DVD Review: Bridge of Spies

Bridge of fucking over Tom Hanks

There's a story Rudolf Abel, (Mark Rylance) a Soviet spy arrested in New York in the height of the cold war tells his lawyer, James Donovan. (Tom Hanks) He tells him about a man he knew as a child that was a friend of his parents. How his father told him to watch him, and he did, and saw the man did only unremarkable thing until one day, he did one thing that wasn't. That's how I felt watching this film. It gets several Oscar nominations, it's like the Academy is telling me to watch it. Yet, it's a completely unremarkable film except for Rylance (the one remarkable thing)

The trailers of this film never excited me, but I wanted to see this before the Oscars aired (I'm sure this won't be published until sometime in March/April, but know I'm writing this review on February 22nd.) I tried to look on the bright side of things, Spielberg doesn't make bad movies, but he does make typical ones, and that's where this falls. Tom Hanks is good, he always is and Donovan is a really likable guy that keeps getting screwed over. You can't help but root for this guy to triumph. I swear every time he took a drink of something I was expecting it to be poisoned. 

But that's just it. It's typical, it's what you would expect, and it never strives to be anything more than passable. Like I said, a bit unremarkable.

Recommended: Sure, if you're a Hanks/Speilberg/Rylance fan.

Grade: C+

Memorable Quote: "Would it help?" - Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance)

14 comments:

  1. I thought it was fine. Like you said, it's nothing innovative about it. But it's not horrible. Mark Rylance, though, deserved his Best Supporting Actor Oscar. Even over Sly Stallone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I haven't seen Creed, but I cannot fathom how anything Sly has done based on his previous work could ever be Oscar worthy. I need to see it soon to be sure.

      Delete
  2. This is a film I do want to see even if it is not all that remarkable, I'll see if I agree with what you wrote:)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lol for your sake, I hope you like it more than I did.

      Delete
  3. Yeah same here. It's a decent but forgettable film. I actually found Hanks to be much better than Rylance here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hanks is Hanks. He's always good, but he didn't exactly wow me here. Rylance did.

      Delete
  4. But what about the brilliant underlying wit of this film...a la the Coen Brothers' polishing of the script? What about the pure charm of Tom Hanks in this role? How he takes down that CIA guy in that bar with nothing but pure resolve in his idealism...and how he wheels and deals everyone and everything with the same exact sensibility? I was all for Rylance on this Oscar win and was actually shocked he won it. Well deserved. He is the best thing about a movie with so much greatness, a movie that reminded me of the goodness in people, in peace, in patriotism...the sort of peace and patriotism and goodness JFK would speak of only a few short years after the events of this movie. I LOVED it! It is a perfect historical period piece, and, if that's what you mean by "typical," then "Hanks/Spielberg/Rylance" 4-eva!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. lmao I'm glad you loved it, but the overwhelming power of "meh" was just too strong.

      Delete
  5. well, this is disappointing (though the trailers did nothing for me)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They did nothing for me either, I only watched this because it was a Best Pic nominee.

      Delete
  6. I enjoyed the film, I liked the performances and thought the period design and production were top notch.

    But, I do agree with you it is somewhat by the numbers stuff. It's well made but still pretty typical stuff.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Production design was great, it's too bad the rest was so forgettable.

      Delete
  7. Like you said, the production values were great. It was a good/solid movie, but nothing to write home about. I did enjoy Hanks', but that's about it. There was nothing unexpected in this film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very by the book, and not very memorable weeks after seeing it.

      Delete

If you're reading this sentence you should probably leave a comment.