Sicario (9/10): VIlleneuve delivers a brilliant atmospheric thriller

“You will not survive here. You are not a wolf, and this is a land of wolves now.”

It’s been over a month now since I’ve seen this film and it has stuck with me in a way few films have this year. Denis Villeneuve is a talented director who knows how to build the right atmosphere for his movies. Sicario is all about tone and atmosphere. We’ve seen the premise of this film done to death, but somehow Villeneuve and screenwriter Taylor Sheridan manage to tell a familiar story in a very unique way. The success of Sicario isn’t that it has a unique premise or a fantastic twist, but that it manages to tell a familiar story in such a captivating way with some of the best performances of the year. Sicario will be included in my list of the best films of 2015 without a doubt, and it is a must see for movie fans around the globe. Emily Blunt continues to expand her acting career with another brilliant performance although its Benicio de Toro who will get all the accolades for getting the stronger dramatic material to work with.

The film has the best opening sequence by far in a movie released this year as we are introduced to Emily Blunt’s character, Kate Macer, who is leading a SWAT team across an Arizona desert and into a house where they suspect to find one of the Mexican cartel leaders, but end up finding much more than what they bargained for. Kate is a tough DEA agent who is determined to bring down the Mexican cartel. Once they arrive back at the station she is introduced to Josh Brolin’s Matt Graver, a superior who wants her assistance in catching the cartel leader who was responsible for the events that unfolded at the house. Graver has a suave persona, he may be in charge of the operation but he seems laid back with his flip flops and cargo pants. His right hand man is much more silent and mysterious. It’s Benicio del Toro’s Alejandro, who certainly seems menacing and is hiding something underneath his calmed demeanor. He is evidently a man who has seen and experienced a lot of things in life. Kate accepts the mission despite not being fully informed of what she must do and she becomes a surrogate for the audience as she tries to understand what these men are up to just as we do. Villeneuve keeps the audience hooked and engaged while taking us through the Mexican border an back again with some magnificent cinematography from Roger Deakins. Sicario is a brilliant film that maintains the tension throughout its entire runtime. My only complaint is that the second half isn’t as strong as the first.

Sicario is a film that should receive several nominations come Award time and I can’t see how Del Toro won’t be nominated for his superb supporting performance here. Although I must say that Brolin and Blunt are equally deserving for their work. Blunt is much more subtle in her approach as she has to adapt to this masculine dominated world and is constantly left in the loop of things. Brolin plays a character that he could play in his sleep with his suave and cool exterior, but he does it so well that it’s hard not to sympathize with him. Del Toro is menacing and his turn as Alejandro will be one of the most memorable characters of the year. He has some great scenes. It’s hard to avoid some comparisons with Zero Dark Thirty, especially the way some of the scenes were shot and how it focuses (although in a very different way) on two strong motivated female characters who are determined to accomplish their goal in a masculine run world. It also happens to be a very intelligent thriller that manages to tell a familiar story in a fresh way. Sometimes it’s not what you say, but how you say it that makes the difference and in Sicario Villeneuve manages to craft an engaging work of art. This is the Zero Dark Thirty of war on drug films. 

Everest (6/10) The Magnificent mountain imposes over the characters.

“Human beings simply aren't built to function at the cruising altitudes of a seven-forty-seven.”

Based on the true events that took place in Mount Everest on May 1996 during a climbing expedition to reach the summit of the mountain, this disaster movie directed by Baltasar Kormakur stands out for its fantastic and impressive visuals. However what it has in its visual department, it lacks in character development. The only strong character here is Jason Clarke’s Rob Hall who is the heart and soul of a story that is a bit overpopulated with characters who don’t get enough screen time for us to really identify with them. The narrative could’ve worked better with fewer characters, but the magnificent mountain does end up taking center stage and the visual style makes up for all its flaws. Some patience is required as we are introduced to each character at the beginning of the film, but once the preparation for the climbing begins its hard not to fall in love with all the beauty surrounding them and the passion these climbers had for reaching the summit. Kormakur does manage to establish the harsh conditions these men would have to endure to reach the top while they acclimatize to the region, which makes the approaching menacing storm during the second half of the film even more dreadful. Including so many characters and trying to remain true as possible to the real life events may have hurt the narrative arc of the film, but the scenery more than makes up for it.

By 1996 the climbing expeditions to reach the peak of Mount Everest had become a sought out tourist attraction. The nearly impossible task wasn’t only achieved by professional climbers, but now amateurs could achieve their dream by paying for the service of well trained expedition companies that facilitated the acclimatizing process. One company is being led by experienced climber, Rob Hall (Jason Clarke) who is preparing his new crew for the upcoming adventure. He leaves his pregnant wife, Jan (Keira Knightley) at home and heads off to Nepal to meet the team. This year the clients are Doug (John Hawkes), a returning customer who hadn’t been able to reach the summit the previous year, Yasuko (Naoko Mori) who has climbed 6 of the 7 highest peaks of the planet and is hoping to complete her adventure, Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin) who is so immersed in the experience that he’s forgotten to call his wife, Peach (Robin Wright) for their anniversary, among many others. Rob is worried about the growing amount of expeditions that are heading to the summit around the same time so he asks other experienced leaders like Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) to team up with his people. Other employees working at the mountain include Helen (Emily Watson) who is in charge of communications from the base camp and Guy Cotter (Sam Worthington) another experienced crew member who is a friend of Rob’s. As hard as they were working to give their clients a memorable experience, there was nothing they could do to anticipate the storm that was heading their way. 

Kormakur had previously directed two very different action flicks starring Mark Wahlberg (Contraband and 2 Guns), but this is more of an epic disaster film with some tense moments of human drama. The cast is brilliant, but as I mentioned before there isn’t enough time to get to know them all. Jason Clarke is the actor who is given more depth and he is allowed to flesh his character, but the rest are simply there as recognizable names: Worthington, Gyllenhaal, Knightley, Hawkes, and Watson don’t have much moments to shine which is a shame because they are talented actors. Perhaps the only other actor we truly get to know beside Clarke is Josh Brolin who gets some more screen time as well. But despite all the big names, the truly breathtaking character here is the Mountain which imposes an immense threat for everyone, even for the professionals who think they are part of it. I was a bit underwhelmed with the movie because I wanted to care more for these characters, but I did enjoy the breathtaking visuals and the marvelous landscape.    

Best Laid Plans (5/10): Bad planning

“Who's created this problem? Someone is gonna get hurt, Bryce. It's just a question of who.”

There’s nothing really special about Mike Barker’s Best Laid Plans, but somehow it manages to remain slightly interesting during its short runtime. There’s something about 90’s neo-noir thrillers that manage to captivate me and although this film isn’t up to par with some of the better movies in the genre (the best example that comes to mind is the Wachowski’s Bound), I still appreciated it for its nostalgic value and some decent performances. Alessandro Nivola delivers a solid lead performance and I don’t think he’s ever been better than he was here. It’s a shame he didn’t get more opportunities to star in better films and has only gotten mostly supporting roles. Reese Witherspoon wasn’t that big of a star as she is now, but you could tell by her work here that she would get places. It would be nice to see her in more roles for thrillers like this one. The greatest flaw of the film is that it relies on one too many twists and once you get the feel of what the screenwriter was trying to do you can basically guess what the next twist is going to be. Ted Griffin’s script still managed to entertain although it’s not a story that will stick with you after you watch the film. It keeps you engaged throughout most of the first half of the film, but then it begins to unravel up to the climactic scene, that’s just way too silly even for the 90’s.

The film opens with a diner scene between two old college friends that are getting together for the first time in years. Bryce (Josh Brolin) is in town for a few days house sitting for a wealthy family, and so he has decided to phone Nick (Alessandro Nivola) to meet up with him. While the two are having a couple of drinks together a beautiful girl named Kathy (Resse Witherspoon) walks in. Nick receives a call from his girlfriend and says he’s got to go, but Bryce stays and ends up taking Kathy home with him. Later that night Nick receives a desperate call from Bryce asking him to come over to his house. He says Kathy has threatened to go to the police claiming he has raped her. He has absolutely no recollection of what happened, but after going through her purse he discovers she’s only 16. Bryce didn’t know what to do so he handcuffed Kathy in the basement and is hoping Nick can help him. He wants to talk to her alone so Bryce lets him and that is where we discover that everything was a setup and that Kathy’s name is actually Lissa and she’s Nick’s girlfriend. The film then shifts four months into the past where we are introduced to how Nick and Lissa met and the predicament they get into after making a deal with some small time local criminals (played by Terrence Howard) which gets them in even more trouble as the twists begin to pile along the way.  

For all the twists and turns that Barker takes his audience through, the film ends up disappointing by trying to wrap things up a bit too nicely at the end. You get so used to the dark atmosphere and the betrayals that it becomes pretty evident what direction the movie is going to take at the end. I still enjoyed the ride although I wasn’t pleased with the destination, but the performances are engaging enough to still make the experience worth the while. There’s just something about the 90’s neo-thriller vibe that always seems to engage me. There’s not much more to add about this film, give it a try if you’re a fan of the cast or the genre, otherwise skip it because it’s pretty forgettable.   

Inherent Vice (4/10): The First time I was disappointed with a PTA film

“She came along the alley and up the back steps the way she always used to. Doc hadn't seen her for over a year. Nobody had.”

Before I get a lot of hate for disliking this film I just want to say that I have a lot of respect for Paul Thomas Anderson as a director and have rated all of his previous films with at least four out of five stars. Inherent Vice was one of my most anticipated films for 2014 because his recent movies have been mesmerizing. The Master and There Will Be Blood are both films that I absolutely love. Inherent Vice unfortunately didn’t work for me and I had a very difficult time keeping up with the movie’s plot. I was unfamiliar with Thomas Pynchon’s recent novel which this film was adapted from, and perhaps the movie works best for audiences who have read it, but I just couldn’t follow what was going on. There are many characters who seem to be mumbling their lines and stoned out of their lives, so at times it was hard to figure out wether we were seeing actual events or simple hallucinations. I also had difficulty understanding a lot of the dialogue and found the pacing extremely slow. I put a lot of effort into trying to understand the plot of the film, but I simply didn’t get it. The comedy didn’t work for me either and at times I felt like I was missing a lot of the jokes everyone else seemed to enjoy. It was one of the rare films that I thought I wasn’t going to be able to finish, because I felt tempted to walk out of the movie. I kept with it out of the respect I have for Anderson’s work, but in all honesty I wasn’t able to engage with the characters.

There are some great performances in Inherent Vice. Joaquin Phoenix is impressive and delivers a solid and believable role as Doc Sportello, a private eye who is constantly getting high. Josh Brolin also delivers as Bigfoot, the tough detective who is always on Doc’s back. Katherine Waterston plays this sort of femme fatale who had been Doc’s girlfriend in the past and needs his help investigating her current lover (Played by Eric Roberts). I don’t want to get into details into the plot because it isn’t really important in Inherent Vice. This isn’t your conventional detective mystery story. The narration is hard to follow and many characters are introduced in the story with no specific purpose other than to invade Doc’s world. 

Anderson tends to choose projects that center on the end of an era, and in Inherent Vice it revolves around the end of the psychedelic 60’s. You get this sense of nostalgia towards that era where the hippies dominated the scene. Anderson does a great job at capturing that period very well and he transports us to this time. It is perhaps the greatest thing about this film along with the strong performances, but the lack of a cohesive narrative and its extremely long running time made it very difficult for me to endure. This is the first Anderson film that I have to admit I didn’t enjoy and that I won’t be revisiting any time soon. The story is completely absurd and the humor wasn’t for me. I kind of feel like I’m the odd one out when everyone else is praising the comedy because I simply never got it. It was a very boring and non engaging experience personally, but I still haven’t lost my respect for what Anderson does. I just wasn’t interested in these character and wasn’t able to follow the story (which I think is purposely done this way). I think The Big Lebowski does a much better job of creating a fun experience for the audience with engaging characters without having an important plot. 

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (6/10): Lacks the emotional impact of the first film

"Sin City is where you go in with your eyes open, or you don't come out at all."

There has been a widespread claim that if you were a fan of the first film you will definitely love this sequel, but it wasn't the case for me. I called Sin City a masterpiece nine years ago when it first came out, but A Dame to Kill For doesn't even come close to that claim. One could argue and say that the novelty of these dark graphic novel adaptations has warn off considering that when Sin City first came out the visuals were groundbreaking unlike anything we had seen before. Perhaps it may have something to do with the fact that I haven't enjoyed the recent adaptations (the last one I really liked was 2009's Watchmen), but I know that my disappointment doesn't just come from this. A Dame to Kill For is as visually striking as the first film and it captures that pulpy film noir essence really well once again. What Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez don't do well however is build the suspense and connect the intertwining storylines like they did the first time. You have all these interesting characters returning and some new faces, but the stories didn't resonate with me this time around. Despite using the same formula and delivering in visuals and style, the three different storylines don't connect together. The film still has that same dark feel to it where it seems you are watching a comic book come to life, but the stories aren't as interesting and the narration isn't as gripping. So despite enjoying the visuals, this film was a huge disappointment for me and I don't think that the reason for it was that the novelty has worn off because it was the best aspect of this sequel.

Most would agree that the best character in Sin City is Marv (Mickey Rourke) and thankfully we get a lot of him once again. The story is at its best when it centers around him. Some of the new characters were also fun to watch. Joseph Gordon Levitt as Johnny was one of my favorites in this sequel. His character is suave and cocky, but always fun. His scenes facing off the main villain played by Powers Boothe are the highlight of the film along with Marv. We also get a lot more scenes from Nancy (Jessica Alba) and this time she has more depth to her character as well. Josh Brolin also gives a solid performance as Dwight, but unfortunately his segment is the weakest. So we get all these cool characters and everything seems to be perfect once again, but somehow the stories don't intertwine as effectively as they did the first time. The stories aren't as shocking and they lack that emotional punch that Sin City delivered the first time. The film is gratuitously violent once again, but it isn't effective. The impact was missing. There were also several characters that took me out of the film. I loved Bruce Willis in the first film, but there was no need to include him here. He took me out of the movie. The longest segment in this film involving Josh Brolin and Eva Green was also the least interesting. Green has fun with her character once again like she did in the 300 sequel, but this time her storyline is way too familiar. All she does here is be nude and seduce men. The subplot where she seduces Christopher Meloni was completely unnecessary, as were his scenes with Jeremy Piven. 

So despite some of the interesting things that A Dame To Kill For had going for it, it has several flaws which make the story drag at times. This is the sort of film in which you should be having fun, but I found myself bored with some of these segment. The narration might seem silly at times, but it worked the first time as a parody of noir films. This time it felt dull. I know my review sounds negative but it is because I expected a lot more from this sequel. I still had a fun time watching Marv once again, I also appreciated that Alba had more screen time, and loved the addition of Joseph Gordon-Levitt to the already incredible cast. Unfortunately there were some elements that didn't connect with me and the stories failed to fit together as they did the first time.

My Review: Labor Day (4/10)

¨I don't think losing my father broke my mother's heart, but rather losing love itself.¨

I admire director Jason Reitman's work (Juno and Up in the Air being my favorites), but I have to admit his screenplay for Labor Day was a mess. I really found it difficult to believe that any of the characters here would behave the way they did, and that took me completely out of the movie. There were some awkward and ridiculous decisions made by each one of the characters during some point of the movie that never allowed me to sit back and enjoy it. The premise is so out there that neither the suspense nor the romance worked. At the end, Reitman tried to save the film by giving it a schmaltzy and sweet ending, but it felt completely out of place. The only thing the film succeeds in is in making me want to go try some of that peach pie they made. Reitman knows how to place and move the camera, every shot was at the right place, but the senseless story hurt the film. Not even talented actors like Josh Brolin and Kate Winslet were able to make their characters believable, and the narration from Tobey Maguire was painful to listen to. Not for one moment was I able to buy into the scenario (a guy escapes from prison, and in order to hide from the police, forces a mother and her son to take him in to their home and then teaches them how to bake a pie and play baseball).  

The screenplay was adapted by Jason Reitman from Joyce Maynard's novel, which I have never read, but if it's anything like the film I plan to stay away from it. The film centers on a 13 year old boy named Henry Wheeler (narrated by Tobey Maguire as an adult, but played by Gattlin Griffith as the teenager) who lives with his depressed mother. Ever since her husband abandoned her, Adele (Kate Winslet) avoids going out and remains secluded indoors as much as possible. Henry spends most of his time with her, although some Sunday's he spends with his father, Gerald (Clark Gregg), and his new family. Henry and Adele's life takes an unexpected turn when one weekend morning they go out shopping and encounter an escaped prisoner. Frank (Josh Brolin) forces Adele and Henry to take him to their home where he can hideout and recover from a wound after escaping from a hospital where the prisoner was being treated for appendicitis. At first Adele and Henry are frightened of course, but Frank treats them well and even ends up doing most of the house work. The events that take place during the Labor Day weekend end up changing all their lives forever.

The film tries to balance the suspense and romance, but due to the premise it never seems believable. For instance their's Frank who has to force this family to take him to their home where he should be hiding out and recovering, but he ends up cleaning the place and teaching Henry how to play baseball in the yard. He also teaches them how to cook pies, of course a necessary plot point in order for the audience to forgive Frank for literally taking the family hostage. It also gives the film an excuse to allow Frank and Adele to fall in love with each other, but that seemed completely implausible considering the situation. I never bought into the story and it all felt forced and awkward. Even the friendship blossoming between Henry and the girl from Chicago that had just arrived felt awkward and every single conversation they had felt like an excuse to build unnecessary suspense. I don't consider myself cynical and I tend to enjoy some romantic dramas, but this was one that never felt authentic and where every situation seemed improbable. Labor Day is an unlikely romance that simply didn't work for me and wasted the talents of Winslet and Brolin. The third act is better than the first two, but it just comes a bit too late and it is founded on a relationship I never believed in the first place.

My Review: Oldboy (5/10)

"-You might wanna think about what you're doing here!" "-I've been thinking about it for the last 20 years."

I could criticize the fact that this was yet another unnecessary remake considering Chan-wook Park's 2003 Oldboy has become a cult classic among worldwide audiences, but knowing this, I still decided to go ahead and watch Spike Lee's version, so I can't just claim it was unnecessary. I had curiosity as to what Lee could bring to the table and thought that the cast was pretty interesting as well. After seeing this film I can honestly see how difficult it must have been for Chan-wook Park to pull off such an ultra-stylish and violent movie, because Lee never manages to engage those of us that are already familiar with the revenge story. One of the things that the Korean film had going for it was the fantastic shocking ending, and Lee couldn't just rely on that surprise factor now. It would be like having someone remake The Sixth Sense; it would be an impossible feat to pull off considering how it relies heavily on that final twist. The other scene we all remember from the original film is the hallway hammer scene, and there was no way Lee could have left that scene out. He should have though because the scene felt completely out of tone with the rest of the film. The violence in this film never seems to have a purpose like it did in the Asian version. What this Oldboy lacked was the style and sense of purpose that Chan-wook Park's version had with some memorable characters and unforgettable scenes. The chemistry between Brolin and Olsen is nothing compared to the leads in the Asian film who really kept us engaged and interested in the story. This just proves how difficult it really is to capture that sense of style some of the Korean directors handle so masterfully. 

The general story is pretty similar to Chan-wook Park's film with some minor changes. The screenplay was actually adapted by Mark Protosevich from the Japanese manga, not the film. This time the anti-hero's name is, Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin); he's an advertising executive who is kidnapped and held captive in a small prison decorated as a hotel room for 20 years. During his mysterious abduction his wife is murdered and he is framed for the crime, while his 3 year old daughter, Mia, is adopted by another family. Not knowing who is holding him captive and for what reason, Joe's only window to the world is the television set he has in front of him. During his captivity Joe decides to get back in physical shape and stop drinking, hoping some day he can confront his captors and return to his daughter. Finally after 20 years he wakes up in a box a free man with no explanation as to why he was held captive all these years. He is given a cellphone, some cash, and the letters he has written for his daughter. The first thing Joe does is find his friend, Chucky (Michael Imperioli), who owns a nearby bar. Chucky helps Joe make a list of the people who might have done this to him. Joe also befriends a nurse named Marie (Elizabeth Olsen), who believes his story after seeing the poor conditions he's in. Together they search for answers as Joe plans his revenge, but the real question is why he was held captive for so many years and then all of a sudden released. 

Josh Brolin wasn't bad in the lead role, while Elizabeth Olsen also delivered a solid performance, but the film relied heavily on the chemistry between both characters and it wasn't really there. Samuel L. Jackson had a wacky supporting role, while Sharlto Copley played a convincing villain. His performance reminded me the most to the original character because he was more creepy than actually frightening. There were some minor changes to the ending which I thought weren't as effective, but perhaps it had to do with how shocking I found the original film. This film is much shorter than the original and perhaps it's not all Lee's fault considering the studio didn't allow him to release his original 140 minute cut which could have given the characters a better background story. This version felt rushed at times. If you have't seen either film skip this remake and watch the original instead.

My Review: Gangster Squad (6/10)

¨I always knew I’d die in Burbank¨

Gangster Squad walks a really thin line between being a terrible film and an entertaining one. First of all it has a really great and talented cast; it also has a good production design and is very stylized reminding us of some epic gangster films. On the other hand the film only looks gangster-like on the surface; it is not really a serious neo-noir gangster film but more of a light comedic gangster movie. This is director Ruben Fleisher’s follow up to his hit comedy Zombieland, and in a way it does feel like a satire of sorts of gangster films, but in some strange way it fails to find its own personality. You never know if you’re supposed to take the movie seriously or not because something is missing in the mix between drama and comedy. One critic defined the film better than I could by claiming it is ¨LA Confidential without the script.¨ It has the look and the tone of a serious gangster film, but the script which was loosely adapted by Will Beall from Paul Lieberman’s book just fails and the dialogues seem cartoonish at times. The violence is pretty heavy as there are plenty of glamorized gunfight scenes and a large body count. Sean Penn plays the villain a little over the top, but it works if you view the film as this sort of spoof of the gangster genre. And really in my opinion this approach is what works best because it is entertaining if taken lightly as a spoof. I feel sorry for those who went into this film with high expectations because they will mostly be disappointed, unless they can live with a mindless popcorn action flick with some good performances.

The story takes place in 1949 Los Angeles where Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn), a mob king from Chicago, has taken over the city and is planning on controlling all criminal activities there with the help of corrupt officers and judges. He will eliminate whoever stands in his path. Sgt. John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) on the other hand is a WWII veteran who is determined to do what he can to clean up the city. When Chief Parker (Nick Nolte) hears about O’Mara’s heroics he decides to assign him with a special underground task: to form an elite squad of police officers that will take down the mob King. Thus O’Mara begins his quest to find the right officers for his special team with the help of his wife Connie (Mireille Enos) who is worried about his wellbeing and wants him to be protected as best as possible. O’Mara chooses Officer Coleman Harris (Anthony Mackie), Max Kennard (Robert Patrick) and his partner Navidad Ramirez (Michael Peña), Conway Keeler (Giovanni Ribisi) who’s the brains in the operation, and finally Sgt. Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling) who decides to accept O’Mara’s proposal after a member of the mob kills a kid he knew from the streets. Together these officers begin to try to intercept and disrupt Cohen’s operations working as an underground hit squad. Wooters also happens to be having an affair with Cohen’s love interest, Grace (Emma Stone), which could or could not be a good thing. And so the action begins as the squad tries to disrupt Cohen’s reign and clean up the city.

As I mentioned before this is an entertaining film which sometimes borderlines on the bad side considering it does have some pretty bad writing and underdeveloped characters. But it did work for me as a sort of spoof and light hearted film with a very stylized look to it. It has some fun action sequences with some strong performances, especially from the always reliable Ryan Gosling who continues to reinvent himself in every movie. I absolutely loved him here once again. Josh Brolin gives a pretty solid performance when he is not asked to do the voice over bit (it was a bit annoying at the beginning giving it a sort of fake Sin City vibe to it). The rest of the cast is pretty good although not getting enough screen time or storylines to develop their characters. Sean Penn plays the stereotypical bad guy a little over the top, but I enjoyed his performance as well (it wouldn’t have worked if you were expecting a serious gangster drama film). In the end Gangster Squad did work for me and I was entertained with this shoot-em up gangster film, but I know it isn’t for everyone.

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com/

My Review: Men In Black III (6/10)

¨I promised the secrets of the universe, nothing more.¨

It`s been 15 years since Barry Sonnenfeld directed the first Men in Black film paring up the unlikely duo of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. This concept wasn’t entirely original as we`ve seen these sort o pairings in films like Lethal Weapon with Mel Gibson and Danny Glover playing similar characters. What I do remember about the first MIB is that it was very entertaining and had some incredible effects for the time. Now we have grown used to seeing these special effects, but I still enjoyed this movie thanks to the performance from the cast and it also brought back a nostalgic feeling. I remember that I started falling in love with movies during the 90`s and MIB was one that I enjoyed very much along with Independence Day so Will Smith was one of the first actors I actually knew by name. Of course today after seeing thousand of films I see those movies and I don’t find them to be as great as I first experienced them. I`ve grown into a more grumpy critic who expects more from movies, but MIB III brought back some of those nostalgic feelings so I ended up enjoying this movie despite it not being perfect, and rather silly at times. It`s been four years since Will Smith had last starred in a movie so I really was glad to see him back in action. He is a great actor and brought a lot of comedy to his role with his big loud mouth. Both Sonnenfeld and Smith were able to make a better film than the first MIB sequel, and it lives up to the original one thanks to a clever script from Etan Cohen.

Agent J (Will Smith) and Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) are still working together guarding Earth from all the dangers of the Universe. They face a new threat when a villain from K`s past named Boris the Animal (Jemaine Clement) has escaped prison and is looking for revenge after K shot his arm off and imprisoned him over 40 years ago. J had never heard about Boris until now and when he tries to do research about the event that happened that day he isn’t authorized to dig any further. Boris gets his hands on some sort of time device and goes back in time to kill Agent K. J wakes up the next day with a feeling that something has happened to K and when he arrives at work and asks about his partner nobody knows who K is. At first Agent J thinks it`s all a prank, but when Agent O (Emma Thompson) tells J that K has been dead for 40 years he realizes that Boris managed to go back in time and killed K. Now times have changed and Boris`s race is invading Earth to destroy it. Agent J is sent back in time to try to save K. He ends up back in 1969 where he runs into a younger version of K (Josh Brolin) and together they try to stop Boris once and for all in order to save the planet once again.

The highlight of the film is probably Josh Brolin`s performance since he plays a very believable young Tommy Lee Jones. His facial expressions and voice is really on the note and it is just so fun to see him imitate Jones`s character. This was really my favorite part of the film along with some of the cameos and the clever jokes and cultural references of the 60`s. Another highlight was Michael Stuhlbarg`s (from A Serious Man) performance as Griffin. He got most of the laughs in the movie. Tommy Lee Jones didn`t have a very big role in this sequel and he is getting very old, but he`s still fun to watch on screen. Men in Black III is not a perfect movie, but it`s entertaining and brings back some memories. I liked the whole back in time concept and it reminded me of other great films like Back to the Future. If you are a fan of Will Smith or the MIB franchise than you will really enjoy this movie, if not you might find it too silly. I really enjoyed Brolin`s comedic turn in this movie and he is the highlight of the film. MIB III is an enjoyable and well made sequel.

   

http://estebueno10.blogspot.com