Remember: videogames don't cause violence but a movie about the Joker does
Damn is the scene really that intense?
Without spoilers, where does it land on a scale from 1 to Last 15 Minutes of First Reformed?
People on twitter saying...People on Twitter are saying that Toronto reactions are very different from those of Venice. Seems like critics there are looking at the film from a social angle compared to the artistic angle that we saw in Venice.
Ehhh depends. Some people are able to spoil themselves, yet still enjoy the movie just as much. I know I'm one of them. Tho i didn't see the clip, i do know what happens, and I'm excited to see what gets us there.I haven't watched those clips, but aren't they from the climax of the film? Surprised that people would spoil some of the best parts of the film for themselves.
What makes the movie great is the slow buildup to those scenes.
It's inevitable, but I don't like comparing this Joker to other Jokers. Leto's Joker is a side character with like 5 minutes of screentime. Phoenix's Joker is his own movie, unrestricted by a PG-13 rating or having to play by any rules of canon... Technically, he's not even the Joker. Even to Ledger and Nicholson it's an unfair comparison.Jared leto must feel awful, I didn't hate him in squad but what a lackluster version compared to ledger and pheonix, if he gets a shot at it again he really needs to change it around from zany mob boss.
The scene where he teleported behind Batman and said "nothing personal kid." I felt that.
Bet some are salty.
I unashamedly love his Lex. And I think the rooftop scenes are absolutely brilliant.
I unashamedly love his Lex. And I think the rooftop scenes are absolutely brilliant.
He got a Razzie nomination which is the true kino award.Should have gotten an oscar nomination for best supporting actor for that performance.
Don't see why people think this movie is going to inspire incels when Trump's twitter account is already doing that and is free.That joker topic is something else. So many people with agendas. The loudest ones always seem like they post a lot in you know what threads.
Not if they called him the Riddler. He would've been fucking perfect in that role.Maybe its because I'm indifferent to Lex as a character that them changing him didnt bother me in the least.
I thought he was good in the role as it was written. And I just liked the take on him. I thought Jesse gave a great performance for what it was. But I'm also a snyder fan and an eisenberg fan so.
Loved the rooftop scene, loved the red capes are coming scene, loved the bells have been rung scene and I loved his theme music.
If his character was called something else would people still hate him?
That joker topic is something else. So many people with agendas. The loudest ones always seem like they post a lot in you know what threads.
As expected, more "this movie is bad for society" takes. I understand why people might have that idea but unfortunately them complaining about it leads to demented individuals taking advantage of the situation. So instead of blaming the abundance and easy access of guns or the lack of mental health care future mass murderers can just say "well joker made me do it." It's just so stupid.
As expected, more "this movie is bad for society" takes. I understand why people might have that idea but unfortunately them complaining about it leads to demented individuals taking advantage of the situation. So instead of blaming the abundance and easy access of guns or the lack of mental health care future mass murderers can just say "well joker made me do it." It's just so stupid.
At least these critics might feel vindicated though... which is probably what they want to feel right now.
And to think, the movie just needed Batman to show up near the end and beat the crap out of Joker. That would teach all incels not to commit mass murder, or else face the wrath of Batman.
It's less "media causes violence" and more, "Hey, what is your movie putting out there?" IT Chapter 2 begins with a much-talked about hate crime for example, and part of the conversation has been on the necessary nature of it in the film, and how that portrayal was handled. People of course go back and forth on that.
The Joker thing has largely been about how his motivations line up with similar real-world ideologies. And the question is: what does it say about them? Given that it's somewhat sympathetic, does it say "Hey, that's a perfectly valid and understandable way to be?" Does it give a pass in presentation? Which is probably the spot that some critics have issue with.
See also: Three Billboards and the conversation around a more sympathetic portrayal of racism. Which is to say, they made a serious film. This is the big boy pond. Welcome to the conversations.
To be fair it does seem like Todd Phillip's intention was to make the Joker into an sympathetic character who acted out his impulses as a result of how society treated him, that's definitely not ok in the real world but this is just a film and anyone who takes inspiration from the Joker is already a sick individual.It's less "media causes violence" and more, "Hey, what is your movie putting out there?" IT Chapter 2 begins with a much-talked about hate crime for example, and part of the conversation has been on the necessary nature of it in the film, and how that portrayal was handled. People of course go back and forth on that.
The Joker thing has largely been about how his motivations line up with similar real-world ideologies. And the question is: what does it say about them? Given that it's somewhat sympathetic, does it say "Hey, that's a perfectly valid and understandable way to be?" Does it give a pass in presentation? Which is probably the spot that some critics have issue with.
See also: Three Billboards and the conversation around a more sympathetic portrayal of racism. Which is to say, they made a serious film. This is the big boy pond. Welcome to the conversations.
I'm going to jump into this thread, to say I agree with you for the most part.
Except almost all of those discussions happened after the films were released and people could have a proper discussion about their context. So much of the Joker's discourse is from a large portion of people who haven't seen the film. And started long before people had. And I think that's why it feels odd/off to me.
Like it feels more like concern trolling than a legitimate debate because so few can actually say seen the film and its context.
To be fair it does seem like Todd Phillip's intention was to make the Joker into an sympathetic character who acted out his impulses as a result of how society treated him, that's definitely not ok in the real world but this is just a film and anyone who takes inspiration from the Joker is already a sick individual.
I personally don't feel that a movie should be judged on its morality but rather on whether it gets its creative vision across and based on what Todd Phillips said his intention was to make Joker sympathetic at the start of the movie but as the movie progresses he commits acts that most people will find repulsive and unjustifiable. It doesn't explicitly point those out of course, most people should already know that it's wrong to be a murderer.
That is a very good point you raise. I just find the critical reception for this movie to be fascinating. Some critics have pointed out that maybe the movie doesn't really go far enough and that I assume is what you mentioned in relation to sexual violence. I think the movie completely avoids that in order to not be even more controversial.Right, but is a movie's aim is directly racist and that was its aim, do you give it a pass? Of course not. Take the original Birth of a Nation, as an extreme example, or perhaps Clint Eastwood's The Mule as a lighter, more recent one. Again, this talk is less about Joker in and of itself, and more talking about some of these arguments. Which is to say, critically, these discussions are going to be had, and some may in fact have very stark responses, especially if sexual violence is a part of the film. (Most reports do not mentioned this about Joker. Again, bigger picture talk here.)
I understand and I'm fine with having long-form critical analysis and discussions. However, I bring it up because of a unique situation I found myself in the other night. I work third shift and my co-worker was watching some trash right-wing show that was on at 2am or whatever. One of the segments was on violence in the media and they were blaming Hollywood for it's impact on gun violence in America (someone had a eureka moment and got video games into the discussion for good measure). I just happened to be reading the Joker thread and it was like an echo chamber at times between what I was hearing and what I was reading.It's less "media causes violence" and more, "Hey, what is your movie putting out there?" IT Chapter 2 begins with a much-talked about hate crime for example, and part of the conversation has been on the necessary nature of it in the film, and how that portrayal was handled. People of course go back and forth on that.
The Joker thing has largely been about how his motivations line up with similar real-world ideologies. And the question is: what does it say about them? Given that it's somewhat sympathetic, does it say "Hey, that's a perfectly valid and understandable way to be?" Does it give a pass in presentation? Which is probably the spot that some critics have issue with.
See also: Three Billboards and the conversation around a more sympathetic portrayal of racism. Which is to say, they made a serious film. This is the big boy pond. Welcome to the conversations.