Simply hilarious. That’s the only way to put it. You think Will Ferrell movies are funny where his spoof of a certain type of person is the dominating feature of the film? Well then, maybe you shouldn’t watch this movie, because if you think Will Ferrell movies are great, then you lack the intelligence to handle Christopher Guest’s superior wit.
While Farrell spends his time making fun of people and activities that are already the butts of many jokes, Christopher Guest comes out of left field with a mockumentary about a dog show. Just about everyone rolls their eyes when we see a dog show on TV, but have any of us bothered to check out all the intricacies and neurotic behavior exhibited by some of these canine lovers? Guest does and does it well.
Best In Show is an ensemble film, showing the lives of several different individuals and couples as they prepare themselves for the rigors of a regional dog show. The dogs are hardly important in all this, making you wonder which is supposed to be the case- Are dog show contestants actually capable of being as egotistical and superstitious as overpaid professional athletes? Or, are these dog owners just as bad as parents who try to live vicariously through their 8-year olds accomplishments and torment them with condescension until they meet an impossibly high standard? Either way, the ramifications are at once startling and hilarious.
Whether Guest is trying to expose the dark side of dog shows or simply proposing a ‘what if’ scenario to show how ridiculous the drive for athletic success can be when transposed on a different kind of contest, the end result is terrific. Call a doctor ahead of time, because you’ll tear your sides apart in laughter.
It’s an improvement upon Scream 2, but this movie still doesn’t quite feel like it was necessary to begin with. Supposedly the Scream franchise was originally devised as a trilogy, which goes to show that thinking big isn’t always the best idea.
The best thing that 3 does is bring resolution to the series. Frankly, the first installment stands alone, with competent enough resolution and nothing left to be wondered. Scream 2 opened the book up again and left it hanging open in the midst of a weaker chapter. Scream 3 basically operates on the fact that the killer is lucky that Scream 2 didn’t end in Sidney Prescott’s death.
Scream 3 is written in a way that weaves in and out of the workings of the original. The killer in 3 is ultimately responsible for the events of the first film (I won’t explain how- see it yourself). However, no connection is established between the killer and any of the events of the sequel, essentially making Scream 2 even less important, save for the fact that a second wave of murders (Scream 2) helps the 'Stab' series of movies continue, resulting in the movie-inside-a-movie nature of 3.
While slightly better than the series’ middle chapter, Scream 3 overcomplicates not only itself, but the whole series, and leaves me wondering why we couldn’t just skip over 2 and make the Scream series a duology. (I realize the sequel vs. trilogy argument is why 2 had to occur, but my point is that they could have just been more creative about the whole thing)
Simply hilarious. That’s the only way to put it. You think Will Ferrell movies are funny where his spoof of a certain type of person is the dominating feature of the film? Well then, maybe you shouldn’t watch this movie, because if you think Will Ferrell movies are great, then you lack the intelligence to handle Christopher Guest’s superior wit.
