Tom Hanks. Dreamworks Entertainment. Need I say more? This picture was corny.
Bridge of Spies follows the true story of a Cold War era insurance lawyer called upon by his country to first defend and then later negotiate the exchange of Soviet spy Rudolph Abel, who looks and sounds weirdly like Sean Connery. Hanks (Mr. Mom, Sully) reprises his reluctant hero role from the Dan Brown series as Jim Donovan, an ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances. It had that True Lies if-they-only-knew element to it.
The KGB character was played sympathetically, replete with his own catch phrase (was that really necessary?). The closest thing this film has to an antagonist is Donovan's CIA handler. He's "mean," because he doesn't abuse the trust placed in him the way Donovan does, changing mission prerogatives on a personal whim because believes he knows better. The object is an American student being held for sedition by the East Germans. Hanks wants to take him back. The Americans don't value him. So, Hanks hijacks his own hostage swap to make the kid part of the deal. Patriotism is one of the themes, along with loyalty and reputation.
This film could have used more spycraft and intrigue. They could have done a lot more with the story. Suspense and courtroom drama were missing. The plot focuses on the character's personal life, without fleshing it out. Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone, Birdman) shines as the wife, but it's a bit part. Donovan's family bares the brunt of public scorn for his defense of an infamous foreign operative. Donovan seems to be stating nonverbally that they'll get over it, it's for the greater good, without bothering to even say as much, against the backdrop of 20th Century nuclear fear. He's sacrificing in strong silence. Or whatever.
Bridge of Spies wants to be a "message movie" but the didactic is fuzzy, at best. In defense of Abel, Hanks cites the US Constitution. This raises the question as to how the Constitution applies to the case at hand? I must have missed the part dealing with the rights of foreign nationals to spy on America. Donovan avoids the question by simply circulating back to the Constitution itself. It is because it is. Logic is not met with logic. Donovan is not a fighter for critical thinking.
Someone recently called Matt Damon the "Jimmy Stewart of the generation." I would nominate Tom Hanks for that dubious honor. Methinks Mr. Spielberg should get with the times. The classic formula is less relevant in today's marketplace of media and devoid of creativity. It's cheese with a side of schmaltz.
Bridge of Spies follows the true story of a Cold War era insurance lawyer called upon by his country to first defend and then later negotiate the exchange of Soviet spy Rudolph Abel, who looks and sounds weirdly like Sean Connery. Hanks (Mr. Mom, Sully) reprises his reluctant hero role from the Dan Brown series as Jim Donovan, an ordinary man thrust into extraordinary circumstances. It had that True Lies if-they-only-knew element to it.
The KGB character was played sympathetically, replete with his own catch phrase (was that really necessary?). The closest thing this film has to an antagonist is Donovan's CIA handler. He's "mean," because he doesn't abuse the trust placed in him the way Donovan does, changing mission prerogatives on a personal whim because believes he knows better. The object is an American student being held for sedition by the East Germans. Hanks wants to take him back. The Americans don't value him. So, Hanks hijacks his own hostage swap to make the kid part of the deal. Patriotism is one of the themes, along with loyalty and reputation.
This film could have used more spycraft and intrigue. They could have done a lot more with the story. Suspense and courtroom drama were missing. The plot focuses on the character's personal life, without fleshing it out. Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone, Birdman) shines as the wife, but it's a bit part. Donovan's family bares the brunt of public scorn for his defense of an infamous foreign operative. Donovan seems to be stating nonverbally that they'll get over it, it's for the greater good, without bothering to even say as much, against the backdrop of 20th Century nuclear fear. He's sacrificing in strong silence. Or whatever.
Bridge of Spies wants to be a "message movie" but the didactic is fuzzy, at best. In defense of Abel, Hanks cites the US Constitution. This raises the question as to how the Constitution applies to the case at hand? I must have missed the part dealing with the rights of foreign nationals to spy on America. Donovan avoids the question by simply circulating back to the Constitution itself. It is because it is. Logic is not met with logic. Donovan is not a fighter for critical thinking.
Someone recently called Matt Damon the "Jimmy Stewart of the generation." I would nominate Tom Hanks for that dubious honor. Methinks Mr. Spielberg should get with the times. The classic formula is less relevant in today's marketplace of media and devoid of creativity. It's cheese with a side of schmaltz.