Bridge of Spies is the product of Steven Spielberg's latest collaboration with Tom Hanks. The Cold War thriller tells the story of an insurance lawyer negotiating the terms of a "trade" between the Soviet Union and the U.S. for their respective spies in captivity. This movie is very well written and crafted, but is woeful in excitement and doesn't really have enough "thrill" to be touted a spy thriller. Having said that, Bridge of Spies showcases Hanks, playing James Donovan, and Spielberg's phenomenal chemistry and is still an engaging story with a lot of heart, perhaps too much heart for its own good.
Steven Spielberg is an incredibly versatile director, as evidenced by his wide ranging resume which includes movies like the heartwrenching Schindler's List to the heartwarming E.T: The Extra Terrestrial. He is a fantastic storyteller, perhaps the best in the buisness, but his movies tend to range between heartbreaking and sappy, or exhilerating and tedious. Bridge of Spies is somewhere in the middle of both spectrums. As far as Spielberg's historical films go, his latest effort is far less monotonous than 2012's Lincoln, but nowhere near as impactful as Saving Private Ryan. Granted, Bridge of Spies is a story that needs to be told, and its subject matter is very interesting, but I feel as if something was off with the excecution. I don't need to see explosions and gunfire in a scene for it to be suspensful, as I strongly believe that diologue can be crafted in a way that is often times more suspensful. However, nothing ever seemed to be in doubt with this movie, I always felt I knew the ending (because I did, its a true story...). Tension is built throughout a movie because of unpredictability in where the movie is headed, its what keeps an audience on "the edge of their seats" or "biting their nails". Bridge of Spies was missing that key element in making the diologue really important from a cinematic standpoint. The Plot was pretty cut and dry. Hanks' character negotiates, alot... mostly over a glass of scotch while in Berlin. Hanks and the soviet spy character, played by Mark Rylance, both do an admirable job in their portrayals. The writing is good for the most part, but it seems as if the script shoves scenes of the American spy, played by Austin Stowell, into the movie too much. His character is one dimensional and far from interesting when compared to his Soviet counterpart. He isn't really likable like the film wants him to be and his scenes feel forced. This movie's best scenes of dialogue are between Rylance and Hanks due to their spot on performances, but there isn't enough of it. Pacing was an issue with Bridge of Spies as well. The movie stalls during several stretches and takes away from the main plot, which in it of itself isn't that riveting. With a two and a half hour runtime, Bridge of Spies is a sprawling historical drama, but more often than not a tedious acting showcase that fails to entertain.
I was disappointed with the end of the movie and how Spielberg retreated to his habit of making everything so "feel-good" and heart warming. The movie ends with Donovan returning home from Berlin after having "saved the day" during a tense exchange on a bridge, which was on of the movies few suspenseful moments. Donovan falls asleep and his wife and kids find out that he is a hero after watching the news. His wife endearingly watches him sleep and smiles as inspirational music plays in the background. It's a weak ending, suffering from being both non-impactful and cheesy. Bridge of Spies is okay, nothing better, nothing worse. It doesn't really stand on the same ground as Hank's or Spielberg's previous works and is merely a period piece that plays into a standard period piece formula. No surprises here.
B-