Men In Black 3 Movie Review

Well, it's been ten long years since Agents J and K showed off their intergalactic protection skills in Men In Black 2, and given that the film didn't exactly win rave reviews, you can't blame anyone for being a little skeptical about the likelihood of a third installment being memorable. Luckily, I am always willing to give Will Smith the benefit of the doubt, and I'm happy to report that he and the entire cast made it worth my time.

THE GOOD: In order to go forward in this story, we have to go backwards... meaning time travel to the past; the summer of 1969, to be exact, when astronauts were preparing to walk on the moon and the Mets were poised to win the World Series. Another newsworthy event was Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) putting a foul looking alien by the name of Boris behind bars---in a prison on the moon, no less. But 40 years later, Boris has busted out of his lunar lockup and has managed to sneak through the space time continuum in an effort to find K and kill him. It's all up to J (Will Smith) to go back in time and put Boris out of commission, before he can achieve his goal. Oh, and J also needs to keep himself from getting left in 1969 as well... yes, it's sort of a "Back to the Future" twist, and it may not be as ingenious of an idea as it seemed 25 years ago, but for all intents and purposes, it works. As you can imagine, there is a social commentary to be made with J going back in time as a black man, and Smith delivers some great attitude at perfect moments when small minded people speak without thinking.

As much as I adore Will Smith however, the scene stealer in this movie is without a doubt Josh Brolin, who not only plays the younger version of Agent K, but NAILS it. There's no debating that Tommy Lee Jones has a very unique presence and mannerism, so for someone to be able to capture that with such flawlessness, it is award worthy in my opinion. From his facial expressions to his accent and timing, everything was spot on... and hilarious. Adding to that fun, we have the alien character Griffin (played by Michael Stuhlbarg) who is a sweet and perpetually anxious little creature, and has the dubious gift of seeing the future----or rather the equal possibility of several different futures, some positive and some not so much. With his misty blue eyes, Elmer Fudd wool hat, and innocent childlike responses, he might come across as goofy to some, but I adored him.

THE BAD: I can only assume that in order to capitalize on how amazing Josh Brolin is in this role, efforts were made to keep Will Smith's character from shining too brightly. Or at least, that's what ends up happening. Usually Agent J is so full of sarcasm and attitude that the laughs are pretty constant... this time around, it took almost 45 minutes for Will to have a laugh worthy moment, at least for me personally. This isn't to say that Smith isn't his usual great talent, but be prepared that he doesn't pack nearly the punch in this installment as he did in the first two.

THE UGLY: I'm torn really, as to what the most hideous part of this movie was, but I certainly have it narrowed down to two contenders: the first being Boris (Jemaine Clement) in general---this guy just brings repulsive to a whole new level---but it's his teeth specifically that had me completely nauseated. It was like an entire mouth full of giant yellow molars and reminded me of the scary monsters I imagined as a little girl. Of course none of those creatures were ever making out with a woman in black leather pants in my imagination---which brings us to contender number 2. If there is anything more disturbing than a monster like man with bad dental work, it would be watching that same man sticking his tongue in a woman's mouth. Shudder. It's like I'm a five year old girl again, with a whole new scary image to keep me awake at night.

It's a generally accepted fact that the Men In Black Franchise started off strong, then hit a low with MIB2. There will be those who won't be willing to give MIB3 a chance because they fear things will only get worse... the surprise is that, as sequels go, this one is actually worth seeing, not only because of Brolin's performance, but the touching surprise twist at the end that explains J and K's relationship.

The Trophy Wife gives this movie 3 ½ trophies.

Men In Black 3 has a running time of 106 minutes and is rated PG-13 for sci-fi action violence and brief suggestive content. No F words. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Reaper, Movie Review

"Whatsoever a man soweth, that he shall also reap" is a popular English idiom originally from Epistles to the Galatians of the Bible. The central theme and the very message of the movie was centered on the Biblical story found in Exodus. This is when the Pharaoh of Egypt was made obdurate by God Himself by not letting the Israelites be freed from slavery. The ten plagues presented in the Bible that were brought down to Egypt by Moses are the same plagues depicted in the movie, i.e. from the first plague of the river turning to blood to the death of the first born sons and daughters of the locals.

But it is worthy to note that the last plague was not brought about by the unseen supernatural force as all the others. Instead, the group members of the cult of the land were the ones killing their own. Also, unlike in the Bible, the second born children were the ones sacrificed instead of the first born. This is clearly so as to put an element of a Hollywood tinge on the movie and not be a copy cat of what's in the Bible (which admittedly would have made the movie less exciting or plain boring). Effectively, the tenth plague was made the climax of the movie.

Tension was built up little by little with each plague unfolding and peaked at the last plague holding the viewers momentarily confused by deviating from what was expected (death of second born instead of first born). And then here comes the vision shared by the child Loren to Katherine where she was about to be killed for being a second born but miraculously survived after being stabbed by her brother. At the time of being momentarily dazed, the viewers are fired with explanations as to why was Katherine chosen to be in that town at such crucial time. She was, in the past, an ordained minister.

She turned away from her God when the locals of the town she was serving sacrificed her family in exchange for the long drought. The cult members in the place where the child Loren lived believed that Katherine would help them kill Loren since she was after all like them, backsliders in faith. But of course, as the protagonist in the movie, she did not succumb to their wishes but instead saved the girl from them.

Since we've started interpreting the movie in Biblical terms, we might as well finish it on the same tone. In the Old Testament, God is presented as a jealous God, an angry God and all other similar actuations. The message of the movie was effectively delivered in the light of such interpretation, i.e. it was made a horror film with events lifted from the Bible. In the Old Testament, God came with thunder and lightning. But rest assured that in the New Testament, it was promised that He will come again with love and justice.

So then after all the 'scary moments' depicted in the movie, we go back to that promise, then sit back, relax and enjoy. After all, it's a beautiful world (Amen). Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

What Other Good Film Rental Websites Are There Like LOVEFiLM?

Part of the Amazon Group, LOVEFiLM appears to own the European stream and DVD rental market nowadays. Word on the street is that it has now over two million subscribers, renting over four million DVDs per month! Not to mention it's online streaming option "LOVEFiLM Instant!"

There are many different options to become a member of LOVEFiLM. First of all you can opt to just rent actual DVDs by post (no streaming). Secondly there is a sole online streaming option. Finally you can combine the two with several price options to suit even the most obsessed film fanatic (see resources below for info and free trials on LOVEFiLM and Netflix). So I wondered, what other websites are available that do a similar job to this one? Are there any that actually do a better job? Let's take a look at the alternatives.

Blink Box

I first took a look at the UK based Tesco owned company, Blink Box. I first of all noticed what could be a distinct advantage over LOVEFiLM, you don't need to pay a monthly subscription fee! When using Blink Box, you "pay per title" so you only have to fork out when you actually feel like watching something. This would definitely appeal to a casual film watcher. It also has a wealth of titles available, it seems maybe even more than LOVEFiLM in the online streaming department (boasts over ten thousand available). Some films are even free to watch, and prices to rent seem fairly reasonable. So far so good for my search! Blink box seems to offer a good alternative to people who wouldn't want to fork out every month just for a few movies. Let's move on and have a look at another website then.

Netflix

Netflix is another website that has similarities with LOVEFiLM. However the pricing model is a lot similar offering one flat subscription rate (£5.99 a month, one month free trial). It was founded in the US and has a massive amount of customers over there, boasting around $1.5 billion revenue in 2011. It is also currently smashing it in the European market and boasts to have over 100,000 titles on offer to watch online, from films to television series. In my opinion, for the shear number of titles available, Netflix beat LOVEFiLM hands down in terms of value for money.

So it seems there is more out there than just LOVEFiLM! For free trials in both Netflix and LOVEFiLM and to compare prices etc. Check out my resources! Cheers. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

The Top Box Office Earners for September 2012

September is always a busy month in the movie industry, as the Toronto Film Festival and other movie showcases around the globe begin to introduce the big fall films that will likely compete for awards. Most studios release at least a few family-friendly films and the last of their comedies for the year before they begin releasing more dramatic fare as winter nears. A close look at the box office results for September 2012 shows a healthy mix of family films, comedies and even a few award contenders.

The number one earner in September was "Hotel Transylvania," an animated comedy featuring the voice of Adam Sandler as Dracula, who operates a resort for ghosts, ghouls and goblins in a realm separate from humans. Andy Samberg plays a teenage boy who stumbles upon the resort and quickly falls for Dracula's daughter, played by Selena Gomez. The overprotective vampire father does his best to discourage the relationship, resulting in plenty of hilarious moments.

The film earned over $42 million in the domestic market during its opening weekend, adding an additional $29 million overseas. It was far and away the biggest earner of the month, even though it was released on September 28, giving it only one weekend to top the tallies of films that had been released earlier in the month. Remarkably, it also earned more than "Resident Evil: Retribution," which came out a full two weeks earlier.

In second place, with only half the box office receipts of "Hotel Transylvania," was the sci-fi thriller "Looper" starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Joe, a mob assassin who is sent to kill old Joe (Bruce Willis), his future self. Though "Looper" opened with just under $21 million on the same weekend as Sandler's film, it is considered a strong take. The movie has garnered excellent reviews and has yet to open overseas, which means its ultimate box office numbers could increase substantially.

There was only one sequel, "Resident Evil: Retribution," that cracked the top earners for September. The fifth installment into the franchise, based on the popular video game series, it earned a total of just over $41 million, after banking $21 million during its opening weekend starting September 14. The film brings back Milla Jovovich as Alice, an ex-employee of the Umbrella Corporation, which unleashed a zombie plague on the world. Instead of taking aim at the undead who are trying to destroy the living, she goes after Umbrella Corporation executives who spread the virus in the first place.

In fourth place was the Disney rerelease of the popular 2003 film "Finding Nemo." This latest version is in 3D, which greatly increases the price paid per ticket. It launched the same weekend as "Resident Evil: Retribution," offering a much more appropriate film for younger moviegoers. It hauled in over $16 million, with a total take of $39 million over the remaining two weeks of the month. It stars the voice of Al Brooks as Marlin, a clownfish who teams with Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) to try to find his only son after he goes missing.

Rounding out the top five films is "End of Watch," a gritty cop thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Pena as Los Angeles police officers who stumble upon a myriad of cases including Mexican cartels, human trafficking, murders, domestic abuse, and more. The film has received very favorable reviews and is rumored to be a contender once the awards show season begins in earnest. It notched $13 million for its opening weekend, which began September 14 in a somewhat limited release. It was released to a much larger set of markets in subsequent days, leading to an overall tally of $34 million and counting.

Another big awards show contender is the Paul Thomas Anderson drama " The Master," which was only released on five screens when it initially opened on September 14. Despite the limited number of theaters, it managed to pull in $13 million during September, giving it a very strong per-screen average. This bodes well for the film, which has people whispering about Academy Award nominations for stars Joaquin Phoenix and Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Providing useful articles, reviews and writings on movies and films online.

Is It Any Wonder That Movie Piracy Sites Are Thriving?

It was a rainy day today, so my wife and I decided that we should go and see a movie. We called up Grandma and asked if she would be willing to look after the kids for a few hours, and she was happy to spend some extra time with the little ones. So, after finally agreeing to go and see the new Men In Black 3 movie, we got into the car and headed to our local Cineplex theatre. When we arrived, we walked up to the ticket machine, requested 2 general admission tickets and then proceeded to pay. For the two tickets at this particular Cineplex, the grand total was $21.00, which seemed pretty reasonable. Next, we proceeded over to the concession stands to consider our options for a snack. We didn't want to get too elaborate, so we settled on a large popcorn, 2 regular sized drinks and a small bag of candy.

Fortunately, my wife has a 'SCENE' card (a promotional card that rewards purchases with points and lowers the cost of some goods when presented at time of purchase). However, even with the card, the snacks cost us another $21.00!! Now, we're not talking about pizza and fries, or hot dogs and energy drinks here....we're talking about one of the cheapest snacks known to mankind....due to the sheer abundance of raw materials available on this continent, popcorn costs mere pennies to produce, but apparently commands a GIANT price tag to consume when purchased at a movie theatre! As well, those large cups of soda are quite expensive as well (after they fill your cup with Ice, there might be the equivalent of one standard can of soda in that cup). The way I figure it, we probably got the equivalent of 1/4 a cup of popped corn kernels, 2 cans of pop and a bag of candy that could be purchased at a local grocery store for about $2. Based on some quick research that I have done, a pound of popcorn kernels is equal to about 4 cups of kernels, and a 1/4 cup of kernels will yield approximately 8 cups of popped popcorn.

So 4 cups of kernels will yield about 128 cups of popped popcorn! Oh and wait!, it's important to note that a pound of popcorn kernels costs about $2.00, so as you can see, you can produce approximately 128 cups of popcorn for about $2.00! Keeping these figures in mind, it cost the movie theatre approximately 13 cents for our large bag of popcorn, another couple of bucks for our soft drinks (calculated at a retail cost of $1 per can of soda), and about $2 or $3 for the bag of candy...for a grand total of about $5! In turn, they charged us $21.00 for those snacks!! That represents a mark-up of over 400%! As a result of this, it cost my wife and I just over $40.00 to see a movie today...and that was at a Cineplex where the price of the general admission tickets are much lower than those found at the same theatres in larger cities, where it's not uncommon to find admission prices ranging from $12 to $18 per person!

With pricing like this, it is little wonder why piracy has become such a large issue in today's society. After all, imagine if instead of Men In Black 3, my wife and I had decided to take our kids to the movies with us and take in a children's movie. Even with the cheaper kids ticket and concession costs factored in, the costs associated with such an endeavor would balloon to somewhere between $70 - $90! In the current economy, families are looking for affordable entertainment, and I do not believe that our local movie theatres are doing a very good job of providing that. Instead, families are more likely to download a newly released movie, pop up some popcorn on the stove and crack open some beverages found in the fridge... then curl up on the sofas and lazy boy chairs and have a family movie night. The costs associated with the stay at home movie night are likely under $10 bucks, and you don't have to worry about the obnoxious teenagers 3 rows behind tossing popcorn at you, while texting and speaking on their cellphones!

In the past 5 years alone I have witnessed the costs at the concession stands rise nearly 40%! I understand that some food industries have had to suffer through shortages due to issues related to weather and environment, but corn has remained very affordable throughout those 5 years. The costs associated with soda and candy has gone up slightly, but certainly not enough to justify a 40% hike at the movie concessions. So, is this just a matter of corporate and shareholder greed? Is the never ending appetite for ever increasing profits starting to get to a point that average families now face exorbitant costs just to take their loved ones to a show? Is it any surprise that movie theatres have to plaster large signs at the doors declaring "No Outside Food or Drink Beyond This Point"?

Obviously they are trying to protect their very large profit margins and thus their investors returns.....not to mention the fat salaries and bonuses awarded to their top executives! In 2010, the CEO of Cineplex received over $4.5 Million in total compensation - most of which was received in additional incentives beyond his base salary based on performance and profit targets! His base salary was just $803 Thousand dollars.....but he earned over 5 times this amount once all of the additional bonuses and incentives were paid....and you can bet your bottom dollar that those rising ticket prices and exorbitant concession prices factored largely into his compensation package....but hey, who can live on a paltry base salary of $803,000/year anyways right?

Here is an idea for Cineplex that would result in continued growth of profits and thus, investor delight. Why don't you drop your prices 40%, encouraging more families and individuals to visit your theatres and grow your business through expanded ticket and concession sales! As a result, you could positively affect the employment figures and employ more people to serve the influx of customers who can now afford to come to the movies, and more people could enjoy the magic of watching movies on the big screen, rather than downloading those movies to hard drives at home that are hooked up to their large screen televisions. I think you will find that people are more willing to pay a fair price for the entertainment you are providing, than stay at home and watch their free downloads because they cannot afford to pay your unfair and outlandishly exorbitant fees.

Furthermore, the movie industry going after the websites that provide free downloads of your movies will never yield any great blows to the infinite community of piracy sites that exist out there in the wild of the world wide web....but charging people affordable prices to visit your theatres will slowly start to win back customers who are tired of being overcharged to watch movies that rarely live up to their trailers! While the cost of your tickets and concessions have been steadily going up, the cost of large screen televisions and the technology used for downloading content has been steadily going down. If that trend continues, theatre companies like Cineplex will continue to see their viewership decline (Between the years 2000 - 2010, cinema attendance has dropped by over 22%, while during the same period, ticket prices have increased over 15%!), and large electronic retailers like Best Buy, Future Shop and Amazon will continue to benefit from the increased demand for new big screen TV's!

The bigger concern for companies like Cineplex should be...how long can they continue raising prices to offset the decline in ticket sales before they begin seeing massive drops in cinema attendance! Only time will tell, but if I were the CEO of Cineplex, I would be very concerned with the long term prospects of my job. Of course, the question remains whether the current CEO has enough foresight and courage to challenge the traditional business model that has over the past 10 years continued to show steady declines in attendance! Personally, I hope the industry turns itself around, and many more generations of people can continue to experience the magic of the big screen at an affordable price. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.

Bill Cunningham New York

The best documentaries are the ones that leave you feeling like you've had a religious experience - that you've either just encountered a holy person or experienced a conversion to some new cause or idea that had been previously unexplored. The best documentaries transcend the subject matter and touch another place altogether - that spiritual place. And so it is with Bill Cunningham New York, a delightful documentary directed by Richard Press about the octogenarian New York Times photojournalist who comes across as a monastic figure whose sanctuary is couture.

Prior to seeing the picture, I didn't know Bill Cunningham's work, but being a longtime reader of the New York Times, I was aware of his street photos, which have been a regular feature in the Style section for over thirty years, and the tension between ubiquity (he's a respected sage in the fashion industry) and anonymity (he's a discreet man who shuns the spotlight and money in order to enjoy guiltless freedom in what he does) is at the core of the movie and the man.

Cunningham was born and raised in Boston, and retains the distinctive accent where Central Park becomes Central Pahk. After dropping out of Harvard, he moved to New York, where an uncle who worked for Bonwit Teller, the high-end department store, took him in and got him a job as a stock boy. Cunningham's interest in fashion worried his family, who no-doubt feared that he was gay. Finally, tiring of his family's pressure to get a "straight" job, Cunningham moved out of his uncle's place in 1949 and found an empty space on East 52nd street where he set up a hat shop and designed under the name William J.

After a hitch in the army, Cunningham came back to New York where he began his career in journalism. He got on with Women's Wear Daily, and was given carte blanche to write about whatever interested him. When WWD wouldn't publish a piece he'd written about Courreges, the French designer, he quit.

In the 60's, Cunningham worked for the Chicago Tribune in their New York office. In 1966, he met a photographer named David Montgomery. When Cunningham expressed an interest in taking pictures, Montgomery gave him an Olympus Pen-D half frame camera and told him to use it like a notebook. Thus equipped, he entered a new phase of his career.

Cunningham took Montgomery's advice to heart, and it was during this time, as he was getting acquainted with the camera, that he had an epiphany. He wrote about this moment in a 2002 piece for the Times - "I realized that you didn't know anything unless you photographed the shows and the street, to see how people interpreted what designers hoped they would buy. I realized that the street was the missing ingredient." That realization, that the street was where fashion was worked out, led to an obsession with the streets of Manhattan, which became a kind of laboratory for Cunningham, who documented the daily fashion experiments, looking for patterns.

In the 70's, Cunningham started taking photographs for the Times, but it wasn't until 1978 - after a chance encounter with Greta Garbo and a nutria coat she was wearing - that he landed his current gig, covering the streets and the galas and the shows - the Bill Cunningham holy trinity of fashion.

Bill Cunningham New York is a mixture of talking head interviews, decades old archival footage of Cunningham, and present day coverage of the man on his daily rounds. Amazingly, Cunningham - nearly 80 at the filming of the picture - still gets around Manhattan on his trademark bicycle, moving from street corner to street corner to capture a few frames of some article of clothing or an accessory that catches his eye.

The man who emerges from all of this attention is a purist completely uninterested in industry politics, self-promotion, or celebrity. For him, it's all about the clothes...of others. Cunningham lives a Spartan existence. His apartment is a tiny studio at Carnegie Hall that has no kitchen or bathroom (he showers and takes care of other business in a common bathroom in the hallway). He sleeps on a makeshift cot. The rest of the living space is occupied not with furniture and art, but filing cabinets filled with prints and negatives - his experiments.

Cunningham dresses conservatively, and could easily be mistaken for a retired professor or accountant but for his trademark blue smock. Some years ago, he stumbled across the smock - designed for institutional use - in a department store section devoted to uniforms. It's a light jacket that Cunningham favors for its many pockets (to hold film and other paraphernalia) and rugged construction (his camera, which dangles from his neck like a giant medallion, is hell on coats). It looks like something Chairman Mao might have favored.

Cunningham has stripped his life down to the essentials so that he can devote as much of himself as possible to the documentation of what people are wearing. He's that rare person who, early on, discovered his calling, and has let nothing distract him from it. Seeing him at Carnegie Hall Towers, once can't help but view him as a kind of secular monk and Carnegie Hall as his monastery. Cunningham and his elderly neighbors, nearly forgotten artists from the mid-twentieth century, are as delightfully anachronistic as an encounter with a Franciscan monk or the Amish.

The difference with Cunningham is that, though he may not be of the world, he's definitely in the world. We see him in the offices of the Times, playfully bantering with co-workers. We see him in Paris at a major show, where a young gate-keeper keeps in out on the sidewalk until an older co-worker pushes her aside, declaring Cunningham to be "the most important man on earth." We see him on the street, dialed in like method actor or ballplayer, looking for that thing.

Bill Cunningham New York has blown the cover of its subject, but his loss of anonymity is our great gain. Providing articles, reviews and writings on movies online.