It's not entertaining enough.

Rating: 5/10 (8 February 2016)

No doubt, Steven Spielberg is one of the greatest directors of our time, but his latest entry serves as a text on a film that throws around images, ideals, patriotism without fleshing out the weight it has on its characters.
The film takes in 1957, at the height of the cold war. Seriously, what this film lacks is the entertainment factor: no feeling of satisfaction or afterwards excitement I could sit down from afar and list out many reasons why it should win an Oscar-for best picture in fact. But I could also tell you one reason why it shouldn't-have stated that above. This is the second time we have Hanks and Spielberg working together. They collaborated in 1997 for the World War II film: Saving Private Ryan. It is glaring that Bridge of Spies was made for the Oscars in the same vein as their former collaboration. At least they were successful delving more into worldwide changing events that happened as a result of that warfare.
There are several themes here, which are consequences of the cold war setting of the film. One of them is nationalism, which are indirect consequences of the espionage milieu of the film. And this is juxtaposed against personal ideals and shrugging off how the world looks at you. Then Spielberg allows us to see things from the justice-angle. Technically, there are many facets to this film- politics and negotiation included. Steve gradually posits each parts influence on the film. If nothing else I should give him credit for that. The cinematography is benumb-sometimes looking like Spielberg's previous film (War Horse). But at the same time, it is beautiful especially in those West Germany/East Germany scenes. Sincerely, those scenes were the best part of the film. We could see how it served as a barrier, not just between two nations, but two ideas. Sincerely, I would have been glad if Steven was making a film about those communist/capitalist tensions in Europe rather than the propaganda filled first ¼ of this film.
However, the propagandist aspects of the film made for an interesting watch. I was fascinated when the main character who is an insurance lawyer James B Donovan was called in to take the case of the soviet spy, not because it is obligatory. But because of the image America was trying to project here. And it follows that James goes on take the case to the Supreme Court to appeal against the rancor of the general public. So, at that point where the spy pilot's jet crashes, you can sort of predict everything from here. But according to the beginning credits, which say "Inspired by a True Story"-which it is-the predictability argument loses face value.
In spite of its thick plot and beautiful on-screen hues, Bridge of Spies is ho-hum. Not because Spielberg decides to spare us some scenes like in that air crash scene or because he jumps some. But because it lacks weight, emotional intensity and tension, the film is made in such a way that makes you feel the negotiation for exchange of the spies was a walk in the park. No force majeure, no chance for failure-all success. Remember, the more the likelihood to fail for the protagonist, the more appreciative and savored is the victory. But no, it doesn't progress like that. And as such, the end result is a bit monotonous.