Wasn't really feeling this one. It has a lot of merit. It's undeniably impressive on a technical level in terms of the cinematography (with some gorgeous shots of New York City and some great moments during the plane sequences in particular). Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart also give it their all performance-wise. But ultimately this story does not merit a feature-length film. It is not only evidenced by the incredibly brief running time (the movie is under 90 minutes without credits) but the complete lack of dramatic conflict. It never delves deeply enough into any of its characters for them to make impressions above stock-level moments, and feels the need to repeat itself over and over again with the same flashback sequences from different perspectives. For a while you think it's going to really delve into Sully's backstory and how he became a pilot, but this plot development is completely discarded after two scenes. Also, the simulator sequence at the end is awful and honestly laughable - there is no reason the same sequence needed to be repeated, in full detail, three separate times. It may have happened in real life but it was a very poor way to end the movie. This is certainly a miraculous event in history but there is just not enough there for this to be anything more than a pleasant enough bit of "patriotic" cinema. C

As a New Yorker too I found the constant references to 9/11 to be way too on the nose to the point where it was offensive. It tries so hard to cater to that "New York mentality" with lines like 'This city needs a bit of good news, especially involving planes.' Give me a break.

Also, aside from Hanks and Eckhart, who are admittedly great, this movie has the most random, wasted supporting cast ever. The less said about Laura Linney's worried wife character, who spends the ENTIRE MOVIE with a phone glued to her ear and is in no scenes with Hanks directly, the better. Then you have great actors like Anna Gunn and Mike O'Malley completely wasted. Michael Rappaport shows up for one second to give Sully a drink at a bar. Jerry Ferrara has two lines as a cop. And the rest of the cast is a hodgepoge of TV actors ranging from shows like "The OC" to "Glee" to "True Blood."

ALSO, there is way too much Marriott product placement in this movie.

This is literally Laura Linney in this movie, which is made even funnier because Laura Linney is IN the sketch.

This was amazing - I loved every minute.

I hate this movie

It's good. Hanks is great and Eckhart has some nice scenes (though the movie ends on a really corny note with him providing the last line). The problem though, and it's a problem that has plagued Eastwood since Invictus, is that the movie is only merely good. This movie, more than any of his other post-Invictus movies is the most theatrical (except maybe Jersey Boys which just should've been the musical put to screen). You've got a plane crash, you've got a courtroom drama at the end (the simulations seem to go on forever), you have the best of New York coming together, and Eastwood has gone ahead and made the most bland version of this story imaginable. How can you show the plane crash three times and just go, "Yeah, there it is...again.". Maybe like The Walk, this had to be seen in IMAX. At least the 208 second version of the scene and the rescue/evacuating in the second version are quite good (I actually got a little choked up during the rescue aside from the two morons - whether those morons actually tried to swim away/saw gas bubbles, maybe cut that part out). Also, the lack of music during the crash(es) sequences is a little jarring. Anything to liven up the damn thing!

Why couldn't Linney and Hanks have had one scene at the end? Why couldn't we get more younger Sully? Could we have got a little more inside Sully's head when he's imagining 9/11 like scenarios (that fake Katie Couric report he dreams was incredibly stupid)?

The movie also comes in at a brisk 88 minutes. First, why? Second, the person I was with was absolutely shocked that it was 88 minutes. She was convinced it was two hours. That's not a good thing. That's bland Eastwood for you.

Yet it works in spite of itself because of Hanks. It's just a shame that a much better film didn't surround his performance.

Eastwood should maybe quite while he's slightly ahead though.

B

I saw it in IMAX and honestly the plane sequences weren't anything revelatory. I thought Flight handled it so much better and was so much more tense.

And the simulator sequences were AWFUL. Also why were the demonstrators in them all like 80 years old?

eastwood has officially lost it

Sully, the iconic Clint Eastwood's 35th feature as a director, is a nice enough film without ever becoming a particularly invigorating or memorable one. It dramatizes the quote-unquote Miracle on the Hudson: the water landing which captured the world's imagination in January of 2009, achieved by pilot Chesley "Sully" B. Sullenberger III (Tom Hanks) around three and a half tense minutes after a collision with birds resulted in dual engine failure. The brief running time consists of this incident from multiple perspectives, as well as moments from a subsequent National Transportation Safety Board inquiry which briefly threatened Sullenberger's credibility and pension. Broadly, it is not hard to be on board with Eastwood's film, which is, per usual, photographed handsomely-but-subtly and scored with slightly mournful jazz piano. A nearly fatal plane crash is a very frightening prospect, and it is heartening so competent and experienced an aviator was there to save the passengers and crew. Sure, definitely. Monday-morning bureaucratic hand-wringing is frustrating when it tries to complicate or distract from the celebration of the right man for the right job at the right time. No real argument there. Yes, everything here is sober and straight and true; you are a damn fine American, Sullenberger! But the film never entirely springs to life or becomes profound. No fault, however, should be laid at the feet of a well-cast Hanks and his crisp, mustachioed projection of decency and integrity.

B-

The two young-Sully scenes feel arbitrary, particularly the second, which is a bit confusing in regard to context (wartime?). They feel out-of-place because the film is honestly more of a courtroom drama than an investigation of a man's soul, etc., etc. I know it motions toward the latter, but those land with a relative thud, particularly when Sully dreams Katie Couric is chiding him, lol.

I think (and this just proves your point about confusing) it was just a training exercise when he was with the Air Force (because of course he would jog to the air craft carrier with his exact jet on it). Giving a quick look at Wikipedia, he was with the Air Force in 1973 (right near the end of Vietnam), but I have no idea if he flew there or not, and I don't think the scene is supposed to be in Vietnam. I could be wrong, but I think it was just a simple audience hand-holding scene/reminding himself of, "Look, he's already landed an airplane under duress before!"

Looking back on it, even though I liked this scene, and I would've liked a few more like it, this particular scene serves no purpose in the film other than to hold the audience's hand.

And that Katie Couric dream sequence...it might be the winner of this year's "Worst Scene in Any Film This Year That Was In Otherwise Good Film" award (might be a little wordy).

One area where I disagree with Cory is the simulator sequences at the end. I found them fascinating in a detached, dry way, and I thought they were one of the film's most effective methods of conveying its, "In-the-moment heroism and instinct versus paper-pushing review-board bureaucracy" tension.

I agree - it is quite amazing how compelling that sequence is given the fact there is 4 extended flight simulations. That whole scene could have been extremely repetitive, but they avoided that. I'd also be interested to know if they actually did have them perform a live simulation in the middle of the NTSB proceedings.

"Birds."

Sully is a solid, ultimately a bit workmanlike telling of the Miracle on the Hudson and the psyche of the man who navigated it. As directed by Clint Eastwood, the crash sequence and subsequent rescue itself are very well done. And this is obviously Tom Hanks' show. It's a well calibrated, nicely modulated performance, one that could certainly net him award nominations. The movie fails to transcend the basic structural limitations of its narrative to be more than "solid," though. B

Sully is a solid telling of the 'Miracle on the Hudson' story, with all the background of the Mayday TV show and the luxury of having the perfect actor to portray the title character. Clint Eastwood brings it all in at a tight 96 minutes (though I would have ditched the final replay of the water landing). *B+*

The first time I watched this the fire alarm went off when they were getting the passengers off the Hudson.

It was a decent film I felt. Some things felt off but Hanks was good and the hearing scene was pretty great.

It was good, but also the most bland Eastwood film I have seen in a while. Hanks/Eckhart are really the only standouts here and honestly the only one's worth talking about. I was surprised at how much Laura Linney was wasted and when it ended all I could think was "that's it". It felt like this story was barely worth telling as a feature length film and while I mean no disrespect towards those that had to go through it I found Flight so much more compelling and intense, especially when it came to the crash sequence. I almost wonder what a more accomplished director like Spielberg or Zemeckis could have done with this.

I really enjoyed this. The simulator scenes, I loved. The whole movie in general is much more successful than Flight. The cast, direction, all top notch. Perhaps this is a simple RBI double by Eastwood, but I'll take that any day. Easily his best film since his one two punch of Gran Torino and Changeling

One thing I kept thinking was I was like "Did Eastwood rip himself off. The Space Cowboys flight simulator scene is very similar."

That's exactly how I feel too. Sully hits pretty much all the right strings it needs to for a true story adaption. Eastwood is very good form once again, and could easily have another nomination for best film on it's hand for me. Hanks is the true star and shows why for decades he can be considered the actor among actors. He is Sully in this thorough film about the event that took place and which pretty much flew past my radar when it happened. Eckhart shines in one of his best roles since I can remember as well. Excellent film.

A-

There were a few annoying things; like the Marriot product placement, the final Eckhart line (but I guess I have to believe that did happen?) and the very ending with real deal people. But none of those things made any real impact to detract from the film for me. The flight reenactment was just pretty fantastically done.

Sully

Eastwood's on a great streak! For what I previously considered rather a mediocre story, Eastwood has made a gripping film out of. Tom Hanks is perfect as Chesley Sullenberger. Such a commanding performance of a gentle, professional, and good man. But what impressed me more was the usually annoying Aaron Eckhart as Jeff Skiles. In this, he's gold. He really gives the film its two punch combo. Actually, I believe both should be Oscar nominated. Eastwood has cleverly constructed a film that pays homage to New York's emergency services and to one pilot, but it isn't ever eye-roll inducing. It grabs you and includes you in the experience. Hanks' performance has an endearing quality. So much so that when he wins, you feel good. The film almost gets into worship territory with too much praise, but it is restrained and never actually goes there. It dips its toe in the water with the "Oh look, he even paid for his drink! What a saint", but it gets straight back to the plot and the mechanics of the situation, which is not only really interesting but visually awesome.

It is shot well, edited with attention-to-detail, and I just love the contained nature of the story. Sully deserves its place among Oscar hopefuls this year. It makes Flight look like average.

A

Really exciting, well made film. It was sort of like Titanic with a happy ending. Where the film falters is the characters. Sully and Aaron Eckhart are so obviously angelic and the NTSB is so obviously the bad guy, it was a little unrealistic. They should have come up with some shades of grey so that the whole thing wasn't so predictable (yes, I know this is a true story.

A-

This deserves to get some nominations.

It deserves to get some wins.

Sully is simply a well made movie, not awards material - audiences are hungry for a well told story and it seems that Clint Eastwood is one of the few directors old enough to remember how to do it.