User reviews

Don't be fooled by the title. Make sure you know what you're getting yourself into when you watch this film. Bridge of Spies is literally about the Cold War Bridge of Spies, where Soviet/US spies were exchanged through negotiations. This is nothing like "The Americans" (FX TV drama - for some high unrealistic and over-sexualized espionage action - redirect here) and the most action-packed scene you will see is Francis Gary Powers getting shot out of his U2 plane during his mission.

Bridge of Spies is really a historical/legal drama. And based on my preliminary research, they seem to be getting most of their facts right. Obviously a little bit embellished for Hollywood's sake, Bridge of Spies does a fine job as a historical docudrama. There is a lot of talking, but it's meaningful talking. At times, the film can be a little slow {opening scene, especially}, but give it a chance and you might enjoy it. History buffs like myself will definitely enjoy it. But thrill-seekers, you're better off to see the new James Bond movie instead.

There are combinations of film makers that make you confident, as you pay your ticket price, that you are not going to be terribly disappointed: Steven Spielberg directing; Tom Hanks taking the lead; Janusz Kaminski behind the camera; Michael Kahn editing and a Coen brothers script (with Matt Charmon (Suite Française)). And Bridge of Spies doesn't disappoint, particularly for someone of my more advanced years (I was born the year following the film's climatic events) who remembers well the terror of potential nuclear catastrophe that hung over the world through the 60's and 70's.

In a story based on true events, Hanks plays James Donovan (diverging somewhat from reality here) as an insurance lawyer dragged by his firm into defending Rudolf Abel, the accused Soviet spy played exquisitely by British stage acting legend Mark Rylance. Against this backdrop, the international blue touch paper is about to be lit by the shooting down over Russia of Gary Powers (Austin Stowell from "Whiplash") in his U-2 spy plane (sorry – "article"). Donovan becomes instrumental in unofficially negotiating on behalf of the US government the release of Powers in East Berlin. The deal is jeopardized by his boy-scout tendencies to also want to help another US captive Frederic Pryor (Will Rogers).

I've read some negative reviews of this film in the papers that made me quite cross, describing it as "yawnsome" and "sanctimoniously dull". For me, nothing could be further from the truth and the packed Saturday night audience I saw this with seemed equally gripped from beginning to end, silent save for the odd laugh where some appropriate humor is weaved into the story.

Tom Hanks is solid and believable as the fish-out-of-water lawyer, albeit that the role is played with a large spoonful of patriotic American sugar as Donovan trumpets about the importance of the constitution over the lynch-mob mentality of the general public. Alan Alda – great to see again on the big screen – channels his best Hawkeye-style exasperation as Donovan's boss, looking for a clean and quick conviction.

But it is Mark Rylance – an irregular player in movies, and due to appear again in next year's "BFG" – who shines out as the acting star of the film. His salubrious and calm turn as the cornered spy just reeks of class and if he isn't nominated for a Best Supporting Actor nomination for this then there is no justice. (A special 'casting recognition award' to my wife Sue for spotting that the actress playing Judge Byer's wife – Le Clanché du Rand – was Meg Ryan's mother in Sleepless in Seattle 22 years ago!)

The cinematography is superb with some gorgeous tracking shots and framed scenes. Most outstanding of all is the scene depicting the traumatic construction of the Berlin wall – long tracking shots in greys and blues delivering a truly breathtaking piece of cinema. In general I'd give a big shout-out to both the art department and the special effects team in making the desolation of East Berlin feel so real. It makes the similar scenes, that I commented positively on in the recent "Man from U.N.C.L.E." seem like an amateur school production.

The special effects team also contribute in making the shooting down of the U-2 a thrilling piece of cinema.

Music is sparingly and effectively used by Thomas Newman, and it can be no greater complement to the composer than that I was wondering until the end titles as to whether it was another Spielberg/ John Williams collaboration or not.

A great film, one of my favorites this year. Highly recommended, especially if you are over 50. You should also get out to a cinema to see this one – it will be far more effective on the big screen than the small one.

(Please visit http://bob-the-movie-man.com for the graphical version of this review. Thanks.)

This movie hit me really strangely.

I was expecting a political drama about the cold war, and while indeed it was that, I was not expecting to have so much fun and for Bridge of Spies to be so humorous.

The Coen brothers writing a movie Steven Spielberg would direct just sounds like a winning combination and it really was. Sealing the deal, was a great performance by Tom Hanks.

Tom Hanks does what he does best, by playing an everyday man in an average life. James Donovan was just an insurance lawyer who gets caught up in the middle of the Cold War. Bridge of Spies, starts him off so normal and then turns his life into quite an adventure.

And I do mean adventure. In the hands of Spielberg, the movie's visuals were large and epic. I was expecting this movie to feel more like his last flick, Lincoln. Instead it feels more like Indiana Jones, as James Donovan travels to Berlin at the time when the wall was being completed.

Watching Hanks play Donovan who is just swept into an overwhelming situation and just keeps his cool and his charm is just highly enjoyable.

Totally loved Bridge of Spies, It's one of the best team ups between Hanks and Spielberg and even though Lincoln was a great movie, Bridge of Spies is everything Spielberg is capable of. So entertaining.

Bridge of spies is not your typical movie, it almost seems like it would be boring, except it isn't. This film is like a tree that you drive by on your way to work. Nothing special, quite ordinary; and then one day you see it from a different angle, and the way the dew glistening off of its leaves catches the sunlight, just takes your breath away.

As I mentioned before, bridge of spies is different, it doesn't have a particularly memorable score, or poetic dialogue, every character is portrayed as a "regular guy/gal". The credit must go to the Coen brothers here. The actors lines, particularly the exchanges between Hanks' and Rylance's characters are stirring in their simplicity. The story unfolds similarly, everything sort of just happens, and at the end, it all fits together perfectly.

Nobody knows, what makes Spielberg so great, is it his groundbreaking camera work? or perhaps his implementation of cutting edge visual effects? In my humble opinion it is his enigmatic ability to take what would likely be dull and uninteresting in the hands of any other director, and turn it into a thing of wonder. This movie plays out naturally, with moments of subtle heroism, and true human emotion, it is so very downplayed, that one simply cannot pull their eyes away. Bridge of Spies is truly an Organic Wonder.

Bridge Of Spies is a historical drama film starring Tom Hanks, co-written by the Coen brothers, and directed by Steven Spielberg. Even though its subject matter of the Cold War is something I know very little about, I thoroughly enjoyed it and I am now more interested than ever to learn more about it. I rank it among the best of Spielberg's most recent movies.

In 1957, tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War are at their peak. Spies from both the American CIA and Soviet KGB are a major threat to the security of both world powers and each side often resorts to hasty measures to stop any classified information from being leaked. In Brooklyn, New York, Rudolf Abel is arrested under the suspicion of being a spy. James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is assigned as Abel's defence lawyer. However the idea of defending a potential Soviet spy proves to be an unpopular and difficult task for Donovan. Meanwhile, over in the Soviet Union, an American spy plane pilot Francis Gary Powers is shot down and captured by the KGB. As a means to ease tension between the two warring countries, Donovan proposes a swap between the two prisoners of war, Abel for Powers.

Despite containing barely any action scenes and being almost entirely made up of talking, the film never feels boring or slow paced. This is most likely due to the Coen brothers' clever screenplay and Steven Spielberg's creative direction. There were many suspenseful moments where it felt like the prisoner negotiations would go horribly wrong and that kept me on the edge of my seat. Tom Hanks also gives another memorable performance as James B. Donovan, once again proving his versatility as an actor.

I rate it 8.5/10.

"Everyone deserves a defense. Everyone matters." James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks)

In Bridge of Spies, Steven Spielberg once again masterfully goes to the historical drama with a righteous man's theme (think Schindler and Lincoln for starters). This time lawyer James B. Donovan is asked to defend an accused Soviet spy, Rudolf Able (Mark Rylance, superb), in order to show the world the American justice system is democratic.

The story is "inspired by true events" with the outline of the exchange of Able for U-2 downed pilot Gary Powers historically accurate. As usual, Spielberg recreates the times with the atmosphere, cars, and film noir aspect of a spy thriller in the figurative and literal Cold War. He said, "I always wanted to tell the stories that really interested me in my personal life—which are stories about things that actually happened."

Hanks is central to Spielberg's vision of the lone hero defying the odds and supporting the highest ideals of the American Constitution and the individually virtuous man. Never does Hanks overplay the good-guy card; he's just very adept at playing an everyman not always right but always righteous.

The dialogue is crisp, a no fooling around typical of Spielberg and Hanks but a charming bad guy as well: James Donovan: "Aren't you worried?" Rudolf Abel: "Would it help?" As producer Kristie Macosko Krieger commented about Spielberg, "He's got a childlike sense of wonder. He never gets tired of hearing stories . . . . " Bridge of Spies is vintage Spielberg with a Lincoln-like atmosphere, righteous hero, and intriguing multi-plot, an entertaining spy story brimming with humanity.

As the director says, "This is more about very smart people in conversation with each other, and the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads is that, if they make the wrong decisions, it's the end of the world."

I am biased in my review of BRIDGE OF SPIES. The Cold War is my thing, always has been my thing. I am dazzled by that time in history: surveillance, the cars, CIA, Eisenhower, and the mystique of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

From the trailer of this film, I expected a delicious plate of Cold War atmosphere, intrigue, and commentary. Like a gleeful child, I sprinted to the movie theatre – expecting a non-pretentious high octane version of Mad Men. I anticipated my favorite era in history being served up like LET ME IN (a piece of 1980s period perfection elegantly directed by Matt Reeves).

I held close the trailer as I landed my perfect middle seat in the theatre. The clips of a U2 Surveillance jet spiraling at 70,000 feet, children overflowing in tears as they watch a thermonuclear film strip, and Tom Hanks' face plastered to a subway window as we see guards firing at bystanders trying to climb over the Berlin Wall.

Then you add Steven Spielberg to the mix – the master of the period piece – modern cinema - the evoker of our deepest emotions. One of my favorite Spielberg films is Munich. Munich captures the violence of the Middle East 70s with revere, respect, and revelation. This is what I wanted from Bridge Of Spies. I wanted a dark, harrowing portrait of the Cold War, I wanted this tense era exposed in Spielbergian fashion, and I wanted to have 1957-1961 ruminating in my heart, mind, and belly. Bridge of Spies, however, met none of my desired expectations.

Diluted by a PG-13 rating, filled with comedic moments (clearly due to the Coen Brothers having written or participated in this script) that don't tickle my fancy, and an avoidance of Cold War atmosphere – Bridge Of Spies hit me like a tennis ball on the head.

It's taught, adequately plotted, and the hero is smart, likable, and witty. It's garnered rave reviews. But, for anyone that likes substance, don't look here. Spielberg's story is a moral tale – of courage and standing up for one's ideals – the universal plot which Steven devours like a hungry child.

Unfortunately, there's no stakes. Hanks follows his journey and does what he does best – but his universe is given little context. You'll want turkey and you'll get turkey – but you're not getting any gravy.

**Possible Spoilers – Things that bugged me about the film was plethora of wasted opportunities. When you have Spielberg at the helm, you know what could have been –

1. The relationship between the Lawyer (Hanks) and the Soviet Captive (Mark Rylance) is an unbalanced paper weight. We get a glimpse into the Lawyer's character, the archetypal Tom Hanks - fair, honest, moral, etc. We get very little info on the Captive. He is quiet, dignified, and keeps responding to Hanks wondering if he is aware of his dire situation, "Would it help?" Rylance is the typical Spielbergian "caught in the middle guy" – much like Ben Kingsley in Schindler's List. Physically weak, trapped and powerless - yet stoic and unafraid. That being said, what are his motives? He is a spy but what drives him – where is the monologue where he explains his background, what formed and shaped him and what forms the basis of his lifelong goals?

2. What I love about Mad Men is its strong focus on the media and culture of the era. Except for the end of Bridge of Spies (where we get a clip of Pierre Salinger informing the news of the spy swap) and an early scene of a teenage girl watching a late night story, there's not much to nibble on – Spielberg wastes a huge opportunity in a class room scene where kids are watching a nuclear bomb film strip. Lifting the film strip like a YouTube Clip and then showing a few generic shots of kids watching it and one girl crying - the master of modern cinema stumbles and falls into shallow surf. In this instance, I wanted to yell at the editor – build this up, let it seep in, give us some Wonder Years or Let Me In flavor. There's none to be had –

3. Not only do we get a vapid Francis Gary Powers – due to lackluster character development and the miscasting (in my opinion), but the U2 Surveillance storyline is about 12 minutes. Give me at least 25, Steven!! When the U2 is shot out of the sky, we get about a minute of action – give us three. In addition, because Francis Gary Powers has no character development, I don't sympathize with him or even care if he comes home.

4. The PhD student who is included in the Prisoner Swap is devoid of character – another guy that I could care less if he makes it home. Both guys appeared to have a lackluster indifferent time over the in the USSR. The Soviets dowsed Powers with water and German soldiers rip up the PHD students thesis paper – oh no!

5. There is no discussion of the disastrous political implications of the U2 being shot down over the Soviet Union. Reluctant to authorize the mission, Eisenhower was smeared by its failure and left office of the President on a black cloud. However, we don't hear Eisenhower's name mentioned once in the story.

All and all, Spielberg delivers a cup of vanilla ice cream with fudge – most audiences are going to love Hanks and the Soviet spy.

In the final analysis, it's a buddy film with some period costumes and a somewhat poignant conclusion. That being said, those that want a stirring pot of fear, sadness, and elation – I suggest you wait for this on HBO and watch Munich instead.

Ted's Personal Enjoyment: C+

Following "War Horse" and "Lincoln," "Bridge of Spies" rounds out Steven Spielberg's trilogy of histories in the 2010s, each film earning a Best Picture nomination for being a superb piece of craft — and having Spielberg's name attached.

None of these are bad, but they are extremely traditional films evoking the prestige dramas of the '90s and not necessarily offering anything new. As such, "Bridge of Spies" doesn't shed new light on Cold War history, but it does tell a small story with of inspirational characters with a lot of heart.

Tom Hanks stars as James Donovan, an insurance attorney asked to represent a recently detained Soviet spy named Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). A proud Constitutionalist of sorts, Donovan decides it's his honor and duty to give one of America's most hated men his right to a defense. Then, when a U.S. pilot is captured in Soviet territory, the CIA recruits Donovan to negotiate a swap.

"Bridge of Spies" echoes "Lincoln" in its portrayal of a morally tenacious man who stood firm in the face of opposition. Putting an actor as likable Hanks in the role of someone as upstanding and charming as Donovan is almost unfair. The script, treated by Mark Charman and also the Coen brothers, builds clever scenes for Hanks to navigate through with total ease. The story doesn't push or challenge the veteran, but it does frame everything that's happening with the appropriate weight, enough so that we can connect with everything Donovan is going through and respect the decisions he makes and Hanks helps communicate those stakes. The Cold War was an ugly time; it might seem that what Donovan did and how he approached his responsibilities was a moral no-brainer, but it was actually quite complicated and extremely unpopular.

Rylance as well is a an excellent stroke of casting genius. More known for his stage work, the veteran creates a portrait of a man so self-assured it's frightening. It's the kind of nuanced supporting role that is easy to overlook when most award-winning supporting turns are flashy scene-stealers.

Spielberg and longtime director of photography Janusz Kaminski give "Bridge of Spies" such richness. This is a film driven by plot and acting, but the picture is pristine. In particular, the way they capture East Berlin during the negotiations scenes is feels haunting in a way few films taking place in that similar time and place have. Also, the visual symbolism of reflections and different perspectives is something Spielberg plays with subtly but enough so to put some artistic flourishes on his film. Most importantly, the climactic bridge sequence works on every level, and that alone proves Spielberg, cast and crew all did their job.

When Spielberg is done directing, "Bridge of Spies" will probably not make anyone's list of his top films, but it shows that just about any corner of history can make for an excellent film in capable hands.

~Steven C

Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more

I don't know what it is about 2015, but I think this year has been full of films that don't entirely meet your expectations. I don't necessarily mean that those films are bad by any stretch of the imagination, but it seems like film after film end up making me feel a bit letdown. Bridge of Spies is the new Steven Spielberg directed film based on true events during the cold war. It focuses on James B. Donovan, played by Tom Hanks, who is thrust into representing a supposed Soviet spy in court and Donovan's further involvement in executing an exchange of prisoners with Russia.

Much like Crimson Peak, this film is not really what the trailers make it out to be. The trailers heavily focused on the relationship between Donovan and his client, Rudolf Abel. The film gives us maybe 20 minutes between them in the beginning, but really that's all. To me, their relationship and the scenes between Hanks and Mark Rylance, who plays Abel, are easily the best the film has to offer. Even though it's never truly clear as to why Donovan backs this man so much and his motivations behind continuing the negotiations, I really bought into their dynamic. In fact, it's the only true payoff you get in the end is their relationship and its outcome.

By no means is Bridge of Spies a bad film, it's not. It doesn't help that it's directed by perhaps the greatest director of all time, in Steven Spielberg. Expectations are sometimes far too high for his films. But I think the problem here is that there's just not a ton of meat to this story and it's one of Spielberg's weaker films in recent memory, but really he doesn't make any bad films. Some things did bother me about his directing here though. For example, there is a character introduced within the first 10 minutes as Donovan's associate and partner. He attends Donovan's family dinner and seems to be set up as help to Donovan and a slight possible romance is hinted at with this character and Donovan's daughter. Well, after one scene we don't see this character ever again.

Amy Ryan plays Donovan's wife, who I absolutely adore as an actress, is also incredibly underused. I guess what I'm trying to get across here is that there is no flow to the movie. Or rather, no arc. It's very predictable, being a true story, but the tension isn't there either. It's a slow moving picture with a great climax but not a ton of build to get to that great climax. Surprisingly, this could be contributed to Spielberg. Spielberg does do a great job of taking us to the time of the Cold War. He certainly gives us the feeling that at any moment war could have been truly started by either side. The performances are all really good. Mark Rylance who plays Abel does a magnificent job in his limited screen-time and rightfully never gives one way or another in terms of his innocence. Tom Hanks is, well, Tom Hanks. And Thomas Newman replaces John Williams as the composer and does a wonderful job as he always does. There's a lot to really like about Bridge of Spies, more than not. But for me, it was just a bit of a letdown in its lack of intensity and pay off. I wouldn't have known it was the Coen Bros script and Spielberg's directing if it wasn't for the trailers and marketing.

+Rylance & Hanks together

+Spielberg transports you to the Cold War

+Newman's score

+Climax

-Lack of intensity

-Didn't get enough of Donovan and Abel together

7.0/10

A feel-good Cold War melodrama, Bridge of Spies is an absorbing true-life espionage tale very smoothly handled by old pros who know what they're doing. In its grown-up seriousness and basis in historical conflict, Steven Spielberg's first feature since Lincoln three years ago joins the list of the director's half-dozen previous "war" films, but in its honoring of an American civilian who pulled off a smooth prisoner exchange between the East and West during a very tense period, the film generates an unmistakable nostalgia for a time when global conflict seemed more clear-cut and manageable than it does now. Spielberg's fourth collaboration with Tom Hanks, which world- premiered at the New York Film Festival and opens commercially on October 16, looks to generate stout box-office returns for Disney through the autumn season. For people of Spielberg's generation, the early years of the nuclear era and the stand-off between the United States and the Soviet Union represents a significant part of the fabric of childhood. With the passage of time, it's possible to tell stories of the time without furnishing them with overt propagandistic overlays, and for Westerners there is the added built-in appeal of the "we won" factor and the perception that dealing with adversaries was so much simpler then than it is now. As their focus in this impeccably rendered recreation of a moment in history, most palpably represented by the building of the Berlin Wall, Spielberg and screenwriters Matt Charman and Ethan and Joel Coen have chosen a sort-of Atticus Finch of the north, a principled, American Everyman insurance attorney unexpectedly paged to represent a high-level Soviet spy caught in New York. There is no question that Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) is guilty, but James B. Donovan (Hanks), a proper and decent family man with a professional dedication to his client and an abiding loyalty to the principles of the U.S. Constitution, has a quick and intuitive read of any legal situation and shrewdly stays at least one step ahead of the game in almost any situation.

... but not necessarily a very entertaining one.

First -- and this is the key to my review --- semi-biographical films documenting real events do not have to be dull, or tedious, or dark, or lack connection with the viewer.

Look at PAWN SACRIFICE, for example, recently reviewed by this reviewer and still very much top of mind.

And then we have BRIDGE OF SPIES, a two-plus hour opus that one suspects never would have been greenlighted without you-know-who as the director and you-know-who playing the lead.

Presumably we are meant to honor the main character's humanity as he struggles against a corrupt (or possibly insane) system to do the right thing...? If this was the intent, then even a yeoman effort from Hanks fails to make this character connect with the viewer, to resonate. In spite of it all, he comes across as a wildcard pick in a game which he never really understood.

And if the events of the last few years are any indication -- this written in 2015 -- it was a game the rest of us never understood either.

One of the surprising things about Bridge of Spies is not really that Steven Spielberg directed this story, which tracks the trial and then trade of a Russian spy in 1957 (an exchange for an American pilot, and someone else who I'll get to shortly). It's the kind of material that would attract Spielberg, especially with the hero of the story, Jim Donovan (Tom Hanks), who comes into a situation he shouldn't be involved with but not only can pull off talking and reasoning with people and finding the better side of a situation or person's nature. What's surprising in a way is the involvement of the Coen brothers with the script.

It's hard to say if Matt Charman was the primary writer (someone I'm not familiar with, not least on the level of his co-writers) and if the brothers came in on a polish. But watching the movie, it does make more sense - certainly more than Unbroken, which barely has their touch - since it carries a lot of dry wit in the exchanges between characters, in particular the opposing attitudes of people in this 'period' setting. Hanks' Donovan is a straight-shooting guy who believes in the constitution of the United States and wants to do right, legally speaking, by his client Rudolf (Mark Rylance in a fine, subtle supporting role), and doesn't really care per-say what he's done or didn't do. This doesn't fly well in a society that is overrun with Red-Scare fever and end up doing the worst of things when in total fear of things (i.e. the A-bomb, which gets a kind of cameo in the film in a way that Spielberg I'm sure has a personal connection with, being a child of the 50's, but I digress).

The Coens I think brought a sense of realism to things, but also stylization; the way characters talk at times there's a lot of things where people try to figure the other person out, which is fascinating to watch. When Donovan arrives at the first part of the mission he's given in the second part of the film, to do this exchange of the Russian for an American pilot caught by the enemy, he goes to the Russians and doesn't talk to the lawyer (who he thought to talk to) but some other official. Spielberg covers this expertly, going in on Hanks and the other actor at just the right moments to emphasize things getting tenser - another young American, a student caught up in the mix of things (it IS East Berlin, after all) - but the script dictates a lot of the momentum here. And at the same time the Coens aren't necessarily making it 'Coens-y', in a manner of speaking; they serve their filmmaker extremely well, giving a light air to a good number of scenes in a way that keeps the tension and suspense in a good balance.

In a way it's interesting to get this so soon after The Martian, also in theaters: two films about perilous situations and men caught in a struggle to survive, and two stories that benefit from some levity. Between the two though, Bridge of Spies is the more serious affair, and certainly Spielberg has a lot thematically on his plate. The story takes place during the Cold War time, but it's really a war-war (so to speak, sorry, couldn't find another way to put it), only with terse words and missions via the CIA instead of men on a battlefield. At the same time I feel like the message can, and probably will, resonate today; Spielberg knows that we're in times where it can be dubious whether people are put on trial and given proper legal counsel if they're suspected 'others' or combatants, and if they get the counsel who knows how the trial will go.

Bridge of Spies may have Hanks being, shall we say, Jimmy Stewart-like (I know other critics will or have), and is the guy the audience likes - his endearing characteristic in the second half, of all things, is a cold. But it's because Spielberg embraces this, as does Hanks in playing him, that he's a man who will stop at nothing to get done what needs to be done for a man's freedom and security (or how he sees it, so down the line, despite whatever happens in prison walls with glaring lights and big questions about this or that for information). Perhaps with a tougher kind of actor this wouldn't work, like I could never picture, say, Bruce Willis in this role. Hanks comes in and is unequivocal in his earnest desire for justice ("Everyone deserves a defense, every life matters" echoes another Spielberg motto in Schindler's List), and it's refreshing in a way to see this in a movie right now.

Two little issues: the film's ending is a little long, with a coda that feels like it stretches just a little longer than it should, albeit for a visual callback that does add a bittersweet tinge that is welcome and interesting; and the lack of a John Williams score (the first for Spielberg in 30 years) is startling. Thomas Newman isn't bad at his work, but it's unremarkable, and doesn't give certain scenes that do need a little extra punch or kick that 'Spielberg' type of music. It's hard to describe it, but I feel it when I do, especially during the climax.

Aside from those small points, this is near-classic work by this director, with a star in top form who is wholly convincing. It's also a wholesome movie in that old-time Hollywood sense, but not in a way that should date it any time soon; it takes a stand for what should be held accountable for those accused, and that, really, having a good insurance policy is maybe the only policy that's logical.

The depiction of historical aspects seemed very well done, and the settings and period elements were great. It's an interesting story but the reason it's only a 6 for me is that I felt like the film was almost sterile, lacking in the emotions of the characters to a degree. Almost more like a history lesson than a movie.

A new film set in the Cold War era of the 1950's was released a few weeks ago and is apparently a big hit. The plot revolves around James B. Donovan, a simple lawyer who is chosen to defend Colonel Rudolf Abel, a captured Soviet spy, in the midst of an atmosphere of anti-communist hysteria sweeping the US. Later in the movie Mr. Donovan is recruited by CIA to negotiate the release of captured American spies in exchange for Colonel Abel, including U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers who was captured by the Soviets after his spy plane was shot down in Soviet airspace. The tortured tagline of the film sums up the propaganda point to be driven home: "In the shadow of war, one man showed the world what we stand for." What we (the US) stand for is supposedly a just and humane society where everyone, even a communist spy, is entitled to a fair trial. This is set against the supposed tyranny and cruelty of communist states.

However, the version of events presented in this film and the case it attempts to make in favor of an American system of "fair play" can easily be disproved. Many relevant details have been distorted or conveniently left out of the narrative. Also, some facts have been included but presented out of any historical context. Unfortunately, most Americans will passively accept this false narrative without question or without doing any further study of their own. They will accept the movie as being a true recounting of historical events. I could now spend a lot of time discussing every single propaganda element within the film such as the dark and gloomy atmosphere in East Berlin; the scowling faces of the East German border guards; the menacing and hostile demeanor of various communist officials or scenes of torture, but I have decided to take a different approach. I will simply tell the truth of the historical incident that this film is supposedly based on; and I will do it using the memoirs of the two primary American participants in these events - James Donovan and Francis Powers.

Let's start by comparing the details and outcomes of the Abel trial in the US with that of Powers' trial in the Soviet Union. Both spies were caught red-handed and so there could be no doubt as to their guilt in both cases. Therefore, the purpose of the trials should have been simply to gather all the facts available in an effort to come up with a suitable punishment to fit the crime. Below, I have included a table that shows the results of each trial.

Powers (Soviet trial) Abel (US trial) Held Incommunicado 4 weeks 3 weeks Phys. or Psych. Abuse No Yes Max. Poss. Sentence Death (rare cases) Death (very common) Actual Sentence 10 years 30 years

Powers stated in his autobiography, written a decade after his return to the US, that he did not suffer any abuse during his captivity in the Soviet Union. Abel, however, said that during his interrogation he was struck in the face by one of the FBI agents who grew frustrated at his silence and refusal to cooperate.

Powers was told by the Soviets that execution for espionage was rare in the USSR, but Abel was informed that the death penalty was very likely to be his fate. In fact, just a few years prior to Abel's trial in 1957, the Rosenbergs had been sent to the electric chair for stealing atomic secrets for the Soviet Union. Finally, in the sentences that were eventually handed down, Powers received a relatively light 10 years imprisonment while Abel was given 30 years.

The Soviets were accused of subjecting Powers to a "show trial," but this is exactly what the Americans did with Rudolf Abel. As it turns out, despite all the blather about the high ideals of the American legal system, Donovan and his co-conspirators were really just concerned with promoting the idea of superior values of American "fair play," without any regard for the substance behind such claims. Furthermore, the real reason Mr. Donovan argued to save Abel's life was in order to hold him as a bargaining chip in the inevitable event of a spy swap with the Soviets down the road.

Mr. Donovan, the humble lawyer, was actually a high-ranking career spy. He admits in his memoirs that at the time he was supposed to be impartially defending Colonel Abel, he was at that moment still a spook! In his own words he reveals that he "still held a commission as a commander in Naval Intelligence." Prior to that he had worked as head legal counsel in the OSS (precursor to the CIA) for several years and had helped to organize the CIA after WWII! However, from the insane viewpoint of American exceptionalism nothing here is out of place, but if this film had been done from the Soviet perspective (taking into account the undeniable facts of the incident), the plot might go like this:

The US violates Soviet airspace repeatedly until one of their spy planes is finally shot down. The pilot, despite his refusal to denounce the criminal activity of his government, receives a very light sentence in comparison to America's treatment of captured Soviet agents. Some time later, a CIA spymaster shows up in East Berlin demanding the release of three American spies in exchange for one Soviet spy. Although this naturally strikes the Soviets as unfair, due to their good nature they agree. Colonel Abel returns home to a hero's welcome while Francis Powers is received with suspicion, denounced by the media and much of the American public as a traitor, and is held incommunicado by the CIA for "debriefing" for nearly a month. (All true!)

References: Donovan, James B. Strangers on a Bridge. New York: Atheneum, 1967.

Powers, Francis Gary (with Curt Gentry). Operation Overflight. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Bridge Of Spies is a well acted, thrilling, smart Cold War drama that features a Oscar worthy performance from Tom hanks. Bridge of Spies tells the true story of a Cold War spy swap, during the height of tension between the U.S. and Russia. The time period was so tense that when films can capture that tone it's usually special, that being said the film doesn't quite capture that tone, but it comes close. Tom Hanks performance, and Spielberg's seasoned direction manage to save the film. When the film could have been slow, they save it by using either humor, or great acting, Acting that will most likely get Hanks an Oscar nomination. In the end Bridge of Spies isn't as good as it could have been, but is still admittedly a great film that will undoubtedly get plenty of recognition at the 2015 Academy Awards.

In 1957, during the Cold War, the insurance lawyer James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) is assigned by the Bar association to defend in court the Soviet spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance), who was captured by the FBI. Donovan is successful and Rudolf is sentenced to life imprisonment instead of death penalty. Meanwhile the American pilot and spy Francis Gary Powers (Austin Stowell) is arrested by the Soviet government while taking photos from a spy plane that crashed. The CIA summons Donovan to help in the negotiation to exchange the two spies. When Donovan learns that the American student Frederic Pryor (Will Rogers) was arrested in the border of East Berlin while trying to bring his German girlfriend to the West Berlin, he decides to include the student in the negotiation. However his proposal is not supported by the CIA that is interested in Powers only. Further, Powers is prisoner of the soviet government and Pryor is prisoner of the GDR (German Democratic Republic). Will Donovan succeed in his intent?

"Bridge of Spies" is a great spy thriller based on a true story in the period of the Cold War. The plot is engaging and the cinematography, costume design and art direction are amazing. It is unnecessary to comment the direction of Steven Spielberg and the performance of Tom Hanks, perfect as usual, but it is impressive the capacity of negotiation of James B. Donovan. This American lawyer is shown as an impressive negotiator, having cold blood to make tough decisions. The credits informs that Donovan has been also successful negotiating later in Cuba the release of prisoners. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Ponte dos Espiões" ("Bridge of Spies")

Bridge of Spies (2015)

*** (out of 4)

Attorney James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is given the thankless job of defending suspected Russian spy Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance). Donovan accepts the job but soon finds himself defending his client a bit too good for some, which leads to him being the main negotiator between America and Russia when it comes time for a prisoner swap.

Steven Spielberg's BRIDGE OF SPIES isn't one of the director's greatest works but it's certainly a very well-made film that manages to hold your attention throughout the rather long running time. I must admit that the trailer for the film really left me cold so I wasn't sure what to expect from the film but overall it's another good movie from the director, although the ending falls into that cringe-worthy, over-sentimental stuff that the director does quite often.

With that said, there's no doubt that there's a highly good story being told here that grabs your attention and doesn't let it go. The screenplay by Joel & Ethan Coen and Matt Charman does a very good job at capturing the spirit of the period and even if you're not familiar with the Cold War the film does a nice job at bringing you up to speed on the various fears. Spielberg perfectly handles the material and milks it for some nice drama as well as some political points that are certainly meant to be taken into consideration on some current issues.

Hanks, as you'd expect, turns in an excellent performance and is certainly believable in the role of the attorney who finds his life spinning out of control from not only his wife but strangers who feels he is helping a spy. Hanks is such a calm grace that it really was entertaining just seeing him negotiate. Rylance also deserves a lot of credit for the way he played this character and I really loved the laid back approach to where the character never tips his cap in regards to what and who he really is. Technically speaking the film is quite good and of high standards.

BRIDGE OF SPIES could have been a bit tougher on the political aspects but it's goal was to aim for the mainstream and in the end it's an entertaining film.

Hanks and Spielberg tackle a Cold War spy-exchange against the backdrop of a freshly-constructed Berlin Wall. As one might expect from these old masters, it's expertly-crafted and loaded with gravitas; a warm, motivated take on a surprisingly under-explored chapter of recent history. It does a great job of delicately re-evaluating popular sentiment and the bullish nature of post-war international relations, too, painting heroes and victims on both sides of the dispute. The plot is very linear, though, moving on a predictable set of rails from start to finish, and that can make it feel preachy when a few of the more heavy-handed themes briefly overstay their welcome. A foundationally-strong, workmanlike offering, it's 50% desperately-uphill legal drama and 50% high stakes poker with a set of captive American souls as the ante.

Mark Rylance stands out as the best reason to watch this movie. And, I feel tempted to say, the only reason to do so. His lines take the cream of the screenplay. I am quite a fan of spy movies. That is exactly why I find this to be extremely disappointing as a movie. Seeing Steven Spielberg's name come up at the final credits was a sort of cherry on the funeral cake. The direction and the editing are the two most disappointing elements of this production. Then parts of the story. It is all so predictable, so cliché, so déjà-vu. I happened to watch this film in the weeks in which the BBC broadcast a brilliant 5-part series entitled "London Spy". That is everything a spy-film fan can wish for. "Bridge of Spies" is everything but that. Underwhelming at best...

With the masterful Steven Spielberg behind the lens, this movie was destined to be amazing. Tom Hanks gave an incredible performance as the non-fictional character, James B. Donovan. I really enjoyed this film because of that aspect; that it really happened. It was such an eye opening film to a true story I never really knew about it. Hanks was an extremely powerful and convincing lawyer and it was very interesting to see how his mind worked when it came to dealing with the character Rudolf Abel, played by Mark Rylance. Rylance also delivered a wonderful performance. Overall, this film was an interesting insight to events during the Cold War and a story that definitely needed to be told.

Well What can i say? Spielberg did it again! This is a film that has that instant feeling you just love it and you're watching something truly special. And its a true story, and i'm a sucker for true stories.

The story its another great lesson to be learned by humanity, and the screenplay does an outstanding job telling it. It has all the ingredients Spielberg is known for, the hope in humanity, the believe in the mans power to change the course of history for the good, the true selfless, and so on.

The cast is beyond perfect, and everyone gives amazing performances, but of course Tom Hanks steals the show, he gives one of his most likable performances, in the end the character helps a lot. Its just a bigger than life character which fits like a glove in Tom Hanks. The other characters are also amazing, but the one that stands the most to me, even if hes not the one to appear the most, is the Russian spy (Mark Rylance) hes just one of those characters that his so unique and likable that is amazing.

The production values are just top notch as one would expect from a Spielberg film. The visuals are hauntingly beautiful and perfectly illustrate the feel of the cold war. The film is amazingly shot, there's a scene with an aircraft that is breathtaking. The special effects are perfect. The production design is bound to be nominated for an Oscar, special attention to the Berlin settings. The score is another hit for Thomas Newman, though the film has this amazing atmosphere were there's very little score and the one there is is mainly in the final minutes. This gives a very authentic and realistic feeling to the film, its like you are really rgere. Thats why i was surprised that the length of the score is almost 50 minutes!

Overall the film has a lot in common with Lincoln, its really the perfect follower to that amazing picture. This is one of those films where you just get lost in the story, it's a very immersive film, a true masterpiece thats bound to get a ton of nominations from the academy.

Spielberg, Hanks, Coen Brothers. Rarely have there been so many members of the Hollywood royal family working together on a single motion picture. With this calibre of talent involved the expectations are unsurprisingly sky high; unfortunately this Cold War true story lands in the 'good, but not good enough' category and subsequently feels like a missed opportunity. At first it's difficult to pinpoint why the spark is missing as all the ingredients for an old-school espionage yarn are present, but after careful contemplation it seems to me that Spielberg may be going through the motions. His direction is purposely understated to be sure, although there is a distinct lack of oomph in his narrative propulsion that is strangely un-Spielbergian. There's also never any real sense of Hanks' American attorney being in danger, despite spending large chunks of time in war-torn Berlin liaising with shadowy Russian diplomats and volatile German soldiers. Nevertheless, this thriller predominantly satisfies thanks to another heartfelt performance from main man Hanks. His put upon lawyer is righteous but grounded, intelligent but humble, fearful but optimistic, all with a welcome dash of wit. In fact it's the Brooklyn-set first act that proves the most entertaining, when it's mostly a two-hander between Hanks and Mark Rylance's dryly-humorous Russian spy, the latter damn near stealing the show right from under Hanks' nose. With regular Spielberg collaborator Janusz Kaminski on hand as director of photography, the movie looks utterly spectacular too, the glowing courtrooms of New York just as impressive as the snowy streets of a war-ravaged Germany. Bridge of Spies is a solid Cold War thriller with a compelling protagonist, yet with the Tinseltown heavyweights involved I can't help but think it's also somewhat of a disappointment.