Reviews

I saw Goldmember in New York on July 10 at an exhibitors screening. I'll admit I laughed quite hard at certain points in the film. However, on reflection, I can barely remember what it was that made me laugh, which suggests it wasn't really all that funny. After a pretty darn entertaining opening sequence, things take a turn for the sour - the character Goldmember is remarkably unfunny - I don't think he gets a single laugh the entire film, the product placement and obvious "MTV video" moments from The Spy Who Shagged Me are back and even more prevelent than before.

SPOILERS - some of the cameos were extraordinarily humorous, without naming names, but the Britney Spears appearance was cold, calculated, and incredibly unfunny (the audience didn't react at all). And the Osbournes really need to go away. END SPOILERS

Everyone is probably going to go see this movie, so go right ahead. But Beyonce, for all her attractiveness, is a worse actress than Heather Graham (Believe it! It is actually possible to be worse than Graham was in the second film), and there's just a lot less to laugh at.

Michael Caine is a highlight as Nigel Powers. And I enjoyed Mini-me more in this one than in the last. And as I said before, there ARE some good laughs. It just doesn't hold a candle to the hilarious first film... and it isn't even as good as The Spy Who Shagged Me.

Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).

We're left with a somewhat feeble "happy" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.

Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a "drifter". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.

These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's "Rope" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.

MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.

I really don't have much to say that hasn't already been said. I will only take a moment to mention that people who like this film must fall into one of a select number of categories: - never seen a "romantic comedy" before this one. - is incurably sappy and thus willing to overlook the cliches that define this "movie." - enjoys it on a meta-level; out of some categorization interest or (alternatively) its satirical nature.

I'm not a big "romantic comedy" person, but I feel confident in saying that if you're moved by this movie, you'll be moved by ANYTHING. Sleepless in Seattle this isn't. It isn't even Jerry Maguire.

Pause this film at any of the 'plot points' and you can easily and accurately predict what will come next (I first noticed this when SPOILER Keanu got fired. I thought "now his girlfriend will dump him." and voila! she did END SPOILER).

On top of that, this film relies on contrivance. Tell me, if you were Keanu's character in this movie, wouldn't you have called the cops at some point? I know if I were a high powered, well-to-do businessperson with the kind of drive that they (vaguely) assign the character, any person who does what Charlie's character does would arouse suspicion (and a call to the cops for stalking, felonious theft, or any of a miriad of other things).

Those of you with common sense... avoid this movie unless you're looking for another reason to get depressed at our national gullibility.