t's taken us almost 3 months to get to a film that might be worthy of end-of-year consideration for a top 10 list. Stephen Soderberg had a movie out in February that I missed, a horror film called presence. If that movie was as good as this one I'm definitely going to have to go back and catch it, because black bag is a very good film. This is a movie with three or four very brief action scenes, but a whole lot of plotting and clever interaction between the characters. This is a spy film that takes the world of espionage more seriously, and as a result is a lot more complex.
The film stars Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett as married agents of MI6, who in there personal lives sometimes have to close off what they're working on from their partner. When they're responsibilities intersect, there's usually going to be trouble and that's exactly what you get in this film. There is a MacGuffin, but we actually know what it does so unlike the ambiguity of a Hitchcock film, we understand the stakes once the plot reveals itself. Fassbender's character is tasked with finding the person Within the agency who is responsible for selling off a very dangerous piece of software. Blanchette meanwhile is in pursuit of the same software but in the form of a customer trying to lure the technology into the open. These cross purposes are going to lead to complications, but the resolution of these complications will be pretty clever.
I like the fact that there's a lot of conversation, especially in the First Act, most of which is there to establish the secondary characters and Main suspects in the plot. We also get a sense of what our two main characters are capable of, and if you listen to what they say we also get a sense of their Devotion to one another. That commitment is one of the twists that drives the plot, because someone is counting on these two putting their personal lives above the professional responsibilities. The film I think this is most comparable to is the 2011 version of Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy. That film, led by Gary Oldman, is full of complicated plot twists and characters with multiple motives, that you will get lost in if you are not paying close attention. It would be very dangerous to go to the bathroom and miss any scene in the movie. Black bag is exactly the same kind of film. If you are not paying close attention you are going to miss something. I suspect that this will be a terrible movie for people to be watching on their phone, you are here by warned.
As usual the two leads are spectacular. Fassbender's character seems cold and calculating on the outside, and to be intellectually Superior to everybody else in the agency. This of course also leaves him not with friends but with Associates. He takes advantage of the leverage that he gains over these associates through his personal connections and his professional responsibilities. The way in which he uses this power seems cruel at times but it certainly is efficient. Blanchet is a field agent and we get a couple of opportunities to see her in operation, and she certainly seems ruthless herself. At one point she makes a decision, one which would probably not be supported by her superiors, but which shows that she is decisive and capable.
Black bag may not be for everyone, because it is a slow burn in the first half, and a rapid goalie coalition coalescence of Clues and threads at the climax. I thought the resolution was quite satisfying, and there's even a political element to the film that is not wholly objectionable. At least it doesn't have the same irritating element to it that I found in the last James Bond film,
As always, If I see a film in a theater, you will read about it here. I noticed several comments on-line that castigate this film as boring or even dreadful. I was very surprised at that evaluation because my experience was far from that. I enjoyed the heck out of the film, it has a slight throwback style that may not be satisfying to adrenaline junkies, but hits the spot with those of us who are interested in plot and character. Which may seem a bit strange because we know very little about the main character of this film, not even his real name, but in the long run, that is the point.
There are plenty of films about paid assassins out there. Most of them are focused on the job at hand or the intrigue behind the murder in the first place. This film essentially does not give a damn about those well worn paths, instead, it focuses on logistics and the kind of character that is needed to be a success in this business. Michael Fassbinder is playing a guy doing his level best to remain faceless and anonymous. We get to see the level of detail that he puts into his work. The meticulous set up and clean up of his job takes the first twenty minutes of the film, and when the job goes wrong, we see what discipline it takes to get away clean. The movie reminded me early on of the Charles Bronson 70s classic "The Mechanic". In that film, we have a dialogue free opening ten minutes, and it is an excellent primer on how to tell a story visually. "The Killer" does not remain silent in the opening section, the main character is providing a voiceover to his actions. Most of the time he is explaining the principle behind his craft, not the details of it's execution, we see those being played out.
There are action sequences but they usually come after a slow build up to the scene. For instance, there is a truly brutal fight scene that entails significant jeopardy to the main character, but first we see the stalking of the target. That process involves a lot of sitting in the car, waiting for other characters to act, and then a tentative approach to the subject. When the fireworks start, they are pretty elaborate with frequent changes in who is dominating the combat, and consequences for most of the physical actions. While lacking the perspective that we might have for John McClane, we can still feel the brutality and notice some of the aftereffects. That makes this movie feel a lot more authentic than some of the action cartoons that pass themselves off as drama in cinema's these days.
I wonder if the reason that some of the people who are not reacting positively to the film comes from the fact that they watched this on Netflix rather than seeing it in a theater. As always, the theatrical experience forces you into a relationship with the film that is substantially different than the one you will have in your own home. The passage of time feels different and more immediate. The absence of ambient noise or side conversations press us into focusing on what is on the screen in a different way. The score from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross is propulsive without being in your face. The story transitions are smooth and fun to watch as the character makes his way from Europe, to the Dominican Republic, to the U.S. , and there is a running joke about the aliases he uses that some parts of the audience might miss but they got a chuckle out of me each time.
Up front, the Killer himself talks about how dull his profession can be, because it involves so much waiting and watching. He goes to great lengths to avoid having to improvise. Sure it's fun when some character can Macguyver up a bomb with kitchen chemicals and a microwave, but that would be an anathema to our protagonist, who sticks to the plan, fights only the designated fights, and sees empathy as a weakness. The character has no story arc it is true, the fascination comes from watching how sticking to his foundational process works. It forces him to make choices that other screenwriters would have found a conventional way out of. While we are spared having to watch him disassemble a body for disposal, we know he is doing it because that is what is called for.
There are at least two times in the film when we could expect a screenwriter to try and inch the character away from his own manifesto, but the authors of the graphic novel that the film is based on, and the screenwriter Andrew Kevin Walker, stay true to their character. The detachment the lead feels from his job, is aty odds with the relationship that powers the majority of the film. As a wounded subject, we might expect there to be emotional justification for his actions. The story never makes a point of his emotions in the murders he commits after the failed original mission. He simply puts his professional face on for a personal retribution that maybe lacks the satisfying punch that most revenge films seek, but nevertheless gets the job done. His confrontation with the Tilda Swinton character is a perfect example of how his professionalism can be seen as dull, but we also get to see it is the reason he is efficient. Director David Fincher allows stories to unfold in their own time. "Zodiac" and "Gone Girl" show us dramatic moments as they might play out, without the theatrics if an edited, rock score propelled sequence. If you are looking for a "Goodfellas" moment, there isn't one. There is just the cool, mannered and meticulous pathology of the Killer and his director.
There is always hope that a movie you have doubts about will overcome them and manage to please you. No one goes to a film hoping for disappointment, although we often go expecting it.My level of excitement for "Prometheus" five years ago was through the roof. The fact that it let me down has not vanished from my memory. In fact. it is a warning beacon, just like in the original "Alien" and also like in that original story, it was misinterpreted. You would think after all the crap he got for the last film in the franchise, Ridley Scott would stop visiting it or at least have a better vision of what he wants to say. Unfortunately, that is not the case here. "Covenant " is a let down. It's not as big a let down as "Prometheus" but that's because we were alerted.
When the "Halloween" story got franchised, there was an attempt with one film to try something different. "Season of the Witch" had nothing to do with Michael Meyers, and the objective was to make the franchise more of an anthology concept using the idea of Halloween as the connective tissue. I think that would be a good approach to this film series. The adventures and horror should be concentrated around new ideas and new aliens each time. Than you would not have to keep trying to figure out how all of the stories fit into a time line or make sense in light of the last film. This movie might have been better if it was not trying so hard to be "Prometheus Part 2" without actually saying that.
Here is how someone wiser than I and less blinded by the hope that Scott could get Alien right again put it, according to my daughter, "Alien Covenant" is a hybrid of Alien 3, Alien Resurrection sprinkled with Prometheus as a topping." If that sounds like a tasty concoction to you, by all means indulge. To me it sounds like adding onions to a PB and J made with whole wheat bread and "natural" peanut butter" . That is a lot of ingredients that I don't care for being combined to make something else I don't care for. I never go into spoilers in these commentaries because I want you to listen to my opinion about the film, not my reconstruction of it. I do however have to occasionally mention components that are part of the story. To begin with, just assume anyone who's name you do not have in your head after the first ten minutes is going to die in the story. Also, assume that the reason they die is that they do something stupid, inappropriate for the moment, or in violation of a protocol. The story telling in this movie is just irritating.
Katherine Waterston does make an effective heroine in the film. I did not recognize her at first but then it dawned on me that she was one of the charming new additions to the world of Harry Potter, having played Tina in "Fantastic Beasts". There are a couple of dramatic moments, an intense scene or two, and a realistic portrayal of someone forced into making decisions she does not want to. Michael Fassbinder has dual roles in the film, both of them as synthetics and each one with some distinctive personality characteristics. The novelty has worn off a bit and the character David is not much more than an Evil Genius, with no real heart. Walter, the more contemporary [or should it be more futuristic?] synthetic person has very little personality for most of the film. There are two turns with his character that make no sense whatsoever, and they are the things that are supposed to launch the last act of the film. Billy Crudup is the man who reluctantly assumes command after an early catastrophe, and there is supposed to be a backstory that involves his faith and how it may have effected the decisions about command in the first place. That story goes nowhere and he is reduced to making the same kinds of silly choices that every other person in these stories makes. Danny McBride goes by a nickname, wears a cowboy straw hat, and doesn't get to show any of the obnoxious charm that might be his reason for being in the film in the first place. I was a little surprised by two uncredited performances, both are early in the film, one makes a little sense, the other must be an inside joke because it was completely unneeded.
The movie looks solid, but it lacks the pizazz of it predecessor, which was the main redeeming quality of that film. For me, the best part of this film was the use of the original Jerry Goldsmith theme as a motif in the opening credits. So, thirty seconds in, it is mostly downhill. The third act is a logic defying series of events, designed to sucker punch you in much the same way as "Life" attempted earlier this year. That movie pissed me off and this one leaves me with the same irritated feeling.
Since my dander is up about the film, let me add my two cents about the experience and presentation. We chose a theater based on when the film was playing, and it was not one of our typical haunts. In fact, we ended up paying a little extra to see the film in a "Dine-In" experience. I have always had my reservations about the concept, but since we had driven out of our way and already paid a premium, we went with the flow and ordered concessions off the menu and had a "usher/waiter" take care of us. Other than popcorn and soda, we splurged on nachos, but not the kind that come in a box with melted cheese in a plastic container. These were restaurant style with guacamole and other toppings. They cam twenty minutes after the popcorn. The traditional movie fare arrived before the film started, the nachos did not. The soda we ordered came not in a large cup like the overpriced style at the concession stand, but in a medium sized plastic cup designed to look like a glass coke glass. The size of the serving, which I was sharing with my wife was diminutive compared to a regular theater, and insured that we would need a re-fill to go with the spicy nachos during the movie. So we got a second visit from the "usher/waiter" while the film was running. He returned a third time with a check in a folder, much like a restaurant, that I would need to sign before we left. A fourth visit was made to try to collect the glasses and silverware that we were not yet finished with. Also, the button for calling for service is over my right shoulder, and it is surrounded by embedded lighting that identifies the theater chain. So the whole time I am watching the film, I have four interruptions and a light in the corner of my eye. Fortunately, the black cloth napkin I was provided, draped nicely over the service button and removed that distraction. Now, if only everything we ordered could arrive before the movie began, we would have half as much to object to. Frankly, eating hot food off a plate, set on an attached tray, in the dark is a pain in the butt as well.
So, I can now say I have tried it, and it is officially more cumbersome than eating KFC in the car while at a drive in. Maybe if I had ordered the hard liquor from the bar, I would not have minded so much, but since I don't drink, and I have a low tolerance for people who can't hold their liquor well, this was never going to be a solution for me. If that is how you roll, more power to you, but in the future, I'd rather stand in line at a concession stand, juggle my purchases in my arms walking back into the theater, and be left the hell alone while I am watching a movie. I've now had the "dine-in experience", and I'm not sure if it was more irritating than the movie, but I do know I won't be doing either one of them again.
