The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)

The Nal

Reviews are becoming politicised now which is pathetic. A lot of concern about potential violence, Antifa, mental health and the like and people choosing a side.

pixelburp

Be good to get into actual thoughts on the film, instead of the inevitable cycle of film discussion in 2019. Trash critics. Quote aggregators as scientific source of truth, and all the díck measuring cos some film did or didn't do well. I suppose nowadays you also got any cultural outrage to boot.

The Nal

pixelburp wrote: »

Be good to get into actual thoughts on the film, instead of the inevitable cycle of film discussion in 2019. Trash critics. Quote aggregators as scientific source of truth, and all the díck measuring cos some film did or didn't do well. I suppose nowadays you also got any cultural outrage to boot.

Indeed. Ill be able to accurately comment at about 6pm when I walk out of it.

The White Wolf

It will take me awhile to gather my thoughts on it - I enjoyed it but I'd strongly recommend leaving the comic book fandom at the door.

The only thing that's clear to me right now is that having seen it I'm amazed it's inspired such heated debate. It's hardly a deep social commentary and there's no defence of the lone deranged shooter. Twitter brigade losing their sh1t over nothing yet again.

Margate

its ok but not the joker

MOR316

pixelburp wrote: »

Be good to get into actual thoughts on the film, instead of the inevitable cycle of film discussion in 2019. Trash critics. Quote aggregators as scientific source of truth, and all the díck measuring cos some film did or didn't do well. I suppose nowadays you also got any cultural outrage to boot.

I think people go into far too much depth when judging a piece of work.

It's about how you feel and what it strikes in you and if you enjoy that. That's the only thing it needs to appeal too.

If something has a cultural impact, that won't be decided until years down the line and going looking for it in one's review of any art form, I tend to find bordering on snobbish and quite frankly, idiotic. There's no way you're gonna know until later down the line, if it has or hasn't

gizmo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean, the film is literally only out a few hours :pac: And 70% of critics liking it seems like a pretty decent result?

I wouldn’t trust a Rotten Tomatoes audience score as far as I could throw it TBH. Too prone to review bombing and culture warring - see the recent Dave Chapelle special or the Captain Marvel / Last Jedi fiascos. Something like Letterboxd thankfully offers far more reliable audience reaction without the frantic fanboy wars waged within the confines of RT.

It's also worth noting the crossover between these movies in terms of audience reviewer participation. There's no "or" here, their scores have almost become almost inextricably linked. Flicking through the profiles of the audience voters for these movies, especially against the background of the "critics vs. audience" debate, can be quite illuminating in this respect as you can see people specifically sign up to the site to rate the likes of Chapelle's comedy with five stars and then pivot to one stars for Captain Marvel and co. The behavior would be fascinating if it wasn't so...sad?

The White Wolf wrote: »

It will take me awhile to gather my thoughts on it - I enjoyed it but I'd strongly recommend leaving the comic book fandom at the door.

The only thing that's clear to me right now is that having seen it I'm amazed it's inspired such heated debate. It's hardly a deep social commentary and there's no defence of the lone deranged shooter. Twitter brigade losing their sh1t over nothing yet again.

Interesting! This is actually why I asked which Guardian article you had viewed as negative earlier, I was intrigued as to whether Bramesco's "Why so stupid" piece was one of them. I had seen it get some flak elsewhere and didn't really view it as overtly negative in itself. Sure it came from someone who didn't like the movie but he explained that in a dedicated review. The thrust of that particular article was, however, not really much different than your own opinion at the end there.

silverharp

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I mean, the film is literally only out a few hours :pac: And 70% of critics liking it seems like a pretty decent result?

I wouldn’t trust a Rotten Tomatoes audience score as far as I could throw it TBH. Too prone to review bombing and culture warring - see the recent Dave Chapelle special or the Captain Marvel / Last Jedi fiascos. Something like Letterboxd thankfully offers far more reliable audience reaction without the frantic fanboy wars waged within the confines of RT.

it works for me, my wife wanted to see Ad Astra and didn't check , worst film ive seen this year, audience score concurred. The Last Jedi was pretty crap in fairness. Im not seeing a problem

Drumpot

Really looking forward to this, going tonight . .

The Nal

I've always been a Cesar Romero man anyway.

micar

runningbuddy wrote: »

Looking forward to this. Love Joaquin. Is it really violent?? It is rated 15.

Saw it on Tuesday.........1 violent scene.

FunLover18

The Nal wrote: »

Indeed. Ill be able to accurately comment at about 6pm when I walk out of it.

Can't believe you've already decided you're going to walk out of it, at least give it a chance :pac:

The White Wolf

gizmo wrote: »

Interesting! This is actually why I asked which Guardian article you had viewed as negative earlier, I was intrigued as to whether Bramesco's "Why so stupid" piece was one of them. I had seen it get some flak elsewhere and didn't really view it as overtly negative in itself. Sure it came from someone who didn't like the movie but he explained that in a dedicated review. The thrust of that particular article was, however, not really much different than your own opinion at the end there.

Yeah like I said here I wasn't even sure I'd like the film. I did but it was nothing particularly thought provoking as it becomes clear fairly quickly that it is an absurd premise once you see it and not to be taken seriously.

I think once people see it they'll realise just how laughable the "dangerous" and "incel" talk was.

The White Wolf

I will say this however, the hype around Phoenix’s performance is absolutely real. Just never fails to utterly disappear into a role.

Drumpot

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Any given critic is entitled to give any given film a good or bad review, regardless of the broad consensus. As long as it’s a genuine response, well argued and made in good faith, it’s valid and worthy. I’ve sadly often seen online (Twitter, Rotten Tomatoes and the like) that some viewers believe it’s a critic’s job to directly echo either the viewer’s own individual opinion or some sort of groupthink consensus, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a critic. That said, anything that can be said for the film discourse in that respect is quadruply true of the gaming discourse :pac:

Should a critic not leave their own prejudice and political leanings at the door when reviewing a movie? If a movie maker is making a movie and telling a story that has been misinterpreted by some that is not the fault of the movie maker and is probably a solid opportunistic strategy by some critics to jump on a bandwagon.

A movie experience is ALWAYS subjective and as far as I am concerned we are all movie critics. We all have our own bias when watching things and movie critics are no different.

RocketRaccoon

MOR316 wrote: »

I agree in the main
All about one's perception and what they take away from it.

Having said that, I read a post some years (not on here) slating Godzilla for being unrealistic, stupid and because of that, the person wouldn't recommend it to anyone...

Strange

But see, someone like that shouldn't be taken seriously about a movie again.

I don't think a review of a movie has EVER altered my opinion on it or whether I'll watch it or not. If I like the premise or the trailer of a movie I will watch it regardless of what an online stranger tells me to do.

Similarly I'm sure I have missed out on some classics because I don't like the look of a trailer or whatever but horses for courses and all that.

pixelburp

Drumpot wrote: »

Should a critic not leave their own prejudice and political leanings at the door when reviewing a movie? If a movie maker is making a movie and telling a story that has been misinterpreted by some that is not the fault of the movie maker and is probably a solid opportunistic strategy by some critics to jump on a bandwagon.

A movie experience is ALWAYS subjective and as far as I am concerned we are all movie critics. We all have our own bias when watching things and movie critics are no different.

I'm confused as I think you're contracting yourself: it reads like you ask why critics can't turn off their biases and subjectivity, then say that we all have our own bias anyway and movie watching is subjective (which of course, it is). And in these days of the internet and social media, as you say we're all movie critics. That ivory tower has got crowded

Certainly I"ve never got the impression that 'the audience', that giant amorphous demographic of humanity, is any at leaving their own prejudices at the door. Hell half the threads in here are full of them these days, in one shape or another.

Drumpot

pixelburp wrote: »

I'm confused as I think you're contracting yourself: it reads like you ask why critics can't turn off their biases and subjectivity, then say that we all have our own bias anyway and movie watching is subjective (which of course, it is). And in these days of the internet and social media, as you say we're all movie critics. That ivory tower has got crowded

Certainly I"ve never got the impression that 'the audience', that giant amorphous demographic of humanity, is any at leaving their own prejudices at the door. Hell half the threads in here are full of them these days, in one shape or another.

Thats a fair point , I suppose what I should of clarified is that surely a "professional" critic should be above the movie going audience and judge a movie on its own merits, with alot less prejudice. Otherwise what seperates them from us, other then being able to articulate their thoughts on a movie?

I have enjoyed movies that have gotten awful reviews from critics or audience or both. I dont really care much for what they say but alot of people seem to place value on their views for some reason.

Quite often , reviews of movies, in my opinion are skewered. Like take Aliens newer movies. Alot of the complaints (stupid characters doing stupid things) can be labelled at the originals.

The Late Late Show

Will see this early next week. Quick question though: where does the name Arthur Fleck come from? I always associated the Joker with the name Jack Napier or simply as Joker. Also, this Fleck is not a gangland type before he was the Joker which is different to the Batman films.

D3V!L

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Will see this early next week. Quick question though: where does the name Arthur Fleck come from? I always associated the Joker with the name Jack Napier or simply as Joker. Also, this Fleck is not a gangland type before he was the Joker which is different to the Batman films.

I'm curious about this as well. Jack Napier was always The Joker.

MOR316

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Will see this early next week. Quick question though: where does the name Arthur Fleck come from? I always associated the Joker with the name Jack Napier or simply as Joker. Also, this Fleck is not a gangland type before he was the Joker which is different to the Batman films.

Just a random name.

No one really knows Joker's origins except for the Red Hood incident but, even then it's still a mystery

D3V!L

Just found a good explanation

https://www.bustle.com/p/arthur-fleck-isnt-in-the-batman-comics-because-joker-isnt-a-comic-book-movie-18760138

pixelburp

Drumpot wrote: »

Thats a fair point , I suppose what I should of clarified is that surely a "professional" critic should be above the movie going audience and judge a movie on its own merits, with alot less prejudice. Otherwise what seperates them from us, other then being able to articulate their thoughts on a movie?

Why though? I mean sure, they're professionals but to me that just means I expect grammar and punctuation to be better than most. You've reasoned on the key difference though: Film Critics should be expected to rationalise their enjoyment of a film with more articulation, nuance - or just enjoyable, readable prose - than us mere mortals. Otherwise, newspapers would just have bullet point summaries, final scores and statistics. Clearly there's more to news, reviews, and editorials than key figures or percentage points.

Demanding professional critics put aside their very human biases is totally unrealistic, ditto this idea that they be immune to any communal / herd mentalities the rest of us suffer from. We're all susceptible, yet it's a cheap attack on professional critics for being something almost none of them claim to be - experts. Most will simply say they love film and want to share that love in prose or podcast. The era of the "Anton Ego" style critic is long dead (aside from food criticism perhaps)

I think I already said in this thread, one of the reasons I enjoy Mark Kermode is because he tries to give a sense of what a film "feels" like, or - as he'll often say - what it's "really about". He's enjoyable to listen to not because I want to know what films to watch - I post here so it's probably fair to say I'm on the pulse? - but because he's a Film Fan Done Good, and tells a good story himself.

I find that to be true across most media: "critics" tend to simply be fans who put that love into a career, to share their own enjoyment, criticism, thoughts or perspectives. It's the audiences that appear to divine expertise, or presume superior knowledge.

Drumpot wrote: »

I have enjoyed movies that have gotten awful reviews from critics or audience or both. I dont really care much for what they say but alot of people seem to place value on their views for some reason.

Quite often , reviews of movies, in my opinion are skewered. Like take Aliens newer movies. Alot of the complaints (stupid characters doing stupid things) can be labelled at the originals.

Honestly, I don't know anyone who holds any particular reviewer's judgement to any great standard. As I said already, there are plenty of threads here practically bursting with anti-critic vitriol. It comes up time and time again. It seems like the overarching feeling is the opposite: irrational antipathy.

The White Wolf

To be fair I think most people with a passing interest in cinema, even your average Joe, would have their go to critic.

Whether it's your pox The Sun film critic or Mark Kermode, critics will always possess some influence on people.

That reality has been incorporated into the marketing of the film to the point you have comments from people on the Guardian stating they don't want to see the film, but feel they HAVE to.

Technocentral

Ive NEVER seen a film that got, say, a 2 star rating that wasnt crap.

The White Wolf

Technocentral wrote: »

Ive NEVER seen a film that got, say, a 2 star rating that wasnt crap.

You've a problem in this case as there are plenty of 2/5 ratings, but also plenty of 4.5/5 ratings also. Even the odd 5/5. It's a polarising film.

But of course you, as most people would, would probably have your preferred critic that would give those 2 star ratings and that's fine.

Or......you'd need to block out the noise and make your own mind up.

smurf492

D3V!L wrote:

I'm curious about this as well. Jack Napier was always The Joker.

Jack Napier was a character created solely for the 1989 Batman... To give Nicholson a character that before becoming the Joker, had a history with the Wayne family

RocketRaccoon

The White Wolf wrote: »

To be fair I think most people with a passing interest in cinema, even your average Joe, would have their go to critic.

Whether it's your pox The Sun film critic or Mark Kermode, critics will always possess some influence on people.

That reality has been incorporated into the marketing of the film to the point you have comments from people on the Guardian stating they don't want to see the film, but feel they HAVE to.

I've watched thousands upon thousands of movies and have never once let a critic influence what I do or do not watch.

brevity

I suppose as a film critic you might start with the basics. Story, Direction, Acting, Editing, Cinematography, Music. Did all of these things work well together? You might end the review with a few comparisons to similar movies or movies that the people involved had already done and close with a few personal things that you liked or disliked.

The White Wolf

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I've watched thousands upon thousands of movies and have never once let a critic influence what I do or do not watch.

Good on you in that case. It takes some commitment and interest in the form that you'd watch that many films and not have critics you would listen to in particular for their analysis if nothing else.