Anyone who covers a film festival has dealt with it at one point or another. (More likely they deal with it several times a year.) You go to Sundance, to SXSW, to Toronto, etc., and see a film you really like. At this point the movie is just one of 250 at the festival, although maybe it has some "big names" or something to it. A few other writers end up agreeing with you that the film is quite good, and then the audiences have their say ... and mostly everyone is in agreement: good movie! And then ... it happens: Not just a handful of contrary-yet-insightful opinions, but a full-blown backlash.

"Dude, I just read your rave on Juno. You overhyped it! It freaking sucks!" --or-- "Martyrs isn't so great. The horror guys always over-praise the stuff they see early." --or-- "Did all the Sundance critics get together and just blindly pick a movie to rave over?" --- and stuff much nastier than that. I was one of the first film critics to see Juno, which at Toronto was just another comedy with a cool cast, until everyone saw it, that is. Then it was the darling of the festival, and I was thrilled to play along. Because I sincerely adore that flick. So did I contribute to the "overhype" on Juno? What about Waitress? I fell in love with that flick at Sundance as well, it came and went without finding a massive audience, and nobody accused me of overhyping the movie.
categories Cinematical