A disastrous crash and an even worse film

Ben Greco

When I walked into AMC theatres on Sept. 24, I saw something I didn’t expect.

The story of Captain Sullenberger (Sully) and Jeffrey Skiles is incredible, but I don’t think it was the best it could be in Clint Eastwood’s “Sully.” The miracle landing took a short 24 minutes, and it was clear Eastwood didn’t have enough content to make a thrilling movie. I needed more.

The movie fluctuated between the past and the present and wasn’t told in the natural sequence of events. This was an interesting decision, but I would have come away less underwhelmed if it had been filmed sequentially. Eastwood showed too many scenes of Sully talking on the phone with his wife and too little of the action on the plane, which probably totaled only 20-30 minutes in all. I would have preferred if the movie had extended the flight itself and the landing instead of focusing on life after the flight.

The subplot of how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) believed Sully had not made the right decision to emergency land eventually took over the main plot of the movie and became the movie itself.

While the filming was excellent, I felt the story was more a documentary than a thriller, which was what I was expecting. Despite the subpar storytelling, the acting was phenomenal. Tom Hanks proved the perfect actor for Sully. He always excels in the real life everyday hero role, as he did in the movie “Captain Phillips.” I preferred that movie to Sully because I was constantly on the edge of my seat. Both movies had the potential to do this, but Captain Phillips did the better job.

Unless you’re looking for a movie capturing the details of Sully’s life after the emergency landing instead of the miracle itself, this movie isn’t for you. I never got the feeling I was there on the flight going through everything they did. That’s what the audience wanted.