In my MMM review of the campaign for Bridge of Spies I wrote this at the conclusion:
Everything about the campaign makes it clear this is VERY IMPORTANT and that what we’re being asked to watch is PROFOUNDLY MEANINGFUL.
That’s pretty accurate and a good representation of the movie itself. Spielberg’s direction and script go back and forth between scenes where the lawyer played by Tom Hanks admits to being out of his depth and unsure of how – or if – to proceed and ones where he has made up his mind and is determined to, if nothing else, bluff his way into and out of the situations he finds himself in. That’s not necessarily a problem, but it sometimes leads to what seems to be inconsistent characterizations.
I felt like some of the dialogue that’s featured in the trailers lands with a thud in the context of the movie itself. Not only is the context for much of the dialogue much different than how it’s presented in the trailer (not that surprising, this happens literally all the time) but it’s as if the screenplay felt it necessary to give Hanks at least one BIG STATEMENT in each scene, regardless of whether it felt organic to the conversation it’s in the middle of.
The campaign didn’t do anything to misrepresent the movie, I don’t think, aside from the occasional switching around of dialogue to create more tension in those trailers. The only other issue I had was that an entire subplot that forms the drama of the movie’s second half is almost completely absent from the campaign. And I can’t think of a good reason for it to be other than the studio and filmmakers wanting to keep some surprise from the audience. Considering, though, how much is revealed in the campaign this seems like kind of a random omission.
