"CATCH YOU FUCKERS AT A BAD TIME?"

Black Bag

BLACK BAG is the latest-latest from prolific retiree Steven Soderbergh. I’m mad at myself that I didn’t see his ghost movie PRESENCE in theaters last month, so I wasn’t gonna miss this. It’s one of his clever, expertly-executed genre exercises, this time reinventing the spy movie. The novelty is that it works completely as an exciting espionage thriller, with betrayals, murder, interrogations, trickery, etc., but done on a small scale, in a mere 2 (two) countries, centering around two dinner party scenes. And that flows naturally out of the fact that the main characters are a happily married couple. (And that it’s not about either of them being kidnapped.)

There is an issue, though. When George Woodhouse (Michael Fassbender, JONAH HEX) is handed a list of five agents who may have stolen a top secret software called Severus, the list is made up of two couples he knows and his wife Kathryn St. Jean (Cate Blanchettt, HANNA). He has one week to identify the traitor, and he begins his investigation by inviting the suspects all over for dinner and getting them talking. (The channa masala is drugged.)

So these are spies, but also a social group. They mostly seem to look up to George and be surprised and honored to be invited over to his place, but they see him as a bit of a weirdo, too. In the opening scene his boss Meacham (Gustaf Skarsgård – yes, there’s another fucking Skarsgård, older than Bill, younger than Alexander) flips him shit about his “flagrant monogamy.” It’s a funny way to make him stand out from cinema’s most famous spy characters, and it’s almost an obsession. He strategically exposes a few infidelities during the course of the movie, and we learn that he once did the same to his own father (Brian DePalma style). When another agent thinks he’s interested in her he seems annoyed, almost a little grossed out.

The most nervous dinner guest might be Freddie Smalls (Tom Burke, ONLY GOD FORGIVES), a cocky wiseass with addiction problems, and whose insecurity buttons get pushed via his dating the much younger satellite imagery analyst Clarissa Dubose (Marisa Abela, “Teen Talk Barbie” in BARBIE). Also in attendance are Colonel James Stokes (Regé-Jean Page, MORTAL ENGINES, THE GRAY MAN) and his girlfriend/their psychiatrist Dr. Zoe Vaughn (Naomie Harris, STREET KINGS). George gently gets them all wound up until one of them is physically injured, but the idea is to rattle the traitor in a way that will come out later in the week. Meanwhile he follows leads about Kathryn ranging from finding a ticket stub for a movie she claims not to have seen to discovering she’s taking a trip to Zurich. But secrecy is a normal part of their marriage, since they can’t tell each other what they’re up to at work, declaring any off-limits topics “black bag.”

There are suspicious deaths, a mysterious Russian operative, a Swiss bank account, secrets passed between the players/friends/colleagues, tensions and secrets exposed in therapy sessions with Zoe. George’s most affair-like behavior is to convince Clarissa to redirect a spy satellite to snoop on Kathryn. The intrigue comes out through these sorts of personal interactions, it never pretends it’s going to go big and popcorn-y even though a boss character is played by Pierce Brosnan, who we obviously associate with more explosive spy thrillers like THE NOVEMBER MAN and THE FOREIGNER. Its thrills are not built on action, but on information and deduction, deception and discovery, people talking, etc.

That’s not always my preference, but when it’s Soderbergh you know it’s not gonna forget to be a movie. As his own cinematographer and editor (under aliases) he’s never lazy or static, always hungry to find a new or better way to tell a story. I’m not against showing off, but he knocks me out without feeling like he’s doing that. In this movie it’s the small things. I love the opening, where we follow behind George’s head from the street to a club, through the front room, down the stairs where a DJ is playing loud techno, out into a back alley for a meeting. Going long on setting and mood before we settle in to meet this character and receive a mission.

Composer David Holmes pops his head up occasionally to get a groove going like he did for OUT OF SIGHT, the OCEAN’S movies and HAYWIRE. Otherwise I might think of this as a little closer to THE LIMEY than to those. At any rate, it’s a specific type of slick, witty, confident entertainment that only Soderbergh could or would do. I’m grateful to have seen it in a theater so I know at least one crowd of people saw it, unlike NO SUDDEN MOVE or the mini-series Full Circle, two of his straight-to-HBO-Max joints I find myself recommending to people who never heard of them.

Fassbender and Blanchett have each worked with Soderbergh once previously (on HAYWIRE and THE GOOD GERMAN, respectively). Unsurprisingly they work well as his leads and have a great chemistry as a couple. Fassbinder is allowed to look older than in anything I’ve seen him in before, though still obviously handsome. I think in THE KILLER he played a good looking guy trying to downplay it for his job, here he plays a more authentic nerd who has some natural coolness from just being himself. His glasses are probly a reference to Harry Palmer, and he’s obviously got some George Smiley in him. Like TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY I (a bit of a dummy) did not entirely follow everything, but I felt like I got most of it, and it’s a brisk 94 minutes so I never felt lost for extended periods. There are no extended periods.

The supporting cast is also strong, all people I’d like to see do more with Soderbergh, especially Page, who’s getting closer to capturing the movie star potential everybody saw in him when he exploded from Bridgerton. Burke is also a standout. I don’t mean this in a bad way, but I thought of him as kind of a smoother Ricky Gervais, so I had a real “holy shit” reaction when I looked up the cast afterwards and realized that was Praetorian Jack from FURIOSA: A MAD MAX SAGA. The beard and the lack of stoicism threw me off.

This is Soderbergh’s third collaboration with screenwriter David Koepp (I COME IN PEACE, THE SHADOW) in a few years – they also did KIMI and PRESENCE. Based on the two I’ve seen this is an exciting team, the big budget blockbuster vet getting to tell stories that are small and personal compared to THE MUMMY or INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, but bringing a little genre grounding for Soderbergh to put his spin on. They should do an adventure movie next.

I think there’s a danger of overhyping here. So let me underline that it’s a small and humble movie – exciting and funny and cool, but in a much more modest and laid back way than top shelf Soderbergh classics like most of the ones starring George Clooney. I don’t expect to end up returning to it as many times over the years as I do those, but then again, I’m already jonesing to rewatch it with a better understanding of what’s going on. At any rate, it’s a type of entertainment that’s rare in the current movie landscape, plus the unique quality of glorifying the hotness of a loving middle aged married couple. Papa’s got a brand new BLACK BAG, I believe Gene Shalit would say. Check it out.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, March 19th, 2025 at 11:56 am and is filed under Reviews, Thriller. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

44 Responses to “Black Bag”

  1. Soderbergh is simultaneously one of my favorite directors, and also hit or miss with me. Everything I’ve heard about this one sounds like a hit. But even the misses are interesting. Based on an interview with Vulture, it sounds like he might get a third feature out before the end of the year. Wild.

    I first noticed Tom Burke in C.B. Strike, a mystery series which unfortunately turned out to be based on novels by a famous transphobe. The internet also tells me he got his start in State of Play, one of my favorite British mini-series, that I devoured in one sitting. He’s got like a Stacy Keach meets Orson Welles energy (I think he played Welles in MANK).

    Regé-Jean Page would be my pick for the next Bond if I got to choose. Nobody watched the TV series For the People except me. I was the people.

  2. I had trouble describing/recommending this to someone, as one doesn’t want to completely spoil the game ultimately being played, but still wants to make it seem worth seeing. I settled on (quoting my own email on the subject): “Sleazy, surveillance-age, screwball. A good time at the moving picture house”

    A couple days later, the person reported back “That was a very apt description” So there you have it.

    As an aside, I was a little worried it was going to take too much time for the hero to learn his wife was a suspect (since that information was given to the audience via the trailer) and really respected that it took maybe 40 seconds.

  3. I knew Soderbergh had a ghost movie earlier this year, but I had no idea about this until a few days ago. Why does this motherfucker have to be so productive? I haven’t even seen most of his pre-OCEAN’S movies!? Should’ve done that during his retirement, but now there is nobody else to blame but myself.

  4. In all fairness, Neon sat on Presence for over a year after they bought it. So he’s doing a pretty standard one-per-year (albeit, with quick experiments like Presence and Control-Z sprinkled in), but the backlog is making him seem like the hardest working man in show business.

  5. Inspector Hammer Boudreaux

    March 19th, 2025 at 1:45 pm

    This was really good and so was PRESENCE, I thought. People should be aware that the PRESENCE feel is a lot more Soderbergh than conventional horror. Let’s say it is to horror as THE LIMEY is to action, not as HAYWIRE is. Aside from all the handheld color camera work, it seems like almost like something they would have made in the 30s or 40s.

  6. I know a film’s success has very little to ever do with it’s actual quality, but I still couldn’t help but be a bit bummed that this film in particular is meeting with somewhat modest returns.

    I mean, I’m pretty dang sure it’s gonna clean up once it hits streaming. But this is a sophisticated, great looking movie chock full of fun performances by a boatload of well established and up and coming stars. It’s a movie for adults, without ever actually being explicit in it’s content. A movie like this is a rare pleasure, even accounting for it’s directors prolificness.

    I mean jeez, what more do people want? liked this movie a lot, and sure I also love spy movies where people are getting merked left and right, but more explosions and fistfights wouldn’t have made this a better film.

    I guess what I’m saying is… Stevie, if you’re reading this, don’t let em get you down. You did your part superbly, if this doesn’t break even it really is the audiences fault.

  7. Soderbergh is my favorite, so even when I’m not jiving with him, I’m finding interesting stuff in his movies. I was surprised that I wasn’t into “Presence” — maybe one too many times Soderbergh has made a cold, clinical genre movie that’s stripped down to include only something like four or five real incidents, and at that point I was bored.

    No so here. LOVED this. It’s fun and fizzy and not over-the-top with the sex and violence and whatever. It’s a realistic-feeling movie about spies that just happens to be funny and suspenseful. And just plain FUN. I feel like too many movies like this subscribe to the screenwriter’s advice of, “Find out the worst thing that could happen to your character and do it.” I like that this movie has space for sensuality, smiles, shenanigans, regular-people stuff. I like that Fassbender has to investigate his wife and she’s like DO YOU LIKE INVESTIGATING ME and he’s like HONEY, IT’S NOT LIKE THAT and she’s like I LIKE THAT YOU INVESTIGATE ME and he’s like WHERE ARE YOU GOING and she’s like #BLACKBAG. So much fun.

  8. I was surprised that I wasn’t into “Presence” — maybe one too many times Soderbergh has made a cold, clinical genre movie that’s stripped down to include only something like four or five real incidents, and at that point I was bored.

    I mean, Presence was literally ‘Russian Ark meets a Lifetime movie’, meaning I think it firmly falls under the director’s “Strictly for my Homiez” (in the site owner’s parlance) fare. Quick, inexpensive, experiments that he doesn’t necessarily care if they’re entirely successful.

    I was sort of surprised it got such a wide release (albeit in January), but I guess Neon figured they could market it as a found footage spook show, and recoup on opening weekend before people found out the truth (I mean, I don’t know the actual budget/acquisition price, but I have the feeling that neither were very large)

  9. If this one is supposed to be a fun romp, the trailer did not get that across at all. It looked gray and dreary and no different than a thousand other MR. AND MRS. SMITH ripoffs. Id have dismissed it entirely if not for the Soderbergh credit.

    That’s one of my main problems with modern movies: Nobody seems to know how to make them look appealing. It’s true that I don’t go to the movies as much as I used to so I’m not exposed to as many trailers, but then the few that I do see all look terrible. All of them seem to be selling the same flavor of one-note intensity that I was sick of five years ago. There’s no reason to believe any one movie is going to be better than any other movie, so why bother?

  10. @Majestyk, yeah, there may be some false advertising as far as these trailers. It’s marketed as something more generic and intense, but it’s more slow-paced, but in a casual, funny way. There’s a bouncy, jazzy score that kind of leavens the mood. And everybody’s personal life is comically messy.

    The trailer makes it seem Pierce Brosnan is barking orders the whole time, but he’s in only a handful of scenes, and everyone reacts like UH-OH, DADDY’S HOME, WE’RE IN TROUBLE. The stakes are real and plausible, but you never forget these are professionals, even when they make mistakes.

  11. If this one is supposed to be a fun romp, the trailer did not get that across at all. It looked gray and dreary and no different than a thousand other MR. AND MRS. SMITH ripoffs. Id have dismissed it entirely if not for the Soderbergh credit.

    As I stated above, it a pretty hard movie to market. There’s some pretty obvious touchstones, but citing them would be giving away the whole joke long before the punchline is delivered. Thus, you have to focus on the story beat of “there’s a mole and it could be your wife” (which as I said, is established less than a minute into the 90) and surface pleasures of vague shots of pretty people in fabulous outfits.

    I mean, I had a hard time choosing 5-10 words. I’m sure cutting a minute-and-a-half trailer was much trickier.

  12. Inspector Hammer Boudreaux

    March 20th, 2025 at 5:33 am

    Mr. Majestyk, you are one sour grape.

  13. Nah. To be sour, you have to be aggrieved, and I’m not. It’s okay that most contemporary movies are unappealing because I do not require modern cinema to cater to me. I have made peace with the fact that I am no longer the target audience. They could stop making movies tomorrow and I’d be fine. I’m having a blast out here, watching whatever the hell I want and leaving everything I’m not interested in to the people it was made for. Since choosing not to put in the effort to keep up with new movies, I’ve expanded my horizons in directions I’d have thought unthinkable a few years ago, and consequently I love movies more today than I ever have at any point in my life. I hope everybody gets everything they want out of every movie they care to see. That’s the attitude I go into with every movie I watch, because if I don’t have that attitude, I just don’t watch it. I don’t feel compelled to waste my few remaining years on movies they can’t even bother to sell to me properly. I just say “That’s not for me” and move on.

  14. Inspector Hammer Boudreaux

    March 20th, 2025 at 5:55 am

    I share your love of old movies but maybe don’t comment on things you haven’t seen to say the old ones are better?

  15. I’m just talking about my own journey. I don’t see why that’s so offensive. People come out of the woodwork to tell me how much they appreciate what I bring to the table, so I know what I have to say has value. If you don’t like it, well, you’re not alone. But you’re also in luck, because, much like every single movie ever made, I am 100% optional. Feel free to make an informed choice.

    Jojo: You using the word “screwball” to describe this made it sound a thousand times for interesting than that trailer. I get that some movies have odd tones that don’t fit into the usual marketing boxes, and it seems like their solution is always to make them look as generic as possible, thus all but guaranteeing that the people who’d like it won’t see it and the people who’ll see it won’t like it.

  16. I am so excited for this one. I am going to try and catch it in the theater.

  17. @Majestyk , in fairness, no one can sell ANYTHING these days. Movie marketing is stuck in the last century — I go entire years without seeing a trailer I love. Didn’t used to be the case (and I went back and looked for trailers I missed and was unimpressed!)

  18. I mean, I liked the Mickey 17 trailer that made it look like a mega-budgeted Jerry Lewis movie (complete with Dean Martin song)

    It must have tested poorly (yes, they even test ads) because the next trailer I saw made it look like 300 other movies.

    I do find it strange they now trust that people can handle gore and cursing in trailers, but don’t trust them enough to show them anything beyond action, clamor, and quips.

  19. I had never seen a trailer or ad at all, which I was pretty happy about. But watching the trailer now, yes, it’s accurate in content but it all comes down to the music putting across a totally different feel. The actual tone is more like this sorta GET-CARTER-like theme:

    https://youtu.be/nX_1nCyDvKo?si=F2zqQ4zfkuWWguSk

    I think my comparison to THE LIMEY wasn’t too far off. That’s a serious movie with tragedy and regret but overall it’s fun to watch and has some laughs. This is a little lighter and more concise version of that.

  20. The arthouse theaters within driving distance of me frequently have special-event screenings of established classics (one of them has been doing a David Lynch retrospective over the past several weeks, and another is about to do the same). So even when current releases don’t seem that exciting I’ve still had reason to go to these theaters somewhat regularly.

    As a result I’ve seen the BLACK BAG trailer multiple times (just as I saw the BABYDOLL trailer multiple times before that, and the DREAM SCENARIO trailer multiple times before that).

    I haven’t seen the movie yet (maybe this weekend) but to me the trailer looked fine. But then I find it hard to imagine anyone of any orientation not being attracted to at least one of the two leads – certainly that is my main reason for wanting to see it.

    Nonetheless I agree that a trailer should ideally match the vibe of the movie it’s advertising. In theory we are nostalgic for the experience of being lied to by a poster, a VHS cover or an Atari cartridge box. But that was in an era when people were more accepting of whatever mass culture was put in front of them, and at best it was a pleasant (or horizon-expanding) surprise to get something other than what you expected. Nowadays people curate their entertainment consumption a lot more, and are not pleased when a trailer misrepresents the tone, story or genre.

    I think a recent trailer that got it right was the one for THE SUBSTANCE. Whether you like that movie or not, it’s the movie the trailer promised, right down to editing style, font usage, even the music which for once is the actual score from the movie.

  21. I tend to avoid trailers because so often they end up making me less excited about something I was originally interested in simply based on who’s in it or who directed it. I guess it makes me wonder “are they trying to save all the good parts for the movie itself so they’re only showing the stupid parts in the trailer, or is that movie kind of stupid?” Recently the QUEEN OF THE RING trailer did exactly that for me. Last year it was the GODZILLA/KONG movie which I ended up skipping entirely after having seen all the others in a theater.
    Anyway I haven’t seen a trailer for BLACK BAG (which they called THE INSIDER here), and that’s fine, I don’t want to, I’ll just go watch it based on “it’s by Soderbergh, Fassbender’s in it, and Vern liked it”. It also helps that this weekend all tickets will be 5€ instead of the usual 16€.

  22. I managed to sneak out of work early and see this, and it’s a lot of fun. It’s a pretty novel idea for a smaller scale spy film, but it still has the usual genre joys. And it’s funny!

    But, yeah, I don’t know how they would advertise it. I agree that the marketing is misleading. Maybe they should have leaned further into the Mr. and Mrs. Smith for grown ups? The trailer could probably have highlighted the humor more. It’s not a jokey film, but I laughed.

  23. I saw it today, and I liked it. It’s stylish and well-acted and it held my attention. And it wasn’t until after the movie ended that I appreciated the meta irony of casting former 007 Pierce Brosnan as the head of a spy agency.

    And I think the trailer marketed it fairly. I would not describe it as “screwball”. There is a fair amount of dry British humor but I would describe the tone as basically serious. The score does get a bit jazzy a couple times, but when doing so sounds anxious enough and atonal enough to possibly remind one of the ambient droning some people don’t like in modern film scores.

    The only major aspect I think the trailer undersells is the fact that this not just a Blanchett and Fassbender movie, it’s an ensemble movie about them and their tight group of coworkers. But I was okay not knowing that much in advance.

    Again, I liked it, but if you think this is not for you, you’re probably right.

  24. And I think the trailer marketed it fairly. I would not describe it as “screwball”. There is a fair amount of dry British humor but I would describe the tone as basically serious.

    By that, I didn’t mean ‘zany’. And while there’s pretty explicit references to the Thin Man movies/Trouble in Paradise/etc, I meant more ‘hi-jinks ensue due to marital misunderstanding’. Albeit, dryly humorous hi-jinks

    (plus, I was attempting to not spell the entire thing out for those who a have yet to see it)

    (this was basically a test post)

  25. It’s weird, I was the youngest person (and I’m 47 so no spring chicken) and one of only two men in the theater when I went to see it. I guess old ladies really like Michael Fassbender.
    Watching the movie I was thinking he’d probably be great for a live action adaptation of ARCHER, even though he sounds nothing like H. Jon Benjamin. That said, do we need a live action adaptation of ARCHER?
    Anyway, I really liked the movie and it’s one of those where I’m really curious to watch it again now that I already know what’s going on.
    But again on the subject of bad trailers, before BLACK BAG there was one for that Marvel version of THE SUICIDE SQUAD and it’s another one of those “now I’m 100% sure to skip it” trailers. If they’ve made their own version of THE SUICIDE SQUAD I was assuming they’d make it extra jokey but… apparently not? The trailer still has a few “Joss Whedon used to work here” quips but no more than regular Marvel trailers and overall the tone seems to be more like “this sick, sad world is facing complete destruction again and now that all our big names are gone, the only heroes who can save it are Broody Robot-Arm and the kind of Marvel D-listers who would get killed off as a joke after two scenes in a DEADPOOL movie” than “this one is about zany villains doing crazy shit you guys!”. I mean it even has a dramatic version of an 80s pop song.

  26. Toxic, there is an official trailer for THUNDERBOLTS* that is an homage/ripoff/parody of A24 trailers.

    The titles adopt a “the [actor/composer/etc] of [name of an A24 movie]” structure. The YouTube video for this trailer is titled “ABSOLUTE CINEMA”, no doubt to troll certain critics.
    https://youtu.be/bqnRzjPfb5A?si=Glaiw7Cx2o-G5g9_

    Of course the film snobs in the comments don’t see the joke and are upset rather than amused. But I thought it was clever.

  27. From the comments I’ve seen it looks like their fans really feel vindicated by seeing how a cool scrappy underdog like Marvel is finally dunking on mean old Scorsese for stuff he said like 5 years ago. Oh we’re not serious art huh? What if we were boring like you, old man, would you respect us, you boring old man?

    Maybe they can come up with a 3rd version of the trailer that actually shows something exciting or intriguing.

  28. My expectations aren’t high for anything Marvel these days (so far I’ve skipped Brave New World), but after the Hawkeye show I definitely want to see one where Florence Pugh is the main character. My wife and I still say “Kate Bee-shup” pretty frequently. Also it looks like Olga Kurylenko will actually be in it this time instead of having a few glimpses out of the helmet like in BLACK WIDOW.

    p.s. We have lived up to stereotypes by praising this as an original mid budget movie for adults and then switching to talking about Marvel movies

  29. As a comic reading kid, I always imagined if you ever did a show or movie about SHIELD, it should be like Black Bag.
    Turns out, there was a show, and it was basically about white people in comfortable pants.
    Black Bag is a good interpretation of what they should have been doing at Marvel all along, instead of embracing the same “chase-quip-revelation-CGI” structure for their movies AND shows. Why are there not more Black Bags period? Now, you release one and it turns out the audience has lost a taste for it. The last good serious spy movie that was successful at the box office was…?

  30. If it’s good serious spy movies you want, the Koreans, inevitably, have your back. I already posted somewhere about HUNT, the directorial debut of Lee Jung-jae (he of Squid Game), which is essentially TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY with a lot more guns and explosions. It was very much my sort of thing. But for a low-action, cloak and dagger spy movie, I really liked THE SPY GONE NORTH, which is long, twisty and nerve racking. It benefits from a great poker-faced performance from Hwang Jung-min and the knowledge that it is essentially, if unbelievably, a true story. Both of those cost about a third of BLACK BAG and made about as much as it has; THE SPY GONE NORTH picked up lots of awards in Asia too.

    Closer to home, and talking of unbelievable but essentially true stories, I guess ARGO made money, but that’s already 13 years ago.

  31. I don’t think Marvel killed spy movies. Streaming did. It seems like every month a new movie or show about pretty people in black overcoats playing shady operatives in a morally and chromatically gray world comes out. They all run together. Why leave the house to see something you got on tap at home? If BLACK BAG is something different, they needed to sell that in the marketing to get people off their couch.

  32. “TV is killing cinema” is about as old as TV though, isn’t it?
    I ended watching the trailer after having seen the movie and it seems a bit like a “people thought DRIVE was going to be like FAST & FURIOUS” problem. “Guns! Explosions! A pretty lady in her underwear! His wife did it, and he’s going to kill for her!” But then the actual movie doesn’t really give you that so maybe the word of mouth was bad and killed it? I don’t know.
    Anyway for what it’s worth I brought up Marvel because I thought their latest trailer was bad, not because I thought they killed spy movies.

  33. If BLACK BAG is something different, they needed to sell that in the marketing to get people off their couch.

    But they don’t want you to get off your couch. Why would they want to split the meager profits a movie like Black Bag is capable of generating with a distributor when they can keep all of it?

    A pandemic allowed studios to own theaters, that was later reversed as it was deemed a monopoly. Now another pandemic has allowed them to own streaming services, and you can be pretty sure they’ll try to squeeze every last cent out of it before it’s deemed a monopoly.

  34. Looking forward to the PRESENCE review. Haven’t seen that one yet, but I’m interested to sooner or later. Who am I kidding — I haven’t seen CONTAGION yet (and probably will never see OCEANS 13 after 12 — but I thought UNSANE and KIMI were both solid, so, I think PRESENCE will happen sooner or later).

    While I’m here and on my b.s., COMPANION is also on the list, but it’s gonna be a minute. I couldn’t get down with NOSFERATU — I found it to be an unscary, affected slog. Finally caught up with SIGNIFICANT OTHER, and Maika Monroe is as dope, as always, but that one falls apart a bit on the back half (Maika is till worth it; yes, we’re on a first-name basis). SUBSTANCE will happen sooner or later, maybe even this week. I did make it out to the theatre to see HEART EYES, and I had a blast, though the ending was only okay.

    Peace, Val Verne/Vern-verse/Vern-hive!

  35. As for THUNDERBOLTS, I’ve been minimally interested for a long time and thought the CAPTAIN AMERICA looked super-generic and unambitious, but THUNDERBOLTS is actually right up my alley. Like Vern, I’m very much Team “I could enjoy Florence Pugh reading the phone book in that ridiculous Russian accent,” and David Harbour is the anti-Ryan Reynolds (substantial, un-smarmy), so, I’m down for this one. I really liked the HAWKEYE show, which I watched at my kids’ behest and under some duress, which stands as the only Marvel show I’ve watched to date. THUNDERBOLTS does look pretty generic, but I like that these are B-list characters (then, again, I kind of enjoyed ETERNALS, so, fuck me).

  36. The weirdest thing about those Marvel movies is how terrified they are of the source material. “Avengers: Age Of Ultron” had NOTHING to do with the infamous storyline of the same name. The current “Daredevil: Born Again” has nothing to do with the legendary “Born Again” story. And the whole concept of the Thunderbolts involved a bunch of evil supervillains who decided to team up and form a superhero team, withholding the secret that they are actually still supervillains — the movie, by contrast, seems to be spotlighting a lot of the replacement or legacy heroes, and a villain in Taskmaster who is definitely a victim of mind control.

    Anyway, Black Bag actually held up enough to be number two at the quiet box office this weekend, so it should retain some screens and stick around. If you haven’t seen it, then yes, check it out. I kinda feel this is an interesting moment for mainstream theaters, as both Opus and Magazine Dreams got sizable releases recently (only to undeservedly play to empty theaters). Would LOVE to hear Vern’s thoughts on those.

  37. GlaiveRobber, to what do you attribute the departures from MCU source material? I don’t really know the source material that well, so, I don’t have an investment in fidelity to that as long as the movie is entertaining on its own terms, but I wonder what’s behind that or if they have a process for that? If I was a die-hard comics nerd, I probably would have a lot of trouble with it!

  38. Skani, the answer could fill a book, really.

    Much of these movies adaptations sadly still feel ashamed of their comic roots. So you have characters who say, “… I’m Ant-Man .” In the comics, these characters walk around in costumes ALL THE TIME (mostly in the older comics, less so today, but still). Many heroes without secret identities still insisted on wearing masks, like Wolverine. The original Age Of Ultron storyline in the comics involves Ultron murdering all the Avengers, and the surviving superheroes pooling their resources for a wild time travel adventure to stop him. The time travel in “Endgame”, by comparison, just had those characters travel back to previous movies, more or less.

    The Marvel comics insist that their total history of publishing has occurred in an eight year span. So when they do these big storylines, characters know each other well, they have long histories, relationships. Some have died and come back. In the movies, whenever there’s a big crossover, these characters are likely just meeting for the first time. You kind of have to cut corners. You watch the movies, and maaaaaaaybe vaguely think, “There are Eternals out there!” You read the comics, and you have to think, “There is a Savage Land somewhere in this world, where dinosaurs roam!” That won’t be related to the plot, but it’s good to know for context.

    Also, you can draw anything in a comic, but you can’t have ANYTHING in a movie. So you can do a seven issue story where so-and-so is a major character in part one but not at all around for the end. In movies, these heroes are all played by crazily overqualified actors, so you have to justify screen time and face time for them. “Avengers: Infinity War” is actually based on the Infinity Gauntlet storyline, and in that one, Thanos finds the Infinity Gems (not STONES, Gems — maybe they thought “gems” were too fabulous-sounding) fairly quickly, and he snaps his fingers and immediately half of the biggest heroes in Marvel are automatically dead without anyone even realizing what happened. Probably can’t just shunt some actors to the side for that so quickly.

    Ultimately, it’s a similar problem with the live-action adaptations of Disney movies. They’re assuming the story is the strongest element worth preserving, not the legendary animation or classic artwork. These Marvel movies are forgetting they’re based on COMIC books, with color and style that POPS at the audience. The upcoming Thunderbolts looks depressingly monochrome — no comic would ever look that glum or unpleasant. You’d throw that smudged art away immediately. I don’t understand why they can’t make a comic book movie look like a comic book. It’s been done before!

    Anyway, everyone should see Black Bag, it’s still playing.

  39. Before they became what they are now mostly thanks to Disney, superhero comic books were a niche thing for nerds (I was one of those nerds, I’m not judging, just saying). Sure, everybody knew about the most iconic ones, Superman, Batman, Spider-Man, and a few others, but no studio would have greenlit, say, a 200 million dollar Dr Strange movie in the 1990s. When they decided to put just about any superhero into a big budget movie and not just things like NICK FURY starring David Hasselhoff, they seemed self conscious about it and felt like they had to distantiate themselves from the source material to be more palatable to a wider audience. I think it started before the MCU, with Wolverine making fun of the idea of wearing a yellow costume in the first X-MEN, and then it continued in the MCU with all the characters constantly joking about hahaha can you believe we have superpowers and costumes and we fight aliens, how silly is that you guys, you’d have to be an idiot to take all that shit seriously, we’re too cool for that. And they made billions with that tone, so you can see why they’d rather stick to the “let’s not take anything too seriously, it’s all about likable actors and special effects and tying all the movies and shows together” approach rather than “we need to make sure that we stay true to the character of Angar the Screamer as it appeared in Marvel magazines in the 1970s, or everybody’s going to hate us”.

  40. Just looked at what the OG Age of Ultron storyline is…if they were going to adapt THAT, it’d have to be now because when they did do it, there’s no way to mak something with all of that convuluted nonsense. To adapt that story even choppig down a lot seems like that’s a three part movie. Of all the companies I don’t think Marvel has account for being ashamed of being afraid of being comic books…they put Wolverine finally in the yellow suit. They put Daredevil in that goofy looking yellow suit just because I guess that was in a comic for some reason. I think they’ve made their bones. Frankly all of this stuff with workd crossing and now nothing matters because you can kill off a character and they come right back, just makes this stuff lame. Well, lamer.

  41. One of the reasons comic books so successfully support the continual usage of tropes like the issue after issue ‘the world’ is always hanging in the balance due to another world ending crisis’ is the very nature of the comic book medium: the humble nature of the comic. It’s the simplest, least pretentious mode of visual storytelling ever invented. The very nature of films: extravagant, bombastic, over the top, continually chasing to one up it’s self (and fully filling the audiences expectation of that) is what leads to – in the present moment most especially – the withering of successful modern comic movies.

    No matter how bombastic the comic story the humble nature of it’s presentation restrains that inherent issue – movies by their nature do not.

    Even on a smaller scale the same reality is at play – for instance Wolverine’s yellow suit, no matter how ridiculous is humbly silly (almost charming) on the comic page – but no matter how convincingly realized by millions of dollars of design, production, costuming and effects, still is on some level on film – ridiculous.

    On an aside – truthfully the only recent comic movie I saw in a theatre was KRAVEN. I know! What? But I have been a huge J C Chandor fan and I felt duty bound to see it. And it was bad, very bad. I guess the biggest disaster for me was how the film managed to suck every bit of charisma and vibrancy out of a force of nature like Ariana DeBose. While I can’t make any comments on the fidelity of it’s story in comparison to the comic stories about the character (Spider-man universe was absolutely never my jam when I still read comics) I was struck afterwards by one thought – comparing KRAVEN to all the other modern comic book movies basically came down to how it seemed to take every single beat, trope, motif, theme or ark that is now stereotypically present in all comic book movies – and include it in the film. It’s an interesting angle to consider the films almost deliberately engineered blandness and sameness to every other comic book movie when one looks at all of J C Chandor’s films and considers that they all include critiques/commentary/analysis of the effects of modern capitalism. His movies all deal with, to some degree, a financial reality – often not very present in any modern American films. It’s interesting that one of the effects of any modern system, including capitalism, is a drift to uniformity -sameness – lack of choice or uniqueness. If one we’re being generous, you could argue that he was following through on his tendency to comment on financial things by literally making the most modern comic book film almost as generically indistinct as possible as a sort of ‘meta’ critique of capitalism.

    I might be seeing something that isn’t there but who knows.

    I do think it sucks that a director who started out with MARGIN CALL, ALL IS LOST (one of the very greatest movies since 2000,) A MOST VIOLENT YEAR – 3 truly excellent at worst movies – all made in 3 years, in the next 10 years only made TRIPLE FRONTIER (not too bad) KRAVEN.

  42. Thanks for the insights, all! I will concede that THUNDERBOLTS does look pretty monochrome, and they’re not really selling a story as much as a hang. It just so happens that I am down to hang with Pugh and Harbour, but I’m setting measured expectations.

  43. You know what superhero films are missing? Villains genuinely as interesting and colorful as the heroes. I mean, more than just one per film.
    I knew I’d never get a full-on Masters of Evil to fight all these cool Avengers but I had a dream.

  44. Skani, it’s interesting you mention the “good hang” thing, because I’m surprised as to what extent they’re hiding what seems to be the main thrust of the movie — these earthbound goon characters are forced to fight basically an evil psychotic schizophrenic Superman who can obliterate people with just a look. That would be the Sentry, who has been unofficially confirmed by many — Steven Yeun dropped out of the role, and Lewis Pullman is playing him (and he’ll be back for Avengers: Doomsday, which is interesting because he’s a dangerous dude sticking around between movies). There’s a snippet in one trailer that hides him but makes it seem like he’s wasting a few innocent people in the blink of an eye. It’s an element that could go really poorly, but it’s also feels like a genuine opportunity in these Marvel movies to actually line the protagonists up against a villain who is far, far, far more powerful (whereas, in a fair fight, you got the sense the Avengers could take out Thanos).

    @Miguel, what a great take, I hadn’t thought about the modesty of the physical comic book. That’s a good point. It’s also the nature of the medium that every superhero movie can’t just be a movie, it has to be a BLOCKBUSTER movie. There were wonderful superhero arc telling small tales or merely connecting one big story to another big story with filler that emphasized character and mood. In the movies, there always have to be a big third act brawl, there’s always a MacGuffin, there’s always a late revelation, and every costumed character has to be given “something to do.” Comics could be muted, or anti-climactic, or just plain goofy. It feels like comic books being shoved into a narrow blockbuster template, when I’d love if they shaped the movie around a genuine comic book narrative/style.

    I do think you’re overselling Kraven, as I ultimately felt like someone other than J.C. Chandor shot a bunch of the footage, and there where scenes that felt like Chandor DID shoot them but didn’t oversee the editing. A lot of this one (and Madame Web) is made up of bad ADR, and the ADR feels like it’s using dialogue that was never written into any script. The end result was just a textbook bad movie. I had fun with it, but come on — MAKE A KRAVEN MOVIE. Make a movie where he’s a hunter who has to pathologically dominate everything and who dreams of bagging Spider-Man as a trophy — NOT a movie about a superpowered animal lover with a dysfunctional family. That’s just not Kraven. Maybe it’s Raven, maybe in fact so Raven, but not at all Kraven.

Leave a Reply





XHTML: You can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>