Austin Powers Trilogy Retrospective

Thanks to the continuing devastation of the COVID-19 pandemic, practically every major blockbuster that was set to come out this year (apart from Tenet and Mulan) has been pushed back to 2021. This includes what was quite arguably the first big release to get pushed back once COVID rolled around, No Time to Die, the 25^th installment of the James Bond franchise and, by all accounts, Daniel Craig’s final foray as 007. Originally set for an April 2020 release, it was pushed back to this month… but was then pushed back again and is now set to come out a full year after its pre-COVID intended release. But to make up for the absence of what is arguably the most prominent spy franchise in all of pop culture, today I decided that it’d be fun to look at a franchise that was greatly inspired by James Bond. Yes, folks, today we’re talking about the grooviest of franchises, baby, the Austin Powers films. There have been several works that have parodied the James Bond franchise over the years such as the Johnny English trilogy and even some of the unofficial Bond films like 1967’s Casino Royale (obviously not to be confused with Daniel Craig’s first outing as James Bond from 2006). And yet, there are arguably none that are more prominent than the adventures of the spy whose mojo is wholly unmatched, Austin Powers. The series, created by SNL alum Mike Myers, largely parodies the Bond films of the 60’s while also paying homage to the various bits of ’60s and 70’s British pop culture that Myers was raised on thanks to his dad. Myers, of course, headlines the franchise as the titular Austin Powers but also portrays several of the villains that he contends with, including his arch-nemesis, Dr. Evil. Three Austin Powers films were released from 1997 to 2002, and while the critical reception towards them was generally varied, they were all huge hits financially. And while nothing’s been set in stone yet, Myers and series director Jay Roach have frequently hinted at the possibility of a fourth film. Until then, get ready to live dangerously as we look at the James Bond franchise’s most famous spoof, the Austin Powers trilogy. Yeah baby!!!

AUSTIN POWERS: INTERNATIONAL MAN OF MYSTERY (1997)

The film that started it all for this franchise, 1997’s Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, is exactly that, a franchise starter. It does its job of setting up many of the franchise’s most definitive aspects that were then promptly expanded upon in the sequels. Overall, though, this film is mostly just… average. As a Bond fan, I do appreciate all the comedic riffs on the franchise, such as its take on the cliché of the villain putting the main protagonist in an “easily escapable situation involving an overly elaborate and exotic death”. But as far as the humor is concerned, this film can admittedly be hit-or-miss when it comes to its jokes. Part of this can be attributed to the main character himself, Austin Powers. He does have some standout moments here and there, but at the end of the day, I think many would agree that he’s not the main reason why these films were such a hit. Instead, that honor goes to Mike Myers’ other lead character from this franchise, Dr. Evil, a character who’s just as delightfully sinister as he is hilariously dorky. Any of the scenes in which he interacts with his associates, whether it’s his allies such as Number 2 (Robert Wagner) and Frau Farbissina (Mindy Sterling) or his emotionally distant son Scott (Seth Green) are easily the best parts of the film and they do make up for any of its lesser moments. Still, like I said before, this first Austin Powers film is only ‘okay’. I’ll admit that, from a personal perspective, this is probably because I’m not really part of the generation that ‘grew up’ with this series nor am I that familiar with classic British pop culture aside from the Connery-era Bond films. Case in point, my recent viewing of this film was the first time that I ever watched it in full. As such, the best thing that I can say about this film is that it’s a decently entertaining spoof of the James Bond franchise but there’s not much else to it aside from that.

Rating: 3.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS: THE SPY WHO SHAGGED ME (1999)

The best way to describe the second Austin Powers film, The Spy Who Shagged Me, is that it appropriately mirrors the evolution that the James Bond franchise went through after Dr. No. You see, as much as Dr. No is responsible for kick-starting 007’s cinematic adventures, newcomers to the franchise may be surprised to learn that it doesn’t feature some of the most common elements of a Bond film (e.g. a proper opening titles song, getting gadgets from Q, etc.). Instead, it was its immediate follow-ups, From Russia with Love and Goldfinger, that were largely responsible for incorporating many of the things that made the franchise a cultural phenomenon. And sure enough, the same can be said about The Spy Who Shagged Me as it introduces some of the most standout parts of the trilogy that weren’t in the first film, highlighted, of course, by the introduction of Verne Troyer as Dr. Evil’s clone, Mini-Me. With all that in mind, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a superior follow-up to the original film in several ways. Whereas the original’s heavily improv-based comedy resulted in a film that often felt quite aimless, this one opts for a more traditional plot complete with a time-travel concept that, in an utterly hilarious manner, is something that not even the film tries to take too seriously. And because of this, the humor is a lot more consistent this time around to the point where many of Austin Powers’ bits are just as hilarious as the ones with Dr. Evil and company, which is a huge step-up from the previous film. Sure, it may not be as focused on being a Bond spoof as its predecessor was, but it certainly one-ups it when it comes to having a stronger sense of humor. As such, it’s easy to see why this one is often considered to be the definitive Austin Powers film, especially since it is the highest-grossing entry of the trilogy having grossed over $312 million worldwide. While International Man of Mystery was a solidly entertaining Bond spoof, its gags were largely hit-or-miss. By comparison, The Spy Who Shagged Me is a bona fide comedic riot throughout and is the very definition of a better-made and all-around superior sequel.

Rating: 4.5/5

AUSTIN POWERS IN GOLDMEMBER (2002)

Boasting the largest budget of any film in the trilogy with $63 million, Austin Powers in Goldmember is very much the ‘blockbuster’ of the trilogy as it’s a film that fully embraces its franchise’s popularity any chance that it gets. But while it was a smash hit financially like The Spy Who Shagged Me and wasn’t outright panned or anything, it seems like most Austin Powers fans tend to ignore this one and there’s one easily discernable reason why. As far as these films are concerned, Goldmember is a blatant case of ‘been there, done that’ as it rehashes practically all the biggest gags from the previous two films. It’s also worth noting that, at this point, the series is more focused on satirizing pop culture in general rather than being a Bond spoof. And so, because of all this, the film is ultimately more on par with the generally hit-or-miss International Man of Mystery than it is with the consistently funny Spy Who Shagged Me even though it is following many of the same beats that worked so well for the latter. Now, in the film’s defense, this doesn’t mean that its humor is non-existent or anything because there are some solid gags such as the sight of an in-universe Austin Powers film directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise in the titular role or the scene in which Austin keeps misreading subtitles. Plus, the film also brings in Michael Caine, who’s great as always in the role of Austin’s equally suave father Nigel. Overall, though, Goldmember ends up being a considerable step down in quality in the wake of The Spy Who Shagged Me. And since International Man of Mystery was, at the very least, not the latest installment of an ongoing series, that means that Goldmember basically ends up being the worst installment of the trilogy by default because of how shamelessly routine it is. Again, this doesn’t mean that I think that it’s downright terrible, but at the same time, if that potential fourth Austin Powers film ends up getting made, Myers and company are going to need to shake things up considerably so that it doesn’t end up feeling like an outdated revival of a popular franchise from the 90’s.

Rating: 2.5/5

And that concludes Rhode Island Movie Corner’s retrospective of the Austin Powers trilogy. As I noted earlier, while I’m technically part of the generation that grew up with these films, this was the first time that I ever watched them. So, with that in mind, for those who have obviously watched these films a lot more often than I have, be sure to sound off in the comments below with your own personal memories of this franchise. Until then, thanks for following along and to paraphrase the man himself, remember to stay groovy, baby!

The Lion King (2019) review

In 1991, Walt Disney Animation began production on two different films that would be the studio’s next big projects after the one-two punch of that year’s Beauty and the Beast and Aladdin the following year. Of the two films, the one that the studio ended up placing most of its focus on was an adaptation of the story of the Native American woman known as Pocahontas, and because it ended up attracting most of Disney’s prominent animators, the other film was primarily developed by the studio’s ‘B-Team’. Ironically, though, the B-Team would end up producing the more critically acclaimed affair; we, of course, know their project… as The Lion King. When it was released in the summer of 1994, The Lion King quickly became one of the biggest films of its time. It currently stands as the highest-grossing traditionally animated film of all-time at over $968 million worldwide, which also means that it was Disney Animation’s highest-grossing film for nearly two decades until it was ultimately out-grossed by Frozen in 2013. It’s also notably the best-selling VHS title of all-time with over 32 million copies sold. But now it’s joined the ranks of other Disney classics as the latest in Disney’s line of live-action remakes… however, calling this one ‘live-action’ would technically be false. Instead, this new version of The Lion King is a CGI remake of the original as it mirrors the style of the 2016 remake of The Jungle Book through its use of photorealistic environments and characters. The two films even share the same director in Jon Favreau AKA the man who effectively launched the MCU with the original Iron Man and is also responsible for modern classics like Elf and Chef. And while this one is sure to be a controversial release because of how it ultimately ‘remakes’ its predecessor, fans of the original Lion King will still probably find this to be an incredibly fun and gorgeously animated interpretation of an all-time Disney classic.

In the vast kingdom that is the Pride Lands of Africa, Mufasa, the King of Pride Rock (voiced by James Earl Jones) and his queen Sarabi (voiced by Alfre Woodard) celebrate the birth of their son, Simba. As he begins to grow up, Simba (voiced as a child by JD McCrary and as an adult by Donald Glover) eagerly anticipates the day when he will take his father’s place as King. However, unbeknownst to Simba, his uncle Scar (voiced by Chiwetel Ejiofor) secretly plots to get rid of both him and his father so that he can take over the Pride Lands. To do so, Scar puts Simba in increasingly terrifying situations that eventually results in a devastating tragedy, and when Scar has Simba fooled into thinking that the accident was his fault, Simba ends up running away from his home. After a while, he meets the happy-go-lucky duo of Timon the Meerkat (voiced by Billy Eichner) and Pumbaa the Warthog (voiced by Seth Rogen), who end up taking him in and showing him the benefits of their carefree lifestyle. But as Simba matures into adulthood, his childhood friend Nala (voiced as a child by Shahadi Wright Joseph and as an adult by Beyoncé) comes back into his life to warn him that Scar’s takeover of the Pride Lands has led it to ruin. Thus, Simba must now overcome the demons of his past to save his home from his diabolical uncle and to properly take his place as the new king of Pride Rock.

This new take on The Lion King is easily the closest that any of the recent Disney remakes have gotten when it comes to closely replicating their original counterparts. This isn’t a case like Maleficent, which retold the story of Sleeping Beauty from the titular villain’s perspective, or Pete’s Dragon, which nixed the original’s musical numbers in favor of a more traditional narrative. For all intent and purposes, this is the same exact story from the 1994 film with the same exact outcome. The only major differences from a narrative perspective come from minor deviations in dialogue and a different intro for Nala after she’s become an adult. As such, this could quite arguably be the most controversial Disney remake yet because of how tightly it adheres to the original film without really doing anything differently. And yet, at the same time, because it’s still The Lion King, it could potentially be argued that, at the very least, the film does maintain the original’s strong script and hits the biggest emotional moments just as effectively (i.e. that one scene that we always remember from this story). Nothing significant from the story is lost and nothing is added in that would drastically change anything. Ultimately, though, the biggest selling point of this film is its visuals. As noted in the intro, this film carries over the same method that Favreau used on The Jungle Book in which everything in it (save for Mowgli) was digitally created. And while some may take issue with the fact that the overall drive for realism results in certain moments from the original being toned down, it’s still an impressive feat of VFX work from the same team that won an Oscar for their work on Jungle Book.

Another key aspect of this film is its voice cast, as Jon Favreau selected a top-notch voice cast to portray these iconic characters. JD McCrary and Donald Glover (who have notably worked together before) headline the project excellently as Simba as a young cub and adult lion, respectively, thanks in large part to the terrific camaraderie/chemistry that they have with their co-stars. McCrary and Shahadi Wright Joseph are phenomenal together as young Simba and Nala, and while adult Nala’s role in the story isn’t really expanded upon too much when compared to the original film, Beyoncé does do a solid job in the role. Meanwhile, Chiwetel Ejiofor is a damn good replacement for Jeremy Irons in the role of Scar as he perfectly maintains that same, great sinister persona that was pivotal in making Scar such an iconic Disney villain. But as for Mufasa, the filmmakers clearly knew that there was no way you could replace the legendary voice that portrayed the character in the original film. Yes, James Earl Jones is back once again to reprise his role as the King of Pride Rock, and he is still just as commanding and awesome as he was in the original film. And to close out the main cast, we have Billy Eichner and Seth Rogen, who serve as phenomenal replacements for Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella in the roles of Timon and Pumbaa. As many others have noted, they’re the biggest standouts of the film and their riffing is the primary source of the remake’s new material, whether it’s an entertaining fourth-wall gag or a downright brilliant homage to another Disney classic.

I have the feeling that this is the one Disney remake that some people were expecting me to be completely against. After all, the original Lion King still stands as my favorite Disney animated film of all-time. Well, to that I say… you’ve read my reviews of the other recent Disney remakes, right? If I haven’t made it clear before, I’m perfectly fine with this new trend of live-action remakes of classic Disney films (even though this one technically isn’t ‘live-action’) because I recognize that the old films will still be there when all’s said and done. More importantly, their legacies won’t be tarnished by a ‘lousy’ remake because they’re quite frankly better than they’re often given credit for. However, even with that said, I fully recognize that I won’t even remotely be able to convince any of the ‘live-action remake’ critics that this one is worthwhile because it’s almost literally the same as its traditionally-animated counterpart save for a CGI makeover. And because the CG is highly intent on maintaining a sense of realism, this means that this version of The Lion King is a lot more grounded compared to its predecessor (e.g. don’t expect Timon to don a hula skirt and ask some hyenas if they’re “aching for some bacon”). Despite this, Jon Favreau does do an excellent job of maintaining the same spirit of the original even with a different visual aesthetic. And at the end of the day, that visual aesthetic is the main reason to watch this film because it’s clear that the visual effects team went above and beyond to create an impressively photorealistic-looking film to the point where it could potentially pass as some kind of nature documentary. As such, while some may view this as the most pointless Disney remake yet, there’s no denying that it’s one of the best-looking films of 2019.

Rating: 5/5!