@JohnnyShoulder I have! Might be an unsatisfying answer but I need to see it again before settling on a final opinion. My feelings after one watch are surprisingly wishy-washy. Obviously it’s gorgeous and I really liked Depp and Hoult’s performances but something about it just didn’t entirely land for me the first time, including the take on Nosferatu. Might have been a mood thing though so I’m willing to watch it again.
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” -C.S. Lewis
Finally watched Joker: Folie a Deux and i'm genuinely interested as to why everyone hated it. I know there's a lot of musical elements, but it is still a movie about mental health, and the ending seems a weird reason for people to have not liked it.
in the end Arthur (not Joker) hates what he had become, that is totally fine an angle, but it is already too late, he has influenced a generation, and at the very end he sings how he wanted a son. And he literally gets shanked by someone who tells a joke, then laughs manically while cutting his mouth into a smile. (Killed by the cult he created) Which feels like the Joker mantle has been passed on to someone else to carry on in the role and it was written this way either for that reason, or just to show that his influence was now unstoppable in Gotham city. But now because people cried about it and it flopped it is unlikely we ever find out what was planned next?
I've read about it being a character assassination, but we have to remember the character was suffering with a lot of mental health issues. It was society that drove him to do what he did, and people related to that. Fine. But having someone realise that his actions also lead to pain and suffering of those who he actually cared about, Puddles, his neighbor, and his friend/follower in prison who got murdered by the guard, that seems like a pretty normal character progression to me. People seem to think he just did a 180 for no reason and regrets killing, and I don't ge that impression at all. Puddles had probably the most raw emotional scene in the entire movie, and you can see the mask slip at that moment. I do not think he says what he says (to the cameras at the end of the trial) as him regretting his actions, but he is trying to do his own damage control by saying those things
I don't know... I don't feel the movie itself is any better or much worse than the original, which had all the best parts heavily ripped off from other movies anyway, but it was still a good take on the Joker character. And part 2 kind of continues that, just with more music. I'd love to know what the real reason it flopped was, is it just a case of people spreading bad word of mouth so it put everyone off seeing it? Or was it in part due to times changing and the cinema struggling anyway, and they possibly overspent wildly?
I genuinely don't think it is a bad movie though, maybe 15 minutes too long as to me the song choices weren't that appealing to me, so it could drag a little in those moments, but it was still a very dark, very violent story about an unstable man who suffered a lot of abuse and all of his followers that were born from Gotham's lack of empathy for the lost souls and the downtrodden.
I don't know, help me understand what the biggest negatives at the time were, as i'm not really seeing it as such a failure to continue the story they were already telling 🤷♂️
@JohnnyShoulder I was curious about watching House of Dynamite but there's one little issue with it for me, do you know if the country/state who launches the ICBM is Russia? If that's the case I'll probably pass. I've been trying to avoid things like that for the last few years.If not then I'll put it on my list, thanks.
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
@GirlVersusGame My understanding that it is intentioally left ambiguous, and the film never actually reveals who fired the nuclear missile (or even which country it came from). There is a brief scene when the USA speak to the Russians, who deny it is them.
I would say it is still worth a watch, my parents enjoyed it. My problems with the film are very subjective, and is no way a bad movie.
Life is more fun when you help people succeed, instead of wishing them to fail.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.
@JohnnyShoulder Alright brilliant, thanks. The trailer popped up on Netflix auto-play yesterday. It looked well made from what I saw. Like Tom Clancy adaptions when they were good.
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
So, after a bit of digestion what i'm really wondering is...
if people are mad that Arthur/Joker gave up on his character/vision/fantasy why are people also mad that someone killed him for that because "he deserved that fate after giving up on "his people". Does The Joker really have to be Arthur Fleck, or can't it just be a movement, an ideal? Because this was not taken away from anyone at all.
I kind of like the "killed by your own cult" ending to be honest. And the more I think the more I wonder...
Did people just want in to morph into Heath Ledger's Joker by the end? Because that has obviously been done before. But you could argue that Heath Ledger's Joker is exactly who killed Arthur Fleck in this movie anyway. And then you could treat this as an origin to that character being born instead. Or at least a very big nod to the fact that Joker isn't dead, just Arthur
Does this not put the whole thing in a different light? I don't know. From what I see people are dead set in their hatred of it online. But i'm hoping there's some good discussion to be had here.
@Ravix I'm glad to see you enjoyed Joker: Folie à Deux as well! I am a part of that camp, but it seems like we are in an incredibly small minority. I think that a lot of people who enjoyed the first film, like you and I, had a different interpretation of it at the time leading to the wildly different takes on the sequel. It feels like many people enjoyed the first film as a power fantasy of sorts as well as the more grounded, grim take whereas the sequel went more cerebral and surreal with the musical elements and was a total deconstruction of that interpretation versus a continuation of it. I appreciated the deconstruction of the "ideal" like you've mentioned, and I am also incredibly partial to anything remotely resembling a musical as well as Lady Gaga's presence in anything. I'm a stereotypically gay guy in that sense.
While recognising that is not what most people wanted out of it, it somehow did feel like it was directy marketed towards me. In that sense, I couldn't withstand the charm that I felt it had because of that, but I genuinely do not believe it is a bad film in any way beyond that either. It has its missteps for sure, but I think it was a daring effort that landed in all the right ways for me personally. I think we'll have a hard time convincing most other people of that however, so I suppose we'll just have to stick within our own claustrophobic echo chamber to be able to discuss the film in that kind of light!
@Tjuz@Ravix You two now have me curious about Joker 2. Had written it off due to the general poor response from the viewers about it. But now hearing that people I know and whose opinions I respect do in fact like it, I’ll have to give it a go. It’s been a few years since I watched the first one, do you think I need to do a rewatch first or is the sequel so different that I don’t need any of its context?
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.”
@Ravix Folie à Deux’s production design, lighting, cinematography and performances are all incredible. It’s an unbelievably gorgeous film. Unfortunately, that’s about all it did for me personally, highlighting that if ever there was a film that didn’t need a sequel, it was Joker. I didn’t feel this added anything and ends up telling the exact same cautionary tale as the first. Not exactly an in-depth analysis and I’m not sure why folks would be mad about it but it’s my perspective anyway. Those visual though 😍
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” -C.S. Lewis
@Th3solution I watched the first a few months ago again, and enjoyed it more than first time, to be honest. But even then, I don't hold it on a pedastal. I think other movies have told the same story better, but it is cool to see it with a DC/Joker skin and the performance is fantastic. I don't know of watching them back to back would work, but it is probably handy watching to remember what it was really about, rather than just a vague memory of it or anything.
@Metonymy I can get behind the fact it didn't need a sequel, the same as you wouldn't want Taxi Driver 2 or The King of Comedy 2, and therefore it was probably quite hard to get an interesting angle. But I do feel seeing the consequences for the actions of the first film being played out as one worthy way to do so. The puddles scene alone gives it heft and shows their intention, I believe. And it does look great. I'd happily watch a movie based on the style of the courthouse fantasy sequence, it would be a bit empty, of course, but the theatrical violence is outstanding. And the trademark backlit Joker flinging his hair back in his red suit is pretty iconic. And I assume that is what people wanted more of for this film.
@Tjuz@Tjuz interesting. I do wonder who watched the first film and thought it to be just a power fantasy. Mental health was always the main theme. I didn't see much difference between the two in terms of who Arthur is. It was made clear he was always tripping in and out of reality as a broken, but obsessive fan, ala The King of Comedy. I felt sympathetic to Arthur in both movies in different ways, he is a product of his environment, and the fact the first movie set this up is maybe why people liked it more. But the signs were always there (even the singing, dancing and performance and who he wanted to be was always there in the first movie) You can't tell an origin twice though, so the broken, damaged, mistreated Arthur who represented the downtrodden because he fully snapped was now his backstory, and how he dealt with the consequences of his actions is the sequel.
He never stops being representative of the downtrodden, he just realises his actions had consequences for more than just himself (poor Puddles 😭) and so he didn't want to become this thing he hated. I think he always internally struggled with being the face of this movement, at first it was exciting and fed his desire to be seen, but on reflection he was just in a new cell, with a new abuser, and people were still being sh** to each other, but as well as that, innocents were being caught in the crossfire. His one hope was a genuine connection with someone, but they were using him in just the same way as everyone else, his followers were using him, Lee was using him, the Guards were using him, his mother used him. It was an endless cycle of use and abuse and now the cycle continues with another face of the movment. The Man who killed the Joker would naturally become The Joker.
I will admit the comedian that people laugh at rather than the joke and the slow realisation of that is more appealing to watch than the musical parts, to me, but they had already moved on from that when he shot Murray and the Joker was crowned. I don't think he'd be getting booked in the comedy club again. And again, you can't really have the same movie twice 🤷♂️
And if they just went with Arthur fully embracing The Joker, it would probably just be The Dark Knight, which is already a very good movie.
Overall, I can understand it upset some people, but I don't understand it being objectively bad. I can take it being objectively a bit unnecessary, or not objectively great, and i'm fine with people subjectively disliking it because they wanted him "to kill the rich" or whatever, but that sensibility can't even stick in the real world, everyone is obsessed with hating each other and letting the rich carry on mocking our collective stupidity for letting them get away with it anyway 🙈😅
@Matthewnh If you have a little over an hour to kill and are interested in hearing some more about the making of The Last of the Mohicans, the ‘What Went Wrong’ podcast just released an episode covering it. In a Mann double header, they’ll be covering Heat on the next episode.
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” -C.S. Lewis
I do remember hearing one story about the making of Last of the Mohicans.
They were filming the scene with the night siege, of the fort. And they had been there all night. And then this light started creeping into shots. So, Mann is furious. Yelling “what’s that light? Put that light out!”
The director of photography has to remind him, “Uh, Michael, that’s the sun”.
Apparently the story is true, or at least based in fact. The french army did lay siege to Fort William Henry in 1757, and the commander Lt Col George Monro, survived the siege. The column was ambushed by Huron Indians, on way back to Albany. However, Colonel Monro did in fact survive the ambush, and returned home to Scotland. These events were the inspiration for the novel.
@Matthewnh Yes, Michael Mann is quite the character by all accounts, and they do touch on that anecdote. I know nothing about the book so it’s interesting to hear that it is based in fact. I suppose I’m not too surprised what with Mann’s notorious attention to detail and the great pains that were taken to bring this story to life.
“Reason is the natural order of truth; but imagination is the organ of meaning.” -C.S. Lewis
@seinfeldfanatic City of the Dead? It's from the 1960's. It also went by Horror Hotel in some regions. After that the director moved onto TV shows, I haven't seen that movie in years. For a moment I thought you meant Witchfinder General but that's Vincent Price, where did you watch City of the Dead?
These violent delights have violent ends & in their triumph die, like fire & powder Which, as they kiss, consume.
@GirlVersusGame yes City of the Dead aka Horror Hotel which i am busy watching from Joe Bob Briggs's Last Drive In Season 7.
ive seen the movie once many years ago when my brother got me a tin box dvd collection of old black and white horror movies and Horror Hotel was one of them
I watched Barbarian on Halloween night because I had heard that Zach Cregger will be directing the new Resident Evil movie. I really enjoyed it and I don't normally watch horror movies. For some weird reason I can deal with horror in games better than horror movies.
@McSavage I'm the opposite - when I'm playing I have a stake (pun intended) in the game (again, intended) and that makes me way more tense than watching a horror movie. I can't remember the last time a horror movie made me feel tense or uneasy, but I've been paralysed by horror games, not wanting to move forward for fear of what might jump out at me
Horror games in VR? Not happening, no way, José! That's a heart attack waiting to happen
I really enjoyed "Barbarian", but I loved his latest, "Weapons", even more. Can I assume you've already caught that one?
Forums
Topic: The Movie Thread
Posts 8,601 to 8,620 of 8,954
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic