Author Topic: Bridge of Spies  (Read 4920 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

cronopio2

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 83
  • Respect: +35
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2015, 04:58:22 PM »
0
see it.

its geopolitics and values are obsolete, but there's good stuff in it.





Alexandro

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1742
  • Respect: +470
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #16 on: November 02, 2015, 03:36:24 PM »
0
SOME MINOR SPOILERS

It felt like a minor film, even though I can't disagree with the praise in general. I felt it took too long to find it's groove and it was tame in it's portrayal of the public's disapproval of Hank's character and the general hate towards communism at the time.

And all the family stuff was completely unnecessary, particularly the final ten minutes, which are all about Tom Hanks the family man getting redemption for doing his job.

Yet it's true that Spielberg is master and he has fantastic instincts, so the film is a pleasure to watch just because of the way he blocks and cuts the whole thing. I think he was on a wild roll (if uneven) from Schindler's List to Munich, and since then it's been a lot of not so great films that are elevated endlessly by his craft.

Fernando

  • satan's little helper
  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2228
  • Respect: +227
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #17 on: November 03, 2015, 04:36:07 PM »
0
^^completely agree, a minor film by Spielberg but still his craft is always evident.

I'll add this, the film has many comedic moments, Hanks has quite a few and the Russian spy in all his seriousness has them as well.

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3471
  • Respect: +1589
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2016, 04:27:49 PM »
0
SOME MINOR SPOILERS

And all the family stuff was completely unnecessary, particularly the final ten minutes, which are all about Tom Hanks the family man getting redemption for doing his job.

I agree with that...I watched it again a couple weeks ago and the final scene on the train bothered me more.

SPOILERS

On the plane back to the US from Germany, after they’ve retrieved Powers in the swap, you have Powers imploring Donovan to believe him that he never talked. Powers needs the public acknowledgment of his integrity because the implication is that he broke under pressure after being captured by the Russians and doesn't have this integrity and peace in private. I don't know the details of the real story, if Powers actually did, but for the movie's sake this seemed to be pretty clear.

In contrast you have Donovan, who has been operating oppositely, tirelessly, and thanklessly, keeping his actions hidden even from his family because his behavior is influenced by his personal moral compass - coming from a place of it being the "right thing" to do.

The last train scene has American passengers reading a newspaper article about Donovan's involvement in the swap, glancing at him approvingly and smiling - different behavior than they displayed earlier on in the film in a similar train scene where they were reading about his representing the supposed spy and firmly disapproved. This second train scene where the passengers turn to his side really fucks up the theme of the movie, giving Donovan the thing Powers needed only because he lacked the integrity that Donovan had - Donovan shouldn't need societal approval given what we've been watching so far. This scene "confirms" that in the end Donovan did do the right thing after being doubted and maligned for his choices, but it weakens the idea that we should live by our own resolve, apart from the tyranny of the mob, even when it's most difficult.

That's my only quibble with this thing, but whatever, it's Spielberg.

samsong

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1199
  • Respect: +210
    • http://www.dvdaficionado.com/dvds.html?cat=1&sub=All&id=samsong
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #19 on: February 27, 2016, 02:58:26 AM »
+1
SPOILERS

if i remember correctly, doesn't donovan hardly acknowledge the gesture from the woman in that second train scene, even seem a little embarrassed by it?  it has almost no bearing emotionally and if anything is a pretty inconsequential bit of parallelism.  i don't see how that moment thwarts the theme at large.  just because he gets the approval of a stranger (and society) doesn't suggest donovan ever needed or sought it, or that that particular moment is when donovan is vindicated for his actions.  that all happened on the bridge with abel.  that he is celebrated for his actions is just an archetypal hollywood denouement, that kind of classic hollywood moralizing/patriotism, which is hokey and trivial but in keeping with the movie's general aura.  i don't think it negates the thematic work at all.  and really the payoff of any of that shit at the end of the movie is to see him go straight to bed in the midst of swelling sentimentality.  i'd even go so far as to say that moment strengthens the notion of independent moral steadfastness and acting accordingly.  the fanfare doesn't matter.  he just wants to go to sleep in his own bed.

which is to say i'm fine with, even really like the way to movie ends.

Drenk

  • The Magic Flight
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
  • Respect: +447
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #20 on: February 27, 2016, 05:29:45 AM »
0
SPOILERS

He does seem happy, if I remember correctly. He cares about what ignorant people think based on what the Truth of the Day is. Which...okay, fine, whatever the themes are, I guess every human would be proud to be seen as a hero. But the movie would be better without it, the scene seems to go beyond the character's pride...
I'm so many people.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5510
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +361
    • my site
Re: Bridge of Spies
« Reply #21 on: June 29, 2016, 09:10:02 AM »
+1
This film hopped on too many recent bandwagons for it to be good. The first one being movies wanting to do too much with CGI matte painting, which made east Germany look like the town from Tintin. The second being serious historical movies doing pg-13 versions of these supposedly tense genre moments - for example when Argo, a movie in which nothing happens and really was just supposed to be a podcast - creates like for or five set pieces which all ended in misunderstanding or false scares. This film had a few moments of drummed up suspense that were too sanitized to get the job done. For example it wants to show what east Germany has to endure because the film has no confidence in the actual facts so it creates these little violent moments that have nothing to do with the plot except to remind the viewers how fucked up east Germany was, except all of that stuff was toned way down because Spielberg wanted a pg-13 rating so no one really bought it anyway. And it tries to piggy back off of those moments during the climax and tries really really hard to evoke some sense of thriller like danger when it really should be a character moment - like in spotlight or something.

When a masterful filmmaker gets materials like this, he can dazzle you with all kinds of themes and evocations, but there's a difference between this type of evocation and something that happens in a film like Phoenix...Speilberg has to hint and evoke and suggest and bury themes and scream history lessons and drum up music because he fundamentally doesn't trust the story to be solid or satisfying on its own.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy