Why? A run of the mill, predictable, done before bore-fest, but not bad.

Rating: 6/10 (4 December 2016)

Who cares? That's the question I asked about halfway through Sully.
First off, it's as predictable a story there is. It only occurred a few years ago and in the first ten minutes, it's confirmed the story is going exactly where you thought: there's no surprises. For entertainment's sake, Eastwood effectively has to throw in a dream sequence where the plane crashes into a building before Hanks wakes up.
Plane crash movies have also been overdone. Wasn't Flight just a few years ago? It was much more compelling and more unpredictable. But then there's just been so many flight films. The one with Liam Neeson, the Grey where the plane crashes, and too many more to name. The thing about them though is at least they were about more than a predictable plane landing.
Hanks is, well, Hanks. He's not Sully, and is far removed from his Oscar caliber wins for Forrest Gump and Philadelphia. Wow, look at him jog in those scenes! He's decent, but no way should he beat out Andrew Garfield for Hacksaw Ridge.
Speaking of Hacksaw Ridge, another biopic true story this year, it actually has something to say and a reason behind it. There's no way Sully should win a nomination over it in any competing category (voters take note).
It's not a bad film, but is incredibly "run on the mill", and like I thought before watching it, I still don't know why this was made into a big movie. It would've worked fine on Lifetime.
The final half hour exits the clichés and saves it.
5.5/10