Quickie Review:
When a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) in the height of the Cold War is arrested, James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is recruited to defend him in an American trial. Meanwhile an American pilot is captured by the Soviets, thrusting Donovan into the responsibility of negotiating between two world powers on the brink of war. Bridge of Spies, balances the gravity of politics on a world stage with the relations and fears of the people behind it all. This film is yet another great example of what Spielberg and Hanks can achieve when they team up together. Will this be a classic from years to come? I expect not, but the quality of acting and directing is undeniable.
Full Review:
Considering Spielberg being one of the best directors and Hanks being one of the best actors in the Hollywood business, it is hard not to get excited for this movie. I'm not completely familiar with the real-world story, so I can't say much on the accuracy but on the movie of course I have my opinion to share.
In terms of the performances, everybody was flawless but the clear stand-outs for me was Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. The character Donovan is unwavering when it comes to his duty as a lawyer, even when he has to defend an enemy of his country. He believes in the importance of unbiased justice, so strongly that at first it may come off as naïve. However, there are understated moments where we can see clearly his resolve being tested to the limits. Mark Rylance as the Soviet spy, is a man of few words but with that limitation he is able to convey so much about the character. He is defeated and fearful for his life, but when Donovan shows that there is still hope he will crack a joke. The key here is subtlety, that brings the power into the more dramatic moments without it feeling forced. I didn't feel like I was watching actors, I felt like I was watching real people.
Another aspect that really grabbed my attention is the Cold War setting. It is of course the perfect time period for any political thriller story (a real one at that). Despite it being decades ago, it is hard not to see the parallels between the Cold War era and present day. We get to see the xenophobia in USA surrounding communists and Soviet spies, people quick to draw conclusions from their emotion. Could we really say things are any different now? Unfortunately not. So it is interesting how the movie feels relevant in modern day politics. The second half of the movie shows the delicate nature of negotiations. There are moments of manipulations, lies, and deceit. Yet through all that a trust has to be built to have any movement in the talks. How the characters try to build that relation for mutual benefit is what intrigued me the most.
I only have one complain, that is it feels like two movies in one. The first half feels like legal drama, and the second half is a political thriller. So I would've liked more consistency between the two plot lines. Bridge of Spies, in the end achieves the authenticity in its characters and the setting. That's why I highly recommend seeing this movie. Personally, movies (not documentaries) that are based on real stories should prioritise authenticity and not accuracy. That I think are two very different things that deserves a whole entire post to explain.
When a Soviet spy (Mark Rylance) in the height of the Cold War is arrested, James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is recruited to defend him in an American trial. Meanwhile an American pilot is captured by the Soviets, thrusting Donovan into the responsibility of negotiating between two world powers on the brink of war. Bridge of Spies, balances the gravity of politics on a world stage with the relations and fears of the people behind it all. This film is yet another great example of what Spielberg and Hanks can achieve when they team up together. Will this be a classic from years to come? I expect not, but the quality of acting and directing is undeniable.
Full Review:
Considering Spielberg being one of the best directors and Hanks being one of the best actors in the Hollywood business, it is hard not to get excited for this movie. I'm not completely familiar with the real-world story, so I can't say much on the accuracy but on the movie of course I have my opinion to share.
In terms of the performances, everybody was flawless but the clear stand-outs for me was Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance. The character Donovan is unwavering when it comes to his duty as a lawyer, even when he has to defend an enemy of his country. He believes in the importance of unbiased justice, so strongly that at first it may come off as naïve. However, there are understated moments where we can see clearly his resolve being tested to the limits. Mark Rylance as the Soviet spy, is a man of few words but with that limitation he is able to convey so much about the character. He is defeated and fearful for his life, but when Donovan shows that there is still hope he will crack a joke. The key here is subtlety, that brings the power into the more dramatic moments without it feeling forced. I didn't feel like I was watching actors, I felt like I was watching real people.
Another aspect that really grabbed my attention is the Cold War setting. It is of course the perfect time period for any political thriller story (a real one at that). Despite it being decades ago, it is hard not to see the parallels between the Cold War era and present day. We get to see the xenophobia in USA surrounding communists and Soviet spies, people quick to draw conclusions from their emotion. Could we really say things are any different now? Unfortunately not. So it is interesting how the movie feels relevant in modern day politics. The second half of the movie shows the delicate nature of negotiations. There are moments of manipulations, lies, and deceit. Yet through all that a trust has to be built to have any movement in the talks. How the characters try to build that relation for mutual benefit is what intrigued me the most.
I only have one complain, that is it feels like two movies in one. The first half feels like legal drama, and the second half is a political thriller. So I would've liked more consistency between the two plot lines. Bridge of Spies, in the end achieves the authenticity in its characters and the setting. That's why I highly recommend seeing this movie. Personally, movies (not documentaries) that are based on real stories should prioritise authenticity and not accuracy. That I think are two very different things that deserves a whole entire post to explain.