Nice filmed, but a documentary is sufficient for the events...

Rating: 4/10 (14 August 2017)

I was already familiar with the story of the plane that landed on the Hudson River prior to sitting down to watch this movie. And it was primarily because of Tom Hanks that I decided to sit down to watch it.
"Sully" was nicely filmed and edited, but it was also a very unnecessary movie, and you might as well just watch a documentary about the incident. I watched a documentary about this plane accident some years ago on National Geographic, and I must say that having watched that documentary made the making of this movie very unnecessary in my opinion. And was this a story worth putting to the big screen? Well, I would say no, but that is only because I already saw the documentary. However, if you haven't seen the documentary or if you are somewhat unfamiliar with the actual events, then I would say that you would find the movie enjoyable. And in that case, then sure, the movie was worth putting to the big screen.
The cast in "Sully" was good, and it was rather interesting and somewhat fun to watch both Tom Hanks and Aaron Eckhart as pilots with fancy mustaches. And the people were doing good jobs with their given roles and characters.
This is not a disaster movie in the traditional sense, where things have deadly consequences and there is one major disaster after the other taking place. No, this is a more realistic and down to earth, pardon the pun, type of disaster movie as it is based on actual events and because it resulted in no loss of life.
What surprised me was the way that the accident committee were hellbent on blaming captain Sullenberger and co-pilot Skiles for their actions which saved all the lives of crew and passengers, and how adamant they were on relying on their flight simulation of the events. Corporate rigid thinking and ways of doing business, I guess.
Personally, I didn't care much for seeing this on the big screen, as the documentary more than sufficed back in the day.