nicholas_blackmore

If there's one thing I've learnt from IMDB, it's that no matter how much you liked a movie, someone else on this planet hated it just as much. So the negative reviews for Three Kings don't surprise me at all, because I thought this movie was absolutely magnificent.

Probably the best thing Three Kings has going for it is the low expectations one has prior to seeing it. It was promoted as an "action/comedy", and while it won't disappoint fans of that genre, it has a much deeper message that very few action or comedy films manage to get across. In fact I thought it was perhaps surprising that Hollywood produced a film which tackles a rather touchy topic (for Americans) in such a head on fashion.

The movie starts with plenty of naivety and lighthearted humour. The American soldiers complain of being bored and are have no idea about the politics of the Gulf War. The battle is over, the war is won, and all that's left to do is to take a few POWs, be interviewed on CNN and go home. Which is fine as long as they stay in base camp, but when a few sneak out of camp to pinch some of Saddam's gold, they are confronted by the realities of the war for the Iraqi people and start to suspect that the US might not be the good samaritans they had hitherto believed. The characterisations and the transition which takes place in all the characters over the course of the film is remarkably well done.

Contrary to a couple of the reviews below, the movie is not anti-American and does not "take Saddam's side" but instead encourages the viewer to consider other perspectives of the Gulf War and points out that the US's approach to the war may have done more harm than good. It's a point that has been made by plenty of commentators, but not many inside the US, and never in such an audience-friendly format. Three Kings is not only a jolly good film, but you may just learn something about US foreign policy. And if not, you can at least enjoy the exploding cow scene.

'Best In Show' is a magnificent piece of work. Although it is done in the same improvisational style of Spinal Tap, it doesn't hide in the shadows of Christopher Guest's masterpiece, it charges out, paints itself day-glo orange and runs about waving its arms around. Okay, despite the tortured metaphor, the point is that this film forces you to seriously consider which is the better movie. 'Best In Show' is an American comedy done by people who get British humour, which means that we get the best of both worlds.

The humour is generally dry and understated and scores its points when the audience finds itself saying "I know people like that". To make it work, it needs strong performances and writing and Best In Show has both throughout. I particularly loved the yuppie couple - they study law, they met at Starbucks, they go to therapy, they're obsessed with labels and are abusive to shop attendants and cleaning ladies. Part of the delight is in spotting the little details, like the fact they've brought their Palm Pilots to the dog show. The whole film is full of brilliant little details - I'd go over the word limits describing them all.

Thus far I haven't mentioned the dogs, which are obviously a crucial part of proceedings, not so much for what they do but for how the humans interact with them. The way people project their own attitudes onto their dogs is priceless. The one time we see a dog act like a dog - jumping up on a person - everyone sees it as an absolute disaster. The dogs are matched to the people perfectly.

Overall, this is another top-shelf mockumentary from Christopher Guest that, IMHO, is marginally better than Spinal Tap. As Homer Simpson would say... mmm... sacrilicious.

All the warning signs were there. Jean Reno already made a perfectly good version of this film in 1993. Unfortunately, Americans do not like subtitles or films set outside their own country, so Just Visiting was conceived, chiefly with the aim of milking a few more dollars from the original idea.

Unfortunately, the humour is not as good, the acting of the US supporting cast is not as good, and the plot makes far less sense than the original. Why would he be transported to Chicago? What are the odds his descendant lives in Chicago? The original was much more plausible - it was set in the same geographical area, so meeting one's descendants is not so ridiculous, and it created plenty of humour based on Sir Godefroy's shock to learn that his castle was now owned by the descendant of his moronic lackey, whereas his descendant lived in a modest 3 bedroom house.

For goodness sake, save your ticket money and get the original French version "Les Visiteurs" on video. It is a far better film.