Skip to main content

Sully Sticks the Landing


          I remember how big a deal it was on January 15th, 2009 when a passenger flight in New York ran into a flock of geese and had to make an emergency landing on the Hudson River. But even that wasn’t the most astonishing thing; it was that the captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger managed to do this with no casualties to 155 people on board. For a few weeks it was all the media could talk about, praising Sully as a hero. 
          But what many of us maybe didn’t realize, was the extensive inquest into the incident; and it’s this as well as the landing itself that’s the subject of Clint Eastwood’s new film Sully.
          The movie opens following the whole Hudson River episode with Sully (Tom Hanks) dealing with the aftermath. This includes both a series of monotonous meetings with airline officials not too happy to have lost their plane, as well as his new status as a celebrity and “hero” of New York. But through all this Sully’s troubled, reflecting on the incident as well as envisioning the disasters that could have taken place as he and his superiors wonder if the emergency landing could have been avoided.
          Sully reminds me a lot of the film Flight, which also dealt with a pilot steeped in celebrity and controversy following a miracle landing. But unlike that film this one is based on a true story and Sully didn’t have a drug problem. It’s commitment to realism is one of its biggest strengths. Not only in how Sully’s unprepared for his sudden hero worship, his reactions to the media; but in the Hudson landing itself. The film shows us the landing in a non-linear way that actually works pretty well and makes sense in the present context. The look of the plane, the regular take-off procedures, the flight attendants and their geniality to the passengers. It does a great job putting you in the situation and allows the audience to experience the near-disaster and feel what everyone aboard was going through. We see how the floatation devices are deployed, the rescue carried out by first responders, and it’s very interesting. We’re given glimpses into the personalities of some of the passengers and even though you know everyone survives, there’s still some suspense at work. And though the movie’s pace is a bit slow, you’re with it for most of the runtime.
          Aaron Eckhart is good as Sully’s loyal first officer Jeff Skiles, and so is Laura Linney as Sully’s wife (though sadly she doesn’t get nearly enough to do in this film). But of course this is Tom Hanks’ movie. And as always, Hanks is terrific! He really is the best part of the film, conveying both the confidence and self-doubt of this man with genuine dedication. There are points in the story when evidence comes to light and you get an idea of the circumstances, that you yourself even wonder if Sully made the right choice. He also plays the reluctant celebrity really well and the quick thinker under pressure, relying on experience over protocol where need be. It may not be quite as great as his last performance as a captain (he’s had more than a few) in Captain Phillips, but it’s definitely proof Hanks is still one of the best. Also Mike O’Malley and Anna Gunn deserve a shout-out for their performances as the investigators.
          The only flaws with this movie are that maybe there was a bit too much repetition. The events of January 15th are played out at multiple points in the film through either flashback or record and I feel like we were seeing the same thing one time too many. There’s only so many times an airplane landing in a river can look exciting. We got a couple flashbacks to Sully’s early life as a pilot which are just padding. It’s not really relevant to the plot and is merely showcasing a backstory that we’re already given by Sully’s remarks about having been a pilot for forty years. There’s also a scene where the cast appear on Letterman and the effects don’t quite blend in to seven year old footage of that show. Forrest Gump this ain’t. They probably should have just recreated the interview like they did with Katie Couric.
          But overall, Sully is a pretty good time. With a great leading performance, a sense of realism, and a story presentation that’s very engrossing. It’s a fascinating look into a fascinating event, and a man who though humble, deserves quite a bit of credit for his heroic actions. 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
1 comment
Read more

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...
Post a Comment
Read more