The Worst Film Ever

Pretty Good

People are voting emotionally.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Another milestone film in director Steven Spielberg's feather. This one is really a heart melting and inspirational story which based on true incidents. An attorney from USA, James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) willing to take risk of his lifetime to bring the freedom for the three mistakenly captures by USA, RUSSIA & GERMAN during the period of Cold War. The climax made me to cried. And the best part is that his childrens do not even know that their father is an attorney, which they thought was a fisherman or sailor until the news telecast in television."Bridge of Spies is the true story of three extraordinary characters - William Fisher, alias Rudolf Abel, a British born KGB agent arrested by the FBI in New York City and jailed as a Soviet superspy for trying to steal America's most precious nuclear secrets; Gary Powers, the American U-2 pilot who was captured when ..."

'Bridge of Spies' is an espionage thriller at its finest. It's set in the late 50s & early 60s and certainly looks the part - I always love seeing the old cars driving around New York, looking classy. Starts off like any classic spy film, but then Abel (Rylance) is caught. In comes Donovan (Hanks), an insurance lawyer who is asked to defend Abel, so he can receive due legal practice. The first 45min or so is a good courtroom drama and moves along fast enough, with Hanks giving a few great speeches and making some solid points about what's right and what's best.The movie really captures well the Cold War tension in America and what families would've gone through. It helps that this is the best film Spielberg has made in a few years and the best film Hanks has been in for a while. Once the movie turns into political chess, with an exchange of Abel for Powers (Stowell) in Berlin, the stakes are raised and there's plenty of great subterfuge.Hanks basically owns the film, with everyone having some good moments (especially Rylance, with his "would it help?"s), but he really plays a great everyman who stands up to both Germany, Russia & his own country (mostly portrayed by the CIA/Shepherd) for what is morally right and just, not just what is politically acceptable at the current time.

Spielberg's depiction of the Cold War is quite interesting because it allows of greater understanding as to the depth of the animosity between the United States and the Soviet Union at that time. However, I believe that the logistics of the exchange were oversimplified, and did not pose to be an accurate depiction of the heated arguments that must have been at play during that time. In addition, certain imagery was very effective in drawing comparative environments between the United States and the Soviet Union, such as the scene in Berlin when James Donovan is viewing the men that attempted to climb over the Berlin wall. This scene was compared to the end scene in which we were exposed to children in the United States climbing over a fence without the slightest nervousness of violence. Overall, this movie was a great docudrama that inspired to support the strength and conviction of the United States' pride in a free trial.

I enjoyed this movie more than I thought would - Tom Hanks is his usual brilliant self and Spielberg directs this really well. My only problem is with Mark Rylance getting an Oscar for his turn as Abel the Soviet spy. He always underplays and I personally do not rate his acting talents at all. He is so laid back as to be almost horizontal. It is, by its subject, a very talky movie but it is well written and none of the talk is wasted time. It is absorbing and interesting about a time when I had little interest in world politics. It all makes sense to me now.