Skip to main content

What is this, the sequel to The Notebook?

Men in Black: International
(2019)

(SPOILERS) The failure, both critically and commercially, of Sony’s limpid attempt to reignite (soft reboot) the Men in Black franchise has confirmed how desperate they are, scrabbling about for anything that might turn their fortunes around but without a scintilla of the inspiration or acumen to achieve it. They’re now on their second attempt with Ghostbusters, resuscitating Bad Boys – perhaps surprisingly, a big hit – and not making as much hay with their one smartly reinvented property (Jumanji) as they should have. And yes, they have their Spider-verse, but having all their eggs in one basket led to the downfall of the Amy Pascal regime. Despite the sad fate that befell Men in Black: International, though – the once mooted 21 Jump Street mashup would surely have been more in line with the tone of the original – it’s actually a fairly agreeable, if determinedly unremarkable movie.

Quite aside from the struggles getting a new MIB off the ground, and that the MIB heyday thing was very much historic and time capsuled, that of the halcyon, X-Files decade of the 90s when aliens and Will Smith went hand in hand, I had my doubts about this picture as soon as the director and cast were announced. I was never a huge fan of MIB, but even with the need-a-hit second instalment, they carried a definite sense of what they were about: Barry Sonnenfeld’s broad, bouncy, cartoonish visual sensibility married to Smith’s larger-than-life persona and Tommy Lee Jones’ deadpan. So where did F Gary Gray fit into that, a journeyman director not exactly prized for his comedy chops? Indeed, his The Fate of the Furious is singled out by lacking – the odd Stath interlude aside – the balletic visual oomph of its better prior outings.

And what was Sony doing casting Chris Hemsworth, funny Thor and Ghostbusters support aside, being in no way a “comedy” guy. And Tessa Thompson? Okay, they’d appeared together in the larky Thor: Ragnarok, but the combination suggested Sony were actively disinterested in attracting audiences with the promise of similar hijinks to those the series had displayed historically (besides which, Hemsworth’s non MCU vehicles have been consistently resistant to suggestions that he may be a star outside of them). Indeed, if one didn’t know better, one might have thought the studio was angling for something closer to The X-Files itself than the goofy tone the series was known for.

Which, it turns out, little wacky aliens designs aside, it pretty much was. Possibly even more so prior to the version that made it to cinemas. Such was my disinterest in Men in Black: International, it entirely passed me by that the production had been so stormy (I mean, when you have the kind of reshoots Dark Phoenix suffered to divert your attention, everything else palls by comparison). It seems Men in Black: International was your classically rushed production, with a first draft screenplay that required significant rewriting, often at the behest of series producer Walter F Parkes and to the objection of Gray, who suffered the ill effects of Parkes’ interference when Sony VP David Beaubaire left the studio.

The “edgier and more timely” screenplay dealing with immigration was softened, it seems (but in fairness, producer Parkes was historically no slouch in the writing department, with WarGames and Sneakers to his name; certainly, I’d more readily listen to his ideas than credited writers Matt Holloway and Art Marcum. Perhaps the handling of topical material was, like so much Hollywood produces, heavy-handed and glib). Of course, Parkes and co-producer Laurie MacDonald naturally had a less incendiary take on the Hollywood Reporter’s story. Whatever the details, there were sufficient ructions that Sony ended up with two cuts of the movie, a Gray one and a Parkes one, with the latter’s picked for release.

Men in Black: International is quite serviceable, particular during the first hour, but with Gray helming, it sands no chance of taking off visually or exhibiting any degree of real verve (and the big action set piece on a hover bike is as unnecessary and lethargic as one might expect). Hemsworth is fully trading on his Thor persona, channelling the faux-Shakespearean tones of the Norse god into a reasonably funny faux-posh English caricature. That said, his character, cocky and over-confident and careless, is crippled by an all-important thread whereby he isn’t the guy he used to be (“He’s changed. I can feel it”) and so can’t be trusted. Except that it’s never clear, aside from having had his memory of a crucial incident wiped, just why this should be the case. It means we never get a sense of who H is supposed to be (the question remains, though, why not convert H as well as Liam Neeson’s High T, given there was evidently the opportunity).

Thompson’s Molly/M is likeable but blandly unmemorable. The most noteworthy aspect of her involvement is questioning the operation’s gender-biased name, and that was in the trailer. Much of the plot revolves around the prospect of a mole in MIB, working for aliens the Hive, and this element sustains itself quite effectively, even given there are only two options, Rafe Spall’s Agent C, who is so obnoxious it can’t be him, and respectable veteran High T. So there you go. Emma Thompson is back as Agent O, Rebecca Ferguson plays a three-armed alien like she’s auditioning for AbFab, and Kumail Najiani, recently on the steroids, voices tiny alien sidekick Pawny.

Maybe I had very low expectations, but Men in Black: International’s no worse than many of the middling studio movies that came out last year. It confirms what we knew anyway – Men in Black 3 bucked the feeling that the franchise was one-and-done redundant, but only due to the time travel element – but perhaps it’s just as well to have it underlined that all those now nostalgia-ripe 90s SF properties (The X-Files, Independence Day, Men in Black) have little latter-day lustre. And certainly not when their original architects are still attached.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

People still talk about Pandapocalypse 2002.

Turning Red (2022) (SPOILERS) Those wags at Pixar, eh? Yes, the most – actually, the only – impressive thing about Turning Red is the four-tiered wordplay of its title. Thirteen-year-old Mei (Rosalie Chiang) finds herself turning into a large red panda at emotive moments. She is also, simultaneously, riding the crimson wave for the first time. Further, as a teenager, she characteristically suffers from acute embarrassment (mostly due to the actions of her domineering mother Ming Lee, voiced by Sandra Oh). And finally, of course, Turning Red can be seen diligently spreading communist doctrine left, right and centre. To any political sensibility tuning in to Disney+, basically (so ones with either considerable or zero resistance to woke). Take a guess which of these isn’t getting press in reference to the movie? And by a process of elimination is probably what it it’s really about (you know in the same way most Pixars, as far back as Toy Story and Monsters, Inc . can be given an insi

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I can’t be the worst. What about that hotdog one?

Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) (SPOILERS) It would have been a merciful release, had the title card “ The End ”, flashing on screen a little before the ninety-minute mark, not been a false dawn. True, I would still have been unable to swab the bloody dildoes fight from my mind, but at least Everything Everywhere All at Once would have been short. Indeed, by the actual end I was put in mind of a line spoken by co-star James Wong in one of his most indelible roles: “ Now this really pisses me off to no end ”. Or to put it another way, Everything Everywhere All at Once rubbed me up the wrong which way quite a lot of most of the time.

We’ve got the best ball and chain in the world. Your ass.

Wedlock (1991) (SPOILERS) The futuristic prison movie seemed possessed of a particular cachet around this time, quite possibly sparked by the grisly possibilities of hi-tech disincentives to escape. On that front, HBO TV movie Wedlock more than delivers its FX money shot. Elsewhere, it’s less sure of itself, rather fumbling when it exchanges prison tropes for fugitives-on-the-run ones.

We could be mauled to death by an interstellar monster!

Star Trek Beyond (2016) (SPOILERS) The odd/even Star Trek failure/success rule seemed to have been cancelled out with the first reboot movie, and then trodden into ground with Into Darkness (which, yes, I quite enjoyed, for all its scandalous deficiencies). Star Trek Beyond gets us back onto more familiar ground, as it’s very identifiably a “lesser” Trek , irrespective of the big bucks and directorial nous thrown at it. This is a Star Trek movie that can happily stand shoulder to shoulder with The Search for Spock and Insurrection , content in the knowledge they make it look good.

He's not in my pyjamas, is he?

Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice (1969) (SPOILERS) By rights, Paul Mazursky’s swinging, post-flower-power-gen partner-swap movie ought to have aged terribly. So much of the era’s scene-specific fare has, particularly so when attempting to reflect its reverberations with any degree of serious intent. Perhaps it’s because Mazursky and co-writer Larry Tucker (also of The Monkees , Alex in Wonderland and I Love You, Alice B. Toklas! ) maintain a wry distance from their characters’ endeavours, much more on the wavelength of Elliott Gould’s Ted than Robert Culp’s Bob; we know any pretensions towards uninhibited expression can’t end well, but we also know Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice have to learn the hard way.

I think World War II was my favourite war.

Small Soldiers (1998) An off-peak Joe Dante movie is still one chock-a-block full of satirical nuggets and comic inspiration, far beyond the facility of most filmmakers. Small Soldiers finds him back after a six-year big screen absence, taking delirious swipes at the veneration of the military, war movies, the toy industry, conglomerates and privatised defence forces. Dante’s take is so gleefully skewed, he even has big business win! The only problem with the picture (aside from an indistinct lead, surprising from a director with a strong track record for casting juveniles) is that this is all very familiar. Dante acknowledged Small Soldiers was basically a riff on Gremlins , and it is. Something innocuous and playful turns mad, bad and dangerous. On one level it has something in common with Gremlins 2: The New Batch , in that the asides carry the picture. But Gremlins 2 was all about the asides, happy to wander off in any direction that suited it oblivious to whet

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?