User Reviews (41)

Add a Review

  • MASCOTS is Directed by Christoper Guest and follows a bunch of different Mascots from around the world who are about to compete in the World Mascot Association Championships where the winners receive "Fluffies". If a mascot wins one of these awards it is possible that it could change their life forever.

    This film is structured just like a few of Christopher Guest's other films including A MIGHTY WIND and WAITING FOR GUFFMAN. It is filmed as a documentary expect the characters are fictional.

    The best part of this film is, by far, the crazy assortment of characters that we follow. From a married couple that is constantly trying to hold back their anger for each other, to a English man who wants to try and add a new routine to his families old mascot routine but keeps getting rejected by his father. These characters are hilarious to watch and follow. When you see them go through their routines in and out of the costumes you can't help but smile and, sometimes, laugh so hard you have to leave the room. The thing that makes this film really stand out is just how seriously the people involved take this competition. It seems like a really stupid thing to have a contest for the best mascot, however everyone involved treats it like a professional Football championship or the Oscars. It is so important to them and because they are pursuing their passions and their dreams you connect with them and desperately want them to do well int the competition.

    Where this film needs work is it's third act, it isn't bad however the editing is a bit of a problem. NO SPOILERS but the film gets to what should be considered the climax or the final rising action leading to the climax and beings to pull focus on other moments that aren't as interesting as what is happening in other places. There is also not a lot of interaction between different mascots, which makes sense when they are involved in a competition with one another however it does leave a sense of some missed opportunities for a few more laughs.

    Overall MASCOTS is a very effective comedy that has some truly hilarious moments. There are just some parts where the film just misses the opportunities to be really great.

    FILM: 4/5 PERSONALLY: 4.3/5
  • Not the greatest film, but has plenty of laughs and guffaws. Seeing this cast is like seeing old friends. There's hilarity, stupidity, and complete schizoid moments that make absolutely no sense at all. But hey, remember that this is a C. Guest film. What more were you expecting? At a budget of the listed $20,000,000, you can be sure a LOT of that went into the elaborate costumes and pro for the mascots.That is, unless they raided a lot of high school and community college storage bins. Like other mockumentary films by Mr. Guest, get past the character set-ups and the pay-off is in the competition. It does not disappoint!I will recommend this ONLY to friends who also enjoy the antics of Christopher Guest.
  • I was pleasantly surprised how watchable this was after a less than promising trailer. The comic timing and line formation could have been a lot tighter but we have a fun yarn here where the quantity of story lines keep it fresh.

    The vibrant costumes and the delightful routines of the third act are what seals the deal.

    So much better than at least one of Guests other efforts.
  • The closet thing we have to the great Mike Leigh is probably Christopher Guest who serves up another of his improvfests, Mascots. Following on the heels of his other competition flicks Best in Show & For Your Consideration, we follow a bunch of lovable eccentrics trying to make their mark in their world w/hilarious, rib tickling results. We also have a return of Corky St. Clair from Waiting for Guffman which is worth the price of admission in itself.
  • planktonrules11 December 2016
    It's been ten years since Christopher Guest's last mockumentary, "For Your Consideration" and I assume much of the reason it took so long for another similar film is twofold: Guest had already made several mockumentaries AND "For Your Consideration" was, in my opinion, the worst of these films. Now, a decade later, Guest and his crew is back...thanks to Netflix.

    The film is supposedly about an international competition to pick the world's best mascot. But this is mostly just an opportunity for the actors, some familiar old faces and many new ones, to improv and have fun. I say mostly because late in the film you see some of the acts and the one that ends up winning is actually a great joy to watch.

    Is this among Guest's best films? No. It lacks the humor and originality of "Best in Show" and the artistry of "A Mighty Wind". But it is enjoyable and worth your time. However, and this is important, stick with this film. It starts of VERY slowly and frankly isn't all that funny....but it does improve as you watch and considering it's a made for Netflix film, it's worth seeing if you have the service.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Like many, I'm sure, I was excitedly awaiting the next Christopher Guest movie - and coming in to this one, all indications (cast, premise, trailer, Netflix involvement) were encouraging. I was genuinely excited to sit down and watch it.

    Sadly, Mascots does not deliver against the high standard Guest fans have come to expect. It's essentially Best In Show without the charm, spontaneity or laughs.

    Although you have to believe all involved wanted to make something special, the inescapable lingering impression is of a very distinct 'Guest' formula (specifically, the variation of it applied in Best In Show) being reapplied with a (slightly) different cast and setting, but *without* inspiration or enthusiasm. The character introductions, the first-night cocktail party, the build-up to the event, the event itself, and the where-are-they now recap: *all* these elements were there, which is not necessarily a problem, but without some added magic (e.g., some innovative spark, something that creatively/emotionally unites the various story threads, or even just some consistent unexpected laughs) you're left with a pretty joyless, formulaic exercise in painting by numbers.

    I kept waiting and wanting to be emotionally invested in the movie, but never was. Someone won the gold Fluffy - but so what - someone had to. The 'network people' thread, set up as something that would have a huge bearing on the Fluffies' future, went nowhere. NOWHERE! They turned out to be from Burbank, not NYC (this demonstrates the standard of the jokes), and were then shunted aside to deal with the degenerate in the rabbit suit. We never saw them again. Oh well.

    It's as though, in the absence of any really interesting new ideas, Guest has just returned to an old well and repeated himself, and expected a paying audience to accept it. It felt like a contractual obligation. It's an unfortunate thing.

    I love so many of his earlier movies so much that I can't/won't give up hope. I just hope his next one delivers a bit more, well, entertainment.
  • This is a spoof documentary following the contestants attending the Mascot Awards.

    I am not usually a fan of adlib but it really works here as the interviews come off quite candid but obviously silly.

    There is a lot of really good talent here and utilised well.

    The lesser-known names are also really good and all the characters are fleshed out.

    The film cumulates in the Mascot performance finale - which is entertaining in its own right.

    This is an unusual movie - it is silly but professionally made and the story is coherent.

    I didn't find it laugh-out-loud funny but it quite amusing and I was invested in the characters.

    I feel like this film deserves more praise than I am prepared to give it.

    I recommend this for a week night watch for a few chuckles.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    MAJOR SPOILERS. You've been warned.

    I actually just created an account specifically to review this film. Here goes:

    Overall, this movie felt lazy and unoriginal compared to Guest's previous mockumentaries. It's a tough row to hoe - he's had so much success with this format, and he's hit gold with his brilliant casts so many times, it's hard to see exactly how this one fell so flat.

    I can't help but wonder how much footage got left on the cutting room floor. Entire story arcs are introduced and then abandoned without any consequence (like the weird "affair" side plot with the sisters that never results in any tension or narrative growth). Plot points are introduced to generate narrative tension (like the British character getting pulled over by the cops, making him late for the competition.. except that he's NOT, and he gets there in time, and there's no real conflict). The Plumber makes a big deal about re- connecting with someone he lusted after in high-school, and we get to see the awkward reunion. Turns out she's engaged. And that's it, the situation never contributes to the story again and doesn't really add anything to the overall plot, and we never see her again. What's the point?

    One of the best characters, an Irishman inexplicably from Manitoba, floats through the story, peripherally interacting with other characters but never really making much of an impact. His big dramatic climax (his performance) is loud and brash, and the crowd goes nuts. And... that's it. He doesn't get a trophy, he doesn't appear on camera again at all.. until the film decides to make his becoming a monk for some unfathomable reason the final joke we see.

    Also, what was the deal with The Worm and his partner placing second, when we barely got to meet them and they had zero bearing on the plot? We don't even know who his partner IS. There's a mention of The Worm being on Ecstasy near the beginning like it's a big scandal, and I totally expected it to be a major plot arc.. then nothing. No more drug conflict, he's fine. Then the Aardvark has a complaint lodged against her by... someone who is never revealed.. and the complaint is dismissed.. and nothing comes of any of it. And who the heck was in the "partner" costume in the Plumber's big performance? They could at least have made it one of the blind kids from the school he visited or something, but instead it's just an anonymous acrobatic break-dancer. I guess we'll never know.

    On top of that, TONS of plot elements and characters felt like they were entirely lifted from previous Guest films and dropped into this one. Trouble checking in at the hotel (Best In Show, Spinal Tap). Not being able to find someone right before showtime (A Mighty Wind). A couple who are obviously unhappy having a public meltdown (Best In Show). An injury or illness requiring a last-second substitution (Best In Show). Epilogue jokes about a couple parlaying their success into a different business venture (Best In Show, A Mighty Wind) or undergoing a major personal change (Harry Shearer's sex change in A Mighty Wind vs. The Fist becoming a monk). Fred Willard as a questionably credible "manager" who is repeatedly ignorant and folksily offensive (A Mighty Wind). The pre-event gala where everyone gets to awkwardly mingle (A Mighty Wind, Best In Show, Spinal Tap). And on. And on. Does Christopher Guest only have one story to tell? It's starting to feel that way.

    It honestly felt like a remix at best. Yeah, it was occasionally funny - you'd have to actively try NOT to be with a cast like this. I'm not even going to say it's not worth watching - you'll probably find it entertaining, if a little predictable. Maybe I should even rate it higher than I have, but for me this felt like one of those Mad TV skits that are obvious re-writes of a Saturday Night Live classic. If I hadn't already seen Guest's other films, I probably would have enjoyed this a lot more.
  • I wasn't able to watch this under the right circumstances. It was a relatively poor rip and I couldn't watch it from a comfortable sofa or such, and that never helps. I have been looking forward to watching it, though, since I have thoroughly enjoyed all of the other mockumentary films made by Corky St., ehrm, I mean Christopher Guest. It was a little unsettling to see how much older some of the actors / actresses have been growing, but it is what it is - time waits for no one.

    Then, onto the actual movie. I wasn't too excited by the subject matter of sports team mascots, but Guest usually pulls it off, so I had some hopes. And I must say, it's pretty much more of the same but still different. I had to get used to some of the new actors in the cast, but especially Sarah Baker and Zach Woods did quite well. Some other actors were less impressive, but a lot of the familiar faces did just fine, like Posey, Hitchcock, Begley Jr., Higgins, Piddock, etc., and of course it was quite a good idea to get Corky St. Clair back in. It may have been partly the circumstances in which I had to see this, but all in all it wasn't much more than just enjoyable, with Chris O'Dowd as a low point - not sure I can explain exactly why, but his part and acting didn't much speak to me.

    Maybe if this ever will come out on dvd or blu-ray I will be able to watch it over and over (as I did recently with all the other Guest mockumentaries) and get more into it. For now, this was fun in part, with most of the final performances in the finale being the very highlights, but I just can't get myself to go any higher than a good 6 out of 10.
  • BlueFairyBlog31 October 2016
    Christopher Guest has always made seriously hilarious mockumentaries. Beginning with the classic comedy "This is Spinal Tap," Guest has riffed on every subject from local theater, to dog shows, and here he is taking on the world of mascots. He assembled some of his favorite actors (Jane Lynch, Parker Posey, Ed Begley Jr., and John Michael Higgins to name a few) and has released his newest film "Mascots," on Netflix. Though Guest uses the same great set-up as many of his past films, sometimes tried and true methods are more tired and false.

    While I have enjoyed all six of Guest's written mockumentaries, this film is a bore-fest from start to finish.For one thing it doesn't feel like a mockumentary. There's too much polish and obvious talking heads flavoring this film for it to feel like anything other than a run of the mill, factory made comedy. Though there are a couple of chuckles to be had at the witty banter, there's nothing truly incisive about the commentary of this film. The world of mascoting might be small, like the dog show circuit, but it's not one that truly lends to a lot of social discourse, or any true characterizations of small town America, which is Guest's bread and butter. It wouldn't surprise me if the entire reason Guest chose mascots is part of the film concerning the Furry community, which is the only truly interesting bit of the film.

    Some aspects of the film feel really stale and out of place. The entire plot turn where Cindi Babineaux's school's past is called into question, was clearly unneeded, because it does nothing but hinder the plot and confuse the audience. It's also unclear why Fred Willard and Brad Williams conversation needs to happen at all, except to show a character out of their depth. Actually a lot of the cast feels unneeded or written poorly, including the married couple, The Fist and his straight man, and all the side mascots. The routines aren't even really about supporting a team. They're often influenced more by vaudeville, or clown culture, which doesn't fit into the film at all.

    Honestly, this would have made for a better television show. It would be great to see these characters in a more in-depth way, and really explain mascot culture for those of us completely in the dark. Though it's clear much of the cast is trying their darndest to recapture the old magic of "Waiting for Guffman," and "A Mighty Wind," this is probably the lowest Christopher Guest has ever sunk. (Barring "Almost Heroes" of course.)
  • We were waiting for this movie to become available after seeing some previews and were not disappointed. I was surprised at the awful reviews--maybe the humor is just too subtle for some folks. It was clever and amusing, with a lot of little amusing details. It's not my favorite of his movies (that would be Best in Show), but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to fans. Fred Willard's character is even more cringe-making than usual, Parker Posey plays pathetically un-self-aware women with such skill, and I really admire the willingness of this group of actors to make themselves pretty unattractive and awkward in the service of the faux-documentary style.
  • Mockumentarian King Christopher Guest is mocking around again after a long hiatus with his latest mockumentary "Mascots". However, I just don't think he will be our or your Guest this time around. "Mascots" is set in poking satirical mock fun at the world of portraying Mascots; personally, I have been a Mascot myself for twenty years so I was eagerly awaiting this. However, it did not reach expectations. Once again, Guest brings into the mock arena zany, obsessed characters but this time it focuses in a Mascot competition. The Mascots are diverse and they do have their comedic moments, but not enough laughs for me to cheer for them constantly as I did with the dog owners in "Best in Show" and the folk musicians in "A Mighty Wind". Guest regulars are back including Jennifer Coolidge, Parker Posey, Ed Begley Jr. Bob Balaban, Jane Lynch, and Guest himself; who were all just mediocre compared to their mocking acting classic performances in Guest's past mockumentaries. Nonetheless, one that still stood in "scene stealer" variety was Fred Willard, who here plays a mascot trainer. Willard, in vintage Willardesque mode, gets his character to poke fun on everything and everyone around him. "Mascots" had some character in it, but not enough for my mascot communication expectation. *** Average
  • I really liked "Best In Show"...but I'm not sure that it needed to be re-made with mascots. There are some fun moments and performances here, but it feels less real and less sympathetic to the characters. Guest brought the same sensibility, but not as much heart.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    The key problem with Guest's 6th mockumentary is that it takes too long to establish the characters hence isn't able to finally exploit them for laughs until the 2nd half, which is much better. He could get away with wasting screen time in this manner in a mini-series, where there's more time to introduce us to all of these clowns, but when you sacrifice 30-40 minutes in a 90-minute movie, then you're being overly optimistic and impractical. The entire film should be funny, not just some better-late-than-never pay-off. Surely, he could have written up a much tighter script after a whole decade?

    The cast is a mixed bag. From the British contingent I only liked Godliman, whom I recognized from a Ricky Gervais's TV series. The other two actors are bland, boring and unfunny. To be fair though, their parts were written poorly: as if for a soaper. There was very little that was funny or that even appeared to have such an intention. Wasted screen-time, futile dialog. We are supposed to keel over laughing at them, just because they have a family tradition of mascots - which is one of Guest's worst miscalculations ever. That stuff isn't funny at all, not even a bit. The Brit mascot's encounter with a cop was way too unrealistic too be amusing, though Guest slightly rectifies this later by justifying it as "one of my typical Tourette moments with the police". Certainly an original line, slightly amusing, though somewhat baffling too.

    Piddock, who co-wrote the script, was totally new to me, I didn't recognize him, and he wasn't even vaguely familiar. But when I checked his bio I realized I'd already watched 5-6 films with him, which really goes to show how utterly forgettable he is. I rarely forget a face, especially after several films, so this is really telling...

    Parker Posey wasn't as good as she normally is. She never fails to deliver, or at least as much as a script allows her to, but she wasn't in full form here. Whether that's due to advancing age (it's hard to be as "cute-quirky" at 48 as it was at 28) or whether her part wasn't good enough - it's probably a bit of both. I did like her very silly dance on the campus grounds early on though, that was vintage Posey. Susan Yeagley, a new face for me, who plays her half-sister is very good, one of the best in the cast, as is her fun role as a floozie. She actually upstages Posey, which was unexpected. Though her part was more interesting, admittedly... "People shouldn't be eating raw fish."

    Moynahan is bland and uninteresting, as is Woods. These two are so interchangeable, they could have switched roles and nobody would have cared, or better yet: been replaced by more charismatic, much funnier actors. The shtick with Woods and his chubby jealous wife had potential but neither the casting nor the dialog was good enough to squeeze out more from this premise. It had great potential: the tall skinny husband constantly cheating on his "paranoid" chubby little wife should have been expanded, made more central to the plot, and written with one or two more infidelity twists. Instead, there is just the one incident with Yeagley, then another brief glance at her, and just a mention of him having had a fling with Posey in the past. Why wasn't his past with Posey expanded a bit more? But that only serves to remind how much better "Mascots" would have worked as a five-part mini-series.

    Willard goes overboard this time. Or rather, his character is exaggerated. His conversation with the dwarf makes him out to be a complete imbecile, which is impossible. He'd be locked up in a loony bin, not hired to help organize events, because this kind of senility would make him completely unemployable. I'm all for laughs, but not at the expense of logic. In particular this kind of reality-based, low-key, satiric type of humour can't afford to play around with such absurdities. Willard has no filter at all, which would have worked if he'd been some hobo who had sneaked into the building, or some kind of impostor or whatever.

    Balaban is his usual drab self. I have no idea why Guest thinks he's good enough for these movies. He most certainly isn't. Just another overrated, over-hired nepotist.

    Overall, it's a decent film, so it's nonsense to speak of this as Guest's weakest mockumentary. "A Mighty Wind" is the worst one, probably by far: it wasn't funny at all.

    But frankly, the older I get the less I enjoy his parodies/satires... Guest focuses too much on being clever, not enough on being outright funny, which is what the best comedies are. (With Monty Python you got both, intellect and hilarity: that's why they were the best.) Instead of me going "this is quite clever" every few minutes, I'd rather find myself laughing out loud, which tends to be rare for his films.
  • This film has everything going for it, has plenty of funny moments, a great cast, and decent writing but it just fails to bring it all together in such a way that it belongs in the same league as Best In Show, A Mighty Wind, This Is Spinal Tap and Waiting For Guffman. I really wanted to like it more.
  • This in-depth behind the scenes documentary on the world of Mascotory is an eye-opener. The level of skill and determination is something to behold. They really are the true athletes behind their teams winning ways. The athleticism, mental fortitude and never give up attitude is astounding.
  • pamma0916 October 2016
    I am a fan of Christopher Guests movies and even put the release date of this on my calendar. WOW what a disappointment. I watched the whole thing waiting for it to get better and it never did. The characters with their bland speaking and a few funny lines never drew me into their lives. I actually was not drawn into any of the characters - they were either not funny or it was blatantly not entertaining. I expected Jane Lynch's character to be funny - about the only funny part was her facial expressions when the judges were watching the competition. In fact the lead up to the competition was sad - so sad. I would really like to say something good about this film but honestly I can't. And to be very honest it was a waste of my time - please do better next time Mr. Guest.
  • I am a longtime fan of Christopher Guest. I loved "Waiting for Guffman" and "Best in Show." And I very much enjoyed "A Mighty Wind." I could watch these three films over and over again anytime.

    Not so with "For Your Consideration." Maybe because the characters were a bit mean- lacked the heart to go along with the humor. Whatever- I don't expect Mr Guest to strike gold every time.

    I found "Mascots" to be far below "For Your Consideration." The theme was meh-it meant nothing to me; the mascots were not especially funny, and their performances were a bore. Also, there were way, way too many characters to care about any of them. IMO, "Mascots" is best described as a weak retread of Guest's previous good work. The only bit I enjoyed was the cameo appearance by Corky St Clair.

    Perhaps Mr Guest is done with his Mockumentaries. However...if he is looking for inspiration, I suggest he get hold of a copy of the book "Pigeons" by Andrew D Blechman.

    www.amazon.com/Pigeons-Fascinating-Worlds-Revered- Reviled/dp/0802143288/ref=sr_1_1? s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1489727451&sr=1-1&keywords=pigeons
  • I have laughed outloud at Christopher Guest since his brief stint on Saturday Night Live, through "This Is Spinal Tap", "Waiting for Guffman", "Best in Show", and "A Mighty Wind", I anticipated the release of this movie for months believing that the premise was a winner.

    Sadly, it was not to be. I only laughed a couple of times feeling like many of the gags were too mechanical and manipulative. Some of the characters had a few good lines but overall I was looking at the clock on the DVD player through much of the movie. Fred Willard, who generally steals every scene he is in really fell flat with his lack-luster performance. He appeared tired, bored, and out of touch--so at least he and I had those three things in common.

    Sadly I cannot recommend this one. Painful to write, but avoid this one at all costs.
  • wiggityp18 October 2016
    I'm not sure why others who claim to be a fan of Guest's previous work didn't like this one so much.

    I thought it was great and adequately satisfied my need for more Guest mockumentaries.

    Don't go in expecting it to be another Guffman or Best In Show and you'll probably dig it.

    The only thing I wish would have been different is if it had had Eugene Levy and Catherine O'Hara in it.

    I wouldn't say it's the best of Guest's ouevre but if you really like his stuff I can't imagine not liking this too.
  • Mr. Guest,

    What you have written and produced is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever watched. At no point in this rambling, incoherent excuse for a movie were you even CLOSE to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Every viewer is now dumber for having watched this movie. I award you one star and my God have mercy on your soul. #billymadisonreference

    On a serious note. All around just a poorly written movie that makes absolutely no sense. The movie just keeps on bouncing back and forth between random story lines offering no real back ground information of the characters or build up to what is going on. I honestly don't know how this movie even made it to production. Save yourself the time and don't even bother.
  • It seemed reasonable that after a decade away from feature filmmaking, Christopher Guest would return in a big way. His quirky and lovable comedies with equally quirky and lovable characters in "This Is Spinal Tap," "Waiting for Guffman," and "Best in Show" launched the mockumentary sub-genre, giving life to other successful films and TV shows. That seemed to provide proof enough that 2006's "For Your Consideration" was a misstep rather than a loss of mojo, but the equally flat "Mascots" suggests being quirky and lovable isn't so simple after all.

    All of Guest's films have stayed to a certain formula, a parody of average people who have big dreams, debatable talent and an inflated sense of self-importance. This documentary style of mixing testimonial with drama created space for talented improvisational actors to create hysterical caricatures, but their passions and dreams made them easy for audiences to relate to, no matter how silly.

    "Mascots" fits that mold. Mascot-ing is certainly an obscure "art form" that has the competition/performance elements that its predecessors had. A number of Guest's regulars appear in parts big and small (Parker Posey, Fred Willard, Bob Balaban, Jennifer Coolidge, John Michael Higgins and more) to offer dependability while fresh faces in contemporary comedy join in (Chris O'Dowd, Zach Woods, Sarah Baker, Tom Bennett and more) to add a little novelty. Yet "Mascots" just isn't interesting or funny enough.

    One obvious culprit is the cast size. There are a lot of mascots to focus on: Mike and Mindy Murray (Woods and Baker) the bickering mascot couple; Owen Golly (Bennett), the third generation mascot; Cindi Babineaux (Posey) the serious dance artist; Phil Mayhew (Christopher Moynihan) the overly passionate mascot who's kinda sad; and Tommy Zucarello (O'Dowd) the mascot who couldn't care less. They all fight for screen time, and that doesn't include the various event organizers, judges and coaches that eat away at their share.

    More of the problem could be that none of them have particularly compelling sub-plots or back stories that make their characters funny or interesting. They're all fairly archetypal. Each actor uncovers bits of genuinely funny comedy, but that humor comes in the smallest parcels in the smallest moments and doesn't impact the overall comedic impression of the larger scenes it's in, let alone the overall movie.

    We also don't get a full sense of what's at stake. Winning first place at the mascot competition only matters if there's investment in all the competitors and Guest sets some of them up to win our affections and some of them up to fail, making it not all that conflicting or suspenseful when it comes time for the competition. None of that would matter, of course, if more of "Mascots" was laugh-out-loud funny. The quirkiness works for chuckles, but the big moments when we expect comedic payoff are fairly predictable and unremarkable.

    At one point you realize "Mascots" really only came into existence for fans of Guest's mockumentaries, and that's when Guest reprises a role from one of his earlier films. It's the ultimate sign of pandering and perhaps an indicator that "Mascots" never had enough legs to stand on its own in the first place.

    You have to believe with all your heart that the right script could exist to rejuvenate this formula, but it's clear Guest didn't have the ambition, at least not yet. Considering it's been 10 years and he's not getting any younger, you have to wonder if we've seen the best he has to offer. I hope not, but four good movies from the same core concept ain't bad.

    ~Steven C

    Thanks for reading! Visit Movie Muse Reviews for more.
  • I love Best In Show. It's probably in my top 20 favorite movies list of all time. But Mascots is almost un-watchable. It is pretty much exactly the same as BIS, a bunch of quirky characters coming together for a competitive, ending with a 1 year followed up. With most of the same stars and a ton of improv practice from This Is Spinal Tap, BIS, Waiting for Guffman and the folk singing one (terrible as well, I can't even remember the name), you would think there would be some laughs......but i just couldn't even bring myself to smile. The were a couple characters that had the potential to be funny, but really all they did was recycle them from the other movies. And it just didn't work. This formula that they use over and over is just not funny anymore.
  • Drewboyz14 October 2016
    Warning: Spoilers
    What was Christopher Guest thinking! Talk about ruin your legacy. This is almost as bad as the 2nd Blues Brothers movie and that is really saying something!

    I am not exaggerating when I say I didn't laugh once, not even a snicker.

    I am sure they filmed this the same way as the other movies where the actors have license to stray from the script but really, this was the best they could come up with in the editing room from what I am sure would have been dozens of hours of footage?

    Where are the funny lines? the creativity we saw in those excellent movies like Best in Show and Waiting for Guffman. Perhaps after 22yrs Guest just isn't up to it but it's not just the writing. Funny people like Michael Hitchcock, Parker Posey, Ed Begley Jr, Jane Lynch, Don Lake, Fred Willard not a funny line between them!

    So disappointing. Other reviewers are correct when they say it is almost Best In Show 2 with a similar style and story line but at least Best In Show had some belly aching moments.

    Perhaps there weren't many topics left after covering amateur theater, folk music, the Hollywood scene, dog shows and heavy metal bands. Mascots and that whole industry is probably apt but there is just nothing funny about this movie at all.

    Retire Mr. Guest. Go and sit on a beach somewhere and enjoy life. Please don't do any more damage to your awesome list of truly funny films.
  • you823948081-32410 September 2016
    This is one of the most enjoyable movie going experiences I've had in a long time. It is by far the funniest movie I've seen all year. It is very self aware and knows exactly who it's audience is. That being said it does have its problems. Mainly: it is extremely scattered. The movie has far too many characters that the movie will jump between seamlessly. There are simply too many story lines of too many characters that the movie expects you to remember. It also breaks out of its documentary format a couple times. However, these characters are all so quirky and enjoyable, that it's all worth it. All in all this film is a complete laugh fest that I definitely recommend.
An error has occured. Please try again.