In un viaggio alla scoperta di sé, un uomo si trova di fronte al dovere di amare e difendere la propria patria, trovandosi di fronte a tre cruciali bivi.In un viaggio alla scoperta di sé, un uomo si trova di fronte al dovere di amare e difendere la propria patria, trovandosi di fronte a tre cruciali bivi.In un viaggio alla scoperta di sé, un uomo si trova di fronte al dovere di amare e difendere la propria patria, trovandosi di fronte a tre cruciali bivi.
- Premi
- 1 vittoria e 3 candidature totali
Daniel Dow
- Vadim Pavlichuk
- (as Dan Dow)
Recensioni in evidenza
There's just about enough intrigue in David Koepp's efficient script to hold the attention in trying to decipher what is going on in Steven Soderbergh's underwhelming spy thriller which is more like a theatrical play than a cinematic experience.
All of the assembled cast do a sufficient job in delivering a very talky script. I especially liked Michael Fassbender's concise and measured performance as the spy ordered to get to the bottom of a leaked top secret software program that could jeopardise national security where his wife, Cate Blanchett, is one of the suspects.
For me Soderbergh never quite scratches my itch when he attempts to do 'cool' like he did with the Ocean trilogy. There's a cold aloofness that prevents me as a viewer to get completely wrapped up in the story he is trying to tell. Also with Black Bag I wasn't keen on the cinematography which looked like a creative decision to make most light sources seem diffused, presumably to make this look like an old fashioned espionage thriller from the 1960's. Fassbenders character certainly has shades of Harry Palmer to him, especially wearing those trademark black glasses.
Despite it being talky and smart it's not that taut and I would like to have seen a bit more action and a few surprise twists for there to be a better payoff for all the concentration the viewer has to endure to get to a rather mediocre finale.
All of the assembled cast do a sufficient job in delivering a very talky script. I especially liked Michael Fassbender's concise and measured performance as the spy ordered to get to the bottom of a leaked top secret software program that could jeopardise national security where his wife, Cate Blanchett, is one of the suspects.
For me Soderbergh never quite scratches my itch when he attempts to do 'cool' like he did with the Ocean trilogy. There's a cold aloofness that prevents me as a viewer to get completely wrapped up in the story he is trying to tell. Also with Black Bag I wasn't keen on the cinematography which looked like a creative decision to make most light sources seem diffused, presumably to make this look like an old fashioned espionage thriller from the 1960's. Fassbenders character certainly has shades of Harry Palmer to him, especially wearing those trademark black glasses.
Despite it being talky and smart it's not that taut and I would like to have seen a bit more action and a few surprise twists for there to be a better payoff for all the concentration the viewer has to endure to get to a rather mediocre finale.
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.
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.
Let's be clear: this isn't a bad film. In fact, Black Bag is smart, sleek, and very well-acted. Fassbender and Blanchett deliver exactly what you'd expect from two world-class actors.
The premise? Strong.
The execution? Precise.
The feeling? All head, not enough heart.
As a writer, I usually love dialogue-heavy films. But here, the spy talk becomes so cold and so technical that it starts to feel like everyone in the movie was engineered in the same underground lab. Maybe they are. Maybe that was the point, to portray spies as a single type of personality, with a distinct way of thinking and communicating. If that was the intention, it's executed with precision... but it left me at a distance.
In short, I never really connected to what was at stake.
For me, there is a disconnect between the sophistication of the script and the emotional involvement it generates. The direction is competent and very "Soderberghian": minimalist, efficient, clean. But there are no big surprises that hit you in the gut.
The film wants to be cerebral, and it succeeds at that. Yet this spy thriller feels more like a staged play than a piece of cinema. I kept waiting for a moment of vulnerability, a rupture, an "out of the bag" moment (no pun intended). It never came.
It is a sharp, contained piece of work, and I admire its discipline. But emotionally, it left me outside looking in. Let's say I respected it more than I enjoyed it.
If you like quiet espionage, sharp suits, and even sharper dialogue, you will find some pleasure here. Just don't expect to feel much when the credits roll.
Ninety minutes was a smart limit. Anything longer and it might have started to overstay its welcome.
Would I watch it again? Probably not - but I'm glad I saw it once.
The premise? Strong.
The execution? Precise.
The feeling? All head, not enough heart.
As a writer, I usually love dialogue-heavy films. But here, the spy talk becomes so cold and so technical that it starts to feel like everyone in the movie was engineered in the same underground lab. Maybe they are. Maybe that was the point, to portray spies as a single type of personality, with a distinct way of thinking and communicating. If that was the intention, it's executed with precision... but it left me at a distance.
In short, I never really connected to what was at stake.
For me, there is a disconnect between the sophistication of the script and the emotional involvement it generates. The direction is competent and very "Soderberghian": minimalist, efficient, clean. But there are no big surprises that hit you in the gut.
The film wants to be cerebral, and it succeeds at that. Yet this spy thriller feels more like a staged play than a piece of cinema. I kept waiting for a moment of vulnerability, a rupture, an "out of the bag" moment (no pun intended). It never came.
It is a sharp, contained piece of work, and I admire its discipline. But emotionally, it left me outside looking in. Let's say I respected it more than I enjoyed it.
If you like quiet espionage, sharp suits, and even sharper dialogue, you will find some pleasure here. Just don't expect to feel much when the credits roll.
Ninety minutes was a smart limit. Anything longer and it might have started to overstay its welcome.
Would I watch it again? Probably not - but I'm glad I saw it once.
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.
Watched at AMC on 3-13-2025.
This taut spy thriller from Stephen Soderbergh doesn't exactly reinvent the wheel of the spy fiction genre, but it's definitely and thoroughly well-made and well-acted. Viewers should first and foremost know that this is a small-scale drama/thriller without action scenes and mostly set in a handful of relatively confined locations, so it is definitely not like a James Bond or Mission Impossible-style spy movie. For patient and sophisticated viewers who enjoy a lot of cleverness with their mystery and intrigue, "Black Bag" will prove to be an entertaining watch. The cast is generally pretty good, especially Michael Fassbender and Cate Blanchett, who are the two leads.
The film feels stylish and polished despite its small scale and brief running time. Soderbergh's deft direction keeps things running quickly and efficiently, paying special attention to the psychological and intuitive motives of the characters. The plot developments aren't particularly unique compared to other spy films, which is what holds back "Black Bag" from being truly great, but its commitment to creating intriguing narrative tension in an entertaining way and at a small scale is commendable. Recommended. 7/10.
The film feels stylish and polished despite its small scale and brief running time. Soderbergh's deft direction keeps things running quickly and efficiently, paying special attention to the psychological and intuitive motives of the characters. The plot developments aren't particularly unique compared to other spy films, which is what holds back "Black Bag" from being truly great, but its commitment to creating intriguing narrative tension in an entertaining way and at a small scale is commendable. Recommended. 7/10.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizThe film's writer David Koepp said of the meaning of the movie's "Black Bag" title: "I sort of made that up because I thought it sounded cool. There was a film producer who I knew in New York who would say, 'That goes in the black bag', whenever he got something bad or negative that he didn't like. You throw it in the black bag, then you throw the bag in the river and never see it again. I like that as a metaphor for where things go that are never going to be discussed. I re-purposed it as a piece of spy slang that doesn't actually exist - but maybe it should."
- BlooperWhen the movie ticket stub is seen in the trash, it has the date "WED 02 MARCH 2024" printed on it. However, in the following closeup shot, when George is holding the ticket, the prop has been altered, and the year has been removed, so it just says "WED 02 MARCH"
- Citazioni
George Woodhouse: If she's in trouble, even of her own making, I will do everything in my power to extricate her. No matter what that means. You understand?
Clarissa Dubose: My god, that's so hot.
- Curiosità sui creditiActress Alicia Vikander, the wife of the film's leading man, Michael Fassbender, who plays George Woodhouse, made a playlist that was used in the film. She was billed for this in the closing credits as "DJ Vicarious". In 2020, Vikander with her agent founded a production company called "Vikarious".
- ConnessioniFeatured in Designing Black Bag (2025)
- Colonne sonorePolyrhythmic
Performed by Phil Kieran & Thomas Annang (as Thomas Tettey Annang)
Written by Phil Kieran
Licensed by Phil Kieran
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Siti ufficiali
- Lingue
- Celebre anche come
- Código Negro
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Hotel Storchen, Weinplatz, Zurigo, Canton Zurigo, Svizzera(exterior: Kathryn has meeting outside hotel)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 50.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 21.474.035 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 7.607.250 USD
- 16 mar 2025
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 43.534.215 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 1h 33min(93 min)
- Colore
- Proporzioni
- 2.39 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti