This isn't a documentary, the NTSB weren't attack dogs as portrayed.

Rating: 4/10 (13 October 2016)

Clint Eastwood, his political views aside, might be wise to stick with comedy, like Space Cowboys (since he's too old to play Dirty Harry anymore), and leave the directing to better people. Are there any left in Hollywood?
I realize that this movie was not meant to be a documentary, which is a genre that I often enjoy, and I also realize that Hollywood has to do what is best for their revenue, which often means sensationalizing "true stories", (Like the movie Race the Sun, about a good friend of mine, but almost totally fictitious) but we're talking about the Miracle on the Hudson here, it's sensational as it is. Granted, the intensity only lasted for 208 seconds (plus another minute or two to get out of the plane), but there is sooo much of the story that this movie could have told, but didn't, like the rescue, background of those involved, etc.
All the confusing bouncing back and forth in the timeline, all of the distortion of the events, were beneath Tom Hanks acting abilities. And the portrayal of the NTSB was pure fiction. So much so, that they spoke out as soon as they heard about the movie. Search: bloomberg crash investigators pan their portrayal
I still give the movie 4 stars, because Tom Hanks played his roll well (and the other actors tried, especially Aaron Eckhart), although Tom's heart didn't seem to be in this one. And if you don't care about accuracy, it was an OK movie. It's worth seeing once, I guess, with a grain of salt (or a mine), but unlike many movies in the same "True Story" genre, I doubt I'll watch this one more than once.