Why is The Favourite getting so much hype?

[Ziggy 10,348]

uh...you haven't seen it so how can you lob literally anything against the movie? A trailer is completely different from a movie.

[WildAmerican 13,672]

27 minutes ago, OneFiveTen said:

Thank you!

This movie is amazing. This kind of negativity surrounding any and all nominees that aren’t Gaga related by this fanbase isn’t cute. 

A Star is Born isn’t the only good movie this awards season and we all need to understand that.

THIS. ASIB is excellent, but it's not even the best movie I've seen this award season, and that's my hot take.

Spoiler

Of course, ASIB is my favorite movie of awards season but it's not the best one I've and I've seen most them.

 

[CautiousLurker 16,578]

I mean, the movie's fantastic imo - I'm not a learned film critic so I won't go into why since I'm sure there are plenty of people way more competent than me breaking this movie down on youtube...

I will say, however, that I don't understand nor care very much for the 'historical accuracy' argument - it's a movie, and one that doesn't posit itself to be historically accurate - therefore, it doesn't owe it to the audience to be historically accurate, nor does historical accuracy make a movie inherently better... The only movies that need to be historically accurate are documentaries...

[Aga Gydal 2,946]

I’m gagged and gooped that you would put the effort into making a thread like this for a movie you didn’t even bother to see. What is life

[lost in limbo 6,035]

I didn't watch the movie either but I'm not making a wall of text over it because I can't have a solid opinion on it without having seen it 

[Seeka 12,372]

Strawberry, you are normally a smart, wise, respectable person. 

But you wrote a wall text about a movie you haven't seen. Saying it's neither here nor there. 

Maybe we need movies that can't be strictly defined. 

But honestly, if you haven't seen the movie, don't be dissuading others. 

[Green Eyes 112]

You're an idiot, you haven't even seen it.

It's an incredible film, but not a mainstream one. That's probably why you wouldn't like it.

[ode 1,264]

9 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

After seeing the massive hype that this movie is getting at awards season and Olivia Colman won the Golden Globe for her performance, I looked up the story behind it and what the deal was. I was shocked to discover that this film, which has been praised enormously by critics and getting pegged as the frontrunner at BAFTAs and Oscars...looks completely, utterly terrible!

This is unbelievably being categorised as a comedy. Comedy is amazingly hard to do especially when you're not a professional comedian and this film is a prime example of that. This is black comedy, surreal comedy, which is a very subjective taste as it is but it's not even done well. It just relies on lazy upper class English stereotypes as if these things, by their very existence, are funny. Try-hard, pretentious, crude, exploitative (using lesbianism to draw in an audience) and historically inaccurate (see the contents of the last bracket). Now, I haven't seen it, so I can't judge it completely but judging by the early reviews I've seen from cinema goers (as opposed to critics with agendas), it's everything like this trailer and worse. I've been hearing that the score is terrible and hurts the ears, it was super strange, Olivia Colman spends most of her time screaming and there were many people walking out. I saw a great line that summed up everything I'm concluded based on the trailer: "not funny enough to be comedy, not witty enough to be satire, not realistic enough to be drama and not informative enough to be history."

So, why is such a movie being so praised? This director is known for his unusual, off the wall ideas (his most famous works before this are The Lobster and The Killing Of A Sacred Deer) that have never won huge praise before and the subject matter is about one of the more minor royals, so is it all down to the fame and acting chops of the cast? Olivia has just started gaining traction as a good actress, Rachel has won quite a few awards in her time and Emma is at the peak of her career and just won an Oscar, so I guess the world can easily be blinded by big names. But if the gross so far is anything to go by, this style of movie is for a very small demographic with very subjective taste.

Realistically, I can totally see Olivia taking this upcoming BAFTA and probably an Oscar into the bargain. She's won 16 awards for this role so far, above and beyond what any other actress has won coming up to awards season. Yet, out of all the names that have been submitted for consideration, hers is one inclusion I cannot get my head around. Not only is her acting cringey, she can't seem to have much expression other than that down-turned mouth look that she does in literally everything she's in. Surely the movies released last year can't have been so terrible that this is a front-runner in multiple categories?

is this a joke?

i can't tell.

did you really write all this without ever seeing the movie?

is this... performance art on your part?

[RAMROD 96,177]

You can write paragraphs of nonsense for something you have not seen in person. You should apply for The Sun or National Inquirer, girl!   You'd do good there and will get a raise each week!

[Didymus 32,703]

Are you seriously going on another "this movie sucks" rant when you haven't seen it? Wasn't The Wife enough?   And it's only Gaga's competition, wow, very innocent indeed.

And what's that "he never got acclaim beore" comment, Yorgos is totally universally acclaimed as a director, since the start too Granted, his films are an acquired taste (which is why audiences always give them low ratings but journalists don't) and are very untraditional when you compare them to the Hollywood framework but I love them, and so do the critics, which is why they're nominated for so many awards every time.

The Lobster is easily one of the most original and memorable films I've seen in the last ten years, and I can't wait to see The Favourite

[StrawberryBlond 13,262]

I see a lot of you criticising me for not watching it but this is kinda what most people who aren't critics do. I can't get free screenings of every movie like a critic can. Movie tickets are expensive and movie-going takes up a lot of time. And you don't want to be spending time and money on something that you don't like the look of even if it's just to see how bad it is. Can't you just accept the behaviour of a normal person who judges what they'll watch based on trailers? And trailers kinda give it all away these days anyway, usually because they're super-long. I'm wary to watch any trailer that isn't based on a book I've read or a biopic as almost all the plot twists are revealed and you can guess the ending. Or all the best bits are saved for the trailer and the movie you watch is just those parts you already saw and a lot of mediocre parts in between.

I'm just someone who calls stuff as they see it. I'm just saying that if this movie wins a lot of awards, there's potentially going to be a lot of derision from the public who have thought a bit differently from the critics. This is clearly not a movie made for the masses, so why do so many critics like it? It doesn't make sense, based on the law of averages.

17 hours ago, Bio said:

Are you the same person who said The Wife was bad without even watching it? 

I'm only observing what its critics said - it was praised for its acting, but the actual story wasn't. Literally all its nominations have been for its acting and just the acting of one person at that. It can't be that good of a movie if its failed to be praised or nominated for anything else. Movies that are very one note and sedate like this tend to just be nominated for their acting but they don't actually hold up as a complete package.

16 hours ago, OneFiveTen said:

Thank you!

This movie is amazing. This kind of negativity surrounding any and all nominees that aren’t Gaga related by this fanbase isn’t cute. 

A Star is Born isn’t the only good movie this awards season and we all need to understand that.

Of course I'm annoyed that Gaga might lose to this but I'm annoyed that it's not just her that's being locked out of chances but other talented roles as well. I even said after the Globes that I'd watched the trailers for all these films and said that, if I was being completely objective and had no fan bias affect my decision, I'd say that Nicole or Rosamund deserved that award. These women were pushing themselves physically and emotionally, doing stuff that was unlike anything they'd ever done. The roles that Glenn and Olivia are playing are just not on this level but they're getting all the awards. I'm can deal with ASIB not winning as long as it loses against something that was even better. From what's been leading so far, I've been left unimpressed by what's being billed as top quality right now.

16 hours ago, Ziggy said:

uh...you haven't seen it so how can you lob literally anything against the movie? A trailer is completely different from a movie.

A trailer is usually giving away too much, if anything, as I said in my first paragraph of this reply. A trailer is everything a movie is and then some.

16 hours ago, CautiousLurker said:

I mean, the movie's fantastic imo - I'm not a learned film critic so I won't go into why since I'm sure there are plenty of people way more competent than me breaking this movie down on youtube...

I will say, however, that I don't understand nor care very much for the 'historical accuracy' argument - it's a movie, and one that doesn't posit itself to be historically accurate - therefore, it doesn't owe it to the audience to be historically accurate, nor does historical accuracy make a movie inherently better... The only movies that need to be historically accurate are documentaries...

I don't think you need to be a learned film critic to know if something's good or not. Critics have agendas and some get paid for good reviews, it's a known fact. The public think differently because they're down to earth.

Historical accuracy kinda matters when dealing with such a sensitive subject. Queen Anne apparently had 17 miscarriages - surely the life of such a tragic figure should be dealt with more carefully and respectfully? There is no evidence that she actually had a lesbian relationship either, it's just rumour that has clearly been interjected here to get attention because it's scandalous and woo! lesbians. I thought that GGD of all places would really look down on any movie that exploited such a thing. Documentary or not, if it involves real people, you've got to do it right and portray accurately. I certainly wouldn't like the idea of dying and then someone inaccurately portraying me in a movie years down the line.

14 hours ago, Seeka said:

Strawberry, you are normally a smart, wise, respectable person. 

But you wrote a wall text about a movie you haven't seen. Saying it's neither here nor there. 

Maybe we need movies that can't be strictly defined. 

But honestly, if you haven't seen the movie, don't be dissuading others. 

Well, thank you for the compliments but refer to the replies to others I've already made for your answer. Forums are for opinions, after all. Surely there's nothing wrong with asking something out loud because you can't find the answer yourself? I've got no one in real life I can talk to about things like this, so I thought here would be the next best thing.

8 hours ago, Green Eyes said:

You're an idiot, you haven't even seen it.

It's an incredible film, but not a mainstream one. That's probably why you wouldn't like it.

Don't be rude. Where do you get off on calling someone an idiot who you've only just encountered? I don't mind non-mainstream, I care about good movies, mainstream or not. Just because something not mainstream doesn't automatically make it good. I don't appreciate it because it looks pretentious and like it's taking the p*ss and I don't find either of those things enthralling or amusing.

8 hours ago, RAMROD said:

You can write paragraphs of nonsense for something you have not seen in person. You should apply for The Sun or National Inquirer, girl!   You'd do good there and will get a raise each week!

Look out, we've got a smart alec here, folks. I'm just doing what any other person does when they work out what movie they want to see - look at the trailer. Pardon me for asking what all the fuss is about because it bewilders me.

8 hours ago, Didymus said:

Are you seriously going on another "this movie sucks" rant when you haven't seen it? Wasn't The Wife enough?   And it's only Gaga's competition, wow, very innocent indeed.

And what's that "he never got acclaim beore" comment, Yorgos is totally universally acclaimed as a director, since the start too Granted, his films are an acquired taste (which is why audiences always give them low ratings but journalists don't) and are very untraditional when you compare them to the Hollywood framework but I love them, and so do the critics, which is why they're nominated for so many awards every time.

The Lobster is easily one of the most original and memorable films I've seen in the last ten years, and I can't wait to see The Favourite

I've literally done this for one other movie. I already told you back then that I thought there were actresses other than Gaga who perhaps deserved the award even more but you seem to have glided over that part. I'm not biased, I'm judging the acting that's right in front of my eyes.

And he hasn't been universally acclaimed from the start. He's directed 8 films and his first 3 movies are basically unknown. His fourth got one Oscar nomination and a bunch of obscure ones. His sixth was kinda unknown. His sixth was pretty much the same as the fourth. The seventh was another niche unknown. It's only now that he's being picked up in a big way. And I wouldn't say "acquired" taste as that means something you have to get used to over time, but "subjective" taste meaning it's not for everyone. I'm confused why such a film, which should have a niche audience, is appealing across the board. If it was a bunch of no-names, it would probably be a very different story. I think something's amiss.

[Didymus 32,703]

7 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Can't you just accept the behaviour of a normal person who judges what they'll watch based on trailers?

A normal person judges a movie based on the trailer but doesn't type a 400 word discussion thread about it on a forum Everyone in here is right in criticizing you for pretending your opinion about this is worth discussing when you haven't even made the effort of seeing the thing in full.

7 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Literally all its nominations have been for its acting and just the acting of one person at that.

And this just takes the cake. Pure fiction. A movie doesn't get an 8.5/10 rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 90/100 on Metacritic for having good actors. There's plenty of examples of movies who only get rewarded for acting performances and they don't have those scores, not near them.

Besides, the actual nominations speak against you in almost ludicrous fashion:

AACTA International Awards: Best Direction, Best Screenplay
AARP's Movies for Grownups Awards: Best Screenwriter
African-American Films Critics Association: Top Ten Films
Alliance of Women Film Journalists: Best Film, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay
American Film Institute: Movies of the Year
Austin Film Critics Association: Best Film, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay
Boston Society of Film Critics: Best Director
British Academy Film Awards: Best Film, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay
...

I worked alphabetically so you can imagine the rest. It's on ****ing Wikipedia, how lazy and intentionally stupid do you have to be to write what you're writing? Not even gonna read the rest of your reply since these blatant mistakes in your argumentation are just too pathetically obvious that you're not worth more of my time, sorry.

[Didymus 32,703]

Except for this:

Before you @ me with "those awards are too obscure", learn something about the movie business. You're seriously only going to look at the Globes and the Oscars, the most fake, mocked and corrupt movie awards out there?

The film is nominated for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and many more categories in a lot of well-known and respected award circles, such as the British Academy Film Awards, the British Independent Film Awards, the Critics' Choice Movie Awards, the Dorian Awards, the London Film Critics' Circle, the Online Film Critics Society, and the Satellite Awards to only name a few, and guess what, the screenplay was even nominated at the Globes, completely annihilating every point you tried to make up there

It's incredible and embarrasing how little effort you put in those tediously long posts of yours, which, apparently, just come down to pure, intentionally ignorant arrogance.

[Morphine Prince 96,073]

You need to see the film first tbh, how else would you find out what all the hype is about? 

Right now you can only state what you THINK the movie will be like. 

Roma has gotten so much praise and due to that I watched it last night. It is beautifully shot. Not usually what I’d watch but I get why people who are into cinematography love it. And the storyline is very haunting yet beautiful at the same time. 

[Morphine Prince 96,073]

9 hours ago, Didymus said:

Are you seriously going on another "this movie sucks" rant when you haven't seen it? Wasn't The Wife enough?   And it's only Gaga's competition, wow, very innocent indeed.

And what's that "he never got acclaim beore" comment, Yorgos is totally universally acclaimed as a director, since the start too Granted, his films are an acquired taste (which is why audiences always give them low ratings but journalists don't) and are very untraditional when you compare them to the Hollywood framework but I love them, and so do the critics, which is why they're nominated for so many awards every time.

The Lobster is easily one of the most original and memorable films I've seen in the last ten years, and I can't wait to see The Favourite

Have you seen The Killing of a Sacred Deer? 

Watched it this week, so weird but I loved it.