ZachsMind

Without question, one can refer to Douglas Adams' Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy as a film. It is a film that can also be called a movie, and a movie that can be called a film. Of all the films in the history of film-making, this film certainly is one.

Die-hard fans of the previous incarnations will no doubt appreciate that many of their favorite bits are included, albeit in abbreviated form. New fans to Douglas Adams will probably not get too lost. This film contains a well structured, if predictably melodramatic plot. The acting is superb. The effects extraordinary. The casting is gifted. The production quality unparalleled to any previous incarnation of the series.

It's funny. It's pretty. It's an entertaining way to waste an hour and a half or so. After the concept of h2g2 was filtered through Hollywood's gauntlet of requirements for Hollywood films, Douglas Adams' Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy manages to actually make some resemblance of sense. This is unfortunate, because what made all the previous incarnations work so well was the very fact they didn't make sense. They were just silly fun. One should not expect this version of the story to be identical to previous versions. One should expect nothing in particular when seeing a new version of this story, but one should expect it to be wacky goofy fun, and for all the wackiness in this version, it just feels too ...pretty. In some ways it's almost perfect. Flawless. Most everything gets tied up in a nice little bow at the end and most if not all previous incarnations never really had an ending. This one has a Hollywood sensibility, which is completely insensible when presenting something so deliciously and irreverently insensible.

It's a very okay film, which is what sadly makes it so terrible.

There is what one perceives, and what one receives. If the two mesh, you got a sequel worthy of its predecessor's namesake. Usually sequels pale in comparison to their predecessors. There are very few rare exceptions compared the pile of unworthy swill.

Occasionally a sequel will improve upon the formula of the original (Aliens, Indy & Last Crusade, Back To The Future 2, ST2 Wrath of Khan, Army of Darkness) but more often than not it's the opposite.

Sequels attempt to recreate the success of the past by regurgitating similar plot elements in vaguely innovative ways. The result often falls flat (Star Treks 1, 3, 5 & 9, Indy & Temple of Doom, all the Jaws sequels, Highlander 2, Die Hard 3, Men In Black 2, Ghostbusters 2, Poltergeists 2&3, Weekend At Bernie's 2, the Police Academy sequels, Blair Witch Book of Shadows, anything with Jason, Freddy or Pinhead, etc etc ad nauseum), causing one to contemplate why anyone bothered to financially back such worthless drivel.

Then there's the rare gems. The ones who manage to pull it off. The sequels which are not better or worse than their predecessor, but rather successfully ARE what they claim to be. If you go to a favored restaurant a second time and order the same thing, you won't necessarily want a "new and improved" hamburger unless you specifically ordered that. You want what you got the last time. That's why you came back. Fast food & Hollywood sequels operate under similar principles.

These rare sequels which hit the mark without going over, don't improve upon the formula. They also don't fail to entertain. They ARE the formula. Most noteworthy among these rare gems are the James Bond sequels. The brand "James Bond" is as delicious to some as the thought of a submarine sandwich or a good year of fine wine. One knows what to expect when they see that name, and rarely does an installment of the James Bond franchise disappoint. The Lethal Weapon series of films is another perfect example. Each film can stand alone but are also episodic. They deliver what they promise. Nothing more. Nothing less. If that's what you're in the mood for, pretty much any of the sequels to Lethal Weapon "taste" the same as the original, so you probably will not be disappointed, provided you like that flavor.

I'm not saying this is bad or good. I'm not saying this makes any sequel ART. It doesn't. I'm saying if you liked the first one of these rare gems, you'll like the rest, because they're prepared and delivered to you in much the same way a McDonald's delivers a Big Mac to your hands. They know what works and they stick with it, and give the audience what it wants.

All sequels seek to hit the mark of past glory, and the vast majority fall short. A precious few prove to be more than their name brand advertises and how can one argue against that? It's like ordering the Value Meal and getting it Biggie-Sized for free. Then there's an even smaller percentage that are precisely what you ordered. Goldmember is just such a creature.

If you liked Austin Powers & The Spy Who Shagged Me, you'll like Goldmember. It has something to offer newcomers to the series and also diehard fans of Myers. It's episodic but also stands alone. The casting of Michael Caine is sheer brilliance. Seth Green's given a chance to show his comedic chops. Some of the more juvenile blue humor seems forced and falls flat, but that's ironically part of Myers' charm. He's bucking against this trend I described above, which ironically works to his advantage. Goldmember laughs in the face of the odds stacked against it. It knows its a greedy attempt to rest on the laurels of its predecessors and it basks in that decadence, thus making it even more amusing for its very existence. After all, the Austin Powers films are ultimately designed to make fun of the very concept of sequels, lampooning perhaps the most successful series of films of all: James Bond. So how can it not fail to entertain even when it fails to be worthwhile? It's making fun of itself and every other sequel, good or bad, that's ever been written. Quite a task.

However, the novelty of this parody is wearing off, and the next Austin Powers film will either have to reinvent itself, or fall into repetition in a way that'll make Police Academy 5 look almost like art.