|
None of those movies are really bad; Avatar is the worst of the three and it's still, like, fine, just kind of forgettable and clumsy. V for Vendetta is a solid enough adaptation of an amazing comic, and Joker, as I mentioned, whips loving rear end. The common thread there isn't quality, though; it's hammer-blunt "gently caress THE RICH" messaging. Which makes it hilarious that the intelligentsia of the internet are PBFing it so goddamn hard.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
It's a movie that flat out says beating the poo poo out of cops and killing rich people is funny.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's a movie that flat out says beating the poo poo out of cops and killing rich people is funny. loving exactly. Like, this is really not a particularly subtle movie about what the audience is intended to take away. It's one of the loudest, angriest and most direct movies in this regard I can think of. e: I'm actually really curious if Todd Phillips has dealt with the intersection of poverty and severe mental illness himself, or if he knows someone who has, because it felt too loving real at times with how Arthur is portrayed. It's kind of genuinely amazing how this movie manages to be both violently, homicidally angry at those in power, and deeply empathetic for their victims, even when those victims themselves do lovely things. Like, I feel like the framing of the violence is instructive here. When Arthur kills a rich and powerful person, it's handled like something like Natural Born Killers, with the camera and score and aesthetics trying desperately to get your adrenaline pumping the way his is. The subway murder scene is anxiety-attack-inducing. When he kills his mother, or the asshat clown, though, it's not framed the same way: it's just a raw act of violence, the poor eating their own, with the film taking a much more detached view of the violence to make this clear. WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 22:29 on Nov 4, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:23
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/culturecrave/status/1191200277677801473?s=21
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's Alfred as told by someone else. I don't even get the point of the argument. It was a perfectly proportional response. Alfred arrived at the gate almost immediately and threatened the random weirdo away and protected Bruce. It's not like he should have done a backflip over the gate and snapped Arthur's neck. He doesn't know he's a few days away from becoming Bruce's lifelong arch enemy. I think you can assume Alfred was still hardcore, but that he was a butler and his job wasn't to murder or beat up every rando who shows up outside the gates of Wayne Manor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's a movie that flat out says beating the poo poo out of cops and killing rich people is funny. you sayin it isn't?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
LORD OF BOOTY posted:God, this movie whips rear end. My favorite little thing about this movie is how Thomas Wayne's position on the poor includes some condescending save-them-from-themselves rhetoric that tries to make it sound like taking agency away from the disadvantaged is in their best interest whether they like it or not. It's so infuriatingly self-righteous, perfect for a doctor-turned-businessman-turned-politician. And all too true to reality from my own experience, people who think the poor are too stupid and lazy to manage their own lives pass off those kinds of "it's for their own good" platitudes all too easily.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
1glitch0 posted:I don't even get the point of the argument. It was a perfectly proportional response. Alfred arrived at the gate almost immediately and threatened the random weirdo away and protected Bruce. It's not like he should have done a backflip over the gate and snapped Arthur's neck. He doesn't know he's a few days away from becoming Bruce's lifelong arch enemy. I think you can assume Alfred was still hardcore, but that he was a butler and his job wasn't to murder or beat up every rando who shows up outside the gates of Wayne Manor. I wanted to take this view as I was watching the scene unfold, but iirc Alfred, once released, staggers back and coughs; he was not in control of that altercation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:05
|
|
|
I wonder if there was a Gotham blackout in '77, otherwise it might be the joker riots that created hip hop in this DC universe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2019 15:46
|
|
|
Jack B Nimble posted:I wanted to take this view as I was watching the scene unfold, but iirc Alfred, once released, staggers back and coughs; he was not in control of that altercation. That fateful meeting broke something in Alfred, and he later retreated into a fantasy world where he's a badass ex-SAS soldier who fights for justice. It'll all be explained in Joker 2: Alfred.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2019 16:33
|
|
|
Donnerberg posted:That fateful meeting broke something in Alfred, and he later retreated into a fantasy world where he's a badass ex-SAS soldier who fights for justice. It'll all be explained in Joker 2: Alfred. I hope they get Neil Gaiman to write it like he did the comic book version.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
Philips confirmed that Arthur didn't kill Sophie. It wasn't really supposed to be ambiguous like the other stuff in the movie. Also if it hasn't been linked, the Peter Coffin take on the film is pretty good and did a good job at expressing some stuff I had struggled to find words for (the individual catharsis vs. allyship stuff) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIjNdZ1lAc4
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2019 03:17
|
|
|
Roman posted:Philips confirmed that Arthur didn't kill Sophie. It wasn't really supposed to be ambiguous like the other stuff in the movie. This feels like Stephen King not realizing Jack Torrance was always an abusive alcoholic. Arthur may believe he left her alone but the movie shows time and again he’s someone who acts on snap impulses. In his memory, he was chivalrous to her and left her alone when asked. In reality, he stalked and terrorized her and his clear pattern of reactionary violence leads to only one conclusion. He may have spared the daughter in the way he “spared” his coworker. In essence, his coworkers were stand-ins to Arthur’s violence against his neighbor in the same way the subway yuppies were stand-ins for the kids who stomped him out in the opening credits. The movie in every way is a play on the obfuscated origins presented in Dark Knight but there’s no doubt on the opening motivations for Arthur’s path since they’re visually shown to us in the first moments of the movie.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2019 11:00
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:It's a movie that flat out says beating the poo poo out of cops and killing rich people is funny. To be fair, the three rich people were killed in self defense. The only questionable scene is when Joker finishes off one of them after he was trying to get away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 17:50
|
|
|
Anyone else lol in the theater when the clown shoots Wayne? The guy feels so invincible that when confronted in a dark alley - even as he tries to escape the riots - he reverts to his imperious self that we saw on the TV, turns around with his head high. The clown goes: "Hey, Wayne!" and Wayne turns around confidently as if to say "Speaking." BANG. Cracked my poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 18:38
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:This feels like Stephen King not realizing Jack Torrance was always an abusive alcoholic. The social worker tells it like it is and offers sympathy, but Arthur rejects her, because he doesn't think she's listening to him and telling him what he wants to hear. The medical records guy knows the files will upset Arthur, but Arthur doesn't care and takes it anyway. The only black person who is giving Arthur what HE wants is the imaginary version of Sophie who comforts him and boosts his ego. But when that bubble pops, she's just a stranger with her own problems who's scared for her child. Arthur doesn't care about that poo poo because it doesn't help HIM, so he just walks away. The last significant black person in the movie is the asylum interviewer in the last scene. Killing her represents the complete refusal of any "allyship" because they don't "get it." This is why he's not actually a "working class hero." It's all about his selfishness, his own catharsis. Roman fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Nov 11, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Just finished the movie an hour or so ago. It was interesting, even good, though I admit that I checked my watch more than a couple of times. When it first came out, I saw the Michael Bay Transformers movie. My biggest problem with it was that it couldn't quite seem to decide what movie it wanted to be. Was it a fun kid's movie about a couple of kids helping their alien robot friends find the All-spark? Or was it an action-horror movie about these scary alien death machine that disguised themselves as Earth technology before murdering the hell out of people? So, the movie lurched awkwardly between those concepts like Transformer stuck halfway between forms. Joker can't quite decide whether it wants to be the chronicle of the disintegrations of one man's humanity and mental stability or really wants to give the origin story of Batman's greatest nemesis. For the most part it sticks with the former story. This is fortunate because at no point does Arthur Fleck seem like someone who could give a serious challenge to Batman. Or, honestly, a mildly competent police officer. I have kind of an "rear end in a top hat saying" when people sometimes complain about something, especially when they do that "Why is that happening." One response I'll make is "God wants you to suffer because your tears make Him giggle." That's my impression of why Arthur is as "successful" as he was - because God/the universe/Cthulhu/whatever thought it'd be funny. He gets his gun because someone else gives it him. He's able to kill the Wayne guys because they were stupidly drunk. He "inspires" the city by accident. And so it goes through to the end of the movie. Given the timeline, my take is that Arthur Fleck is someone who inspires the real Joker. Otherwise he's closer to being one of Heath Ledger Joker's mentally damaged henchmen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 22:52
|
|
|
For all the "real" Joker vs. inspiration for the Joker, I find it's kind of an odd thing to focus on. It's not the same universe as other Jokers and who knows what the interpretation of Batman would even be like in this world. Maybe Batman will have some weird fetish for people sticking their fingers in his mouth. I don't know, but this was sold as an original origin story for the Joker and unless they decide to revisit this universe to expand upon Arthur's narrative, I personally think it's best to appreciate it for being a self contained story of the Joker.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:05
|
|
|
A Joker who's successful because he's wildly unpredictable and extremely lucky could be potentially more interesting than the 12 dimensional chess playing super genius we've come to know him as
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
iamsosmrt posted:For all the "real" Joker vs. inspiration for the Joker, I find it's kind of an odd thing to focus on. It's not the same universe as other Jokers and who knows what the interpretation of Batman would even be like in this world. Maybe Batman will have some weird fetish for people sticking their fingers in his mouth. I don't know, but this was sold as an original origin story for the Joker and unless they decide to revisit this universe to expand upon Arthur's narrative, I personally think it's best to appreciate it for being a self contained story of the Joker. Or at least the self-contained story of Arthur Fleck. As for Batman, I think it'd be interesting if revisiting this universe revealed that Bruce Wayne, traumatized by the murder of his parents during what will almost certainly be called the Joker Riot, grew up to become The Batman Who Laughs. Roman posted:A Joker who's successful because he's wildly unpredictable and extremely lucky could be potentially more interesting than the 12 dimensional chess playing super genius we've come to know him as That's true. Though I really don't see Arthur Fleck as that guy. It looked more like the reason Fleck did as well as he did was that everyone else was kind of really loving stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 00:19
|
|
|
the best part about the movie is that the whole thing was just another of joker's made up bullshit origin stories
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 05:24
|
|
|
Just give me Cabinet of Dr. Caligari Batman, dammit
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 05:44
|
|
|
Doorknob Slobber posted:the best part about the movie is that the whole thing was just another of joker's made up bullshit origin stories Yet another reason to hate the demise of Heath Ledger. A perfect post-credits scene for this movie would be a cut to the Ledger Joker in Arkham with: Other Inmate: I got all that, but I still don't understand how you got those scars. Joker: Oh, right, as I was saying... *pulls out a knife and slits the guy's throat.*
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 20:23
|
|
|
The way Arthur runs chasing after the kids in the very beginning with those giant clown shoes on is exactly the way he still runs down Arkham mental hospital stealing the records while wearing normal shoes. They either filmed those scenes back to back or Joaquin is the greatest method actor ever
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 21:22
|
|
|
The original music here is by the same person who did Sicario 2 soundtrack. Say what you will about the film, but the music is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
She did the incredible score for Chernobyl as well!
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 22:38
|
|
|
I want a supercut of every time Martha Wayne's pearls break and slow-mo spill into the gutter. Has there even been a Batman movie without this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 23:01
|
|
|
Firstborn posted:I want a supercut of every time Martha Wayne's pearls break and slow-mo spill into the gutter. Has there even been a Batman movie without this? Batman v Superman? I think there's a point where Affleck recalls the murder but I don't really remember.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
Everyone posted:Batman v Superman? I think there's a point where Affleck recalls the murder but I don't really remember.
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 00:04
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb-9As7YzwY 2:38
|
|
#
?
Nov 13, 2019 00:06
|
|
|
My opinion, for whatever it's worth. I loved this movie and was simultaneously disappointed by it. It's like a fistful of scattered jewels; beautiful to look at, mesmerising even, but lacking the structure that would make it all so much more. Phoenix deserves an Oscar. Daylight robbery is he's passed over. The story, however, does not. Here's the crux of the problem: there wasn't enough Wayne. See, Heath Ledger's Joker was an absolute force of nature and Bale's Batman so very human. If you're going to make your Joker so very human, as Phoenix so very successfully did, then Wayne Industries needs to be that force of nature. Everywhere. Inescapable. The movie got the idea right: random insignificant dude unwittingly starts a revolution. But where I would add to that is that the revolution had to be against Wayne Industries itself. Gotham went bankrupt. Wayne Industries bailed it out and started implementing massive austerity. Its reasons for doing so were obvious and its actions necessary, the viewer needed to be guided to agree on that point, but also be disgusted by the human cost, the devastation to real lives. The idea behind the girlfriend was a great one, how easily that relationship came into being, but her kid should have been cut as she served no real purpose. The girlfriend also should have been younger to the point where it made the viewer uncomfortable and subservient to the point where the viewer questioned her sanity. She's in Arthur's head, after all, and with his lack of experience in this regard he doesn't know the mind and behaviours of a real woman, only his fantasies of what a woman and a relationship is like. The talk show scene: it was telegraphed that someone was going to get shot, taking away the impact of the moment. It would have been better thus: Joker: Knock knock. Murray: Who's there? Joker: BANG! Also, another misstep here in that scene is that Joker states he's not political, he doesn't believe in anything, which is a perfect response after all that has happened to him. Then he goes on an explicitly political rant. What gives? Way to rub your message in our faces. But I'm glad they steered well away from having Joker himself kill the Wayne's and gave him a watertight alibi in that regard: he was on TV (or in a police car) at the time. It means that Batman can fight Joker as a symbol of chaos rather than for the vengeance of it. Having Bruce in it served no purpose other than fan service, unless the intention is to have a Pattison vs Phoenix showdown in the next movie. The final scene also was unnecessary as it added nothing to my eyes. Exioce fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Nov 14, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 20:20
|
|
|
Arthur wanted Sophie to comfort and support him and boost his ego Mentioning her kid was a reminder that Sophie's affection/loyalty was towards someone other than Arthur, and also he was actually seen as a threat to what she really cared about, which was not Arthur. Therefore Sophie ceased to be useful for his fantasies
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Roman posted:Arthur wanted Sophie to comfort and support him and boost his ego They weren't fantasies so much s delusions. While on his medication, Arthur was prone to vivid fantasies (being welcomed on the Murray show). Off it he lost his ability to tell the different betray what's real and what was in his head. When we see that all those times Arthur was with Sophie he was alone, Arthur is realizing that at the same times. That's why he lets her and her child live. He recognizes that she didn't betray him, his own brain did. Up to the end, the people Arthur hurts and kills ar the ones he perceives (mostly correctly) to have actively betrayed or harmed him. Sophie had not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 03:03
|
|
|
How did Murray betray him?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:03
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:How did Murray betray him? Did you watch the movie?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:08
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:How did Murray betray him? From Arthur's point of view? From being just one more unempathetic and abusive man of wealth and influence. From ours? He didn't, and Arthur's murder is part of his general slide of performingly increasingly less appropriate or proportionate revenge on the people who wronged him. The drunk guys, the coworker, Murray, the social worker, each of them deserves it less. Jack B Nimble fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Nov 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:13
|
|
|
ruddiger posted:How did Murray betray him? Arthur had built Murray up in his head as an ersatz father figure, someone who would mentor him and give him a path to acceptance in the comedy world. When he actually gets Murray's attention, it's decidedly not this: Murray puts him up as a figure to mock and disdain, someone who has no path to acceptance and isn't even deserving of the thought. This pisses Arthur off pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:14
|
|
|
Murray never mocks Arthur and even tho he showed the clip of Arthur bombing, he never says anything outright nasty or malicious while presenting it, and makes a conscious effort to fight the producers into turning Arthur’s presence into a geek show. The only time he becomes aggressive is when he finds out Arthur is a murderer and demands him to own up to the killing rather than let Arthur keep making excuses on why he did it. Arthur of course is oblivious to this since his whole m.o. throughout the movie is projection and transference, backed up by the parallel juxtapositions Arthur faces but never confronts except through proxies (the street kids and the yuppies, the mother and child on the bus and his neighbor, his father and his mother, etc.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:33
|
|
|
i think it's a little overly generous to say murray isn't mocking arthur when he airs that clip, although it is true that when he's actually got him on the show he's willing to give him more a chance than you'd expect and at the same time murray's not really aware that the real pain of playing that clip is that it directly contradicts arthur's delusion that he wins over the crowd after a rough beginning, so arthur is still projecting more malice in airing a humiliating clip of him than the average person might
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 22:05 |
|
|
What Murray did was no different than what his neighbor did when she exposed him to the horrors of his reality. My question is why are people expecting two different outcomes when Arthur’s clearly established a pattern of reactionary violence when confronted with the truth. When the “reveal” happened with the neighbor, I was kinda hoping it would just keep going, and we learn that the single mother on the bus also wasn’t real, he doesn’t have a job and has no coworkers, he never confronted Wayne and just yelled at the gate, he really did just lose his sign in the beginning, etc. Just make it completely farcical.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2019 04:50
|
|