I came here because the high ratings were bothering me. This feels like one of those films by a director that has grand ideas but actually very little experience in the real world (that leads to what can only be described as pretentious outcomes). Now by "experience of the real world" I don't mean that the films premise needed to be more grounded, far from it, some of the most outlandish unbelievable (heck even total fantasy) stories can feel grounded thanks their attention to detail that make them (or their world) believable. I mean here that the details/this world is so unbelievable that the whole experience is boring/an insult.

This manifests itself most prominently in the character's and their development.

There are collections of character traits bundled and attached to two main groups of characters: poor and rich. Presumably this is to make the overall plot work (the poor are conniving and greedy and the rich are... well rich? And apparently dumb with their lack of curiosity and poor decision making). This falls apart almost immediately when the poorer family show signs of being sloppy (they can't be bothered to fold the pizza boxes properly and do not understand what's wrong when there is complaint) yet have meticulous attention to detail (they perform an A-class service to the richer family on demand?). Both seemingly motivated by their want for money. If they were indeed driven by money via attention to detail, they would have had a million opportunities in-between these extremes.

If we are to feel anything for this family, they need to hold some values we can warm to. The suggestion that they are hard-working well-meaning individuals simply down on their luck is once again rendered unbelievable when they take the nasty decision to harm the original house made of the house. There is no dog-eat-dog need to do this, again if they used the smarts on display within this household outside of this household, they would inevitably be more successful and have less need to do this. Yet it is this utterly flawed down-on-luck narrative that upholds the social commentary of "unfair class divides" that apparently makes this film amazing.

The treatment of the rich is also highly flawed. If they are (as many critics have read from this) representations of greed and ignorance, why is the mother then only one that seems to be treating people kindly and fairly? If this is a commentary on how people behave - it is the mother and father of the rich family that are the kindest and fairest and how are we to feel badly towards them or their situation?

This inconsistency leads me to view this as a poor treatment of the "poor person" stereotype and much less than being a statement on society this film is actually an embarrassing statement on the directors ignorance.

This perhaps is forgivable, not all directors have had the world experience and who is to stop them from making a film? It looks nice at least. What is not forgivable is that the Oscars can't see this for what it is (nor the endless reviewers). The pretentiousness therefore is mirrored in the critics praise - they think they understand a clever observation on society, but all they are revealing is their own poor understanding of class and how people work. Forgivable again perhaps for the average viewer, but critics with large audiences? There's your statement on society: people with loud voices haven't got a ******* clue.