Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Tax the Rich

 

Movie Monday - Men in Black III

 

There's got to be a lot of blathering today if I want to fill this post since my movie review could probably take just one line. 

 

To get political?, sports-minded? for a minute: What's with that multi-tatted guy and his Nazi salute? Talk about instant fame/infamy. I didn't bother to read the article because I got all I needed to know from the picture and headline in The Huffington Post which, unfortunately, probably makes me a moderately informed citizen in the US.

 

So the guy's been banned from professional soccer for life? Which makes me think: Was he trying to make a reasoned statement with that salute? (I may be wrong but all the tatts he wears sort of tells me he may have made some unreasoned decisions in the past.) Did he really wanted the world to know he was a Nazi supporter? Does he even understand what the Nazi Party stood for? He's much too young for its heyday in the 1930s so I'll assume he's picked up bits of their doctrine from modern-day rabid right-wing European groups. Now, whether he's meant to or not, his salute has ended his career in professional soccer (I'm assuming it's professional), and these personal beliefs may have destroyed a well-playing livelihood for him forever.  Is it fair to make him the poster child for a "we will not tolerate such an attitude/belief system when it is brought to our attention" draconian punishment? Obviously, from articles I have read re: the rise of neo-nazi beliefs, this guy is not alone in his thinking. Does scoring points with the politically correct crowd with this punishment help to eradicate fascist beliefs? (And as a side: Have you heard/read the hate-speak emitting from the mouths of some US politicians?) I'm just raising the questions here. Outside of a firm belief that draconian punishments always lead to more trouble, I don't have the answers.

 

OK, down from my soapbox. I spent the afternoon yesterday sewing. I made four skirts so it wasn't a total horror but never, ever will sewing be the creative hobby which I tell everyone who will listen (usually just my captive family) they should have. I was exhausted by the end of this sewing session. And yes, I know that if I had spent the time knitting, even with very large needles, I would have only have been able to finish one garment in that time period. Still, it was such a drag to pull out the all the extras you need when you sew. (The biggest surprise was that the sewing machine, which had been sleeping for about 5 years, still worked.) But I saved DH a lot of dough: I recycled 3 garments (jumpers to skirts) and used up 2+ yards of expensive fabric (which I had to get on sale), so all ended well.

 

And while sewing, I did get to watch the missing pieces of Men in Black III for my review so you can say, I doubled-worked yesterday.

 

First, let me give you the one line review I mentioned above: Action movies should stay in their genre and leave the explanations and angst for other venues. And now let me cite my exception to that one-liner: Hancock. I reviewed this one before and I liked it because, while an action flick, there was a back story which competent actors were able to play out so that you cared. Will Smith, Charlize Theron and Justin Bateman all had a complex relationship in Hancock and while the hook was the super strength of your titled character, the handling of the story of how he got there and where he was going were extra strengths which moved this action film into a second genre.

 

Not so with Men in Black 3. Still using all the CGI aliens from the first two movies, MIB3 takes us back into Agent K's (Tommy Lee Jones) past. On the premise that Agent J (Will Smith) has to travel into the past to change history so that K is not killed in the present, the movie also tries to answer questions about both these characters' back story. It winds up not doing anything very well.

 

I look at the three Men in Black movies this way: I: a good introduction to our two action heroes (K and J) with some nice comic touches. II: More depth in that there is an action story (preventing the destruction of the earth - again), a surprise ending which is played out quite well, and again, neat comic touches. III: again the destruction of the planet is imminent, time travel to the past, our heroes' back story and just too many loose ends.

 

Let me just list some of my questions: They open the movie with K and J working together but then K disappears (before our eyes) and J is told K died 40 years ago. What? I know that Boris the Animal's escape from prison (in our time) has something to do with this, but what? Then J decides to return to the past to meet the younger K and change history. OK, got that. But as he's about to use the machine to transport him back he says something to the machine's inventor which causes the guy to say: Wow, that means you've been back there already. When you get back (to present time), you have to tell me about it. Not only did I have no idea what that meant but J never sees the guy again so that's another loose thread. And finally, we are sort of promised the reason behind K's curmudgeon behavior. I don't think the movie delivers on that either. (Aside: And the chocolate milk as a plot point was just silly.)

 

Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones, Josh Brolin, and Emma Thompson play their roles competently but I do think MIB2 could have ended this series. However, MIB3 grossed over $600 M (once again with 60%+ coming from foreign markets) so unless Jones's face fossilizes into a statue from Mt. Rushmore, the boys will be back for #4. See you next Monday.

 

P.S. Reading a comment on MIB3, I get the idea that the earlier MIBs were just dreams and K really did die 40 years ago. Oh, I am sooooo messed up.