Men in Black 3

Posted on May 24, 2012 at 6:00 pm

Welcome back, Mr. Smith and Mr. Jones.

The stars and director of one of the most creative and purely entertaining movies of the last 20 years are back for a third that does not match the original but makes up for the mangled sequel. It has some references and tributes to the first two, though it is not overly bothered about consistency with the prior stories either in the details or in the tone. This one seems balanced more toward the sci-fi action and less toward the wonderfully understated comic sensibility that made the first one so refreshing. Nothing in this film reaches the matchless “Now I’m going to have to buy the White Album again” and testing scene moments of the first one. But those black suits still fit and it is still a lot of fun.

High-spirited J (Will Smith) and craggy, taciturn K (Tommy Lee Jones) are agents for a super-secret government organization that handles immigration problems and aliens — not the kind from other countries, the kind from other planets. Some are refugees, some are tourists, but some are here to wipe out all of humanity. The Agency manages all of that and with the help of a flashing “nebulizer” the size of a pen to wipe out the memory of any human unlucky enough to experience an alien encounter.

One of the most dangerous aliens of all is Boris the Animal (“Flight of the Conchords'” Jermaine Clement), captured back in 1969 by K and now locked away in a prison on the moon. As the movie opens, an incomparably luscious lady in a tight, tight dress and high, high stilettos (no special effects needed here: it’s Pussycat Dolls’ Nicole Scherzinger) is bringing him a very frosty cake. As everyone but the prison guards guesses, what is in the cake makes possible Boris’ escape back to earth, where he picks up a time machine and goes back to 1969. He plans to replay his encounter with K so that instead of losing an arm and getting captured he kills K and continues with his destruction of the planet. And so J goes back in time, meets up with the K of 1969 (Josh Brolin, nailing it).

The expected fish-out-of water time travel jokes include technology (the pre-chip nebulizer is big and clunky!) and encounters with the people and events of the era. One of the best jokes in the first movie was the display of monitors that revealed that people like Al Roker, Isaac Mizrahi, director Barry Sonnenfeld, Sylvester Stallone, Dionne Warwick, Newt Gingrich, and Anthony Robbins as aliens. In this version, it seems unimaginatively on-the-nose to include Lady Gaga, but back in 1969 there is a witty twist as one of the likeliest alien suspects of the era is revealed to be an undercover Man in Black instead. Michael Stuhlbarg (“Hugo,” “A Serious Man”) is charming as a sweet-natured alien in a ski cap whose gift and curse is his ability to see every possible outcome. I am sure at least a couple of those possibilities would have been better than this movie’s conclusion, which is muddled and unsatisfying.

Parents should know that this film includes extended sci-fi action violence with chases, explosions, and aliens, some disturbing images, some strong language, and brief suggestive alien sexual references.

Family discussion: How did what J learned about his own past change him? How will K be different and why?

If you like this, try: the first “Men in Black” movie (be sure to try the DVD’s director commentary) and “Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy”

Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson to Star in New “Mary Poppins” Story

Posted on April 10, 2012 at 8:00 am

Exciting movie news! Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson are in talks to appear in a new movie about Walt Disney’s efforts over 14 years to persuade “Mary Poppins” author P.L. Travers to allow him to make a movie about the magical nanny.

Related Tags:

Behind the Scenes

Nanny McPhee Returns

Posted on August 19, 2010 at 5:58 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	4th - 6th Grades
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG for rude homor, some language, and mild thematic elements
Profanity:	Some crude schoolyard language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	References to wartime violence and apparent tragic death of a father, bomb dropped on home, parental divorce, comic peril and violence
Diversity Issues:	None
Date Released to Theaters:	August 20, 2010

For the first half of this movie, the children in the audience were completely on board, laughing when the children on screen were covered with mud and various kinds of animal poop, delighting in seeing them naughtily fighting with each other and then, when Nanny McPhee (screenwriter Emma Thompson) stamps her magical staff on the floor, each fighting himself. By the time the piglets were doing an Esther Williams-style synchronized swim number, the kids in the theater were extremely happy.

And then something happened that took the movie in another direction and the audience enthusiasm evaporated. This sequel to the 2006 original places the character inspired by Christianna Brand’s Nurse Matilda stories in a WWII setting as Isabel Green (Maggie Gyllenhaal) is trying to keep the family farm going with the help of her three children while her husband is fighting in the war. It is quite a struggle, especially because her brother-in-law is doing everything he can to make her fail so she will have to sell the farm. He has to pay his gambling debts or, two female enforcers tell him, they will remove his liver. Isabel also has to care for her niece and nephew, sent out of London to keep them away from the bombing during the Blitz. They are snobbish and selfish and there is an instant war between the cousins.

Enter Nanny McPhee, all in black, with a body like a linebacker, two enormous moles, a snaggletooth, a jowly chinline, and a bulbous nose. She explains she has been sent by the Army and she goes to work, banging her staff and bringing on the magic to teach the children five lessons. When she is not wanted but needed, she must stay. When she is wanted but not needed, she must go.

Nanny McPhee teaches the children to stop fighting and to share and cooperate. But then things get much worse when they get some very bad news and they must show resolve, courage, and faith before she will be no longer needed.

The movie is very uneven in tone and in quality, with charming nonsense colliding with what appears to be devastating tragedy. Children young enough to enjoy the silly pratfalls will be uncomfortable and possibly upset by discussions of death, war, and divorce. There is something jarring, even in a fantasy film, about children having to defuse a bomb as the adults are helpless. The timing is off so that even some of the comic set-pieces fail, like an extended bit about disappearing pens and a gruesome all-female hit squad who wander in like extras from “Sweeny Todd.” Thompson is always magic on screen, but here she is more wanted than needed.

Interview: Emma Thompson of ‘Nanny McPhee’

Posted on August 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm

Emma Thompson has won Oscars for both writing (“Sense and Sensibility”) and acting (“Howard’s End”). She has played a character based on Hillary Clinton (“Primary Colors”), a Hogwarts faculty member in two Harry Potter films, and last year alone, Dustin Hoffman’s love interest in “Last Chance Harvey,” a stern headmistress in “An Education,” and a former hippie in “Pirate Radio.”
This week, she plays the title character in “Nanny McPhee Returns,” the sequel to the 2005 film she wrote and starred in about a nanny who has a special — you might say magical — knack with naughty children.
Nanny McPhee says that when she is not wanted but needed she must stay but when she is wanted but not needed she must go. Is it a challenge to teach children the difference between wanting and needing?
Of course but you must understand I don’t make these films to teach people lessons — that would be awful. I make films to delight them and make them laugh and have a really wonderful time and then they’ll think about stuff if that’s what they want to do. Internally, some of the stuff that goes on in those movies is that it’s very true that when need people but don’t particularly want them that’s when they have to stay and help out, but when you are desperate for them to stay but don’t need them, that is when you have to let them go. So, yes, that’s very true but the message is carried very subtly. More importantly, she’s there to say to children, “You can solve your own problems. You don’t need an adult to solve them for you.” That’s even more important.
One of the pleasures of a movie like this one is the vicarious enjoyment of being naughty like the children in the film. Were you a naughty child?
I was profoundly obedient. I was brought up in a rather austere London by a Scottish Presbyterian. You weren’t very naughty. I do remember drawing on the bathroom walls with pencil and having to rub it all off, which took hours, sobbing gently. But I wasn’t naughty.
Is it fun for you to put on a false nose and teeth and make yourself look ugly?
Yes it is good fun and a relief from that rather fascistic insistence on glamor and you’ve got to look this way and be this shape and so there’s a small rebellion in the act itself.
How does the costume help create the character?
The costume was designed in the first instance by Nick Ede, a wonderful designer. We worked very hard on how big she was going to be, whether we would trim it with jet which is how she is described in the book, what her silhouette is like, when to introduce a waist. It was great fun and the costume and make-up is everything really. It does so much work for you. Actors often say they don’t feel like the character until they have the costume on.
Is this movie based on the books?
The first movie has a lot of story that isn’t in the books. They’re really based on a character rather than adaptations of the books. They’re wonderful books but there’s a lot of repeat behavior and the second film is an entirely new story.
Why did you decide on a WWII setting?
I was wanting the father to be absent for some reason or other. I was in Berlin when I was thinking about the story, and I thought maybe I can have this father absent because of war. I already knew I wanted it to be about two sets of children who came from different backgrounds and hated each other and fought.
Will you do another one?
I hope so. It all depends on how this one goes. Market forces will decide that for us, but I am thinking about a third one, certainly.

Related Tags:

Actors Interview Writers

An Education

Posted on March 30, 2010 at 8:00 am

Part of the charm of “An Education,” a bittersweet coming of age story based on a brief memoir by Lynn Barber, is how much we know what its main character does not. Jenny (an incandescent Carey Mulligan) is a teenager in 1961 London, over-protected by her overly-cautious and conventional parents and eager to be independent and to have adventures. She is used to being the smartest one in the class and so even more than most teenagers, she is convinced that she understands many important things her parents cannot possibly comprehend. She is eager to grow up, to seem sophisticated, to be sophisticated. She is innocent, filled with potential, willing to be taught — and she has no idea how powerfully attractive those qualities are to a predatory older man.

But we know that, and when David (Peter Sarsgaard) rescues Jenny and her cello from a rainstorm by giving her a ride home, we know she will confuse urbanity with wisdom, that she will think that because he lies on her behalf he will not lie to her. But the most important thing we know is that like Jenny, London is also on the brink of enormous changes. We know that a world of opportunities she could never imagine will open up to her. Unlike Jenny, we know she is going to be fine. After all, we know she went on to tell her story, in itself a triumph over whatever went wrong and whatever she lost.

Danish director Lone Scherfig perfectly captures London just as it is about to move from the drab, stiff-upper-lip, world of post-WWII deprivation to the brash and explosive era of mods and rockers, Carnaby Street and the Beatles, Twiggy, “The Avengers,” and Joe Orton. Part of what makes David so exciting is that Jenny believes that the only options available to her are teacher and housewife and the only examples of both she has seen appear dull and unrewarding. David gives her a glimpse of a life that is never dull. It is always shopping and parties and travel, pretty clothes and lovely restaurants. If in order to have all of that she must lie to her parents and defy her teachers, that makes it all the more exciting. It binds her to him even more, creating a set of rules that is just for them.

That is how it seems, anyway. The education referred to in the movie title tells us that she will learn some difficult lessons. But its conclusion reminds Jenny and us that it is only the end of her beginning. She thought meeting David was the beginning of her future; she learns that the real beginning only came afterward.

The screenplay by Nick Hornby (“High Fidelity,” “About a Boy”) is sympathetic but insightful, skillful in sketching in each of the characters. Sarsgaard also makes David more than a predator. Jenny is not just smarter than he is; she is stronger, too. As Jenny goes from school girl to dressed-up doll to the beginning of adulthood, from the make-it-do, wear-it-out modesty of her home to Paris hot spots, Production designer Andrew McAlpine and costume designer Odile Dicks-Mireaux show exquisite sensitivity in giving Jenny a look that tells the story. Every performance is a gem: Alfred Molina, proud but fearful as Jenny’s father, Emma Thompson, starchy as the headmistress, and Olivia Williams, a teacher who wants more for Jenny than she wants for herself (it must have been quite a challenge for hair and make-up to turn Williams into such a dowdy character). Rosamund Pike is utterly charming as a dim but kind-hearted party girl. And Carey Mulligan, in a star-making turn, makes this into one of the best films of the year.