A Summer Movie Recap

STAR WARS 1

DK: The original Star Wars was a groundbreaking movie. Special effects aside, never before had the world seen what was essentially a kid's story told with such earnestness and excitement on the big screen. For better or worse, Lucas revolutionized the film industry, making the telling of myths and fables not only acceptable, but also extremely lucrative. But if Hollywood storytelling is going to be revolutionized again today, Lucas is not the one to do it. And The Phantom Menace was certainly not the movie to do it. It's not that it is a bad movie. For all the critics' gripes, I found it surprisingly entertaining. But the original Star Wars films had something that The Phantom Menace lacks: a certain energy and dedication that's rarely seen in big-budget movies these days. There was no way George Lucas could have known in the late '70s that his space epic would break all box office records to date. He wasn't planning on becoming a millionaire. He was simply trying to tell a story the likes of which no one had ever dreamed of putting on film. But The Phantom Menace has nothing new to show us. Indeed, most of it consists of filling in the details on what was already implied in the first three movies. There's no passion behind The Phantom Menace, or if there is, it isn't for storytelling. I imagine the passion is for something far more material than that.

SC: I used to be a Star Wars fan. That is, until I realized what the term "Star Wars fan" entails. One day while surfing the net, I found the enchanting site www.jarjarmustdie.com. Faced with pictures of Jar-Jar being bludgeoned, hacked, served on a silver platter, etc., I realized that some "Star Wars fans" have too much time on their hands. Now I'm just a "Star Wars observer." Less chance of spiraling into delirium, I would hope. I was actually happy The Phantom Menace wasn't the religious event it was supposed to be. After all, the marketing juggernaut clouded the fact that it was a movie--a series of shots captured on film that can be watched over and over again (fans murdering each other over opening night tickets realized soon enough that there were other showings--and nothing changed from one showing to the next!) The problem, of course, is that George Lucas lost his way a bit after a double-decade absence from the director's chair. He slowed down the plot with unnecessary detail (why, for goodness' sakes, did we need an introduction sequence to the first prequel that's supposed to start everything off?), forgot to make Darth Maul important, and tried too hard to make it a movie that could appeal to kiddies and adults alike (the best crossover hits, we've come to learn, are accidents). But most egregious was his wasting of an all-star cast--Ewan, Liam and Natalie tried to act their way out of Lucas' steel box, but they never had a chance. Star Wars, sadly enough, is no longer the hallmark of spontaneous creativity.

AUSTIN POWERS 2

DK: It would be a sad state of affairs if Austin Powers were remembered as one of the great cultural icons of this decade. That isn't meant to be a comment on Austin Powers himself. Quite the contrary, it is my belief that in his good-natured, if somewhat inept, international man of mystery, Mike Myers has found one of the greatest and most sustainable comic characters in memory. Myers as Austin Powers has that rare ability to make us laugh before he even says a word, and it is a laughter that comes without a hint of cynicism or meanness. Indeed, it is Powers' unending cheerfulness and excessive eagerness to please that makes him so appealing. In Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, Myers comes of age as both Powers and his nemesis, Dr. Evil. Much of the first movie was spent creating Powers and Evil as characters, but in this sequel Myers is free to let his creations run loose. And in spite of the movies unnecessary bent towards the scatological, the result is fun. The sad part is that it would be unimaginable that this fun be set in the present day. Austin Powers is supposed to be a creature from another decade (a fantasy decade, really), and his good-humored revelry is meant to be in sharp contrast to our more cynical modern selves. We love him and love to watch him, not because we can identify with him, but because he reminds us so little of ourselves.

SC: I don't think the creative team behind the Austin Powers sequel had a script. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing--it just means that the movie needs to be awfully funny to counteract the lack of structure, story, meaning, logic, etc. And somehow, The Spy Who Shagged Me manages to be charming--even though making Elizabeth Hurley a fembot was idiotic, even though Heather Graham should have never opened her mouth, and even though the movie should have been called Dr. Evil 2: Austin Powers Has a Cameo. Myers has a knack for improvisation--and for taking a joke to its breaking point ("www.sh.com," "zip it," etc.). But some gags flopped miserably--Fat Bastard, most notably, was not only tired, but just flat-out gross. There's the feeling--so prevalent among sequels--that the Austin Powers concept has been milked to the bone. Parodies have a short shelf-life--they only last until new material arrives. And, of course, the "spy" genre isn't very trendy anymore. If the makers decide to spawn more sequels, I have no doubt that Austin Powers will stray further and further from the original concept and more towards the sight and shock gags inundating movie theaters (introducing Fat Bastard as exhibit A). Unless they can reinvent Austin or give him a sidekick with the same satiric verve, New Line might just have to launch a Dr. Evil franchise. After all, he's not only getting all the good lines, but he's getting all the screen time.

NOTTING HILL

DK: I've been told that some women find a certain degree of delicacy highly attractive in a man. But in Hugh Grant this delicacy is taken to an almost absurd level, and it quickly becomes a defining motif of almost all of his films. Notting Hill, Grant's first feature of the summer, is no exception. As bookstore owner William Thacker, Grant revels in his characters inability to get anything in order, whether it's his business, his love life or his housing situation. Enter Julia Roberts as the hopelessly flaky and confused American superstar Anna Scott, and you have a match made in heaven. Watching these two lost souls come together, though, is something like an exercise in emotional sadism. Without any sense of irony, they play at love like two young teenagers, not like adults made wise by past love affairs. And like teenagers, they fall away from each other and come back together with equal parts earnestness and bewilderment. Why director Roger Mitchell thought this age-inappropriate emotional roller coaster would be entertaining, I'll never know. It's not love that William Thacker and Anna Scott need. It's some semblance of emotional maturity, or at least organizational skills.