Skip to main content

Bridge of Spies - film review

Simple, straightforward tale of bravery and integrity in the face of adversity and possible national disgrace, the lead role played by Tom Hanks is a most welcome movie watching experience.   Spielberg in the director's chair with Hanks and Rylance (a British stage actor I had never heard of who also won the Oscar for supporting role) acting out a Coen brothers written screenplay is good stuff.

A story loosely based on some events of the cold war era portrays an insurance lawyer (Hanks) who is asked by the CIA to defend a Russian spy as his government provided counselor against a motivated and air tight case of the prosecution.

Hanks defends him, risking his own life and that of his young family, as prescribed by the US constitution affording the Russian every right to a fair trial and even taking on the judge in private to consider all angles of his arguments.

When found guilty of all charges Hanks continues to persuade the judge to be lenient on the sentencing for the spy, showing amazing foresight to recommend a life sentence instead of an execution which forms the deciding part of the film.

The climax is later woven with subtle grace shown by the entire cast where Hanks has to go to East Berlin to secure the release of an American U2 pilot shot down and held captive by the Russians in an exchange for the Russian spy that the CIA helps plan.

He not only secures his release using the Russian spy but the latter admires Hanks' character and assists him in his small way to also secure the release of another American person held in the GDR under false pretenses.

So in the end Hanks wins 2 for 1 against the CIA's recommendation and brings them home.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

But What If We're Wrong?

I attempted to read this book by author Chuck Klosterman backward to forward but it started hurting my brain so I decided to stop and do it like any other publication in the English language.  Start from page 1 and move to the right. Witty, caustic and thought provoking this is a book you want to read if you believe that the status quo might, just might be wrong. At times bordering on being contrarian about most things around us it tries to zero in on the notion of what makes anything believable and certain in our minds.  The fact that there is a fact itself is ironic.  Something analogous to the idea that you can never predict the future because there is no future. Many books and movies have tried to play on this concept - best that I recollect (I think I am) was 'The Truman Show'.  This book by Klosterman attempts to provoke the reader to at least contemplate that what they think they know may be wrong. He uses examples like concept of gravity, and how it ...

You are important to us

Followed by piano music.   Followed by 'we are experiencing heavier than usual call volume'.  Sounds macabre like bleeding during menstruation or after a ghastly attack with a weapon on a hemophiliac.  Sorry Mrs. Johnson but it appears little Gertrude here has been bleeding heavier than usual what with her night time activities competing with the woodchucks in your neighborhood. Some services even go as far as to pick a random day to say - 'if you were to call us during the Chinese lunar month when the moon is axiomatically hugging the polar star with Jupiter intravenous when call volume is light'.  Well I will be damned.  I thought  I had checked with my astrologer before I placed this well focused call but  I guess this is what you get for listening to a quack. Umph! I am not sure which marketing genius came up with this personal touch concept of informing the caller that you are really a jackass for actually calling the customer serv...

Of Jims and Johns

Here is another essay on the subject of first names. As in birth names. Or names provided to an offspring at birth. While the developed world tends to shy away from the exotic like Refrigerator or Coca Cola for their new production there is a plethora of Jims and Johns and Bobs or Robs. Speaking of which I do not think there is a categoric decision point at the time of birth if a child will be hereafter called as Bob. I mean have not yet met a toddler called Bob or Rob for that matter. At some point though the parental instinct to mouth out multiple syllables runs out and they switch from calling the crawler Robert to simply Robbie to Rob. Now speaking of - it is strange that the name sounds like something you would not want Rob to do - i.e. Rob anyone. Then why call someone that? After all Rob Peter to Pay Paul is not exactly a maxim to live a young life? Is it? Perhaps Peter or Paul might want to have a say in it? Then there is this matter of going to the John. Why degrad...