Rendező:
Clint EastwoodForgatókönyvíró:
Todd KomarnickiOperatőr:
Tom SternZeneszerző:
Christian JacobSzereplők:
Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Mike O'Malley, Anna Gunn, Jamey Sheridan, Ann Cusack, Molly Hagan, Holt McCallany, Chris Bauer, Patch Darragh (több)Streaming (3)
Tartalmak(1)
2009 telén az egész világ egy csoda lázában égett: egy kiváló pilóta, Chesley „Sully" Sullenberger (Tom Hanks) meghibásodott repülőgépével New York szívében, a Hudson folyó fagyos vizére szállt le, és így megmentette 155 utasa életét. De miközben a világ hősként ünnepelte a kapitányt, és a híradások mind kivételes ügyességéről és lélekjelenlétéről szóltak, vizsgálat indult. És amire a vizsgálat során fény derült, az egyáltalán nem a pilóta megbecsülését szolgálta. Sőt, azzal fenyegetett, hogy soha többé nem vezethet repülőgépet... (InterCom)
(több)Recenziók (14)
Eastwood-szerűen finom, emberi és bensőséges. Pontosan úgy, ahogyan azt az esemény megérdemelte, és ahogyan azt a felfogása és megértése megkívánta. Kiváló forgatókönyv, érzékeny rendezés és (ismét) fantasztikus Hanks. Erősen fontolgatom az ötödik csillagot is, mert kis csoda, amit - igaz, nagyobb érzelmek nélkül, ám egyetlen, akár mikroszkopikus szépséghiba nélkül - kihoztak belőle.
()
Sully is an ingeniously constructed portrait of a disciplined professional who is haunted by doubts about whether he did the best job he could do. Eastwood composes the image of the central “miracle” and the portrait of the protagonist from several flashbacks, each of which accentuates a different level of the event and are then collectively mirrored in Sully’s final speech highlighting the merits of the crew. Though, thanks to Hanks, Sullenberger is a more charismatic personality than he seems to be from the way he describes himself in the book on which the film is based, he is still a rather ordinary working man of firm principles and unchanging rituals, not a hero who humorously comments on every difficulty and effortlessly overcomes every obstacle. Thanks to that, Eastwood is able to see the concept of heroism in a different light. Anyone can become a hero regardless of the brilliance of their character traits, if they “just” do what they do best. 80%
()
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.
()
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.
()
No excuses, no messing around, only sensitively dosed pathos and no clichés. Through a cleverly constructed structure the movie doesn't beat about the bush, in other words it directly portrays the conflict of a man who while flying the aircraft without engines failure accomplished seemingly impossible and who is subsequently, under the pressure of others, begin to doubt whether by chance what he did, on the contrary, was not the worst possible solution and unnecessary bravery. Hanks proves again that he has no competition overseas when it comes to the box of "ordinary good guys next door". It hit the bull's-eye and is gripping at all times, during the freezingly calm and controlled crisis landing itself, in the moments of the beginning of panic and after it, during the intense questioning in front of the commission and during the self-searching wandering through frozen New York. Although it might seem like a Zemeckis' Flight at first glance, it is much closer to Greengrass’ United 93.
()
Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks, in their old age, give precise performances in every way. I wouldn't have hoped for a biopic drama to blow me away more than anything else in recent memory. I watched until two in the morning to see how it would all play out. Suspenseful, intelligent, engaging and perfectly acted. It's great. 90%
()
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.
()
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%.
()
Very professional work by the whole crew. Captain Eastwood boldly erects a memorial to discipline, precise decision-making and perfect work of Chesley Sullenberger. I vaguely remember seeing something about the crash-landing in the Hudson on the Internet. Needless to say, it didn’t really affect me much, but the way Clint works with this topic is fantastic. Nightmares, doubts and an almost detective movie style finale when Sully takes control and again using his cool nerves to saves himself. Wonderful. And the movie flies past terribly fast. Tom Hanks is absolutely right, no unnecessary snivelling from his Sully, he is just down to earth, a real professional. A minimum of pathos, pure facts. Bravo!
()
Clint Eastwood as we like him the most: simple, economical, straightforward and this time almost without pathos. His reconstruction of a famous event is neither as overwhelmingly authentic as United 93 nor as classically cinematic as The Flight, it treads on the edge, somewhere in between, and it does a great job. Basically without a dead spot, every shot is a forward thrust. The accident scene is amazing, both in terms of atmosphere and visual effects. Another film where the great form isn't a crutch for a lack of screenwriting substance, but serves exactly where it's expected, something that very rarely happens in a film of this kind. If it weren't for Tom Hanks being a good guy in the 126th way (getting a little tired of it) and the final 30-60 seconds, it would be almost perfect.
()
The best new film since... Well, since Bridge of Spies. And it probably isn't a coincidence that Tom Hanks is also in it, because Sully is so very great in the first place, though not only because of him. I especially liked the ubiquitous tension and believable dramatic atmosphere. Whether the viewer knows in advance what happened on the Hudson or not (although after a few minutes everything is clear even to him), Eastwood's precise direction leaves him almost permanently shivering and waiting breathlessly for what will come in the next scene. We see the landing several times, but each time in a different way, and we never get the feeling that something is repeating itself, because the plot resembles a building kit made of many pieces that gradually fit together. Everything is carefully balanced - tension, pathos and humor - the main character is not a superman, but just an ordinary man who has done the incredibly right thing, but suddenly faces such pressure that he starts to doubt himself. What is admirable and commendable is that the film does not slip into any depressing drama full of regrets and question marks, but keeps its head above water and keeps winking at us: Don't worry, it will turn out well. It would be a shame to miss such an excellent film, as modest as its main character.
()
An intimate humanist drama as only Clint can produce. Narrative minimalism that draws us completely into the action thanks to believably drawn characters and a thoughtful plot construction that, through the repetition and variation of strong motifs (the landing of the plane from multiple perspectives, the emotional phone conversations with Laura Linney), creates an extremely complex study of a key event and the psyche of a man who, despite his obvious heroism and skill, is unfairly cast into the shadows of doubt and regret. Although this time without any added "Eastwood-esque" value or a scene that would really be indelibly etched in my memory, but without any missteps, unnecessary pathos or undignified streamlining of the central accident sequence. Hanks is great as usual, like a wise old man, and Eckhart complements him superbly. 85%
()
This film would have been a disaster if it hadn't been filmed by Clint Eastwood. I can imagine the kind of play on emotions and patriotism that it would suffer from. Instead, I got to see a fantastic film about a man who really deserved to be celebrated. Strangely enough, despite knowing exactly what was going on and how everything would turn out, the film had great atmosphere and suspense, entertained me throughout, and didn't upset or disappoint me in any way.
()
Clint Eastwood proves once again how great a director he is, among other things, in his ability to choose interesting material. On one hand, it shows how people can come together to help each other, but on the other hand, it demonstrates how the system is flawed and how it tries to blame individuals rather than anything else, in this case, attributing fault to chance. Tom Hanks is great.
()
Hirdetés