I saw a simple favor as well

I didnt expected much from that movie and ended up liking it.

Going to see this one now… Hope it’s good!

My favorite character so far is the Columbo-esque police-detective.

This is actually kinda boring. (Not trying to make this a live-log, but there’s no one else in the theater.)

My first big laugh in the movie: “Are you trying to Diabolique me?”

The whole movie was really disappointing.

Lively was good, but Kendrick—what’s with her? She’s pretty and bubbly and I like her, but she seems to give the same performance in every single movie she’s in. (She was a terribly-cast Cinderella in that awful Into the Woods adaptation.) Critics liked her “awkwardness,” but it’s less an awkwardness than an affectation, and she does it in every movie. Admittedly, she reminded me here of a high-pitched, always-smiling guidance counselor in high school who never understood me, so there’s that too. Kendrick comes off as so sweet that when she has to curse the words don’t go with her. She has a meek little voice, even when she’s supposed to have taken the initiative and come into her own. Lively has a strong, queenly voice, and her dialogue goes with her. Lively does a good job and is apt in her role, while Kendrick fits the mommy-blogger but not the changed woman at the end.

As everyone here has said, the twists are obvious. Ridiculously obvious. So obvious that I thought they were going to do twists on the twists—which they didn’t. Very disappointing. But what’s even more extraordinary is that the director can’t even seem to direct jokes. There’s this bit with a sinister guy with a double-barrelled shotgun, and the joke is remarkably obvious—so that, surprise gone, it becomes unfunny. A joke, like a twist, ought to be a step ahead of the viewer’s expectation, or else it becomes boring because we’ve already (if unconsciously) realized what was going on.

Speaking of the director, has anyone noticed how bad the direction was in this? Utterly pedestrian and utilitarian, without any flourish or color or even skill; there are some cuts between completely static scenes (this is the difference between sculpture and dance, as Sarris pointed out). The sets, the clothes, those amazing Saul Bass credits, and the music are so good that they tend to disguise this fact, but it’s directed so poorly for a big-budget release. I recently saw the movie The Nun, which I (and only I, apparently!) loved. That got mixed reviews, and this is getting good reviews, but just compare the two: there’s constantly something on-screen for The Nun, constantly something to attract our attentions when longueurs threaten. The director for A Simple Favor, on the other hand, doesn’t know how to fill his canvas; because he can’t attract our attention, longueurs not only threaten but actually occur, quite frequently. I was bored for long stretches of this movie.

I don’t want to criticize this too much. I liked Lively, I loved the cop (in a small role, unfortunately), I thought the husband was OK. But none of this is surprising, and very little of it is actually funny. The jokes don’t land. It tries to be more cynical than it actually is. There’s a very good sequence—not well-directed, not funny, but well-written—in which Kendrick plays Nancy Drew and sleuths around an old Gothic manse. I liked that; I would have liked more of that. But the movie didn’t give me much of it.

The critics, I bet, were blown away by the aesthetics—but those aesthetics are costume and set design, and not much more. How can a movie with sets and costumes this good look this bad? A definite disappointment.

Sorry to keep going on about this, but I just watched an episode (“Almost Got ‘Im!”) of a kids’ TV show, Batman: The Animated Series—and that had a better twist than A Simple Favor!