Score: ***1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Agent J and (old) Agent K's great chemistry is replaced by Agent J and (young) Agent K's in this third installment of the sometimes great sometimes not so great Men In Black franchise. Sadly, this film simply cannot replicate the magic from the first film when it tries to - but the good news is that it creates some new magic of its own thanks to Brolin, some great supporting characters, and a surprisingly good story.
Now for my second movie review of the summer! There are a couple comedies I'd still like to see that are already out, but they will be late, unfortunately. On the other hand, I'm finally writing a review for a movie during its opening weekend! Having immensely enjoyed the original Men In Black (although I thought the first sequel was not good at all), I have been looking forward to this one. This third Men In Black was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld again and returns old stars Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, with the addition of Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men).
The film starts on a moon prison holding various alien bad guys; a visitor helps an alien named Boris the Animal to escape, an alien intent on exacting revenge on the agent who removed one of his arms. Back on Earth, Agents J (Smith) and K (Jones) respond to a typical alien disturbance in downtown NYC. Agent K discovers a clue there that leads him to realize that Boris has escaped, though he withholds details from J. That night, J feels something weird happen and when he gets to the MIB headquarters the next day he finds that K has disappeared.
J and the new MIB chief realize that Boris went back in time to change an important event. As an alien fleet descends on Earth, J travels back in time to stop Boris. He teams up with a younger, skeptical Agent K (Brolin) and Griffin (Stuhlbarg), an alien with a special ability, to stop Boris. In replaying Agent K and Boris' confrontation in 1969, Agent J discovers why Agent K changes from the (relatively) easy-going youth (Brolin) to the reserved, grouchy old man (Jones).
The work of Men In Black's leading men, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, is certainly the main draw of the series. For a variety of reasons, that is not the case in this installment. Let's start with Will Smith, since he's the only one in the film from beginning to end. He gives pretty good effort throughout, but it's clear that he relished some scenes and kind of dragged through others. It doesn't help that the script in the opening scenes gave him pretty poor material. Still, overall a solid job. Josh Brolin as the young Agent K, however, does a phenomenal job. It's similar to his work in W. impersonating Bush (Texas drawl), but Brolin gets Jones' unique mannerisms down very well. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Griffin, an alien in the kind of role that often annoys me, but here the script actually makes him better than otherwise; he is strange but also wise in a genuinely humble sort of way.
Jemaine Clement plays Boris the Animal, the villain, and you'll likely recognize his voice. It is that voice, in fact, that makes him a distinct, dangerous and cunning bad guy. There is also a strong cast of supporting roles, including Emma Thompson as the new MIB boss (sporting a hilarious impression of an alien language), Bill Hader as Andy Warhol (one of my faves on SNL, and just as good here), and Will Arnett as Agent AA (a very brief role on an elevator, but very amusing). The low point acting in the film, and this truly shocks me, is Tommy Lee Jones. Simply put, he looks tired and bored in this film and obviously phoned in his performance. Granted, there are moments here and there of good Tommy, but overall he is bewilderingly bad.
Men In Black thrived on its quirky interactions with New Yorker aliens and its funky sense of humor. That formula is really only evident in Agents J and K's first scene and, disturbingly, it's perhaps the worst part of the film. The jokes are tired retreads, the performances are flat, and the interactions don't stand apart from the others in the series at all. The aliens and assorted goo and destruction has always had a slightly cartoonish feel to them, and the same is true here (perhaps too fake in that unfortunate first J and K scene). Several scenes were also clearly filmed to make more impact in 3D viewings (as usual, though, I saw it in 2D). Fortunately, once Agent J travels back in time, things improve significantly, mostly thanks to Brolin's performance and Griffin. The humor works much better in this section, and while the aliens are less numerous than you'd expect, the quirkiness is fresh once again. And then there's the ending...
***
You might be thinking, after reading the review thus far, that three-and-a-half sounds a little high. Up until the last few minutes, I was probably going to give this one three stars. However, the ending adds a twist that, while perhaps a little cliched, fits in perfectly with Agent J and K's relationship over the three films, despite the filmmakers not probably having thought of it before this film. I was expecting to love the Agent J and K back-and-forth and the bizarre collection of aliens, like the other installments. Instead, Brolin completely blew Jones out of the water (and mercifully had far more screen time), and the overall story actually trumped the creativeness of the aliens, save for Griffin. In other words, not what I was expecting at all. If you're a big fan of Men In Black, I would recommend seeing this in the theater. If not... well, you can probably afford to wait for Netflix/other rental options.
2012 NBA Playoffs Update
As I suspected in my playoffs preview column, there have been plenty of surprises in the NBA postseason this year. I'll at least mention a few notable ones at the end, but this post is primarily about my favorite team, the Lakers, and the early yet unsurprising end to their season. Of course, every time the Lakers have fallen short in the Kobe era, basketball pundits have declared an emergency and called for drastic action. This time, I'll add my own take to the situation. (If you aren't interested in a recap of their season, skip to What To Do Now?)
A Season of Change
Even before the first game of the 2011-12 season, the Lakers faced several events that would dramatically effect their ability to compete for a third championship in four years. First, of course, was the lockout, which pushed the start date of the season back to Christmas, even though the league still squeezed 66 games out of the condensed season calendar. So many back-to-backs, and even back-to-back-to-backs, figured to be tough on the Lakers' aging roster, particularly Kobe in his 16th season. The Lakers also replaced the best coach in the league's history, Phil Jackson, with Mike Brown, the guy who led LeBron's undermanned Cavs' teams to several strong seasons which nevertheless fell short of championship-level success.
Once the new collective bargaining agreement was made, each team had to scramble to sign the free agents they wanted and/or make the trades they needed. The Lakers nearly got the best point guard in the league, Chris Paul, in a trade that would have sent away valuable big men Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom. After the league vetoed the trade, however, the Lakers quickly traded - perhaps gave away is more accurate - Odom to the Mavericks. It's impossible to know how well Odom would have done playing for L.A. this season, but in Dallas he rapidly fell apart to the point of being forced to "part ways" with his new team.
So, before the season even began, the Lakers were looking at a grueling schedule and outraged at being denied a superstar addition - but also got rid of at least one potential distraction (Odom). Once the season began, the Lakers hovered just above .500, playing well at home and lousy on the road. The Clippers, who ended up landing Paul, got all the early L.A. basketball headlines with a strong start. Their defense improved under Mike Brown, to no surprise, whose Cavs also played stifling D. On the other hand, their offense, especially in the first half of the year, was often painful to watch and rarely got to 100 points in a game.
Ron Artest (yes, I know, he's now Metta World Peace, but I refuse to use that "name") played quite badly for most of the season, but he started to improve in March and ended up playing better than he had in years. Bynum's improvement was even better: he posted career highs in points (18.7) and rebounds (11.8) per game, in addition to 2 blocks per game and good shooting (56% from the field, 69% from the line) - and he stayed healthy, playing over 90% of the schedule. He became the Lakers' clear second scoring option, and even outscored Kobe on more than a few occasions. Finally, the addition of Ramon Sessions in mid-March drastically improved their production at point guard. He averaged 12.7 points and 6 assists per game, as well as nearly 50% shooting on 3s.
Despite a tough schedule at the end of the season, the Lakers grabbed the Pacific Division and 3rd seed in the West from the rapidly sinking Clippers.
Playoff Woes
The Lakers' first round matchup with the Denver Nuggets was an interesting one: the Lakers preferred a slow pace controlled by their bigs, where the Nuggets preferred a lightning pace with lots of easy buckets. The Lakers featured three great stars, while the Nuggets relied on an overall solid lineup (including their bench). Quite appropriately, then, the series went seven games (even though the Lakers had the chance to end it at home in five). Despite having Sessions' fresh legs at PG, the Lakers were still blown away far too often by the Nuggets' youthful speed and explosiveness. Eventually, the Lakers' big three were just too much for the feisty Nuggets.
Round two, of course, was a different story. The Thunder are no longer the run-and-gun team that they were when the Lakers beat them in the first round two years ago (en route to their second straight championship). No, the Thunder simply did everything better than the Lakers. L.A. did lose two games that they had great chances to win, true - but whereas last year I felt shocked by their loss to eventual champion Dallas Mavericks, this year it just seemed a matter of time. Even the Lakers' best strength, the 7-foot duo of Gasol and Bynum, was pretty easily nullified by OKC's Perkins and Ibaka. Kobe gave a few great performances, but it was increasingly obvious that he at least felt like there was no one else on his team who could help him win a game. The subpar bench, which did OK in round one, completely collapsed here, too.
What To Do Now?
The Lakers find themselves going home early for a second straight year. But when it comes to their future, the most important thing to remember is that they still have Kobe Bryant, for good or ill. He is one of the all-time greats, and while he's still among the league's best, he's obviously going downhill with his age. Taking into account his legacy, the pride and reputation of the Lakers organization, and his astronomical salary, there is no doubt he is going to finish his days as a professional basketball player in purple and gold. It's one of the few certainties facing the team right now.
If there was a simple way forward from here, this post would not be worth writing. But, of course, there aren't any simple solutions to the Lakers' situation. The Lakers and their fans want to both A) win at least one more championship with Kobe Bryant, and B) retain a core from which to quickly rebuild once Kobe's best days have passed. I rather doubt it is possible to achieve both of these outcomes, however (and, in a nightmare for fans like myself, perhaps neither is possible). Still, if I were in charge of the Lakers here is what I would do...
So you want to win one or two more with Kobe...
99% of Laker fans, and many NBA analysts, are calling for Pau Gasol to be traded, even more than they did after last year's playoff exit. I have also frequently been frustrated with Gasol, but if you want to go the win-with-Kobe route, the Lakers shouldn't trade him, for several reasons. One: he won't get much in return, and certainly no stars that would significantly upgrade their roster - Laker complaints are not made in a vacuum, and teams wouldn't feel the need to offer great value for him. Two: he is perhaps the Lakers' steadiest player, both on the court and in his head - his drop in production is mostly due to both Bynum's enlarged role and the team's adjustment as a whole to Brown's new offense.
So, if you want the win-with-Kobe route, Lakers, you should trade Bynum. Why? One: he is by far your most valuable trading chip - he's only 24, he just finished the season with Dwight Howard-like numbers, he stayed healthy this year, and he has just one year left on a reasonable contract. Two: he STILL has maturity issues, and L.A. is clearly not a place to work those problems out. Three: yeah, he was healthy this year, but who knows how long that will last? Four: the Lakers' biggest obstacle for the future, OKC, clearly has the strategy and personnel to contain him at the moment.
Trade Bynum, and you could potentially get Deron Williams and maybe a role player or two in return. Or maybe Steve Nash and your pick from the rest of the Suns' roster? Etc. etc. etc. I think the Lakers could do pretty damn well with a starting lineup of Kobe, Deron Williams, Ron Artest, Jordan Hill and Pau Gasol, with Blake, Sessions, Barnes, McRoberts (if he shows improvement), Ebanks, and any other role players you get from New Jersey Brooklyn.
So you want to build a future dynasty...
Obviously, in this scenario, you have to keep Bynum who would (hopefully) be the centerpiece of a post-Kobe Laker squad. And if you're going to keep Bynum, then of course the Lakers will want to trade Gasol (which so many people seem to want to do anyway), since he is already in his 30s and seems unlikely to regain his maximum efficiency sharing post production with the more dominant Bynum. What can you get for Gasol? This is the interesting part. As I said earlier, the Lakers won't be able to get much star power in exchange for Pau, so they can either get a handful of role players or perhaps a nice cache of draft picks. With my strategy, of building for the future, the draft pick choice is obviously better - but the Lakers and their fans obviously want it both ways, and will want at least some known quantity to help them right off the bat.
As long as Kobe is still around, he will fight like hell to win more championships. The risk with being too blatant about building for the future is that Kobe will return to his pre-2008 days of demanding trades loudly left and right (remember when he thought Bynum was useless?). Of course, there are also risks to building around Bynum. I already mentioned that his injury history is quite frightening, and his lack of consistency and maturity on and off the court makes him a dubious team leader at best. Another point to mention is that maybe the game has simply moved on to the point that you can't win a championship when your best player is a center. Look at Orlando: Dwight Howard is a defensive monster, and they surrounded him with great three-point shooting on offense. Yet the farthest they've gotten is losing the Finals in five games to the Lakers (and only got that far because the Celtics didn't have KG for the playoffs). Bynum has a lot more potential at the offensive end, but he's no where near as good a defender as Howard and never will be.
My choice...
If I suddenly became the Lakers' owner, I would choose the first option. Deron Williams would be the best choice for the Lakers at this point (trading for Howard might improve them but only by a few degrees - see above). By doing this, you keep Kobe motivated and happy, and excited to have a superstar point guard teammate for the first time in his career. You get rid of a potential distraction and/or season wrecker in the form of an unsurprising knee injury. You get a more up-tempo style of play to match the rest of the league. You completely erase OKC's biggest edge over you (Westbrook), perhaps even turning it to your advantage, while making their silver bullets (Perkins-Ibaka) far less meaningful as well. And even if you still fall short of another championship, at least you can say you were a major power at one of the most competitive eras in the league's history (the Bulls' Rose plus smothering defense; the Heat's Big Three; OKC's Batman and Robin; etc.). Stay with Bynum, Lakers, and you're simply a crotchety old basketball power who has been passed by unceremoniously.
A Few Other Playoff Thoughts
I feel so sorry for the Chicago Bulls and Derrick Rose, who tore his ACL and MCL in game one, right at the end as they were securing the win in the first game of the playoffs. The Bulls and Rose deserve better than that, and then Noah's was just insult to injury... On the other hand, props to the 76ers for beating a still-formidable Bulls team despite having no stars of their own... The Hawks were the same old Hawks again, blowing game 2 at home despite no Rondo. Oh, and Joe Johnson again "earned" his $18 million salary with 17 PPG, 37% FG and 25% from 3. Don't worry, Hawks fans, just four years and ~$90 million of that scintillating play left!... Punching fire extinguishers doesn't help you beat the Miami Heat, as Amare painfully learned... I've finally seen it with my own eyes: the Spurs have been destroying everybody. Resistance is futile... Biggest series-wide shocker of the playoffs for me so far - the Clippers beating the Grizzlies. The first three quarters of game one seemed to validate my thoughts on how the series would go - and then Chuck Norris intervened via humble souls bearing the long-scorned jerseys of the L.A. Clippers. Basically nothing played out logically in that series, especially the fact that L.A.'s subs won it for them in game 7 in Memphis... Durant is a beast, and he will not let OKC go down quietly against anybody... I'm extremely impressed at how competitive Philly and Indiana have made their respective series in the semifinals. All the more so when they happen to drop their guard for a moment; you see how ridiculously outgunned they are when Miami and Boston pounce on them...
Enjoy the rest of the playoffs!
Score: ****1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Despite commercials featuring a dizzing array of costumed superheroes, The Avengers succeeds spectacularly where so many team/large-cast films have failed. Whedon devises a simple plot, but its job is simply to support the great cast (which somehow develops individuals and relationships with equal conviction), soaring action and a phenomenal sense of humor and fun. Do yourself a favor and go see this in the theater, if you haven't already.
The summer movie season has begun! It looks like there will be an interesting slate of films to choose from this year, and hopefully I'll have a bit more variety in my genre-watching this summer. Still, I'm kicking off summer 2012 with, yes, a superhero movie. Honestly, I was fairly skeptical about the concept of this film when I first heard about it; there have been many more instances of these team/large-cast action films that flop than succeed. The trailers didn't completely erase my doubts, either. However, I was quite pleased to see it get a Rotten Tomatoes score over 90%, excellent for any kind of film. The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly) and stars Robert Downey, Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and many others.
Before I begin the plot synopsis, I should inform you that this film does incorporate the events of the previous movies of its characters (Iron Man, Thor, etc.), but they aren't necessary to the understanding of the events of this film.
The first few scenes of The Avengers set up the villain of the film (Loki, demi-god brother of Thor) and his basic plot (steal an artifact - first seen in last summer's Captain America film - in return for an alien army to conquer Earth). Loki (Hiddleston) acquires this artifact from the facility of a covert organization known as SHIELD, prompting SHIELD leader Nick Fury (Jackson) to begin summoning the heroes. Black Widow (Johansson) is part of SHIELD already, and Captain America (Chris Evans) is in their custody, but the other Avengers prove a little more difficult to get onboard.
After some cajoling (and forest-leveling brawls), the team at last converges, grudgingly, on an aircraft carrier carrier (that's not a typo). After discovering a secret SHIELD agenda, the team again forms rivalries, primarily between virtuous, team-player Captain America and skeptical, independent Tony Stark (Downey Jr.). Loki attempts to further divide them, but the death of a mutual friend instead unites them. After that, it's butt-kicking time.
One of the main reasons The Avengers succeeds is that it has a great cast, and it somehow manages to give every member a distinct and fascinating role. As you might know from earlier reviews, I am a big fan of Robert Downey, Jr., and his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man is just as entertaining as Sherlock. In fact, Stark is probably the most important character in the film, as his sarcastic, arrogant, often selfish yet always funny personality is so different from the traditional hero's. Chris Evans' Captain America has pretty much the opposite personality, and he does a good job of portraying his character's extreme frustration with Stark, but also his cool-headed leadership skills. Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) is kind of an interesting blend of Stark and the Capt. - he's a classic hero-type, but also arrogant/derisive of "puny humans" by virtue of his being, well, a demi-god. Chris plays him with the same humor and charm that marked his character's own debut film.
Black Widow (Johansson) and Hawkeye (newcomer played by Jeremy Renner) are the tortured-soul members of the Avengers; each get a pleasantly surprising amount of development, considering they are really secondary characters, and the actors breathe life into them. Mark Ruffalo is the third actor to portray the Hulk in the last decade, and he might be the best yet. He gives Bruce Banner a quiet, friendly demeanor, but also a definite sense of hiding something huge and dangerous under that innocent exterior. Tom Hiddleston as Loki improves on his performance in last summer's Thor, although he still is not among the best comic book villains. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is... well, pretty much what you'd expect from Samuel L. Jackson, but his underling Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) actually steals the show from him.
With a great cast balancing out a pretty straightforward story, next we look at the nuts and bolts of The Avengers. A superhero film without good action scenes is kind of pointless, but fortunately this film has plenty. There is great variety here, from intense individual skirmishes to heavy firepower shoot-outs. Yes, the finale battle is an alien invasion in NYC, bringing back memories of *gulp* Transformers and many others, but here The Avengers provides a superior experience. Overall, the film favors action that is appropriate for each of its characters rather than action that is original in a more general sense, which is a good trade off for this kind of team film. The next aspect which must be spoken to is the film's sense of humor, because it is phenomenal. The Avengers isn't a Green Hornet-esque action-comedy, yet it is far funnier than, say, 21 Jump Street whose primary mission was to be funny. A little of the humor is based on (basic) knowledge of the comics, but most of it is accessible to the general movie-goer, and the showing I went to was laughing out loud on numerous occasions. I won't spoil any specifics here, but while Tony Stark is of course humorous, the Hulk gets the biggest laughs.
***
Even while driving to go see The Avengers, I doubted that it would be good enough for 4.5 stars. Team/large-cast films, to say nothing of action films that try to do it, are just so hard to do well. But Joss Whedon deserves so much credit for succeeding, and in fact I would say he did the best job with the hardest task in any film I've seen in many years. As I've said, the cast is a big factor - I love Downey, Jr., and the others also do a great job of creating distinct characters, with unusually good chemistry for a team of big names. The combination of meaningful and fun action with an outstanding sense of humor also gives the film a huge boost. And what all those things create together is a sense of fun unmatched by any superhero film in recent memory. The film is certainly not a parody, but it's often a bit silly, reminding the audience that these characters did start off in comic books, after all. The Avengers isn't perfect - the villain's plot, in particular, is not all that intriguing. But the humor, cast, action and fun are all so good that they make The Avengers an instant classic in the superhero genre.
