• Film reviews

    #543 – Three Supermen in the Jungle (1970)

    Three Supermen in the Jungle (1970)

    Film review #543

    Director: Bitto Albertini

    SYNOPSIS: The international thieves known as The Supermen are once again caught by the government and, along with government agent martin (again), they are forced to accept a mission on their behalf. This time, they are to head to Africa to stop the Russians from taking control of a uranium mine owned by the local tribe…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Three Supermen in the Jungle is a 1970 Italian film, and the third in the “Three Supermen” series of films. We once again see the thieving duo known as “the Supermen,” who run around in their bulletproof suits, up to their old tricks, and the government wants to apprehend them to undertake a critical mission. They once again get agent Martin to do it, who is stopped just as he is about to get married, and the three are reunited once again to undertake a mission of critical importance: to head into the jungles of Africa, and prevent the Soviets from acquiring a lease on a uranium mine protected by the local tribe. The film’s plot is essentially following the trope of the “African jungle” adventure, somewhat leaning on parodying them, but mostly just a typical old comedy. As you might expect, a lot of the tropes about Africa, the jungle and the “natives” are outdated stereotypes that are not based in reality, but but certainly not as bad as some other films that do this: being a comedy means that you take these tropes less seriously, and not as indicative of reality.

    The films in this series have got constantly less fantastical and sci-fi: as the first one had elements of cloning, and machines that could turn things into precious jewels, and the second just centred around retrieving a film, the third one just revolves around the lease on a uranium mine, which is never actually seen, which is probably a more typical cold war plot. The film makes up for the thin plot by having a variety of locales, plenty of comedic sequences, and energetic fight scenes that instead keep the film at a good pacing, and energetic through most of its run. It feels less threatening than the other films, and perhaps goes for a much more slapstick approach to it’s violence. I wouldn’t say this makes it more for younger audiences though, as there’s plenty of scantily-clad women and innuendos abound. While the second film replaced all the main characters form the first, here they’ve managed to retain two of the three from the second, so at least there’s a bit of continuity. Again, the actors aren’t quite the professional acrobats as the ones in the first film, but the fight scenes are still have plenty of energy and action, with a competent level of choreography involved. 

    Overall, Three Supermen in the Jungle is a perfectly entertaining low budget film that is lacking in substance or novelty sci-fi elements, but relies on it’s slapstick humour and energetic fight scenes to sustain its energy throughout its runtime; for which it succeeds fairly well. Its fairly forgettable and it’s tropes are outdated, but its got enough going for it to keep viewers from falling asleep.

  • Film reviews

    #542 – Three Supermen in Tokyo (1968)

    Three Supermen in Tokyo (1968)

    Film review #542

    Director: Bitto Albertini

    SYNOPSIS: The pair of thieves known as “the supermen” are caught in a trap by law enforcement. However, they are offered a deal: their sentence will be commuted if they accept a mission to find a film of a spy and diplomat that, if revealed, will cause a huge political scandal. The two supermen are joined by Martin, a government agent, and the three head off to Hong Kong and eventually Tokyo to find the film and the spy…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Three Supermen in Tokyo is a 1968 film and the sequel to the 1967 film The Three Fantastic Supermen. The film opens up with the two international thieves who wear bulletproof suits known as “the supermen,” who are attempting to steal the statue of David, which is being transported for exhibition. unfortunately, the whole setup is a trap to lure the two thieves, and the government agent Martin manages to bring them in. The thieves are offered a deal: the criminal charges against them will be dropped, if they agree to undertake a mission on behalf of the government to retrieve a compromising film that a spy has in their possession, that they will show to the public in twenty eight days. The revelations of this footage will bring down the government, and might instigate world war three, so the stakes are pretty high. The two thieves are sent along with martin to Hong Kong and then Tokyo, where they believe the film and the spy who filmed it to be hidden. The film, like it’s predecessor, is a spy spoof/parody poking fun at films like the James Bond 007 series, and is situated in a big scene of Italian spoofs that were released around this time (and for a long while after). The story is fairly standard with no real surprises, but the emphasis is more on the entertainment and comedy than the plot. The humour itself has some decent moments, but not as gripping as the first film, which had a lot more outlandish elements to keep it interesting. 

    The main difference between this film and the first one is that none of the original actors return in the sequel, apart from one side character. The main issue with this is that the three main characters (the thieves) were professional acrobats, and could pull off some quite impressive stunts and choreography during the fights and action scenes. The replacement actors clearly do not have the same level of expertise, and the film loses one of it’s most unique aspects. The action scenes are still competent, but are lacking compared to its predecessor. Credit to the film should be given for actually shooting a good amount of the film on location in Tokyo. On the downside, there are instances when goons in the fighting scenes are clearly white people made to “look” Japanese with make up and such. Overall, Three Supermen in Tokyo doesn’t quite match up to the original film, and any unique elements that it had are done away with, leaving a more streamlined, average film that could easily get lost amongst the sheer volume of Italian films spoofing the spy genre. 

  • Film reviews

    #541 – Bong of the Living Dead (2017)

    Bong of the living Dead (2017)

    Film review #541

    Director: Max Groah

    SYNOPSIS: a group of friends obsessed with zombies and getting high find their fantasies have come true and the zombie apocalypse is here. Unfortunately, their fantasy about fighting in the zombie apocalypse falls short of their expectations…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Bong of the Living Dead is a 2017 zombie film, and is not related to the previously reviewed 2010 Bong of the Dead (there just happens to be a “budding” market for films about zombies and weed apparently). The film mostly centres on a group of childhood friends who grew up imagining what to do in the zombie apocalypse, and have now grown up to smoke weed and talk about the zombie apocalypse. The group finally gets their wish though, as zombies start appearing and they can start preparing their plan for survival…or just get high. I don’t know. The film tries to do quite a lot in terms of it’s story and genre: it’s a stoner comedy film, but also a meta-zombie apocalypse film that riffs on the tropes of the genre, but also takes a dark and dramatic turn for the last twenty minutes when the reality of the situation catches up to the cast. A such, it feels like it’s trying to do too many things at once, and there’s no core around which the film coheres. A lot of the film does involve the characters just getting high, which I guess would be the dominant theme, but the comedy just isn’t there to make it a simple stoner flick: as mentioned, it tries to go for a meta-take on the zombie apocalypse, but this commentary is loosely scattered through the film, and doesn’t take root. It feels like it wants to do a Shaun of the Dead-esque approach in this regard, but also a bunch of other things too.

    The characters each have their own personalities and set themselves apart, but most of them don’t really come across a likable. The wobbly acting is perhaps intentional for the most part as it attempts to in-part parody low-budget zombie movies, but the actors do a decent job of handling the more emotional and dramatic scenes at the end; however, it is still a bit jarring when you have spent the film not taking them seriously. I’m not quite sure about the setting of the film: one of the main characters runs a DVD rental store, which doesn’t seem like the kind of thing that would actually exist in 2017, and there’s no mobile phones anywhere, which makes me think that maybe it’s set in the early 2000s, but there’s no reference to the timeframe, so again, it’s another element that seems a bit unclear. This is certainly an indie film, but definitely not a one-man show created nearly entirely by one person: this has a full crew attached, as evidenced by the near-full credits that roll about twenty minutes in with the title card. I’m not opposed to the idea of having credits at the start of a film (this is the way they were originally presented), but to have them show up as the first act of the film ends and bring it to a stand still for nearly five minutes is pretty disruptive for the film’s pacing.

    In terms of the film’s production, there’s a decent amount of competence with regards to how it’s filmed; nothing too special, but it works. The makeup on the zombies looks good, and there’s a decent amount of gore when there needs to be, but the film seems to refuse to capture anything violent on film, and any physical violence on the zombies cuts away just as it happens, or is partially obscured. I’m guessing this is either to do with trying to secure the film’s rating, or having no way of making it look convincing without hurting the actors. Either way, it is a noticeable hole in the film. Overall, it feels like Bong of the Living Dead wants to both be a stoner zombie movie, while also being a commentary on the stoner movie…while also adding a serious side to the stoner zombie movie. You’ve got a lot of sitting around smoking weed, some nudity, and some zombie whacking, while the plot point about the characters being zombie movie buffs setting up a meta-narrative doesn’t really go anywhere. The last act switching to a much darker tone as the events of the film start to take their toll on the cast does have some emotional weight to it eventually, but when you’ve been watching these people just smoke weed and base their personality on one-dimensional comedy traits, then trying to make you care for them in the last twenty minutes is a huge uphill climb that the film makes for itself, made worse by the way some of these characters act just makes them downright unlikeable. Credit to the film for trying to do something a little different, it just tries to do too many things a little different…

  • Film reviews

    #540 – Bong of the Dead (2011)

    Bong of the Dead (2011)

    Film review #540

    Director: Thomas Newman

    SYNOPSIS: A meteor shower that strikes the Earth has the effect of turning everyone in to zombies and thus causing an apocalypse. A few months after this, two stoners, Tommy and Edwin, discover that the zombies can be used as fertiliser to create super powerful weed. With this in mind, and their weed stocks running low, they decide to travel to the zombie infested areas to get more of their fertiliser, but on the way, they run into a young woman surviving on her own…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Bong of the Dead is a 2011 film written, produced and edited by Thomas Newman. The film opens up meteors falling to Earth, one of which lands in a man’s garden, who starts to transform into a zombie. This opening scene is played with no dialogue, as we slowly see this man transform into a zombie, along with his wife. This opening scene is fairly clever, using no dialogue, and just showing the man’s transformation using plenty of visual effects. The way his wife is shown to be as much of a zombie as he is when she’s just sitting watching TV is quite clever, and the ending shot of them sitting on the sofa casually picking out each others organs and eating them is such a well executed shot thanks to all the gore and practical effects, and its certainly not what you would expect from a low budget film called Bong of the Dead.

    When we get into the film proper, we see something a bit more of what we expect to see: a few months after the meteors have caused a zombie apocalypse and wiped out society (supposedly, we don’t really see anything of it), two stoners, Tommy and Edwin are hiding out in their apartment, when Edwin shows Tommy he has found a way to turn the zombies into fertiliser that can grow super strong weed, they decide to brave going outside into the infected zones to make some more of this weed. Along the way, their car breaks down and thy meet Leah, a mechanic who helps them fix it. I think the film can be easily split into it’s good and bad points: the story is very typical and threadbare, and just consists predictably of a lot of weed smoking and occasional zombies. There’s a villain who appears in two separate scenes, but he doesn’t really have much of a role. The rest of the film is just scenes of empty dialogue that exist probably just to extend the run time. Speaking of which, the film stretches to nearly one hundred minutes, which is way too long for this sort of film. As always, I try not to be too harsh on low budget films like this made mostly by just one person, and try to judge a film based on what it tries to achieve with what it has, but the script definitely needed some help with regards to pacing, content, and just simple cuts. We also get an end credits scene that sets up for a sequel that, unsurprisingly, never came. Why do so many of these low budget films love to set up for a sequel that they never make?

    On the positive side, the film’s gore is really good and creative: the practical effects are flowing with flesh and blood, and even in close-ups, it looks pretty convincing. The action scenes where the zombies are getting sliced up look great, and there’s so much blood and gore that covers everyone it’s quite impressive, and gives a real authenticity to proceedings. Apart from this though, the rest of the production is more obviously limited by the budget and being a mostly one man operation, with fairly obvious greenscreens, and a lot of scenes being shot in someone’s house. Even though the camerawork and framing feels like it could have been better, for one person with a camcorder, it’s fine. Overall, for an almost one-man production, Bong of the Dead does some things better than you would expect: the practical effects are good, and there’s some effort put in to throwing about as much blood and gore as possible in some scenes. This is counterbalanced in the story not having anything special outside of typical stoner humour and zombie apocalypse stuff, and an overly long runtime dilute the positives, so we’re left with a fairly typical film that does what you expect. nevertheless, credit where it is due to Thomas Newman for pulling this off almost entirely by himself.

  • Film reviews

    #539 – Alien Xmas (2020)

    Alien Xmas (2020)

    Film review #539

    Director: Stephen Chiodo

    SYNOPSIS: An alien race called the Klepts, who take everything from the planets they visit, have set their sights on Earth next. They send X to the north pole to build an anti-gravity machine that will send everything on earth into space for the Klepts to correct. However, X has landed just in time for Christmas at the north pole, and Santa is busy preparing for the big day…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSISAlien Xmas is a 2020 Christmas film. The plot centres around an alien race called the Klepts that plundered their homeworld of all resources, and now move through the galaxy taking everything they can from other planets (get it? Klepts?… Kleptomaniacs?…). The Klepts have set their sights on Earth as their next target, and their leader sends X to earth to plant an anti-gravity device at the North Pole, which will turn off gravity and send everything into space; making it easy for the Klepts to take. Unsurprisingly, the plot of the film has X have a change of heart about giving rather than taking, and the rest of the plot points involve a lot of the typical plots surrounding Santa getting ready for Christmas, A Dad working too hard and neglecting his family, and the true meaning of Christmas. Nothing you haven’t seen before, but this film is really aimed at young kids, so it has to have all the typical Christmas stuff you’ve probably seen a hundred times before, but they haven’t. There isn’t anything really for older viewers to get or enjoy, so it really is just aimed at the young kids. The “crazy” twist (as Santa calls it) that this is a Christmas story that includes aliens doesn’t really make it enough of an interesting twist for those who have seen these films many times before.

    With a runtime of forty-four minutes, the film doesn’t fluff itself up with anything it doesn’t need: it tells a Christmas story with it’s own small twist, but doesn’t offer much else. I’m sure young kids will enjoy it because it’s simple enough to follow, is full of colour, and the stop-motion animation has plenty of expression, but again, anyone who isn’t a young kid won’t find anything new or interesting here. 

  • Film reviews

    #538 – The Christmas Martian (1971)

    The Christmas Martian (1971)

    Film review #538

    Director: Bernard Gosselin

    SYNOPSIS: Frank and Cathy are two kids out in the snow looking to bring home a Christmas tree, when they stumble upon a spaceship on the ground. Inside, they meet an alien who is trying to repair his spaceship. They decide to have some fun and make some mischief while the people of the town try to hunt down the alien.

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: The Christmas Martian is a 1971 Canadian TV movie. Somewhere in a small Canadian town in the wilderness, siblings Frank and Cathy are playing in the wilderness, and have gone to chop down a tree for the family to use as this year’s Christmas tree. I’m not sure in what reality you send out your children who are no older than ten into the woods to chop down a tree and somehow drag it home, but that’s what’s happening I guess. On their wanderings far from civilisation, the two kids find a spaceship parked on the ground. Upon entering, they find an alien who is trying to repair his spaceship, and since the children have not been taught not to approach strangers apparently (especially ones not from this planet), they decide to have fun with the alien causing mischief, stealing vehicles, and other stuff around the town, while the residents try to capture the alien. The film’s plot is nonsensical and barely a plot: it’s just this alien and the kids having a mild amount of fun with “flying” through the air using a large matchstick or something. The kids then “borrow” their uncle’s snowmobile (without permission) and a snowplough later on, which I’m not sure children should be driving. Actually, most of this film is just kids doing stuff that is illegal or just not safe; again, I particularly find the fact that these kids are sent into the wilderness to chop down a tree and drag it home is just bizarre. The running “joke” is that the kid’s mother wonders where the kids are, and the Father’s only reply is that it’s the school break and they’re probably just enjoying themselves.

    The whole thing feels like a very cheap TV movie (which it is): the props and sets are fine in some respects, but things like the flying through the air looks pretty cheap and daft. The dubbing is also pretty atrocious, and barely matches the mouth movements. The spaceship has some effort put into it’s design, which is more than can be said for the Martian; who is just wearing a raccoon coat with some sort of net over his head. The only reason you might enjoy this film is if you saw it as a young kid and you have some nostalgia attached to it, but even then it would be a very tenuous link. The main problem in this film is that nothing of consequence ever really happens, and the stuff that does is so unimaginative that it’s hardly going to capture children’s imaginations, let alone anyone else’s. At least in Santa Claus Conquers the Martians there was a plot: an absurd one, but one nevertheless. You don’t need to watch this this Christmas.

  • Film reviews

    #537 – National Lampoon’s Men in White (1998)

    National Lampoon’s Men in White (1998)

    Film review #537

    Director: Scott P. Levy

    SYNOPSIS: Two low-ranking garbage men are abducted by aliens that intend to launch a full-scale invasion of earth. They manage to escape, but are immediately recruited by the government to put a stop to the invasion. However, there are mysterious forces at work that do not want them to succeed…after all, who would put two garbage men in charge of saving the world?

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: National Lampoon’s Men in White is a 1998 sci-fi comedy film that is unsurprisingly a parody of the 1997 film Men in Black. The film centres around two garbage men, Roy DuBro and Ed Klingbottom, who are abducted by aliens led by Glaxxon, who intends to invade the Earth with his army. They manage to escape the alien’s clutches, but are almost immediately recruited by the government to stop the invasion by Dr. Strangemeister, who has secretly selected the lowest, most inept government officials to deal with the invasion and fail, since he is secretly working with them. The film is, as the title suggests, a parody of the man in Black film that was released a year earlier, but it is a very loose parody, poking fun at other science-fiction films including Independence Day. The plot is very simple, but it’s just a vehicle for all the gags and comedy, so it’s easy enough to follow. The one thing I’m not sure about is who this film is really aimed at: it has a P.G. rating, and there’s no real adult humour or language, but there’s a fair amount of references that younger viewers probably wouldn’t get. If you’re watching it as a Men in Black parody, there’s enough references throughout the film, and plenty of visual gags that, while nothing special, are still decent. There’s a fair amount of more subtle gags, such as the scenery changing through the President’s windows every scene, which is quite funny, and it reminds me of the Naked Gun films in that no one ever references them. The mix of visual gags, fourth-wall breaking, and slapstick humour is a lot of different techniques that makes threading the film as a whole together problematic; but again, as it’s a comedy-parody film, you can probably just enjoy it for the different gags. Having the National Lampoon’s title attached to it also suggests it would be targeted for an older audience as many of the films are, but I don’t think this is meant to be the case.

    The film was produced by Saban International, who most notably do the Power Rangers series, and the aliens and effects definitely have that look and feel about them. Karim Prince, who plays Roy DuBro, also starred in one of the Power Rangers series. There’s a decent mix of CG that doesn’t look too bad for the time, and practical effects that work fairly well. Overall, the film is a mish-mash of different gags that doesn’t really tie together too well, but has a few good jokes (like the scene which makes fun of the Men in Black “neuralyser” that wipes memories). I think the cast is decent enough (apart from the lazy German stereotype of Dr. Strangemeister), but they’re not given too much to do other than delivering bad jokes. It’s not a gripping film, and there’s very little of substance, But I guess for a family film there’s different references and humours for different viewers so I suppose that’s good? I’m not sure anyone who hasn’t watched Men in Black or Independence Day or the like will really appreciate or enjoy it, and it’s references make it a dated film that diminish the humour of the film to modern viewers.

  • Film reviews

    #536 – Men in Black: International (2019)

    Men in Black: International (2019)

    Film review #536

    Director: F. Gary Gray

    SYNOPSIS: Molly has been obsessed by finding out who the “Men in Black” are ever since she saw them and an alien as a child. She eventually tracks them down as an adult, and convinces them to let her join as a provisional agent. She is sent to London for training where she meets veteran Agent H, and the two inadvertently get caught up in an alien plot that threatens the whole world…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSISMen in Black: International is a 2019 sci-fi film and the fourth in the Men in Black franchise. The film focuses mostly on Molly, who when she was a young girl saw an alien in her home, and watched as the men in black came and neuralised her parents. Since then, she has been obsessed with finding out who they are, and about the existence of aliens. Now an adult, she manages to track them down and convince them to let her join. As a probationary agent she is sent to the London branch, where she meets Agent H, a veteran and hero of the branch. the two get involved in an alien plot that threatens the whole Earth, and only they can stop it. The film is a spin-off the the previous trilogy, with none of the characters from them making an appearance apart from one. The plot has most of the typical plot points you would expect from a Men in Black film, with the two agents having to protect a small alien artefact from evil aliens who intend on destroying the world. The plot generally takes a bit of a backseat role compared to the main characters and the general feel of the Men in Black doing their daily jobs, and the comedy that results form it. Unfortunately, this does not feel like a Men in Black film at too many points: the big action scenes are at odds with an agency that seems to be trying to keep their work a secret, the lore seems incompatible with the other films (such as the Eiffel Tower being built for a wormhole or some such, when the first contact with aliens was supposedly in the U.S. in the 60′s. Everything the characters do just doesn’t fit with what we know about the Men in Black. As a typical action film it has a variety of locations and some decent action, but again, just feels out of place. The story feels like a cheap imitation of the other films, and at nearly two hours, it goes on far longer than necessary. having the “international” element doesn’t really add anything new to the franchise, especially when the locations are ones we would typically see in films like this.

    The biggest drawback in the film for me is the characters: the previous trilogy had some bumps, but was generally saved the chemistry between it’s two leads, which, while it wasn’t too original to pair a rookie and a veteran, they still generated plenty of strong interactions, comedy and emotions. Here, we get none of that. Molly as Agent M has a mix of personality traits that are jarring and don’t really endear her to her character: I get that she had to be different to a complete “rookie” so as to differentiate herself from Agent J, but her enthusiasm and obsession with the men in Black makes her an annoying character that just feels way out of her depth. Maybe it could have been interesting to contrast her extrovert enthusiasm with the secretive, repressed nature of the Men in Black agency, but I don’t think that has been accomplished here. Agent H is just…bland. I think he’s meant to be written like that partly, as the typical heroic and accomplished agent, but again, that heroic nature just doesn’t work in an agency that is supposed to be discreet and not stand out. The chemistry between them is just non-existent, and nothing ever develops between them. The aliens are altogether forgettable in their design, and supporting characters don’t leave a mark. There’s a fair amount of reviews that say the chemistry between the two is the only redeeming feature of the film, so your mileage may vary on this aspect. The only character that returns is O, the head of MiB, who is more or less the same as she was in Men in Black 3, which is not a bad thing, and we get a brief cameo of the worms and Frank the pug (Who are naughtily given prominent space on the poster despite being in the film for less than thirty seconds), but other than that, it all feels slightly disconnected to the franchise, and any attempt to build something new with the characters just falls flat.

    As mentioned, there’s some okay action scenes and a variety of locations, but most of it feels like it doesn’t belong in the Men in Black franchise. I’m also not sure who the film is aimed at, as a lot of the more darker and complex elements have essentially been removed, so it feels less adult, but then again doesn’t seem like a film for younger audiences. The humour is way off the mark: I think I got a slight laugh at one joke: most of it is entirely predictable, and the banter between the two leads, which is supposed to be funny, just comes off as annoying and distracting. The film apparently had a troubled production and underwent numerous re-writes and tinkering, and it definitely shows: the film is all over the place, and not just literally in terms of locations. The film has the return of Danny Elfman for the music, and Steven Spielberg to produce alongside Barry Sonnenfeld (who directed the previous three films), but they just cannot save the script or offer a direction for the franchise. The original film was a tightly packed venture that, while not the best or most original film, was entertaining enough for a summer blockbuster, and built up a nice world for its characters to grow. Every sequel has been trying to match it, and they all fail to do so (Although Men in Black 3 does a good job in it’s own right). The constant recycling of the same plot has failed to give the franchise any room to grow, and while Men in Black: International tries to do some new things, it manages to change too much, so that it doesn’t feel like a Men in Black film for the most part. I appreciate that it it tries to create a new dynamic between the two leads that differentiates them from Agents J and K, but they just don’t come together to make something memorable or interesting (although I appreciate that they didn’t shoehorn in a romance subplot). The story is very thin and as mentioned, recycled, and it just feels like nobody knows what to do with this franchise after the first film over twenty years prior. The humour is predictable and never lands properly, the alien designs are uninspiring, and overall I don’t think there’s anything really interesting or entertaining enough to warrant a watch.  I would have to say this is the worse film in the franchise, even below Men in Black 2.

  • Film reviews

    #535 – Men in Black 3 (2012)

    Men in Black 3 (2012)

    Film review #535

    Director: Barry Sonnenfeld

    SYNOPSIS: Agents J and K are investigating an alien incident when they discover one of K’s old enemies, Boris, has escaped from his prison on the moon. J wakes up one morning to find out that K is gone, apparently having forty years ago. It seems Boris has travelled back in time and killed K, so J must also travel back in time to 1969 to prevent K’s death and stop Boris…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Men in Black 3 is a 2012 sci-fi film and the third in the Men in Black franchise, loosely based on the comics of the same name. The film opens up with a ruthless criminal, Boris (if that is his real name) escaping from his prison on the moon. He heads to earth to take his revenge on the agent who put him there: Agent K. To do so, he travels back in time to kill Agent K, so that his existence for the last 40 years is wiped out. Agent J must himself travel back to 1969 to stop Boris from accomplishing his plan, and save his partner. Bringing in time travel as the core mechanic, the plot has the potential to get very confusing very fast; but the film keeps it mostly simple, so everything stays together well: that’s not to say that there’s no questions surrounding some of the effects of time travel, because there is, but they don’t distract too much from the plot. The enemy this time is Boris, an alien who was imprisoned on the moon because he is such a menace. His whole plot again isn’t too important, and mostly serves as a catalyst to the main element of the film and the previous ones, which is the relationship between agents J and K. On this point, the film again gives us a solid and in-depth exploration of their characters and interactions, and while some of it is re-treading ground from the first two films, there is enough that is new and refreshing to make it worthwhile to sit through. The plot goes at a decent enough pace, and holds back enough mystery and suspense to make a decent payoff at the end, and enough energy along the way to sustain your attention until you get there. The film does gloss over many of the events of the first two films, and there’s some incongruities there, but on the other hand, it also makes this film easily a standalone feature, while still being an extension of what went before. Given the ten-year gap between this film and the previous one, it makes sense that the film can stand on it’s own, as some of it’s viewers will not have watched the first two, or simply forgot the particulars.

    While the first film had a rather conventional relationship between J being the rookie, and K being the veteran agent; the second reversed this relationship by having J re-recruit K, which turned J into the veteran, but this reversal didn’t really work for a number of reasons (which I laid out in my review of the film). Men in Black 3 uses the time travel element to again reconfigure their relationship. J and K are essentially equals, but K still refuses to open up about his life. When J travels back in time to 1969, his relationship with young K is a bit more dynamic: J is the veteran, but he’s also a “fish out of water” in 1969, and K is the junior agent, but knows how everything works in that time, so neither of them are the rookie, but neither are they both the vets, so they’re on equal, but even footing, which gives their characters something new and interesting to explore throughout the film. Josh Brolin as young K does a really great job here: he captures Tommy Lee Jones’ K  very well, while also putting enough of a spin on it to make it his own. Will Smith is still able to do what he does best getting into slapstick and humourous antics, but his maturity also lets him have some emotional moments too. The supporting characters and villain fill their roles well enough, but they’re nothing too special, but again, the series has always hinged on J and K’s relationship first, and alien invasions and agency bureaucracy second.

    The film does a good job brining the 60′s Men in Black to life, with plenty of fun weapon and vehicle designs, and some creative aliens too. While the pop culture references in Men in Black II aged the film and didn’t really work, the time travel element gives the film more free reign to bring 60′s culture to life without aging the film itself. The ending of the film, which isn’t too hard to work out what’s going to happen when it gets underway, is nevertheless emotional and gripping, and feels like a good pay-off. I felt like maybe the film ends a bit too abruptly after though, as it generates all of these emotions, and never works through them to any degree, and so just leaves them hanging in the mind of the viewer with no outlet for them, but I think that others could easily be more satisfied with the ending, and so that point is probably more a matter of opinion than a critique of the film. Overall, Men in Black 3 is definitely an improvement over it’s predecessor, although Men in Black II lowered the bar a fair amount. It’s not a perfect film and still struggles with story outside of it’s core characters, but the film offers a fresh angle on exploring the relationship between the two main characters, while also still being fun and entertaining. Predictable in some parts, but still offers up enough fun and heart to be worth a watch for fans of the franchise, and tight enough to watch as a standalone film if you’ve never seen any of the others.

  • Film reviews

    #534 – Men in Black II (2002)

    Men in Black II (2002)

    Film review #534

    Director: Barry Sonnenfeld

    SYNOPSIS: Agent J is having trouble keeping an agency partner, as he feels like none of them are cut out for the job. When Serleena, an evil alien, comes to Earth looking for an artefact of immense power called the Light of Zartha, she will stop at nothing to acquire it. Unfortunately, the only person who knows where the light is hidden is Agent K, whose memories Agent J wiped five years ago when he neuralised him. Agent J goes to retrieve Agent K, somehow restore his memories, and hopefully save the world from an alien threat once again…

    THOUGHTS/ANALYSIS: Men in Black II is a 2002 sci-fi film and the sequel to the 1997 film Men in Black. The film starts of with Agent J, who five years on from the events of the first film, has gone from a rookie to one of the top agents in the agency. He chases down Jeff, a monster worm who travels through the New York subway. J’s new partner T, seems to be not up to the job, and so J neuralises him and wipes his memory to lead a normal life. Agency leader Z laments J’s constant neuralising of his partners, including L, who became an agent at the end of the first film. Meanwhile, an alien named Serleena lands on Earth looking for the “Light of Zartha,” an energy source of immense power that was supposedly taken off Earth years ago, and she has been destroying planets across the universe looking for it. The only person that knows where it is is Agent K, who was neuralised himself, and so agent J must retrieve him and recover his memories before Serleena destroys everything. 

    The film’s structure and plot is very similar to the first time…a bit too similar. The film basically just role reverses the two main characters from the first film; with Agent J now being the veteran agent, and now Agent K without his memories is technically the rookie. You can see how this might be an interesting way to mix things up for the sequel and have the characters take on new roles, but it really is just a straight swap between them. Also, Will Smith doesn’t really work as the “straight” guy. Another problem with this is that when Agent K does get his memory back, the roles reverse again, and Agent J suddenly becomes the wisecracking rookie again, undoing all of his character development. This feels very much like a backwards step, although in some senses it is for the best, as the two can get into the roles that work properly for them. Going through all the trouble of getting K’s memories just to have them revert to the status quo is a pretty weak payoff though. The second element of the story concerning the “Light of Zartha” is again just a retread of the first film, in that the agents must find a small artifact that is actually a massive power source. There’s really nothing new that the film offers here.

    Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones are still appealing and entertaining in their roles, and still have great chemistry. The whole role reversal element doesn’t really do anything for their characters though. Frank the Pug takes the role of “rookie” before K returns, but it just doesn’t have the same dynamic, and relies very much on the repeated joke of Frank being a dog and that’s it. The supporting cast of Z and the worms make a return and are fine in their roles, and there’s a strange cameo by Michael Jackson who wants to be “Agent M,” which I’m not really sure what to think of. A lot of the pop culture gags, such as this and Frank’s barking to “Who Let the Dogs Out” definitely ages the film more than anything else. Serleena as a villain is quite boring and underwhelming, both from being very similar to the first film’s villain, and Lara Flynn Boyle’s dry and uninterested delivery just doesn’t work. Johnny Knoxville’s character, serving as Serleena’s henchman, is pretty underwhelming and annoying too: he also just…vanishes near the end of the film, making him seem extremely pointless. The tone of the film is a bit all over the place: the added pop-culture references, as mentioned, definitely age the film, and while some elements of the film feel a bit more geared towards younger audiences, there’s also a few darker elements that are definitely intended for older viewers, so it’s hard to pin down the overall feel of the film. The pop culture references were apparently added in by Barry Fanaro, who revised the first draft of the script, and this is something the original writer,  Robert Gordon, avoided doing, which I think he was right about. Fanro did apparently reintroduce Agent K earlier in the film with his revisions, so that’s definitely a plus for him. The director, Barry Sonnenfeld, also took issue with the love story element between Agent J and Laura, because Will Smith doesn’t work as the serious guy (at that time anyway). This very much seems like a film in which no real vision got it’s way, and the conflicts at all these levels compromises in a very safe repeat of the first film.

    Overall, Men in Black II definitely has some entertaining elements, and is held together by the main cast and their chemistry. A confusing mix of tone and visions from multiple people involved really hamper the film’s ability to drive the franchise forward, and supported by a weak cast of minor characters and cheap gags, you’ll be left feeling that you haven’t gained anything from watching this film. It’s perhaps worth a watch once, but the first film does everything better.

    There’s perhaps one thing about the sequel (controversially) that I will say surpasses the first film though: I prefer the theme “Nod ya Head” to the “Men in Black” song from the first one. I’m sure that will make me some enemies.