofficially conscripts insurance lawyer James Donovan to defend Soviet spy Abel after he's captured by the Feds in Brooklyn. The trial is a foregone conclusion but Donovan convinces the judge to sentence Abel to prison instead of death since he could be used in a prisoner exchange in the future. Sure enough, after Gary Powers is shot down in his U2 spy plane, Donovan is again called upon to negotiate a prisoner swap with the Russians. A wrench is thrown into the negotiations when a US graduate student is arrested as a spy by the East Germans. Donovan deftly negotiates the swap of Abel for both Powers and the American student, and the exchange is facilitated with little incident. As historical incidents related to the Cold War go, the Abel-Powers narrative is hardly one of high drama. A major problem is that Donovan has no single, strong antagonist to play off of. The negotiations with his Soviet counterpart, a KGB agent masquerading as a diplomat, are a forgone conclusion. We know of course that the spy swap will be successful, so where is the suspense? The "heart-pounding" moment is hardly heart pounding at all—as Abel and Powers are about to exchange places, there is a slight delay before the East Germans deliver the American student to complete their part of the bargain. Yes of course I understand that Donovan dramatically threatened the East Germans, as they could have been blamed by the Russians for sabotaging the spy swap. But their decision was really a forgone conclusion too, as the East Germans were always under the yoke of the Russians, and were in no position to act independently (balking at giving up the student of course was their way of "saving face"). With all this lack of suspense, it was incumbent upon Mr. Spielberg's screenwriters (including "luminaries" Joel and Ethan Coen) to manufacture a series of fictional events to spice up a "thriller" that hardly thrills at all! Here a few examples: spectators at Abel's sentencing did not loudly object to the no death penalty sentence; Donovan and family were not victims of a drive-by shooting; Donovan's coat was not stolen by a gang in East Berlin (in reality, Donovan merely observed a gang nearby) and Donovan never personally observed people being killed as they attempted to climb over the Berlin Wall. Spielberg's attempt to recreate the era is rife with numerous gaffes. Early on Donovan is seen riding in a in a NYC R-32 subway car that first went into service in 1964 (the scene is set in 1961). That wouldn't be so bad except for the fact that the interior of the car appears to be from the 70s and beyond, and not 1961. The gaffes, which include anachronisms, character error, continuity, errors in geography, factual errors, plot holes, revealing mistakes and miscellaneous errors are all detailed under the Bridge of Spies "Goofs" section on IMDb. "Bridge of Spies" is not a complete loss as the film features some excellent acting by Tom Hanks as Donovan and Mark Rylance as the Soviet spy Abel. With its 40 million dollar budget and decided lack of suspense, I wonder why the film was made in the first place. It of course gives Spielberg an opportunity to peddle a rather simplistic and obvious message: there were some bad people on the other side of the Iron Curtain (faceless soldiers shooting people trying to escape over the Berlin War) but also individuals such as master spy Abel, who end up displaying unexpected glimpses of humanity.

This movie is long, stagy, pretentious and boring. The acting is hammy, and the characters are drab and inspire little interest. The tension should have been gripping. Instead it is absent. The ending of movie is already known and is anti-climatic. The movie seems to suggest that Abel was not treated fairly and downplays the seriousness of his crimes and the sinister nature of his work. The treatment of Francis Gary Powers is completely superficial, which makes the story even weaker. For an audience not familiar with the history surrounding Abel and Powers, this movie will not make any sense at all. This movie contains no heroes, heroines, no damsels in distress, none of the stock characters and situations usually employed to give a story some substance. Instead, the movie just plods along to its foregone conclusion. Why would any movie maker find such bland characters worthy of a movie? The real story is how the Soviets managed to shoot down an American spy plane flying at 70,000 feet. How the Soviets were able to detect and target a U2 flying at that altitude is not explained, nor is the huge political fallout caused by the Powers debacle even mentioned. Indeed, the names of Eisenhower and Khrushchev are absent, yet in the actual event they were the key players, and by leaving them out, there's no story.

"Everyone deserves a defense. Everyone matters." James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) In Bridge of Spies, Steven Spielberg once again masterfully goes to the historical drama with a righteous man's theme (think Schindler and Lincoln for starters). This time lawyer James B. Donovan is asked to defend an accused Soviet spy, Rudolf Able (Mark Rylance, superb), in order to show the world the American justice system is democratic. The story is "inspired by true events" with the outline of the exchange of Able for U-2 downed pilot Gary Powers historically accurate. As usual, Spielberg recreates the times with the atmosphere, cars, and film noir aspect of a spy thriller in the figurative and literal Cold War. He said, "I always wanted to tell the stories that really interested me in my personal life—which are stories about things that actually happened." Hanks is central to Spielberg's vision of the lone hero defying the odds and supporting the highest ideals of the American Constitution and the individually virtuous man. Never does Hanks overplay the good-guy card; he's just very adept at playing an everyman not always right but always righteous. The dialogue is crisp, a no fooling around typical of Spielberg and Hanks but a charming bad guy as well: James Donovan: "Aren't you worried?" Rudolf Abel: "Would it help?" As producer Kristie Macosko Krieger commented about Spielberg, "He's got a childlike sense of wonder. He never gets tired of hearing stories . . . . " Bridge of Spies is vintage Spielberg with a Lincoln-like atmosphere, righteous hero, and intriguing multi-plot, an entertaining spy story brimming with humanity. As the director says, "This is more about very smart people in conversation with each other, and the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads is that, if they make the wrong decisions, it's the end of the world."

Spielberg knows what he did, but I have a few thoughts. Let's start with the title - You know, there's only one "spy" per se, who matters anyway. But it makes it sound like some thriller-diller, eh? Now Tom Hanks - uh, what's with that incredibly furrowed, knit brow all through the story. Makeup Oscar time? Did they borrow it from a Klingon? The woman who plays Donovan's wife? I know she's supposed to be convincingly all 1950s square - but really, heels and full lipstick all the time? Smiling at everything? At least they didn't plug in Jessica Chastain, that would not have been credible opposite Donovan's shlubby character. A performance as flat as one of those pancakes in the big American breakfast he never ate. The youth are not at this movie, they're all out to see the latest vampire/zombie/Tom Cruise dreck. So the boomers out to see an ennobling patriotic drama have lived through all this, including "duck and cover" and the Missile Crisis. Do those of us who actually were terrorized and traumatized by all that really need pedantic little lessons about the bombs and the sirens, delivered by Donovan's delusional little genius son? I found it insulting. Of course, all the Russians are scene-chewing geeky monsters, sometimes in such close-up we can see the beet-bits in their teeth. Gosh, it was cold in that Cold War! So we have to see everyone blowing and wiping their noses, boogers hanging, in order to get the idea? Exception: Mark Rylance, the only great thing about the movie. I've been watching Rylance in "Wolf Hall," and it's very impressive how he can create such a level of charismatic tension by hardly doing anything at all. He's all stillness, posture, little eye movements and gazes, all restrained, all coiled in. Amazing. Back to the thriller at hand. So in the big spectacle scene where the U2 gets shot down, did Spielberg really need to show off, proving "Oh, I can do 'Gravity,' I can do 'The Walk'" just for bragging cred? And is it actually historically true that Powers gripped on to edge of his crumbling cockpit and just failed to hit the destruct button before his tether broke? (OH! is that a sneaky symbolic allusion to 'aborting' a mission?) This whole thing could have been done as a 15-minute documentary (not that I'd like seeing another documentary) rather than puffed up into a dry and predictable "drama. When we see Hanks' character lying face down on his bed at home because he's so beat, I suppose if I were him I'd be concerned to hide my face for having accepted another such stereotypical heroic individual little man role. Do nasty CIA agents really skip into the air in peevish excitement like an 11-year old when they get frustrated? (Oh, they probably do.) It might have been more exciting to get into a row with the dopey woman in the seats behind us who kept aggravating my wife by kneeing and bumping the back of her seat - but "Would it help?" So the Coen brothers helped write this. I guess Spielberg thought it might be more tasty to shmear some funky mustard on this baloney sandwich, but "Would it help?" My fantasy is that the Coens were often snickering up their sleeves.

If you expect to see much spying or bridges in this movie you will be sorely disappointed. The plot is about ace lawyer Tom Hanks (his screen name does not really matter, since the movie is just star performance) who is going to prove how good he is, both to the Russians and the East-Germans. A rather puffy-faced Hanks is in most scenes, playing a smug and arrogant lawyer, who always gets the last word and whatever he wants. His performance as a the lawyer is rather overbearing and even slightly unpleasant, but the public still liked him a lot and laughed at all his one-liners (again, star performance, rather than good plot or script). The spies or would-be spies featured in the movie are: 1) a sour little man, who speaks with what sounded to me an Irish accents and who was supposed to be funny with his unflappability. He repeats "Would it help if I worry?" countless times, every time getting a laugh 2) a rather dumb American pilot and 3) another sort of heroic American student, getting mixed up with foreign politics, when he'd better stayed at home. They all seem to be just props to give Hanks a chance to shine. The moral of the story should be that all countries should be better off minding their own business. However, this sound unrealistic, so the moral is that American heroes (especially Tom Hanks) always save the day. Mind the overbearing soundtrack that seems to come straight out "Saving private Ryan"