Movie Review The Lion in Winter

The Lion in Winter (2004) 

Directed by James Goldman 

Written by Andrei Konchalovsky 

Starring Sir Patrick Stewart, Glenn Close, Rafe Spall 

Release Date May 23rd, 2004 

Published May 23rd, 2004 

When it comes to remakes, I am on the record as disliking them on principle. Why? Because they only attempt to remake films that were already good. No one ever attempts to take a bad movie and improve on its mistakes to make it a good film. That would seem to be a more worthy cause than the “karaoke-version” of a classic film.

There is, however, the very rare exception and Showtime's remake of the Peter O'Toole-Katherine Hepburn classic The Lion In Winter is a worthy take on this Oscar winning work.

Patrick Stewart stars as King Henry the second (Patrick Stewart), father to four sons, none of whom are worthy heirs to his crown. Son Henry may have been worthy but he died in battle some years ago. The next in line would have been Richard (Andrew Howard) but he and his younger brother Geoffrey (John Light) led a rebellion against the King at the behest of their mother Queen Eleanor of Aquitaine (Glenn Close). When the rebellion is put down, the Queen is imprisoned while the sons were given property and notice from the King that neither would inherit the throne.

10 years after the rebellion, the King is feeling his years and is now ready to name the heir to his throne. He must do it soon because King Philip of France (John Rhys Myers) is calling upon King Henry to fulfill a contract made years ago to marry Princess Alais of France (Julia Vysotskaya) to the future King of England. Alais also happens to be the King's mistress. King Henry plans to name his youngest son John (Rafe Spall) his heir, despite the fact that the doltish John is entirely unworthy of being King.

Though the Queen is in exile, she still has some power. As the former Queen of France, married to King Louis before being stolen by Henry, her voice and appearance has power and she would like her chosen son Richard to be the next King. This battle of wills culminates over Christmas in a French castle where the King will officially name his heir and attempt to placate his other power-hungry sons and maneuver around his malicious wife whose only pleasure comes from making the King suffer.

This is a film that is all about dialogue, verbal jousting matches that manipulate deep emotion. Watching the King and Queen twist and turn their sons with promises, lies and other deceptions is a sport. Shifting alliances and other behind the scenes maneuverings, sons Richard and Geoffrey show they clearly learned a lot from their parents. At times, the verbiage is so confusing, you lose track of who is scheming with whom but it all sounds so smart and witty you can forgive the occasional confusion.

The actors have a very high standard to live up to. Peter O'Toole was nominated for an Oscar for his Henry and Katherine Hepburn won her third of four Oscars for her harridan Queen. The remake’s director, Andrei Konchalovsky, is blessed with a terrific cast but it is too much to expect any actor to live up to the O'Toole-Hepburn standard. That said, Patrick Stewart's stage training makes him an ideal choice for the role of King Henry. Stewart may not escape Peter O'Toole's shadow but he bellows and blusters his way to a terrifically entertaining performance.

Glenn Close is the film’s true star. Her Queen Eleanor must be the top contender for the Emmy's in 2005. What is most amazing is how Close so reminds us of Hepburn. She evokes the cold hard spirit that infused Hepburn's iconic performance. The remaining cast is less memorable than the two leads but none are so overmatched by their roles to be criticized.

It's interesting to note that the actors and director were working from the very same script from the original film. The script was written originally as a play in 1967 by James Goldman who also adapted this screenplay. This is a blessing in that it's a brilliant Oscar winning script but it also makes it difficult for the actors to give their own spin to the material. Regardless of the problems though it's always a delight to hear such wonderful dialogue delivered by great actors, even if you have heard it all before.

Movie Review Men in Black International

Men in Black International (2019) 

Directed by F. Gary Gray 

Written by Art Marcum, Matt Holloway 

Starring Tessa Thompson, Chris Hemsworth, Emma Thompson, Liam Neeson, Rafe Spall 

Release Date June 14th, 2019 

Published June 13th, 2019 

Men in Black International stars Tessa Thompson as Molly. As a kid, Molly witnessed the mythic Men in Black neuralyzer her parents after their home was invaded by an alien. Molly avoided the mind erasing and developed a single-minded obsession with finding aliens and becoming part of the Men in Black. Cut to adult Molly and she is still seeking the Men in Black. She has dedicated her life to finding her way into the super-secret secret agency and her opportunity has finally arrived.

Molly uses her computer hacking skills to locate an alien that is returning to Earth, with a nod to the Weekly World News tabloid, a callback to the original 1997 movie which posited tabloid alien stories as real stories. Molly's investigation stumbles over the MIB HQ and she invites herself inside. Once inside, after a chat with Emma Thompson’s MIB boss, a character introduced in MIB3, she gets Molly a probationary gig as an agent.

As Agent M, Molly is assigned a task in the London office where she will be partnered with long-time agent, Agent H (Chris Hemsworth). Agent H is a bit of a washout. Something happened the last time that he saved the world and he’s never really recovered. Since then, he’s bounced around from case to case, narrowly avoiding being killed and generally being a pain in the backside for his boss and former partner, Agent T (Liam Neeson), cheekily referred to as High T.

Together, Agents M and H go on a worldwide whirlwind that takes the duo from London to Morocco, to the lair of a criminal dealing in Alien technology, Riza, played by Rebecca Ferguson, and to Paris where the Eiffel Tower serves as a bridge for the worst aliens in the world to attempt an invasion that is being coordinated by a rogue MIB agent. M and H must find the rogue Agent and prevent the alien invasion while overcoming M’s inexperience and H’s broken spirit.

The story I have described for Men in Black International sounds like a story that should work. The arcs are clear with M pursuing her dream and overcoming her inexperience and H seeking redemption while not being sure of what needs redeeming. It’s not a special story but if you build in good gags and solid action and effects, this is a good enough structure to support them. Sadly, director F Gary Gray brings absolutely nothing new or fresh or funny to his take on MIB.

Men in Black International differs from the original, 1997 Men in Black by not being particularly funny. Neither Thompson or Hemsworth appears interested in being funny, each appears to be waiting for the movie around them to be funny and it never happens. Kumail Nanjiani, playing an alien, nicknamed Pawny, is the closest thing to a character that is genuinely funny but the laughs remain few and far between.

The only innovation that the makers of Men In Black International bring to bear on the MIB franchise is moving the action from New York City to London and several other international locations. Beyond that, the aesthetic of Men in Black has not changed much in 22 years. The ending of the first Men in Black had more innovation than this modern sequel and all that did was update the suits to high fashion and put Will Smith in a more modern car.

If anything, Men in Black International is a step backward for the franchise. That’s odd since the MIB3 literally traveled into the past and felt more modern than International. Men in Black International looks like Men in Black in every way which is fine for a sequel but the movie doesn’t innovate on the franchise in any way. Without bringing something fresh to the franchise and without being funny, Men in Black International struggles to justify its very existence.

Men in Black International is a bizarre failure. We know that Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth are funny, we saw that in Thor Ragnarok. And yet, there is no evidence of their humor in Men in Black International. Thompson is remote and occasionally withdrawn, delivering a perfunctory approximation of the uninspired script. Hemsworth meanwhile, rehashes pretty boy cliches that weren’t all that funny in Ghostbusters or the Vacation reboot and certainly don’t feel fresh here.

Men in Black International is professionally made. The film looks as if it should be entertaining. There is nothing wrong from a cinematography or design perspective and yet the movie is lifeless. The cast is going through the motions of a story that isn’t anything special and without any big laughs, Men in Black International just lingers on screen going through the motions of a very average action movie.

A good example of the failure and lack of inspiration in Men in Black International are the film's villains. Les Twins, Laurent and Larry Bourgeois play characters literally referred to as Alien Twin 1 and 2. The pair is known for their innovative dance videos on YouTube and yet we get barely a sample of what makes the twins special. A scene in a nightclub is intended to give them a showcase but the scene is clumsily shot and the dancing is blink and you will miss it. 

The twist is that a rogue MIB agent is the true big bad which explains why the Twins have no real characters to play but then why include them at all? The inclusion of Les Twins in Men in Black International is further evidence of the mercenary, marketing driven motivation behind this lifeless, soulless rehash of a well known property. The makers of Men in Black International hired Les Twins for their high social media profile and not to actually use them to serve a story being told. 

Why was this movie made? If the makers of Men in Black International had nothing new to say with this inventive premise then why did they make this movie? It appears to have been a purely mercenary effort on all sides. Everyone in the cast and crew appears to have been on hand solely to pick up a paycheck and deliver the absolute minimum effort with the only goal being to capitalize on a well known intellectual property.