It lost momentum and lacked any real tension. The whole trial, racial controversy and family moments along with Mark Rylance's amazing performance was very engaging and got me hooked right off the bat. Almost a great movie. Anyone else agree?
You're move, creep
He didn't enter Russia. He visited East Berlin in the GDR.
shareThe caption posted showing ' Peshawar, Pakistan' was incorrect. The action took place prior to 1971 when the current Pakistan was named West Pakistan and the current Bangladesh was called East Pakistan. Therefore the caption should have read 'Peshawar, West Pakistan'.
shareMaybe. Maybe not.
The title isn't "in" the fictional world of the movie. It's not like a line of dialog. It exists now, and is a communication directly between the filmmakers and the audience.
On the other hand, I would find a similar title in a movie that took place in 1701 saying the characters were in "Cleveland, Ohio" problematic. But one that said the were on the site that would one day become Cleveland would be okay.
In the context, I think just Pakistan is fine.
"West Pakistan" and "East Pakistan" weren't separate nations (like, say, "West Germany" and "East Germany" were), but two non-contiguous parts of the same nation. (Bangladesh today is the result of the Eastern part declaring independence from Pakistan in 1971.)
So yes, you could say "Peshawar, West Pakistan" if you want to be specific what part of pre-1971 Pakistan (or if there was also a "Peshawar" in East Pakistan/present Bangladesh to distinguish from, which it doesn't appear there was/is per Wiki search, though); but saying "Peshawar, Pakistan" would be as correct as saying "[city], [nation]" for any other city anywhere. "Pakistan" was a single sovereign nation created from the Partition of India in 1947, though it was made up of those two non-contiguous parts.
Understanding is a three-edged sword.
It was engaging until I felt I was being jerked around by typical Spielberg manipulation. I watched it through because I did care what happened to "Commie" Mark Rylance, but even then I felt manipulated by the Reds taking him into the back of the car instead of embracing him, a pointless sense of dread being engendered for Ryland's safety, only to be relieved by the end onscreen text saying that he wasn't executed by the Reds after all.
Then there's the utterly stupid scene of Hanks "comforting" his kid who's worried about nuclear proliferation and the Cold War maybe turning "Hot" - where Hanks idiotically "reassures" the kid, "But no one is dropping bombs on our country" - Jesus, the stupidity of that line. The kid is worried that a nuclear attack COULD start at any time in the near future, not that bombs ARE dropping on the US.
Then there's that wacky-looking getup in which Spielberg clothes Hanks when addressing the SCOTUS - it looked like something out of the 19th century - even...Lincolnesque (mere coincidence?) - and just plain silly. Anyway, ultimately this film is a waste of celluloid and viewer time...
I don't remember what Hanks was wearing in the Supreme Court scene. FWIW, lawyers often wore formal morning dress (dark gray cutaway, striped pants, light gray vest, etc. - what's still worn fir some daytime weddings) when arguing before the Supreme Court until well after the period of the movie. I believe the Solicitor General (if male) still does, and others might.
shareJust found a still: Yes, what Donovan wore in the Supreme Court was historically accurate, and would have been at the least the norm (perhaps nearly universal) in the period.
Incidentally, it's still worn at quite a few weddings. It's the equivalent level of formality to a tuxedo, but appropriate for daytime wear. Kind of surprised that it looks 19th Century.
You obviously do not have kids. Its better not to let them worry than to tell them the gory details and what if scenarios.
It was engaging until I felt I was being jerked around by typical Spielberg manipulation. I watched it through because I did care what happened to "Commie" Mark Rylance, but even then I felt manipulated by the Reds taking him into the back of the car instead of embracing him, a pointless sense of dread being engendered for Ryland's safety, only to be relieved by the end onscreen text saying that he wasn't executed by the Reds after all.
"Why would somebody Abel didn't know personally, who wasn't a family member or friend, embrace him? Do people commonly expect to be hugged by any random person from the same country as them?"
They were comrades, so yes. Russian communists used to kiss each other also, believe it or not, but I think that would have been too gay for the US audiences.
He never went to Rusia!
It reminds me when you people ask where in Mexico my country is...
Please excuse my terrible redaction, english is not my native language