Winona State University's Newspaper since 1919

The Winonan

Winona State University's Newspaper since 1919

The Winonan

Winona State University's Newspaper since 1919

The Winonan

Polls

What is your favorite building to study in?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Film in review: ‘Sully’ falls short on substance

Film in review: ‘Sully’ falls short on substance

Nathaniel Nelson / Winonan

The story of the Miracle on the Hudson, where Captain Chesley Sullenberger safely landed a plane on the Hudson River, saving 155 lives in the process, is an incredible story of everyday heroism. With film industry vet Clint Eastwood at the helm, and starring the ever-wonderful Tom Hanks, an adaptation would of course turn out well, right?

Well…I’m just going to cut to the chase. “Sully” is a terrible movie that nobody should allow themselves, or anyone they care about, to watch. Ever. In fact, the only reason I didn’t walk out halfway through is because I needed to write this review.

Here’s the story of the film: Capt. Sullenberger lands a plane on the Hudson, and everybody calls him a hero. But government officials think he was in the wrong. That is quite literally the entire plot. There are no subplots, or deep character studies or really anything of substance. This is a film about an ‘American Hero’ and the ‘corrupt government’ butting heads. The conflict is as shallow as you could possibly imagine and the whole film suffers from the most bizarre pacing of any film this year.

Story continues below advertisement

To put it in numbers, out of the total length of 97 minutes, 30 to 40 are spent in flashbacks or simulations of the crash, five are spent in a completely unrelated flashback to Sully’s early days, and then there’s usual five minutes of credits.  The rest is split up between scenes of Sully running outside, sitting in an interrogation room or talking to his wife about the investigation.

Todd Komarnicki’s screenplay is so barebones that I honestly feel like 20 pages were simply lost. With all the pointless repetition and silent street shots, that must be the case, right? There are whole scenes that are not only inconsequential but borderline incoherent. Add in the complete lack of character development, and somehow, Eastwood managed to make a 97-minute film feel uncomfortably long.

Props are due to both Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart, who play the two pilots of that infamous flight. They put in generally solid performances, and Hanks’ everyman is often a delight. But those are the only two “characters” in the entire film. The rest of the cast is at best walking plot devices, and at worst cardboard cutouts of clichés. The story is so dumbed down and flat, not to mention predictable, that in less than half the film you’ll completely stop caring about what happens.

The worst part is that there are instances where you could see a better film hidden deep down inside the boring, bland exterior. It begins with a welcome change of pace for disaster films, focusing more on Sully dealing with his newfound fame. Twenty minutes later, all of that character development is wasted when Eastwood decides to lean on his constant crutches of anti-government and American exceptionalism. The film quickly becomes a cliché-ridden slog.

To make matters worse, the film released on the weekend of September 11. While that may seem innocuous at first, remember that this is a feel-good movie about a heroic incident involving a plane in New York City. Characters even take multiple chances to remind the audience about it, including the wonderful line “New York needed some good news. Especially involving an airplane.” It feels manipulative and borderline exploitative, as if they planned this film to specifically capitalize on the tragedy of 2001.

The true story of Captain Sullenberger is an incredible tale of heroism, with a normal everyday working-man doing something unconventional and extraordinary to save numerous lives. The film, on the other hand, is nothing more than an incomplete, uninspired, unremarkable pile of feel-good Hollywood garbage. We’ve all heard the classic criticism of a film being “All style and no substance.” Well, when it comes to “Sully,” there’s no style, no substance and not even a full movie.  Save your money and avoid this film at all costs.

-By Nathaniel Nelson

More to Discover