It's a negative review for a movie OP is excited for.
That's it.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Is a reviewer who scores the film more on its supposed impact rather than its quality of work a good / professional reviewer ?
- Thread starter OtherWorldly
- Start date
That's it.
I think it's fine if this critic thinks this movie's message kills it for her. Totally fair.
I didn't like though, how she tried to tie the Aurora shootings to the character of the Joker. That's hugely dishonest and is based on a media myth. Aurora shooter had no connection or care for the character, that's just something boomer journalists made up because he dyed his hair.
Also, I'm convinced a lot of these critics and journalists don't know what incels are. This Joker seems mad at rich people, and incels are singularly focused on women. That's a pretty big part of that identity, and the Joker film and character doesn't really touch on resentment towards women at all based on the reviews I've read of it. This seems like a class conflict, unless there's more the reviews aren't revealing.
The discourse around this film is getting insane. I mean it's an origin story for the Joker. An insane, pure evil, mass murdering, archetypal villain. Just because people with less than half a brain treat him like a paragon doesn't mean that this film is morally bankrupt or a bad thing.
Last edited:
OP
OP
here is the example of saying the movie is not badly made then goes on a seemingly dishonest opinion connecting the movie to white masculinity when all indications are this is about class warfare and bases the verdict on that. The hypocrisy comes from the fact that almost the same reviewers used the anti hero as a selling point for movies like pulp fiction and fight club. I think many of the reviewers are taking events in this modern times of the past 2-3 years and connecting it to a medium which they didn't connect to past films in order to vent against it when In fact the media art could be just another story of a persons fall into chaos and becoming evil if this was made in the late 90s or early 00's
maybe this is a product of film twitter takes seeping into verdicts for films
I wish there would be a discourse this widespread about films that have original ideas instead of an R-rated comic book movie.
Why is their opinion dishonest? You seem to be confusing reviewers with marketers. They don't come up with 'selling points'. Why wouldn't a movie be commented on taking in the time perioed it was released in to account? Fight club is a 20 years old movie and is notorious for people picking up the wrong message from.
haha what the fuck
"All indications" doesn't mean "all indications except these four big indications and almost everyone at TIFF who commented on the nihilistic exploitative tone of the film.
"All indications" does not mean "an assumption I pulled out of my ass to counter four reviews I don't agree with for a movie I haven't watched."
Why/how is it "seemingly dishonest"?
Movies and thematic criticism don't exist in a vacuum, Also death of the author
Hypocrisy? What do "selling points" have to do with reviewers?
Maybe those movies explored their anti-heroes well and this movie might not be so effective in its themes?
It's almost as if the time and current events during which a movie releases influences how people view and consider that movie
lol bruh
You really think critics in decades past weren't tying the subtext of a film to the outside world/recent events? Again, you're exposing your lack of knowledge/familiarity with the world of criticism, film or otherwise.
You haven't even seen the movie yet and you have the gall to call a critic "dishonest"--for their opinion.
This is seriously some Gamergate-level sensitivity.
lmao you should really devote this energy to literally anything else. Instead of going on diatribes about reviews you don't like, maybe volunteer at a homeless shelter or something.
Society engages in too much hyperbole, and that's why I reasonably think I should compare reviews I might not agree with to book burnings.
At this rate, I am no longer convinced OP has read any film criticism prior to reviews of Joker.
I think an issue is this is the Joker we're talking about, there's a lot of shit there that you can;t just suddenly go oh let's make him an anti-hero fighting class warfare, whatever they're doing, without some people finding that unsettling, and not in a good way. He's not a blank slate like Pulp Fiction characters and Fight Club characters. It'd be kind of like a Red Skull movie and running with making him an anti-hero.
OP
OP
coinicidently I was volunteering at an old people home since morning till just some time ago .
Nice. Still doesn't change the fact that you don't really understand how critique works but good for you.
It is a legit approach to film criticism to emphasize the cultural impact and context of the film but it's an approach I'm not a fan of. Just because you think a film is important/dangerous, doesn't mean it's necessarily good/bad. Over emphasizing the cultural stuff in a review, also makes it age very fast.
I feel like what is happening with Joker reviews is very similar to Black Panther's reception only reverse. Basically Black Panther got "extra points" in reviews for being progressive, important and empowering whereas Joker is getting points deducted for being toxic and incel-friendly.
I feel like what is happening with Joker reviews is very similar to Black Panther's reception only reverse. Basically Black Panther got "extra points" in reviews for being progressive, important and empowering whereas Joker is getting points deducted for being toxic and incel-friendly.
If you're familiar with film criticism, you should know critics are entirely aware that reviews change with time. It's a very common practice to re-visit movies and view them in a new context.
Because that's the point--it is extremely difficult (and not desirable) to separate yourself from the context of your life/the world around you up to this point.
There's almost an entire substudy focused on "but was it actually relevant?" in film where you look at acclaimed movies years/decades later to see if they actually were as good or impactful.
Besides, you and OP seem to be separating a movie's "goodness" or "badness" from the context of its place in the world and its influences. Many of the reviews have, in fact, said "it's very well directed" "the performances are fantastic" "the cinematography is beautiful" before discussing why they ended up having issues with it.
The Birth of a Nation is a very well-made movie and pioneered filmmaking in a lot of ways. What would you rate that movie? Would you advocate detaching yourself from the fact that it portrayed the KKK in a valorous, sympathetic light just because the filmmaking was on point?
I don't think they're making him an anti hero, and it's weird that everybody praises Harley Quinn who is basically that
But she was set up in the comics as that too. Like HQ is all about a woman with potential who is warped by the Joker, he's literally the evil influence.
I've had an interest in a take on the Joker in a world that kind of recognizes that the Batman is a rich fascist douchebag who puts Punisher and Thin Blue Line decals on his truck. If we want to make him an anti-hero, have him be a guy who posts on like r/redscarepod and r/cumtown.
That doesn't change anything though, the joker is a good guy in Batman White Knight, Harley Quinn has done stuff as twisted as the Joker, they made a movie where you can understand her better, it's ok but not Joker, why?
Or for a fan favorite example, The Thing being trashed and considered terrible when it released, only for it to be re-assessed as a genre masterpiece
Anyway what I'm getting from these reviews is that this movie is to the New Hollywood oevure what Star Trek: Into Darkness was to Wrath of Khan or Prometheus was to Alien
The Joker is a personified force of chaotic evil.
Like I said I think that's why there is stronger criticism because of who and what the Joker largely represents
OP,
a movie its not like a video game, where the story can be totally idiotic but the game is so much fun to play that you play and play again and againd and you have a good time everytime.
the message of the movie can change in repeating views, it can, but even if the movie its pretty and well made, that will never change that it leaves a bad taste of mouth, or concerns or just dont sit wells with you.
i havent seen the film and i dont really thing it will be that "impactful"
a movie its not like a video game, where the story can be totally idiotic but the game is so much fun to play that you play and play again and againd and you have a good time everytime.
the message of the movie can change in repeating views, it can, but even if the movie its pretty and well made, that will never change that it leaves a bad taste of mouth, or concerns or just dont sit wells with you.
i havent seen the film and i dont really thing it will be that "impactful"
So if this movie was not based on the DC characters it would be ok, the problem is the joker, even though in the movie he isn't a "personified force of chaotic evil"?
That's called baggage of a known IP yes.
Ultimately some of the same concerns might still come up... but I think it being THE JOKER amplifies them
If you haven't even seen the movie yet, I don't know how you can call a reviewer's framing of it 'dishonest'. I'm seeing enough of a common thread between the four reviews the OP shared as well as positive reviews of the movie that I don't think any of these reviewers are misrepresenting anything. They mostly seem to agree about Joaquim's performance and the movie itself being well made and disagree about its execution of the core themes.
If this wasn't a Joker movie, would anyone care in the first place?
I think people are letting their fears imprison their minds in the US, left like right. Restricting creativity because some people might get the wrong idea feels stupid to me.
Yes, it seems to be good.
Who the fuck is restricting creativity, criticism is not censorship.
For fucking real.
Once again: these are the exact. same. arguments. that Gamergaters made...how many years ago?
Next step is I think critics should shut up, the filmmakers have free speech!
with this cast, this director, and this rollout? yes, but it's relative.
If I tell you that should cook your eggs sunny side up instead of over easy.... I'm not censoring over easy eggs
Gamergate was 3-4 years ago.
Like Gamergate, people don't realize that calling your film bad for society is also... free speech... and self expression.
I know it's a very mind-bending idea but art criticism, any form of it, whether it's a "cultural essay" or "9 'must buys' out of 10", is a form of expression, speech and art.
Like Gamergate, people don't realize that calling your film bad for society is also... free speech... and self expression.
I know it's a very mind-bending idea but art criticism, any form of it, whether it's a "cultural essay" or "9 'must buys' out of 10", is a form of expression, speech and art.
Yeah like I expected this to do like Park Chan-Wook levels of media saturation rather than THIS AIN'T YOUR DADDY'S JOKER. THIS JOKER FUCKS