Click here for the review of Men in Black III

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

Actually this movie did not in fact have a completed script when filming began, nevertheless i'm still very much looking forward to seeing it.

"In fact, the screenplay feels frustratingly incomplete, with significant plot points left unresolved. (What it is the "big moment" that changes K? And please don't tell me it's the lame thing that happens near the end.) It's as if the movie went into production without a script and the filmmakers made things up as they went along."

I'm sure it's already been said by someone, but it's been on record that this film was shot without a completed script. Considering it took 10 years to make this movie there should be no excuse for this. I think it's also been on record that at least five writers were working on this film before it was shot. We all know that the more writers you have working on a film the less coherent it becomes.

Also, how does chocolate milk protect J from the time changes made by Boris?

Does this sequel have egregious product placement like the second film?

It's probably used for the same reason that Head and Shoulders was used as a weapon in "Evolution:" alleged comedic effect.

Let me guess. Because chocolate is dark and Will Smith is dark it's supposed to be some kind of racial joke, right?

It wouldn't be the first time the franchise used a racial joke. Remember the "It's just raining black people in New York" joke from the first film?

Heres Ebert's review http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120523/REVIEWS/120529988

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks John Brolin looks like Ronald Reagan in the film.

http://www.pajiba.com/assets_c/2011/04/Brolin-Smith-MIB-3-2-550x457-thumb-450x373-22899.jpg

It's not often that I've seen you use any expletives while reviewing a film, JB. This one must have been pretty bad.

Incomplete scripts and battalions of writers are actually pretty normal, at least for big budget studio productions. Bear in mind that in many cases, everybody who wrote drafts of the movie is getting credited, even drafts that go more or less unused.

Also bear in mind that incoherence in a movie like this is often the case of post-production retooling in the editing room in addition to last minute script monkeying.

Don't make me post my "things writers do in a Michael Bay movie" rant again.

I was surprised by Ebert's review. This is mostly getting positive reviews on rotten tomatoes, but I feel like most critics are just saying the film is not as bad as they thought it would be.

wow this is surprising since the film is actually getting fairly decent reviews from other critics, some are saying it is better than the first

"The problem with some franchises is that the studios don't know when it's time to quit. The lackluster nature of Men in Black II should have been a hint to Sony that the Men in Black series had run its course."

The thing is, a concept such as Men in Black could easily have lent itself to multiple movies. (It started as a comic book, and there was also an animated series in the late '90s I believe.)
The problem is that the second one was so unbelievably bland that it killed any further interest (taking so long in between installments didn't do any favors either).

But look at something like Ghostbusters - lackluster sequel, but there are people still hoping for a third one even all these years later.
Also the Crystal Skull comparison isn't really accurate; that movie crapped all over a franchise that previously had a 3-0 record, but only the first Men in Black is recommendable.

Woah, this is one of the angriest reviews I've ever read from James. I wasn't expecting him to love it, but I wasn't expecting this either, specially because many critics - including the aforementioned Ebert - are giving the movie surprisingly decent reviews.

Funnily enough, people here in Peru were actually looking forward to the movie. The previous two - yeah, even the second one - are pretty popular, and Will Smith is really-well liked (well, where isn't he?) I'm definitely seeing it, even if it means I'll be disappointed.

The original Ghostbusters and the original Men In Black worked mainly on account of the comedy. That still holds up and will still hold up even when the special effects in both movies are completely out of date. In both cases the attempt to create a franchise resulted in subpar sequels that while not tarnishing the original did remove some of the luster.

Wow. I knew that there wasn't a ton of enthusiasm for MIBIII, but I didn't expect a review like this. Even the perpetually trashed upon "Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull"(which I didn't mind nearly as much as others did) got a semi-respectful if dismissive review from James.





I don't know, I just might see this. I thought that James was wrong about "X-Men: First Class" last summer, and I think he might be in the minority here too.

James,

Which movie was tougher for you to endure? Men In Black III or Battleship?

Wow. Comedy is such a subjective thing. I just read JB’s review followed by Ebert’s review and aside from the Brolin comments, I can’t believe they watched the same movie. You been working too hard lately James? I’ve noted a marked increase in quantity of posted reviews. Been getting enough sleep? Is everything okay at home? Damn.

I’m one who considered MiB 1 and 2 to be guilty pleasure movies and I was looking forward to seeing this until I read such a scathing review: “…sitting in theaters enduring this sh!t.” Really?? While Ebert uses “Hitchcockian” and “virtuoso” as descriptors…?

RT's meter for MiB3 is riding at 66% (fresh) at this time. I realize that movie critics attempt to write in a vacuum, but dude, it really seems like something has tainted JB’s vacuum.

BATTLESHIP felt less painful.

It's curious how most of the positive reviews of this movie read half-hearted and lukewarm. There may not be many critics out there who out-and-out hated MIB3 as I did, but there's not a lot of heartfelt enthusiasm for it.

Just saw this film with my mom today, and I think you're dead wrong it. MI3 was pretty good, better then the 2nd film but not quite as good as the first, it had the right mix of humor(funniest parts bieng pretty much anything with Griffin) action(pretty amazing effects, especially the timejump sequences), and even some drama which was effective at shedding a whole new light on J and K's relationship. Smith and Jones effortlessly slide back into their roles and they're chemistry is still as fresh as ever, I never realized how much I missed Smith on the big screen until now. BTW, I did a quick check on IMDB, and i noticed that sequels for I Robot and Hancock have both been announced.

Just came back from seeing the film. I was shocked at how little screen time Jones had, He wasn't wearing make-up. His face had been digitally altered to hide his wrinkles and bags.