Sully (2016)

Two days after seeing the best lead actress performance I have seen so far in 2016 (Alicia Vikander – The Light Between Oceans), I saw the best performance by a lead actor so far this year in Tom Hanks’s (Forrest GumpCaptain Phillips) portrayal of Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger in Clint Eastwood’s (American Sniper, Mystic River) Sully. While 2016 has been a major letdown for movies through its first eight months, Sully, at least, gives promise that you are guaranteed one fantastic film and hope that there will be many, many more as Oscar season approaches (Manchester by the SeaLa La LandFencesNocturnal AnimalsLovingBilly Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk to name a few). 2016 has proven and will continue to prove that it is a year like no other since I began this blog back in 2010. Through its release date (September 9), Sully is, hands down, the best movie of 2016 and the only one that I feel 100% confident will stay in my top 10 after I’ve seen all of the big movies of 2016.

Sully tells the true story of the successful landing of the 2009 Flight 1549 on the Hudson River. After a flock of Canadian geese destroyed both engines of his airplane, Sully and co-pilot Jeff Skiles (a better than ever Aaron Eckhart – The Dark Knight, Thank You For Smoking) have 208 seconds to figure out a plan. They can either return to LaGuardia Airport or land nearby in New Jersey. The plane is in constant communication with the control tower for a while. While the air traffic controller is confident that the plane can make it to either runway, Sully is quickly convinced that it will not happen and that he will have to land the plane in the river. His heroics lead to saving all 155 passengers, and the landing is quickly referred to as “The Miracle on the Hudson.” While Sully pilots the plane to safety, he has trouble with the spotlight and being dubbed a hero.

Eastwood, as masterful as he’s ever been, breaks this movie up into three stories that are being told simultaneously. First, he tells the story of the landing itself and the moments just before it and just after. It was important to Eastwood and Sully/Skiles (who wrote the book on which the movie was based) to tell the story of the first responders who got these people to safety after the plane was landed hit the river. Eastwood does not take this part of the story lightly. It took 22 minutes from when the plane stopped moving until all 155 passengers were safely on rescue boats, and this part of the movie might have been shot in real-time even though there was the shifting of cameras to different parts of the rescue mission.

The second part of the story was Sully and Skiles defending their actions to the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). From what I’ve read, this is the part of the story changed for the screen. First of all, in the movie, it’s one week from the crash to the series of interviews that are being conducted by Charles Porter (Mike O’Malley – television’s Glee, television’s Yes, Dear), Elizabeth Davis (Anna Gunn – AMC’s Breaking Bad), and Ben Edwards (Jamey Sheridan – Spotlight, television’s Law and Order: Criminal Intent) on behalf of the NTSB. In actuality, this investigation took much longer, and the interviews weren’t conducted until some six months after the crash landing. Also, as a friend and I discussed, this movie needed a villain. There really wasn’t anybody who did anything but laud Sully for his quick thinking and sound judgment. How could you find fault after he saved all lives? Still, if it was certain that he could have made it to either runway, the questions of why he landed in the Hudson River become tougher. And, of course, all aspects of the crash landing had to be investigated. This is routine. But Eastwood certainly makes the NTSB out to be the bad guys here when, really, they weren’t as negative/accusatory as they came across to be and were doing their jobs. It’s not a knock on anybody. But, as mentioned…this movie needed some sort of villain.

The third part of the story belonged to Sully. He was a pilot, and now suddenly, he was praised as a hero for just doing his job. He has constant dreams and visions of the plane not making a successful landing and, instead, crashing into buildings in New York City. These visions and dreams haunt him, but it’s hard to tell he’s suffering. He carries his emotions very close to his chest, so much so that he can’t really even talk to his wife Lorraine (a misused Laura Linney – You Can Count On Me, The Savages), who is in 6-8 scenes but all but telephone only. This could have been an actress and did not need to be someone of Linney’s capability. Sully tries to talk to her, but he often ends the conversation early, citing that he has to go or is tired. Skiles really becomes his confidant, and they have each other’s back throughout the course of the movie. It’s unknown how close the two men were before the movie, but this incident brings them closer together, and you can tell by the end that they will be lifelong friends. Both Hanks and Eckhart were great. Eckhart is likely to get overlooked. I don’t think Hanks will. He was terrific at letting only the audience know what was haunting him. To the public and to all those he interacted with, he appeared to be fine. He knew that he needed to appear to be fine. He never thought he would find himself in this situation, and the way he dealt with it was both beautiful and painful to watch at the same time.

Eastwood continues to prove that age defines nothing when it comes to directing. The man is 86 years old. Since 2003, he has directed the Mystic River, Million Dollar Baby, Flags of Our Father, Letters from Iwo Jima, Changeling, Gran Torino, Invictus, Hereafter, J. Edgar, and American Sniper. He’s simply amazing.

Finally, many will ask, what’s the difference between Sully and the Denzel Washington 2012 movie Flight, you might ask? Well, they are very, very similar in some ways, but in other ways, they couldn’t be more different. Both revolve around a plane crash and, specifically, the actions of the pilot. Flight is fictional. It is very linear. It has comedic elements. Sully is a true story (followed almost to the book), goes back and forth between the present and the past (Eastwood masters the sequencing of the crash and the fallout from it), and is far more serious in its tone. The two pilots (Denzel Washington in Flight and Hanks in Sully) couldn’t be any different. While a great pilot, Washington’s Whip is a complex character, who has a completely wrecked personal life and is living as a functioning alcoholic. Sully is a straight-laced, by-the-book type of guy. Each is rattled by the events which led to the decisions they were forced to make and the aftermath of those decisions. The NTSB investigates each pilot thoroughly to the point where each is almost getting crucified for their actions even though they saved the lives of all the passengers/crew on Sully and all but four in Flight. Both movies are fabulous. Washington was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, and, in all likelihood, Hanks will be for his. I guess what puts Sully ahead of Flight for me are the differences I mentioned at the start of this paragraph. When two stories are great, I will lean more on the one that is based on a true story. I appreciated Eastwood’s approach to the film with the back and forth sequences between the crash and the aftermath. It was superb. I also thought he did a better job of showing how the story affected his lead actor. That’s not to say that Robert Zemeckis didn’t do this with Washington’s character. Eastwood was just more subtle, and he didn’t have as interesting of a character to work with as Zemeckis had. And finally, I wasn’t a huge fan of the comedic parts of Flight. John Goodman’s character overshadowed the seriousness of the movie. As I have said in many of my reviews, I like my dramas to be dramas, and I like my heavy dramas to be heavy. Sully is a better movie than Flight.

Sully is the best movie through the first 8+ months of 2016. While I am confident it won’t be number one at the end, I’m certain it’ll be in my top 10 and probably will hover right around the 4-6 range. I would absolutely see this movie in the theater. This is a movie that you want to experience on the biggest screen possible. I also think that it’s a movie that all should enjoy.

Plot 10/10
Character Development 9.5/10
Character Chemistry 9.5/10
Acting 9.5/10
Screenplay 9.5/10
Directing 10/10
Cinematography 9.5/10
Sound 9/10
Hook and Reel 10/10
Universal Relevance 10/10
96.5%

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.