The Dark Knight Rises

Comic films seemed to dominate the summer of 2012. The Amazing Spider-Man and The Avengers were two great successes, but there was no greater excitement than that which surrounded The Dark Knight Rises, the third and final chapter in Christopher Nolan’s revered trilogy. It was a must-see, and the only question was whether or not it could live up to the standard set by 2008’s The Dark Knight.

As I’ve stated many times, I’m a fan of comics books. With that said, I’ve always been more of a Marvel man as opposed to DC, but I still know my fair share about Batman lore. Plus, I enjoyed Batman Begins and thought The Dark Knight was amazing and should have won an Academy Award for best picture.

For those who don’t know about the latest installment, IMDb explains: “Eight years on, a new terrorist leader, Bane, overwhelms Gotham's finest, and the Dark Knight resurfaces to protect a city that has branded him an enemy.”

People have been hailing The Dark Knight Rises as an Oscar contender, but I don’t agree. It was a good movie and highly enjoyable, but it wasn’t nearly as good as The Dark Knight. It’s hard for me to imagine Rises could win either Best Picture or Best Director when the middle movie didn’t. That’s not meant to be a dig on the new chapter, but rather a compliment to The Dark Knight.

Getting back to business, The Dark Knight Rises was better than good, but fell short of being great. It was a great continuation of the story and a satisfactory capstone to the trilogy, but it didn’t have the same mind-blowing performances (i.e. Heath Ledger as the Joker—which earned him a well-deserved posthumous Oscar) and dark storyline that made The Dark Knight so great. As Nolan has stated, the new installment features “Pain” as a theme; whereas, Batman Begins centered on “Fear” and The Dark Knight on “Chaos.” For me, watching “Chaos” is the best, but “Pain” trumps “Fear;” in other words, The Dark Knight Rises is better than Batman Begins but not as good The Dark Knight.

Christian Bale once again portrayed Batman, and he did an awesome job as always. Likewise, Gary Oldman, Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine were back in their respective roles, and each delivered brilliantly. New additions to the cast included Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Gotham City Police Officer Blake; Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle/Catwoman; Marion Cotillard as Miranda Tate/Talia al Ghul; and Tom Hardy as Bane.

All of these actors delivered engaging performances, but it was the main villain of the film that impressed me. Thanks to my love of comics, I was aware of Bane, but a lot of people weren’t familiar with the character. To put it bluntly, Bane is pain incarnate. He experiences it (his tricked out mask keeps it at bay), and dishes out even more. I really enjoyed watching Bane in action, and contrary to many, I was a fan of his voice, which was based upon Irish traveller and bare-knuckle boxer Bartley Gorman (1944-2002). It certainly takes some getting used to, but I thought it brought a touch of class to a bad-ass villain. A nice job by Hardy.

On the other hand, the addition of Catwoman seemed a bit frivolous. The character, while a big-time player in the Batman universe, didn’t add much to the film and it almost seemed as if she was added to appease fans. I’d have like to have either seen her character's development expanded or tied into the storyline more intimately, but to be completely honest, it’s not easy to fill the shoes left by Ledger’s Joker. Bane is just a step behind, but Catwoman failed to bring the duo into the upper echelon of villain.

As I said before, while they may not be at the same level as Ledger’s Joker, the performances in The Dark Knight Rises did not leave me wanting. In fact, my only qualms involved the story. Whereas The Dark Knight was a tight package, The Dark Knight Rises was more of a sieve, able to hold it’s own but with a few holes.

One of those holes was glossing over some lingering questions. I respect Nolan’s decision to avoid talk of the Joker, who is neither mentioned nor referenced in the film, out of respect for the late Ledger, but there were some situations introduced that warranted clarification. For instance, Bane ends up taking Gotham City hostage for many months, but the timeline surrounding it wasn’t exactly clear as it seemed events were taking place over a couple days/weeks as opposed to months.

Likewise, Bane imprisons Bruce Wayne in an “ancient place” somewhere in the world, whichappears to be somewhere in the Middle East. Inexplicably, the time it took to get Wayne to the prison, and his subsequent return to Gotham City are glossed over. Not a big deal, as any competent viewer can fill in the blanks, but it was still a blank that needed filling in, something you didn’t see much of in The Dark Knight.

There were a few other instances like those above, and they did not go unnoticed. They didn’t sink the ship, so to speak, but they were a few loose ends that could have made the film better had they been tied; although, the film did clock in at 164 minutes, the longest of the trilogy, so I supposed they couldn’t explain everything in great detail.

In regards to the ending, which many have found polarizing, I won’t say much as I don’t want to reveal any spoilers. However, I will say that it was a satisfactory ending. I liked the twist with Gordon-Levitt’s character, and was hit or miss with what they did to Batman. If this is really the last film for Nolan, I might have avoided the route they took, but then again, no one likes to see the hero die. Plus, while Batman lives, there’s always a chance for a fourth film, which no doubt sits well with studio executives.

All in all The Dark Knight Rises was on par with what I was expecting. This review might come off a bit negative or lackluster, but let me be clear—it was a very good movie and I enjoyed it. If you liked the first two films, you’ll enjoy the third.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 82%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Ted

Let me start off by saying that, initially, I wasn’t planning on seeing Ted. The idea of a vulgar teddy bear chumming it up with Mark Wahlberg didn’t really appeal to me. Then, after being released for a week, I began to hear great reviews via word of mouth. “It’s the funniest movie ever,” a few of my friends said, which inspired me to give it a chance. I wouldn’t say it was the funniest movie ever, but it was friggin’ hilarious.

For those who don’t know, IMDb describes the premise: “As the result of a childhood wish, John Bennett's teddy bear, Ted, came to life and has been by John's side ever since - a friendship that's tested when Lori, John's girlfriend of four years, wants more from their relationship.”

It sounds a bit corny, but thanks to the comedic genius of Seth MacFarlane, the movie really comes to life.  For me, it was like watching a real-life episode of Family Guy, but with different characters. There were hilarious flashback scenes, daydreams, raunchiness, uncomfortable scenarios, and everything in between. Simply put, if you’re a fan of Family Guy, you’ll definitely be a fan of Ted.

If you’re not familiar with Family Guy, fear not, Ted still has plenty to offer. The first thing you’ll need to know though, is that this is an R-rated comedy. While there is a teddy bear involved, this movie isn’t for kids. As I mentioned before, there was a lot of raunchiness, which turns out can be quite funny coming from a stuffed teddy bear.

Not only did MacFarlane write and direct the film, he voiced Ted and even donned a motion-capture suit to portray him. By doing so, he injected some life and enthusiasm, turning a computer-generated character into something more. Without a doubt, Ted is the star of this film.

With that said, he receives some complimentary performances throughout. For instance, Wahlberg does a great job breaking from action flicks and tackling a comedy role. I tend to be hit or miss when it comes Wahlberg’s performances, but in Ted he hits it out of the park as John Bennett (coincidentally that’s the same name as my ex-girlfriend’s fiancé). It’s hard to imagine Wahlberg as a grown, irresponsible, and innocent man-child, but he pulls it off with flying colors.

Likewise, Mila Kunis does a great job as Bennett’s girlfriend, Lori Collins, who believes Ted branching out on his own is best for everyone. Obviously this causes some friction, and ultimately sets up some pretty funny situations. It couldn’t have been easy to convince two Hollywood stars of Kunis and Wahlberg’s caliber to star in a film about a talking teddy bear, but kudos to them both for taking the risk.

Kudos are also in order for Giovanni Ribisi and Joel McHale for delivering on their supporting roles, as well as Patrick Stewart’s narrating duties and cameo appearances by Tom Skerritt, Norah Jones, Alex Borstein and Sam J. Jones as Flash Gordon. It never ceases to amaze me how MacFarlane can take a stagnant career, like those of Skerritt and Jones, and seemingly revive them simply by featuring them as an extreme caricature of themselves.

Ted was a great first outing for MacFarlane, and I look forward to his future endeavors in the feature film realm. Surprisingly, his animation-comedy techniques translate well to the big screen, and Ted had me laughing non-stop; in fact, I had tears in my eyes from laughing so hard, and I can’t remember the last time that happened. If you enjoy a good R-rated comedy, then Ted is a must.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 75%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

The Amazing Spider-Man

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I’m a comic book fan; in fact, the highest rating I’ve ever given in this blog was to comic-book movie, The Avengers (though that was based more on its merits than the genre). With that said, I was still a bit apprehensive with The Amazing Spider-Man, Columbia Picture’s reboot on the franchise.

It was just five years ago that Spider-Man 3 was released, the third installment of the popular franchise. While the general consensus, of which I agree, was that the third one was subpar compared to the first two, wasn’t it too soon for a reboot with a new director to replace Sam Rami and a new star to don the suit in place of Tobey McGuire?

I had my hesitations, but of course I was going to give it a shot. For those who don’t know, the new film goes back to the beginning, when Peter Parker becomes Spider-Man while in high school. As IMDb explains: “Peter Parker finds a clue that might help him understand why his parents disappeared when he was young. His path puts him on a collision course with Dr. Curt Connors, his father's former partner.”

It was nice to see that The Amazing Spider-Man didn’t traverse the same territory as its predecessors. Sure, there were a few similarities between the films, but they were always essential to the story (i.e. Spider-Man’s origin). Otherwise, the new installment brought a lot to the party.

First and foremost was the new man behind the mask, Andrew Garfield. Best known for playing Eduardo Saverin in The Social Network, Garfield seemed a curious choice to play Peter Parker. He beat out such actors as Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Taylor Lautner, Michael Cera and Anton Yelchin for the role, but even so I had my reservations.

Once I learned that he got the blessing of Maguire and was a bit of a comic geek, I felt a bit better, but it ended up being his performance that blew me away. I’ve read Spider-Man comics for a long time, and Garfield is exactly how I picture Peter Parker. His mannerism and wit was spot on, and he had the lean, slender build that has always characterized Spider-Man (I always thought Maguire was a bit too beefy).

The only drawback for Garfield is that it’s hard to imagine him as an unlikeable geek in high school. He’s just got the look, attitude and inherent confidence that goes against it; in other words, he’s just too smooth and cool to be looked down on. On the flip side, Garfield accomplished something Maguire was never able to do, he brought the character to life. Maybe it was just me, but I always though Maguire’s portrayal lacked conviction and enthusiasm.

Another thing that I liked was the new villain. There are a few iconic antagonists in the Spider-Man universe, many of which have been featured in previous films. It was important for the filmmakers to bring a new character into the fray, which they did with the Lizard, played brilliantly by Rhys Ifans. While I’d have preferred the movie-version Lizard to have a snout like in the comic books, I must admit I found the character intriguing, visually appealing (great CGI) and an all-around badass.

The addition of other new characters like Captain Stacy and Gwen Stacey, was also a pleasant spin on the story. Both have had big roles in the Spider-Man universe, and the filmmakers did a good job shying away from the Mary Jane Watson love story to that of Peter Parker’s first love, the blonde bombshell Gwen Stacey, played superbly by the very-talented Emma Stone. Interestingly, Stone had to change her hair from red to blonde to play the leading lady, while years earlier Kirsten Dunst had to go from blonde to red.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Sally Field and Martin Sheen as Aunt May and Uncle Ben respectively. They had limited roles, but they lit up the screen when they were on, especially the latter. I liked these two characters in the first Spider-Man film, but I loved them in the reboot.

I will admit that, at times, The Amazing Spider-Man felt a lot like it’s predecessor, but truth be told I like the new version better. It was more modern, Garfield proved to be a great Peter Parker, and overall it generally felt more true to the comics. I had an awesome time at the film, despite not being able to see it in 3D because of a sold-out theater, and I have no doubt it will inspire an enduring and successful franchise. Kudos to director Marc Webb, who has an appropriate name for the film.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 85%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World

When you think of Steve Carell, it’s hard not to imagine him as one of his iconic kooky characters like The Office’s Michael Scott or Maxwell Smart in Get Smart; in fact, sometimes it’s just downright hard to take Carell seriously, such as the title character in Dan in Real Life. With that said, I was skeptical of Carell’s new film, Seeking a Friend for the End of the World, in which he plays a fairly straight-laced character.

For those who don’t know, IMDb.com describes the premise of the film: “As an asteroid nears Earth, a man finds himself alone after his wife leaves in a panic. He decides to take a road trip to reunite with his high school sweetheart. Accompanying him is a neighbor who inadvertently puts a wrench in his plan.”

Seeking a Friend for the End of the World makes it clear right from the get go that the world is going to end, which sets a unique stage for the characters. Carell’s part, an insurance salesman named Dodge, is soft spoken, naïve, and facing a midlife (or would it be end-of-life?) crisis amid imminent doom, which proves quite the predicament in a hopeless world.

The story itself, and the underlying context, is what brings the film to life. Viewers get to see a whole spectrum of reactions to the end of the world: some people can’t handle the pressure, while others seem to thrive. For better or worse, reconciliation, uninhibited sex, heroin, love, family, survivalists and suicide are just some of the things you’ll encounter in Seeking a Friend for the End of the World.

While the movie does have its fair share of funny parts, it isn’t your traditional Carell comedy. I’d classify it as a comedy and drama hybrid, also known as a "dramedy." The story is centered on despair, hopelessness and dread, but at the same time there are uplifting moments of redemption, tenderness and living life to the fullest. The film, which will have you laughing one moment and deep in thought in another, has the unique ability to invoke extreme emotions, which isn’t too surprising considering it was written and directed by Lorene Scafaria, who also wrote another journey-for-love film by the name of Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist.

While the story is strong, it is made all the stronger by some great performances. The aforementioned Carell shook his trademark slapstick shtick and demonstrated that he’s like a Transformer, there is more to him than meets the eye. Likewise, Keira Knightley rocked it as Penny, the woman who would change Dodge’s life at the end of days. I’ve always liked Knightley, but this is one of the first films where I felt like she truly let herself go. “I promise not to steal anything if you promise not to rape me,” is just one of Knightley’s more memorable lines.

Martin Sheen also does a tremendous job in a limited role as Dodge's father. I'm glad to see Sheen back in the saddle as the man clearly knows how to act. Furthermore, I also the various cameos throughout the film including those by Rob Huebel, Rob Corddry, Patton Oswalt, Amy Schumer, T.J.Miller and Jim O’Heir. Each of these actors had small roles, but combined they added a unique blend of amusement and intimacy to the film.

All in all, I was pleasantly surprised with how enjoyable Seeking a Friend for the End of the World turned out to be. It proved a great blend of comedy, sincerity and drama that presented viewers with a number of existential questions; in other words, it was not only entertaining, the movie had me thinking about things long after I left the theater. It’s rare for a film to do that, but I always appreciate it when it does.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 87%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

Every once in awhile a movie will come along with a title and premise so absurd that you just have to check it out. It started with Snakes on a Plane, and most recently it was Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I recently had the chance to check out the latter, and it wasn’t nearly as bad as I’d expected.

The best thing about movies like this is the title basically sums up the story. It is simply a film about Abraham Lincoln hunting vampires. As IMDb explains: “Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the United States, discovers vampires are planning to take over the United States. He makes it his mission to eliminate them.”

These days, anything remotely associated with vampires garners a lot of attention, so who better to bring Seth Grahame-Smith’s novel (he also penned the screenplay) to life than Timur Bekmambetov, who directed both Night Watch and Day Watch. With that said, bringing in such a heavy hitter in the vampire industry debunked the notion that the film was going to be sloppy and silly just to cash in on the genre; in fact, I found the opposite to be true.

I actually expected Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter to be ridiculous and poke fun at itself; instead, the movie actually takes itself seriously. While this initially seems even more absurd, I was impressed with how well the filmmakers were able to make it work. Don’t get me wrong, the movie wasn’t great, but it certainly wasn’t as bad as one might think. Personally, I came to think of it as a really good "B" movie.

Let me start with the things I enjoyed. First and foremost, I was impressed with the performances. Benjamin Walker may not be an A-list star, but in my opinion he did a great job as Abraham Lincoln. His talent, combined with good looks, will no doubt pave the way to future opportunities in Hollywood.

Dominic Cooper was solid as always portraying Henry Sturgess, while Mary Elizabeth Winstead made a convincing Mary Todd Tyler. I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention Jimmi Simpson, who played Joshua Speed. I’m not exactly sure as to why, but I really enjoyed his routine and felt he complimented Walker nicely.

Another thing I enjoyed were the visuals. While the film is not true to history (there are vampires involved after all), I found the sets, costumes and the like reminded me of the Civil War era. Historical accuracy was not the movie’s strong suit, but they polished it up in other ways and made it work.

Likewise, I enjoyed most of the action sequences, though there were a few that seemed to be in the film just to spice up the 3D offering (i.e. fighting atop stampeding horses and atop a train).

Balancing things out on the negative side of things, aside from the aforementioned corny action scenes, were a few weak spots in the story. The origin and specifics surrounding the vampires in the film was not properly fleshed out; likewise, the hard and fast rules regarding vampires was spotty. For example, in the film silver is deadly to vampires, a quite common theme in the genre, but it appeared villains in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter were able to walkabout in the daylight. Attention to detail is important, but there were cases in the film where it was certainly cut.

For what it’s worth, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter’s success at the box office was lukewarm in its opening weekend. The film, which cost an estimated $70 million to make, brought in just $16.5 million and debuted in the number-three spot behind both Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted ($20.2 million) and Brave ($66.7 million).

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter proved to be entertaining. As previously mentioned, it wasn’t anything great, but in this case I think entertaining is about as much as anyone could ask for. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 58%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Prometheus

Hype. It has the potential to make a movie a success, but is oftentimes leads to bitter disappointment. While there has been a lot of hype surrounding this summer’s movie lineup, I’m hard-pressed to think of one with hysteria than Prometheus, Ridley Scott’s first sci-fi film in three decades, which I recently saw in Imax 3D.

The big question surrounding the film, at least with hardcore Ridley Scott fans, was: is this a prequel to Alien? The answer wasn’t very clear prior to the film’s release, though IMDb provides a satisfying explanation:

“Was originally conceived as a prequel to Ridley Scott's Alien, but Scott announced his decision to turn it into an original film with Noomi Rapace (who was already set to star) still in the cast as one of five main characters. Some time later it was confirmed that while the movie would take place in the same universe as Alien and greatly reference that movie, it would mostly be an original movie and not a direct prequel. “

I enjoy the Alien franchise, though I wouldn’t classify myself as a fan boy. With that said, I was expecting an action-packed film set in space with a unique storyline. Given Scott’s success with Alien, I don’t think my expectations for the movie were extreme. Unfortunately, it would meet only one of my expectations . . . it was set in space.

I hate to say it, but Prometheus was lackluster. It had a few exciting moments, but on the whole it took its time to flesh out the storyline, which is basically the search for the origin of mankind intertwined with aliens and disaster. The origin question is ultimately answered, but the “why” of it is left unresolved. It’s a big topic to tackle, and I wasn’t really satisfied with how they handled it.

As I mentioned, the film takes it time to lay out the storyline, and as a result other things are sacrificed, most notably character development. Was David, played by Michael Fassbender, a good guy or a villain? Who were the other people on the mission and what purpose did they serve?

Likewise, the film did a pretty bad job of foreshadowing. For instance, it is randomly revealed that the main character is unable to have children. Minutes later it is revealed that she is pregnant. “That’s impossible,” she says. Of course she ends up being knocked up by an alien baby, an unnecessary and off-putting (remember I saw this in Imax 3D) “birth” scene ensued, and the whole debacle plays a major role at the end if the film.

Another thing I wasn’t thrilled about was Guy Pearce playing Peter Weyland, an aged and dying billionaire intent on “meeting his maker.” While I generally like Pearce, I don’t understand why they would hire a young actor to don cosmetics and portray and old man. The prosthetics looked cheesy and fake, and I couldn’t help but wonder why they didn’t cast an experience veteran for the role like Brian Cox, Anthony Hopkins, etc.

The film did have two highlights in my opinion. The first was excellent special effects, which worked well in the Imax 3D setting. The second were the performances. Granted, the character development was weak, but the talent did a good job with what they were given.

It’s no secret that I like me some Idris Elba, and he was highly entertaining in his supporting role as Janek. Likewise, Fassbender was spot playing the part of an android, and he continues to drive my belief that he is one of Hollywood’s best new talents. Finally, I was impressed with Noomi Rapace in the lead role. I know she did Sweden’s version of the Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, though I’ve never seen it. That aside, she did a fine job in Prometheus and I expect we’ll see more of her in American cinema.

It wasn’t that Prometheus was bad, because it wasn’t. The problem is that it wasn’t very good. For a film with so much hype and expectation, I left feeling unsatisfied as nothing stood out as overly special. It pains me to say it because I wanted the film to be good, but I think most people are going to feel the same way I did.

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 64%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.

Men in Black III

I remember way back in 1997 when a movie billed itself as “Protecting the Earth from the scum of the universe.” Called Men In Black, it starred veteran TommyLee Jones and a rapidly ascending actor by the name of Will Smith. It was a hit, as was the Men In Back II sequel in 2002, but could the franchise support a trilogy ten years after the last film? That’s the question I asked myself when Men In BlackIII was released on May 25.

Ten years is a long time in between films, and oftentimes it proves less than satisfying (i.e. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of theCrystal Skull). Could Smith, who is now one of Hollywood’s biggest stars, reprise one of the roles that helped make him a household name? Not only that, how would he do after not having made a movie for three-and-a-half years (his last was 2008’s Seven Pounds)? Could the 65-year-old Jones keep up with the demands of a sci-fi action/comedy? So many questions surrounded MIB III, and the simple answer to them all is this: If you liked the first two films, you’ll like the third installment.

For those who don’t know the premise of MIB III, IMDb explains: “Agent J travels in time to MIB's early years in the 1960s, to stop an alien from assassinating his friend Agent K and changing history.”

I can’t say that I was thrilled with the time-travel storyline prior to seeing it; in fact, it seemed to me like it might be a cheap excuse to lighten the load for Jones, who as I previously mentioned is getting up their in years. If that was the case, I knew I’d be disappointed as a Jones fan.

While Jones’ role is less than in the first two MIBs, he still puts in a strong performance in the beginning and end of the film. In the middle, Josh Brolin is brought in to play the role of a young Agent K. Now Jones is about a unique actor as you can get, so it seems like a tough task to find someone to fill his shoes. His grizzled deadpan and endearing bluntness are mesmerizing and emulating it almost seems impossible. I thought there was no way Brolin could pull off a convincing younger version of Jones, but I was wrong.

As it happens, Brolin does a tremendous job with the part. He was able to pull off Jones so well that the character transition was flawless. Brolin, who has truly become a remarkable actor, leaves himself out of it and give way to the character, if that makes sense. 

In other performance news, Smith doesn’t miss a step reprising the role of Agent J. What you saw in the first two films from him is what you’ll see in MIB III. The supporting cast was also solid  thanks to strong performances by Jemaine Clement, Emma Thompson, Michael Stuhlbarg and Mike Colter.

What made the film commendable, at least for me, was the emphasis on continuity. Instead of switching things up, like bringing in a new director, they stuck with what’s worked in the past and brought back BarrySonnenfeld, who directed the first two films. Interestingly, Sonnenfeld makes a cameo in the film as a guy watching the Apollo 11 launch on a couch while drinking a cup of coffee.

My only qualm with the film, at least as far as continuity is concerned, was the disappearance of Rip Torn, who played Zed, the director of MIB, in the first two films. In MIB III, it is revealed that his character has been killed off. I can only presume that it is related to Torn’s recent legal troubles involving alcohol. It’s understandable the studio would move away from it, but his absence doesn’t go unnoticed.

There wasn’t anything revolutionary about MIB III, but it was on par with the first two films in the franchise. Thanks to a little twist ending, that proves satisfying, I imagine this will be the last MIB film, though I could be wrong. Either way, if they left it as a trilogy they’d be going out on a strong note having put together a well-constructed finale. 

Buddies Forever Movie Club Rating: 69%

Follow us on Twitter at Buddies4everMC, like us on Facebook, & find us on Google+ for all the latest and greatest movie reviews.