Discuss Convidados sem honra
Discuss → Movies → Convidados sem honra → General
Brilliant, but panned by predictable critics
posted by gilknutSTAFFMOD on June 7, 2017 at 4:18 AM
(SPOILERS TOWARDS END!)
I don't always agree with (or heed warnings) from movie critics; perhaps because I used to be one myself in a nation wide magazine many years ago -- but if a movie has a 40% rating on Metacritic, I admit it rarely bodes well. Still I watched this, largely due to the involvement of several favorite actors and the script having been written by the Duplass brothers.
I found it almost instantly both funny and moving, and the longer I watched, the more confused I became as to why most critics had been lukewarm or downright dismissive of it. I figured it had to be mostly due to the genre blend of comedy and more dramatic issues, and that probably most of the criticism had been along the usual lines of "can't make up it's mind', etc. But even so, that didn't add up to a meager 40% rating, with such a clever script and great acting.
When the credits rolled, I knew instantly why: A happy ending...
It all mostly works out in the end for the oddball protagonists. Critics in general can't stand it. If a movie has had a degree of realism and/or several dark or borderline dark-ish issues brought up along the way, critics tend to go apeshit unless it all ends in misery, or largely unresolved, or at the very least in ambiguity. God forbid you walk away from such a movie actually feeling good; that equals 'cheesy' in most reviewers book. Was it realistic that most of the people involved got a happy, somewhat romantic ending? Of course not, but though the movie tackles several 'real' issues within the comedy, I found the ending perfectly fitting with the tone of it. Critics often use the word 'predictable' about anything that has a hint of romantic comedy in it, but I'd say, there are few things as predictable as movie critics in general.
If you want to read what I consider a spot on review for this, check out Empire Magazine, who went against the stream and gave it 4 out of 5 stars.
Reply by Parallaxe
on June 12, 2017 at 11:34 PM
After watching it, I'd say it's a simple feel good movie clearly inspired by John Hughes films. I wouldn't necessarily call it 'brilliant', but it's probably more along the lines of 55-60%. Critics today feel a little more harsh than those of about a decade ago, who could enjoy a film for its own sake.
The chemistry between Eloise and Teddy wasn't there for me, I wasn't rooting for their happy ending. It really didn't make enough sense plot wise because Teddy was so underdeveloped, and it would have made sense to know why his family looked down on Eloise instead of parroting through Nikki. The other characters played off each other well, and it really conveyed what it's like to be at Table 19.
Reply by tmdb65271336
on June 13, 2017 at 4:19 AM
To be fair, looking at the reviews on RottenTomatoes, most of those "critics" come from tiny, crappy outlets. The critical sites I tend to trust like Variety and Rogerebert.com enjoyed it. (And ugh one very negative critic featured on the front page, Cath Clarke, seems to have an obsession with feminism. It crops up in any movie she can shoehorn it into. I HATE it when critics bring their politics to movie reviews.)
Reply by gilknut
on June 13, 2017 at 7:56 PM
I never check RottenTomatoes for anything; most of my colleagues in the press stick to Metacritic for a more trustworthy overview.
And Variety certainly did not 'enjoy' it, they're listed as giving it 30% -- read it, it's almost completely negative throughout.
Rogerebert.com gave it 2 and a half stars, and at best could be said to have _somewhat _enjoyed some of it (all the while being a perfect example of what I wrote, claiming the movie fails because of the happy ending...).
Others that gave it from lukewarm to very negative reviews include The Hollywood Reporter, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, LA Times, New York Post, Slant Magazine, etc -- hardly tiny outlets.