It felt like they kept repeating the same scenes over and over to stretch out a story that was barely there. The movie was hardly even an hour and a half! Not to mention this incident just happened a few years ago, and they've already made a movie? Am I only the one who feels like this was just a desperate attempt for a story that wasn't quite fit for a feature length movie?
shareI totally agree. Any event of even the slightest potential historical significance is made into a movie immediately. Oh and regardless of quality it gets around a 7 on imdb.
shareBut no harm in making a film even if it happened last year, right? Most of us didn't know the extent of emotions experienced by the passengers and the man who saved them all... there was definitely a story to tell. Thought I felt Eastwood's (recent) style made the film look dull at times. Hanks was superb! I would watch the film for him, the way he transformed himself for the role. Really hoping for some acknowledgment at Oscars for him.
Yes. You are the only one!
shareSully was much more necessary than say a movie about the first date of Barack and Michelle Obama.
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))
I really appreciated the way the film was deliberately steered away from a typical airport disaster film with myriad sub-plots. Eastwood concentrates simply on the incident, New York emergency responses, key personnel, the inevitable inquiries and associated stresses and media interest and attention. I think he pared things down smartly and then almost inevitably secured fine performances from his cast, including a very noteworthy Tom Hanks. Every thing achieved in extremely convincing, cinematic detail.
... a movie about the first date of Barack and Michelle Obama.H-m-m-m-m-m! You don't happen to have a script do you? 🐭 share
I thought it was a beautiful film. What was disturbing a girl I work with had just graduated high school, I believe it was, and she had ZERO idea this even happened. I wasn't even living in the US at the time and I knew it happened.
H-m-m-m-m-m! You don't happen to have a script do you?
... she had ZERO idea this even happened.LOL! Like the guy on another thread yesterday who couldn't appreciate (the real life ) dramatic aspects of the film. He therefore claimed Flight is better, because it's more dramatic. You just have to laugh. The thing that blows me away is that Clint Eastwood is forever doing this different kind of stuff, doing it very well and he's 86! 🐭 share
I like Washington, but I haven't seen Flight. Flight was a fiction movie. Sully wasn't. Even though sure the NTSB bits were dramatized, conflict was needed, but still it was fun to watch.
People now a days need that more over the top dramatic, action film as opposed to a more quiet, more artistic film.
It was a simple movie, with a simple story. I didn't need complexity as a selling point. The whole entire real life story was a selling point for me. Toss in Clint Eastwood who knows how to direct and Tom Hanks who knows how to act and voila you have a worthy movie.
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))
T
he whole entire real life story was a selling point for me. Toss in Clint Eastwood who knows how to direct and Tom Hanks who knows how to act and voila you have a worthy movie.Yes, exactly!🐭 share
I do like movies that are character driven and not always full of action or CGI or what have you. Aside from Sully, which ok sure they had to dramatize the NTSB, but another movie in the same vein was the movie Buried with Ryan Reynolds. Some liked it others did not. It was a simple film of Reynolds being buried alive. Sure some things were questionable, but Reynolds had to carry the whole film and I really liked it.
((Damn the remakes, Save the originals.))