Bridge of Spies

DISCLAIMER: This blog is not for profit. All images and footage used are property of their respective companies unless stated otherwise. I do not claim ownership of this material.

Given the true story that this film is based on, in which an American lawyer is recruited to negotiate a ‘spy trade’ between the USSR and the Soviet Union, it could have turned out extraordinarily dull. In spite of the films Cold War setting, the third (and much of the second act) is taken up with endless negotiations and not much action, which some viewers may find a bit boring. Admittedly, it does drag for a bit, but the way in which the story is set up (mostly) solves this problem very effectively.

At its heart, this is a story showing that all life is worth something, especially the first half, in which Tom Hanks’ character, James Donovan, defends a man accused of being a Soviet Spy. For the most part, Tom Hanks gives an exceptionally good performance, and the aforementioned trial ties in cleverly with the film’s historical context, as many people within the film see the legal battle that takes up the first act as being a metaphorical war between the USSR and American values. The story is then put onto a ‘big stage’ and the human being accused is ignored, seen as purely ‘evil’ by many if not most. But details such as the paintings that Mark Rylances’ Rudolf Abel does, for example, allows the audience, to see a human side to him, just as people often forget that major historical events such as the Cold War involved and affected millions of real people, in addition to being major conflicts.

This ‘human interest’ aspect permeates the film as a whole, in a very good way. We see the impact that the initial trial has on Donovan’s family, as he ‘defends a traitor’. We see the arrest of economics student Fredric Pryor, from a very personal perspective. Some extra heart is also added through some very witty humour. This is a very clever way to make the second half of the film interesting to the audience, as emotional bonds are created with these characters and as a result when the ‘negotiation’ part of the film begins, we actually care about what will happen to the characters discussed. Another, less warm aspect that gives the audience emotional investment is a rather brilliant interrogation scene, which makes clever use of editing to express the intensity of emotions that the American spy being investigated going through.

It is let down slightly by both its third act (which I have already admitted does drag a bit) and some cheesy elements, such as the heavy presence of snow, especially in East Berlin (because it’s the cold war- get it?) and the almost jump-scare inducing inclusion of Tom Hank’s shocked face during what was otherwise a very effective scene focussing on the Berlin Wall. However, these are such minor nit-picks that they scarcely matter. On the whole, it is a very effective and well-acted film, which is well worth seeing. 

The Hunger Games : Mockingjay Part 2

DISCLAIMER: This blog is not for profit. All images and footage used are property of their respective companies unless stated otherwise. I do not claim ownership of this material.

The Hunger Games Mockingjay Part 2 is like its predecessor in many ways. Clearly, it is the second half of the story that premiered a year ago, and like Mockingjay Part 1, it inherits the problems of its source material, but overall it manages to improve on many issues. The final film in the blockbuster series sees Katniss and co.’s final face off against the villainous Capitol- a common plot for the final film in a major franchise, but an exciting one nonetheless.

A core problem with the book was simply that the plot dragged, with battles against various foes across the Capitol growing tiring after a while. It lacked focus and the lack of structure then led to the series ending on a low note. This is felt slightly in the screen adaptation, but on the whole there is something about seeing the action on screen as opposed to on the page that just makes it miles more thrilling, meaning the 2 hour 17 minute runtime is not really felt. Something about this story just snaps into place when it is shown in cinematic form- it feels more focussed, more organized and most significantly more meaningful than the book on which it is based. Speaking of meaning, the books anti-War themes are also carried over brilliantly through well-written dialogue.

The action is also helped by some fantastic cinematography, as the film is a masterclass in how to invoke both emotion and tension through use of shots. The shaky cam that plagued the first film does start to rear its ugly head, but the majority of the shots remain steady enough that it does not become a major problem.

But the entire film is carried by the wonderful performances of its main cast. Practically everyone on screen does an exceptional job, with special mention to Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson and Donald Sutherland.  

On the other hand, the previously mentioned increased focus within the plot does not mean that the adaptation is perfect- indeed, it is rather frustrating that such a good film falls flat a little at the end- only a little, but still enough to be annoying. The emotional scars felt by the protagonists at the end of the books are glossed over, meaning that (without spoiling too much) the ending feels quite jarring.

Overall, whilst it still has the plot and pacing problems of the book and the ending does feel tacked on, it is filmed and acted so effectively that these problems are (mostly) patched up.