Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Michael Fassbender. Show all posts

March 15, 2025

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.

September 29, 2020

Inglourious Basterds.


Review #1551: Inglourious Basterds.

Cast: 
Brad Pitt (Lt. Aldo "The Apache" Rain), Mélanie Laurent (Shosanna Dreyfus/Emmanuelle Mimieux), Christoph Waltz (Hans Landa), Eli Roth (Sgt. Donny "The Bear Jew" Donowitz), Michael Fassbender (Lt. Archie Hicox), Diane Kruger (Bridget von Hammersmark), Daniel Brühl (Pfc. Fredrick Zoller), Til Schweiger (Sgt. Hugo Stiglitz), Gedeon Burkhard (Corporal Wilhelm Wicki), Jacky Ido (Marcel), B. J. Novak (Pfc. Smithson "The Little Man" Utivich), Omar Doom (Pfc. Omar Ulmer), Samm Levine (Pfc. Gerold Hirschberg), and August Diehl (Dieter Hellstrom) Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino (#638 - Kill Bill: Volume 1, #639 - Kill Bill: Volume 2, #1180 - Reservoir Dogs, #1218 - Pulp Fiction, #1251 - Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and #1307 - Jackie Brown)

Review: 
"Some people will like Inglourious Basterds. Some people won't. But it was made with all the passion I've made everything with - except maybe my first film, which was probably made with more passion than I'll ever have again."

Doing a Quentin Tarantino film can be quite an experience, depending on one's moods for his particular style towards filmmaking that have made him an interesting auteur with ten released features in the span of over two decades, which are generally known for their handling of violence, ensemble casting and drawing upon films and other media. Tarantino spent ten years writing the film, but he apparently could not come up with an ending at first. He has stated his desire to make a spaghetti western but as a World War II film, one that could forward the war-mission subgenre with more artistic movement. Of course he also believes that the opening chapter of the film was the best thing he had written since True Romance (1993), so cut it however you like it.

It's rather amazing with all the spectacle and time built into making a 153 minute film that goes where it wants with dual stories (alongside a significant amount of dialogue spoken in Italian, French, and German) and many actors making an appearance (such as a brief nod for Rod Taylor and Mike Myers, believe it or not) that it all comes down to being remarkably average. I don't really know what I was expecting, but while I found some of it fairly enjoyable when it comes to exploitation material, other parts seem to go on for quite a bit longer than they really should and it really seems like a case of too much boldness where it needs to be less. His films are definitely ones that could desire multiple viewings, but I really didn't latch onto this one that much to really think I'll go back and just look on it again anytime soon (which is strange, since I re-watched his subsequent film Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) and actually liked it better than I already did, and that also is a sprawling film involving alternate history). For something that aspires for sprawling story, it really feels like two hollow ends of the same instrument. Pitt leads the film with reasoned edge, confident in exactly what is needed for someone needing to deal in blunt vengeance. Somehow, Laurent didn't really seemed to connect well here, as if somehow one desires more interest in the other structure of revenge than passiveness that really didn't make as much an impression as I might've liked, which is probably important with the whole "let's burn it all down" time spent - she might be shown as bigger-than-life, but it sure doesn't translate to a big factor of focus. Of course this could also apply to Fassbender or Kruger as well, since they both feature in a whole sequence involving accents, a guessing game, and exactly what you might expect in tedium. Waltz is the best part of the whole film, honestly. It seems strange that of a diverse grab-bag of international actors that it is the one involved in television and film since the late 1970s (in either German or English language) as a native of Austria that outranks the rest, capturing a great adversary of courteous and sardonic skill. Roth (occasional actor and director of films such as Cabin Fever) makes the most impression of the title characters, mostly because of a bravado to go with a big swing.

I have given a bit of slack to films that resonate in entertainment despite perhaps lacking in depth. For this, I just can't really give this that much to grab on because I feel that it is just okay at actually executing itself in boldness beyond a few tricks of war films past and an attempt at making revenge and action seem more than it really is. It brandishes itself in camp and fervor that does do fine with some of its sequences in generating shock or a bit of smile, and the opening sequence is at the very least a useful to set itself up on the right track. Pitt and Waltz do enough to carry a film in casual interest of sidestepping history that mostly make up for a film with flickering energy to actually land its convictions and passion it yearns to have, but it certainly could provide a curiosity for those interested in its presentation and its vision to get there.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

May 31, 2014

Movie Night: X-Men: Days of Future Past.


Review #584: X-Men: Days of Future Past.

Cast
Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier/Professor X), Michael Fassbender and Ian McKellen (Erik Lehnsherr/Magneto), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), Halle Berry (Storm), Nicholas Hoult and Kelsey Grammer (Hank McCoy/Beast), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), Peter Dinklage (Bolivar Trask), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake/Iceman), Omar Sy (Bishop), Daniel Cudmore (Colossus), Evan Peters (Peter Maximoff/Quicksilver), Fan Bingbing (Blink), Adan Canto (Sunspot), Booboo Stewart (Warpath), Josh Helman (William Stryker) and Anna Paquin (Rogue) Directed by Bryan Singer (#008 - X-Men and #010 - X2: X-Men United)

Review
It's been a while since I've reviewed a X-Men film (The two I just listed along with #010 - X-Men: The Last Stand, #042 - X-Men: First Class), but here we are once again. This is a movie that tries to connect two timelines of this franchise and make them work (that and try and fix the problems of X-Men: The Last Stand), with the main connection being Jackman. With such a big cast and such a tall task, does this movie meet up to code? Of course. The movie manages to have good action scenes and a dynamic cast that you (mostly) forget all the confusing aspects of this movie (such as Cyclops being alive, but a quick Internet search always helps), and this is certainly an excellent X-Men film. The cast is good, though I'm still wondering how Cyclops gets more lines (2) then Rogue (0, which is a shame). Quicksilver is such an awesome character that is fun to watch, even if he's in the movie only for a few minutes, as Peters does a fine job overall. McKellen and Stewart don't get much time together, but they are fine as always. McAvoy and Fassbender are marvelous (see what I did there?) together, they work so well against each other, especially McAvoy, whose character undergoes so much change and still rocks a nice haircut. Dinklage does a good job being more than just a bad guy the X-Men fight to stop, and he shines among all the cast. This is a movie that certainly packs a punch when it comes to action, and it is excellent to watch, especially when backed up by a good cast like this. Is it a perfect movie? No, but it is a good, if not excellent comic book movie that certainly works in the right categories.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

June 8, 2011

Movie Night: X-Men: First Class.

Review #042: X-Men: First Class.

Cast
James McAvoy (Charles Xavier), Michael Fassbender (Erik Lehnsharr), Kevin Bacon (Sebastian Shaw), Jennifer Lawrence (Mystique), January Jones (Emma Frost), Rose Byrne (Moira MacTaggert), and Nicholas Hoult (Hank McCoy) Directed by Matthew Vaughn.

Review
EDIT: I've edited this to remove this segment that is in retrospect, stupid to have added: "If you don't read the comics, then the film causes continuity issues for non readers (X-Men 3: The Last Stand's opening sequence in general with Xavier standing 20 years ago when he is paralyzed here in the 1960's)", especially given how the next X-Men film dealt with continuity. 

One notable thing is that the movie is directed by the guy who was supposed to direct X-Men: The Last Stand before departing. Now he has his chance here to make a good movie. Which he did. The cast did their best to be like their adult versions, and the action is good. One is that the film spends way too long on developing and training these guys. I mean, it's development, but it's so long. Another thing to add is that some of the characters are focused on when we know they don't matter to the plot, slowing the film a little bit more. It manages to be a good way to revamp the franchise in terms of quality and history, which is nice.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.