Men in Black III

Ever since the 1995 Michael Bay film, "Bad Boys," Will Smith has gotten a good reputation as one of Hollywood's top notch action stars. Being in films like "Independence Day," "Hancock," "I Am Legend," "Enemy of State," and even other roles like in "The Pursuit of Happiness," "Shark Tale," and "Hitch." But with every good actor, there comes bad films in his career like "Wild Wild West," "Made in America" "Bad Boys II," "Seven Pounds." Today, Will Smith is an amazing action star, and everyone knows that. But even after "Bad Boys" and "ID4," the true film to get Will Smith's action stardom on the role, was "Men in Black".

Based on the Malibu comic series of the same name, "Men in Black" was a sci-fi action film that was, and still is, considered one of the staples of the late 90's. The film was about a man named James, played by Will Smith, who goes from a rookie-cop to a new member of an organazation, dubbed 'The Men in Black', as Agent J, thanks to the help of Agent K, played by Tommy Lee Jones. What's the Men in Black? It's an FBI-esque organization that tracks down certain alien life forms that have come to Earth and are causing mayhem. When Edgar the Bug, a ruthless alien cockroach that takes human skin and disguises itself, played by Vincent D'Onofrio, comes to Earth, it's up to J and K to find him and take him down. What the film accomplished was create a very unique universe, showing the vast majority of science fiction in more ways than one. It hase great humor, great performances, great story, brilliant direction from Barry Sonnenfeld, excellent production value from Steven Speilberg, and really does allow a lot of creativity. The way members of the Men in Black are, shows that finding aliens is like an everyday site. For what it is now, it's a classic, and the TRUE film to show Will Smith in action.

It's sequel, "Men in Black II," can be summed up with one word. LAZY. I was simply underwhelemed by almost every aspect of the film. Action? Alright, at best. Acting? Same as the last. Aliens?...Just uncreative. The aliens in the film made it look cheap, and it just let itself suffer to typical jokes, that are outdated, even for the film's release. When I think "Men in Black," I don't want to see or hear a Michael Jackson joke in it...in fact, I NEVER want to see or hear Michael Jackson jokes. I still respect that man even today. Plus, how did we go from an alien bug, that wears people's skin to disguise itself, to a friggin Elvira cosplayer?! Tommy Lee Jones' character is also brought back to the series, even after his story was done in the first film, and J got a new partner. And you might think this was all done by new people of the production crew, but no! The film was made by the exact same people! Overall, "Men in Black II" was disappointing.

Now, after ten years, we finally get another sequel, but before we talk about that, let me talk about another film sequel, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". Why, you may ask? Well, it's because I've hear pre-criticism from a few people, that "MIB3" was going to suck, because it's script by Ethan Cohen was going to be re-written by the same people who wrote "Crystal Skull". Personally, I didn't find "Crystal Skull" as bad as everyone says it was. Sure, it had some flaws, but at least it wasn't as annoying as "Temple of Doom" was. Now, I know you're all going to hate on me for saying something like that, but think about it. Would you actually consider suffering through scenes with Willy and Short Round rather than Shia LaBouf? Because, I honestly didn't think Shia wasn't that bad in "Crystal Skull". However, after a while, Cohen's script was kept as it was.

Now, let's finally talk about "Men in Black 3". AMAZING! A much better sequel than "Men in Black II"! But was it better than the original? No, but it's just as good.

"Men in Black 3" continues with the works of Agents J and K, when they come across Boris the Animal. Boris is a deadly alien that has paramites living in his hand, who brakes out of Lunar Max, which is moon prison, and steals a time-travel device to go back in time and kill K. Why does he want to do this? Because when K first encountered Boris, he shot his arm off, and activated a barrier that keeps the Earth protected from alien armies invading. When K then becomes erased from history, J is the only one who remembers him, and decides to go back in time and stop Boris from killing K, so the barrier can be activated. This film is, like I said, what the second film should have been. It dives into more about K's past, literally, showing more expansion on the "MIB universe," it shows some brilliant effects, and writting.

First off, let's get all the bad stuff out of the way first. Let's start with some of the cameos in the film, which a couple of them made me go "Well, that was pointless." A good example is Will Arnett, who plays Agent J's partner, after the time paradox has started. He shows up, is a bit annoying, then never shows up again. There's a lot of moments that made me either question it or be mad about. In fact, the movie has Bill Hader in it, as Andy Warhol, who happens to be a MIB agent, W. Why didn't they use more of that, I would have loved to see more of that idea work. Plus, I love Bill Hader, he's a great actor and comedian. His work on SNL and even most of his films are pretty good. It really does bug me, but maybe Hader will have another film he'll be used well in, in the future. Nicole Scherzinger is also in the film, and plays Boris the Animal's girlfriend, and helps him break out of prison. She appears in the beginning of the film, like she'll be a big part in the movie, but they just kill her off after Boris escapes. Just shows how pointless she was. Another thing that bugged me in the film, was that in the first ten to fifteen minutes were a bit off to me. One was because they didn't have that good enough humor, and two (this is a big one) was that they wrote Rip Torn out of the movie! I was so mad about that, because he was one of my favorite characters in the previous two movies.

Well now that we've taken care of the bad stuff, let's focus on everything else in the film. First off, Tommy Lee Jones is obvioulsy awesome. Despite not being in it that much, he still gives it what he can. Emma Thompson was alright, and was used a good amount, and we learna  bit more about her and K's past before J joined in. Will Smith does a great job, reprising his role as Agent J, and surprisingly tones down the character, making him feel more sensible about his actions. This film also goes into depth on both J and K's backstory. It's obvious that while in the past, J starts to learn a little bit more about K and why he's like this. J addresses that he's never really known his father that well, and even admits a little that K's acted as a father figure to him. And let me say, the film's ending I got really choked up. It looked to be a cheesy ending, but this film was successfully well made, that it felt so sad. Boris the Animal, played by Jemaine Clement, was okay at best. He was enjoyable on some parts, but didn't do that much. The problem I saw with the performance, is that he was trying to be like Vincent D'Onofrio in the first film, but the problem is that he's not D'Onofrio. At least he was a much more interesting and creative villain than the last movie's. But the performance that stole the whole movie was Josh Brolin as the younger Agent K. I was literally hooked by this man's performance, and it really showed much passion in the role he was in. He was so in-character I actually did think this guy was a younger Tommy Lee Jones. This performance alone should give Josh Brolin an Oscar, for what he did in this film.

The action scenes and effects were simply fantastic. A big improvement from the second film, and I might have to say, are up to parr with the original. From the fight scene in the chinese resturant, to the climactic battle with Boris the Animal, they were all great. Another big thing was the 3D, which I have to say are spectacular. I could even say it's better than the 3D in "The Avengers". But is this film better than "The Avengers?" Yeah, I would have to say, because even though "The Avengers" was an amazing film, "Men in Black III" is just something I have more nostalgia for. Plus, as sad as Agent Coulsen's death was, the last twenty minutes of "Men in Black III" was just more heartbreaking. Yeah, hate to say it, but I like this movie more than "The Avengers."

Overall, "Men in Black III" is a very billiant sequel that surpasses all expectations. It's fun, in-depth, has brilliant performances, and is also very emotional. Despite all the complaints I had with it, it redeems itself with much more than expected. If you got anytime on your hands, and you want to see a film with a nostalgia factor to it or something that ISN'T "The Avengers," I HIGHLY recommend this.

Rating: 10/10

Battleship

Hasbro is a company that's been a house-hold name for about thirty years at this point. It's had many toy franchises from "My Little Pony" to "G.I. Joe" and the evermore popular, "Transformers". Hasbro has had ways of getting it's franchises on either the big screen or the little screen, and have had either hit or miss chances. In the past five years, the ones that have been tolerable to deal on film, have been "G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra" and two out of three "Transformers" movies directed by Michael Bay. But none of the examples I've brought up are what today's subject is...which is also the DUMBEST idea I've seen in years. "Battleship: The Movie".

Now, let's go over the story, or lack of, if there is one. Alex Hopper is an alcoholic wreck, who on the day of his 25th birthday, gets in serious trouble with his brother. As punishment, he's then signed up to join him in the navy, while dating the Admiral's daughter, Sam. But during the Naval War Games, they find a crashed towering material, that are crashed alien ships that have made certain transmission with NASA satellite's making contact them. Now with the aliens trapping them in a barrier, it's up to Alex and anyone else by his side to take down the seemingly unstoppable forces and save the world.

Now let me tell you the good stuff I liked in this film. First off, the CGI looked pretty good. Even for something like "Battleship," it's got amazing special effects. When you see the aliens, their ships, and the action scenes, it looks really impressive. As for the plot of the film, I actually found it to be amusing enough. Don't get me wrong, I found it stupid as all, but I didn't expect anything better from a film based on a board game. Another main thing that was good, was Liam Neeson. I can't help it, he's just one of my favorite actors, and has shown to give off a good performance no matter how bad the film is, with the exception of "The Haunting". Taylor Keitch as Alex, I'll admit was surprisingly good. Granted, he gives almost the same performance as he did in "John Carter," but not as bad. In fact, in the begining of the film, he actually made me laugh pretty hard. Rihanna was...okay, to say the least. She didn't leave much of an impression on me, but at least she wasn't a complete waste.

But despite what was good about the film, I did have a few gripes about the film. Going back to Liam Neeson, I was simply aggravated that they underused him. I mean, with him being outside the barrier, HE BARELY HAD ANYTHING TO DO! Another thing that bothered me, were some of the characters. I just grew tired of over half of them, so much so, where I'm not even going to bother mentioning why. Yes, I was that bored with them. It was then, I started to feel like the movie's corniness was starting to fade. But there was one thing that actually kept it going well. There's a handicapped war hero in the film...and what he does in the third act of the film was simply hilarious! That moment in the film just saved it.

Overall, "Battleship" is just a dumb, lazy, clunky, loud, mess of a film...but I loved it! I was expecting nothing more than a cheesey action film at sea, and I got what I wanted. Some more, some less, but it was still a fun movie. And I'll admit, it's at least better than the first two "Transformers" movies, ESPECIALLY "Revenge of the Fallen."...*shutters*...

Rating: 5/10

Marvel's The Avengers

For a long time now, Marvel has shown movie adaptions of their comic book franchises. However, it wasn't until the 1998 film, "Blade", that had the studio start bringing in films that were either hit or miss with its fanbase. Even though I never held a comic before, I've gotten pretty familiar with most people on how the films or TV shows turned out. We've gotten films based on comics like Blade, Spiderman, X-Men, Punisher, and many others. However, it wasn't until 2008, when Marvel Studios and Paramount decided to start working on some new films, in a series called "Marvel Cinematic Universe", which would all lead to "The Avengers".

The start of the series, dubbed "Marvel Cinematic Universe", was the Jon Favreau film, "Iron Man", starring Robert Downey Jr. This film was considered by many to be a fantastic work of art on several levels. It had a great cast, great effects, great direction, and was claimed by many to be one of the best of Marvel's films. SNL comedian, Robert Downey Jr, was probably a surprise to most, since no one usually sees comedians play a comic book hero, but he did a good job with that. In my mind, I thought "Iron Man" was a pretty good movie.

The second film, which came out the same year, was "The Incredible Hulk". Now back in 2003, there was already a Hulk film, directed by Ang Lee and starring Eric Bana. It was given mixed review, but fans of the giant were not happy about it at all. The reboot was directed by Louis Leterrier and starred Edward Norton, who was also co-writter. This film was given much more praise by fans, but was given the same box-office results and reception from critics. It was heard that rumors of an "Incredible Hulk" sequel would happen, but sadly the film didn't make enough money than expected, so the idea was scrapped. And later in 2010, it was announced that Edward Norton would not be reprising his role as the Hulk, due to wanting "The Avengers" to be more based around the Hulk. Thus, he was fired, and was replaced by Mark Ruffalo.

Speaking of 2010, that was the year "Iron Man 2" was released. And might I say, that film was silly. Not only were the effects all over the place, but there was just so much stupidity in it, it felt like the film was just made off the spot. Granted, Downey Jr. was still good, I enjoyed some of the action scenes, and Mickey Rourke gave a good performance. However, there were things in it that just made me just shake my head, asking questions over and over again, and was just flat-out laughable. People either liked it or hated it, but for me, it wasn't anything new. It was just a popcorn-flick. Plus, I'll admit I was kind of a sucker for Scarlet Johansen as Black Widow...even though she didn't have a Russian accent.

Now following "Iron Man 2", was "Thor". People had doubt about this film, since it was said that Thor from the comics wasn't worth watching, thinking that it would be the worst one to deal with, but surprisingly it blew fans away. Kenneth Branagh, who has directed much Shakespeare in the past, had given more than something for fans alike, and Chris Hemsworth was brilliant as the title character, even though he hasn't been in much. Tom Hiddleston plays Loki, brother of Thor, and was a great villain. And from your guess on the trailers for "The Avengers" he plays the villain, but it works. It was also notified by some that Jeremy Renner was playing Hawk-eye, who all I know is a professional archer and assassain, much like Widow. Some critics found "Thor" to be un-interesting and called it a weak film. Others only hated it for the 3D in it. Personally, if the 3D is bad, then people should try again in 2D, to get a different result. For me, this was one that made the money worth it.

Lastly, we have "Captain America: The First Avenger" directed by Joe Joe Johnston, who was an art director on the original "Star Wars movies", as well as the director of "Jumanji" and "The Rocketeer". The film also starred Chris Evans, who had appeared in previous Marvel films, as the Human Torch from "The Fantastic Four". However, instead of being a complete chucklehead, he actually gave a very serious performance as the character, getting much praise from fans and critics alike. Not only that, but the one that stole the show was Hugo Weaving as Red Skull, and was just a lot of fun to watch. He had so much passion in the role, and he just has that appeal of playing such great villains.

Now the moment you've all been waiting for, my thoughts on "The Avengers". So what did I think of it? Well, I knew it was going to be awesome...and it was.

This film delivers so much to the table. With all this build up that the film's been getting, I can understand why. The action scenes are simply phenominal, from begining to end. I was really blown away by how much the effects have improved all the way from "Iron Man". The dialogue is also very clever, mostly due to being written by director: Joss Whedon, but that's beside the point. There were many moments that made me laugh, especially with the Hulk and Iron Man. The film had such great things going for it, and it kept it up for as much as it could. And like most "Marvel Cinematic" films, there's a bonus clip at the end. Two of them to be exact. I'm not going to say what it is, but let's just say, this movie knew it was getting a sequel, one way or the other. That's all I have to say, since there are many other people who have said the same thing. While I do love this film, I can't say it's my favorite Marvel movie.

Overall, "The Avengers" is one of the best comic book movies I've seen, and it's pretty obvious what to expect in this film. I'd say go see it, but you probably have by now.

Rating: 8/10

The Five-Year Engagement

Wedding comedies aren't really my thing. I mean, granted there are some exceptions, but half of the time they just don't have that much impact on me, unless they actually have some good jokes to back it up. When it does, then it's worth it...however, that can't be said the same, for "The Five-Year Engagement".

The film is about this couple, Tom and Violet, who get engaged on New Year's Eve, just one year after they started dating. They plan their wedding, but certain things keep having it pushed back, and blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, and it's just so cliche, bland, and boring as hell. And that's the key word for this movie: BORING. I'm telling you, I got so sick of this damn couple and this damn movie. All that was done about this movie was be padded and padded, with jokes that are just so immature, so obvious, and didn't make me laugh.

Jason Segal stars as Tom, and this just stands out, possibly as his worst performance. And that really disappoints me, because I do think Jason Segal can be funny. I love his work on "How I Met Your Mother" and I love some of the films he's been in. My problem, is that when he's co-writing for films in his films, he's always writing himself as a male love-interest. It worked before on certain episodes of "How I Met Your Mother" and it worked for "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" and "The Muppets", and one way or the other, he found a way to be funny. But he was just SO pathetic in this. Emily Blunt as Violet didn't make this any better. I mean, she was fine in "Dan in Real Life" and a couple other films, but other than that, she's not that interesting of an actress. This film also has Rhys Ifans, who plays Blunt's teacher, and was just REALLY annoying! I just HATED this character, and wanted to smack him in the face. Not to mention, for this to be marked as an 'R' rated movie, they didn't do much with it. All that was done was just use the 'f' word, very little sexual references, and showed very shallow nudity. If this film is going to show Jason Segal's ass, then couldn't they at least show Emily Blunt topless, just to even it out?

So, aside from all that was annoying, what WAS good about it? Well, I'll admit, I liked Chris Pratt as the best friend, even though he was the stereotypical sex-crazed friend, he actually redeems himself within time, when he gets married in the film. That brings us to Pratt's wife in the film, who plays Emily Blunt's sister, Allison Brie, who was the highlight of the film. She was just SO much fun to watch when she was on screen. It made me more interested in watching her and Pratt's relationship than Segal and Blunt's. I think the scene where I laughed the most with her, was when her daughter asks her and Blunt to talk like Elmo and Cookie-monster. I just couldn't stop laughing, imagining this dialogue being said by the two. However, that's all that was good about the film.

The film was directed by Nicholas Stoller, who also worked with Segal on "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". I was hoping the same thing would be expected for this film, mostly due to having Bill Hader and Russel Brand, but sadly this is not that film. Plus, Stoller has had his share of bad films, like "Get Him to the Greek", the so called 'spin-off' of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". But you'd expect this to be like an improvement from "Greek", but it just doesn't have much to work with.

Overall, "The Five-Year Engagement" is a disappointing comedy, that doesn't have much to offer. It's just a bland, boring, sophmore-comedy that only has an 'R' rating just to be "edgy" or "hip". Just because a film's 'R' rated, doesn't mean it's worth it. But if you want to see the movie just for Allison Brie and Chris Pratt, then I'd suggest waiting for it to come on TV.

Rating: 1.5/5
3/10

The Pirates In an Adventure with Scientists

Ever since I was four, I've always found a facination for stop-motion animation. There was just something unique about it, that it really makes for such a wonder, especially in movies. Stop-motion has been around ever since the 1920's, and since then, it has many people who have taken a strong talent for it. One studio, in particular, is Aardman. In the late 80's, Aardman got it's name from one man, named Nick Park. He created the famous duo of Wallace and Gromit, making them two icons of Stop-motion, Britain, and animation in general. With the help of Peter Lord, Park has made such famous half-hour shorts of the famous duo, and even two feature films, with or without having Wallace and Gromit in it.

Recently, Peter Lord has returned with another feature film with Aardman and Sony to back him up. "The Pirates: In an Adventure with Scientists" or "Band of Misfits" for most people.

The film's about a pirate captain, named...the Pirate Captain...who has good charm with him, but isn't the best. He plans to enter the "Pirate of the Year" awards, after being mocked by better pirates than he is, by getting more treasure than all of them combined. After running into a ship owned by Charles Darwin, the crew discovers that their parrot is a dodo bird, and Darwin asks to show them in a "Scientist of the Year" award show, all while they deal with Queen Victoria. It definitely is an interesting plot, with it being based on the book of the same name, but I can't really compare the two, since I don't have it. What really makes the film alive, is how it's put together, and really has something for everyone to enjoy. It's got great animation, fantastic voice acting, clever subtle humor, good character development, as well as hidden jokes that make you want to see the movie over and over again to get all of the jokes.

The casting was well done, due to it being mostly British. Hugh Grant as the Pirate Captain is an enjoyable character, and has a great sense of humor. His strategies and theories are all the more hilarious as time goes on. Imelda Staunton, who you may remember as Dolores Umbridge from "Order of the Phoenix," plays Queen Victoria, and was...okay, to say the least. I mean, she was entertaining when she was on screen, but didn't have much to go through. What redeems her the most is the climactic battle, and BOY is it a thrill and surprise! This isn't her first time working with Aardman though, since she had appeared as Bunty from "Chicken Run," which was also an okay character to play. David Tennant plays Charles Darwin, and seems to deliver the best part of the movie. He and his monkey, Mr. Bobo, are really funny to watch. I'm already a big fan of David Tennant, being an actor who's pretty underused in the media, but I guess it's for the best. Anton Yelchin also appears in the film as "the Albino Pirate," even though the character was previously played by another, making you ask what was the point of it. Brendan Gleeson plays "the Pirate with Gout" and does a good job as always. He has his moments, and knows to when to give the right lines.

Though there are some problems I had with the movie. Salma Hayek and Jeremy Piven, who play the Pirate Captain's rivals in the film aren't in it that much. I had expected more to come out of this, thinking there might be some kind of dual that would be in the award ceremony. Another problem I had with the film, was the 3D. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think it's bad or anything. In fact, I actually love stop-motion films in 3D. It worked for "Nightmare Before Christmas" for it's re-release and it worked for Coraline, but the thing was, it didn't feel the same. Plus, I love Aardman's movies, but the dark 3D glasses just don't seem to go well together. Not to mention, not much does pop-up at you, so it's a little underwhelming.

However, all of that doesn't take away from the one thing that holds this film together. The animation of it. It is just a pleasure to see stop-motion animation on the big screen again! This film is the first stop-motion film Aardman has done since "Wallace and Gromit: Curse of the Were-Rabbit" and it brings so much to the table. It's also slicker animation, looking more polished, and having only a couple touches of CGI in it. As long as it was mostly stop-motion, I don't care if they use CGI.

Overall, "The Pirates: In an Adventure with Scientists" is so far the best animated film I've seen this year, and also one of my favorite films of the year. It's got great animation, great voice acting, a good story, and that great clever and subtle humor that only Britain could provide. I highly recommend this film in anyway possible, with or without 3D.

Rating: 4.5/5
9/10