Curiosity led me to click on this movie - as a step-by-step film based on true events, I'm curious how it managed to get such high marks? After watching it, I feel that from all angles - characters, lines, plot, rhythm, graphics, etc. - Captain Sully can be said to be an excellent biopic, but at the same time, I still feel that it is a little over-acclaimed.
First of all, it has outperformed many similar films by rejecting the flowing narrative. The montage technique is parallel to flashbacks and interludes. The anxiety of the plane crash is compared with the absurdity of the post-mortem investigation, which makes the audience even more curious about what happened in those 208 seconds? Can the plane fly back to the airport? Will Sally's pilot career come to an end? In addition, a little bit of narration about Sally's training experience when he was young can be regarded as a fairly satisfactory completion of the task of softening the hero filter.
Another reason I like this movie is that it not only tells the antecedents and results of real events, but also properly arouses the viewers' own thinking and resonance, breaking free from the dry filter of hero movies and successfully shaping A flesh-and-blood character. As a viewer in front of the screen, I can clearly perceive Sally's unease as the captain when he knows that he may not have made the best decision, and ask himself as the story progresses, if I were him, How far can I do it? Where is the problem? It even triggered a little discussion with my friends about the accuracy of artificial intelligence simulation algorithms, which is quite interesting.
But because it is a narrative method with a chaotic timeline, I felt a little impatient when I restored the 208-second scene in the film for the second time. Maybe the director wanted to let the audience review this short time again after restoring the whole incident and subsequent development. Three minutes, but perhaps because of the hasty, fast-paced narrative, I didn't taste much different from the old bottled water.
In terms of character creation, we must first say that Tom Hanks is worthy of being a veteran American reputation actor. He has successfully created a textbook-style character who is experienced, serious and responsible, and who may feel a little "gin" in daily life. I think it would be an unexpected but reasonable choice for such a captain to make this decision under the circumstances at the time. In fact, his lines are very few, many scenes are of the only son running, silently staring at the world around him, but his eyes can accurately convey the hesitation in Sally's heart, which is a textbook acting.
But other than that, some of the other characters have been portrayed that I can't help but look at. The co-pilot or chief technician, who experienced the whole incident by Sally's side, completed the task of "holding up" mediocrely, which seemed to have little effect on promoting the plot and character building; the investigation team was the "villain" in the film. "The hatred value is a bit too full. I understand that it is to draw out and highlight Sally's accurate judgment and the softness of "human nature", as well as endorse the insurance company, but at the end of the hearing, this kind of publicity was too dramatic. The conflict is still a little disappointing, and it feels a bit out of the way.
Overall, this is an excellent event-based film, far exceeding the passing line in all aspects, and it is unexpectedly good-looking. What is commendable is that its overall narrative style is very restrained, and it does not become an ordinary heroic biopic. While highlighting moments, it does not paralyze the perception of the viewer, leaving some space for pause and thinking.
At one point during the viewing process, I doubted and worried whether Sally made the best choice. If the simulation algorithm is right, what should he do? It was at the end that it dawned on me, along with other people, that humanity, I forgot about humanity.
In the era of big data, we rely so much on algorithms, because algorithms can accurately simulate airflow, heading, distance, and perfectly restore the scene, so we fully trust the algorithm to provide the only and correct answer. But we forget that because the algorithm is so powerful, it can omit all the buffer time that is necessary for human beings. Machines can do a lot of work instead of humans. As an afterthought, it can simulate and restore the optimal solution in the scene at that time. But back then, when there were no reference answers and thousands of simulation exercises, as ordinary people, we need to admit that we are not perfect.
Ditching the Hudson River may not be the optimal solution economically and theoretically, but emotionally and practically, beyond reproach.
View more about Sully reviews
