Posted on 09/10/2016 7:06:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
The story of Chesley 'Sully' Sullenberger could’ve been fodder for a predictable inspirational film that ends with the main character climatically saving 155 lives (including his own) onboard a disabled plane. But director Clint Eastwood isn’t known for taking that route. As a director, he’s known for asking larger questions and he’s done so in movies likeFlags of our Fathers(2006) and the controversialAmerican Sniper(2014). He’s continued that route withSully, a feature that daringly presents the Captain as an introspective man who faced off againsthis critics after his incredible act of heroism.
Tom Hanks stars as the title character, a pilot who faced the toughest 208 seconds of his life on January 15th, 2009. In less than three and a half minutes, the plane he was piloting was struck by a group of birds who paralyzed the vessel. Alongside his loyal co-pilot Jeff Skiles (Aaron Eckhart), Sully made an intense water landing on the Hudson River. The passengers were all safe but Sully’s reputation wasn’t.
As the film explores, Sully’s choices that day were intensely scrutinized by investigators, insuranceofficials and bureaucrats.
After a brief opening dream sequence, the movie shows Sully’s journey after the dramatic landing — flashbacks later show the events of the flight — as he faces these questioners.
In his methodical story, Eastwood focuses on the facts of the case. This is a serious film about the investigation and there’s barely an extraneous moment in it.
Instead of sentimentality or schmaltz, the film offers a sturdy performance from two-time Oscar winner Hanks who quietly conveys the emotions of the even-keeled captain. Here, Hanks is is tasked with bringing to life a captain we thought we knew. In the media, Sully was often simply portrayed as a resolute hero. In the story, we watch Sully as an introspective pilot who couldn’t help relieving those 208 seconds. Even as he was publicly adamant that he did the right thing, the captain was constantly re-evaluating and reassessing his actions in private.
The screenplay was written by Todd Komarnicki and adapted from the bookHighest Duty(co-written by Chesley Sullenberger and Jeffrey Zaslow) but the story never feels like a simplistic tribute to the captain. This is a movie that is more interested in offering a complete portrait of the captain and the investigation than it is in simply offering praise for his actions. With that in mind, Laura Linney is given limited screen time as Lorraine, Sully’s wife who kept him grounded during this difficult period.
There are two major settings in this film. There are several scenes that take place in the cold outside where Sully walks and talks privately with Skiles. Then there are scenes inside — in tight-quartered investigation rooms and conference areas — where there’s plenty of heat but little warmth exhibited by cynical investigators.
The dichotomy of these settings is similar to the dichotomy of how Sully was viewed at the time. By the outside world, Sully was a hero to be revered, applauded and respected. To the investigators (looking for weaknesses in his story), Sully was a target to be questioned, scrutinized and criticized. Both perspectives are portrayed here with the captain caught in the middle of the fracas.
Viewers can make up their minds onSully but Eastwood offers here a fuller glimpse of the captain than what we’ve seen before. It’s a telling and daring look at a sturdy captain who faced some of the greatest criticisms of his characteraftera daring act of bravery.
Looking for more movies about inspirational figures? Clickhere for a list of10 movies about American patriots.
I won’t see it, it has Tom Hanks in it. He blabbed his mouth too many times about people who vote like me - so chuck him, I am not interested an anything he does.
I saw it earlier this week and thought it was ok. It seemed really short, but there wasn’t really a lot of material to work with. Not a lot to the story to tell.
Probably Tom Hanks shortest length movie in ages. He is an every man actor. Maybe average for him.
As far as Eastwood directed films, it isn’t his best. I enjoyed some of this other films more.
I saw it yesterday. I had reservations about how they could hold my interest for 1 hr 36 min for an event that was over in 5 minutes.
Also I had seen it happen on TV, tape and live!
How would they fill the rest of the time? With boring human interest crap? How did it make you FEEL?
But, my wife wanted to see it, so we went.
It was FANTASTIC! Eastwood is a genius! Tom Hanks was the PERFECT choice to play Sully.
Many things I didn’t know before. The copilot was flying the plane when they hit the birds, Sully took over after,
Sully, “BIRDS” thump, thump, thump de thump thump.
“My Airplane” says Sully, taking COMMAND!
Sully, “We’re gonna be in the Hudson”.
Sully, “I eyeballed it”. “Yeah, I eyeballed it”.
VERY well acted by EVERYONE. Very emotional, bring your tissues. Very REAL!
Sully is a real HERO.
A MUST see, you will not be disappointed.
I couldn’t agree with you LESS!
Saving Private Ryan it isn’t. Then again neither are 99% of all other movies you’ll ever see.
This was a recent REAL event, that everyone knows about. A real challenge of a movie to make.
It was SUPERB! Not “Saving Private Ryan”, but Excellent!
Not EPIC, just GREAT! The rest of you, will love it!
On the lighter side...
Norm Macdonald’s “Sully Sullenberger : Airport Pilot” - 2/10/09
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEuIP_ZHDAc
The “clips” start at around 5:20.
I’d rather follow a leader with perspective and vision. Bean counters are navigators, not pilots.
I’d always prefer a pilot with seat of the pants experience. No time for computer analysis. Situation awareness and quick reaction is life or death.
This is a GREAT still from the movie. You can appreciate the authenticity and real emotions from this frozen moment by the intense look on the faces of the actors. If you didn’t know better you would think that there had been a camera in the cockpit of US Airways Flight 1549.
Sully should have stopped time, took his copilot and went and done 17 exercises in the simulator, and THEN make a decision on how to proceed with the remainder of the 208 SECONDS he had left.
I part time fly commercially these days...my engineering job in aerospace is my bread and butter. I don't expect much for flying. I fly because I enjoy it. The pay is insufficient if you consider the responsibility of lives, but the field is overcrowded with lots of eligible candidates so it's just competition. Kind of like folks complaining about pay in other jobs that anyone would enjoy and do not require years of training or school. Your not going to get rich being a river rafting guide, but if you love it, do it and don't complain.
As per rules of Bureaucraps.
My wife and I own a couple small airplanes, half a dozen hang gliders, and live on an “airpark” which is 116 homes built around a small airport. Both of the last two fatal airplane crashes here were professional airline captains who had engine failure on takeoff in their personal general aviation airplanes and both tried to make a quick turns back to the airport.
Fortunately, neither of them had any passengers along with them and I am fairly confident that neither would have tried to make such a maneuver in their “work aircraft”. But they thought that they could take chances with their own airplanes and their own lives and beat the odds. Because yes, one of the first things people are taught in flight school is not to attempt to return to the airport if you experience engine failure on takeoff.
To slightly simplify things... the primary reason trying to return to the airport when having difficulty when taking off is so dangerous is that the airplane is already in a nose high attitude with an airspeed not much above stall speed. When the pilot makes a quick turn close to stall speed, G-force increases the stall speed, the wing starts to stall, the nose drops and the pilot doesn’t have enough altitude or speed to take corrective action before hitting the ground.
I actually witnessed a crash with a plane load full of skydivers when their hotshot pilot made a tight turn immediately after takeoff in a nose high attitude with full power. He stalled and went straight in from 500 feet and everyone onboard was killed instantly. Lawyers for the families of the skydivers tried to sue the engine manufacturer claiming that the engine lost power on takeoff, but the bent up prop and the testimony of witnesses such as myself indicated clearly that the engine was still developing full power on impact. So I have not only witnessed crashes I have been both interviewed by the authorities and testified in court about crashes.
Even though many of those we have come into contact with from the FAA and the NTSB over the years have been complete a**holes. And it is not in my nature to stick up for a bunch of federal bureaucrats, the witch hunt portrayed in the movie is fiction to add drama to a movie that is essentially about a routine non-lethal accident investigation.
I have subscribed to many aviation magazines and aviation safety journals over the years. In addition we have neighbors on both sides who work for the FAA and enjoy discussing high profile situations with us. There was nothing more than the expected response from the authorities whose job it is to investigate this type of incident. Of course they are going to have to rule out pilot error which necessitates asking a few probing questions.
But this “Hollywoodizing” of the story is a good illustration of why one shouldn’t trust any movie made by Hollywood to be historically accurate, even one made by a right wing leaning director/producer. It is all the same game, get people excited about something. Who is going to watch a movie essentially about the bureaucratic investigation process of a nonlethal accident? But until it is proven that the birds were trained by Isis to sacrifice themselves to go to birdy heaven there were no actual villains in this case. It is kind of a neat story about everyone doing their jobs correctly, but without vilifying federal officials what entertainment value would it have?
“Just curious, what happens to the career of say a 40 year old airline pilot who fails his annual physical?”
First, a correction. The physicals are very six months. To answer your question, if they stay with the airline, they could become a simulator instructor or work in dispatch, or several other ground based jobs.
... Sully as an introspective pilot who couldn’t help relieving those 208 seconds.
***
“Relieving”? I suspect the writer means “reliving”.
Proofreading really is a good practice.
Former Obama pilot: TWA Flight 800 was not blown up by a faulty fuel tank; it was shot down. I’ll always believe that, and here’s why
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/obama-pilot-twa-flight-800-shot-article-1.2186329
Btw, that recent documentary (last year?) on Netflix about TWA 800 was amazing. Retired NTSB crash investigators talking about how the FBI barred them w/o escort to the reassembled plane and how the parts tags were switched by the FBI. And former military pilots saying that saw a missile move from the horizon up to TWA 800 right before the explosion. Too many unusual things with the official story. Maybe a Saudi-related issue? We saw how the FBI andUSG covered for them post-9/11.
Hopefully Trump will reopen the investigation.
My wife and I saw the movie last night. We agreed it was the best movie we’ve seen in a very long time. So well done. Grips you from the beginning. Leaves you feeling inspired by Sully and all of the remarkable people directly involved. Co-pilot, flight attendants, ATC, ferry captains, NYPD rescue, et al.
Read the article. Part of the story line is about the hell the investigators applied to Sully. My point, for those of you in Rio Linda, is we know how through was the TWA800 investigation. /sarc
Surely you gathered from my original small print that I was being sarcastic.
In other words, they ain’t flying no more........
“Maybe they were shoulder launched geese.”
The wisest wisecracks on the interwebs are right here on Free Republic.
Step right up and take a gander.
“with no editing out the many “typo” mistakes”
I noticed that. To me it looked like there was an original documents. Someone did a copy/paste into a different format. Sometimes when an end of a line (in the original) wraps to connect with the beginning of the next line (in the original), and there’s no space character at the end of the first line, the two words will connect — because there’s no space there. (Just my perspective from decades in word processing.)
Still, someone should’ve proofread it before publishing! (Again, my perspective from decades in word processing.)
Or, it could simply be crappy typing.
How old are you, ten years?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.