Black Bag.

Review #2359: Black Bag.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Kathryn St. Jean), Michael Fassbender (George Woodhouse), Marisa Abela (Clarissa Dubose), Tom Burke (Freddie Smalls), Naomie Harris (Dr. Zoe Vaughan), Regé-Jean Page (Col. James Stokes), Pierce Brosnan (Arthur Steiglitz), Gustaf Skarsgård (Meacham), Kae Alexander (Anna Ko), and Ambika Mod (Angela Childs) Directed by Steven Soderbergh (#984 - Logan Lucky, #1526 - Traffic, #1889 - Ocean's Eleven)

Review: 

Sure, let's go with a movie like this to throw some variety into the theater experience* for 2025. It probably isn't surprising to note that the movie was written by David Koepp, who had previously co-written Mission: Impossible (1996). It was during the middle of the process of writing that film with doing research that led to the inspiration for what eventually became this film, specifically because he found the personal life of a CIA guy more interesting than the spy stuff when it comes to having difficulty to sustain a relationship. Koepp wrote the script during the writer's strike over the course of a few months; previously, Koepp and Soderbergh worked together on Kimi (2022) and Presence (2024).

You might have an interest in the movie when it comes to "sleek" espionage thrillers...if you are big on the personal life aspects and being tantalized by talking in rooms. It's the kind of movie that admirers will call "the kind of movie Hollywood used to make for adults" and others will call "not nearly as clever as it thinks it is". It is drawn out on dialogue about the uncertainties that, well, come with personal lives with varying levels of blood (personal life or otherwise); Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? might come to mind moreso than Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005). It plays the game of observation and communication to 94 minutes that basically is a reaffirmation of one guy's love for his wife, if you think about it. Sure, one can't speak all they want to their wife about what they do (the term black bag was basically one Koepp made up, but go with it), but they can sure have fun with dinner games and conversation. You might as well call it a sharp smoothness when it comes to the dynamic between Blanchett and Fassbender, who have that sleek conviction in what they like to do (work or each other, either can be listed before the other). It basically starts and ends on separate dinner sequences that see our two leads watch the reactions of the others around them (one instance sees someone get their hand stabbed and then patched up, as one does) for an intimate movie. It is mostly enjoyable to see the game play out in viewing the interactions Fassbinder has with the others around him to set up his part of the trap as a man of the process that is pretty convincing and reflects well upon Blanchett, who has a cutting grace that might as well have the cutting power of a knife on butter. The others are fairly enjoyable in watching their timing when seeing things quickly play out (long story short: who plays who is actually who plays who plays who), which is mostly effective in seeing the vulnerabilities that play out with supposed "cool cucumbers" (as one might say) in Abela or Burke, which is a bit amusing. It casually lets its story elements play out in careful timing, right down to the sequence involving trying to seek out a liar with a lie-detector test. Its milage may vary on just how much one can take in dry suspense, but at least the experience doesn't try to pull the wool over your head and just ends where it feels best to do so. As a whole, it is a generally sleek movie to watch play out in the game of espionage and drawing out tension in the smoothest way possible that will work for those who buy in to what the film yearns to deliver in carefully constructed filmmaking. It is the kind of tight and snappy movie that you might want to see on a comfortable day.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*I don't usually say it, but man, there were no other people watching this movie at 2pm on a Thursday with me. Hell, I saw Anora at 11am to exactly one guy and Novocaine at 4:45 had seven other people.

Tár.

Review #1965: Tár.

Cast: 

Cate Blanchett (Linda Tarr/Lydia Tár), Nina Hoss (Sharon Goodnow), Noémie Merlant (Francesca Lentini), Sophie Kauer (Olga Metkina), Julian Glover (Andris Davis), Allan Corduner (Sebastian Brix), Mark Strong (Eliot Kaplan), Sylvia Flote (Krista Taylor), Adam Gopnik (himself), Mila Bogojevic (Petra), Zethphan Smith-Gneist (Max) Written and Directed by Todd Field.

Review: 

"Well, I'd been thinking about this character for a very long time and sort of been asking myself, you know, some questions of how we look at power, you know? Like, who has it? Who feeds it? Who benefits? You know, and from the beginning of time, that hasn't really been a question."

Admittedly, defining a director by the number of films directed is pretty dubious. But it does lead to interesting discussions, as is the case with Todd Field. Born in Pomona, California but raised in Portland, Oregon, he honed his interests in music and acting, with his debut in the latter being in 1986. His interest in directing came in 1992, which began a slew of short films with the American Film Institute. In 2001, he made his feature film debut as the director and co-writer of In the Bedroom, an independent film success. He returned in 2006 with Little Children, which was a critical hit. However, his third feature film did not come for sixteen years, which occurred due to a variety of projects dying in development (of course, he also had the pleasure of parenthood as well, so he obviously had a point in setting a sight of doing particular material he wanted). Field wrote the script specifically in the hopes of getting Blanchett (and only her) to star in the film. Field might be one of very few people to benefit from a car crash, oddly enough. He had been told by Blanchett's agent that she would be too busy to work on any more projects for three years before he got into a car crash. Apparently, the agent felt sorry enough about hearing of the wreck that she stated that Field could be allowed to send Blanchett the script for her to read, which she liked. All diegetic music (source music) was recorded live on-set, whether that involves the piano, the cello, or the Dresden Philharmonic (used for the fictional orchestra seen in the film).

It is funny and sad at the same time to talk about a movie that came and went with mild fanfare that saw more people talk about the title character and so-called "cancel culture" rather than people seeing it. For the most part, I didn't even find the title character that particularly unlikable, instead finding a twisted pity for seeing how far a bully can go in a downfall when all they wanted to do was to be judged on their own merits that made them both a genius and, well, Tár. Hell, I actually read an article that (jokingly or not) thought that believed Tár was a real person (the name dropping of certain composers that were accused of sexual misconduct, is accurate, however). Field has stated that the film is in many ways a fractured fairy tale (since there has never actually been a female principal conductor of a major German orchestra). I would also say it is also an inversion of both the biopic and ghost story. This is the kind of movie where the lead character finds a mentor in Leonard Bernstein that is basically "I watched tapes of the famed composer and found something worth looking to".  I loathe the idea of calling a movie any certain kind of statement on something, but I will say that it most certainly is not a look into "cancel culture". Actual conductor Marin Alsop (the first woman appointed to lead a major American orchestra) slammed the movie as some sort of film that offended her as a "woman...as a conductor...as a lesbian". Besides, having a few similar characteristics to Alsop isn't particularly a bad thing when one is a movie involving an accused pervert and the other is real life (besides, isn't true equality about having ambiguous characters of all genders rather than sugarcoating?). But this is a movie about the all-corrupting nature of power, one that sees the highs and lows that come with trying to assert their status, which I think is universal beyond the genders (in other words, movies are not always going to be about likable winners making contributions to society, so pick better next time), which corrodes our ideals and fantasies until we don't even recognize ourselves. Besides, a movie can pack plenty of curiosity and interest in a subject with an (perceived) unlikable character if the execution is done right, and I believe that is the case here. Granted, it is a long and winding road to get there, but it ultimately proves worth it to those with the fortitude to see something with as much edge in descent as there is visual style present here.

In a movie with the titling style of a biopic, there is something amusing about that particular character finding it odd to see pupils interested more in the personal history and identity of a musician than their actual work. Blanchett listened to recordings of "razor-sharp, absolutely authentic public intellectual" Susan Sontag. She has stated that the character is basically one who tries to hide from both the unpleasant side of oneself and the inevitable specter of death, which she accomplishes well in ambiguity when you see the contrast between the public and private persona that are driven by sound.  As such, it probably isn't surprising that she dominates the film with a tremendous performance, one composed of such vaunted confidence as a dominator of timing and poise...which makes the eventual descent all the more entertaining. That doesn't mean the other actors are forgettable, since they each do pretty well as mere tools of transactional contrast with Blanchett, whether that involves ones engaging in complicity such as Merlant or the perfect enabler with Hoss or the perfect conniving company man in Strong. Probably the best scene to look upon her as a character is a scene where she is trying to teach a masterclass about composers and finds herself with someone not interested in Johann Sebastian Bach. It works so well in bitter amusement because of how it presents each presence in where each can be thought to be right and wrong in what ends up being a ten-minute masterclass in a long take vivisection (as executed by Field and cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister). It certainly is a movie that captures great scope for its 158-minute runtime, with Hoffmeister defining the film's visual style as "appearance, being, detachment, and intimacy", and I would say that makes this a highly interesting film to let sift in your mind, one where the second half is undoubtedly best to sift through in dissecting a downfall first-hand. Of course, the nature of its ending and the ways it gets there is entirely up to the viewer to see if it pays off in splendid ways or not (it does for me, with those last moments of seeing where the new skin of a genius at persona-inventing has led them). It is a movie all about details to look forward and backward through, one that asks probing questions about just what a genius means when it comes to the power they wield in public and private and where it can all lead to. Whether one believes it is one of the best films of the year or not, Tár is definitely an accomplishment for both its main star and director in striking power that makes it a curious film to recommend for those who look for contemporary enjoyment or to see what could happen the more times they find themselves coming back to it. 

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Monuments Men.

Review #851: The Monuments Men.

Cast:
George Clooney (Lt. Frank Stokes), Matt Damon (Lt. James Granger), Bill Murray (Sgt. Richard Campbell), John Goodman (Sgt. Walter Garfield), Jean Dujardin (2nd Lt. Jean-Claude Clermont), Bob Balaban (Pvt. Preston Savitz), Hugh Bonneville (2nd Lt. Donald Jeffries), Cate Blanchett (Claire Simone), Serge Hazanavicius (René Armand), Sam Hazeldine (Colonel Langton), and Dimitri Leonidas (Pvt. Sam Epstein) Directed by George Clooney.

Review:
Don't worry, the next review will be something in horror. This one just happened to come up.
It's clear that Clooney (who also wrote and produced the movie along with Grant Heslov) wanted to make a good movie about a real life event (while based on the book "The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History" by Robert M. Edsel and Bret Witter), with a fairly established cast and a fair budget of $70 million. The end result however comes off as just an average kind of production that really seems lacking in its own kind of personality. The light-hearted barbs throughout the movie are good, but there really isn't much to these characters that you wouldn't see in any other corny kind of work. It's not so much that these characters are uninteresting, it's that the actors (such as Murray) can only stretch it as far as the script wants them to go (with the set up for these characters also being a problem). Clooney is vaguely there as a main character, with only the end scene being noteworthy, in showing some sort of emotion. Damon is only interesting when paired with Blanchett, but it doesn't go anywhere unexpected. Murray and Balaban are fine, but I still wish there was something to the background of even just one of these characters. Even taking into account some of the historical quibbles, it's not really anything that entirely special. The movie is just a bit under two hours, but it feels so long to the point where I was wondering when it actually will get to to some sort of action. It's not that the movie would've been better with more war action, it's that the movie takes its time to actually get to searching for the art. While I admit that I didn't hate the experience of watching it, I kept feeling that reading a book or documentary based on the real life Monuments Men would've been a bit more substantial. The movie does have wonderful scenery, but it is wasted in a movie that really seems to go nowhere other than just through some vague sort of motions. If you're looking for a movie to watch late at night to sleep on or watching it for an Art class (like I did), I suppose it could work on some level for you, but you might be better off researching the subject matter instead.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Review #302: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Indiana Jones), Cate Blanchett (Irina Spalko), Karen Allen (Marion Ravenwood), Shia LaBeouf (Mutt Williams), Ray Winstone (George "Mac" Michale), John Hurt (Professor Oxley), Jim Broadbent (Dean Charles Stanforth), and Igor Jijikine (Dovchenko) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, and #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade)

Review

REVISED: Rating now 7/10 (June 30, 2023)

When I first reviewed the Indiana Jones films, I actually considered watching this film, having four films all reviewed together. And yet there was some sort of opposition to the thought of watching this, so I relented and didn't review it. But guess what? I've decided to review this anyway to either bring the (so-called) level of happiness from the big milestone yesterday or to just finish the (possibly) the final chapter of the Indiana Jones franchise. So how is it? Well...Let's get to the pros and cons first. Harrison Ford does his best, once again having a good performance, 19 years removed from the character but still a good one. As such, the film decides to segue into the 1950s (Indy couldn't always fight the same kind of enemy, so I'll give this a small praise), and it works in some ways...and not in others. And then there's Shia LaBeouf. He is...Not very developed, unless you count "Indy's son", "Guy with jacket", "So called rebel" as development. Perhaps they meant to make it a parallel to Last Crusade, with the old father and young son working together, but it doesn't work as well, as LaBeouf doesn't connect well with Ford.

I do like Cate Blanchett as the villain, she is far different from the other villains in previous installments, but she gives a strange unrecognizable allure that works for the most part. What I don't care for is the character of Mac (though played decently by Ray Winstone), and his "triple-agent" outline. It's pointless and not very useful. The rest of the acting and characters are alright. Allen returns to the role of Ravenwood after 27 years, and she does a fine job, even though I wish the dialogue between Ford and Allen would've had more time to develop, as it is as good as the two were in 1981. The action is mildly decent, having some enjoyment. And then there is the rest of the film. First off, there's the Fridge scene. While it does raise questions on how you could escape an explosion with a fridge, think back to when Indy escaped death by jumping off a plane with a raft and landing on a mountain side along with falling off the side and landing into a river. That sounds a bit more unrealistic, though the other questions don't escape this film. Such as why the sudden plot explosion after Mutt is introduced? Why the reveal of the beings (that I won't spoil) to begin with? Why do they look weird and not trying to resemble the era they're from to begin with? Why is Mutt even in here? Why is there no Sallah? Why is not as recognizable as the other three? That question I can answer. Because while it tries to capture the spirit of the trilogy, it stumbles in some ways even with some slight advantages to make an uneven disappointment.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.