Movie Review: Sully

Loud Feedback Movie Review: Sully

In An Otherwise Solid Film, Sully Exposes The Challenges Of Historical Fiction

By Jeff Feuerhaken

The challenge with adapting historical events into a Hollywood movie often lies in navigating the gap that exists between the true events of the source material and the story conventions typical of a compelling screenplay. A pure fiction writer has the freedom to insert any element their brains can conjure to help propel the story forward in the most interesting way. The screenwriter set with the task of adapting nonfiction is for the most part limited to what actually occurred. I say “for the most part” because even the most faithful of adaptations usually take a few liberties here and there to elevate the drama to save the audience from potential boredom. But even these liberties must maintain a degree of subtlety. It feels false to introduce any story device that conflicts in any way with the main overarching narrative. Any fabrication must also fall in line with the spirit of the story, and the true events that inspired them. All of these factors were present in the challenges of bringing the film, Sully, to life. The story is based on the true events of Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger’s act of heroism during the fateful flight of US Airways Flight 1549, that resulted in an unprecedented safe water landing in the Hudson River in 2009. The film was directed by Clint Eastwood, and stars Tom Hanks in the title role.

We see the fateful plane crash from every angle, sometimes more than once.

We see the fateful plane crash from every angle, sometimes more than once.

When dealing with the structure of the screenplay for the film, screenwriter Todd Komarnicki made some interesting choices. The movie starts off with a bang, literally, as we see Captain Sully’s plane experience a malfunction before crashing into the New York City skyline. Of course we know that’s not what really happened, and we cut to Sully, in bed, waking from this horrific nightmare. We soon realize that we’ve been brought into this story after the events of the crash. Of course we all want to see the drama of the event itself unfold, which we are of course eventually treated to, but the method for presenting this action is done unconventionally, and perhaps not as successfully as one could hope for. We are taken back to the crash on multiple occasions during the course of the film, but each time we revisit it, we see the event go down from a different perspective. We go through the experience with the traffic controllers, with the rescue teams, with the passengers, and of course with our hero and his sidekick in the cockpit. While this is an interesting technique to convey all the minutiae of what these experiences must have been like, these flashbacks seemed jarring, and they appeared to come out of nowhere, at times unmotivated by what was happening in the story’s main timeline. This was further confounded by additional flashbacks to Sully’s early life. These vignettes further illuminated the backstory of our hero, but not necessarily in ways that helped to serve the main story.

Spoiler Alert! Tom Hanks is a good actor.

Spoiler Alert! Tom Hanks is a good actor.

On a positive note, the performances were quite good. Hanks succeeds in his portrayal of the everyman that has been thrust into the spotlight through happenstance. His version of the captain is relatable, and we feel for him when he’s forced to justify his actions to an unappreciative Safety Board. My only gripe with the character is a microcosm of my only gripe with the film in general, in that there seems to be a lack of conflict. Here you have a guy who only wants to do the right thing in all circumstances, and he succeeds. I’m sure the real Captain Sully is a great guy, but in a dramatic film I tend to like to see the characters forced into a situation that involves more of a personal struggle or moral dilemma. The supporting cast is also solid, with Aaron Eckhart as the loyal co-captain and Laura Linney as Sully’s concerned wife being particular standouts. As good as the performances are, however, I feel there isn’t enough conflict to put them in any sort of moral jeopardy. Director Clint Eastwood does a fine job in the director’s chair, and although his shot selections aren’t necessarily groundbreaking, he does prove once again that he’s a master of eliciting strong performances out of his performers.

Clint Eastwood tells Tom Hanks what's up.

Clint Eastwood tells Tom Hanks what’s up.

Sully is a solid film. I’d venture to say it’s not necessarily a great film, but it’s a good one. Many theaters are showing the film in IMAX, and I’d have to argue that the action scenes involving the crash don’t really justify spending the extra money to see it on a huge screen. I’d even say you could even skip the theaters altogether. The movie’s strengths lie in its more intimate moments, which are suited perfectly fine to watching at home once it’s released on the video market. I think it just might be impossible to get a dud film when you look at the talent involved in the making of Sully, and rest assured it is no dud. It did, however, leave a little something to be desired. I’m sure that little something would be much easier to accomplish in a straight fiction film, when the filmmakers aren’t so much bound by the restraints present when adhering to reality. I admire Eastwood and Co. for keeping it real, but in this case, keeping it real can only go so far.

Score: 5/8 stars

Check out more movie reviews here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>