Hmmm. This is an odd situation. For once, I think a Spielberg film has been a tad overpraised, collectively, rather than my usual feeling that there are too many critics too cynical about him.
It's not that there's anything wrong with Bridge of Spies: the acting is fine; the script has witticisms at times; and I don't think anyone now does history with finer and more authentic feel in the art direction than Spielberg.
It's just that I missed an element of tension, and had been expecting a bit more, I guess, intrigue in the story. Out of Spielberg's last few films, I admit, this impressed me less than both War Horse or Lincoln. (And Lincoln was a bit similar in that we already knew the ending - the interest is in how the movie gets there.)
I am also a little surprised that it hasn't had a wingnut backlash in the US, as it can be read as impliedly criticising the handling of those captured by the US in the war on terror, yet Breitbart gave it a glowing review too.
Anyway, it's worth seeing, as Spielberg always is. I just wish I could have been more gushing in praise.