The Favourite

homerun_homer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYb-wkehT1g

I can't see any thread on this which is bizarre. I went yesterday, and really enjoyed it. The performances are excellent all round, and it's great to see a film dominated by three strong female leads doing some of their finest work. The scheming and conniving was fun to watch unfold for the most part, before it starts getting a bit more serious. The one thing at this moment that keeps me from giving the film full marks would be

the ending. I should come to expect this from Yorgos Lanthimos, that he will more so have an ending that tries to sit with you and make you think about it, but after all the backstabbing and madness I wanted a bit more from it. Rachel Weisz' bows out of the film in a very short scene that deserves more to do her & her character justice.

This film is a great start to 2019 as a year in film. I hope this standard can keep up.

Fysh

I saw this yesterday and it was an excellent start to 2019 in film. As you say the three leads give phenomenal performances, along with the supporting cast (Nicholas Hoult as Harley was great).

The scheming & exploitation against a backdrop of the constantly shifting sands of the queen's affections were fascinating to watch, and as often shocking as hilarious (pretty much Lanthimos' calling card at this point).

One entertaining detail I heard about it is that Horatio the duck has his own IMDB page based on his role in the film : D

loyatemu

looking forward to seeing this - the trailer makes it look like a hoot.

I've only seen "The Lobster" of his previous films, which started out interesting but ran out of steam (possibly as in the second half of the film they were very obviously wandering around Clondalkin)

mikhail

It's not as zany as the trailer makes it out to be. I haven't seen the director's previous work, but I get the impression that this is a little more conventional than them.

I agree with the posters above though. It's very entertaining, a great start to the year. The three leads are great, and it's full of quotable lines.

homerun_homer

mikhail wrote: »

It's not as zany as the trailer makes it out to be. I haven't seen the director's previous work, but I get the impression that this is a little more conventional than them.

A tad more conventional but it's particularly in the acting style that things have changed up from the Lobster and Sacred Deer. The actors played things very straight and monotonous in those films but here they are allowed to let loose & flourish.

loyatemu

homerun_homer wrote: »

A tad more conventional but it's particularly in the acting style that things have changed up from the Lobster and Sacred Deer. The actors played things very straight and monotonous in those films but here they are allowed to let loose & flourish.

In "The Lobster" the actors read their lines as if from cue cards, which I assume they were told to do for effect.

johnny_ultimate

Definitely my favourite Lanthimos film since Dogtooth. While very fine films on their own terms, Alps, The Lobster and Sacred Deer all were variations (admittedly interesting variations!) on a distinctive style without the surprise factor of Dogtooth. The Favourite is unmistakably a Lanthimos film with its absurdist cruelty, black humour and creeping discomfort... but things have a different vibe this time. That the actors step beyond the post-human blankness that has defined the director's other recent films helps - Colman, Weisz and Stone are all at their best here, with Colman in particular offering the sort of great performance she's always been destined for.

Serious kudos are due to Robbie Ryan here whose imaginative camerawork makes every frame sizzle. One of the things I loved about this was how it flew in the face of traditional period movie stuffiness through the very look of the film. Obviously it has precedents in that respect - the candlelit scenes are straight out of Barry Lyndon, and there's a hint of Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette in the contemporary cinematography matched with garish historical costuming and set design. But there's a tonne of smart choices that make this a visual treat - whether that's the distorted, fish-eye style wide angled shots throwing everything off kilter, or the eccentric, off-centre framing playfully reflecting the shifting power dynamics of any given scene. Wonderful stuff, especially when combined with vibrant editing (love that extravagant cross-fading) and a rich, often discomforting soundtrack.

Altogether it's just a whole of fun - it's not without its stretches of absolute grimness, but there's a comic absurdity in everything from the costume design to the giddily profane dialogue (this has the most effective use of swear words in any film I can think of recently). Everyone's having a blast here, and I for one couldn't help but get sucked into this wicked world.

Hrududu

I love a good schemer. Really enjoyed this and laughed the whole way through it. First cinema trip of the year and it was a good way to start.

gmisk

Fysh wrote: »

I saw this yesterday and it was an excellent start to 2019 in film. As you say the three leads give phenomenal performances, along with the supporting cast (Nicholas Hoult as Harley was great).

The scheming & exploitation against a backdrop of the constantly shifting sands of the queen's affections were fascinating to watch, and as often shocking as hilarious (pretty much Lanthimos' calling card at this point).

One entertaining detail I heard about it is that Horatio the duck has his own IMDB page based on his role in the film : D

I saw this yesterday would echo what you said tbh.
I found it a lot more involving than killing of a sacred deer (that one left me cold) I did love the lobster though.
The acting was phenomenal.....I could have done without some of the "music" that almost ticking violin kind of noise was VERY irritating.

Mr E

I liked the performances more than the movie I think. Disliked the ending too.

As with the previous poster, the score was very annoying. If it's released on CD or Spotify, will there be a 5 minute track of plink/violin/plink/violin/plink/violin.... ?

Coleman did deserve her Golden Globe though.

johnny_ultimate

I thought the score/soundtrack was sort of magnificent, but in a very particular way. The more eccentric choices are there to actually gnaw at you, to make you squirm a bit, to add to that sense of everything being twisted and abnormal and uncomfortable. It works great in the context of the film, but wouldn’t necessarily listen to it on its own :pac:

Also, it’s not a Lanthimos film without an absolute troll of an ending I still remember the audience’s awkward, confused laughter when Dogtooth cut to credits... and that’s definitely become one of his signature details.

_Whimsical_

I absolutely hated it. I found it grating, lurid, crude and uncomfortable and in no way satisfying. There was nothing to muse on or provoke thought, no character development, no seemingly real relationship, nothing to take away from it as sometimes still happens with an unenjoyable film. I thought this was just a tired watery plot, a snapshot of something no one ever wanted to see. For me it bordered much more on the tragic than comedic for the most part too. The production values were surperb and Olivia Coleman was great in what she did, if the aim was to make the viewer ill at ease all the way then it succeeded, but oh, two hours of my time I'd much rather have back.

Keatsian

I enjoyed it, but from what I’ve read the film’s portrait of Anne as a simpleton easily manipulated by her confidantes is very unfair, and the portrayal of Stone’s character is highly inconsistent:

as the film shifts audience sympathy to Weiss, Stone goes from sneaking into the library to read, to a life of drunken cavorting. If her only interests were drinking and dancing, why was she ever reading?

humberklog

Loved it and loved the soundtrack.
The soundtrack, cinematography, colour scheming, editing and occasional weirdness (guy being pelted with oranges for e.g) strongly reminded of an older movie (one I didn't like)...The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover.

_Whimsical_

Keatsian wrote: »

I enjoyed it, but from what I’ve read the film’s portrait of Anne as a simpleton easily manipulated by her confidantes is very unfair, and the portrayal of Stone’s character is highly inconsistent:

as the film shifts audience sympathy to Weiss, Stone goes from sneaking into the library to read, to a life of drunken cavorting. If her only interests were drinking and dancing, why was she ever reading?

Drinking and cavorting have always been a beloved passtime of not only many readers but many great authors too.

Keatsian

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Drinking and cavorting have always been a beloved passtime of not only many readers but many great authors too.

Yes, but the film is portraying her as shallow and careless at that point - despite her previously being intelligent, resourceful and deep - because it wants the audience to switch allegiance to Weiss. The Stone character at the end of the movie will never be found in the library

Arghus

I thought it was excellent. I'm sure at the end of 2019 I'll still have it marked down as one of the year's best.

I went in expecting a biting and vicious black comedy and to a certain extent that's what I got, but I also thought the movie was far more knotty and weighty than what I had been anticipating. I can't really fault the film to any large extent - if I was nit-picking I'd probably say ten or fifteen minutes could have been lopped off at some point, but I'm not really sure where; so perhaps that's a moot point. Some of the anachronistic dialogue occasionally took me out of proceedings, but there's seems to have been a conscious decision on the part of the filmmakers to not always attempt to stay totally true to life in it's depiction of the time - and not just in terms of dialogue, some of the sets and sequences in the movie were self-consciously not of the time or borderline fantastical; that dancing scene appeared to me as perhaps the key example of this; on balance I was happy enough to go along with it.

In every other respect I thought the film was outstanding. The central and supporting performances were great. The cinematography was interesting and unexpected, the music was largely perfect in keeping you on your toes and reinforcing the idea of this all happening in a slightly off-kilter world. The plot was engaging and its themes cut deep. There were laughs, dastardly deeds, tenderness and cold-clinical cruelty. The Favourite is a great film, if you're asking me.

I must say that I'm slightly amazed that most people seem to be responding to it mainly as a comedic experience. Not that it isn't funny, there are plenty of laughs, but I think the film is at its core a tragedy of lost love. I left the cinema bummed out. I can't read that last scene and in particular that last shot as anything but reinforcement of the idea of never-ending perpetual misery for all concerned; It's hard to look at that and think "gas craic."

Fysh

Arghus wrote: »

I must say that I'm slightly amazed that most people seem to be responding to it mainly as a comedic experience. Not that it isn't funny, there are plenty of laughs, but I think the film is at its core a tragedy of lost love. I left the cinema bummed out. I can't read that last scene and in particular that last shot as anything but reinforcement of the idea of never-ending perpetual misery for all concerned; It's hard to look at that and think "gas craic."

I can sort of see that angle, but it's also to me a film about a functionally insane class and social system and what it's like operating in it - i.e. anyone caught up in it is either an arsehole to start with or is turned into one by the ridiculous pressures involved in trying to persistently stay on the good sign of a temperamental and volatile god-emperor figure who appears to have mental health issues on top of the additional stress caused by living in a society that doesn't allow her to express her inner desires.

It's tragic, but it's also bleakly funny if you let it be - there's a level of cartoonish exagerration (the dance sequence being the most obvious one) that kept me from taking it too seriously.

JP Liz V1

Would it be in the same vein as Dangerous Liaisons?

homerun_homer

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Would it in the same vein as Dangerous Liaisons?

No.

El Duda

Saw this last night and enjoyed it. As has been said before, i think the performances were perhaps more enjoyable than the plot itself.

The script is great, especially the colourful language. Some great splashes of humour throughout. I thought the underlying theme of the film is trauma. Abigail makes a few references to rape/being raped whilst Anne is obviously massively affected by her many failed pregnancies. Everything about Coleman's performance hinted at pain, both mental and physcial. Past and present. Externalised and internalised. She should win the Oscar.

restive

Very enjoyable, grotesque, I had fun.
Deffinelty not a history lesson. Basically historically it's bunk.

Always Tired

I love YL's other films but thought this was far less unique and original than the others. Period piece, 3 female leads, I'm sure it ticks a lot of boxes for critics but it's not a patch on The Lobster IMO

murpho999

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I thought the score/soundtrack was sort of magnificent, but in a very particular way. The more eccentric choices are there to actually gnaw at you, to make you squirm a bit, to add to that sense of everything being twisted and abnormal and uncomfortable. It works great in the context of the film, but wouldn’t necessarily listen to it on its own :pac:

Also, it’s not a Lanthimos film without an absolute troll of an ending I still remember the audience’s awkward, confused laughter when Dogtooth cut to credits... and that’s definitely become one of his signature details.

I'm going to this on Sunday. Looking forward to it.

Interesting what you say about the director.

I have not seen any of his work yet. Would you recommend I do so beforehand to enhance enjoyment?

Dogtooth & The Lobster the two best?

gmisk

Always Tired wrote: »

I love YL's other films but thought this was far less unique and original than the others. Period piece, 3 female leads, I'm sure it ticks a lot of boxes for critics but it's not a patch on The Lobster IMO

I actually preferred that it was a bit less weird than some of his other films.
Overall I preferred dogtooth and the lobster, but I much preferred this one to killing of a sacred deer.

johnny_ultimate

murpho999 wrote: »

I'm going to this on Sunday. Looking forward to it.

Interesting what you say about the director.

I have not seen any of his work yet. Would you recommend I do so beforehand to enhance enjoyment?

Dogtooth & The Lobster the two best?

The Favourite’s actually your best bet to start! It’s more accessible without losing its edge IMO.

Dogtooth’s my favourite after that, with the advisory that it’s super-dark and weird even compared to the rest. But it was a blast of fresh air at the time with its distinctive visuals, pitch black comedy and oddball delivery.

Then I’d say The Lobster > Sacred Deer > Alps. Alps is the only properly so-so one though.

_Whimsical_

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

I absolutely hated it. I found it grating, lurid, crude and uncomfortable and in no way satisfying. There was nothing to muse on or provoke thought, no character development, no seemingly real relationship, nothing to take away from it as sometimes still happens with an unenjoyable film. I thought this was just a tired watery plot, a snapshot of something no one ever wanted to see. For me it bordered much more on the tragic than comedic for the most part too. The production values were surperb and Olivia Coleman was great in what she did, if the aim was to make the viewer ill at ease all the way then it succeeded, but oh, two hours of my time I'd much rather have back.

Seconded in every way. I hated it. I wanted to leave so early on.

loyatemu wrote: »

In "The Lobster" the actors read their lines as if from cue cards, which I assume they were told to do for effect.

As much as I hated The Lobster, I think the point was that they all had zero emotional depth and couldn't connect to people on more than a superficial level. So they probably sounded wooden on purpose

marvin80

Caught this in the cinema last night - enjoyable and thought the ending was good.

smallgarden

I liked the first half but I really didn't like how it ended. The flashing bunny images were just a bit disturbing. I found myself watching the bunnies instead of the actors in film at times. It was certainly different and didn't realise before I watched it that it was the same director as the lobster. I would have been expecting the quirkyness

marvin80

My thoughts - probably wrong but anyway:

The rabbits represented each of Queen Anne's children that she lost (which she mentioned). There her pets, a bit like Sarah and Abigail. Abigail became her favourite and Sarah said to Abigail 'you think you've won'. We later see Abigail stepping on one of the rabbits necks like she's going to kill it. Anne sees this and becomes hostile to Abigail telling her to get down on her knees and rub her leg. In that moment Abigail realises she's just a pet like the rabbits and also Sarah was right - Abigail has to put up with all this mad stuff with Anne while Sarah 'escapes'.

The Rape of Lucretia

It was entertaining, but not great. No way deserving of the sack full of Oscar nominations.

The strongest point in its favour in awards season, in the current climate, is probably its superficial Strong Roles for Women.

The interest in most almost throughout, whether through the acting, or dialogue style, camerawork, or gratuitous coarseness, was playfulness and subverting of the accepted norms of a period drama.
The acting was no great shakes from the three at all. It was dangerously close to exposing itself several times, when it almost strayed into a French and Saunders type parody. It was sitcom style. Not real acting at all. Nicholas Hoult was pretty good though.

It looked very well. And the soundtrack in the Bach, Vivaldi snippets were well chosen, but, mein gott in himmel, tock-ping-tock-ping incidental thing was a travesty. I was wondering was it a digital glitch in the sound system for a moment. Dreadful.

The drama misfired. If the change in character, or exposing of them as different to their first presentation of the Weisz and Stone characters was intentional, it was crude, if it wasnt even intended, then it was a shoddy inconsistency. The final scene was a cop out nothing.

Wombatman

Yeah, much the same as above. Didn't do it for me. Crude and lacking subtlety. "She stepped on a bunny, she must be a baddie". The intrigue wasn't intriguing, the wit not that witty. The dialog randomly switching from period to contemporary was annoying and lazy. Sets, costumes and Harley are the best things about it.

5/10

gmisk

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It was entertaining, but not great. No way deserving of the sack full of Oscar nominations.

The strongest point in its favour in awards season, in the current climate, is probably its superficial Strong Roles for Women.

The interest in most almost throughout, whether through the acting, or dialogue style, camerawork, or gratuitous coarseness, was playfulness and subverting of the accepted norms of a period drama.
The acting was no great shakes from the three at all. It was dangerously close to exposing itself several times, when it almost strayed into a French and Saunders type parody. It was sitcom style. Not real acting at all. Nicholas Hoult was pretty good though.

It looked very well. And the soundtrack in the Bach, Vivaldi snippets were well chosen, but, mein gott in himmel, tock-ping-tock-ping incidental thing was a travesty. I was wondering was it a digital glitch in the sound system for a moment. Dreadful.

The drama misfired. If the change in character, or exposing of them as different to their first presentation of the Weisz and Stone characters was intentional, it was crude, if it wasnt even intended, then it was a shoddy inconsistency. The final scene was a cop out nothing.

THIS!!!!
I enjoyed the film a lot more than you but that sound really grated.

murpho999

Wombatman wrote: »

Yeah, much the same as above. Didn't do it for me. Crude and lacking subtlety. "She stepped on a bunny, she must be a baddie". The intrigue wasn't intriguing, the wit not that witty. The dialog randomly switching from period to contemporary was annoying and lazy. Sets, costumes and Harley are the best things about it.

5/10

I don't get this accusation of being crude or lacking subtlety.

Why does a film have to be subtle to be good?

As for crudeness. Crudeness is not a new invention, people have always been crude and bad language existed back then too so I do not see why it can' t be used.
I actually thought the swearing was very apt and the only other crude scene was a sex scene.

Overall I really enjoyed the film,well acted, interesting and funny with plenty to think about afterwards.

I find it fully deserving of its Oscar nominations and expect t to win some too.

Wombatman

murpho999 wrote: »

I don't get this accusation of being crude or lacking subtlety.

Why does a film have to be subtle to be good?

As for crudeness. Crudeness is not a new invention, people have always been crude and bad language existed back then too so I do not see why it can' t be used.
I actually thought the swearing was very apt and the only other crude scene was a sex scene.

Overall I really enjoyed the film,well acted, interesting and funny with plenty to think about afterwards.

I find it fully deserving of its Oscar nominations and expect t to win some too.

Different strokes my friend. We don't have to agree when comes to art. I found the film-making crude, not necessarily the content BTW. Tell us what you found so thought provoking?

ThePott

Liked it, didn't love it. Definitely a great performance piece.
All three leads were great but I feel like the plot lost focus about halfway through and more or less spun it's wheels till the end. I think it worked when it leant into the absurd comedic stuff but it didn't have a sufficient dramatic punch for me to really care all that much about the characters or story.

I really think from the nominees I've seen (only have to see Green Book and Roma now) that it's a really weak year for best picture.

Aidric

Went to see this today with high expectations, not because of the awards buzz but because I have thoroughly enjoyed the previous works of Lanthimos.

It seems slightly bizarre to say that the 3 female leads produced performances of the highest caliber yet I still feel it fell flat as a whole. One scene in particular where Colman called a halt to a dance and then it cut to a facial shot of her. The dead hopeless resignation in her eyes was very powerful.

The story just never sprung to life. All the protagonists agenda was clear from the first moment they were on screen. There was no element of surprise or a moment that made me stand up. I was slumped in my seat appreciating the visual beauty of it all but hoping for an arc to jolt me out of my seat. Alas it never came.

Flyingsnowball

I watched it a few weeks ago. Good film, I enjoyed it.

It’s also good to see good quality films with female leads. I think there has been a lot of crap churned out the last few years which the media has called great just because it had a black or female cast.
This actually is well written and will be enjoyed because it’s well executed and not because it’s well intentioned.

CatFromHue

It does make the way Annihilation just came and went seem strange when that's a pretty much all female cast too.

Birneybau

I thought Olivia Colman deserved vast recognition for Paddy Considine's 'Tyrannosaur' so glad she's up for an Oscar for this. Found it very entertaining myself.

The Rape of Lucretia

Flyingsnowball wrote: »

I watched it a few weeks ago. Good film, I enjoyed it.

It’s also good to see good quality films with female leads.

Maybe that is part of its problem. It a reasonable film. But the agenda and drive to find movies with female leads is unfairly pounced upon and puffed beyond their real merit. Which can be counterproductive and provoke the opposite reaction, with people asking why the acclaim, that was only meh.

Frank O. Pinion

"I am rock hard and it is our wedding night!"

Find a better line from this year's Best Picture nominees. Great film, but I much prefer Lanthimos films that are also written by him. I love the way lines are delivered in The Lobster. The Lobster and The Killing of A Sacred Deer are #1 films for 2015 and 2017 for me, The Favourite is probably only Top 20 for 2018. I still hope it wins Best Picture (and wins all the other Oscar nominations it has, with Stone over Weisz for Supporting Actress), but I just like his weirder stuff more.

gmisk

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

"I am rock hard and it is our wedding night!"

Find a better line from this year's Best Picture nominees. Great film, but I much prefer Lanthimos films that are also written by him. I love the way lines are delivered in The Lobster. The Lobster and The Killing of A Sacred Deer are #1 films for 2015 and 2017 for me, The Favourite is probably only Top 20 for 2018. I still hope it wins Best Picture (and wins all the other Oscar nominations it has, with Stone over Weisz for Supporting Actress), but I just like his weirder stuff more.

I thought the lobster was fantastic, the killing of a sacred deer was an interesting mess though IMO at best. The acting was bizarre and stilted, there wasnt much of a story, Barry Keoghan was creepy as hell but his accent was abysmal.

dudara

Finally managed to see this during the week in the IFI, and I have to say that I 95% loved it.

Three strong performances from the female leads, plus Nicholas Hoult also. I have a soft spot for Rachel Weisz and I thought she was magnificent in this. A lot of classic themes in the story, but told a little unconventionally. I actually enjoyed the occasional mash-up of contemporary and period.

I didn’t like the ending, I simply don’t feel that it did the characters justice and it seemed to simply give up. And the plink/plunk music got to me at times. It felt like a bad art house score.

Overall though, very good.

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Watched this movie based on Sophie (peep show) winning an Oscar for it. What I loved was the battle and the dynamic between Weisz and Stone, it was masterfully done and those two acted their hearts out. I have a soft spot for political machinations film and this one pressed all the right buttons.

What I dislike is does Sophie deserve an Oscar for that? Hell no. She did so little in the movie. Barely said anything or do any real acting. The other two were far better than her in every way, Weisz in particular.

Emma Stone wrote:

Have you come to seduce or rape me? <line> Rape then.

The Rape of Lucretia

Fletcher Flaky Wimp wrote: »

Have you come to seduce or rape me? Rape then.

I thought that line suggesting women were blasé or so matter of fact about rape, once upon a time was the most daring line in the movie, and surprised it was accepted in todays censored atmosphere.