Though I've been looking forward to this movie for a while, I don't like the title at all. "Austin Powers in Goldmember." What's the point of having the preposition (the preposition being "in")? The first one was called "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery." That one's fine. The second one, at first, was called "Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me," but then they got rid of the number two, and started calling it "Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me." Fine, whatever, but for my site, I still call it, "Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me." Now comes the third one. Common sense would tell you that it would be called either "Austin Powers 3: Goldmember," or just "Austin Powers: Goldmember." Either one would be fine. But no, they had to replace the colon with the word "in." I don't like that!
I'm being silly, but you wanna know who got REALLY petty with the movie's title? MGM. I tellya, those people at MGM are real assholes. After it was announced by New Line (the studio that releases the "Austin Powers" movies) that the title of the third "Austin Powers" film would be "Austin Powers in Goldmember," MGM had a titty attack. See, MGM controls the James Bond license (along with some company called Danjaq), so they got a cease-and-desist order from the idiots at the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) arbitration panel on the grounds that New Line was attempting to trade on the James Bond franchise without authorization. Of course, all of this is irrelevant because the name "Goldmember" (which is a gag referencing the James Bond character and movie "Goldfinger") is a parody, and parody is exempt from copyright laws against the subject it's making fun of. As long as it's clear that it's a parody, then it's fine. I think it's pretty damn obvious that "Goldmember" is a parody. Unbelievably, it went as far as going to arbitration. During that time, the film was known as "The Third Installment of Austin Powers" (catchy, innit?). Finally, on April 11, 2002. MGM allowed New Line to use the original "Goldmember" title as long as MGM had approval of any future movies that parodied existing James Bond films. Also, New Line had to agree to show the trailer for "Die Another Day" (the upcoming James Bond film) with most of the prints of "Austin Powers in Goldmember." How pathetic is that? MGM, YOU GUYS SUCK!!! Grow a sense of humor. I'm glad your studio is losing money! Not only that, when I saw the movie today, I was thrilled to see that mine wasn't one of the prints that had the trailer to the new James Bond movie!
By the way, while the arbitration was going on, there were some proposed alternate titles for the third "Austin Powers" movie. I remember seeing a list, but I don't remember what was on it. I DO remember that some of the titles were excellent, and that many of the alternate titles were better than "Goldmember." The only one that I can recall, however, is "Austin Powers: Never Say Member Again."
So now, after reading all that, you're probably wondering what I thought of the movie. Was it better than the first? Was it better than the second? I happen to think that "Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me" was a lot better than the original. In fact, the first time I saw "Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery," I thought it was horrible. I saw the sequel anyway because I fell for the hype, and I ended up LOVING it. "Austin Powers 2: The Spy Who Shagged Me" was, and is, one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. I eventually gave the first "Austin Powers" movie another try, and though it wasn't nearly as good as the sequel, I liked it a lot more than I did the first time watching it. So how does the third one compare to the other two? Well, it's funny, but not as funny as the second. In fact, I'd say that it's probably the worst of the three. But that's not to say that I didn't enjoy it. I laughed my ass off watching it.
All of the popular characters are back, though the funniest, "Fat Bastard," is in it for only about ten minutes. Quite a few jokes from the first two are repeated, but it's okay since the filmmakers are fully aware of this, and use that knowledge to their advantage. The opening sequence is awesome, and some of the comedy is very clever (the scene with the subtitles comes to mind), but too many of the jokes fall flat. Also, the new villainous character, "Goldmember," isn't as funny as he could be.
Mike Myers really tries hard, I gotta give him credit. He wears a lotta makeup to be "Austin Powers," "Dr. Evil," "Goldmember," and especially "Fat Bastard." It must be very arduous to go through all that, but he gives 110% in the roles. Mike Myers is an incredibly talented guy, and it'll be interesting to see what he can do outside of the "Austin Powers" movies. "So I Married an Axe Murderer" was decent, but not great, and "54," though Myers was good in it, sucked. Supposedly, he was cast as the title character in the upcoming feature film version of "The Cat in the Hat." Should be interesting.
For this movie, the "Austin Powers" version of "The Bond Girl" is played by Beyoncé Knowles, the lead singer of pop/R&B group Destiny's Child. She's pretty good. She's there as eye candy, not much more, and she's good as that. Michael York is back as "Basil Exposition," Seth Green is back as "Scott Evil," Robert Wagner is back as "Number Two," Mindy Sterling is back as "Frau Farbissina," and yes, Verne Troyer is back as "Mini-Me." They're all really good in their respective roles, and I was glad to see all of them again. I wish Heather Graham was there as "Felicity Shagwell," though, even if it was to just do to her what was done to Elizabeth Hurley in part two. Fred Savage (starred as "Kevin Arnold" in the TV series, "The Wonder Years") is in the movie, but his role is completely useless. It's there for one reason, and one reason only. You'll know it when you see it. Actually, if you've seen the commercials, you know the reason. Michael Caine is funny as the father of "Austin Powers," but that isn't as big a source of comedy as you might think.
The gratuitous Taco Bell product placement was ridiculous, by the way. I don't ever get bent outta shape over that sorta thing, but really, it's pathetic. It's in the scene when "Dr. Evil" gets a visit while in jail. Couldn't they have been more subtle?
"Austin Powers in Goldmember" has the same creative team as the others. It was directed by Jay Roach (he also directed "Meet the Parents") and written by Mike Myers & Michael McCullers (actually, Michael McCullers didn't write the first "Austin Powers" movie... oh, but he DID help write "Undercover Brother," which is a better movie than this one is). All of these guys are very good at what they do, but perhaps the "Austin Powers" series has run outta steam. Or maybe not. I did laugh a lot during this movie. It's really hard to top the second one, though. That one was a classic.
As you might expect, there are tons of cameos in this movie. Within the first ten minutes, there are at least five or six, probably more. There are more throughout the movie. Some are very obvious, and some are subtle. I won't say what the cameos are, but most of them are legitimately surprising. This movie truly takes advantage of their star cameos, and they're very cool.
I don't think I like the ending of this movie. If they were to do another sequel, the fourth one would be very different from the others. There are a lotta changes by the end, and they probably aren't good ones. Then again, maybe those changes are necessary in order to keep the films fresh and different. I'm sure that a sequel will be in theaters in a few years, so we'll find out, I guess.
So yeah, this is a funny movie. I was entertained, but there are too many slow moments, as well as unfunny gags. The scenes that ARE funny make up for that, but is it as funny as the second? Not even close.
Scale of 1-10: 7