Cannes Film Festival 2013

Review: 'Men in Black 3' is no disaster, but is that enough?

Will Smith returns, while Tommy Lee Jones is mostly sidelined for Josh Brolin

  • Critic's Rating C+
  • Readers' Rating A-
Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in 'Men in Black 3'

Back in black: Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in 'Men in Black 3'

Credit: Wilson Webb/Sony

"Men in Black 3" starts strong with the interstellar introduction of new alien villain Boris the Animal. As played by Jemaine Clement and designed by makeup whiz Rick Baker, Boris is a fearsome figure of intimidating size, teeth where you'd least expect, and a deep guttural voice.

He also represents the movie in a nutshell: looks cool, seems promising and goes absolutely nowhere.

"Men in Black 3" always sounded a little dicey. "Men in Black II" (yes, the sequel used Roman numerals) opened 10 years ago to a general consensus that it kind of sucked. It made $150 million less than the original in worldwide box office and maintains a decisively "rotten" score at Rotten Tomatoes (compared to the original's overwhelmingly "fresh" score). No one was clamoring for a threequel.

But Will Smith had an idea about time travel that he wanted to pursue and the studio, co-star Tommy Lee Jones and director Barry Sonnenfeld were all interested. So filming began in late 2010, without a finished screenplay. Production shut down soon after that and planned dates to resume came and went as tinkering continued on the script, co-star Alec Baldwin dropped out over scheduling conflicts and media reports surfaced that the movie was in deep trouble.

Consider it good news that what sounded like a complete disaster during production winds up nothing worse than a run-of-the-mill summer event movie on screen. It's an improvement over "Men in Black II," but not as fresh or inspired as the original. There's no real justification for its existence, but it's reasonably fun to watch most of the time. By the standards of summer 2012 so far, that's a win.

But don't get too excited. Moment to moment, "Men in Black 3" coasts by on colorful visuals, Smith's easygoing charm and Sonnenfeld's light directorial touch — at least until it's over, and you realize there's nothing actually holding the whole thing together. You've spent the last 100 minutes distracted by the promise of a payoff that never really arrives.

The movie works best in the present day, beginning with the aforementioned introduction of Boris and continuing through the reintroduction of Smith's Agent J and Jones' Agent K. They're still working for a shadowy organization keeping the world safe from renegade aliens. Agent J is still a motormouth and Agent K still never cracks a smile. They've got a new boss (Emma Thompson as Agent O), but otherwise it's as if they haven't missed a beat since we last saw them.

And yet suddenly — conveniently since the threequel needs some sort of emotional core to its story — J decides he really needs to know more about the enigmatic K. Why does this man never talk about his personal life, express emotion or demonstrate any kind of humanity? The key supposedly lies in his past.

Since Boris has discovered the secret to time travel and plans to alter the entire course of history that's where most of this story will take place. After a string of catastrophic events, J gets whisked back to 1969 in the film's single best set piece. Everything goes downhill from there.

Once J lands in the '60s, we're treated to some obvious but amusing racial humor (Smith may be one of the biggest movie stars today but he wouldn't have been so lucky then, and he milks the comic potential of a streetwise 21st Century black man transported to the "Mad Men" era), a random trip to Andy Warhol's famed Factory complete with Bill Hader dropping in as a one-of-a-kind Warhol, and a Cape Canaveral climax set during the launch of Apollo 11. That's pretty much it.

With so much of the action set in 1969, the filmmakers make the doubly dubious decision of robbing us of the proven Smith/Jones chemistry and failing to provide anything fresh or exciting in its place. Instead, Smith primarily plays opposite Josh Brolin as Young Agent K, doing a perfectly solid Tommy Lee Jones impression but struggling to uncover any intriguing angles to the purposefully underdeveloped character. He's also never able to click with Smith to the same degree as Jones.

Odd couple chemistry is as much a part of "Men in Black" as the kooky aliens and deadpan humor. As game as Brolin is, it's a shame how little we see of Jones here. There's no romantic interest this time around (Linda Fiorentino and Rosario Dawson are long gone, and Alice Eve is only fleetingly seen as a younger incarnation of Thompson's character), and screenwriter Etan Cohen (or whoever is actually responsible for the story) seemingly intends to shape this film as more of a "love story" between J and K in ways that never quite pay off.

Former cinematographer Sonnenfeld (who has been working mostly in TV after he followed "Black II" with forgettable family comedy "RV") remains a director stronger with visual style than storytelling finesse. Considering how worked over the screenplay reportedly was, it's somewhat surprising how straightforward the story develops. Even though the film makes hay with its absurd timeline (at one point the unmistakably fortysomething Brolin says he's 29; while the real life Smith was a newborn in '69, but his character apparently wasn't) there's a laser-like focus on J's mission that keeps the action consistently clear. Unfortunately, concise is not the same as interesting.

As eye candy "Men in Black 3" works fine. Sonnenfeld and his crew update the look of the original films to fit today's technology (for once the use of 3D in an event movie isn't entirely unwelcome) while smartly retrofitting other elements for the '69 timeline. The aliens are cleverly conceived — the sheer volume of creatures in an early Chinese restaurant scene is impressive, and I won't forget the creepy Cronenberg-esque opening on Boris' hand anytime soon — and the sound design is smashing. But all this great technical work is squandered on a story that settles for just OK.

"Men in Black 3" opens everywhere May 25

Geoff-berkshire-sm
Geoff Berkshire
Contributor
Geoff Berkshire lives in Los Angeles and writes about film and television. His work has appeared in Variety, the L.A. Times, and Premiere, among other publications. He is the former national entertainment editor and film critic for Metromix.com.
Trending Now on HitFix Boards
Topic Started By Latest Post Replies
sandylewis90
8 days ago
2
sandylewis90
27 days ago
1
Discuss In Theaters and Coming Soon on HitFix Message Boards »

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup
  • Default-avatar

    cosine

    Anyone else irritated by these gallery launch articles. Not by the content, but the gallery itself. You can't expand it, so you need to keep scrolling back and forth in order to change the picture and then see the whole picture. It's a very frustrating design.

    May 22, 2012 at 8:06AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Prettok

    "Is it enough?". Enough for what? If movies now have to justify their existence ( outside of making money for the participants) then why does 'The 5 year Engagement' exist? What is the reason for 'The Dictator'?

    May 22, 2012 at 10:18AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Prettok

    Is it enough? Enough for what?
    If movies now have to justify their existence (outside of making money for the participants), then why does 'The Dictator' exist? What is the reason for 'The 5 year Engagement'?

    May 22, 2012 at 10:21AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 Is it enough to make a good movie? Is it enough to prove that Will Smith is still a viable movie star? Is it enough for audiences to make it a big hit?

      All are viable questions that have nothing to do with justifying the movie's existence. I think you're reading it wrong.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:18PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Boris the Animal

    A movie review is an opinion of a finished movie. It's not a place for commentary about production troubles, script issues, inflated budgets, etc... Review the movie and leave the gossip out of it.

    Saw MiB 3 last week. Had a great time. It's much more in the spirit of the first movie - fast, funny, & quirky. Smith really brings back his youthful energy from the original film. Seems like her barely aged from 1997. Brolin nails it and is a lot of fun to watch. I was pleasantly surprised after the dissappointment of the the first sequel.

    May 22, 2012 at 11:11AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Freakazoid_talkback_profile

      mmcb105 This comment makes no sense. Geoff doesn't claim that the preproduction problems influenced his review. In fact, he says the exact opposite, that the movie isn't the disaster it sounded like it would be.

      No gossip here, just facts.

      May 22, 2012 at 3:15PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    scott_harrigan

    The film does not look horrendous as it keeps its awesome lead. Even Brolin does a pretty good young Tommy Lee Jones impression. The issue is the fact that Time Travel can be extremely contrived and is often the tools of someone who is lacking any other ideas. Maybe if they completely ignore the 2nd movie, it can turn out to be a decent film. Will Smith is pretty funny in the trailer so at the very least he will be good even if the movie is not.

    http://www.videodetective.com/movies/men-in-black-3/393632#.T7wV2OuWclc

    May 22, 2012 at 6:41PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    MovieFan25

    You know, M.I.B. actually has a different meaning...it means "Mutual in Bed", and it's awesome...try a search for it on youtube!

    May 24, 2012 at 2:19PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    RL

    The 3D was impressive and special effects were great. Also, surprisingly, the villain (the dude from "Flying Conchords") was awesome. His forceful demeanor made him enjoyable whenever he was on-screen (and not doing something skin-crawlingly gross). Will Smith is as lovable as ever. Tommy Lee doesn't do much, and Josh Brolin seems a bit flat.

    The story was no great shakes, a little slow in parts, and ultimately without much payoff. If you're going to see this movie you should see it for the 3D and the acting by Smith and the villain.

    May 30, 2012 at 6:27PM EST Reply to Comment

Get Instant Alerts on Breaking News

Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook
Top Stories From Around the Web