We're going to have to use this thread for it I think.Is anyone going to open a spoiler-filled review thread?
We're going to have to use this thread for it I think.Is anyone going to open a spoiler-filled review thread?
That was pretty good, if not quite as good as initial reviews suggested, IMHO. Phoenix was astounding though; a whole new take on it.
That was pretty good, if not quite as good as initial reviews suggested, IMHO. Phoenix was astounding though; a whole new take on it. While Ledger had his hair flicking, grimacing and lip-licking, he has this hunched pain, the agonised involuntary laugh and flamboyant twirls and pirouettes. Plus with his skeletal frame, he looks more like the comic Joker than any other actor has.
Is anyone going to open a spoiler-filled review thread?
Yup. What bothers me more is that they seemed to be wishing for it to happen.Yes, we have the ever-so-honest mainstream news media (and their hive-minded surrogates) to thank for pretty much rubbing their crystals / reading Ouija boards, hoping some white male would scream something, the open fire in a theatre, or claim in Flip Wilson-esque fashion, "The Joker Made Me Do It!" during the film's opening. They are noticeably silent after their sickening wish did not come true. Another in the "L" column for the propagandists.
The movie also showed that the system wasn't helping much. "You aren't listening to me." It probably would have prevented him from being a mass murderer though.This is the perfect movie for World Mental Health day. Arthur wanted help and tried to get it but was badly let down by a broken system. That's what makes it so sad. He'd never have been "happy", but I think he could have been much closer to "content" if the system were as willing or capable as he.
I didn't see it that way at all. The brutality was almost shown to be inevitable. A modern day "eat the rich" is the far less satirical and thus scarily realistic "kill the rich". To me, the movie showed the brutal riots with glee.And then there’s the movie itself, which actually accomplishes what it sets out to do: create a backstory for the Joker that both shows how he became such a horrifying figure and illustrates the brutality of the evil that he inspires in the world.
Did they watch a different movie than me? Joker was absolutely presented as an anti-hero, not a villain.There’s nothing about Joker that forgives or champions Joker’s behavior
REALLY??? Thomas was shown to be a complete asshole here, who staged Arthur's abuse to cover up his affair (or maybe he didn't). His comments sparked the riots as much as Joker did (probably more). He was at best out of touch and at worst one of the most despicable people ever shown in the Batman universe. Were we supposed to feel bad about his murder??we’ll simply add that the movie presents one of the most iconic — and familiar — elements of Batman lore near the end, but the event has never been so upsetting and mournful as it is here.
In the early version of the script that leaked online, Sophie’s interactions with Arthur were real but platonic, and he flew into a rage after seeing her have sex with another man. Cutting that out was one of Phillips’s rare acts of restraint.
No, but they did make up some pretty hateful screeds. See, for example, this review decrying the film as an “anthem for incels.” A lot of the negative reviews have a similar theme: that incels would like this movie, and therefore good people wouldn’t.This discussion is so weird... The media only picked up on this when theater chains were warned by the military of increased chatter on the incel boards. There was deemed to be a high probability of attack - the media didn't make that up...
Reviews are not "the media"...No, but they did make up some pretty hateful screeds. See, for example, this review decrying the film as an “anthem for incels.” A lot of the negative reviews have a similar theme: that incels would like this movie, and therefore good people wouldn’t.
No, but to me that’s the most interesting part of the story: the widespread moral revulsion at a film for the sin of exploring the pain of incels and losers.Reviews are not "the media"...
Exploring pain == inevitable path to murder according to this movie.No, but to me that’s the most interesting part of the story: the widespread moral revulsion at a film for the sin of exploring the pain of incels and losers.
No, but they did make up some pretty hateful screeds. See, for example, this review decrying the film as an “anthem for incels.” A lot of the negative reviews have a similar theme: that incels would like this movie, and therefore good people wouldn’t.
Yup. What bothers me more is that they seemed to be wishing for it to happen.
Seems that the President has filled you with hate for reporters and the media. You've been on an anti media and reporters binge for over a year now.Many in the news media were, as it fit their slapped together, sweeping, immature profiling narrative about a part of the American population (and a movie character they knew nothing about) in a convoluted attempt to use/anchor real tragedies (families of victims be damned) to said part of the population. Its manipulative (no surprise there) and wanted to generate nationwide fear...and the fact they aggressively tried to exploit this movie in a smoldering political season is no coincidence. There is nothing honest or in the interest of safety in what the news media's was doing regarding this film. Their coverage was all but saying "we hope this happens".
Michael Moore said:The film is set somewhere in the ‘70s or ‘80s in Gotham City
I don't know about Trek God, but I haven't trusted the media since I studied history and statistics in 2005.Seems that the President has filled you with hate for reporters and the media. You've been on an anti media and reporters binge for over a year now.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.