I can't understand Spielberg showing the NY State Supreme Court Building at 60 Centre Street in Manhattan and indicating it was the US Supreme Court in Washington. No doubt the building's frieze's of the George Washington quote is aptly inserted at the proper moment but couldn't he get a shot of the nation's highest court and just work in the quote?
Very true to the patriarchal world of the 1950s. Women had nothing to do with anything, but existed in the home, in sweaters. Overwhelmingly overcoats and plenty of liquor.
Seems to imply that Hanks can teach us something about dealing with terrorists. Probably nit.
“How long can we defend ourselves – you and we,” he wrote, “by methods of this kind, and still remain the kind of society that is worth defending?
That's an easy one. From 1946-1990.
That's an easy one. From 1946-1990.
5
This movie made me so mad. Flat, untrue to its time, some male hollywoodish view of what life was in the 1950s, husband-wife caricature, family as set decoration, I was ready to throw bricks at the screen by the time it was over. Mark Rylance was fabulous, of course. Tom Hanks, you seem like a very nice man, but you were a big rubber dolly in this one. NYT Pick?, what is the world coming to?
6
The intention is to contrast fresh faced, apple-pie Americans with fresh faced Soviets.
1
Right on, Mary! The elements of a good story were there, but the execution was missing. It's not enough to let Hanks' determined and sensitive face carry the load. Different from "Charlie Wilson's War" or "The Green Mile," the creators of this recent Hanks movie seemed incapable of getting a handle on precisely what story they wanted to tell. Was it the fearfulness of the cold war and its cold warriors? Was it the conscience of a 'good man?' Was it the cruelty of a morally-constipated era? Touching on each of these aspects meant that investigation of any one went begging. Reviewers seem willing to forgive the wondrous Spielberg or Hanks just because they have done such good work in the past. The only problem with genuflecting in this way is that the story is left to flounder and founder.
1
The stand in of Hanks/Donovan defending the rights of the Soviet spy and supposedly our values for our treatment of terrorists today is naive, false and without relevancy to today's world. A more appropriate story line would have been Europe's and America's failure to act as Hitler's war machine grew.
I disagreed with her review of Room, which I thought was wonderful throughout and was hugely moved by, but I do agree with her here. Strange to me that so many people found no tension in this. I was riveted through the whole film and thought it was beautifully paced and I was completely entertained. I left feeling the same way I felt after "The King's Speech"...that this was a perfect film.
8
Here is Ms Dargis scoring points with Mr. Spielberg by making room for his paint by the numbers flick in her ten top films list. She does it quite a bit with a few directors she wants to prop up. I always wonder what the story behind some of these weird reviews is all about.
5
"Paint by the numbers" is exactly right for this infuriating movie.
Being an infrequent moviegoer, I was not familiar with Mark Rylance but his performance was spectacular in the most restrained of ways. Olivier would have been impressed. Aside from Rylance's performance, which merits consideration for an Oscar, the cinematography of Janusz Kaminski whose work filled the screen with the steel gray coldness that captured this episode, was brilliant.
14
Mr. Rylance was also superb in Wolf Hall on PBS. He is an amazing actor!
6
Oh yeah, judges were and still are as "outside" of the law as depicted in "Bridge of Spies." As a practicing Criminal Defense Attorney I thought it was a spot on depiction.
4
I agree with many of the previous reviews that the film lacked any dramatic tension. The addition of the student in East Germany seemed contrived, to complicate the simple plot. For a spy drama especially, the story had no real twists, or moments where you were lost. I think of TInker Tinker... and others I can't remember, where you had to struggle to keep up with all the mcguffins.
While the film was stylish, sets wonderful and Hanks acting solid, it was the script that really failed. Hanks seemed a symbol for American goodness, a bygone time where people acted with the utmost integrity. I doubt it.
Plus his family life seemed ripped right out of a Readers Digest issue.
IN the end the film was handsome but somewhat vacuous and dull.
While the film was stylish, sets wonderful and Hanks acting solid, it was the script that really failed. Hanks seemed a symbol for American goodness, a bygone time where people acted with the utmost integrity. I doubt it.
Plus his family life seemed ripped right out of a Readers Digest issue.
IN the end the film was handsome but somewhat vacuous and dull.
4
bocheball--
Everything that you say is correct. No argument. The film was well done and well acted---but it lacked tension, and not simply because we know how it ends. it is difficult to create tension in a historic tale, when we know that Powers was returned, and that an atomic war did not commence.
However, I found that I simply and thoroughly enjoyed the picture. Go figure! I guess that many of us lived through that period (duck and roll) and enjoy being reminded that we somehow survived. Perhaps it is also reassuring if not contrived to be presented with a reluctant hero of sorts that believed in the constitution. I guess that we all want to believe that goodness prevailed, instead of believing that we were simply more devious than the other guy.
Everything that you say is correct. No argument. The film was well done and well acted---but it lacked tension, and not simply because we know how it ends. it is difficult to create tension in a historic tale, when we know that Powers was returned, and that an atomic war did not commence.
However, I found that I simply and thoroughly enjoyed the picture. Go figure! I guess that many of us lived through that period (duck and roll) and enjoy being reminded that we somehow survived. Perhaps it is also reassuring if not contrived to be presented with a reluctant hero of sorts that believed in the constitution. I guess that we all want to believe that goodness prevailed, instead of believing that we were simply more devious than the other guy.
4
Remeber when Truman's Attorney genera,, named McGrath I think, who resigned over his wife's accepting a rather inexpensive gift. He was exonerated of any crinal charges, yet felt that honoring the law and the integrity of public office called for his voluntary resignation. Compare that with Flint today, and many other examples. There were some back then who lived by a strict moral code and who had genuinely happy families based on family values, not hatred of others.
1
Flint? How about Hillary?
A typical Dargis review is inevitably more about how clever she is than about the movie. I nearly always begin reading a Times film review without noticing who wrote it. Often, a couple of paragraphs into one, a dreaded "uh-oh" hits my gut, and I sense by the writer's contrived "look-how-brilliant-I-am" style that It's a MD piece -- meaning the review is as much (or more) about her as about the film.
As to why the Times continues to employ such a narcissistic scribe, my guess is that she is either a member of a "protected" class, or she has incriminating photos she uses to blackmail the management.
As to why the Times continues to employ such a narcissistic scribe, my guess is that she is either a member of a "protected" class, or she has incriminating photos she uses to blackmail the management.
4
I just think she's a good writer.
9
I enjoyed this movie but at the same time found it irritating to the extreme with all the usual Spielberg "human affairs" moments, i.e., the painting given to Donovan by Abel just didn't ring true. The overcoat moment and all the family scenes of the perfect 50's wife. Also, I thought Hanks was too old to play the father of young children. There was too much lightness in a movie depicting a dark time in Germany that continued for many years and wrecked havoc on East Germany. I don't know if judges were as outside today's laws as the film showed but that behavior would not be tolerated today. I am not sure if the Coen's were going for laughs but this was the wrong subject for that.
1
Betsy,
Good point about Tom Hanks being too old. When Donovan was Hanks' age, he was dead. Hanks unquestionably has the gravitas for this kind of role, but his choice sums up what everyone should remember when they see this film: It's just a movie. I enjoyed it, but I didn't mistake it for anything other than Spielbergian entertainment.
Good point about Tom Hanks being too old. When Donovan was Hanks' age, he was dead. Hanks unquestionably has the gravitas for this kind of role, but his choice sums up what everyone should remember when they see this film: It's just a movie. I enjoyed it, but I didn't mistake it for anything other than Spielbergian entertainment.
1
His appearance is offset by the wife who was appropriate, not the usual trophy casting.
Sorry ! Tom Hanks is never too old !!!!!!
5
Mark Rylance was outstanding. I loved this movie
11
"He’s as drab as the room in which he is painting a self-portrait, daubing on color that help turns the scene into a masterpiece of bleak."
In this scene it seems like Spielberg was somehow alluding to that famous Norman Rockwell self portrait, where he leans over and looks in the mirror. The realism throughout mirrored a Rockwell painting. Academy Awards will be won for cinematography, production design, and direction. This is one of Spielberg's best, I think.
In this scene it seems like Spielberg was somehow alluding to that famous Norman Rockwell self portrait, where he leans over and looks in the mirror. The realism throughout mirrored a Rockwell painting. Academy Awards will be won for cinematography, production design, and direction. This is one of Spielberg's best, I think.
8
The reviews on this film are so off that they make one wonder as to whether reviewers were just reading the PR material handed out by a studio marketing department trying to find some angle, some way, to make some sense out of how to market this knucklehead of a movie, which is neither “perfect” nor a “thriller.”
To start: Spielberg seems absolutely lost as a filmmaker; he really doesn’t have any coherent idea what he’s doing with his career. This movie meanders all over the place, not only as a completely unexciting spy story, but also, yes, as a kind of comedy that is wildly inappropriate for the alternate patriotic bombast scenes that surround it. Finally, aside from the off-kilter tone, the shots are weirdly wide angle. Everything seems to roll around inside of them like a marble bouncing down the stairs of an empty palace, palatial but pointless.
As I sat back bored by the lack of dramatic (or comedic) tension, I started thinking, what other Cold War comedy do I remember having seen that was set in Berlin? And then I thought of it: “One, Two, Three,” directed by Billy Wilder and starring a frenetic James Cagney in his later years. Well, no more than ten film minutes later, what do I see in the background of another hollow scene but a theatre marquee with, written on it, “One, Two, Three” in German. Yes! Don’t tell me Spielberg wasn’t trying to be kinda funny and don’t tell me he didn’t fail miserably. Next time, reviewers, don’t read the press kit, watch the movie!
To start: Spielberg seems absolutely lost as a filmmaker; he really doesn’t have any coherent idea what he’s doing with his career. This movie meanders all over the place, not only as a completely unexciting spy story, but also, yes, as a kind of comedy that is wildly inappropriate for the alternate patriotic bombast scenes that surround it. Finally, aside from the off-kilter tone, the shots are weirdly wide angle. Everything seems to roll around inside of them like a marble bouncing down the stairs of an empty palace, palatial but pointless.
As I sat back bored by the lack of dramatic (or comedic) tension, I started thinking, what other Cold War comedy do I remember having seen that was set in Berlin? And then I thought of it: “One, Two, Three,” directed by Billy Wilder and starring a frenetic James Cagney in his later years. Well, no more than ten film minutes later, what do I see in the background of another hollow scene but a theatre marquee with, written on it, “One, Two, Three” in German. Yes! Don’t tell me Spielberg wasn’t trying to be kinda funny and don’t tell me he didn’t fail miserably. Next time, reviewers, don’t read the press kit, watch the movie!
5
Teenie weenie polka dot bikini
I have tremendous respect for Ms. Dargis as a film reviewer. She is first rate. Let me also say that Spielberg is one of America's great film makers.
But Bridge of Spies, rather than being a "perfectly directed thriller," as Ms. Dargis put it, was a perfectly awful film. Big on budget, with the sets to boot. But it went nowhere fast, ever.
The pacing of the film was abysmal. There was simply no dramatic tension of any kind. Scenes that might have made sense within the context of another film, added and added and added up, offering nothing to the narrative but time.
The high point of the film? "Would it help?" A line the Soviet spy character delivered rather nicely a couple of times when the Hanks character asked him whether or not he was worried.
Early in the film there seemed to be a tip of the cap to North by Northwest during a scene in which FBI agents are trying to follow the Soviet spy. That was a nice touch.
The cinematography was lovely. But it was the equivalent of watching expensive paint dry.
Had my girlfriend not been with me on a date night, I would seriously have considered walking out of this picture.
It was that bad. A real stinker.
But Bridge of Spies, rather than being a "perfectly directed thriller," as Ms. Dargis put it, was a perfectly awful film. Big on budget, with the sets to boot. But it went nowhere fast, ever.
The pacing of the film was abysmal. There was simply no dramatic tension of any kind. Scenes that might have made sense within the context of another film, added and added and added up, offering nothing to the narrative but time.
The high point of the film? "Would it help?" A line the Soviet spy character delivered rather nicely a couple of times when the Hanks character asked him whether or not he was worried.
Early in the film there seemed to be a tip of the cap to North by Northwest during a scene in which FBI agents are trying to follow the Soviet spy. That was a nice touch.
The cinematography was lovely. But it was the equivalent of watching expensive paint dry.
Had my girlfriend not been with me on a date night, I would seriously have considered walking out of this picture.
It was that bad. A real stinker.
6
I didn't get to walk out either, because I fell asleep after the first 45 minutes. There was very little worthy of my attention up to that point, although I can't vouch for the rest of the film.
1
Nothing blew up, eh?
9
I think we all kinda knew the ending...the film making is in the human element behind the documented history - and for people who didn't 'know the ending' now they do, and even know some of the history...
Even if you are not a great fan of the genre, Spielberg or Tom Hanks, go see this for Mark Rylance's performance. He is a brilliant actor on the stage, on TV (Wolf Hall). and now in this film. This should be the "breakthrough" role which makes him better known to North American audiences.
10
Some seem to think this film is nothing more than a flag waving piece of American propaganda. I could see how it might be interpreted this way. However, my take away from this movie is how we should strive toward integrity, no matter the circumstances, or the adversary. As told in this film, there were far more people interested in a hasty conviction of Abel for being a Russian spy than there were people interested in giving him a fair trial for a criminal act. Spielberg’s point - If we, as a nation, cannot adhere to that which we want the rest of the world to believe about our system of government, then we, and our system of governing are not deserving of the respect of other nations. Donovan (according to this film) is simply trying to apply the constitution to the case of Abel. He is surprised and dismayed (as we should all be) to come across so many people in positions of authority who were okay with ignoring the rule of law in order to make a scapegoat of Abel in the cold war between Russia and The United Sates. It is a simple premise based in the golden rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If we cannot behave in this manner toward our enemies as well as our allies, then is our system of government really worth defending? More to the point, Bridge of Spies is a movie about integrity, honesty, and actually upholding those ideals that we teach early and frequently in our classrooms.
21
You have also waved the flag yourself.
1
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union America has nothing to p[rove about its being a better society. It can just wage war and promote joyous and aggressive ignorance domestically and continue to mistreat minorities, all without any self-reflection. This movie was an attempt to give America a way it might engage in self-reflection on its own failings even when the current enemy might be very bad or even evil. Did it succeed in this? Apparently not.
1
This is not an indie film. It's mainstream and big budget and yes somewhat nationalistic. But Spielberg does it better than anyone else, evoking the glory days of Hollywood. Hugely entertaining, superb attention to period detail, beautifully photographed (is there a more photogenic city in the world than NYC?), "gravely moody," every single character actor is spot on, and the film is idealistic - the rule of law triumphs. As in many of his movies, Spielberg makes no bones about the USA being on the right side against Soviets, Nazis, and other autocracies, etc.
6
Saw this last night, and came away remembering Mark Rylance, who is truly superb, but very little else. To me, the movie seemed lifeless, largely because the Tom Hanks role was pretty dull. An insurance lawyer is just that, and while the real James Donovan was undoubtedly an upstanding citizen and a patriot, this central character was completely underwhelming.
In terms of plot, I was reminded of one of those tabletop puzzles I used to work on. As you get closer to completing the puzzle, the pieces just plop into place, one after the other, just like this movie. There was no tension, no subtle dialogue, nothing memorable to recall on the drive home, other than Rylance's dour, fox-like demeanor.
In terms of plot, I was reminded of one of those tabletop puzzles I used to work on. As you get closer to completing the puzzle, the pieces just plop into place, one after the other, just like this movie. There was no tension, no subtle dialogue, nothing memorable to recall on the drive home, other than Rylance's dour, fox-like demeanor.
3
Like The Martian, a cliche-ridden film that's a sentimentalized argument for American exceptionalism. After the first ten minutes of both films, you knew exactly where the next two hours were going to take you. Boring, boring, boring.
Tom Hanks is a fine actor, but after the hundredth closeup of his pained-looking face, all I could think--that man is starting to look a lot like Mr. Potatohead.
Tom Hanks is a fine actor, but after the hundredth closeup of his pained-looking face, all I could think--that man is starting to look a lot like Mr. Potatohead.
3
As one might expect from the combination of Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Hanks...this movie is spellbinding from beginning to end. I felt it was beautifully executed in all aspects and worth way more then the price of admission. I really did not want to blink. Don't say this often...but I plan to see it again.
17
Cinema lovers, here's an interview Steven Spielberg gave to college students for Bridge of Spies. He talks about directing historical fiction, fatherhood, and working with actor Tom Hanks!
http://tech.mit.edu/V135/N28/spielberginterview.html
http://tech.mit.edu/V135/N28/spielberginterview.html
3
I watched Bridge of Spies last Friday, and thought it was an ok movie, well filmed and nice period items to make a great period picture.
However, one of the things that struck me was how the places and rooms of the soviets in East Berlin were depicted versus, the rooms and places in the west.
The soviets' rooms, like the embassy, or the streets etc were always somewhat darker, grayish, boringly misty, and it was snowing and wet, too. it wasn't the warm vibrant summer that seemed to be the weather in the west at the same time. The rooms and places in the west seemed to always be more colored and vibrant and quite fuller of life, and it was summer.
However, one of the things that struck me was how the places and rooms of the soviets in East Berlin were depicted versus, the rooms and places in the west.
The soviets' rooms, like the embassy, or the streets etc were always somewhat darker, grayish, boringly misty, and it was snowing and wet, too. it wasn't the warm vibrant summer that seemed to be the weather in the west at the same time. The rooms and places in the west seemed to always be more colored and vibrant and quite fuller of life, and it was summer.
2
an only so so movie. left out much that would have made it better, had he consulted david wise, first to author a book about powers, the u-2 affair. movie not up to standard we expect from spielberg.
1
Full disclosure. I have not seen this movie. But having lived in a divided Berlin, being familiar with Mr. Spielberg's previous works, and after reading the comments here, I don't think I really need to. If anyone is interested in seeing a more realistic film about life in East Germany, I would suggest "The Lives of Others" (original title "Das Leben der Anderen") directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmark (2006)...and of course, there's always the classic; "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold" with a marvelous Richard Burton.
7
"The Lives of Others" is a brilliant film. I'm glad you cited it here.
But "Bridge of Spies" is also worth watching. It does have Spielberg's stamp, but it's more wry than his other work, thanks maybe to the Coen brothers' writing.
But "Bridge of Spies" is also worth watching. It does have Spielberg's stamp, but it's more wry than his other work, thanks maybe to the Coen brothers' writing.
2
Bridge of Spies is a flat, anemic telling of the Gary Powers spy swap of the early 60's. The narrative has few dramatic points, and relies too much on Spielberg's rose-colored historical gaze, from dining room scenes to ridiculous over-the-head symbolic moments. No time is given to the political issues that surrounded the development of the U-2 spy plane program, and little is learned about "Rudolf Abel," the Soviet spy in the swap. The negotiations have little dramatic substance; apart from Power's plane being hit, there is almost no dynamic range to this film, save some witty quips offered by the Coen brothers. A sleepy, thin story that would better serve as a tv movie.
6
Rylance was far and away the best thing about this dreary film. He deserves supporting actor consideration. Time and again Speilberg had an opportunity to turn up the heat and entertain and he chose to keep us chilled and frankly more than a bit bored. I think it's fair to say there was plenty of story, plenty of potential suspense and enough interesting characters to go around. But part of the blame must go to the Coen brothers weak script. (Maybe that's why they didn't want to make it themselves.) When there was an opportunity for real dynamic tension, it just kind of meandered in an un-Speilberg like way. Was he trying to remake "the Spy that came In From the Cold?" I for one am still waiting to warm up. Paul DANSKER Manhattan
5
So what would have entertained you? A car chase? Gun battle?
Sad to see so many commenters fail to grasp that the tension that comes in quiet moments of waiting can be as exciting as gore and guts. Donovan's role as the lawyer who assesses risk, bluffs (and calls others' bluffs), feints and parries, was brilliantly crafted by Hanks (WHO looked the same as my dad did at that time, and I was a little kid -- to those who said he was too old for the part).
This film engaged the intellect in a profound way. It made the four of us who saw it last night think, consider, ponder values.
I've never read comments to a Times review before, but if these are indicative of the intellect and depth of today's average movie audience . . . . guess it's a good thing a new Star Wars and Hunger Games and Disney Dinosaur movie are coming out.
Sad to see so many commenters fail to grasp that the tension that comes in quiet moments of waiting can be as exciting as gore and guts. Donovan's role as the lawyer who assesses risk, bluffs (and calls others' bluffs), feints and parries, was brilliantly crafted by Hanks (WHO looked the same as my dad did at that time, and I was a little kid -- to those who said he was too old for the part).
This film engaged the intellect in a profound way. It made the four of us who saw it last night think, consider, ponder values.
I've never read comments to a Times review before, but if these are indicative of the intellect and depth of today's average movie audience . . . . guess it's a good thing a new Star Wars and Hunger Games and Disney Dinosaur movie are coming out.
9
Where's the beef?
More than any other director today Steven Spielberg celebrates the idealism on which American was founded. And he has been wise enough, as in "Saving Private Ryan", to select the actor that best embodies those principals in Mr. Hanks. Spielberg's stagecraft is meticulous and his pacing of the movie is perfect never seeming forced or contrived. He is even able to turn an otherwise dry and taciturn Russian spy into a sympathetic figure. In fact some of the most compelling and moving parts of the film relate to the interactions between Mr Hanks and Mr Rylance. Mr. Rylances's recounting of the "Standing Man" story carried real emotional wallop and came out of nowhere. It also neatly covered one of the real messages of the movie that operatives from both sides may push all the buttons and levers but much to their consternation can never really control the human spirit.
7
Not sure what movie you saw Babel, but the Spielberg Bridge of Spies movie I saw was pretty much all forced and contrived. <> The very idea of making the spy (Rylance) as sympathetic a character as he was, makes it way too easy for the director to get the audience to root for the good guy Hanks as he heroically goes at alone defending on constitutional grounds the spy everyone in America hates- but doesn't really know like Hanks does (even Hank's wife's is not a fan of what he's doing until at the end she realizes just how wrong she was about her man and is shown at his bedside gazing at Hanks’ sleeping form for far too many seconds with a look of unmitigated awe and unending love. Ick.). If all that's not forced and contrived, maybe I don't know what those words mean. Imagine how much more interesting the movie would be if the spy was a real creep; if Hanks had to struggle mightily with his own revulsion of the spy character- even more than everyone else who don't know the depths of the spy's creepiness like Hanks does- but he still decides to vigorously defend the spy anyway and work for his conditional release. There are countless other forced and contrived moments in that movie. Aside from the spectacular production value, it's just a bad movie in my opinion- another in a line of overly simplistic films for which Spielberg has been responsible over the years. I wonder if there’s a Cohen brothers’ directors cut version of this movie?
7
"it's just a bad movie in my opinion- another in a line of overly simplistic films for which Spielberg has been responsible over the years "
According to the major critics across the U.S. it's a big success. Check it out at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
You're entitled to your opinion. But compared to the people whose livelihood is to watch and review films for the major publications and are paid big bucks to do it, you would be in a small and distinct minority.
According to the major critics across the U.S. it's a big success. Check it out at Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
You're entitled to your opinion. But compared to the people whose livelihood is to watch and review films for the major publications and are paid big bucks to do it, you would be in a small and distinct minority.
4
And happy to be in that small and distinct minority with the freedom to share my own opinion of the movie with you. Thanks for listening.
2
I'm wondering if the scenes filmed in front of my building made it into the final film. Otherwise, the disruption to our lives will be for nothing. And, while the production crew removed many modern street signs and posts while filming, they left the cobra-head street light poles—which postdate that area—in place. Back then all the lamp posts here were the old bishop's crook design.
postdate that era, not area.
Oops.
Oops.
1
I just saw this movie and agree totally with Mark Nelson. I'm done with Spielberg. He's awful for treating his audiences like dim nine year olds. His films have all subtly of a 2 x 4 across the back of the head.
9
Maybe I missed something, but how does a bona-fide auteur like Mr. Spielberg create a film with such little character arc? I was astonished after watching the film that the same James Donovan we see at the beginning is pretty much the same person we see at the film's end, except for the apparently deep impression made on him seeing people get shot trying to cross the Berlin wall.
3
Standing Man, (remember Abel's character tells Hanks he reminds him of a man he knew in Russia) was the pivotal moment for Tom Hanks character from a man who let things happen to a man who made things happen. We see Mr. Hanks stand in all the jail scenes, when he finally sits, he changes. Watch it again. It doesn't always have to hit you in the face.
12
Um, that was the POINT. Donovan was who he was, with rock solid values and a strong sense of self. the fact that he stuck to his guns and prevailed -- and went on to free 9,000 people from Cuba, demonstrated his consistency and valor.
3
Unfortunate, because Spielberg masterfully creates the experience, but insists on dictating the meaning.
Unfortunate, because Mark Rylance's exquisite performance is as enthralling as Tom Hanks' is stultifying.
Unfortunate, because the uncommon beauty and cynicism of Shostakovich's music is effectively censored by Thomas Newman's pedestrian schmaltz.
Spielberg gathers tantalizing ingredients, but what gets delivered is a TV dinner.
Fascinating to contemplate "Bridge of Spies" directed through the off-kilter lens of screenwriters Joel and Ethan Coen.
Unfortunate, because Mark Rylance's exquisite performance is as enthralling as Tom Hanks' is stultifying.
Unfortunate, because the uncommon beauty and cynicism of Shostakovich's music is effectively censored by Thomas Newman's pedestrian schmaltz.
Spielberg gathers tantalizing ingredients, but what gets delivered is a TV dinner.
Fascinating to contemplate "Bridge of Spies" directed through the off-kilter lens of screenwriters Joel and Ethan Coen.
5
FInally a good movie review! I was interested that this Baroque Director with everything at his disposal caught the Cold War fever. The real story will of course never really be known. Entertainment by such director's is either a xerox of a xerox or the real deal. Here, hard to know.
Geez, Louise...so many people who apparently don't like Spielberg's movies, but continue to go see them, and then complain about the sets, the music, and sentimentality, the obviousness. What's up with that? Why expect he'll all of a sudden make some other kind of movie, rather than the ones he's been making his whole career?
Some advice--just stay away from the theater when a Spielberg movie comes to town.
Some advice--just stay away from the theater when a Spielberg movie comes to town.
14
The settings and costuming were excellent and the reality of "duck and cover" as well as the "implausible deniability" of US foreign policy were presented quite well.
The liberal/conservative divide over how to manage the Cold War came out with more nuance than most movies and literature.
I liked how the Berlin Wall was shown and the entire cast and crew gets accolades from me for details as well as a more global perspective.
The liberal/conservative divide over how to manage the Cold War came out with more nuance than most movies and literature.
I liked how the Berlin Wall was shown and the entire cast and crew gets accolades from me for details as well as a more global perspective.
10
Let's face it, Spielberg's stuff is formula. Steal a sliver of already published history, get a script to appeal to an adolescent mind, add overdone Williams music to presage every moment of drama, a front page People's Magazine actor like Hanks or Ford, a new-face ingenue discovery, the most expensive sets (in 2008 he remade blocks of our New Haven downtown for 2 minutes of film time), get 60 minutes to run a free 20 min "ad" for you, and a Hollywood feel-good finish--and there you have it. Another Oscar.
2
Mark Rylance once again shows why many consider him among the best in his profession.
26
"...magnificent Mark Rylance" (as Ms. Darghis said) -- reason enough to go see anything, whether movie, play, television series, or a recitation of the phone book.
14
"Perfectly directed" by Spielberg. Another one of those? Oh well...
A great review; thought provoking and, for me, an inducement to watch it. Though, anymore at 75, I am overwhelmed by the volume and vibrations of the sounds/music and prefer to watch at home.
3
"We try to tell a good story and develop a hefty plot. Themes emerge as we go along"
"Drama is life with the dull bits left out"
"Even my failures make money and become classics a year after I make them."
-- Alfred Hitchcock
http://hitchcock.tv/quotes/quotes.html
"Drama is life with the dull bits left out"
"Even my failures make money and become classics a year after I make them."
-- Alfred Hitchcock
http://hitchcock.tv/quotes/quotes.html
1
Great review. Now I really do want to go see this film. I love Tom Hanks, and seriously doubt that he will detract in any way from feeling like this is "real". As for hitting people over the head with ideas and/or dramatizations of history, well sometimes people DO need to be hit over the head and forced to acknowledge and remember history. If they didn't, we wouldn't have holocaust deniers. Or people swayed by them.
Two movies that brought this home to great effect were "Saving Private Ryan" and "Pearl Harbor" (the irony of the second arriving in theaters just two months before the 9/11 planes arrived in Manhattan never ceases to amaze me). The beach imvasion scenes in the first, and the fiery water deaths in the second, drive home to those who didn't live through those times the reality of them better than any history book or "light" movie ever could. Memories matter, even if they are painful and unpleasant.
If the young bankers who invented "bundling mortgages" so as to sell bad debt along with the good had not believed so strongly that house prices always go up and never go down. Or that those prices can go down and stay down for 10 years or more (1980's oil bust anyone? took our house 12 years to get back up to what we paid for it), maybe the debacle of 2008 would not have happened. But the financial engineers of the 2008 disaster were in diapers the last time it happened and we all paid the price.
One can only hope lots of people get beat over the head by Spielberg.
Two movies that brought this home to great effect were "Saving Private Ryan" and "Pearl Harbor" (the irony of the second arriving in theaters just two months before the 9/11 planes arrived in Manhattan never ceases to amaze me). The beach imvasion scenes in the first, and the fiery water deaths in the second, drive home to those who didn't live through those times the reality of them better than any history book or "light" movie ever could. Memories matter, even if they are painful and unpleasant.
If the young bankers who invented "bundling mortgages" so as to sell bad debt along with the good had not believed so strongly that house prices always go up and never go down. Or that those prices can go down and stay down for 10 years or more (1980's oil bust anyone? took our house 12 years to get back up to what we paid for it), maybe the debacle of 2008 would not have happened. But the financial engineers of the 2008 disaster were in diapers the last time it happened and we all paid the price.
One can only hope lots of people get beat over the head by Spielberg.
1
What about the product placement ads? So insulting. A movie can never be a classic with these ads. It may win an award anyway since the industry has no standards anymore.
1
That would be for the telephone, right?
October 16 2015
Truth as entertainment; yet in today’s electronic real-time cyber world Spielberg evokes all eyes see more than: we may want, or should, or even that we don’t want to know. There’re people that act on and handle big problems; including NY Times journalist and theater in court for justice – but having the movie tell its story is just fascinating, educational, and smart to enjoy. Art is for all Times expanding truths and popping awareness we sure can believe that…..
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
Truth as entertainment; yet in today’s electronic real-time cyber world Spielberg evokes all eyes see more than: we may want, or should, or even that we don’t want to know. There’re people that act on and handle big problems; including NY Times journalist and theater in court for justice – but having the movie tell its story is just fascinating, educational, and smart to enjoy. Art is for all Times expanding truths and popping awareness we sure can believe that…..
JJA Manhattan, N. Y.
1
how about those great old spy movies like, "Torn Curtain" starring Paul Newman, Julie Andrews; "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold", with Richard Burton, and an early and underrated movie- "The Iron Curtain(1948) starring Dana Andrews. Love 'em all!!!
1
I was just mugged again by a Spielberg movie. He took my money and hit me with a hammer over and over again. One shot for self-importance. I shot for his politics. One shot for period(there is such a thing as overdoing period when it becomes distracting). And the last shot for sentimentality. God I thought I was going to die... doe of boredom. BRIDGE is a great story told by strong acting and production values. But why do you have to keep hitting me and your audience over the head? Don't you trust us to figure it out? Obviously not. You keep doing it over and over... movie after movie. Stop already! Move on. Get over yourself. And make a great film!
4
Same problem for me with Spielberg when it came to Schindler's List--he knows an awful lot and he needs to tell us--who know so little and are a bit dense at best--about it with a sledge hammer style. Occurs in Saving Private Ryan, too. That lovely, heart-rending scene of the approaching sedan with the terrible news. The mother/we can see the car from the kitchen window, winding down to her core; we feel it, too, the men don't have to say anything, we collapse with her. And then we have to endure the over the top beach landing, watching over and over again, the pain and agony--did we get it yet? The importance of knowing how awful war is and the senseless loss of life? Spielberg's not sure we did, so another two, three, endless minutes of the horror. Oh, well, I do like Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance, so let me get ready.
2
You know the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. If you don't like Spielberg's work, don't go see his movies. It is that simple.
11
Well put ....by the two precedent comments.
Especially that the scene of the approaching sedan
with it's triple brotherly death NEVER happened !
Each announcement was separate but who cares , Monsieur Spielberg , all is " based on a true story ......
Let's be a bit more sassy.... Monsieur Spielberg.
Cheap trickto say the least .....
Especially that the scene of the approaching sedan
with it's triple brotherly death NEVER happened !
Each announcement was separate but who cares , Monsieur Spielberg , all is " based on a true story ......
Let's be a bit more sassy.... Monsieur Spielberg.
Cheap trickto say the least .....
1
I am wondering where did Spielberg and Coen get material from? In 2010 I read fascinating non-fiction book titled 'Bridge of Spies' written by Giles Whittell (Simon & Schuster UK Ltd). Note: Whittell's name is not on credits.
In Canada the opening day is today - will be interesting to see depiction of Hollywood fiction vs facts.
In Canada the opening day is today - will be interesting to see depiction of Hollywood fiction vs facts.
3
See James Donovan's book "Strangers on a Bridge." Family members of the main protagonists were also interviewed, according to the "extras" on the DVD.
1
Perfect timing as Mr. Putin's goal appears to take us right back to the Cold War era.
5
Ditto.
Just saw the movie last night. Loved it. Just read this NY Times review. Loved it. I like reading the NY Times on line mostly for its arts coverage (and its editorials and OP ED). Reviewers like Manohla Dargis (film), Anthony Tomassini (music), Ben Brantley (theater) along with many others, sharpen our understanding of and elevate our conversation about things that matter to some of us, all the while not forgetting that whether it’s a movie or an opera or a play, it is first and foremost, ENTERTAINMENT.
13
The music coverage, now that Allan Kozinn is gone, has really become disappointing. Yes, Tomassini is readable, but some of the other "stringers" are really not up to past standards, and the decision to mainly cover the pop/commercial scene and only hit the high points of "high culture" disappoints many readers (like me). McCauley on dance is an exception. And I've always hated the heading now given to these matters: "Arts & Liesure", as if somehow something as vital to a country's ultimate legacy as "ART" is no more of consequence than a walk on the beach, or relaxing in the backyard hammock.
4
Though only an occasional filmgoer, I have been lookng forward to three movies all year: "The Martian," "Bridge of Spies," and "In The Heart of the Sea." If the latter two are as good as the former, all three will have been worth the wait.
5
We accept this world of men (some not all) without question while the majority of the world's population is actually of women and children.
This film like so many others depicts a game that a few men play, but lots more accept as the way things work for everyone. It is however not the way things work for most of us, so for peace of mind lest we forget world stability and progress, it is past time for us to reorient our thinking .
The men who actually direct the live performances, presented in various venues throughout the world, have had their run, showing how efficiently they can kill, maim, and torture and it is time for us, at least here in the good ole USA, to get rid of the fossils who lead the rest of us by the nose.
Maintaining the status quo requires nothing beyond changing our position on the couch to avoid the discomfort of a crick in the neck or lower back ache.
Change for the better only requires a bit more; that a majority of our citizenry stand up and demand it.
We need new directors and those who provide the dough should get the idea that producing the same old screenplays is drying up the well faster than the irrigation projects near their studios.
We've had enough reruns of the same blood and guts film and it is time to change the reel.
There should be a lot more to America than Hollywood's take.
This film like so many others depicts a game that a few men play, but lots more accept as the way things work for everyone. It is however not the way things work for most of us, so for peace of mind lest we forget world stability and progress, it is past time for us to reorient our thinking .
The men who actually direct the live performances, presented in various venues throughout the world, have had their run, showing how efficiently they can kill, maim, and torture and it is time for us, at least here in the good ole USA, to get rid of the fossils who lead the rest of us by the nose.
Maintaining the status quo requires nothing beyond changing our position on the couch to avoid the discomfort of a crick in the neck or lower back ache.
Change for the better only requires a bit more; that a majority of our citizenry stand up and demand it.
We need new directors and those who provide the dough should get the idea that producing the same old screenplays is drying up the well faster than the irrigation projects near their studios.
We've had enough reruns of the same blood and guts film and it is time to change the reel.
There should be a lot more to America than Hollywood's take.
8
I would be interested in knowing whether you have actually seen this film?
5
Perhaps you will have better luck with your next literary effort. In the meantime, suggest you learn from those who make the cut?
2
You have hit the mark that the world never films, discusses, or cares much about the point of view of women and children. It is always about ole white men ruining things. One could only hope that we will wake up when women take the reins. I also see two comments by men threatened to death by this idea.
The cold war was never concluded. It was never over. It is playing out again over the skies of Syria. National pride and egotism cloud our sobriety when we should be tempering our impulses with patience and reflection. I was was one of the children huddling in the hallways of our public schools during air-raid drills in the late fifties and early sixties, terrified that the Russians would drop the big one on us. But the fear of mushroom clouds over our cities remains. We will never be safe from this. Vigilance is the price of freedom. Steven Spielberg, our master film maker will have all of us talking about the parallels between then and now. Just yesterday, President Obama announced we are staying in Afghanistan and the next president will inherit the longest war in our history. Are we safe? Clearly not.
11
gee, i'm glad someone finally realized this.. I've been saying this ever since Russia started it's insanity with Ukraine. Putin, the former KGB Colonel leading the Cold War revival
3
And how correct you are.
1
There was never a settlement vs. USSR, not that it would have conveyed to Russia. Arms reduction is important but not at all conclusive. The conflict has lasted 70 years and counting. It's nature thankfully remains idealogical. Kubrick and Clancy, now Spielberg, remind us all that there is no rational assurance in the present that it will stay that way.
This is one of the best reviews I’ve read since Roger Ebert passed away. Thank you Manohla Dargis, for watching film with the seriousness it deserves.
22
Is anything the "great" Spielberg directs not a great "digital?" Sounds like this is only entertaining if you like to watch a director put his actors through their paces.
In other words, another great big money loser for Spielberg.
Is this "digital" aimed at the teenage market, or the "over 60", which sounds about right! I think Mr. Spielberg has contracted a case of the "great movies" SYNDROME -- forget about being enjoyable. (Unless you like recreations of the 50' & 60's.)
In other words, another great big money loser for Spielberg.
Is this "digital" aimed at the teenage market, or the "over 60", which sounds about right! I think Mr. Spielberg has contracted a case of the "great movies" SYNDROME -- forget about being enjoyable. (Unless you like recreations of the 50' & 60's.)
1
Saw the movie at a community screening last night. Spielberg over produces his movies. His perfect period sets end up being a distraction to the story itself. Casting Tom Hanks as the lead never allowed me to sustain the fantasy of being taken to a different time and place. The over orchestrated score especially at the ends demands you feel a certain way. The film needed to be more austere instead of feeding us a five course gourmet meal.
3
Since Spielberg ALWAYS relies on more or less the same formulae, John Williams being the most ubiquitous, "over-orchestration" and tiresome emotional underlining is always to be expected.
3
Joe- then you should indulge yourself to some old time great Cold War Spy movies: The Torn Curtain; The Spy who came in From The Cold; Iron Curtain(1948).
2
Thomas Newman composed the music for this film, not John Williams this time. Newman's music is unmistakable, with this simple unadorned chords that appear occasionally. After "American Beauty" and "Shawshank Redemption," his style is quickly recognizable. However, yes, the music (whoever composed it) was used to summon and forecast the audience's emotional reactions and did occasionally veer the effect into cheesy territory, which was indeed annoying.
2
Spielberg should stick to kids' movies, where his overwrought, hit-you-over-the-head un-subtleness is appropriate.
If you're interested in the historical, ironical, head-shaking deja-vu-ness of the story, read the book. It focuses on the pettiness and the egos that started the cold war. Parallels abound with Russia/Syria today.
If you're interested in the historical, ironical, head-shaking deja-vu-ness of the story, read the book. It focuses on the pettiness and the egos that started the cold war. Parallels abound with Russia/Syria today.
4
Just saw the trailer;couldnt help but put off by the giant audio: Loud orchestrations pounding away;that weird buzz sound meaning ,I dont know,"full speed ahead"?;reverb.
.All this in a movie involving a negotiation?
Sigh, I guess its the times.
.All this in a movie involving a negotiation?
Sigh, I guess its the times.
2
I guess I should have bypassed the education and just pulled up a seat at the Spielberg table of knowledge to allow myself to be enticed into being spoon fed another tepid porridge of history ,masquerading as absolute fact. To quote a line from a role that Hanks is mor adept to portray," stupid is as stupid does" .
4
It seems this review is as cold and gray as the movie is described. I guess I will plunk down my $15 buck ticket money elsewhere until I get reviews from the little people who go to the movies to be entertained.
1
Gosh, a very fine review and astonishing comments? Dargis' review is left-wing? The Cold War wasn't really "hot" in 1958? The review doesn't tell us about the film? How hard it must be to write fine criticism, in elegant prose, and then face such disengaged, petty, or uninformed comments. Not everything MD writes is fabulous; ditto AOS. But it's among the best film criticism around on a mainstream site.
21
I think the problem with a review like this is that it comes off as condescending & pedagogical, not so much conveying the reviewer's personal thoughts & feelings as directing its readers on how to frame their own interpretations.
7
Isn't that what you want in a review?
6
I think the films Spielberg has made with Hanks have been fine. They've been made for adults, unlike Spielberg's early attempts to see the world through the eyes of a 10 year old.
Kubrick, of course, is in a different league. Anyone critical of "Strangelove" will have to answer to the President of the Coca-Cola Company.
Kubrick, of course, is in a different league. Anyone critical of "Strangelove" will have to answer to the President of the Coca-Cola Company.
18
A review with too much talk and no idea if it's ENTERTAINING enough to plunk down money to see it.
The review reminds me of discussions about obscure vitamin supplements and their historical antecedents. I want more GO SEE IT OR NOT, and less why and how it fits together
The review reminds me of discussions about obscure vitamin supplements and their historical antecedents. I want more GO SEE IT OR NOT, and less why and how it fits together
14
Wow. I think the reviewer quite reasonably assumes that if you are given a clear description of the movie's qualities, you can decide for yourself whether you want to see it.
31
oh jay you are so simplistic.....go the the daily news or the post if all you want is a clever headline and some pictures
16
EVery time I read a NY Times movie review, I always have one question: "well, did you like it or not?"
6
The review starts with "...its great fictions, with their bottomless political chasms and moral gray areas". In other words, we can tell the reviewer will slant to a very left-wing Anti-American, pro-Communism tone in this review. One discounts the views of the author after the first sentence.
I stopped reading and decided to go see the movie instead.
I stopped reading and decided to go see the movie instead.
1
You make a judgment about the entire review based on the first sentence. I can therefore discount your comment based on your first sentence, as I can tell your opinion slants to right-wing, affluent, GOP loving sentiments of the conservative enclave of La Jolla.
21
Manohla Dargis: This is a thoroughly excellent review: literate, lively, with a fabulous sense of the intellectual, cultural, and artistic contexts at play.
50
The movie is "perfectly directed"? I mean, I"m sure it's excellent and incredible, but is there any such thing as "perfect"? The overuse of this word on the internet is a little annoying to me and, I believe, not helpful in describing much of anything, much less an artistic endeavour.
11
How about "awesomely directed"?
5
Beauty. LOL.
I heard about this wonderful story back in 2012 when Lincoln was released and I am glad Spielberg has put it into a movie! Tom Hanks is such a great actor and him playing a lawyer couldn't get any better! Definitely going to go see it on the release day.
6
I saw the world premiere screening at the NYFF and was surprised how satisfying and well made it was. This is definitely one of Spielberg's better movies and it doesn't have an air of self-importance. I want to see it again soon.
33
Me too.
1
Based on this review, the trailers for Bridge of Spies really don't do the film justice.
6
As I watched the previews today for upcoming movies, I thought they were all too long and none made me want to see the films. I am glad I never saw the previews for Bridge of Spies. I am very glad I saw the movie and have found all the negative comments here interesting even though I don't agree with them.
Spielberg is doubtless a consummate filmmaker. But I can't help feeling that even the dirt in his films is clean. To me there is a gossamer aspect that takes away the potential for a full impact of the story. No matter the subject matter his films all feel like films rather than an attempt at reality.
15
Interesting... I might have agreed with you before I saw Lincoln, and especially, Munich. Munich is dark and complex and frustrating and incredibly engrossing -- nothing at all gossamer about it, in my opinion.
3
If I want reality I stay home. I go to the movies to see films.
3
This film appears to be an expert depiction of that most ancient of tyrannies: testosterone-fueled nationalist patriarchy insatiable for power and money, across all eras and technologies. Let's prop up some defense stocks.
15
One question to be pondered here could be, should a largely masculine movie be first judged by a female reviewer? This is a beautifully written take on a cold wartime movie with a dominate male cast that "sweeps you up with pure cinema" and is just "corny enough to make you weep." Methinks the review assignment should have been flipped to a male colleague.
Incidentally. the first three comments here are feminine reactions of "love-hate-boring." My grumpy old man reaction is "very good cast and plot, but too much Hollywood."
Incidentally. the first three comments here are feminine reactions of "love-hate-boring." My grumpy old man reaction is "very good cast and plot, but too much Hollywood."
3
More than a female reviewer but one with a decidedly left-wing bent. Makes for a very bad review.
So men should review "men" movies and women "romcoms"? Seriously, what decade are you living in?
58
A left-wing woman writer?! Gasp!!!
For the record, it’s an excellent, thoughtful piece of film criticism – one that’s far more likely to stand the test of time than the simplistic “it’s terrible!” “it’s the best movie ever” reviews that are so common on the internet. But I guess it’s not necessarily good for those who just want a simple thumbs-up thumbs-down rating. For that, you’d probably do better off visiting Rotten Tomatoes.
For the record, it’s an excellent, thoughtful piece of film criticism – one that’s far more likely to stand the test of time than the simplistic “it’s terrible!” “it’s the best movie ever” reviews that are so common on the internet. But I guess it’s not necessarily good for those who just want a simple thumbs-up thumbs-down rating. For that, you’d probably do better off visiting Rotten Tomatoes.
14
It's also, of course, true that John Le Carre is one of the great chroniclers of the transition from the Cold War to the War on Terror; a book like "Absolute Friends," for instance, makes the case that whatever claim to moral superiority the West enjoyed during the Cold War has been squandered in the war on terror.
3
Another gem of a review, Manohla. I just hope the Cohen Brothers put more effort in this than they did in the unnuanced, uninteresting Unbroken. But I'm sure Spielberg and Hanks will make up for it.
2
I had the pleasure of seeing the movie last night. The attention to historical setting, (e.g., the ads on the subway train and on the walls of the Brooklyn buildings, the electric poles, etc.) bring the movie to life -- the proverbial fly no the wall.
I look forward to seeing it with my 13-year old son; I guess it will be difficult explaining why the adults succeeded in convincing the children that that ducking and covering would give us a chance to survive a nuclear attack.
What other lies are we adults telling the children now? No climate change, for instance?
I look forward to seeing it with my 13-year old son; I guess it will be difficult explaining why the adults succeeded in convincing the children that that ducking and covering would give us a chance to survive a nuclear attack.
What other lies are we adults telling the children now? No climate change, for instance?
8
Not only are we Not Ducking & Covering them - Do they get ANY education as to what we have done to this World ? (Enough Nukes to destroy us all 40 times over ? Enough Nuke Waste to Irradiate this Planet for a Million Years? Domestic Armed Drones? More?). No, we just give email a Cell Phone and join a Happy Family Plan. "Oh, Kids, Grandma Wrote you on Facebook..."
We Don't tell em Nuthin' No More
We Don't tell em Nuthin' No More
2
I can't wait to see the movie. The review has brought back a lot of memories of that time. In an ironic post-script, Francis Gary Powers became a traffic helicopter pilot and was killed when his helicopter crashed.
4
Spoiler alert! ;)
I was privileged to attend a preview screening of this excellent spy thriller. Mark Rylance is nuanced and mesmerizing. Tom Hanks is perfect as the principled lawyer. Completely entertaining, beautifully and artistically filmed, extremely well written. I didn't want it to end.
11
What an excellent review! I've gone from dreading that this would be yet another immaculately crafted piece of Spielberg schmaltz to now knowing what will make it interesting and enjoyable viewing. I love that you discuss so many different aspects, from Rylance's acting to Hanks' casting, the set design, the Coen brothers additions to the script, the era's gender and ethnicity ideologies, the "ruralism" that still permeated U.S. thinking at the time, despite its thorough industrialization, the references to Dr. Strangelove (WHEE! ) and above all, the parallelism of then and now with its serious moral challenges to western ideals.
YES. Now I do want to see it.
Also going to send this review to my teen-age and college nephews, who were introduced to the serious implications of Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick, and other 60s films (Blowup!) this summer when their grandmother and I organized a summer film club with them. No self-respecting filmmaker could treat the 1960's and Cold War threats without due deference to Kubrick's masterpiece. History -- including film history -- are part of the present, as every generation's smarter young people come to learn.
YES. Now I do want to see it.
Also going to send this review to my teen-age and college nephews, who were introduced to the serious implications of Dr. Strangelove, Kubrick, and other 60s films (Blowup!) this summer when their grandmother and I organized a summer film club with them. No self-respecting filmmaker could treat the 1960's and Cold War threats without due deference to Kubrick's masterpiece. History -- including film history -- are part of the present, as every generation's smarter young people come to learn.
48
It is all that the reviewer says and more. If you follow the trial of NYT journalist Jason Rezaian. it's hard not to see the strategy of falsely imprisoning this reporter for a potential trade with the West. So Ms. Dargis nails it. "All were chess pieces in a ghastly game that...continues without end."
20
What has this to do with Soviet intell in the USA?
1
Jason Rezaian is the Tehran bureau chief for the Washington Post.
4
You can look him up on the internet...
A movie to see. Besides the art features I always like to see how historically accurate the Spielberg movies are.It adds to the impact of the movie.
8
Spielberg's a master filmmaker, but historically accurate? For one thing, you are aware that Schindler's emotional speech to the workers never happened. He and his wife barely had time to load their car with their riches (he was not penniless) and get out of town. Amistad was full of historical inaccuracies.
I don't want to take away from your enjoyment of his movies - they're fantastic! Spielberg, though, gets too much credit for sticking to the facts.
I don't want to take away from your enjoyment of his movies - they're fantastic! Spielberg, though, gets too much credit for sticking to the facts.
2
I agree on the inaccuracies.But where and on what he strays tells you a lot about his themes.
Truth is usually the first thing tossed aside in a "historical" movie, but I think Spielberg lends it more credence than most other filmmakers.
3
I havent`t enjoyed a Spielberg film since 1993. I`ll pass on this one too. Somehow, his movies have become much smaller in scale but they lack the quality that`s needed when there`s no spectacle to distract and keep the eyes busy. I will always be thankful for E.T., Jaws, Jurassic Park, Close Encounters, Raiders and Schindler`s List (although I consider that one to be a lesser masterpiece than what most people make it out to be) but for the past two decades, he couldn`t impress me and I`ve watched most of his movies. The name Spielberg alone doesn`t lure me to the theatre anymore and although he makes more and more politcial films, I don`t see him as a political filmmaker.
3
Yes, small scale films since '93 like AMISTAD, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, WAR OF THE WORLDS, WAR HORSE, LINCOLN, et al. - teeny, teeny productions.
11
I share your sentiments, as I usually feel very manipulated. Do see Munich - nearly unbearable tension. It sounds like Bridge of Spies is more that vein - a very good thing.
4
Try to catch "Catch Me if You Can" ~ can't imagine anyone disliking it yet at the same time, it's sneakily political. With extra bonus of Christopher Walken !
6
Nice, interesting piece--thanks! Definitely makes me interested too...
5
Excellent review -- I look forward to seeing this movie. As for the person who commented that the movie looks boring, I will enjoy your not being in the theater.
26
Sounds like a very good film about a very safe subject.
To me the tragedy of Spielberg's career is The Color Purple. An epic movie from a great novel about black women within American history. The film didn't receive the kudos from Hollywood Spielberg thought he deserved, and from that he seems to have extracted a lesson: no more controversial subjects and no more focus on deeply drawn, dramatic female lead characters.
And where Spielberg has gone, other successful filmmakers follow. Look at the fall season's top offerings so far--The Martian, Steve Jobs and now Bridge of Spies. Hollywood is probably pouring money into Hillary Clinton's campaign, but make a movie about such a woman? Not on your life.
To me the tragedy of Spielberg's career is The Color Purple. An epic movie from a great novel about black women within American history. The film didn't receive the kudos from Hollywood Spielberg thought he deserved, and from that he seems to have extracted a lesson: no more controversial subjects and no more focus on deeply drawn, dramatic female lead characters.
And where Spielberg has gone, other successful filmmakers follow. Look at the fall season's top offerings so far--The Martian, Steve Jobs and now Bridge of Spies. Hollywood is probably pouring money into Hillary Clinton's campaign, but make a movie about such a woman? Not on your life.
19
And no speaking out about the state of the nation under republicans. Hollywood gives checks, not patriotism. That's a bridge too far. Also he has shied away from great actors throughout his career, Danial Day Lewis being the exception. And he's never worked with Streep.
Yes, Hanks, Hopkins, Dreyfuss, Hoffman, Williams, Ford, DiCaprio, Cruise, Neeson, etc., all a bunch of hacks.
6
The major problem with The Color Purple is that it is an epic version of a novel that is small-scaled and very intimate, structured as a series of diary entries. Spielberg, as seen in most of his work, cannot work on that level. Instead, he chose to blow it all out of proportion.
2
Three quick notes:
1. This is a really good essay. I appreciate having opportunity to read it this morning.
2. Looking at trailer and seeing Amy Ryan in her Good Housekeeping attire in the middle of all the dark tones it hit me how important it is to have light, support, cleanliness, things that smell good in the middle of dark times.
3. I do not often go to movies anymore because of poor audience manners. Reading that the beginning of the movie is quiet causes me pause, but I will go see this one if only to hear Mark Rylance's velvet voice in dolby/surround or whatever sound it is in movie theaters now.
1. This is a really good essay. I appreciate having opportunity to read it this morning.
2. Looking at trailer and seeing Amy Ryan in her Good Housekeeping attire in the middle of all the dark tones it hit me how important it is to have light, support, cleanliness, things that smell good in the middle of dark times.
3. I do not often go to movies anymore because of poor audience manners. Reading that the beginning of the movie is quiet causes me pause, but I will go see this one if only to hear Mark Rylance's velvet voice in dolby/surround or whatever sound it is in movie theaters now.
23
This isn't a movie review, it's a leaden pretentious think-piece on geopolitics, and it belongs on the Op-Ed page, not in the entertainment section. Isn't there anybody at the Times who enjoys film as an art form and is willing to write about it in a way that's informative and entertaining? Isn't there a writer willing to take a strong stand on a movie, yea or nay, rather than dance around the edges of offering a determined opinion?
It seems to me, again and again, that the Times's movie reviewers, both Ms. Dargis and Mr. Scott, write with an eye towards potential box office, almost as if they are worried about how history will judge them if them praise a dud or slam a hit.
There is no immediacy in this cumbersome review, no sense that the reader should be interested in the movie. It's time for the film critics at the Times to write for the present, not for what anybody thinks in the future.
It seems to me, again and again, that the Times's movie reviewers, both Ms. Dargis and Mr. Scott, write with an eye towards potential box office, almost as if they are worried about how history will judge them if them praise a dud or slam a hit.
There is no immediacy in this cumbersome review, no sense that the reader should be interested in the movie. It's time for the film critics at the Times to write for the present, not for what anybody thinks in the future.
32
Yeah absolutely! All those parts about:
- what each actor's performance brings to the film
- the basic plot synopsis and a description of how the characters play their parts
- the comparison to elements of this film to motifs from other recent works
- a basic appreciation of the historical context that the movie addresses
- the praise for the direction and production value
were 100% just a pretentious think-piece on geopolitics and didn't at all constitute a movie review.
- what each actor's performance brings to the film
- the basic plot synopsis and a description of how the characters play their parts
- the comparison to elements of this film to motifs from other recent works
- a basic appreciation of the historical context that the movie addresses
- the praise for the direction and production value
were 100% just a pretentious think-piece on geopolitics and didn't at all constitute a movie review.
67
I agree. The author lost me with the statement: "Opening in 1957, when the Cold War was atomically hot." A melodramatic and inaccurate statement. I was born in 1955 and remember the Cold War quite well. The most intense period was a few years after later: the Berlin Crisis of 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.
Although I am expecting the usual Steven Spielberg treatment with this film, I am definitely going to see it. Having been in East Berlin in 1978 and 1985, and then living in Berlin-Friedenau from 1995 to 1999, I look forward to seeing this historical take on the city and the Cold War.
Although I am expecting the usual Steven Spielberg treatment with this film, I am definitely going to see it. Having been in East Berlin in 1978 and 1985, and then living in Berlin-Friedenau from 1995 to 1999, I look forward to seeing this historical take on the city and the Cold War.
2
Ms. Smartypants makes the film seem much worse than it is. I saw it last night, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal. It is OK. but I much preferred 13 Days with Kevin Costner.
Sounds rather boring.
1
This was a well-crafted, suspenseful, yet surprisingly filled with moments of humor. It is a treatise on American values as the point of separation between the Soviet Union and the United States, both staunchly defending their ways of life.
Hanks and Spielberg operate as one in the telling of a story right out of the history books. Hanks, a lawyer who truly believes that every person deserves a zealous defense, believes enough in the system that he wants to "roll the dice" and see what happens with his Soviet Spy client, but the fix is in and he stays doggedly loyal to Colonel Abel.
The Coen brothers get a writing credit, which seems surprising, but it reveals how good they've gotten at nuanced darker subject matter (I just watched the last 20 minutes of "No Country For Old Men", another one of their successes)
This is a definitely must see movie.
Hanks and Spielberg operate as one in the telling of a story right out of the history books. Hanks, a lawyer who truly believes that every person deserves a zealous defense, believes enough in the system that he wants to "roll the dice" and see what happens with his Soviet Spy client, but the fix is in and he stays doggedly loyal to Colonel Abel.
The Coen brothers get a writing credit, which seems surprising, but it reveals how good they've gotten at nuanced darker subject matter (I just watched the last 20 minutes of "No Country For Old Men", another one of their successes)
This is a definitely must see movie.
17
Mr. Rauch is almost undoubtedly correct that this is a 'must see' movie. But is there so much as a single line in the review that would lead a reader to the same conclusion, or even a single line that would lead him or her in the opposite direction? I think not. As with so many Dargis and Scott reviews, we get think pieces on history, social causes, politics and/or you name it, in place of anything that might pass for a review of the movie they are writing about. In my youth, I used to read better, and certainly more appropriate, movie criticism for two-star Sunday afternoon Allan 'Rocky' Lane B westerns than what I get out of most Upwardly Intellectual New York Times film reviews these days. Unhappily, the Times reviewers are not alone in this.
4
Please don't compare Dargis to Scott; they are on different levels. Dargis made "Spring Breakers" a Critic's Pick.
One glitch in the review; it refers to Rudolf Abel as a "Soviet mole." A "mole" is an enemy agent who has wormed his way into your own intelligence service, a la the situation in LeCarre's "Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy." Abel was just a spy, not a mole.