Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This movie was surprisingly good. I wasn't really in to watching it but we had it for a few days and wanted to get it back to Netflix. Sometimes these kinds of movies based on events like this can be a bit staid and dull because of the need to stay true to the real events, but this one was really well done.
I saw the movie a few months ago when it first came out, so I'm going by memory on this quick review.
Overall, I thought the movie was well acted and it had some truly gripping scenes. However:
1. Why was it necessary to have to watch the plane crash twice? I know they wanted to show it from two different perspectives, but I feel like it just caused the movie to drag. Maybe have one long crash scene from different perspectives.
2. Why did they have to demonize the NTSB? From what I understand, they didn't act anything like they did in this movie and they simply investigated the crash as if it were any other movie. I feel like the movie had enough material without needing to create an "antagonist."
I saw the movie a few months ago when it first came out, so I'm going by memory on this quick review.
Overall, I thought the movie was well acted and it had some truly gripping scenes. However:
1. Why was it necessary to have to watch the plane crash twice? I know they wanted to show it from two different perspectives, but I feel like it just caused the movie to drag. Maybe have one long crash scene from different perspectives.
2. Why did they have to demonize the NTSB? From what I understand, they didn't act anything like they did in this movie and they simply investigated the crash as if it were any other movie. I feel like the movie had enough material without needing to create an "antagonist."
It's a two hour movie around something that took 5 minutes to conclude. What else are they supposed to fill the gap with if they don't have a villain and show the heroic act multiple times. Literally there is nothing else to tell or show.
They could have gone more into the life of Sully. Maybe more about his childhood and all the events in life that helped him to develop into the cool, calm pilot he is/was.
Also, they could have focused a bit more on the aftermath and showed how everyone worked together to fully understand what happened.
2. Why did they have to demonize the NTSB? From what I understand, they didn't act anything like they did in this movie and they simply investigated the crash as if it were any other movie. I feel like the movie had enough material without needing to create an "antagonist."
Agreed. In real life, this didn’t happen to Sully. This aspect of the film felt forced to me. I liked the film otherwise.
My understanding is that Clint Eastwood has a strong mistrust of and dislike for anything government related, and assuming that’s true, it’s not surprising he went in hard for NTSB bashing here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
