Austin Powers, which is an Anglo-American concept to begin with (although creator/star Mike Meyers is Canadian), is being greeted with similar reviews in both the U.K. and North America, where it is opening simultaneously (as well as in several other overseas territories). "By regurgitating all of the first two films' best (and worst) jokes ad nauseam -- by trying to get laughs out of simply reminding us what we laughed at last time -- the only thing that Austin Powers now ends up spoofing with any clarity is Austin Powers," Tim Robey writes in the London Daily Telegraph. Geoff Pevere writes in the Toronto Star: "Following the peculiar logic of Hollywood production, the third Austin Powers movie takes what was once Mike Myers' modestly amusing comedic concept -- involving the cryogenic reanimation of a swinging '60s superspy in the present -- and hammers it into a lifeless, messy pulp." Jay Roach in The Scotsman comments, "Instead of crafting fresh new material [Meyers] is content to rehash old gags in the forlorn hope that familiarity can compensate for lack of invention." And Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times concludes: "The movie is a little tired; maybe the original inspiration has run its course. It's a small disappointment, but I'm glad I saw it. Sorta." On the other hand, the film is receiving high praise from an equal number of critics on both sides of "the pond." Peter Bradshaw writes in Britain's Guardian newspaper: "Only the most exacting severity of critical judgment compels me to stop short of the highest accolade for this excellent film. ... This latest episode has a thousand times more energy, more fun, more visual invention, more deliciously arch comic intelligence than anything comparable in the summer movie marketplace." Similarly, Liam Lacey writes in the Toronto Globe & Mail: "Place it against Men in Black or Mr. Deeds or any of a host of other barren summer comedies and the difference is obvious: Myers's sheer fertility of invention is of a different order, and even if he misses as often as he hits, he's definitely a swinger." Joel Siegel on Good Morning America remarked, "There are moments of inspired lunacy here worthy of Mel Brooks and that is the highest praise I know." Several critics imply that while objectively they may have been tempted to writing scathing reviews, their own laughter got the better of them. Stephen Hunter in the Washington Post comments: that the movie is "puerile, pitiful, grotesque, offensive, immature, repulsive and, of course, extremely funny." Likewise, Eric Harrison remarks in the Houston Chronicle that the film "is a cinematic car wreck, a catastrophic collision of tastelessness and gall that nevertheless will leave fans clamoring for another ride. That's because, as senselessly gross and chaotic as this film is, it also is very funny." Even Stephen Holden in the New York Times, who details numerous reservations about the movie, concludes by writing: "Like a giant balloon painted with Day-Glo colors, however, the whole gaudy mess wouldn't inflate without the force of Mr. Myers's comic genius. It's his baby, baby. And after three editions, it's still flying high."