September 9, 2016, - 4:34 am

Weekend Box Office: Sully, Our Little Sister

By Debbie Schlussel


Even though it’s now September, I feel like I’m still stuck in the August pet cemetery of movies, where Hollywood sends crappy movies to die a quick and painless death. Sad to say, that applies to both of the new movies in theaters today (go see the excellent “Hell or High Water” instead–I’ll try to post a review later today). Neither “The Disappointments Room” nor “When the Bough Breaks” were screened for critics (a sure sign that they’re stinkers).

* Sully – Rated PG-13: This movie’s been getting a lot of buzz, promotion, and Oscar talk. Don’t believe the hype. It’s a nothing and a big fat lie. The “Miracle on the Hudson” has been transformed in a reverse-Rumpelstiltskin to Bullcrap on the Silver Screen, complete with totally made-up villains who never existed and make-believe drama that never happened. The Brothers Grimm ain’t got nothin’ on this fairy tale.

I wondered how they were going to make a movie about something that’s a short, cut-and-dried event in real life: a pilot, Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger (here played by a mustachioed Tom Hanks) masterfully lands a plane in the Hudson River, after both engines of the plane are blown out by birds. Miraculously, everyone on board survives. End of story. At least . . . that was the end of the real, true-life story, which is at best a 20-minute movie. Director Clint Eastwood needed drama and something with which to fill this slow, mundane storyline so it lasts another hour and some change. So what did he do? He and scriptwriter Todd Komarnicki bring us a completely fabricated, phony story in which the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is a villainous group of the usual stock Hollywood baddies: fat, old, bald White men (and one White chick) who constantly second-guess and chastise Sully for not returning the plane to the airport or landing at another one nearby. That’s more than half of the movie. (By the way, since Blacks are clamoring for more roles in movies, why didn’t they cast any Black people as the frowning, indignant, moralizing NTSB villains? Don’t Black actor’s lives matter? Just askin’.)

But, in fact, NONE of that ever happened, as well-documented in a Bloomberg News story. Yes, there was the usual, typical NTSB investigation–as there has been, is, and would be in the case of any such emergency landing in a river. But, in real life, it was a formality, and the NTSB never attacked or criticized Sullenberger’s water landing as is depicted throughout this hour-and-thirty-five-minute-long movie. In fact, the NTSB officials praised Sully for his landing, and he praised them in “his” book, “Highest Duty: My Search for What Really Matters,” on which this movie is supposed to be based (but barely is). [Full disclosure: the late Detroit-based journalist and best-selling author, Jeff Zaslow (a Wall Street Journal reporter)–the actual author of the Sully book (he gets co-author credit but actually wrote the whole thing)–was a friend of mine, a reader of this site, and a mensch who comforted me when my late dad was dying of cancer. We spoke about Sully and the book several times in writing and over the phone (including about the Sully sex stuff, below, which he found out about from my site). Sully spoke at his funeral. Zaslow wrote an article about me in the Wall Street Journal that I hated, but my dad loved it.]

The fact that the movie is a complete lie and defames the NTSB officials doesn’t seem to phase Sully. Apparently, Sully likes to sully others. He not only appears in the movie during the ending credits, but he is pimping the movie all over the place because he profits from it–he sold the rights to his book for this endeavor. Cha-ching! And that makes him a lot less of a “hero” than America originally gave him credit for. He was already something of a jerk in my eyes because, as I pointed out on this site, he and his wife appeared on NBC’s “Today” show to tell the world about their “rock star” sex-life after the landing on the Hudson. Um, TOO. MUCH. INFORMATION!

Yeah, this whole thing went to greedy fame-whore Sully’s head. And that’s why he probably can live with this over-hyped, hyperbolic “version” of what happened, when it is just total fiction, and he’s admitted as much on at least one TV interview I saw when asked about the NTSB dust-up and whether it really happened. But, then, he and Clint Eastwood also pimp the phony version told in this movie in a promotional video trailer they recently made. By the way, after the Hudson landing, Sully quickly quit piloting the friendly skies to become yet another motivational speaker (because America has a shortage of those and needs more!).

I hate this kind of movie because we know that morons across America will believe that the BS they see on screen is reality a la Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”

On top of this, to create more drama and–frankly–filler, the movie shows several “nightmares” Sully has of crashing his plane into buildings a la the 9/11 attacks, which is tone-deaf, given that the movie opens just two days before the 15th anniversary of those attacks. There’s also a nightmare in which he dreams that Katie Couric attacks him for landing in the Hudson. This is absurd, and I highly doubt any of that ever happened either. There are at least three of these dumb “imaginations.”

On top of that, the movie is filled with the mundanity of the heroic pilot’s post-Hudson-landing life. Do you find it exciting to see an old guy in a mustache, jogging? Then, this is your movie, as there are several scenes of that. Or how about an airline official bringing Sully a change of clothes, including socks, undies, and a sweatshirt? Wow, exciting. Only a vacuous movie needs these empty calories to fill time and space. And, then, there are the several tear-filled, overwrought phone conversations with Sully’s wife (in real life, she’s the “I’m having rock-star sex with Sully, America!” chick). He tells her he can’t fly again or come home until the NTSB investigation by the evil guys is over. Again, THAT. NEVER. HAPPENED.

Then, there are the weird scenes in which a TV makeup artist kisses Sully and a hotel manager hugs him. Did these things happen? I don’t know or care. Cuz’ I found this boring as heck, even with the casting of Aaron Eckhart (whom I normally like) as Sully’s also-mustachioed co-pilot. His presence in the movie seems like a forced bro-mance . . . and for him to utter F-bombs (and maybe to have a fellow member in the Mustache Hair Club for Men–is he not only a member, but also the president?).

The only exciting part of the movie is the depiction of what actually happened when the plane flew, collided with birds, had its emergency landing on the Hudson, and then the passengers got rescued. That showed the best in Sully and the best in America–including 1,200 (according to the movie) first-responders and others who rescued everyone. But it is so sullied (“Sully-ed”?) with flashbacks and flash-forwards that it’s a choppy, herky-jerky mess.

We already know the real story. Why pay and waste time to watch the underwhelming lie-filled version?

Time for Clint Eastwood to retire . . . along with his prevaricating scriptwriter.

I’m glad the 155 passengers and crew landed safely and lived. Sadly, I’m not happy that this fraud-on-film will also have a safe landing. With all the undeserved hype it’s getting on TV and in pop culture, it’s sure to top the box office this weekend.

But it deserves to crash and burn.


Watch the trailer . . .

* Our Little Sister [Umimachi Diary]– Rated PG: I’ve seen some really great, moving Japanese movies (such as “Departures”–read my review). This was not one of them. I found this movie to be slow, boring, and utterly pointless. Like what befell Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this too is an atomic bomb. (What–too soon?) I guess if you have more than two hours of your life to waste and absolutely nothing to do whatsoever (plus you’ve already seen every other movie and other source of entertainment ever made), this would be okay. I struggled to stay awake, waiting for a little something to happen that never did. And, again, it’s more than two hours long. Yaaaawn.

The story: three 20-something Japanese sisters go to their estranged father’s funeral in the country. He left them decades ago after cheating on their mother, and they have little connection to him. Their mother, who is still alive, also left them, after their father’s cheating and leaving, and they live together in their mother’s former house in the city.

When they go to the funeral, the the girls meet their younger, teen-aged half-sister, who is the product of the union of their father’s affair and then marriage to the woman that broke up the three sister’s parents marriage. The woman has since died, and their father is now married to wife number three (who has a baby with him and a boy from a previous marriage). Yeah, I know, it sounds like a soap opera, a dysfunctional family, or merely a start in your typical, normal NBA player’s set of extended family and baby-mamas.

The three older sisters invite their younger half-sister to come live with them, as–with the death of their father–she now has no one.

The rest of the movie shows us the three sisters’ humdrum lives, and it’s hard to keep track of them because at least two of them look very alike. Yeah, I know, that sounds “RAAAAAYCIST!” But, sorry, they look as alike as actresses Sally Struthers and Jacki Weaver do (and they’re White). Not that I cared about these sisters. You learn nothing about them, and they’re boring. One works at a bank, another works at a hospital (apparently as a nurse), and another works at a sporting goods store. One sister is having an affair with a married man who won’t leave his wife for her but wants her to move to Boston with him, and another sister quickly goes through boyfriends. The young half-sister plays soccer at her new school and has a boyfriend. Then, the movie–running out of boring things to tell us about these sisters, starts introducing us to other boring and melancholy characters, including a woman who owns a diner, but is dying of cancer.

And the purpose of this movie is . . . I’m not sure. But it’s useless to me, and will be to you. Nothing offensive about it. But nothing worthwhile about it either.

A total waste of time.


Watch the trailer . . .

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

33 Responses

I was looking forward to seeing this movie, as I followed the incident carefully when it happened. But after watching the trailer in a theater last week, I did not recall “Sully” being chastised or persecuted for the landing in the river. At the time I saw the trailer, I said to my wife that this should be a good movie if “they” don’t do what they did to “Captain Phillips,” in which Tom Hanks starred; referring to the drama and the poor fate and circumstances of the pirates, etc. A total disappointment for me.

Thanks Debbie for the review on “Sully,” as I won’t be wasting my time watching it. I might add that the re-writing of history falls directly in line with what being taught in our educational system and in the legal documents, where “they” only record what fits their agenda. Ex: all references to islam have been redacted about the Orlando shooting. And Debbie, you’re right. Most people believe only what they see on TV (any channel), the movies, or in print without researching anything further.

unholyone on September 9, 2016 at 9:49 am

Thanks DS. Had no idea of the NTSB issue and of course – began to google it. I see the recent stmts by ex-NTSB complaining (and even a pre-movie airline site worrying it got it wrong) – but clearly from 2010 the NTSB DID try and suggest Sully could have made it back to LaGuardia ( More interesting, at, many pilots are discussing that while yes – it’s likely the film needed ‘artistic license’ to create conflict so it wouldn’t be a snoozefest – but that YES, pilots are subjected to extreme and uncomfortable invasions following an inquiry. Here is an example:
Doug P
Isn’t it unfortunate that we, as professional pilots, accept the “witch hunt” as being a normal part of our jobs? I agree a thorough investigation is paramount, but sometimes it has come off as a “witch hunt”. Can’t wait to see the movie! Hopefully it’s better than “Flight” was.

August 29, 2016
Eric Auxier
I agree, sometimes investigations do seem to come off as a witch hunt. I’m not quite sure this was the case, but it certainly seems the movie will be portraying it that way. As I mentioned in the article, even if it’s a “standard” investigation, to the players it would probably seem like a witch hunt. I certainly wouldn’t want to be on the receiving end of it!
Thanks for your comment.

I simply can’t watch a biographical movie anymore without finding a fact vs fiction followup, but I do appreciate the incredibly difficulty it takes to craft entertainment. If these pilots (above) are correct that the investigations are overboard in general – I have no problem with the film taking a bit of license. Although, this is one area where I think we WANT the govt to err on the side of caution if nothing more than a deterrent to other professionals. BELIEVING a govt investigation is a whole other issue.

In this age of (justified IMO) public distrust of govt, I’m sure it will play with audiences. But I’m slightly shocked you feel JFK was off base. I recommend RECLAIMING PARKLAND, SURVIVOR’S GUILT, and LEE & ME. GUILT is from actual Secret Service agent testimony and LEE if by a friend of Oswald’s. Here are just two quotes most ignore:

As far as the assassination is concerned, it is my belief that there was a conspiracy, because there were those that disliked [President Kennedy] and felt the only way to get rid of him was to assassinate him.

—Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary

The [Dallas] motorcade route made absolutely no sense from a security standpoint.—John F. Norris, U.S. Secret Service uniformed officer

If someone truly believes everything our govt does is honest and straightforward, they might want to read the declassified records of the Gulf of Tonkin incident.

PJ: The VERY FIRST sentence of the article you site states, “[B]ut under the circumstances the “captain’s decision to ditch into the Hudson River was the better choice, documents released Tuesday by a federal safety panel said.” So, in fact, what I wrote is correct. And there is nothing in the article to suggest that there was a series of weeks-long NTSB haranguing episodes questioning Sully, as the movie claims. Pilots’ comments are irrelevant to my review. What’s relevant is what the NTSB did and said. And those–including the link you posted–back up the point of my review. So does Sully’s book, in which he praises the NTSB and their investigation of him–the book upon which the movie is supposed to be based.

There is a stark difference between “artistic license” as you put it and flat-out fiction (which is basically racist, anti-White defamation). As far as the NTSB goes–which is most of the movie–this is the latter. It’s just BS. DS

PolitiJim on September 9, 2016 at 11:01 am

    PJ, yes, “Reclaiming Parkland” and “Survivors’ Guilt” are excellent, well-researched, and thoroughly annotated books on the subject of the JFK assassination.

    Readers here might also be interested to know that Bill O’Reilly had once down some excellent investigative reporting on the JFK assassination. His main source was writer and investigator Gaeton Fonzi, whose book, “The Last Investigation,” is another first-rate book on the assassination.

    Here’s a clip of one of O’Reilly’s reports:

    Of course, O’Reilly sold out long ago, and anything he says now is worthless, as he’s just a mouthpiece for the Elite Establishment that bought him, lock, stock, and barrel, years ago and made him wealthy and a star.

    It’s a shame that perjury charges were never brought against the CIA’s David Atlee Phillips.

    But, of course, to the naive and ignorant, the fact that no charges were brought against him was just a wild coincidence or a simple Congressional slip-up.

    I mean, when no charges are brought up for high ranking officials, or former officials, it’s not like anyone is protecting them or anything. Right? So you don’t have to ask questions about why they are being protected, right?

    Ralph Adamo on September 10, 2016 at 11:27 pm

Thanks Debbie for this review of Sully, I was looking forward to seeing it but now will wait for it to be on TV and then just watch the water landing scene.

SSgt Preston, USMC on September 9, 2016 at 12:51 pm

Thank you so much for your in depth and truthful reviews Debbie. You do a better job than that Fox News clown Kevin McCarthy. I cracked the heck up on your pants on fire symbols and you should use those the next time Hillary Clinton does a press conference. I was on the fence about seeing “Sully” because of Hanks being a big libtard Obama supporter but with your review I’ll wait until it comes on prime time TV in a few years. As to the other movie I’ve been to Japan several times so why would I go and waste 6.50 to see it on film. As to the actresses looking alike. The same could be said of Natalie Portman, Kiera Knightly and Daisy Ridley. Those three could pass as sisters and mentioning it isn’t racist. Now if they were Black that’d be a different story.

Ken B on September 9, 2016 at 1:40 pm


Welcome back. I’m just getting caught up. I was hoping you would do a review of the latest Ghostbusters movie. It seems the Hollywood crapfest continues unabated. Perhaps this will motivate people to start reading books, or perhaps not.

Peter on September 9, 2016 at 3:43 pm

Well, you got to hear about a cancer patient who owns a diner. What else could you ask for? 😉

Worry on September 9, 2016 at 5:12 pm

I’ve looked into the Sully story and it’s easy to agree that this cinematic version is sheer fiction.

And it would HAVE to be in order to make a full, normal length movie.

As the Dov SS Simens, the great teacher of filmmaking (who taught Quentin Tarantino, Chris Nolan, and many others) put it, if your genre is action/drama, you’ve got to have “Uh-Ohs” (problems) occur every 10-12 minutes, quickly followed by an “Oh-Shit” (further complication), with the “Oh-My-G-ds” occurring about five to ten minutes prior to the ending of the story. Simens’ analysis of properly entertaining an audience is right on the money, simplistic as it may appear.

For Sully’s real story, we basically have the “Uh-Oh,” followed by the “Oh-Shit,” followed by the “Oh-My-G-d” in the span of about 20 to 30 minutes max. So to fill out the movie to Simmens’ requirments for a 2 hour movie, the writer has to invent a lot of stuff.

As for the comparison to Oliver Stone’s JFK, a subject that I have considerable expertise in, I must disagree.

First, the story/events of the movie JFK were primarily authored by co-writer Zachary Sklar, not Oliver Stone. Sklar also wrote a good part of the dialogue.

Second, when Stone optioned Jim Garrison’s “On the Trail of the Assassins” for his film project, he hired Sklar, who was Garrison’s editor, and was well versed in investigations into the JFK assassination that the Warren Commission failed to do.

Third, Stone and Sklar issued a book entitled “JFK: The Book of the Film” (Applause Screenplay) in 2000 that provides the factual source for every event described in the movie, so that anyone can research the support. If some person or event was fictitious, that too was disclosed. For example, the character played by Kevin Beacon was a composite of several individuals. Additionally, the book also includes articles published by those who have attacked Stone’s film, and some of Stone’s, Sklar’s, or others’ rebutalls to those critiques. How much mroe fair and balanced could you get?

Fourth, as I have considerable expertise in the the sources on which the screenplay and the film were based, I can attest to the accuracy with which those sources were applied.

Fifth, since the movie and book of the movie were released, there has been new information uncovered about the assassination and the U.S. Government’s coverup of it. That new information only supports the original thesis of Stone’s movie, and a remake of it would only have even more supporting detail.

Probably the best and most thorughly researched book on the subject of the JFK assassination is “JFK: Why He Died and Why It Matters,” by James Douglass. Everything is footnoted, and explained in considerable detail, to the extent the facts are available.

Unfortunately, many facts of the JFK assasination will never be proven because the Government destroyed the evidence in violation of the law. One of the good things to come out of the JFK movie was a new law that specifically prohibited the destruction of evidence pertaining to the assassination. This law came about directly as a result of the public’s positive reaction to Stone’s movie.

However, the Government soon violated the law. Most people don’t know about this, but there was a parallel assassination plot against JFK in Chicago, only weeks before the Dallas trip. Had that plan succeeded, JFK would have been killed in Chicago, and instead of pinning the crime on the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald, the Chicago patsy would have been Thomas Arthur Vallee, like Oswald, an ex-Marine. That plot was foiled, and JFK’s trip to Chicago was cancelled.

The FBI knew all about this plot prior to the Dallas trip, as did Secret Service agents assigned to the Chicago trip. But none of the Secret Service agents assigned to the Dallas detail were alerted to the Chicago plot that foiled only weeks earlier. Requests were made for the FBI’s and the Secret Services files on the Chicago plot, but those were subsequently destroyed after receiving those requests. Of course, nobody was punished or even reprimanded for destroying the evidence in violation of law. In fact, I’m sure that if an investigation were actually conducted regarding the destruction of evidence, we’d find that the people in charge of the destruction of evidence were promoted.

If anyone is truly interested in the facts, here’s a fairly good summary of the Chicago plot, largely based on Douglass’s book and analysis.

I wish that Debbie would stop writing about the valid attacks on the official Government story with the assumption that the Government’s story is true. She has not researched the subject and to be perfectly frank, knows next to nothing about it. If she wants to be truthful, she should just say that others believe that JFK is total fiction, but she hasn’t personally studied the matter enough to say anything one way or the other.

If people want to remain ignorant about the JFK assassination, that is certainly their choice. But if they chose to remain ignorant, they should not be openly supporting or attacking the U.S. Government’s official story without disclosing that they don’t know much about the matter.

Ralph Adamo on September 9, 2016 at 5:15 pm

I also wish that you could have done a review of the 2016 “Ghostbusters” movie. I saw this movie and I wasn’t impressed by it. It wasn’t as enjoyable as the original 1984 movie and I wish you could have reviewed it. I’d have loved to see you eviscerate that movie. It’s a shame you didn’t do that. I’d have enjoyed that immensely.

Ghostwriter on September 9, 2016 at 11:50 pm

Hi dear Debbie so wonderful to see you back!Thanks for sharing and God Bless you Dear Debbie!

TIRDAD GHARIB on September 10, 2016 at 12:58 am

I was wondering why Eastwood thought it worthwhile to make a movie about you know a pilot who lands a plane on the Hudson after birds took out its engine/s. I mean yes and what else?? Did the passengers get abducted by aliens, pass through a worm hole, did the plane turn into a submarine and travel to China where the passengers joined a travelling circus? I mean what the heck? Eastwood like Woody Allen should just retire. But I think it’s a psychological thing, a fear of death, of boredom, all they know to do is immerse themselves in movies. Within a month after Eastwood and Allen retire, they will both be dead. Or they will both collapse behind the camera.

Lawrence on September 10, 2016 at 7:38 am

He had 40 years of experience in the air and will be judged by making one crappy @$$ movie…

James Delgado on September 10, 2016 at 4:02 pm

I look forward to Debbie’s reviews. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I don’t. I like Tom Hanks. I like Clint Eastwood. I like the story. I’m going to see this one.

TOMMY THOMAS on September 10, 2016 at 5:30 pm

Suspected as much re Sully movie. Skilled heavy transport pilot does something right, and everything aligns. Good and as you say whole story — 20 minutes.

So, the movie, unfortunately, shows the lack of or degradation of character and opting for the limelight and big bucks — becoming all too common in our celebrity, and empty society.

I mourn for Eastwood.

ra2216 on September 10, 2016 at 10:23 pm

I saw “Sully” Saturday night. It was a great movie, in no way a slight to the heroes of that day or the spirited defense by the pilots during the FAA inquiry. Clint Eastwood retire? No way. At 86, he’s just getting started.

Primetime on September 11, 2016 at 11:58 pm

Debbie, what did you think of the recent slate of fairly Jewish-themed movies, Indignation, A Tale of Love and Darkness, Ben-Hur, and War Dogs? I especially enjoyed the first two.

Bee on September 12, 2016 at 3:00 am

Welcome back. Those of us who look forward to your insight and movie opinions now feel more complete.

My wife and I have always enjoyed going to the movies. In a strange way we have always felt like miners digging for gold. Lots of work and disappointment before finding a nugget. Your reviews have always saved us “hours of our lives that we can never get back”. Overall we agree with your movie assessment most of the time.

On Sully I think you missed the mark. If you go to the movies to be entertained and to maybe even learn something then Sully is the movie to see. It is grossly unfair to reduce one of the greatest flying feats of all time down to a 20 minute story. They took off, flew to 2800 feet, hit some birds, the engines went out, landed in the Hudson river and had all of the 155 SOB (souls on board) saved. Clint Eastwood and Tom Hanks, et al, taking plenty of poetic license, gave life to an incredible story. If your reason for going to a movie is to be entertained and (with any luck) find a hero (real or imagined i.e. Superman) then this is the movie to see. I am sorry you have such negative things to say about such a entertaining movie accomplishment.

Wishing you the best of health and well being.

Steven Jablon on September 12, 2016 at 10:17 am

    Sorry Mr. Jablon, but this is not even in the top 5000 greatest flying feats of all time. The biggest take away here is that Sully made a quick decision and stuck to it. He’s a trained glider pilot, so ditching in the Hudson wasn’t unchartered territory or rather, an unfamiliar concept to him. I’m glad it had a happy ending but aside from being an unusual occurrence, it simply isn’t the stuff miracles are made of. Eastwood took a 3 minute event and turned it into a 90 minute fantasy. There are far more worthy air disasters deserving of the big screen, this isn’t one of them. See my last post for a TRUE hero and flight miracle.

    Lixen on September 13, 2016 at 9:03 pm

Would have liked to read your profile in the WSJ, but it is behind a paywall. Suggestions on how to read it?

Toby Flenderson on September 12, 2016 at 5:48 pm

All the more reason why I don’t waste what good time I have left here on earth to watch anything out of ‘H’-wood. As we get older, we start to realize that what good time we have left must be guarded with all the more discretion. Too many times I paid good $$ and went into the ‘dark room’ only to start to think why I did this…waste of good time and money. They can all go broke….would make my day.

Dave on September 13, 2016 at 12:21 pm

Debbie, I tweeted this link to you earlier but I’m going to post it here for good measure.. For anyone wanting to watch a documentary about the greatest hero pilot ever, and the greatest flight miracle in all of history, please watch this. (It’s truly a shame Hollywood can’t make a film about something deserving and worthy as opposed to sensational and superficial.) Please watch.. you’ll be glad you did –>

Lixen on September 13, 2016 at 8:23 pm

I used to like Hanks’s movies but once he was in Charlie Wilson’s War where he played the useful idiot who taught Muslims they could defeat a superpower I could never watch him again, as even back then I was appalled by the actions of the CIA in doing so. The only exception since was in those rubbish Dan Brown movies where he kinda fitted in, on TV. Hopefully this represents a turnaround but by the sounds of it watching it can wait until this movie is available on something like Netflix.

Bronson on September 15, 2016 at 4:45 am

As I say many times we stopped going to movies many years ago when they started trying to brainwash movie patrons with PC BS.
Why make them rich? There is nothing out there worth seeing. Why waste an hour or hours of your life being offended by bad acting, no story, loud many times rap soundtrack and unattractive actors and actresses.

Fred on September 15, 2016 at 5:46 pm

Always an eye opening read by Debbie. Sure saves me time and money knowing such a fiery soul can get down to the essential each and every time. Thanks

Jay Bielski on September 16, 2016 at 6:54 am

Oh Debbie who are you voting for?

Jay Bielski on September 16, 2016 at 6:56 am

The biggest take away here is that Sully made a quick decision and stuck to it. He’s a trained glider pilot, so ditching in the Hudson wasn’t unchartered territory or rather, an unfamiliar concept to him. I watched Sully last on Terrarium TV app. It was somewhat ridiculous. If you want to want watch Sully and Littelt sister for free download Terrariumtv app from

Binny on October 28, 2016 at 2:39 am

I watched this over the weekend mainly because I was intrigued with the incident. I think it did a good job getting us inside the head of Sully and to show things more from his perspective. It covered a lot of what took place and accurately portrayed what happened inside the cockpit. The seconds before hitting the water was intense.

But you are right. The drama didn’t work, especially knowing that there really wasn’t any in the real life investigation. At least not anywhere close to what was depicted in the movie. The NTSB really got the short end of the stick here and I don’t think it is entirely fair.

But it is a movie, it is Hollywood, this is what happens. You can watch this movie for free on Bobby HD movie app.

Bobby movie box on December 12, 2016 at 1:23 am

Sully is an amazing movie and I think it did a good job getting us inside the head of Sully and to show things more from his perspective. It covered a lot of what took place and accurately portrayed what happened inside the cockpit. The seconds before hitting the water was intense.

vShare Apk Download on iOS 9.3.1 on December 29, 2016 at 2:27 am

Watched this today. A good one. For anyone wanting to watch a documentary about the greatest hero pilot ever, and the greatest flight miracle in all of history, please watch this.

megabox on March 6, 2017 at 6:15 am

The demand for dental education is growing like anything these days. To cure yourself from all those dental issues watch movies on Videomix app.

cinema box app android on January 12, 2018 at 7:42 am

I actually liked Sully, before reading up on what really happened. Too bad that almost all historical based movies are mostly fiction. Especially bad are the Holocaust movies that are shown in schools as fact.

JoeG on May 30, 2018 at 8:17 pm

Awesome share nice to read this post

Viewster on August 25, 2018 at 8:40 am

There is a new version of Showbox is available in our website. Go and download APK now

showbox on November 9, 2018 at 2:10 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field