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.

Miami Vice.

Review #2091: Miami Vice.

Cast: 

Colin Farrell (Sonny Crockett), Jamie Foxx (Ricardo Tubbs), Gong Li (Isabella), Naomie Harris (Trudy Joplin), Ciarán Hinds (FBI Agent Fujima), Justin Theroux (Detective Larry Zito), Barry Shabaka Henley (Castillo), Luis Tosar (Montoya), John Ortiz (Jose Yero), Elizabeth Rodriguez (Gina Calabrese), Domenick Lombardozzi (Detective Stan Switek), Eddie Marsan (Nicholas), Isaach De Bankolé (Neptune), John Hawkes (Alonzo Stevens), Tom Towles (Coleman), and Mario Ernesto Sánchez (El Tiburon) Written and Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali, #1631 - The Last of the Mohicans, and #1713 - Manhunter)

Review: 

"I don't know how I feel about it. I know the ambition behind it, but it didn't fulfill that ambition for me because we couldn't shoot the real ending. But whole parts of the film are very evocative to me still, especially when it comes to the romance. It was about how far somebody goes when they’re undercover, and what that really means because, ultimately, who you become is yourself on steroids, manifested out there in the real world."

Believe it or not, I had been waiting for the right to do this film, because I actually had watched the television show for the curiosity roughly a year ago. Honestly, the curiosity was not so much for the perceived "style" but for the odds and ends that come with trying to wedge in certain guest stars and situations to fit the procedural. Show creator Anthony Yerkovich claimed his inspiration was hearing about asset forfeiture when it comes to confiscating drug dealer properties for use, but I think you can see how the rumor that it came from a memo that said "MTV cops" endures. He had wrote over two dozen scripts for the serial procedural Hill Street Blues, but he has been quoted as saying that he actually had collected info on the city of Miami when working on Blues, even calling it a "sort of modern-day American Casablanca" while noting the wide variety of people that lived there to go along with the service industries for the drug trade. Undeniably though, it was probably the performances of its two leads in Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas that probably made the show endure as well as it did to run from 1984 all the way to the very first few weeks of 1990. Yerkovich created the show and had executive duties for the first few episodes before leaving to leave it in the hands of Michael Mann (creator of Vegas (1978) and a couple of films) as executive producer, which he would do for most of the run. A great deal of expense was taken to do an episode of the show, whether that involved fancy cars, song licensing, or painting exterior walls to film in Miami. There are a handful of episodes one could probably mention to talk about to describe the cliches (favorable or not) that came with the show, but "No Exit" (guest starring a pre-Die Hard Bruce Willis) is probably the best example of the show in its prime. Evidently, the basis for making a feature film adaptation came because Foxx, who had starred in Mann's Ali (2001), suggested the idea. Perhaps it is irony that the production of what is considered one of Mann's average films eventually led to the creation of his most polarizing films. A "director's cut" version of the film takes the 132-minute runtime of the original to include a few contextual sequences along with trimming certain bits to make a 139-minute cut (probably the most noted thing is that Nonpoint's 2004 cover of Phil Collins's "In the Air Tonight" plays more clearly). Of course, nothing can erase the fact that the departure of Foxx from filming abroad (because of an incident in the Dominican Republic) led to the curtailing of the planned ending (which evidently would have been filmed in Paraguay) for a rewritten one.

This was the ninth feature film for Mann, and it was a mild success with audiences at the time. The reputation of the film has certainly lent to interesting perspectives with the passage of over a decade since its release, which has softened the middle-ground view of the time. The style and aesthetics of the film certainly lends plenty of credit for a film that really verges itself on the passion of not really trying to pay attention to its attempt at a "ripped from the headlines" story that has the pacing of a hamster on a deflated ball. The show had a main character who lived in a boat with an alligator, the film basically is just two guys who might as well be named Man A and Man B. That doesn't mean I dislike the film, because it is still fairly interesting as a curiosity when it comes to ideas about flawed men trying to live flawless lives of deception and enterprise. It meanders, but it means well. Going into it with minimal knowledge of the show probably works out better for all involved. Whether because of the curtailed ending or not, Foxx somehow suffers in comparison to Farrell when it comes to trying to grasp a useful performance that isn't just "adequate". Strangely enough, Farrell is the one most prevalent in saying his displeasure with the film, stating it as some sort of "missed opportunity" when it came to the friendship meant to be portrayed between the two characters (of course, the fact that he went to rehab right after production probably doesn't help). manages the look of a man who is truly conscious of just what it means to be alive in that game of trust that seems to enjoy the rush of it but also looks like he is being eaten on the inside because of the grind that comes with those moments of where the truth lies. The romance between him and Gong. They may not look like the ideal pairing, but that's the point, its like a crash of waves that only a surfer could want to take no matter the highs and lows that come with it. Foxx, well, hmm, yea, maybe he really should have thought twice about wanting a Vice film. It's not so much that he doesn't really capture the tone of the original (as set by Thomas), it just seems that he is in autopilot, as if the only thing that mattered was to simply be there to say a few lines and boom, there's a partnership of deception (the dynamic between him and Harris doesn't even me blink, but then again I barely remember that there is supposed to be a supporting cast around Crockett and Tubbs 25% of the time in the actual show). Both of the leads seem a bit distant in that regard, but I think you can let it pass if you let the movie pass through. If not, try another buddy film. So yes, it isn't really a straight-line show adaptation, because if that were the case, the one-note capture of folks (in relation to show counterparts) such as Henley would bother me more. At least Ortiz makes a suitable adversary when it comes to players and aggressors of trust. In the end, "time is luck", and that means a film that tries to hold itself to the vibes of the moment for interesting style and a few useful action cues to cover what is neither a masterpiece or a bad time but is instead just fine. If you really care about the intricate vibes that make style and culture to walk over a mild storyline and mid acting, well, then you have quite the curiosity here. 

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Spectre.

Review #1891: Spectre.

Cast: 

Daniel Craig (James Bond), Christoph Waltz (Ernst Stavro Blofeld), Léa Seydoux (Madeleine Swann), Ben Whishaw (Q), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Dave Bautista (Mr Hinx), Andrew Scott (Max Denbigh [C]), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), Jesper Christensen (Mr White), Monica Bellucci (Lucia Sciarra), Ralph Fiennes (M), Stephanie Sigman (Estrella), and Alessandro Cremona (Marco Sciarra) Directed by Sam Mendes (#572 - Skyfall and #1585 - 1917)

Review: 

Go figure that this ended up being split into multiple paragraphs. Actually, this is the first Bond film I saw after deciding to start getting into the James Bond novels, you know, the ones that inspired the movies. So yes, Casino Royale was a pretty neat book, and I am curious for the other books done by Fleming and maybe I will look at the movies a bit differently by the time I finish them.

It is interesting to consider how people try to spin the wheel of continuing the James Bond franchise (as produced by Eon Productions) into another decade. The Daniel Craig era started in 2006 with Casino Royale, probably the best Bond film since either Goldeneye (1995) or Licence to Kill (1989), depending on your tastes. It did so with its attempt to inject a bit grittier realism into the series while keeping the entertainment level high. One never knows what to expect from a series created out of a character intended to be boring, as devised by Ian Fleming. Quantum of Solace (2008) was so much of a nonentity that I can barely remember watching it, but Skyfall (2012) certainly resounded better for all of its strange little quirks that came with attempts at emotional depth. The beauty of covering a film I took a pass on doing because it seemed too mild to watch in a theater seven years ago is that there isn't exactly much to spoil for those who do films. Of course, if you like surprises, go ahead with whatever you want to do. Besides, the Bond series would continue with Craig for No Time to Die (2021) after a number of years in development that retained certain actors from before. There were four writers: John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, and Jez Butterworth. Mendes and Logan apparently came up with the main concept of the plot together before lingering dissatisfaction in script from key groups led to asking Purvis and Wade to step in for re-writes (Butterworth ended up stepping in for the screenplay), and you may remember that Logan & Purvis had served as writer on these films since The World Is Not Enough while Logan helped to write Skyfall. So, three years later, with the same director in Sam Mendes from the previous film, who decided to do the film after initially saying no (Nicolas Winding Refn had said no in the meantime), here is another one of these Bond movies. Oh, but it's not any kind of mild follow-ups, no, it's the kind of sequel that tries to go all out in all the narrative and epic pulls you might see in a franchise blockbuster of the 2010s. 

Guess what? It isn't particularly good. It reminds me of a goldfish in a fishbowl: the fish seems to be happy in the bowl, and it gets to look something nice outside the bowl, but its memory span will prove forgettable despite all the food (spectacle in this case) you give it. In short, it manages to show not the strengths of spectacle in locations and budget but rather the weaknesses of trying to use it to hide a limp story that runs at 148 minutes for reasons I can't really comprehend. You may or may not remember that the character of Blofeld had been featured in physical form as the primary villain in four movies (one being a non-EON feature), but none since the 1980s. Of course, you would hope in that time spent away dealing with litigation with Kevin McClory that EON found folks that could make a quality adversary that would make the best portrayal (Telly Savalas) proud. Nope! Being overshadowed by Bautista playing a heavy with one word to say is bad, being nondescript and being brought down by narrative choices is just as bad. He manages to be like a shadow, non-descript in menace because of the choice of time given to Waltz (because hey, time to visit another country on the plot that is totally not familiar). And yes, there is a twist to help connect these previous films together: Quantum is basically a subsidiary to the real power behind the throne of secret doom: Spectre (no, not SPECTRE), complete with being linked together because someone found a ring that had everyone's fingerprints all over it (get it?). Spectre and the master plan involves surveillance that seems cribbed from both a 1984 ripoff and the "Cain and Abel" narrative. Maybe I wouldn't have seen the twist coming if I never saw the villain having a connection to the spy in "family"...in Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002). The idea of one adoptive brother wreaking havoc on the other adoptive brother is hysterical in its ridiculous contrivances - remember that after Blofeld reveals his whole "daddy liked you better" spiel to Bond and mildly tortures him (tied to a chair, but thank goodness for watches), his next brilliant plan is to go to an abandoned building and taunt Bond to find him with arrows pointing where he is while trying to do the "save yourself or save the girl and die"...totally not a parody to guess how that goes. Exploding watches are one thing, but somewhere you have to draw the line (that line probably gave up when it heard about smart blood). It almost clouds the fact that the "surveillance angle" the film tries to play is the bare minimum of an angle, which would not be a problem if you have a striking villain or actual conviction to do something beyond "Is James Bond still relevant?" again. Simply having an adventure while tinkering with the tiniest things of the formula is too much, nah, you have to play it really safe or throw as much spectacle in digital effects to distract from this being a neutered average movie (unless you count not shooting someone as innovative). Having the illusion of an opening sequence done in one take is probably the best trick the film plays in a movie that seems to have no idea where the third act is going to go besides just throwing things up in the air and "leaving it to God" (which is probably how they decided on Sam Smith being the title singer for the film rather than Radiohead). 

You know you might be in trouble when you have not one but two Bond romances to go around, and one of them is basically a glorified cameo that really is there for info-dumps than actual passion (Bellucci, in a role I imagine had a nice paycheck, because "oldest Bond girl" means diddly squat). Seydoux reminds me of a broomstick in that things are meant to happen, but you completely forgot why you had it there because you fell asleep. The chemistry of Seydoux and Craig is amusingly dry (the age difference has never been more apparent, going from 10-11 in the previous three to...seventeen), inflicting only the bare minimum of what you might expect from a Bond romance arc...but of all the ones where you see the two do a walk off into the sunset, this is not even in the top half of being convincing. Perhaps not surprisingly, the parts that work to the usual Bond formula (a Q, a M, and a Moneypenny) do pretty well when it comes to seeing Fiennes try to make his first mark as M or the small moments of Harris and Whishaw when paired with Craig, whether that involves seeing how James Bond lives for the first time in a while or hijinks with tech. Bautista does make a useful adversary in the art of quick-skilled brutality (mostly in his first scene) that contributes to an involving chase scene or two that works best among the rest of the muddy foundation points, which goes with Scott and his "totally not a bad guy" presence and Christensen...uh, I will be honest in forgetting who he was supposed to be (Casino Royale had him get shot in the leg and that's all I remember). Of course, Craig still seems like the stellar man to play the lead role, one who has the confidence required to pull the film away from being the total disaster it might have been with someone who can't have a little bit of fun with some of these lines. In other words, he still seems likes the kind of person who can pull off being an odd man that big things happen around him (while not reminding one of late 1980s Roger Moore). As a whole, I really did want to like the film. I wanted to like the idea of a James Bond feature that continued the thrill of where the previous venture left off and see where one can go further in spy adventure as the series goes past its 50th anniversary. And yet, somehow, I found it to be probably the most mind-boggling misfire since Die Another Day (2002). In trying to dazzle the audience with new tricks, all they managed to do is show an empty hand. It may be a nice film in parts, but it is a dull stinker in all the other ways that make it a muddle to sit through. It isn't the worst Bond film, but it is probably the most confounding, and I imagine whenever I see the next one I can only have the slightest of expectations that they found a way to just, you know, do a Bond movie that isn't a big muddle when everything else is fine.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Moonlight.

Review #1578: Moonlight. 

Cast:

Trevante Rhodes (Adult Chiron Harris / "Black"), André Holland (Adult Kevin), Janelle Monáe (Teresa), Ashton Sanders (Teen Chiron), Jharrel Jerome (Teen Kevin), Naomie Harris (Paula), Mahershala Ali (Juan), Alex Hibbert (Child Chiron Harris / "Little"), Jaden Piner (Child Kevin), and Patrick Decile (Terrel) Directed by Barry Jenkins.

Review:

"I want to create productive images, not necessarily positive images. Overt positivity can sometimes deflect attention away from the problem, or create myths that aren’t helpful. The way I described it to the actors was, ‘Everything in this movie is a gray area. The characters are gray, the situations are gray.’ There’s some very dark shit in this movie, but you have to acknowledge the ugliness. You just have to.”

As the saying goes, sometimes the past makes the difference for what matters in the present for a worthwhile effort into film. Barry Jenkins made a film set in Miami, Florida for his breakthrough feature, and it fits right into his background as a Miami native. He studied film at Florida State University College of Motion Picture Arts, and he subsequently took up production assistant work to help him on a journey towards filmmaking as a career. His first short was My Josephine (2003), but his first feature film came with Medicine for Melancholy (2008). In the eight years that followed, he did work on scripts that led to dead ends alongside work as a carpenter and with a commercial studio of his own before being encouraged by associates to work again. The basis for the film is an unpublished play by Tarell Alvin McCraney called In Moonlight Black Boys Look Blue, with Jenkins writing the screenplay adaptation. Both shared similar backgrounds, since each both were born in Miami and raised in the same neighborhood and each had been raised by a mother that struggled with her vices - they only met for the first time just a few years prior to the development of what became this film (since a friend gave Jenkins the play to read). The key change between the original work and film was the fact that the former depicted a day in the life of Chiron through the three stages of his life at the same time (because one only realized it was the same life of the same person halfway through reading). If you can do a film right near where you grew up, particularly one filmed in Miami in the Liberty City neighborhood, you have already accomplished part of the goal already, particularly with a budget of just $1.5 million.

What we have here is a film making a journey on those moments of silence to ponder through three points in one person's life, whether that involves childhood, teenage life, and adulthood. It doesn't aspire to have all the answers to what it means, particularly when it comes to masculinity that moves in a hauntingly tender manner that will reflect well upon those who find it something to resonate with or draw upon their own experiences. In other words, it is a usefully-crafted drama that does quite well within its quietly layered narrative that doesn't need to play to cliché or expectation but instead on the engagement one finds with these characters and who they represent to those living in the margins of life in some way. There have been plenty of coming-of-age movies that have come and gone over the past few decades, but one can always find a way to make it useful when it comes to depicting the struggle for one's identity. Regardless of how one is with their family, orientation, or with their life as a whole, the struggle to find a way out and be who they are is one we can all find important to dig for ourselves for 111 minutes. One starts with the opening storyline in "Little", featuring a quiet but effective performance from Hibbert, who resonates well with those moments we see him interact with the surroundings that will undoubtedly shape him that keeps the level of dialogue with others such as Ali, Monae, Harris, and Piner to worthy poignance. Ali (previously known for his work on shows such as The 4400 and House of Cards) is undeniably excellent here, doing so much in shaping the tone of the film with the look upon making one's path with nuance for such a small span of time on screen. The same applies in care with Monae, while Harris does quite well in unifying the film with anguish that comes to us without needing to play for pretense. The middle story in "Chiron" keeps pace going in quiet energy that bubbles to the surface on its own time, which Sanders and Jerome handle fine, making the exchange on the beach compared to on the schoolyard that more poignant. The closing story in "Black" opens as many doors as it seems to close, in that time passes on without needing to spell things out for that time spent with Rhodes & Holland. Is it a flawless experience? Not entirely, but it is the fluidity of its drama that keeps things grounded in tension that succeeds more often than not in what is needed. It is the film for people who need a story of spoken and unspoken light between the darkness as a film fitting for its era.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars

Movie Night: Skyfall.

Review #572: Skyfall.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Judi Dench (M), Javier Bardem (Raoul Silva), Bérénice Marlohe (Sévérine), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Albert Finney (Kincade), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Ola Rapace (Patrice) Directed by Sam Mendes.

Review
Skyfall tries to do two things: Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Bond franchise without going overboard (I'm looking at you Die Another Day), and to try and make people forget about Quantum of Solace and get back to what makes Bond work. Does it do its goals? Yea, pretty much. Without completely veering off into how even though Quantum of Solace tried its hardest to bring a theme of coldness and still entertain and fail, Skyfall manages to be fun to watch and have a level of change. By the time this film ends, we have a new Q, a new Moneypenny...and a new M. The gadgets are simple (a gun that only firs to the one who holds it and no else and a radio), but the villain is complex, yet enjoyable to watch. Bardem can be energetic to watch, but he can also be a chilling equal to Bond. Daniel Craig is magnificent, it seems he has grown into this role fully, and he works especially well with Dench, who is given more time and therefore is given her moment to shine in Dench's swan song as M. Fiennes is entertaining in the amount of time he's given, and I do look forward to seeing him in the next film soon. The realization of what exactly Skyfall means is a nice twist. In the end, this a good way to continue the franchise that has been chugging for over 50 years now, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Skyfall is Bond's childhood home.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.