October 16th in Grapevine, TX. This wasn't my first choice when arrived at the cineplex but I needed to think fast and this is what came up. On the surface a "based on a true story/inspired by actual events" film directed by Steven Spielberg, written by The Coen Brothers and starring Tom Hanks would be a cinematic no-brainer.
The events in the film take place between 1957-1962. Soviet spy Rudolf Abel is arrest in Brooklyn in 1957 and is put on trial for espionage. In order the for U.S. government to give the appearance of a fair trial, the U.S. taps insurance lawyer, and former member of the Nuremberg trials prosecution team (according to the film at least), James B. Donovan. Despite the Donovan's best efforts, Abel is convicted of espionage but Hanks manages to convince the judge to sentence him to 30 years in prison rather than the electric chair. Donovan's argument for leniency is that in the not so distant future, an American spy cold face a similar circumstance and Abel can be used as a bargaining chip.
Entering almost on cue is Francis Gary Powers and the CIA. Powers is a handpicked Air Force pilot asked to fly reconnaissance missions of the Soviet Union in the new state of the art U-2 spy plane.
You were expecting Bono and the Edge?
This supposedly undetectable plane is naturally shot down on it's 1st mission. In a scene which had to have defied physics, Powers is unable to self-destruct the aircraft and is eventually taken into Soviet custody as a spy.
I am not a pilot and have never been shot down at 70,000 feet. In real life that had to be a harrowing enough experience that it didn't need to be embellished. Let's just say the scene was embellished.
Now Powers has a lot of classified information in his head and the CIA needs him back before the Russians can break him. Since Donovan did such a nice job in the Abel case, why not send to East Berlin and negotiate a trade (Donovan received a letter from Abel's "family" that started the chain of events), Powers for Abel. Then there's also an American grad student Frederic Pryor who manages to find himself on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall construction and it taken into custody by the East German Police. Naturally the CIA doesn't care that much about Pryor but Donovan is going to get them both out in a 2 for 1 deal. Because he's an American litigator!
The last portion of the film takes place in East Berlin and Spielberg does a heavy handed job of hammering home that point. It's grey, cold and not hospitable (East Berlin still has not recovered from WWII). Donovan simultaneously negotiates with the Soviets for Powers and the East Germans for Pryor. The East Germans want to be recognized as an independent communist power maybe (apparently East Germany and the USSR aren't the best of pals) and the Soviets are quite frankly, the Soviets. As if the outcome was in doubt, Donovan negotiates a successful 2 for 1 trade. Pryor will be released to US authorities at Checkpoint Charlie and the Powers for Abel exchanged at Glienicke Bridge (hence the title).
Bridge of Spies received a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. In all honesty, thats a bit too high. This is a good film and Hanks delivers a solid performance and Spielberg tells a nice story but it's not either's best work. My theory on Spielberg is that he's so good at what he does that he can coast through films. I feel he just coasts on this film. The outcome is never in doubt (which is pretty much a common problem with fact based films) he goes out of his way to show how great democracy is compared to communism. It was borderline propaganda. In East Berlin it's cold, void of any color but grey and so awful people get gunned down trying to get out. There's a scene where Hanks/Donovan feels lousy and goes to the Hilton (product placement!) for an American breakfast. There's so much color in the scene it jumps off the screen. Hanks even orders a double breakfast but doesn't eat it because he's an American and we waste food (he let the CIA fellas eat it so it did get eaten). F*ck you communism! Bridge of Spies is not as good as Munich. Munich is a very good spy thriller, Bridge of Spies not so much. Munich's R rating allows it to be grittier (the subject matter has a lot to do with it as well) than Bridge of Spies. Make no mistake, when Spielberg wants to make a masterpiece, he can and he's done it several times. But not here.
Hanks has the same problem. He's probably one of the best actors of his generation and a consummate professional. Hanks just seems (to me) that he gives you the same solid performance in every film. He's believable in just about every role. Hanks can give a B+ performance without trying to hard. That's my point. If you want to see an outstanding Hanks performance, check out Saving Private Ryan, Castaway or Captain Phillips.
This is not a bad film. It's just not that great and talk of this film as "Oscar bait" is disturbing. Thank you for your time.
