Discuss and rate the last movie you watched

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 . . . 35 NEXT
 

I just finished watching the Dark Knight. Its a good movie, but I feel like it lost its "Greatest Film Ever Made" title for me. Its kinda hard for me to explain, but mabye its perspective since I have watch a lot of movies and television series since the Dark Knight came out, and when it comes to Nolan's own films I think his best movie was the Prestige (Though some say it is Memento)

But one thing I do give for Dark Knight is the stellar cast, I mean name me one Superhero movie with such a large and talented cast of actors?

Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, Liam Nesson and Ken Watanabe for the first movie, Morgan Freeman, and yes Heath Ledger and who ever the actor is for Harvey Dent, though I think he was kinda corny when he is in his Two Face character.

However the weakest link was the actress playing Rachel Dawes, she is by far the most generic, forgettable, love interest in the history of Superhero or film. She was literally just "The Girl", with an even less personality then Raimi Spiderman's Mary Jane

She is the prime example of why I prefer shipping Batman with Catwoman and even Superman with Wonder Woman and heck I ship Spiderman with Black Cat.

Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

Just watched that Midsommar documentary about swedish festivals or whatever.

In all seriousness though, I was laughing most of the time they were in Sweden. The movie starts great, the beginning is very dark and I had very high hopes at that point. Then once they're in Sweden, everything turns to shit, very slowly though. It's still sort of "serious" at first, but the more it goes on, the more I kept thinking what the fuck am I watching?...

I didn't see any trailers, and based on the very limited info I heard, I was expecting something else entirely, specially the ending which some people told me was so fucked up. Really? I don't know, this movie is hilarious... After 2 hours of build up, I had a completely different ending in mind, taking into account how "fucked up" I was told it was. In fact, I had a completely different idea of how the main tourists would die, because I was hoping something would eventually happen, but time and time again I was left with a simple "oh, that's it? Ok I guess..."

5/10, wouldn't watch it again because it's too long, but it's funny.

I also watched some Netflix trash... I don't even know what's called in english, it's about people getting lost in a field, it sucks, watch Midsommar instead.

Silentpony:
Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

How was Robert de Niro reprising his Rupert Pupkin character from King of Comedy.

Samtemdo8:
But one thing I do give for Dark Knight is the stellar cast, I mean name me one Superhero movie with such a large and talented cast of actors?

Large cast is easy, talented is harder to pin down.

But, X-Men: Days of Future Past has a lot of big names in it.

Silentpony:
Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

You missed the entire point of the movie. It's a mood piece. Just watched it the second time and I stand by my original post that this is one of the most transformative and groundbreaking movies I have ever seen and probably my most favorite movie of all time.

But yeah, you either feel it or you don't. Reception is very divided. People either love it or hate it with almost no middle ground.

stroopwafel:

Silentpony:
Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

You missed the entire point of the movie. It's a mood piece. Just watched it the second time and I stand by my original post that this is one of the most transformative and groundbreaking movies I have ever seen and probably my most favorite movie of all time.

But yeah, you either feel it or you don't. Reception is very divided. People either love it or hate it with almost no middle ground.

Mmmm no. You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie about an entitled idiot and his overwrought imagination, and you were so shocked and hurt you spent money on this shit you forced your brain to find meaning and symbolism where none existed, therefore saving yourself the shame of having spent money.
I am not capable of such mental gymnastics. I am ashamed I spent money on the Joker. It is a bad movie. It's a stupid person's idea of a smart thing to say.
If someone thinks Joker is a thoughtful, deep dive into American dark culture, then they probably think Bio-Dome is a witty and clever take on dangers of elitist scientific research.

Samtemdo8:

Silentpony:
Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

How was Robert de Niro reprising his Rupert Pupkin character from King of Comedy.

Fine, for like the 2 scenes he's in. He has one big scene at the end where he's not Pupkin anymore, he's just De Niro. Like he drops the act all together and just goes cold.
And yes if we don't count imagination scenes, he's in 1 scene.

Silentpony:
Just got back from Joker and boy is my Stupid Radar tired.

Question about Joker in spoiler tags

Saw the Joker. I though it was good for a stand alone movie. Not the best thing ever in mankind, nor a total disaster. Just a neat little experiment and trying something a little different. Be warned, despite having some humor and dark humor, this movie can get depressing as fuck. This films makes ugly look beautiful. My rating for this would be a high matinee. I must say, we can use more comic book movies that experiment and do some more one offs or stand alones. Not everything needs to have a cinematic universe.

Silentpony:
]Mmmm no. You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie

You lost all your credibility with that one simple statement. Maybe you were sleeping the entire time. Joaquin Phoenix is an early Oscar nominee for his stellar performance. The sets and production design ground the entire movie in a unique and deeply atmospheric vision. The OST is incredible. The editing is impeccable.

Really, even the critics who didn't like it praise how well put together the movie was. Don't pull things out of your ass to discredit it.

stroopwafel:

Silentpony:
]Mmmm no. You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie

You lost all your credibility with that one simple statement. Maybe you were sleeping the entire time. Joaquin Phoenix is an early Oscar nominee for his stellar performance. The sets and production design ground the entire movie in a unique and deeply atmospheric vision. The OST is incredible. The editing is impeccable.

Really, even the critics who didn't like it praise how well put together the movie was. Don't pull things out of your ass to discredit it.

What movie did you see?! The one I saw was a disjointed, tonally all over the place, plothole filled random ass assortment of scenes that dont go anywhere.
Arthur hides in a fridge. Why? What was the point of that scene?! There was no build up, no pay off.
I'll give you that yeah, the movie looks expensive. It looks like a lot of time and money was put into it. And that's a shame.
And no, Phoenix role was Raspberry worthy, not Oscar. His tone, personality, motivation and illness changed from scene to scene. This has all the marks of a movie hacked to pieces in editing and stitched together into something Suits hope breaks even.

Saw Joker on Friday. 10/10 a masterpiece, a classic. Best comic book movie to date. All 400 people in the theater gave standing ovation to the movie at the end.

twistedmic:
SNIP

Silentpony:
Mmmm no. You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie about an entitled idiot and his overwrought imagination, and you were so shocked and hurt you spent money on this shit you forced your brain to find meaning and symbolism where none existed, therefore saving yourself the shame of having spent money.

Holy fuck, man! With such insight into other people's minds, i bet you could fix whatever's wrong with Arthur Fleck's head in no time!

Silentpony:
You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie about an entitled idiot and his overwrought imagination, and you were so shocked and hurt you spent money on this shit you forced your brain to find meaning and symbolism where none existed, therefore saving yourself the shame of having spent money.

I didn't pay money for the movie and I quite liked it. Next argument.
...
Oh, just read the rest of your post. You don't have any.
I mean how silly is that? "People only like it because they paid for it". What?

I recently saw Re-Animator for the first time. Yes, the movie with the infamous 'decapitated head performing cunnilingus' scene (although that doesn't actually happen, but some other nasty stuff does). I can't say it was much more than gross-out moments. It didn't have the same atmosphere, energy or fun as something like Evil Dead or Brain Dead does. Jeffrey Combs was fantastic though and it was odd seeing him so young.

So, I'll step into this Joker ring. It's fine. Story is as messy as Suicide Squad but Phoenix's performance was top notch. They made all the liberals jack asses which matches well with the Incel Joker. They must have taken all the talking points from a Incel forum and created Strawman charaters.

What a waste of Zazie Beatz. I also dont like how it implies

. The OST was good but not Dark Knight good. That was far more disorientating. I really loved his laugh, full of anguish and pain. But, then, none of this is fun for him and... isn't that the point of the Joker? Trolling people? He sort of has fun at the end.

None of the side characters added anything to the movie. It was all Phoenix. It helps someone because he's always been nice to Fleck. Even though Fleck was a jackass to him.

The movie really lost me at

Plus, I now believe Todd Phillips has been manufacturing (or at least manipulating) the controversy to sell his movie. Virtue Signaling at its finest.

7/10. I was really looking forward to this. It's saved by Phoenix performance but otherwise disappointed by its averageness

trunkage:
So, I'll step into this Joker ring. It's fine. Story is as messy as Suicide Squad but Phoenix's performance was top notch. They made all the liberals jack asses which matches well with the Incel Joker. They must have taken all the talking points from a Incel forum and created Strawman charaters.

How was Joker an incel? It's true he had no romantic success and it's implied he never had but Fleck never blamed his lot in life on women which I always assumed is what an 'incel' is. His hunger for connection is actually very tender in the beginning; you can also see this by the way he treats his mother and how he likes children. Fleck's character is a product of tragic circumstance and an indifferent society which you can empathize with without condoning his actions. The movie also centers on the ambiguous nature of the character as it un-glamorizes any form of violence or brutality. Fleck's own emergent violent impulses, understandable as they may be, only serve to further corrupt his humanity that was already deeply scarred by his past, the way society treats him and his total lack of meaningful human connection. Even in violent scenes you can see Fleck is a 'crying clown' like the 'Joker' is still some external force slowly creeping in that gives him both a power trip but at the cost of his soul. This chaotic insanity is what finally creates the Joker even if it had a long prelude like laughing at inopportune moments as his life goes to shit to giving in to dark desires to ultimately

.

The movie really lost me at

Plus, I now believe Todd Phillips has been manufacturing (or at least manipulating) the controversy to sell his movie. Virtue Signaling at its finest.

Fleck never made any statement that didn't relate to him directly and even openly dismissed the argument you make. However that his character, attitude and actions unintentionally resonate in a version of Gotham that is tearing at the seems from class struggle and disenfranchisement only serves to highlight the point 'Joker' made which is that characters like Fleck aren't made in isolation.

This fact, I think, is what make many viewers uncomfortable. As the movie simply makes it impossible to close your eyes for it. This kind of emotional storytelling is a rarity in an era in which Hollywood movies are mostly just inoffensive theme park rides.

MrCalavera:

Silentpony:
Mmmm no. You saw an ugly, stupid, boring and poorly made movie about an entitled idiot and his overwrought imagination, and you were so shocked and hurt you spent money on this shit you forced your brain to find meaning and symbolism where none existed, therefore saving yourself the shame of having spent money.

Holy fuck, man! With such insight into other people's minds, i bet you could fix whatever's wrong with Arthur Fleck's head in no time!

Dude, they already were in the movie. He had been institutionalized, and was on medication. The problem was A. he was let out, B. funding was cut and C. his therapist wasn't that good. For fucks sake, Arthur himself knows whats wrong and how to fix it. He says so in his diatribe at the end, about pushing the mentally ill, cutting funding, not being nice, being cruel and greedy. It really doesn't take a genius to look at things and know whats going on.

Here's a really neat clip from vanity fair in which the director of Joker breaks down the opening scene.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoQuVq2yYc

The more I think about it the more 'Joker' feels like a Faustian bargain for Fleck. The price he pays for the immunity against his demons and giving it back ten fold. Somehow this also ties very neatly into the Batman mythos, as I imagined this is exactly the line Batman never wanted to cross. This is what makes them opposite sides of the same coin.

I wish for a sequel to this movie so bad. It's so imaginative and creative. Such a work of genuine passion. Phoenix and Philips appeared to have had a lot of fun making it and the movie is also a big success so who knows.

I'm on a Halloween binge.

Blair Witch
It's the same movie as The Blair Witch Project, but not scary. The whole found footage angle is lost in the fact that the kids bring dozens of cameras with them - digital cameras, mini DVs, goPros, even a freaking drone for wide shots - to the point the movie winds up looking like a conventional horror flick. Also they show the witch. Fuck this movie.

Leatherface: Texas Chainsaw Massacre III
So 2 was silly and bombastic (starts with a highway chase scene scored to 80s metal while Leatherface chainsaws two dudes that look like Biff's flunkies in Back to the Future). I guess 3 is an attempt to return to form, although the movie fumbles it with choppy, incoherent editing that seems to teleport the characters from scene to scene. There's no sense of space and everyone just sort of appears where they have to be, when they have to be. Also I didn't buy the new family of psychos. Everything looks too clean and not at all lived-in, which was what made the first one so creepy.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors
I liked this one. Some good one-liners from Freddy, I liked Patricia Arquette, the rest of the kids and the psych ward setting. I also liked the plot in general which consists of the kids (let by ANoES survivor Nancy) sort of taking the fight to Freddy's realm. I did think it was weird to have Nancy in a will-they/won't-they with a "colleague" that looked like he could be her dad. She's supposed to be an adult I guess and it's mentioned it's been 7 years since movie #1 (3 in real life) but she looks like a kid in grownup clothing. Oh and the skeleton fight, on top of looking aweful, doesn't follow any of the rules established I think. That was annoying.

A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: Dream Master
Was surprised this was a direct sequel to 3. They even got back the 3 surviving "Dream Warriors" from the last movie, though Arquette has been (poorly) recast and of course they all die quickly anyway. I didn't buy Freddy coming into the real world at the end of 3 (his skeleton fights his own burial) and I don't buy the way he comes back here either (a kid dreams his dog unearths his bones, which apparently makes it so in real life?). Anywya, now that Freddy's revenge against his murderers' kids is complete there's no real reason (or, I presume, possibility) for him to keep killing. So the movie just sort of contrives one.

Into the Tall Grass
Netflix's latest mystery box bullshit. They got Vincenzo Natali to direct it. It's essentially The Cube all over again: group of people caught in an ever-shifting maze from which they can't escape. The Cube's was made of cubes, Tall Grass's made of tall grass. The movie lost me once this basic premise was set up and set up again and didn't have anywhere to go with it.

stroopwafel:

trunkage:
So, I'll step into this Joker ring. It's fine. Story is as messy as Suicide Squad but Phoenix's performance was top notch. They made all the liberals jack asses which matches well with the Incel Joker. They must have taken all the talking points from a Incel forum and created Strawman charaters.

How was Joker an incel? It's true he had no romantic success and it's implied he never had but Fleck never blamed his lot in life on women which I always assumed is what an 'incel' is.

Incels are very much against men, not just women, especially what they call Chads. They think they are genetically superior versions of men that Incels cannot compete with. (I don't know if genetic is the right word there, but cant think of anything better.) Think of his friends who come over to commiserate him. There is a person who is clearly classed as a Chad. Anyone who isn't superior is free to go. And you see the result. The guys on the train were Chads and got what was needed. Thomas is a Chad but gets a pass for story reasons


Now, him being critical of women doesn't happen, so that part of Incel identity is not apparent. That's only part of their philosophy.
Edit: Also forgot to add - he's misjudging social ques. But then apparently he can tell when someone's being mean. Only takes in negative and dismisses the positive. When you focus on that, you do become isolated. Incels think that there is nothing they can do that can move them into the Chad zone. There is no ability to self reflect and this is reflected in the performance of the Joker

The movie really lost me at

Plus, I now believe Todd Phillips has been manufacturing (or at least manipulating) the controversy to sell his movie. Virtue Signaling at its finest.

Fleck never made any statement that didn't relate to him directly and even openly dismissed the argument you make. However that his character, attitude and actions unintentionally resonate in a version of Gotham that is tearing at the seems from class struggle and disenfranchisement only serves to highlight the point 'Joker' made which is that characters like Fleck aren't made in isolation.

This fact, I think, is what make many viewers uncomfortable. As the movie simply makes it impossible to close your eyes for it. This kind of emotional storytelling is a rarity in an era in which Hollywood movies are mostly just inoffensive theme park rides.

He literally states that, "I'm not being political" when he's talking on air. And then repeats that statement. Straight after De Niro asks if he's making a political statement. Then IMMEDIATELY goes into a political tirade. That tirade reminded me of Greta Thurnberg (obviously not in message but in tone. Which, to me, makes the whole thing less believable.)

That moment didn't make me uncomfortable. It's what Liberals have been saying for years. I personally don't hy away from talking about the issues with society, so when Joker is pointing them out, ITS NOT A SUPRISE. It's normal. As I said, reminiscent of Greta.

trunkage:

stroopwafel:

trunkage:
So, I'll step into this Joker ring. It's fine. Story is as messy as Suicide Squad but Phoenix's performance was top notch. They made all the liberals jack asses which matches well with the Incel Joker. They must have taken all the talking points from a Incel forum and created Strawman charaters.

How was Joker an incel? It's true he had no romantic success and it's implied he never had but Fleck never blamed his lot in life on women which I always assumed is what an 'incel' is.

Incels are very much against men, not just women, especially what they call Chads. They think they are genetically superior versions of men that Incels cannot compete with. (I don't know if genetic is the right word there, but cant think of anything better.) Think of his friends who come over to commiserate him. There is a person who is clearly classed as a Chad. Anyone who isn't superior is free to go. And you see the result. The guys on the train were Chads and got what was needed. Thomas is a Chad but gets a pass for story reasons


Now, him being critical of women doesn't happen, so that part of Incel identity is not apparent. That's only part of their philosophy.
Edit: Also forgot to add - he's misjudging social ques. But then apparently he can tell when someone's being mean. Only takes in negative and dismisses the positive. When you focus on that, you do become isolated. Incels think that there is nothing they can do that can move them into the Chad zone. There is no ability to self reflect and this is reflected in the performance of the Joker

The movie really lost me at

Plus, I now believe Todd Phillips has been manufacturing (or at least manipulating) the controversy to sell his movie. Virtue Signaling at its finest.

Fleck never made any statement that didn't relate to him directly and even openly dismissed the argument you make. However that his character, attitude and actions unintentionally resonate in a version of Gotham that is tearing at the seems from class struggle and disenfranchisement only serves to highlight the point 'Joker' made which is that characters like Fleck aren't made in isolation.

This fact, I think, is what make many viewers uncomfortable. As the movie simply makes it impossible to close your eyes for it. This kind of emotional storytelling is a rarity in an era in which Hollywood movies are mostly just inoffensive theme park rides.

He literally states that, "I'm not being political" when he's talking on air. And then repeats that statement. Straight after De Niro asks if he's making a political statement. Then IMMEDIATELY goes into a political tirade. That tirade reminded me of Greta Thurnberg (obviously not in message but in tone. Which, to me, makes the whole thing less believable.)

That moment didn't make me uncomfortable. It's what Liberals have been saying for years. I personally don't hy away from talking about the issues with society, so when Joker is pointing them out, ITS NOT A SUPRISE. It's normal. As I said, reminiscent of Greta.

Seems more like you're just reaching to make the movie fit your political narrative. It's apparent Arthur is only reacting to his circumstance and, up to a point, only acting out of self-defense. There is not a vengeful streak in him until he can't take it no more. His rant at the end of the movie also perfectly reflects that. He's not like an incel, as you say, made crazy by the internet. As this is the only way I could explain 'incel logic'.

stroopwafel:

trunkage:

stroopwafel:

How was Joker an incel? It's true he had no romantic success and it's implied he never had but Fleck never blamed his lot in life on women which I always assumed is what an 'incel' is.

Incels are very much against men, not just women, especially what they call Chads. They think they are genetically superior versions of men that Incels cannot compete with. (I don't know if genetic is the right word there, but cant think of anything better.) Think of his friends who come over to commiserate him. There is a person who is clearly classed as a Chad. Anyone who isn't superior is free to go. And you see the result. The guys on the train were Chads and got what was needed. Thomas is a Chad but gets a pass for story reasons


Now, him being critical of women doesn't happen, so that part of Incel identity is not apparent. That's only part of their philosophy.
Edit: Also forgot to add - he's misjudging social ques. But then apparently he can tell when someone's being mean. Only takes in negative and dismisses the positive. When you focus on that, you do become isolated. Incels think that there is nothing they can do that can move them into the Chad zone. There is no ability to self reflect and this is reflected in the performance of the Joker

Fleck never made any statement that didn't relate to him directly and even openly dismissed the argument you make. However that his character, attitude and actions unintentionally resonate in a version of Gotham that is tearing at the seems from class struggle and disenfranchisement only serves to highlight the point 'Joker' made which is that characters like Fleck aren't made in isolation.

This fact, I think, is what make many viewers uncomfortable. As the movie simply makes it impossible to close your eyes for it. This kind of emotional storytelling is a rarity in an era in which Hollywood movies are mostly just inoffensive theme park rides.

He literally states that, "I'm not being political" when he's talking on air. And then repeats that statement. Straight after De Niro asks if he's making a political statement. Then IMMEDIATELY goes into a political tirade. That tirade reminded me of Greta Thurnberg (obviously not in message but in tone. Which, to me, makes the whole thing less believable.)

That moment didn't make me uncomfortable. It's what Liberals have been saying for years. I personally don't hy away from talking about the issues with society, so when Joker is pointing them out, ITS NOT A SUPRISE. It's normal. As I said, reminiscent of Greta.

Seems more like you're just reaching to make the movie fit your political narrative. It's apparent Arthur is only reacting to his circumstance and, up to a point, only acting out of self-defense. There is not a vengeful streak in him until he can't take it no more. His rant at the end of the movie also perfectly reflects that. He's not like an incel, as you say, made crazy by the internet. As this is the only way I could explain 'incel logic'.

I think you think Incel is a derogatory term. It doesn't have to be.

Also, that description 'only acting out in self defense', 'reacting to his circumstance' perfectly fits 'Incel Logic'. And Feminism. Or Monarchism. And Mercantilism. Or Communism. It's the literal basis of all revoulationaries/reactionaries.

There was nothing new in that speech to me. I'm gathering the writers thought they had an incredible insight. In reality, its been said for centuries. But that's my personal bias against old repeated themes

trunkage:
I think you think Incel is a derogatory term. It doesn't have to be.

Also, that description 'only acting out in self defense', 'reacting to his circumstance' perfectly fits 'Incel Logic'. And Feminism. Or Monarchism. And Mercantilism. Or Communism. It's the literal basis of all revoulationaries/reactionaries.

There was nothing new in that speech to me. I'm gathering the writers thought they had an incredible insight. In reality, its been said for centuries. But that's my personal bias against old repeated themes

So incel grievances are legit then? If you take it as it's literal term and consider the 'loneliness epidemic' and the fact that according to research like 1 in 3 (younger) men apparently don't have sex than that is some potential social dynamite.

But the movie isn't at all about that. The incel argument makes no sense as I would imagine the average incel is just some younger bloke suffering in silence instead of being a chan troll. Just b/c chan culture is so vocal on the internet doesn't give them patent on the movie. Espescially since the movie itself goes out of it's way not to be associated with any of that stuff. It has no overt political or social message and even the anti-rich sentiment ultimately ends in tragedy(we all know which one).

Instead, the movie is about Arthur's descent into madness and both the environment and upbringing that shaped him. His age is also not unimportant. The script makes him a bit younger than Phoenix' age but he's still way older than the typical 20-something chan troll imploding behind his little computer from surging hormones and frustrated sexual desire. Arthur was seeking for lost connection as a bandaid for his childhood trauma and current suffering. Arthur displays that search for connection very tender; despite him being very awkward and not understanding social cues when with strangers. He was locked up very much in his own world but like a dog kicked over and over again that eventually spiraled out of control.

'Joker' is a Faustian bargain for damaged ego, severe

, profound humiliation and forlorn hope. This is what eventually bleeds out of his existence and his rant is one of abandonment not one of political or social ideology. It's a tragedy, not a glorification. In other words, it's a great work of art.

Batman vs Two Face. Massive disappointment after Return of the Caped Crusaders. Adam West died while making it, not going out on a high note.

stroopwafel:
snippers

Hey Stroop. Here's how I see Incels. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Incels have trouble integrating with society. This is partially their fault. They want to be themselves, but that doesn't mess well with society. It's also society's fault. We are unwilling to deal with Incels at their level. We aren't trying to bring them in, but are deliberately trying to excise them out. They have trouble getting and maintaining jobs and watch while things they think are crazy is happening. They feel unwanted, abandoned, ostracised, left out. They feel like they can never be good enough, that they way they brought up left them unable to access society. They try to connect but eventually give up because it feels so painful.

Then they create a delusion ideology that paints them as the victim and expects society to solve their problems.

What's wrong with this assessment?

trunkage:

stroopwafel:
snippers

Hey Stroop. Here's how I see Incels. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Incels have trouble integrating with society. This is partially their fault. They want to be themselves, but that doesn't mess well with society. It's also society's fault. We are unwilling to deal with Incels at their level. We aren't trying to bring them in, but are deliberately trying to excise them out. They have trouble getting and maintaining jobs and watch while things they think are crazy is happening. They feel unwanted, abandoned, ostracised, left out. They feel like they can never be good enough, that they way they brought up left them unable to access society. They try to connect but eventually give up because it feels so painful.

Then they create a delusion ideology that paints them as the victim and expects society to solve their problems.

What's wrong with this assessment?

Nothing, but marginalized figures have existed since the dawn of modernity(and perhaps even before). There is a reason why Travis and Rupert resonated 40 years ago just like Arthur now. Many of the struggles those characters dealt with are just part of the human condition which is why they haven't changed in all those years. Alienation is not a novel occurence. The real interesting question is; are those occurences worse now than in the past? The data kind of hints in that direction. Marriage rates have plummeted. Birth rates idem. Social support systems have evaporated. Mental health issues and loneliness have taken on epidemic proportions. The cracks in society that were always there have gotten wider and wider it seems.

So, if you pair the profound alienation with the rise of the internet you can kind of see where incels come from. Or for that matter, self-radicalizing jihadi's and twitter witch hunts. It has become a battle ground for people looking for lost meaning; a means to bond even if it's over something totally negative. Even climate protestors and 'social justice' advocates would be an inkling of their current (online) media presence without their need for validation in the bonding process. It's what gives people a 'voice' but online regrouping hardly compensates for general social alienation of which society's deep divisions are ample evidence. It has fallen apart in a thousand different pieces or maybe this is just the new postmodern world?

The Joker movie kind of holds a mirror to the psychosocial processes that leads to alienation in this one individual case. That this message resonates among it's viewers and critics only proves how universal it is, even if the movie itself doesn't take a stance one way or the other. Which I think is what good art is, it leaves the meaning over to the interpretation of the viewer.

trunkage:
Incels have trouble integrating with society. This is partially their fault. They want to be themselves, but that doesn't mess well with society. It's also society's fault. We are unwilling to deal with Incels at their level. We aren't trying to bring them in, but are deliberately trying to excise them out. They have trouble getting and maintaining jobs and watch while things they think are crazy is happening. They feel unwanted, abandoned, ostracised, left out. They feel like they can never be good enough, that they way they brought up left them unable to access society. They try to connect but eventually give up because it feels so painful.

Then they create a delusion ideology that paints them as the victim and expects society to solve their problems.

What's wrong with this assessment?

Personally, I'd say it's the "then". Claiming to be the victim, expecting society to solve their problems, and hating women for not having sex with them is mostly why people want rid of them.

Lots of heterosexual men are socially awkward to some degree, and don't have a sex life. They don't have to be terrible people because of this. Hell, I daresay being a terrible person is often the reason for people not liking them to begin with.

Thaluikhain:

trunkage:
Incels have trouble integrating with society. This is partially their fault. They want to be themselves, but that doesn't mess well with society. It's also society's fault. We are unwilling to deal with Incels at their level. We aren't trying to bring them in, but are deliberately trying to excise them out. They have trouble getting and maintaining jobs and watch while things they think are crazy is happening. They feel unwanted, abandoned, ostracised, left out. They feel like they can never be good enough, that they way they brought up left them unable to access society. They try to connect but eventually give up because it feels so painful.

Then they create a delusion ideology that paints them as the victim and expects society to solve their problems.

What's wrong with this assessment?

Personally, I'd say it's the "then". Claiming to be the victim, expecting society to solve their problems, and hating women for not having sex with them is mostly why people want rid of them.

Lots of heterosexual men are socially awkward to some degree, and don't have a sex life. They don't have to be terrible people because of this. Hell, I daresay being a terrible person is often the reason for people not liking them to begin with.

Pretty much, like that oh-so telling Stefan Molyneux rant where 'Women are idiots for dating assholes and ignoring nice guys like me! It's all the women's fault! It's your mom's fault that your dad is an asshole!'

The term 'incel' (which they started naming themselves, by the way) is born from them not taking any responsibility for their situation and blaming women and "Chad's".

Joker

The Joker has seen a number of vastly different interpretations over the years. A corny prankster was what Cesar Romero played him as, a flamboyant mobster was Jack Nicholson's interpretation and Heath Ledger portrayed him as what Christopher Nolan understood an anarchist terrorist to be, filtered through the tedious conservativism sometimes confused for gritty authenticity that informs his entire filmography. Now we have Joaquin Phoenix bringing his considerable talent to portray the Joker as something he has never been portrayed as before: sympathetic.

What's left unsaid here, of course, is that the Joker was never a character who seemed like he would benefit from a more sympathetic interpretation. He is a mad supervillain with a nebulous past, more an abstract representation of chaotic evil than an actual person. What kind of backstory can you give him without making him less compelling?

I didn't have especially high hopes for Joker. The portrayal as a #relatable sad sack didn't strike me as a very good direction to take the character. Let's get down to business: Does it work?

Joaquin Phoenix plays Arthur Fleck, party clown and aspiring stand-up comedian. Arthur suffers from an eclectic collection of mental illnesses, among them a compulsion to laugh at inappropriate moments. Arthur lives with his mother (Frances Conroy), obviously not exactly mentally well herself, in a run down apartment, dreams of meeting talk show host Murray Franklin (Robert DeNiro) and has a crush on a young mother (Zazie Beetz) living in one of the neighbouring apartments. After shooting three rich men who assaulted him on the subway he descends deeper and deeper into violence and insanity.

Joker is very much character driven, rather than plot driven but it doesn't ever seem to arrive at a conclusion when it comes to its central character or the world he lives in. Arthur, practically by accident, sparks a social movement telling people to kill the rich which eventually leads to... well, you can probably figure it out. The Clown Prince of Crime sure makes for an unlikely working class hero but in the end that whole plot thread amounts to little more than another one of many attempts to tie the Joker to Batman's origin story somehow.

Real talk, I have very mixed feelings about Joker. On one hand, Joaquin Phoenix presents an interpretation of the Joker that is no less compelling and no less vibrant than Jesse Eisenbergs brilliantly maniacal performance as Lex Luthor and Todd Phillips, god bless him, is directing his heart out. Not only does the movie look breathtaking, paying tribute to both Scorsese and Snyder, the use of music and staging makes it clear that this is more than just another comic book movie, this is a prestige flick, god damn it.

The albatross around the movies neck is its script. It never quite seems to find its groove and ends up feeling like it's all set-up, no punchline. I already mentioned that it's character driven more than plot driven, so I won't call it out on plot threads don't seem to go anywhere but what it does with its main character doesn't exactly do Phoenix' fantastic portrayal justice. I understand it's an origin story but I do wish it would have let the Joker be the Joker a bit more. Arthur Fleck is, honestly, at times a bit pathetic. This fine for the first hour of the movie but once the Joker identity does start to come through it never really seems to take hold. All the way to the very end, Arthur has a tendency to wallow in self pity and the movie lost a lot of my good will during its climax when Fleck, now having embraced his super villain persona, still can't help but monologue about how he's been wronged by society. It's a bit of a shame, Phoenix obviously wants to bring a bit of supervillain swagger to the character but the script is too enamored with his vulnerability and humanity to just let him be cool for a moment. The movie ended, just as the character started to feel like he was coming into his own and at this point I somewhat hope for a sequel that'll let Phoenix embrace the more flamboyant side of the character a bit more.

The movie does have its virtues, it hits many emotional notes very well and does bring a sense of character driven drama to the genre that it too often lacks. It does things no other comic book movies have done so far and while it's writing is certainly a mixed bag the direction effortlessly compensates for many of its clumsier decisions. I can't really call Joker a great movie, though it sure is one with moments of greatness. It takes a lot of risks and overall many of them pay off, which can't be said for most comic book movies. I didn't love it but I enjoyed it and I want to recommend it simply because there's not much else like it. It was slightly worse than I hoped but considerably better than I expected and overall I want more movies like it. I say, give it a chance.

Bottom Text

Thaluikhain:
snip

Casual Shinji:
snip

I don't think Incels start with the ideology. I think they start with the isolation (that happens to most people during High School.) Then, they are susceptible to weird takes on reality.

It's like Karl Marx and Communism. He didnt start with Communism. He started with a critique of Capitalism. Then an ideology formed. Same with Adam Smith. He critiqued society, including Mercantilism and started the ideology of Capitalism. Looking at the finished product of "Women dating assholes creates more assholes. It's the woman's fault the world is bad" is looking at the symptom, not the cause.

Definitely call out all the Incel ideological nonsense. BUT it's just going to keep going if you don't actually look at the root causes. Isolation, connection and finding an identity is a common trait amongst most humans and, if we as a society don't help future Incels with this, it will continue to grow as a movement.

Edit:

stroopwafel:

trunkage:

stroopwafel:
snippers

Hey Stroop. Here's how I see Incels. Tell me where I'm wrong.

Incels have trouble integrating with society. This is partially their fault. They want to be themselves, but that doesn't mess well with society. It's also society's fault. We are unwilling to deal with Incels at their level. We aren't trying to bring them in, but are deliberately trying to excise them out. They have trouble getting and maintaining jobs and watch while things they think are crazy is happening. They feel unwanted, abandoned, ostracised, left out. They feel like they can never be good enough, that they way they brought up left them unable to access society. They try to connect but eventually give up because it feels so painful.

Then they create a delusion ideology that paints them as the victim and expects society to solve their problems.

What's wrong with this assessment?

Nothing, but marginalized figures have existed since the dawn of modernity(and perhaps even before). There is a reason why Travis and Rupert resonated 40 years ago just like Arthur now. Many of the struggles those characters dealt with are just part of the human condition which is why they haven't changed in all those years. Alienation is not a novel occurence. The real interesting question is; are those occurences worse now than in the past? The data kind of hints in that direction. Marriage rates have plummeted. Birth rates idem. Social support systems have evaporated. Mental health issues and loneliness have taken on epidemic proportions. The cracks in society that were always there have gotten wider and wider it seems.

So, if you pair the profound alienation with the rise of the internet you can kind of see where incels come from. Or for that matter, self-radicalizing jihadi's and twitter witch hunts. It has become a battle ground for people looking for lost meaning; a means to bond even if it's over something totally negative. Even climate protestors and 'social justice' advocates would be an inkling of their current (online) media presence without their need for validation in the bonding process. It's what gives people a 'voice' but online regrouping hardly compensates for general social alienation of which society's deep divisions are ample evidence. It has fallen apart in a thousand different pieces or maybe this is just the new postmodern world?

The Joker movie kind of holds a mirror to the psychosocial processes that leads to alienation in this one individual case. That this message resonates among it's viewers and critics only proves how universal it is, even if the movie itself doesn't take a stance one way or the other. Which I think is what good art is, it leaves the meaning over to the interpretation of the viewer.

I totally agree with all this

trunkage:

Thaluikhain:
snip

Casual Shinji:
snip

I don't think Incels start with the ideology. I think they start with the isolation (that happens to most people during High School.) Then, they are susceptible to weird takes on reality.

It's like Karl Marx and Communism. He didnt start with Communism. He started with a critique of Capitalism. Then an ideology formed. Same with Adam Smith. He critiqued society, including Mercantilism and started the ideology of Capitalism. Looking at the finished product of "Women dating assholes creates more assholes. It's the woman's fault the world is bad" is looking at the symptom, not the cause.

Definitely call out all the Incel ideological nonsense. BUT it's just going to keep going if you don't actually look at the root causes. Isolation, connection and finding an identity is a common trait amongst most humans and, if we as a society don't help future Incels with this, it will continue to grow as a movement.

Sure, look at the cause, but the cause isn't merely isolation or social awkwardness or whatever. Like you say, those are common traits. On this forum, in this thread even, you'd find heterosexual men who were isolated and awkward and don't/didn't have a sex life and who didn't decide the solution was being a terrible person and hating women.

Sure, society might make it easier to be a terrible person, and sure, half of every film ever made features a boy who gets rewarded with a hot female plaything because he happens to exist, and that affects how people view the world. But there's still a choice to be made.

Just saw Gemini Man, and fitting for a movie that took decades to make, it feels like a mutilated corpse so hacked together in the writers room I'm amazed we don't have to use lightning to bring it to life. I don't get how movies this bad keep getting made. First Joker then this one, does no one proof read scripts anymore?! No one watches the movie and goes 'Hold on, the Russian guy just said he's been watching the super secret Will Smith assassin the entire time...is that going to go anywhere? No? Okay...' 'Hey Arthur, if no one saw you kill those three dudes, how did the #OccupyGotham movement get your exact makeup style right the first go? Oh, unreliable narrator! Gotcha, nice cop-out'

Jeez, do I need to go to Hollywood and start something called 'Post Production' where we watch movies for editing/scripting errors?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 . . . 35 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here