"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.

15 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.

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>