Review: Bridge of Spies (2015)

bridge-of-spies review

Spielberg. Hanks. The Cold War. Rarely are films an easier sell than Bridge of Spies and the thing about Spielberg movies, at least for me , is that you can never walk away disappointed. Because even if the story doesn’t work for you, you can at least appreciate how well made the film is. Very few filmmakers in the world have the ability to do this, and to stay as consistently great as Spielberg has managed to stay, for such a long time no less.

In Bridge of Spies, Tom Hanks plays insurance lawyer James B. Donovan, who is selected to defend a captured Soviet spy (Mark Rylance). Despite facing harassment and judgement from other Americans, Donovan defends his client to the best of his ability – but it isn’t until the Russians capture a spy plane pilot that is he is presented with a much greater task: to negotiate the exchange of prisoners with the Soviet Union. In East Berlin. Without an official envoy.


Bridge of Spies brings Spielberg back to the prestige period-picture genre which he has grown fond of recently with films like War Horse, Lincoln and Munich, but Bridge of Spies is far better than all three of those films, because the subject-matter is far more compelling and above all, Spielberg’s superb knack for telling a story is always pleasing to watch. Bridge of Spies is as handsomely crafted as any Spielberg film. Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography is gorgeous, Thomas Newman’s score, while certainly not his best work is serviceable nonetheless, the story is solid and the attention to detail is impeccable, especially with the film’s depiction of East Berlin.

The film is lead by a wonderfully nuanced and charming central performance by Tom Hanks as James B. Donovan in a particularly Jimmy Stewart-esque role who reminds us why he is the most likable guy in Hollywood. But while Hanks is great to watch, Mark Rylance is just as good, if not more in a superbly subtle supporting performance as Russian spy Rudolf Abel. His scenes with Hanks often act as the heart of the film and despite being in a handful of scenes, he makes his presence felt.


That said, Bridge of Spies still failed to impress me the way Spielberg’s films have managed to in the past. The film lacks in the suspense and tension you would expect from a story of this nature. The story is compelling and consistently engaging but never truly captivating. And the film very much feels like a film that could have just as well have been made in the 50’s as indicated by the dialogue and the somewhat playful and at times schmaltzy tone of the movie.

But all in all, Bridge of Spies is still an admirable, well acted and engrossing film that deserves to be seen, because what Spielberg film doesn’t?





18 responses to “Review: Bridge of Spies (2015)

  1. The only Spielberg film that doesn’t deserve to be seen is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. God-awful. It was for me anyway.

    We’re eye-to-eye on this film man. Bridge of Spies is interesting and entertaining but won’t be his most memorable. I really did like the work of the leads though. Rylance in particular


    • Haha, I actually dont hate it as much as most people but judging by some interviews of Spielberg I saw, he was never fully into making that movie and just couldnt say no to his old pal George Lucas, who came up with the story, mind you

      Glad we agree. I remember reading your review a few months back and yeah, liked it quite a bit but its nothing memorable

      Liked by 1 person

  2. “Bridge of Spies brings Spielberg back to the prestige period-picture genre which he has grown fond of recently with films like War Horse, Lincoln and Munich, but Bridge of Spies is far better than all three of those films…”

    Bold statement! And I couldn’t agree more. Great review, man!


  3. Great review, Khalid. I appreciate the analysis, not everyone digs into what makes the movie work. Love it. My thoughts on the movie align with yours. Better than a lot of recent Spielberg, still somewhat dry/safe, but great storytelling, acting, and photography. You’re right, Rylance is subtle but effective in limited screen time. I’d give Bridge a 4 out of 5


  4. Nice review. I liked this film as well. One thing I really appreciated about it was the way Hanks’ character didn’t rest on his star factor. Solid dialog and characterization made me forget it was him early on. The film is much bigger than Hanks’ fame.


  5. Great review, I didn’t rush out to see this in theaters, but now that it’s at our discount theater I may check it out.


  6. This isn’t top echelon Spielberg but it’s still a superior picture with wonderful attention to detail. Hanks anchors the film very well and Rylance is all the better because of the unfussiness of his work. Layered without being showy. I’m afraid that might hurt him in the Oscar race where the sentimentality for Stallone may override his superior performance.


    • I liked Rylance but I thought Hardy and Stallone were both miles ahead of him.I thought both those performances, especially Stallone’s were far more layered and while Rylance was good, he just never had enough to do in the film apart from those one or two scenes


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s