← Back to Reviews
in
#694 - Bridge of Spies
Steven Spielberg, 2015
In 1957, an insurance lawyer is called upon to defend a captured Soviet spy only for things to escalate when the Soviets capture an American spy.
Though Steven Spielberg has made several films that are either major favourites of mine or at least solid films in their own right, for the most part his work just feels alright or mediocre. Given how Spielberg's last couple of films had been the incredibly dry (albeit technically well-made) period-pieces War Horse and Lincoln, I wasn't about to hold out much hope for Bridge of Spies, which only seemed to promise more of the same. After setting the stage with an impressive mostly-silent sequence following a day in the life of a Russian spy (Mark Rylance) that culminates in him being arrested by the CIA, we get to Hanks' character, a fairly nondescript lawyer and family man who is tasked with serving as Rylance's public defender. Though his task is to provide a good show of how the American justice system works, Hanks decides to actually do his job right and ends up upsetting a great number of people as a result. This does draw him a lot of negative attention from people on every level of American society, but his stalwart belief in upholding the system in the face of subtly malevolent patriotism pays off when an American pilot (Austin Stowell) is taken hostage by the Soviets while carrying out a top-secret mission...
Bridge of Spies is unmistakably a Spielberg film, and though such a description is liable to conjure up negative associations regarding the director's tendency to provide simplistic middle-brow crowd-pleasers, I actually find this to be a somewhat pleasant (if not exactly amazing) example of such. Hanks' character is a do-gooder who refuses to let his principles be compromised by, well, just about anybody. It's clear that things are taking a toll, especially when his wife (Amy Ryan) frequently expresses concerns over the effect it is having on their home life. There's also the various other members of his firm and the legal system who seem appalled that Hanks might actually take this job seriously, lending an appropriate amount of insidious nuance to what could have been an extremely bland historical drama. This is very much a film of two halves as the first must set up all the players, yet it doesn't feel stretched-out or boring even as it does indulge some very familiar tropes (there is at least one scene where Hanks gives an upstanding closing statement monologue defending Rylance that still worked in spite of itself). The second half does pick up a bit as Hanks' character is made to go and negotiate the exchange of hostages, which is complicated when an American student is caught on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall and incarcerated by the East Germans.
In a year where most of the major spy films have aimed for pure thrills and amusement, Bridge of Spies provides a solid counterpoint as a film that focuses on the mundane yet dangerous world of real-world espionage. The film definitely shows Spielberg at his most dependable as it doesn't come across as an instant classic but definitely doesn't feel like a misfire either. It may prove a little alienating with its focus on the intricacies on legal negotiations and whatnot, but it's paced reasonably well with the occasional moments of action or tension (most notably the scene where Stowell's character fails his mission). Characters aren't really much more than well-acted archetypes, though Rylance delivers a performance that stands out precisely because of how much his character does not stand out (and his matter-of-fact countenance is played for both comical and dramatic effect). Spielberg can still command a technically masterful film that fittingly I also have to give credit to the writing (especially since the script credits the Coen brothers as co-writers) for offering some much-needed nuance and a wry sense of humour to a film that could have been yet another bland (if technically decent) historical drama in Spielberg's filmography. There's enough of his fingerprints over it that if you find him disagreeable in general then you might as well avoid it anyway, but it's far from the worst film he's ever made.
Steven Spielberg, 2015
In 1957, an insurance lawyer is called upon to defend a captured Soviet spy only for things to escalate when the Soviets capture an American spy.
Though Steven Spielberg has made several films that are either major favourites of mine or at least solid films in their own right, for the most part his work just feels alright or mediocre. Given how Spielberg's last couple of films had been the incredibly dry (albeit technically well-made) period-pieces War Horse and Lincoln, I wasn't about to hold out much hope for Bridge of Spies, which only seemed to promise more of the same. After setting the stage with an impressive mostly-silent sequence following a day in the life of a Russian spy (Mark Rylance) that culminates in him being arrested by the CIA, we get to Hanks' character, a fairly nondescript lawyer and family man who is tasked with serving as Rylance's public defender. Though his task is to provide a good show of how the American justice system works, Hanks decides to actually do his job right and ends up upsetting a great number of people as a result. This does draw him a lot of negative attention from people on every level of American society, but his stalwart belief in upholding the system in the face of subtly malevolent patriotism pays off when an American pilot (Austin Stowell) is taken hostage by the Soviets while carrying out a top-secret mission...
Bridge of Spies is unmistakably a Spielberg film, and though such a description is liable to conjure up negative associations regarding the director's tendency to provide simplistic middle-brow crowd-pleasers, I actually find this to be a somewhat pleasant (if not exactly amazing) example of such. Hanks' character is a do-gooder who refuses to let his principles be compromised by, well, just about anybody. It's clear that things are taking a toll, especially when his wife (Amy Ryan) frequently expresses concerns over the effect it is having on their home life. There's also the various other members of his firm and the legal system who seem appalled that Hanks might actually take this job seriously, lending an appropriate amount of insidious nuance to what could have been an extremely bland historical drama. This is very much a film of two halves as the first must set up all the players, yet it doesn't feel stretched-out or boring even as it does indulge some very familiar tropes (there is at least one scene where Hanks gives an upstanding closing statement monologue defending Rylance that still worked in spite of itself). The second half does pick up a bit as Hanks' character is made to go and negotiate the exchange of hostages, which is complicated when an American student is caught on the wrong side of the Berlin Wall and incarcerated by the East Germans.
In a year where most of the major spy films have aimed for pure thrills and amusement, Bridge of Spies provides a solid counterpoint as a film that focuses on the mundane yet dangerous world of real-world espionage. The film definitely shows Spielberg at his most dependable as it doesn't come across as an instant classic but definitely doesn't feel like a misfire either. It may prove a little alienating with its focus on the intricacies on legal negotiations and whatnot, but it's paced reasonably well with the occasional moments of action or tension (most notably the scene where Stowell's character fails his mission). Characters aren't really much more than well-acted archetypes, though Rylance delivers a performance that stands out precisely because of how much his character does not stand out (and his matter-of-fact countenance is played for both comical and dramatic effect). Spielberg can still command a technically masterful film that fittingly I also have to give credit to the writing (especially since the script credits the Coen brothers as co-writers) for offering some much-needed nuance and a wry sense of humour to a film that could have been yet another bland (if technically decent) historical drama in Spielberg's filmography. There's enough of his fingerprints over it that if you find him disagreeable in general then you might as well avoid it anyway, but it's far from the worst film he's ever made.