Disappointingly shallow and poorly acted out

Rating: 4/10 (22 October 2015)

Hanks, Alda, Spielberg, the Coen brothers. What can go wrong? Apparently, quite a lot.
Strengths first: the meticulous recreation of the 60's across two countries is breathtaking. The streets look 60's, the people look and talk 60's, the atmosphere is 60's. It's immersing and awe-inspiring.
Now the weaknesses: 1) Lots and lots of exposition. I understand that the millenials are expected to not know the history from 50 years ago, but come on - if someone doesn't know/love history they aren't going to see this movie in the first place. Stop wasting our time with exposition. 2) Poor acting. This must be the weakest performance from Tom Hanks I've seen in years. The guy is sleep-walking through the role, and everyone else is wooden and not worth mentioning, except for Alan Alda who steals every scene he's in. Amy Ryan is just awful I'm sorry to say. 3) Too long. Way too long. Should've ended with the exchange taking place. We don't need the "happy end" through vindication - it's completely implausible too. 4) Not focused. The pilot's story is completely surplus to requirements and insignificant - it doesn't add anything to the narrative. We don't really need to see the pilot until his first scene in captivity. Instead, the time should be spent on character development of which there is absolutely none. 5) Predictable. Yes, the story is well known and we all know how it ends, but this means that the unpredictability needs to be in the nuances. The little things that aren't part of the written history. But everything is predictable, nothing is captivating. 6) The treatment of the story. The script is by the Coen brothers but it has John Le Carre written all over it. It's a classic Le Carre-like spy thriller (thriller, not action). There have been fantastic film adaptations of Le Carre, so we know it can be done. Sadly, on this occasion Spielberg fails to deliver.
4/10