The Catcher Was a Spy (2018)

What a freaking movie. So many twists and turns. Absolutely intense from start to finish.

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

The movie runs out of plot and jokes well before the end of a two-hour running time, long for a light comedy.

I was looking forward to watching this film, until I watched it. I really enjoy period movies as they are a visualization of a time before my time. I did not see the complete movie. After a while I felt it was a bait-and-switch film that pushes a cultural agenda not disclosed when advertised that adds absolutely nothing to the story.If you read the history of the actual person this movie portrays, nowhere will you find him to be gay. Not even in gossip columns. Yet for some reason Hollywood decided to make this character gay. Doing so has absolutely nothing to do with the story. It did not make the film or the character or the film more interesting. It just seemed like the writers arbitrarily decided to do it (lie on the character) just because they wanted to versus having some logic behind this dcision.Hollywood decision makers bask in certain lifestyles, which is fine for them to live as they wish. Unfortunately they can't resist pushing their personal agendas into their work. I have many personal views both cultural and political. When it comes to my job, I leave my personal baggage at home as my personal choices. Hollywood is the opposite. They inject their views upon people whether the person or the audience wants it or not. Doing so costs them revenue due to low audience turnout (and harassment lawsuits) yet they do it anyway. Putting their personal, historically inaccurate, twist on the main character in this film did not add anything to it. As I watched the film and its agenda I lost interest and have not told anyone I know they should watch this film, which results in lost revenue for this film. I also hate how they try to reel the viewer in slowly and subtly, which makes me view them a s sneaky and underhanded. You have something to say, have the stones to say it versus all of the fake nuance. I would have preferred to simply enjoy the movie without the unnecessary and factually incorrect add-ons that do absolutely NOTHING for the plot or the film in any way. For me to turn off a period-based film says a lot as I have seen every black-and-white film that ever made to original broadcast or cable TV. I have also watched period films such as Road To Perdition, Public Enemies, 42, and Race.Once I realized what they were doing to this character knowing they were lying, I stopped watching the movie. Others may enjoy this film more than I, which is fine. Unlike this film, this is my attempt to openly explain what is behind my take on this film, versus feeding you a hidden agenda like some like to do. I hope I have been somewhat successful in this.Thank you for reading my review.

What comes to mind when we talk about a spy films? Something like Mission Impossible, James Bond or a little different ones like Salt, Red Sparrow and so on... ?Well there is a basic difference between spy fiction and the reality of spy trade-craft. Although the most exciting of the spy thrillers try to capture some of the elements of real world spying but those are mostly technical aspects which are adopted to give these movies a certain credibility; to make them believable to some extent. Spy biopics like 'The Catcher Was a Spy' are different from these spy action thrillers because the titular characters are not out there to perform stunts. They are out there to gather real and sensitive information. Information which could decide the fate of a real war and a real man's life. The thrill in this movie comes from the grand scope of the mission and the conversely understated actions of a spy so as to avoid all attention. There are no guns blazing here. This is Paul Rudd's classic regular guy performances at it's best. The real life Moe Berg was an anomaly. A sportsman with unexceptional career but a genius mind of sorts. Quite simply a good candidate for a spy in second world war but not of much use afterwards. If you are watching this movie for the spy thrills then you might be disappointed. However, if you want to get a glimpse of what an American spy must have found out after talking to people like Werner Heisenberg about the nuclear weapons program of Nazi Germany, then it might be worth it.I can compare 'The Catcher was a Spy' to a bit more contemporary spy biopic like 'Snowden'. Although completely different in tone and nature, both these spy biopics have something in common. They are about getting to know the mind of the person. Both these movies try to bring out the inner complexities of these people who are quite literally doing a job that demands them to be secretive, deceptive and yet charming.

Ben Lewin has brought Nicholas Dawidoff 1994 biography about the mysterious Moe Berg. And Moe Berg remained a mystery until he died. Here's food for thought: when you think of Jews in baseball Moe Berg's name doesn't easily come to mind. Hank Grrenberg, yes. Sandy Kofax, for sure. Not Moe Berg who played for the Boston Red Sox during the 20s and the 30s. 'The Catcher was a Spy' is a conventional film with a fascinating 'hero': a polyglot, a polymath, born of Eastern Europeans Jews who settled in Harlem. And yet, Berg, played by a charming Paul Rudd who like his character celebrates tight lip secrecy. It is to Rudd's credit to have learned smatterings of six or seven languages to give body to his character who know many, many more. Berg graduated summa laude from Princeton when few Jews could attend. A lawyer from Columbia law who passed the bar before he finished his degree. Yet baseball was his life as was spying. The script writers give short shift to the spy Berg when he went to Japan with an all-star team that included Babe Ruth. We get the idea Berg dresses up as a Japanese in full kimono, armed with a camera films from the roof of a hospital Tokyo Harbor which had a dual use as a military facility. It would have taken too much to explain the prewar politics and the role of Japan invading Manchuria, testing America's and European empires' turf in Asia. So, although Berg was acting on behalf of a rudimentary US spy agency, Lewin's script white washes it as an act of a patriot. There is a 'love' story, but beneath the surface the film there is a flaw, a 'moral flaw' for the time. Was Berg queer? Probably. A scene of a night visit to the waterfront frequented by men, and non reputable bars frequented soley by men. Now to the film: Wild Bill Donovan, founder of the OSS, predecessor to the CIA, recruits Berg after Pearl Harbor. Donovan asks him if he's queer. And without a beat, Rudd replies, 'I know how to keep secrets'; to which Donovan replies, I don't care wo a man f--ks, I'm only interested if he's wants us to win the war'. Berg's assignment is to kill Werner Heisenberg, father of the German nuclear bomb. And here the film takes wings...and a high moment of the 'Catcher was a Spy' is when Rudd and Strong play mental chess, to fathom have the Germans the bomb. And here we see Berg has a dialectical frame of mind, he's willing to spare Heisenberg for an answer that Germany's nuclear project is not very advanced. (Heisenberg is the object of an award winning play "Copenhagen' that infers Heisenberg purposefully delayed Hitler's plans for a nuclear weapon.) The camera turns all over the place Japan, Italy, New York and Switzerland. Long shots, close shots, it runs the full alphabet of film making. Rudd speaks his languages fairly well with a good accent, but slips briefly when it comes to French. There is nothing dramatically wrong, but the film never plumbs the secretive Moe Berg. At the end we are told Berg never married and spent time in libraries. And yet he never left the CIAin mind and spirit and died the loner he was.

There are going to be lovers and haters of this movie depending on your taste and how much you like to pick holes in the acting and plot. Picky people will find many in this movie.With all the big name actors it had you would expect it to be at least good and for me it was, I enjoyed it and never once wanted to stop watching, for me that is a sign of a good movie.Paul Rudd, who I don't always like as and actor was very good in this, the rest of the cast do a fine job, most are prominent actors who I expect to do well in any movie they are in.The fact it is based on a true story can be either a benefit of hindrance depending on how the story is handled, this one was handled quite well in my opinion and while it will never win any awards it is worth watching.Not a perfect movie, but good enough to watch more than once.