S
Stebro
Guest
One of the best movies I've ever seen is The Langoliers. It's weird though, pretty much the entire movie is awesome, then comes the end and you're like "what? Really?".
The Official Movie Thread
- Thread starter CarltonTheBear
- Start date
Kin
New member
Finally got the chance to see Joker and I'll be honest I've never been more confused by a movie that's received some modicum of critical acclaim.
As a sort of "homage" to 70's cinema and things like Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon it's ok, I guess, but I really don't see what it adds to those movies. The system is harsh? Mental illness isn't well understood or treated by society? Feels like those are pretty rote points to make but sure. Phoenix is fine, although I think people giving him awards are confusing "Best Acting" for "Most Acting", and I think the movie has a good look about it.
But what really confuses me is the fact that it's a movie about The Joker to begin with. What does that add to the movie? Doesn't it just needlessly confuse Batman's mythology? Phoenix is in his mid 40's and looks it. The kid playing Bruce Wayne is 11 or 12 at most. When Batman grows up to fight the Joker, is the Joker meant to be an elderly man? Why would this rail thin man with deep mental problems and no particular skills be a good opponent for the world's greatest Ninja/Detective? Is Batman supposed to know who the Joker is and why he's a villain?
I've never liked the Joker character(at least post-Alan Moore) and in the past when I've talked about these problems the answer has tended to be that none of it mattered because the Joker isn't so much a man as he is the embodiment of chaos vs. Batman's desire for order(which is why, despite similar misgivings, Ledger's portrayal of the Character kind of works). The specifics don't matter because it's allegory or metaphor or whatever. But then why make the Joker a very real person with a very real grievance? Who only kills people who have mistreated him personally? That's not chaotic at all.
Which, you know, would all be fine and excusable as stupid comic book logic if it weren't for the fact that people want to give this movie awards meant for serious artistic works. I feel at that point you do have to at least approach making some semblance of a coherent statement.
Although, I guess, kudos to DC for thinking people want to see their most popular super-hero cast as a Billionaire who beats up child abuse victims and the disenfranchised in order to protect a terrible system.
As a sort of "homage" to 70's cinema and things like Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon it's ok, I guess, but I really don't see what it adds to those movies. The system is harsh? Mental illness isn't well understood or treated by society? Feels like those are pretty rote points to make but sure. Phoenix is fine, although I think people giving him awards are confusing "Best Acting" for "Most Acting", and I think the movie has a good look about it.
But what really confuses me is the fact that it's a movie about The Joker to begin with. What does that add to the movie? Doesn't it just needlessly confuse Batman's mythology? Phoenix is in his mid 40's and looks it. The kid playing Bruce Wayne is 11 or 12 at most. When Batman grows up to fight the Joker, is the Joker meant to be an elderly man? Why would this rail thin man with deep mental problems and no particular skills be a good opponent for the world's greatest Ninja/Detective? Is Batman supposed to know who the Joker is and why he's a villain?
I've never liked the Joker character(at least post-Alan Moore) and in the past when I've talked about these problems the answer has tended to be that none of it mattered because the Joker isn't so much a man as he is the embodiment of chaos vs. Batman's desire for order(which is why, despite similar misgivings, Ledger's portrayal of the Character kind of works). The specifics don't matter because it's allegory or metaphor or whatever. But then why make the Joker a very real person with a very real grievance? Who only kills people who have mistreated him personally? That's not chaotic at all.
Which, you know, would all be fine and excusable as stupid comic book logic if it weren't for the fact that people want to give this movie awards meant for serious artistic works. I feel at that point you do have to at least approach making some semblance of a coherent statement.
Although, I guess, kudos to DC for thinking people want to see their most popular super-hero cast as a Billionaire who beats up child abuse victims and the disenfranchised in order to protect a terrible system.
Kin
New member
The Oscar nominations are out:
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/2020-oscar-nominations-list-academy-awards-nominees-1203461985/
https://variety.com/2020/film/news/2020-oscar-nominations-list-academy-awards-nominees-1203461985/
I also wasn't a big fan of Joker. The overall story was just pretty bland and predictable to me. Phoenix saved that movie. Any other actor and it probably tanks. And now Todd Phillips is an Oscar nominated director and writer, great.
Kin
New member
I will say that I thought a lot of the technical elements of Joker were good. If it wins Best Score, for instance, I think that'd be really well deserved.
Also I get the sense we're in for a lot of things about the Oscars lack of diversity again. Only one non-white acting nominee, no women directors in a good year for that...so buckle up for fiery social justice takes vs. reactionary incel defenses.
On the fun side, Best Supporting Actor is a clash of the Oscar Winning Titans with Tom Hanks vs. Anthony Hopkins vs. Al Pacino vs. Joe Pesci vs. Brad Pitt.
Also I get the sense we're in for a lot of things about the Oscars lack of diversity again. Only one non-white acting nominee, no women directors in a good year for that...so buckle up for fiery social justice takes vs. reactionary incel defenses.
On the fun side, Best Supporting Actor is a clash of the Oscar Winning Titans with Tom Hanks vs. Anthony Hopkins vs. Al Pacino vs. Joe Pesci vs. Brad Pitt.
L K
Active member
I enjoyed it but I would agree that it had a lot to do with the score and Phoenix' performance more than anything else. It was a tame movie. It didn't really address the issues it started to bring up in any meaningful way.
As for it linking into the bigger Batman/DC universe. I don't think it ever really was supposed to. The movie isn't going to lead into other things and the only reason there is talk of a sequel is because it made money and Phoenix liked the character.
As for it linking into the bigger Batman/DC universe. I don't think it ever really was supposed to. The movie isn't going to lead into other things and the only reason there is talk of a sequel is because it made money and Phoenix liked the character.
Highlander
Active member
Just got in the door from 1917, extraordinary war movie or just extrodinary movie.
Some of the shots were well over 5 minutes of screen time, how they did the shoot is amazing.
Also saw it at Cine Capri in Scottsdale which has an oversized screen (not Imax but larger), but the projection system is done with Lasers for extreme clarity and the Dolby Atmos system which is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Probably going to win the Best Picture, it is a stunning achievement and much much better than the Joker. Some more info on the Dolby Atmos system follows. Oh one more nice thing is the bar in the theatre where you can take the plastic glass to your seat & watch the film with your favourite Chardonnay.
DOLBY ATMOS?
Dolby Atmos? is a revolutionary new audio platform that immerses the moviegoer into each scene with a 3D like experience for the ears. It allows for more powerful storytelling by giving filmmakers precision control of the placement and movement of sound around the auditorium. With the addition of speakers around and above moviegoers, along with control of individual speakers rather than a blended array of speakers, Dolby Atmos? allows object-based movement above and around the audience.
Some of the shots were well over 5 minutes of screen time, how they did the shoot is amazing.
Also saw it at Cine Capri in Scottsdale which has an oversized screen (not Imax but larger), but the projection system is done with Lasers for extreme clarity and the Dolby Atmos system which is unlike anything I have ever experienced. Probably going to win the Best Picture, it is a stunning achievement and much much better than the Joker. Some more info on the Dolby Atmos system follows. Oh one more nice thing is the bar in the theatre where you can take the plastic glass to your seat & watch the film with your favourite Chardonnay.
DOLBY ATMOS?
Dolby Atmos? is a revolutionary new audio platform that immerses the moviegoer into each scene with a 3D like experience for the ears. It allows for more powerful storytelling by giving filmmakers precision control of the placement and movement of sound around the auditorium. With the addition of speakers around and above moviegoers, along with control of individual speakers rather than a blended array of speakers, Dolby Atmos? allows object-based movement above and around the audience.
Highlander
Active member
added info on Cine Capri, not Imax size but "larger than a normal screen". Also a nice touch is the curtains the close after the previews and opens with the main movie...just like the old days. A bit of class for sure.
Highlander
Active member
Relax Nik, no just that the theatre was great and if you want to see the 1917 in the same context I did, I am sure there are new theatres going up there where you can check if they have the Dolby Atmos system.
Probably going to be in every theatre very soon.
Yes I love technology!
Probably going to be in every theatre very soon.
Yes I love technology!
I did and in all honesty I felt like they set up a really fun and elaborate ruse and overall it was a good movie but the punch was strongly telegraphed. Half way through the movie I kept saying "They won't make it this guy, that would be too obvious." Then "Ok here comes the big plot twist...oh wait.... It was who I thought it was going to be. Oh."herman said:
hockeyfan1
New member
Generational change, viewing options, theatre-goers, and the like: Movie makers (may) need to adapt to the changing times...or not...that is the question. Using Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker as an example...
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/entertainment/star-wars-streaming-age/index.html
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/14/entertainment/star-wars-streaming-age/index.html
Highlander
Active member
1917 is a masterpiece. Will bet it wins Best Picture, hands down.
This week saw Jo Jo Rabbit which is definitely one of the most different and entertaining movies I have ever seen. I loved it but can see why some people get offended. I think it won the last Toronto Film Festival award.
This week saw Jo Jo Rabbit which is definitely one of the most different and entertaining movies I have ever seen. I loved it but can see why some people get offended. I think it won the last Toronto Film Festival award.
hockeyfan1
New member
?Duel of the Fates? aka The Rise of Skywalker alternative. Can?t change what?s been done...
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30655276/colin-trevorrow-duel-of-the-fates-star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-fans-meaning/
https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/a30655276/colin-trevorrow-duel-of-the-fates-star-wars-rise-of-skywalker-fans-meaning/