Okay - got this one in last night.

Well acted - great job establishing time and place and an interesting story.

It is a bit slow - so be ready for that.

Overall - a solid B to B +  for me.

SPOILERS

Where I thought there could be improvement. This is ultimately a story about a one dude (basically an insurance lawyer) getting entangled in spy swapping. There is a great back story and character development on Russian Spy # 1 (i.e.,  Rudolf Abe). You cared what happened to this guy. Not so much for the other two American Spies (Gary Powell - U2 pilot) and a young American college student. There was so little time spent on these guys back story it was hard to gain empathy for their plight in the first place. Could have been more done here.

What was interesting to me was that it's essentially two films stitched together - the first half appears to be about to become a courtroom drama, with the lawyer being sought out, reluctantly taking the case despite the objections of his family and friends, and then doggedly actually trying to defend the Russian spy, even though everyone at his firm is saying 'you're there to give the appearance of a defence, don't actually defend him!'

And then in the second half it becomes a sort of vaguely Kafkaesque Cold War spy thriller, with Tom Hanks dropped in East Berlin to try and arrange this prison swap without really knowing who anyone is, who he's dealing with, and indeed what's going to happen. It couldn't quite seem to decide what tone it wanted to be - the sort of 'what on earth is going on' inteliigence comedy of something like Burn After Reading, with everyone chasing their own tails and getting into a massive muddle (LOVE that scene with J K Simmons at the end), or a more chilling, quietly threatening 'how do you know who the enemies are' thriller. The scene where Donovan has his coat stolen by those youths, for instance - is that supposed to be a reminder of his vulnerability, that something bad could befall him at any time? Or are we supposed to find it funny that he's walking around in the cold without a coat? There's a joke that 'you should wear a coat' so I guess maybe it's supposed to be both, but the two tones sort of crash into each other and trip each other up. The Coen Brothers have a writing credit on the screenplay and you can definitely feel their touch in the second half, but it's a bit blurred, as if something else has been grafted on on top.

I agree that the most compelling character is Mark Rylance's, and the film works best when he's onscreen (love the 'Standing Man' speech, Rylance has been really famous in theatre over here since he ran the Globe in the 90s and while i'm glad he's now getting mainstream recognition there's also that slightly teenage sense of being sad when your favourite band is suddenly 'cool'), which probably isn't enough. That's the thing, though - after the midpoint it becomes another film, and Abel is utterly sidelined until the end.

In fact it wasn't until almost the closing shot that I realised the arc of the film is Donovan's - there's a scene halfway through when he's on the train/subway and everyone's reading newspapers with his face on, where the editorials are slamming him for actually defending Abel in court. The other passengers look up, notice this man is in their carriage, sneer and shake their heads in disgust. At the end of the film, having successfully engineered the realease of an American soldier and student, Donovan is in another carriage in New York, and once again his face is on the front page. The readers look up, notice him, and smile. He's been accepted again, from zero to hero. So the emotional arc of the film is his: a man wrongly thought badly of, finding a way to redeem himself in the eyes of the American public.

The trouble is that purely in terms of character (not Hanks' performance, which is solidly, quietly great as always), Donovan isn't very interesting. He's a man steadfastly committed to doing the right thing, and never wavers from that for a second. He has no internal conflict, nothing to overcome, no lessons to learn. Our sympathy and understandling is with him for the first frame to the last, and the film does its best to reinforce that. So in a film about Russian spies, downed surveillance aircraft, American students wrongly imprisoned in a sinister state that can turn on you at any moment, we spend most of our time watching a principled man stick to his principles. He never really suffers for them, either - yes a brick is thrown through his window, and yes he's the subject of public scorn, but his family stick with him throughout, and we never really SEE this affect him. So his victory is a bit of a damp squib - oh good, things will stop being slightly worse now. Not that they were ever that bad for you.

I can see why Spielberg wanted to make this - on paper, it's a fascinating story. But I feel like it's one of those cases where the real life events end up being more extraordinary than the film that depicts them, which actually seemed strangely lacking in drama. The stakes never felt that high, considering the backdrop. Aside from that very well done scene where the bomber is shot down, I never felt very thrilled - but maybe it's not a thriller? Maybe it's supposed be a surreal comedy? It's not laugh out loud funny either, though.

That might all be a bit longwinded and confused, apologies. It just never all QUITE coalesced into something great, for me, and I'm interested to understand why as there's so much good stuff - the general direction, central performances, excellent production design. I do think ultimately it's because the script stitches two separate-but-historically-linked narratives together, and at its heart has an unconflicted character who's never really put through the ringer and so doesn't generate much drama. I think I'd have preferred a whole movie of the first half - for more Mark Rylance, if nothing else!

An good film with interesting flaws, in all. Interested to hear what others think.

Very perceptive JonnyBoy. I think you nailed it.

I would add that, even though the Hanks character was an insurance lawyer - he seemed to possess all of the necessities and skills required to be a spy negotiator - a nice coincidence but another obstacle he did not have to over come. He seemed better at CIA stuff then the CIA guys.  

I havn't actually seen the film, but I read the shooting script and watched it in my mind... So kinda watched it!

I think the story is an interesting one, strange because it's based on a true incident, the fact that Hanks is smarter than the CIA guys can hardly come as much of a shock these days, but I love more that once he accepts the defence case he has a sort of dogged and noble stance on it, a role sort of designed for Hanks.

I didn't think this was as flashy as some of Spilerbergs or the Cohen Brothers normal stuff but thought it had a quiet integrity missing in most mainstream fare these days.

This was a solid watch once.

Quoted from TonyDionisio This was a solid watch once.

Once? When?

Ooh, hang on. I now think you meant just watch it once.

I liked it. Like some say, it's solid and enjoyable. It's the kinda thing Spielberg and Hanks do very well, and better than most. I think most would like this. There's very little in it to dislike.

R

I really enjoyed it, but JonnyBoy's right about two distinct halves and the first half is definitely the more compelling. I think the idea was to contrast the experiences of two men of virtue -- Rylance's unflagging virtue amidst the chaos of the U.S., Hanks' unflagging virtue amidst the chaos of the USSR. But the second half was missing the spark of the first.

Maybe it was that the first half worked really obviously as a political allegory for now, and the second didn't (except that great shot of the kids jumping over fences at the very end).

Quoted from Heretic I really enjoyed it, but JonnyBoy's right about two distinct halves and the first half is definitely the more compelling. I think the idea was to contrast the experiences of two men of virtue -- Rylance's unflagging virtue amidst the chaos of the U.S., Hanks' unflagging virtue amidst the chaos of the USSR. But the second half was missing the spark of the first. Maybe it was that the first half worked really obviously as a political allegory for now, and the second didn't (except that great shot of the kids jumping over fences at the very end).

Yeah - I think Johnny nailed it. That being said, the reason the the distinct second half failed for me was - unlike the first half - I didn't have empathy for the two folks Hanks was trying to save - I kept wanting to go back and see more on the Russian spy. So, had they just done a little more work on the back story for the econ kid and Powers - I would have felt the same tension I did in regards to the fate of the Russian spy.

SPOILERS

^ Totally agree. But if the film is about integrity (I should have said integrity above, not virtue), the story very specifically positions our sympathies against Powers, who did not have the integrity to follow through on his orders after capture. So I wonder if that was supposed to be the other half of the moral question -- first, will we assign enemies the same rights as citizens, and second, will we extend our integrity in protecting individuals who have failed to maintain their own integrity? A life is a life is a life?

I like the movie more, I think, reading the reviews and perspectives here.

Quoted from Heretic SPOILERS ^ Totally agree. But if the film is about integrity (I should have said integrity above, not virtue), the story very specifically positions our sympathies against Powers, who did not have the integrity to follow through on his orders after capture. So I wonder if that was supposed to be the other half of the moral question -- first, will we assign enemies the same rights as citizens, and second, will we extend our integrity in protecting individuals who have failed to maintain their own integrity? A life is a life is a life? I like the movie more, I think, reading the reviews and perspectives here.

Very interesting take. Hadn't thought of that = might also add a theme that states the measure of someone is not always who they work for but who they are.

Saw this movie yesterday. I wasn't a fan. Seemed poorly structured and very hollywoodized.

I read up a bit on the real story and like most "true stories" there are a ton of inaccuracies. In reality the Tom Hanks character worked for the CIA and was not just some random lawyer they picked to defend a Russian spy.