Black Bag

It was one of those movies that's first hard to get into, but once you hit halfway you're invested. It's not that this movie was bad at all, it just didn't hit for me. It felt like a murder mystery, without the murder. It had fun twists and turns and dark at times. Them sitting around the table was the most intense parts, that goes to show you the amount of action in this movie. Just a warning if you're looking for any at all, this has none. Also most of this movie could have been figured out with a conversation between wife and husband, thay apparently trust each other so much. But whatever. Haha

Watched at AMC on 3-13-2025.

I have to confess that I have tried my best to sit through watching it, but I failed...gladly.

I don't know why this movie, with several men and women sitting around a dinner table, kept blabbering to each other, would cost and consume 50 million dollars to make. How much did the producers pay each of these actors to sit down? Maybe they spent a lot of the movie budget just for the black plastic glass frame for the guy, even if it looked so unnecessary and so fake on his face?

I have also found that the dialogue of this movie is just so irrelevant to me. I couldn't even understand what it meant, maybe not just to the participant actors who could ingeniously memorize the wtf? Dialogue, but to a lot of the viewers, including me. I have watched some movies with only two actors sitting facing each other and talking from the very beginning to the end, but I found them so interesting and never lost my focus. But the dialogue of this Black Bag, with more people talking to each other, I didn't even know what they were talking about and couldn't care less.

Black Bag (2025) would be one of the most tedious and meaningless movies that I have watched in the last 50 years.

Cate Blanchett didn't age well and did an abysmal facelift job that almost made her unrecognizable and tough to look at.

This is not your average spy thriller: it's mainly talk, tons of it, between a small group of British intelligence employees who all seem to live their personal and work lives in each others pockets and beds. To attempt to add gravitas to the production, the colour has been desaturated and the light dialled down to dull and grim, so viewers know it's a serious drama, not James Bond.

There are a few effective action set pieces to keep viewers awake ( not my wife, unfortunately, she slept through most of it ) but not really enough, I'm guessing, to satisfy the action fans.

For film fans who try to see everything that opens in cinemas, only.

Greetings again from the darkness. Are you ready for 90 minutes of cool people wearing cool clothes and doing cool things while acting cool in the face of danger? If so, this one is for you. Oscar winner Steven Soderbergh (TRAFFIC, 2000; OCEAN'S ELEVEN, 2001; OCEAN'S TWELVE, 2004) dons multiple hats here as director-producer-editor-cinematographer (some under familiar pseudonyms). The screenplay comes from well-known writer David Koepp (JURASSIC PARK, 1993; MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE, 1996). The pedigree of these two is exemplified by the cast assembled.

George (Michael Fassbender) and Kathryn (Oscar winner Cate Blanchett) star as husband and wife secret agents that have pledged to kill for each other if ever necessary. Really, that should be part of every wedding vow. Fastidious George has built his reputation on his mystical ability to spot a lie, and has no room for anyone who is less than honest. Glamorous Kathryn excels at her missions and when secrecy is required, one spouse will utter the magic titular phrase, "black bag". This signals, 'I love you, but can't tell you more'. They live in a stunning London apartment, which serves as the setting for two particularly crucial dinner parties.

Every spy story worth its mettle has at least one MacGuffin, and ours is Severus, a sophisticated code worm designed to take control of nuclear weaponry. While it gets mentioned numerous times, the real story here is in discovering who the mole is inside the Secret Intelligence Service managed by Stieglitz (Pierce Brosnan). The five suspects George must investigate include computer analyst Clarissa (Marisa Abela, BACK TO BLACK, 2019), easily tempted agency veteran Freddie (Tom Burke, so excellent in THE SOUVENIR, 2019), suave and self-confident Stokes (Rege-Jean Page, "Bridgerton"), and staff psychologist Dr. Zoe Vaughn (Naomie Harris, MOONLIGHT, 2016). You'll notice that's just four suspects, as the fifth (unknown to her) is George's wife Kathryn. Adding to the intricacies of the jobs, the dinner parties, and this mole mission is the fact that George and Kathryn aren't the only couple in attendance. Clarissa is dating the older Freddie, while Stokes and Zoe are also seeing each other ... and there are likely other surprise complications with this group.

True fans of spy thrillers should know that this is not a new TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY (2011), but rather a user-friendly story in the mold of the "Mission: Impossible" movies - only with less action and no high-wire stunt sequences. Instead, these agents withhold a lot while still talking a lot (some of the dialogue is quite funny). It's more of a personality chess match than an assault on our senses. Complementing the verbose proceedings is a perfect twisty jazz score from David Holmes. We must also take note of the numerous ties to the James Bond franchise (Brosnan, Harris, and rumors), and it's best to just sit back and enjoy Soderbergh in his element (this is his second film released in 2025) ... entertainment with a cool vibe.

Opens in theaters on March 14, 2025.

I find myself increasingly weary of the spy film genre, especially those that center around a romantic couple. It has become a trope so familiar, so predictable, that the very notion of it now feels like an exercise in the mundane. Each iteration feels almost mechanically constructed, as if there is an unspoken formula at play, one that prioritizes style over substance, a kind of cinematic sleight of hand designed to keep the audience distracted from the lack of originality beneath the surface. In this particular instance, however, the dialogue attempts to elevate itself above the usual banter of its kind, but only to the point of indulging in an almost ostentatious, borderline pretentious, air of intellectualism. There's a certain artifice to it all-an effort to sound clever, to sound profound, that ultimately rings hollow. The conversations between the characters, rather than offering any real emotional depth or compelling insight, instead feel like performative displays of wit, which do little more than alienate rather than engage. This was a film that seemed more concerned with showcasing its own perceived sophistication than with crafting any meaningful connection with its audience. And yet, despite all its verbal flourishes, it never once managed to grasp my attention in any truly significant way. The pacing felt sluggish, the stakes hardly compelling, and the emotional core-if one could even call it that-was so underdeveloped it barely registered. In the end, it was less a work of cinema and more an exercise in style over substance, one that never captured my imagination or curiosity.