Rotten Tomatoes Score: 91% Steven Spielberg's latest movie, Bridge Of Spies, was heaped with praise upon its release last month, and for a while - and having seen the film - you might have bought into the idea that it was another masterpiece from the world's greatest living filmmaker. The problem with Bridge Of Spies, however - and it's one that few seem willing to admit - lies in the complete lack of tension; would we have been so forgiving had this been a Ron Howard film, or a motion picture by Robert Zemeckis? It's easy to be duped by Spielberg, of course; he's a master director with the ability to produce beautiful, elegant and important-feeling movies with his eyes closed. The trouble is that Bridge of Spies never grips you like a Spielberg movie should; there's not a single moment across the length of the picture that shocks or puts you on edge. Spielberg is too determined to play it in safe and sentimental territory, robbing the movie of any bite. That's not to say there is nothing to enjoy: the lush cinematography, the wonderful performances from Tom Hanks and Mark Rylance (nominate him for a Best Supporting Oscar, please), and a rather spectacular action sequence set in the air all ensure this is worth the ticket price. But surely a movie about spies and espionage should be tense?
Sam Hill is an ardent cinephile and has been writing about film professionally since 2008. He harbours a particular fondness for western and sci-fi movies.
