Sully

Many of Clint Eastwood’s directorial efforts focus on the story of an everyman - someone thrown into a situation where their actions will ultimately define them - and those same themes are very much evident in his latest film Sully, which follows Captain Chesley Sullenberger in the events following his successful water-landing which came to be known as the ‘Miracle on the Hudson’.

It’s January 15th, 2009, and veteran US Airways pilot Captain Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger (Tom Hanks) is flying US Airways Flight 1549 out of New York’s LaGuardia Airport alongside First Officer Jeffrey Skiles (Aaron Eckhart). Three minutes after take-off, a flock of birds strike the plane, disabling both the engines. With no airports in safe gliding distance, Sully performs a risky water-landing on the frigid surface of the Hudson River. All 155 on board survive and the event is heralded as “the most successful ditching in aviation history”. But despite the success and Sully’s new Hero label, an investigation into the flight begins to question if the ditching was necessary and if Captain Sullenberger put the lives of those on board at undue risk.

Eastwood’s past three films (J. Edgar, Jersey Boys and American Sniper) were all biopics and surprisingly underwhelming ones at that. Many would argue that his last truly great film was Gran Torino eight years ago, and Sully unfortunately looks to continue that streak. Where American Sniper ruffled many feathers for it’s uber-conservative, hefty dose of pure patriotism, the problem with Sully lies more with its construction, and how it attempts to turn this amazing but very brief 6 minute flight into a feature. The film excels when we go back in time to the crash-landing sequence, and when we reach the climax of the investigation in the final act of the film, but much of the rest of the run-time consists of Sully engaging in snooze-fest conversations on the phone with his wife (Laura Linney is not given a lot to work with and as such doesn’t give much of a performance), Sully taking runs, Sully having nightmares about the crash, the NTSB holding evil board meetings, and some (not-so) thinly-veiled references to 9/11.

Sully falls into the same trap that Flight did - albeit less so - with just too much of that Hollywood veneer to tell a thrilling story. I kept thinking throughout that if Eastwood adopted more of a documentary style like Paul Greengrass did with the excellent United 93, perhaps the human story would have felt less in your face, and there would have been less padding. If you focus on the 20-30 minutes that covers the accident and the final NTSB hearing, you could probably cut Sully into a really well-constructed 60 minute film, but nobody would be brave enough to produce/distribute it and I doubt many patrons would be willing to pay full price for it.

It won’t surprise anybody to know that Tom Hanks is able to transform himself into Sully with ease - he’s become accustomed to playing an everyman over the years - so let’s just say he’s as fantastic as you would expect and leave it at that. You don’t often see Aaron Eckhart in these more subtle films and he too is excellent. Although I mentioned before that Linney doesn’t have much to work with, and really there’s a surprising amount of dodgy performances and even some overacting in parts of this film. You could chalk this down to Eastwood’s one-take-then-lunch style but I think Todd Komarnicki’s dialogue is probably more to blame. There’s also the NTSB characters who are really just doing their job but seem to be tailored to look unreasonable and arrogant to the audience, then they turn around in a final dislocated moment of nostalgia-overstretch and say “Hey, we’ve always claimed that you're an American Hero”, which takes away some of the film’s credibility.

Sully is an ambitious film that just doesn’t really have enough content to stretch to feature length and remain engaging. The flight sequences are extremely well executed and the Hanks/Eckhart duo bring subtle charisma to the screen, but the padding and less competent supporting performances keep Sully grounded in average territory.

Mr. Holmes

"I've decided to write the story down, as it was, not as John made it. Get it right before I die."

In 1947 the infallible detective Sherlock Holmes is in his early 90's and living in relative solitude along the picturesque coast of Sussex in southern Englnd with its green hills and white cliffs. The remnants of the War still litters the country-side and culture surrounding his home, aircraft wreckage, destroyed structures and references to the Blitz. Sherlock himself is a man utterly ravaged by time, his wit not dulled but sheathed, his body wizened, his memory failing him but he is plagued the consequences of his last case and flashbacks of a woman in grey, as well as his recent trip to post-war Japan. He returns to his house-keeper, the matronly but warm Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her clever and cheeky son Roger (Milo Parker). Roger is enthralled with the elderly detective, having often snuck into Holmes' study to read the man's own recounting of one of his cases, the very one that eludes his memory and yet haunts him.

Based off of Mitch Cullins book A Simple Trick of the Mind and written for the screen by veteran British period screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher, Mr Holmes is a welcome departure in tone from recent incarnations of Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous character. The film is bright, real without the need for grit and grime, and lacking in the immediate threat of a killer on the loose. Rather the driving force behind the narrative is the gaps in Holmes' memory and the connections between this his trip to Japan and the grey-clad subject of one of Dr Watson's embellishing tales of Sherlock's exploits. Director Bill Condon, of Twilight: Breaking Dawn, The Fifth Estate and Dreamgirls fame, guides the film along a path based first on logic and later emotion, a in tune with the development of McKellen's Holmes during the film.

McKellen's performance is total, aside from a few moments where the power of his voice breaks through the skin of the character, McKellen plays the great detective with an absolute command that can only come with experience and skill. The film captures Sherlock in three stages of his life, the enfeebled and vulnerable man at the end of his life that is the films present, the earnest, pushy but still vulnerable man of weeks earlier, and the sharp and confident detective of 35 years prior on his last case. The difference in characterisation between these three times is staggering, particularly when the younger Sherlock first appears. Posture, pronunciation plus a sharp mind & tongue distance the detective from the old man with his hunched back, curmudgeonly quirks and honest emotional vulnerability. This is truly and near totally McKellen's film (certainly in the marketing) but supporting him, aside from the always capable though awkwardly accented Laura Linney, is child actor Milo Parker as Roger, a precocious young boy who is both enamoured with Holmes and, of course, adopts the elderly man as a patriarchal figure. Aside from a late Second Act predictable turn, the incorporation and performance of Milo Parker is inspired, he's precocious but not annoying, has a decent emotional range, good instincts and a very expressive face, making Roger a welcoming presence.

Perspective, understanding and hindsight are the main themes that drive Mr Holmes, the camera is driven by perspective, characters by understanding and the narrative by hindsght. With bright colourful locations and the layered period setting, Bill Condon works well with Director of Photography Tobias Schliessler (who has worked several times previously with Condon and Peter Berg) in creating a consistent theme of perspective through repeated use of eyeline matches and PoV shots reinforcing a narrative focus on hindsight. The characters each are driven by some different measure of understanding and though it sometimes takes a while to become clear what they're trying to understand, it's always a logical path that fulfils the mystery at the core of the story. Unfortunately, outside of the commanding performance of its star, there is little of Mr Holmes that makes it memorable. A fine enough film and fitting portrayal of the character.