{rating}

After seeing the first Men in Black, I remember dreading the sequel, knowing how it is with most sequels. As it turned out, Men in Black 2 didn’t disappoint–which is to say that it did disappoint, rather thoroughly. So when the third installment made its way to the silver screen, I was more reluctant than ever. The third film in a franchise can either follow the trend down into the abyss or it can rise above. Thankfully for this franchise, Men in Black 3 rises above: way above.

Men in Black succeeded by painting a broad back story on the inner workings of the MIB organization, which turns out to be a great foundation for MIB 3. It allows the story of this particular movie to have a much more narrow focus, which is exactly what it needed. The simple story is Agents J and K are looking for an escaped alien convict, Boris the Animal (“Just Boris”), played in all his villainy goodness by Jemaine Clement. This simple story is encased in a tightly woven and exhilarating time-travel arc in which Agent J meets Agent K in his early life. If you’ve heard how well Josh Brolin becomes a young Tommy Lee Jones, you have heard correctly. He is simply magnificent. Will Smith is certainly at the top of his game reprising the role of Agent J as well.

I’d also like to throw in some kudos for the quirky and, what I would call brilliant performance of Griffin, brought to the screen by Michael Stuhlbarg. Stuhlbarg was first brought to my attention as the uptight Jewish protagonist in the brilliant Coen Brothers’ black comedy, A Serious Man. (That’s two “brilliants,” both of them deserved. Well, three now. You get the point.) If anything, he’s as enigmatic and versatile in MIB 3 as he was in the other. I hope to see more great things from him in the future.

So if you were hoping that MIB 3 would be fun, well-acted and a real turn around from the less-than-epic sequel that came before it, you will not be disappointed.

{rating}

Review pending.

{rating}

El Topo

{rating}

If there’s one thing you can say about Alejandro Jodorowsky, it’s that he has a certain style. The problem with that is that his movies are evocative of that style to the exclusion of all else, including plot structure, entertainment value and humility.

For those who think Jodorowsky is a genius, I apologize for the next couple of paragraphs because I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. I’ve read hundreds of reviews of The Holy Mountain and El Topo which praise him endlessly for his stunning vision and his unmitigated mental prowess. What this movie presented to me as I watched it was a rambling, chaotic jumble of 70’s imagery, symbolism and most likely drug-induced dialogue (or lack of it).

I don’t doubt for a moment that the director had a message to convey, and was convinced that he was putting forth that message in a way that would become clear once the audience broke through his veil of allegory and bathed itself in the dizzying depths of his vision. What comes across to me, however, is simply an atmospheric acid trip that quite literally leads nowhere and is all the more a let down once the fourth wall is broken and we see that the illusion isn’t even sacred enough for the director himself to protect.

I haven’t spent a lot of time describing what the movie is about or what happens during the roughly two hours you might spend watching it. That’s because what you see isn’t really relevant. I suspect this movie has no viewers who thought it was “OK” or “not too bad.” You’re either going to love it, lose yourself in it and be baptized by the wonder that is Alejandro Jodorowsky, or you will do like I did: Wonder why those people feel that way. Maybe I missed the point. I don’t think so.

{rating}

Review pending.