Best in Show (2000)

Christopher Guest's movies tend to fall into two categories: the wonderful and the lame. This is definitely one of the wonderful ones. The characters are rich and vivid without being too over the top. This is actually the last Guest one I hadn't seen yet, so it was fun to see all the familiar faces from the films combined in this one. While Guffman and Spinal Tap will always remain my favorites in this series, this is a very close third. 4 stars.

After the Fox (1966)

Apparently this film was a box office failure, but I *liked* it. I'm not a huge Peter Sellers fan, so I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this comedy. Its characters are full of humor and, while the story is zany, it's somehow all done in a rather quiet way - as if it really doesn't know that the story it's telling is funny. Victor Mature is wonderful as a former leading man who is unwilling to admit he's aging. Overall, I liked this movie a lot and genuinely laughed quite a few times. 4 stars.

The Man Who Wasn't There (2001)

This was one of those rare movies where although I can't say I enjoyed it along the way (it felt intolerably slow for the first half) I feel like it will stick with me. Even now as I'm typing this up, I'm still mulling over the facts and the emotions of the film. The noir feel is absolutely perfect for the way the story needs to be told. Billy Bob Thornton is quietly chilling as Ed Crane. I have a tendency to dislike the popular Coen Brothers movies and like the unknown or unpopular ones - this once again falls into that pattern. 4 stars.

The Lost Boys (1987)

This. Movie. Is. Ridiculous. I understand that all vampire movies and all 80s movies come pre-packaged with an extra bit of cheese, but for every cool shot there were two or three "What the?!" moments. Why did all the plumbing start shooting blood? Why did Michael deliberately open the window and go outside when he was floating, just to scream at Sam to help him back inside? How did a single stake from the pile manage to hit the head vampire hard enough to kill him, and in exactly the right spot? Why did nobody except for Sam actually USE the holy water pistols that were so effective? On top of all of this, there are cheesy performances, cheesy dialogue, and cheesy visuals that I think are supposed to be creepy. Certainly was not worth the hour and a half I just spent watching it. 1.5 stars.

Love and Death (1975)

This is undoubtedly one of Woody Allen's silliest films, but also one of the most fun. Allen isn't at all concerned with keeping the continuity of the place or time period intact, but cheerfully throws in zany jokes left and right, whether or not they make sense in the context of the movie. Some of the exchanges brought to mind Marx Brothers comedy - a few of the scenes between Diane Keaton and Napoleon sounded very much like Groucho Marx and Margaret Dumont playing off each other. All in all, I thoroughly enjoyed it. 4 stars.

Anything Else (2003)

While some have called this Woody Allen's all-time worst film, I have to disagree. It's certainly no masterpiece - it's largely bland and uninspired - but there is a sort of gentle inoffensive charm to it, especially Christina Ricci's cheerfully disorganized portrayal of Amanda. If anyone but Allen had made this movie it wouldn't have been that bad. It's only in comparison to his other works, many of which I would consider masterpieces, that this ranks pretty far down in the canon. 2.5 stars.

Opening Night (1977)

The acting in Opening Night is superb - easily the best part of the movie. Gena Rowlands is wonderful as an extremely troubled actress. The parts that are the most arresting are when we see Rowlands' character in her everyday life and how she is completely losing control. However, this is interspersed with long scenes showing us the play she's working on. They never quite show us the play as it's supposed to be so I had no frame of reference. Characters later would refer to its being wrong, which left me confused. Since I had nothing to measure the play against, I simply felt like each time I saw it it had been rewritten a bit and I didn't know when it was considered a success and when it wasn't. The entire last half hour of the movie was scenes from the play. Did she succeed? Did she change it? Did she completely rework it into a different play? People seemed to like it at the end, but I had no idea what I was supposed to take from it, or from the movie as a whole. 3 stars.