An enjoyable movie, but hardly worthy of an Oscar Nomination.

Rating: 7/10 (29 March 2016)

I liked this movie and was drawn into the dramatic moments more than I would have ever thought possible. It is Stephen Spielberg's, cold- war, true tale of the Russian spy, Rudolf Abel, who was exchanged for the American U-2 Spy, Gary Powers.
As with The Big Short, I didn't expect to enjoy this film, especially after one of my friends told me he found it quite boring.
But I disagree with my friend. I think Spielberg and the writers did a good job with the facts that they had and succeeded in transforming a potential boring 'turn-off' into a rattling good yarn.The screenplay, along with great acting by Tom Hanks and Mark Ryland, and skillful directing and editing made this film a joy to watch. They made the most of their material, and I was surprised to discover that the events in the movie were closer to the truth than I had suspected to be the case.
Filmmakers are notorious for making up events to spice up a true story (as in The Imitation Game), but in The Bridge of Spies they didn't need to – there was enough to work on.
It is unclear to this reviewer whether Gary Powers deliberately opted not to take the poison pill.The CIA instructed him to take it if he was in danger of being captured. Was it an accident or a circumstance of misfortune?
Now I come to the controversial part of my review.
Bridge of Spies is an entertaining film and I was very happy to watch it in my own home. It certainly doesn't need a big cinema screen and I would put it on a par with any number of excellent 'made for TV movies' that have been released in recent years. If it had been made for TV, I am quite sure it would have picked up a truckload of Emmys.
But an Oscar nomination for 'best picture'? Sorry, but I just don't see it. It is no better than the likes of "The spy who came in from the cold" or "The Ipcress file" or many other fine films set in the cold war, spy genre. (and none of these won any Oscars)
The difference is that this one was directed by Spielberg and starred Tom Hanks.
It would seem that The Oscar academy works in weird and wonderful ways, especially when black actors are concerned. I'm not sure about this year's black acting candidates, but last year it was a travesty that Selma was all but ignored by the academy.
( Selma – now there was a great film that could have proudly gone down in history as Best Picture instead of the execrable Birdman, which nobody went to see except "insider luvvies".)