criterionforum.org

Posted: **Tue Oct 20, 2015 1:45 am**

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Wasn't that the same with Unbroken?

That's precisely why I wasn't optimistic about the Coens' involvement. The over-the-top Hollywood tropes of the trailer seems to play out in the film - the whole enterprise feels kind of phony and corny in the way it plays up Hanks' character as a Capra everyman. Donovan was a WWII commander in Naval Intelligence, advised the formation of the CIA as general counsel to the OSS, helped the U.S. prosecution team at the Nuremberg trials (which to be fair, was mentioned but barely), and later ran for U.S. Senate. "I'm just an insurance lawyer," indeed.

Posted: **Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:23 am**

He argues that if we can't adhere to our principles even when in conflict, the principles aren't worth defending.

i can agree with that, but it's something that never developed into anything interesting for me. in contrast spielberg made some absolutely brilliant observations about politics, revenge and seeing things from another's vantage point in the vastly superior Munich.

Bridge of Spies is so brimming with masterful cinematic craftsmanship...

of course it is...the man has basically unlimited resources, access to a great cinematographer, great actors...everything. the day spielberg gives us a shitty looking film would be news.

The longish screenplay unfolds a complicated series of events in an admirably economical and compelling way

economical is one thing, this felt completely over simplified and totally smoothed over... i'm willing to concede this is partly my problem for while i was watching Bridge Of Spies i longed for something more complex-a film more along the lines of The Spy Who Came In From The Cold ...in all fairness-this is not that movie and it doesn't try to be...but while there should've been more nuance and finesse in not just hanks' performance but in the screenplay the biggest thing the movie gets wrong is that never once is felt the enormous pressure a man like hanks' character would've been under in dealing with hostile entities in a foreign land in a high stakes, life or death affair like this. these must have been incredibly tense negotiations when they actually happened back in the early 60s but the film glosses them over. one other thing, and he's an obviously gifted actor and i know he's going to receive a ton of praise and almost certainly an oscar nomination but rylance's performance did nothing for me. he underplays the whole role only adding to the film's overall lack of tension.

Posted: **Tue Oct 20, 2015 7:32 pm**

Spielberg interviewed by Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:43 am**

flyonthewall2983 wrote:Spielberg interviewed by Martin Scorsese and Paul Thomas Anderson.

Both of those are great, and their genuine admiration for the film really comes through. It's going to do great with the DGA.

copen wrote:There is very little of Ethan and Joel Coen in this. Tiny bits here and there. They may as well not have been credited. Spielberg probably insisted on it to get cinefiles to go see this fairly uninvolving film.
Anyone going in to see this just to see some Coen fingerprints is going to be disappointed that they watched a Spielberg film for nothing.

It's not going to feel like a Coen Brothers movie because so much of their style is embedded in their direction and editing, but their fingerprints are all over the script; it's suffused with their ironic dialog. Spielberg mentions in both of the clips above that the great "my guy/your guy" scene at the beginning that introduces Donovan is entirely the Coens', as you probably suspected. Their DNA is all over the fake family in Berlin and Rylance's "Would it help?" too. It's silly to say that they shouldn't have been credited. Rather than Spielberg insisting on the Coens involvement in order to "get cinefiles [sic] to go see this fairly uninvolving film," they approached him because they were interested in the story. They trimmed down and streamlined Matt Charman's script, and are probably part of the reason it moves at such a steady clip. While I can't imagine anyone going to see a film with a script they did a rewrite on "just to see some Coen fingerprints," it certainly struck me as a fruitful collaboration and a way to cut some of the portentousness that is inherent to a film like this and a director like Spielberg.

barryconvex wrote:
Bridge of Spies is so brimming with masterful cinematic craftsmanship...
of course it is...the man has basically unlimited resources, access to a great cinematographer, great actors...everything. the day spielberg gives us a shitty looking film would be news.

That's all true of course, but I meant in terms of placement and movement of the camera.

Posted: **Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:34 pm**

Super Spielberg fanatic hates Bridges of Spies.

Posted: **Mon Nov 16, 2015 5:30 am**

Jeff wrote:I can't even imagine finding this film boring; I found it riveting. I think it completes, along with Munich and Lincoln, a trilogy of near-masterpieces wherein meticulous historical re-creations of political machinations serve as metaphors for modern policy questions. Here, Spielberg is asserting that America's constitutional principles of due process apply to all engaged in its legal system, even enemy combatants and those in the country illegally. He argues that if we can't adhere to our principles even when in conflict, the principles aren't worth defending.

Spielberg certainly has something to say (and he says it bluntly), but more importantly, this is meticulously crafted, propulsive cinema. The first reel is a near-wordless sequence of sublimely efficient visual storytelling, introducing us to a brilliant Mark Rylance and the plight of his character. Then, as he introduces a series of political pawns, Spielberg uses a number of witty match cuts and other visual rhymes to establish the two sides of an exchange across a divided city, like the two sides of the multiple phony coins that figure into the proceedings.

I can't dismiss arguments that the film is full of Capraesque hokum. Hanks is indeed in full Jimmy Stewart mode, and Spielberg unfortunately does indulge his recent penchant for a series of increasingly maudlin endings. Bridge of Spies is so brimming with masterful cinematic craftsmanship and storytelling though, that such complaints seem petty. Janusz Kaminski's trademark steely grey cinematography often wears out its welcome for me, but feels perfect here, and Michael Kahn's editing is beyond reproach. Hanks and Rylance both deliver knockout performances and every smaller supporting role feels perfectly cast too (even if Amy Ryan is wasted as usual). The longish screenplay unfolds a complicated series of events in an admirably economical and compelling way, and is punctuated by welcome wry dialogue and bits of business by scripting guest stars Ethan and Joel Coen.

Spielberg has been batting around .500 for me since his 80s heyday, but this is my favorite film of his in a very long time, and indeed my favorite film so far this year.

I'd like to second this very good review of Jeff's (I may even just say it's a masterpiece, however). Classical filmmaking with all that entails, and easily Spielberg's best since Catch Me if You Can. This strikes me as possibly being the same sort of divisive film as Million Dollar Baby, in that it's old Hollywood drama, warts and all - and either you're on board for that sort of thing or will recoil in disgust from the attempted manipulation. Feels like a shoo-in for Best Picture unless another movie about people who make movies comes out between now and January.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:53 am**

I am not a Spielberg fan, nor do I disdain his work. I know exactly what I'm getting when I sit down to watch his films; terrific craftsmanship, a very formulaic narrative and movie stars in the Hollywood tradition (Hanks gives a happy exclamatory "hot dog" a la Jimmy Stewart from It's a Wonderful Life). But the turnoff for me, pretty much always, is the sentimental goo of a climax (which you can see coming from a mile away) pouring over the audience and that insipid score that intensifies as the film reaches it's final sequence, this was no different. Unfortunately, I think this is so natural and easy for Spielberg do film after film.

I did find it entertaining and at times tense. Jeff's observations were right on. Spielberg does leave one with compelling observations on "constitutional principles" and "civil liberties" for all. I just wish he could end a film that would make one say, "did I just watch a Spielberg film?"

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 10:51 am**

FrauBlucher wrote:I just wish he could end a film that would make one say, "did I just watch a Spielberg film?"

If Spielberg is an auteur (and I'm not sure even his detractors would deny he has a strong directorial presence), then why would you want to see a film of his which lacks his identity, his personality, and is instead entirely anonymous?

At any rate, this is a masterly example of classical narrative cinema at its best. Spielberg's direction is incredibly assured, ensuring the film never gets bogged down in courtroom drama (and thus making it significantly superior to Amistad), while crafting the maximum of suspense and fascination, despite most people knowing the historical outcome of events. Tom Hanks is very good, and sometimes it's just a pleasure watching an actor play a genuinely good protagonist, trying to do right (not a superhero) and grounded in reality. Mark Rylance is superb and deserves every award which comes his way; Spielberg's crucial conceit of having a sympathetic Soviet spy would have failed without the quiet, reserved Rylance. Cinematography, production design and even Thomas Newman's restrained score are all very fine. It's an immensely satisfying, complete film, with Spielberg managing to co-opt the Coen Brothers' dialogue, such as the 'my guy/your guy' screwball exchange, into his wider, cohesive vision.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 1:31 pm**

I'm not asking him to change his identity, but my sentence says, "end a film" by challenging his audience with an unpredictable and unsentimental end to one of films. I certainly want him to stay in his style. I don't think by having a more challenging end to a film will confuse the Spielberg identity. Yeah, maybe it would turn off folks who prefer to watch safe movies. But I think we would all get what he is trying to do IMO.

Posted: **Fri Dec 04, 2015 9:04 pm**

FrauBlucher wrote:I'm not asking him to change his identity, but my sentence says, "end a film" by challenging his audience with an unpredictable and unsentimental end to one of films. I certainly want him to stay in his style. I don't think by having a more challenging end to a film will confuse the Spielberg identity. Yeah, maybe it would turn off folks who prefer to watch safe movies. But I think we would all get what he is trying to do IMO.

Okay, I see where you're going from, but I suppose my attitude would be: you take the rough with the smooth, like how you put up with the unfunny 'funny' scenes in Ford films for the sublime moments he also creates. The curious thing is though, that Bridge of Spies is hardly the most egregious offender in terms of Spielbergian sentimentality; I suppose the shots of the American kids jumping over a fence in reference to the Berlin Wall is somewhat on the nose, but it fits in what we've seen before. It doesn't have the unnecessary epilogue which marred Lincoln and it's positively restrained in comparison to the entirety of War Horse.

Posted: **Sat Dec 05, 2015 4:23 am**

I never feel like Ford was trying real hard to make us laugh. And I agree, that his funny scenes are unfunny. Of course, people laughed differently 70 years ago. Speilberg tries hard to move people. Some will call it manipulative. But I agree Bridge of Spies is not as much of an offender. It would probably be down on the list if a list was created. And there is much good in the film. I'm just being nitpicky. As I said in my earlier post. I know what I'm getting when I watch Mr Spielberg.

Spoiler

I actually shook my head when the American kids jumped the fence mimicking the Germans kids trying to get over the wall.

Posted: **Fri Jan 29, 2016 7:34 pm**

Tom Hanks is America's favorite movie star

criterionforum.org

Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)

Re: Bridge of Spies (Steven Spielberg, 2015)