This is topic Men in Black II in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000343
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-02-2002, 09:37 AM:
*sigh*Just going through the (sequel) motions on this one. There is just no chemistry between Will and Tommy Lee here. The story is there for the taking, but the dialog is lame and the talking dog is the best part of the movie.
What an incredible disappointment. This could have been immeasurably better.
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-02-2002, 12:54 PM:
Adam, great review. That is the way to really review a movie without giving plotpoints or storyline. I haven't seen it yet, and plan to. Thanks for not giving up the story dude.CIao.
Dave
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-03-2002, 05:39 AM:
This picture was bad. I was really looking forward to it, seeing as how it was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld and all. But he has certainly made better films in the past (hell, he even made a better film earlier this year). The humor just didn't go far enough, especially visually. And, like the last one, it suffered from the GHOSTBUSTERS syndrome of suddenly realizing that it was supposed to be a big FX movie, and throwing in a boring, unfunny climax at the end.
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-03-2002, 05:52 AM:
Oh wow! I know that movie was like 77 minutes long, but it felt like forever. The question "are we still on reel 1?" was asked 3 or 4 times, always getting the "yes" reply. Many other times during the movie the question "was that supposed to be funny?" was uttered, usually getting the "I think so" response. THANKFULLY THE DOG COMES INTO THE SHOW AT THE START OF REEL 2!!! Yes, the dog is just about the only reason to watch this show. That being said, feel free to miss the first 20 minutes and enter at the reel change. Just about everything the dog says and does is truly funny. Just about everything else in the movie earns a groan, if that. Now here's the bad part, the dog only has about 10 minutes of screen time. The rest is stale and boring. I say this as a fan of the first movie.
***SPOILER ALERT***
So at the end of the movie after they save the world (didn't see that coming) they do the "flashey thing" to the entire city. What this movie really needed was for Will Smith to turn toward the camera, look straight into the lens, put on his sunglasses and say "look right here". Several frames of clear film later he removes the glasses and says "the movie you have just seen is the best movie of the year, of all time, your personal favorite. You will come and watch this movie every day for as long as it plays in the theaters and then you will purchase the DVD as soon as it is available on video." Besides it being a humorous way to end a bad movie, it just might help with the grosses. 
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-03-2002, 12:03 PM:
OMG, Brad, that is phuggin hilarious! 
BTW, I had to watch this again to get another print screened and nothing improved from my previous post.
Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 07-03-2002, 01:53 PM:
This movie just kept on getting better and better...at every set of cue marks I knew it was getting closer to the end. 
Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-03-2002, 03:04 PM:
Will smith in an interview had stated that he was fearful that this film would not be that good. His own feeling that the first one was good because there was nothing to expect, and anything that was thrown at the audience would be different and new. But with this film, there was almost no way to really keep it fresh and blow the audience away, so all they really had to hope on is that they could just throw bigger things at people and hope it works.Besides, didn't he and tommy lee get 25 million smackers a piece for this piece? I would take that money, and I would suck too if I at all could.
Dave
Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 07-04-2002, 12:19 AM:
There is a old general rule: For a non animated feature, if they can't come up with at least 90 minutes of material (exclusive of end credits) then the movie is usually 
Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2002, 01:50 AM:
There is a new general rule for certain studios these days: Kodak filmstock = movie the studio expects to do well.
Fuji filmstock = movie the studio expects to bomb!
I know that's the case with Universal, Warner and Fox, except on rare instances where someone involved in the production specified one or the other (very rare it seems). Start watching for it and you'll see. It's pretty obvious.
...and now for a Kodak plug from John Pytlak.
Posted by Mike Schindler (Member # 1309) on 07-04-2002, 02:35 AM:
I'd have to disagree with that old general rule. I've always been a big fan of short movies. My co-worker has a theory that the best film which will ever be made will have the greatest amount of impact in the least amount of time. Therefore, it will be two frames long, and whoever sees it will become a god. I agree with him.I was thinking about this a lot the other day while watching a film which was based on a comic book. The comic was fairly short, but one of the best ever written. The movie was very faithful to the book, but had a lot of extra stuff which was not in the book, and was not necessary to the film. I was thinking, "Why do I need to sit here for over 2 hours when the effect would be greater if I was only sitting here for an hour and a half?" Then I started thinking about things like music videos, and how they are not given the respect that they deserve, and how lots of music video directors eventually make features, and it's at that point that they receive lots of critical acclaim, even though their videos are usually substantially better. That's goofy. If a movie needs to be long, then that's fine. MAGNOLIA, for example, needed to be over three hours. But I hate padding. MEN IN BLACK II sucked, but it just might have been almost good if it was ten minutes shorter.
Posted by Neil Hunter (Member # 1005) on 07-05-2002, 02:21 PM:
I couldn't imagine sitting through this movie ONCE, and Adam did it TWICE. Ouch.
Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-05-2002, 03:06 PM:
Well, it was that or screen Like Mike. Sometimes you just gotta suck it up.
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-08-2002, 09:43 PM:
I just have to say that although I did not find the dog as amusing as some of you seem to have, I did find David Cross' appearance very funny. I don't know how many of you watched Mr. Show, but that guy is good, and his cerebral palsy joke had me laughing for quite some time.------------------
"Asleep at the switch? I wasn't asleep, I was drunk!" - Homer Simpson
Posted by Michael Gonzalez (Member # 593) on 07-08-2002, 10:09 PM:
I absolutly hate it when sequels are just remakes of the first one (Ace Ventura II anyone). You have a main alien bad "person" trying to find something so they can take over the world and the MIBs have to stop them. The first movie was original this one wasn't even worth watching. Mr. Jones seemed like he was just phoning his performance in.
If I were to write a sequel, I would have the main "Bad Guy" or in this case antogonist would be a human who somehow got his hands on some of the MIB equptment thus he could commit crimes and erase people's memories to cover them up. Then you can have K & J go after him to get the weapons back with the help of some aliens. You can even throw in some incompetent bad guy aliens also after the guy (so they can get their hands on these weapons) for comic relief. At least this way the story would be different.
Posted by Patrick McDonough (Member # 1363) on 07-15-2002, 08:22 AM:
I was disapointed with this film, tommy and will didnt have the chemistry they had in the first MIB.
Posted by Christopher Santapaola (Member # 1015) on 07-22-2002, 09:09 AM:
Well lets give some credit here. All of the 'funny' parts of the film are owed almost entirerly to Will Smith. A+ for effort. As for Tommy Jones it seemed as though he wasn't even there. He said his lame line and moved on with little to no visible emotion.Overall, I suggest not seeing this movie if you liked MIB 1.
Posted by John Daily (Member # 1362) on 07-26-2002, 10:50 AM:
I thought this was ok, but nothing special. The problem appears to be in the familiarity of the plot. From the June 28 edition of USA Today:(Director Barry) 'Sonnenfeld hints that there could be a third installment of MIB, but he issues a warning to viewers, even if he directs the next one: "If Men in Black III is about the Earth being threatened by aliens, you shouldn't go see the movie." '
If he felt awkward enough to make that statement, then perhabs he should have strove for originality in this script as well.
There were also long moments that were just not funny. I must admit though, I did enjoy the appearance of the Balchinian.