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.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013)
(SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I am you, and you are me, and we are here. I am the dreamer. You are the dream.

Communion (1989)
(SPOILERS) Whitley Strieber’s Communion: A True Story was published in 1987, at which point the author (who would also pen Communion’s screenplay) had seen two of his novels adapted for the cinema (Wolfen and The Hunger), so he could hardly claim ignorance of the way Hollywood – or filmmaking generally – worked. So why then, did he entrust the translation of a highly personal work, an admission of/ confrontation with hidden demons/ experiences, to the auteur who unleashed Howling II and The Marsupials: Howling III upon an undeserving world? The answer seems to be that Strieber already knew director Philippe Mora, and the latter was genuinely interested in the authors’ uncanny encounters. Which is well and good and honourable, but the film entirely fails to deliver the stuff of cinematic legend. Except maybe in a negative sense.

Strieber professes dismay at the results, citing improvised scenes and additional themes, and Walken’s rendition of Whitley Strieber, protagonist…

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.

He did it. He shut down the Earth.

Escape from L.A. (1996)
(SPOILERS) It seems it was Kurt Russell’s enthusiasm for his most iconic character (no, not Captain Ron) that got Escape from L.A. made. That makes sense, because there’s precious little evidence here that John Carpenter gave two shits. This really was his point of no return, I think. His last great chance to show his mettle. But lent a decent-sized budget (equivalent to five times that of Escape from New York) he squandered it, delivering an inert TV movie that further rubs salt in the wound by operating as a virtual remake of the original. Just absent any of the wit, atmosphere, pace and inspiration.

So you made contact with the French operative?

Atomic Blonde (2017)
(SPOILERS) Well, I can certainly see why Focus Features opted to change the title from The Coldest City (the name of the graphic novel from which this is adapted). The Coldest City evokes a noirish, dour, subdued tone, a movie of slow-burn intrigue in the vein of John Le Carré. Atomic Blonde, to paraphrase its introductory text, is not that movie. As such, there’s something of a mismatch here, of the kind of Cold War tale it has its roots in and the furious, pop-soaked action spectacle director David Leitch is intent on turning it into. In the main, his choices succeed, but the result isn’t quite the clean getaway of his earlier (co-directed) John Wick.