Sully

Eastwoodmäßig zart, menschlich und in einem kleinen Rahmen. Genau so, wie es das Ereignis verdient hat und wie es seine Wahrnehmung und sein Verständnis erfordern. Ein ausgezeichnetes Drehbuch, eine sensible Regie und ein (wieder) famoser Hanks. Ich denke auch über einen fünften Stern nach, weil es ein kleines Wunder ist, was daraus wurde – zwar ohne größere Emotionen, aber auch ohne einen einzigen Schönheitsfehler. (29.09.2016)

Sully is an ingeniously constructed portrait of a disciplined professional who is haunted by doubts about whether he did the best job he could do. Eastwood composes the image of the central “miracle” and the portrait of the protagonist from several flashbacks, each of which accentuates a different level of the event and are then collectively mirrored in Sully’s final speech highlighting the merits of the crew. Though, thanks to Hanks, Sullenberger is a more charismatic personality than he seems to be from the way he describes himself in the book on which the film is based, he is still a rather ordinary working man of firm principles and unchanging rituals, not a hero who humorously comments on every difficulty and effortlessly overcomes every obstacle. Thanks to that, Eastwood is able to see the concept of heroism in a different light. Anyone can become a hero regardless of the brilliance of their character traits, if they “just” do what they do best. 80% (19.09.2016)

Isn’t Clint Eastwood overdoing it it a bit with the nationalism? OK, I can take a war movie about a famous American flag, I can even take the story of an American sniper, whose life is quite tough, but is it really necessary to shoot a detailed reconstruction of how a plane landed on the Hudson River eight years ago? I’m not surprised that without the opening and closing credits this movie takes hardly 90 minutes because there really isn’t much to add. And I have to say that I didn’t really like the digital effect scenes involving the plane. Maybe fifteen years ago, but today? Thank god Tom Hanks was cast in the lead role because he’s not going to get any worse. But for the rest, I don’t want to see that ever again. (30.01.2017)

Ein gut konzipiertes Drama, welches die relativ dürftige Geschichte mit ein paar geschickt getimten Perspektivwechseln abwechslungsreicher macht. Eastwoods Regiearbeit ist konservativ, das Pathos hält sich in Grenzen, was sich im Verlauf des Films gleich einige Male auszahlt, wo wir aus der "Gegenwart" an Bord von Flug 1549 zurückkehren. Das einzige Problem besteht eigentlich im Charakter des Sully, der so eindimensional bescheiden, gut und selbsbezweifelnd ist, dass der Film die NTSB-Ermittler geradezu dämonisieren muss, um als Drama überhaupt funktionieren zu können. Alle, die mit diesem wundersamen Flug zu tun haben, erfüllen ihren Job zu 100%. Der Film ist geradezu eine Ode an gewöhnliche arbeitende Amerikaner, die ihrem Allerwertesten mehr glauben als Computern oder Institutionen. Ich bin allerdings der Ansicht, dass es sehr kontrovers wirkt, aus den NTSB-lern eine Gruppe voreingenommener, manipulativer und missgönnender Schlipsträger zu machen, wobei dies auch im Falle einer "fiktiven dramatisierten Rekonstruktion gilt". Dies gilt insbesondere, da sich unter ihnen viele ehemalige Piloten befinden und ihnen ein Versagen ihrer Kollegen üblicherweise nachweislich sehr nahe geht. Mit dieser Konzeption erscheint es jedoch, als seien in den Unfall nur Fachleute involviert, allerdings außer der Ermittler selbst. Warum begeben wir uns auf diese Exkursion? Sully ist eigentlich ein sehr dürrer und einsaitiger Film. Unterhaltsam, jedoch einfach. Möge er Erfolge einfahren, ich konnte mich nicht von ihm losreißen. (15.01.2017)

No excuses, no messing around, only sensitively dosed pathos and no clichés. Through a cleverly constructed structure the movie doesn't beat about the bush, in other words it directly portrays the conflict of a man who while flying the aircraft without engines failure accomplished seemingly impossible and who is subsequently, under the pressure of others, begin to doubt whether by chance what he did, on the contrary, was not the worst possible solution and unnecessary bravery. Hanks proves again that he has no competition overseas when it comes to the box of "ordinary good guys next door". It hit the bull's-eye and is gripping at all times, during the freezingly calm and controlled crisis landing itself, in the moments of the beginning of panic and after it, during the intense questioning in front of the commission and during the self-searching wandering through frozen New York. Although it might seem like a Zemeckis' Flight at first glance, it is much closer to Greengrass’ United 93. (09.09.2016)

Clint knows how to play the viewer. He has a very gentle and understated way of introducing a character you will like who will make the film fun for you. He also sets it in some sort of framework of human drama. Here, he didn't even have to make it up, here it was written by fate itself, so it's actually all the better for it. Maybe. A very good film, strong, can definitely play on the viewer's heartstrings, the acting is actually flawless. But I guess I've seen too many similar films that I'm not particularly blown away by it. The movie’s over and I know I won't watch it again or remember it tomorrow. Otherwise, if it ends up leaving something in me, I'm raising my rating. But at this point "only" a strong 3 stars. (02.01.2017)

Sully is a partially procedural drama and, in a second aspect, as is customary for Clint, a film about American patriotism, which, however, is conveyed in reasonable doses and with an understanding of human nature. It relies on the experienced Tom Hanks, who seems to have been born for such roles and does not have any significant weaknesses. The film has a reasonable length, a good screenplay, and a strong story. I would just note that I perceive the film not as a story about heroism, but about professionalism, which is, after all, very important in my profession. Overall impression: 75%. (02.01.2020)

Very professional work by the whole crew. Captain Eastwood boldly erects a memorial to discipline, precise decision-making and perfect work of Chesley Sullenberger. I vaguely remember seeing something about the crash-landing in the Hudson on the Internet. Needless to say, it didn’t really affect me much, but the way Clint works with this topic is fantastic. Nightmares, doubts and an almost detective movie style finale when Sully takes control and again using his cool nerves to saves himself. Wonderful. And the movie flies past terribly fast. Tom Hanks is absolutely right, no unnecessary snivelling from his Sully, he is just down to earth, a real professional. A minimum of pathos, pure facts. Bravo! (26.09.2016)

Clint Eastwood as we like him the most: simple, economical, straightforward and this time almost without pathos. His reconstruction of a famous event is neither as overwhelmingly authentic as United 93 nor as classically cinematic as The Flight, it treads on the edge, somewhere in between, and it does a great job. Basically without a dead spot, every shot is a forward thrust. The accident scene is amazing, both in terms of atmosphere and visual effects. Another film where the great form isn't a crutch for a lack of screenwriting substance, but serves exactly where it's expected, something that very rarely happens in a film of this kind. If it weren't for Tom Hanks being a good guy in the 126th way (getting a little tired of it) and the final 30-60 seconds, it would be almost perfect. (11.09.2016)

Der beste neue Film seit… Seit Bridge Of Spies - Der Unterhändler. So ist es. Und wahrscheinlich ist es kein Zufall, dass in ihm auch Tom Hanks spielt. Es ist vor allem (aber nicht nur) sein Verdienst, dass Sully so toll ist. Besonders haben mir die allgegenwärtige Spannung und die glaubwürdige dramatische Stimmung gefallen. Egal, ob die Zuschauer*innen vorher wissen, was und wie auf Hudson passiert ist, oder nicht (obwohl es nach ein paar Minuten allen klar ist) – Eastwoods exakte Regie sorgt für permanente Spannung und man wartet mit angehaltenem Atem darauf, was in der nächsten Szene kommen wird. Die Landung sieht man mehrmals, aber jedes Mal anders. Man hat nie das Gefühl, dass sich etwas wiederholt, weil die Handlung wie ein Puzzle mit vielen Teilen aussieht, die allmählich zusammengefügt werden. Alles ist im sorgfältigen Gleichgewicht – die Spannung, der Pathos sowie der Humor. Der Hauptheld ist kein Superman, er ist ein einfacher Mensch, der zwar eine richtige Sache gemacht hat, aber auf einmal einem so großen Druck standhalten muss, dass er an sich selbst zweifelt. Es ist bewundernswert und lobenswert, dass der Film zu keinem depressiven Drama voller Vorwürfe und Fragezeichen wird, sondern ständig den Kopf über Wasser hält und dem Publikum zuzwinkert: Habt keine Angst, es wird gut ausgehen. Es wäre schade, so einen tollen Knaller, der so bescheiden wie seine Hauptfigur ist, zu verpassen. (21.09.2016)

An intimate humanist drama as only Clint can produce. Narrative minimalism that draws us completely into the action thanks to believably drawn characters and a thoughtful plot construction that, through the repetition and variation of strong motifs (the landing of the plane from multiple perspectives, the emotional phone conversations with Laura Linney), creates an extremely complex study of a key event and the psyche of a man who, despite his obvious heroism and skill, is unfairly cast into the shadows of doubt and regret. Although this time without any added "Eastwood-esque" value or a scene that would really be indelibly etched in my memory, but without any missteps, unnecessary pathos or undignified streamlining of the central accident sequence. Hanks is great as usual, like a wise old man, and Eckhart complements him superbly. 85% (03.10.2016)

This film would have been a disaster if it hadn't been filmed by Clint Eastwood. I can imagine the kind of play on emotions and patriotism that it would suffer from. Instead, I got to see a fantastic film about a man who really deserved to be celebrated. Strangely enough, despite knowing exactly what was going on and how everything would turn out, the film had great atmosphere and suspense, entertained me throughout, and didn't upset or disappoint me in any way. (22.02.2017)

Clint Eastwood proves once again how great a director he is, among other things, in his ability to choose interesting material. On one hand, it shows how people can come together to help each other, but on the other hand, it demonstrates how the system is flawed and how it tries to blame individuals rather than anything else, in this case, attributing fault to chance. Tom Hanks is great. (09.01.2017)