Men in Black International (2019) (1 Viewer)

[benbess]

Mediocre imho. My rating: "C"

 

[Chris Will]

That’s about what I expected considering the only good one in the series was the first. The rest have all been mediocre. I’ll still go see it because of A-list, I doubt I would bother without A-list.

Question, is that tiny alien annoying throughout the whole movie like he is in the trailers?

 

[benbess]

Yes, that tiny alien is annoying.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I just saw it and it wasn’t particularly good. It wasn’t terrible either. Mostly, it just exists.

The original movie is only 90 minutes and this one is a few minutes shy of two hours. I think one of the reasons the first works so well is that it’s light and breezy and doesn’t try to take it all too seriously. It worldbuilds, but with a tongue in cheek.

Two hours in and of itself isn’t excessively long but I think when you look back at the great genre films, that brevity is what helps them work. Duck Soup at 70 minutes is perfection; at two hours, it would be a disaster.

 

[Malcolm R]

Modern studios seem incapable of making a film of less than 2 hours. Even many horror films, which used to have some of the shortest running times, are now mostly around 2 hours.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

The problem with this movie is that the length gave way to lulls which gave way to thinking about how silly the whole thing was. If it has zipped along faster I would have been too distracted by the ride to be bothered by its shortcomings.

 

[TravisR]

The problem with this movie is that the length gave way to lulls which gave way to thinking about how silly the whole thing was. If it has zipped along faster I would have been too distracted by the ride to be bothered by its shortcomings.

You'd think this would be an easy sell to studios since it would mean a cheaper movie too.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I just saw it and it wasn’t particularly good. It wasn’t terrible either. Mostly, it just exists.

The original movie is only 90 minutes and this one is a few minutes shy of two hours. I think one of the reasons the first works so well is that it’s light and breezy and doesn’t try to take it all too seriously. It worldbuilds, but with a tongue in cheek.

Two hours in and of itself isn’t excessively long but I think when you look back at the great genre films, that brevity is what helps them work. Duck Soup at 70 minutes is perfection; at two hours, it would be a disaster.

I couldn't agree with you more that too many movies are just too damn long. I can understand Clint Eastwood making long movies, but not everybody has to be Clint Eastwood with their film lengths.

 

[TJPC]

I love the movies with long sections of people staring at the view, or even shows like “Fear The Walking Dead” where people spend 5 minutes exploring a dark building. I have been criticized for this in the past, but that’s what the ff button on your remote is for!

 

[Robert Crawford]

I love the movies with long sections of people staring at the view, or even shows like “Fear The Walking Dead” where people spend 5 minutes exploring a dark building. I have been criticized for this in the past, but that’s what the ff button on your remote is for!

The remote isn't doing you any good in a movie theater.

 

[TJPC]

You know, I never noticed this! I must stop bringing it with me!

 

[TonyD]

Sooo, I watched this movie the other day.
Was my first chance to see a movie at an Alamo DH.

Unfortunately this was the one they had on their big screen with Atmos, maybe.

Nothing at the beginning of the movie indicated Atmos and there wasn’t all that much in the way of immersive surround sound.

Now the movie.
Oof.
It wasn’t a really bad movie but it wasn’t good either.

There is one joke that should have been a ton funnier.
The end was just the end. Very similar to the first Ghostbusters.
There was no charm.
It didn’t have heart.
Hemsworth’s Character wasn’t charming and there was no explanation for his behavior over the last few years after his saving the world moment.

He pretty much sleepwalked through the movie.

Tessa was terrific but she didn’t have very much to work withtiny Alien creature was pointless.

Rebecca Ferguson was beautiful but underused.

Nothing memorable in a very forgettable movie.

 

[TJPC]

We just returned from this fun summer movie, and can’t understand all the negative criticism. It is just a light entertainment. What do people expect, “Schindler’s List”?
If I was going to list the movies in this series from best to worst,

#1 would be the best of course
#3 and #4 would be tied at second place.
and
#2 would be at 56th place.

 

[TonyD]

It’s ludicrous to say what did you expect Schindlers list?

There’s no need to get hyperbolic about it.
The problem with this movie is that it’s a summer blockbuster with two leads that are now major stars and it’s part of an already very successful franchise and it’s just not very good.

You sound like these recent Att commercials where everything is just OK.

You seriously don’t understand why there is critical reviews of this movie?
You can read my previous post to see what I didn’t like about the movie.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yes, that tiny alien is annoying.

I actually thought Kumail Nanjiani's performance was the only semi-redeeming factor here! I felt he offered amusing line readings and became the most entertaining aspect of the film.

While I can't call myself a big fan of the "MIB" franchise, I liked the first and third films well enough. The second is a bloated mess but one and three offer pretty good entertainment.

"International", though, is just about the most bland "adventure" I can imagine. It lacks any sense of wonder or creativity, as it muddles its away along from one "exciting" scenario to another.

One big difference between one/three and "International" stems from the nature of their villains. Both one and three had strong, well-defined antagonists, whereas in "International", we're stuck with the twins whose motive is... I don't know.

What the movie wants to pass off as a "plot" should just be called a McGuffin. The story about the weapon that M receives exists for no reason other than to send the characters to various places and get into fights.

At its core, the plot - minimal as it may be - makes little sense, and again, the absence of a clear, comprehensible threat robs the film of much tension. As noted, the twins form the main baddies but their motives remain unclear and they also go missing for extended periods.

While both Hemsworth and Thompson are talented, they clearly lack the charisma and chemistry of Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones. The two "International" leads form an attractive team but they never really connect, and their interactions fail to create a bond with the audience.

"International" continues one grand "MIB" tradition, though: dodgy visual effects. All the way back to the first one, the movies have suffered from surprisingly subpar CG, especially in regard to the depiction of the aliens.

Do the creatures in "International" look better than those in prior films? Yeah, I guess, but they remain cartoony and utterly unconvincing. The aliens seem artificial and become a persistent distraction.

None of these factors made me hate "International" - they just meant I felt borderline bored too much of the time. The film desperately needs some form of wonder or vivid action or funny comedy, but instead, it becomes a lumpen pile of mush...

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I think “boredom” is the best description of what the movie inspires.

Here’s the thing for me: every time Marvel opens up a new chapter of the MCU, the top critics generally yawn and call the film and studio cynical, and dismiss the movie as a mere product made not to satisfy any creative urge but to make money.

I don’t feel that way about the MCU, but that’s a pretty perfect description of MIB:I.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

I think “boredom” is the best description of what the movie inspires.

Here’s the thing for me: every time Marvel opens up a new chapter of the MCU, the top critics generally yawn and call the film and studio cynical, and dismiss the movie as a mere product made not to satisfy any creative urge but to make money.

I don’t feel that way about the MCU, but that’s a pretty perfect description of MIB:I.

Yeah, I'm not sure why this film exists other than as a means to attempt to churn $$$ out of the public.

Granted, you could make that claim about a lot of movies, but this one feels especially lazy - or created by a committee...

 

[SamT]

It wasn't too bad. It's watchable.

 

[TonyD]

Yeh pretty much.

Not quite the quote the Blu-ray cover quote people want to use.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Yeh pretty much.

Not quite the quote the Blu-ray cover quote people want to use.

A few years back, the PR firm for a direct-to-video "SWAT" movie asked me for a blurb they could put on the cover. I think the best I was able to offer was like "could've been worse!"

Oddly, they chose someone else's blurb!