Movies JOKER v.3 (Dragonlord's Review)

[dc007]

I will also say that by the very end of the movie Arthur has turned into full on Joker

So perhaps his morals have changed by this point

But when he was with Sophie there was still some Arthur Fleck left

Yes. He stopped taking his meds and went full sociopath. He killed the therapist at the end for sure.

 

[dc007]

I thought it might be, but they're played by different people. Sharon Washington as "Social Worker" and April Grace as "Arkham Psychiatrist"

They were both kinda cold, black women in the same field so he might have just thought "all the same."

 

[phoenixikki]

Watched yesterday and I was bored for the most of the film. Don't get me wrong, Phoenix performance was excellent but the plot and script weren't that good. Is it a bad film? Definitely not, it's just mediocre at best. Sincerely, Joaquin Phoenix and Todd Phillips saved the movie.

 

[Amerikuracana]

I fell asleep. Boring as fuck

The Avengers is on TNT tonight. Check it out.

And don't worry, John Wick part 6 is going to come out just for you.

 

[Threetrees]

The Avengers is on TNT tonight. Check it out.

And don't worry, John Wick part 6 is going to come out just for you.

be respectful

 

[Peteyandjia]

First of all, can you not keep track of who you're talking to? I didn't name any of those guys. That was another poster.

Secondly, yes, it is all subjective. All of those actors are not objectively better than most. Keanu Reeves is not objectively a bad actor. I think he's a horrible actor myself but I'd never state that opinion as if it was an objective fact. That's ridiculous. It doesn't matter if everyone shares the same opinion, that doesn't make it objective fact. Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, and never the twain shall meet. Quality is a matter of opinion and opinion only. Quality is never a matter of fact. Never. Because it is not scientifically measurable. You can scientifically measure quantity but you cannot scientifically measure qualitiy. Length, speed, distance, time, colour, weight, etc.. These are all scientifically measurable. One table is longer than another; one athlete runs faster than another; there's a greater distance (regardless of units) between London and New York than between London and Dublin. These are all matters of objective fact. But Robert De Niro is a better actor than Keanu Reeves? Well, obviously, that's an opinion that's shared by most people. But if ya come across someone who thinks Keanu's better than Bobby, ya can't say they're objectively wrong. And if ya were to say that, ya'd be an asshole. Because who are you to say that anyone's opinion is objectively wrong? Who are you to undermine and belittle anyone's opinion and make them feel bad for having a 'wrong' opinion? Who are you, who is anyone, to say what's objectively good or bad? By what standard can you possibly measure something like that? Is there a scientifically standardised unit of quality? A qualimetre? Last time I checked, no, there wasn't. So be smarter than that. Don't buy into the all too prevalent bullshit idea that quality can possibly be thought of in any objective sense. It's a ridiculous notion and it needs to die. Far too many times around this forum I've come across people attacking other people's opinions because they evidently believe their own to be objectively true and therefore superior. There are far too many insults being thrown around here in the name of opinion. Watch this video.

Ironically, I do respect your opinion. However, I don't agree. Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art, and specifically the artform at hand, acting; but I do believe there is also quite a lot which is objective about it. It's not as entirely quantifiable as something like say, athletics; and yet, much of it is. There is a basis of craft to it, like carpentry; and then beyond a certain degree of fundamentals, plenty of room for creative experimentation, which can be interpreted or felt subjectively. The fundamental craft of the art remains however, and can be judged objectively. So if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong. And I don't mean they have a different opinion than me, I mean they are scientifically, objectively wrong. That doesn't mean I would insult them for it, but I do believe it to be a fact.

Spoiler

 

[Big Brown Clown]

Here’s a deleted scene between Arthur and Sophie. It looks like he might have imagined her to have the same laughing condition that he has.

 

[Threetrees]

Ironically, I do respect your opinion. However, I don't agree. Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art, and specifically the artform at hand, acting; but I do believe there is also quite a lot which is objective about it. It's not as entirely quantifiable as something like say, athletics; and yet, much of it is. There is a basis of craft to it, like carpentry; and then beyond a certain degree of fundamentals, plenty of room for creative experimentation, which can be interpreted or felt subjectively. The fundamental craft of the art remains however, and can be judged objectively. So if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong. And I don't mean they have a different opinion than me, I mean they are scientifically, objectively wrong. That doesn't mean I would insult them for it, but I do believe it to be a fact.

Spoiler

scientifically OBJECTIVELY

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

I fell asleep. Boring as fuck

Not enough explosions?

 

[My2Cents]

Not enough explosions?

I guess wrong expectations or something as I seem to be the only one. Was drinking as well so maybe that had some influence in my judgement

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

I just saw it yesterday, it was really good. That's the kind of superhero or comic book type movie I can get behind, whatever you want to call it. Not that cartoony shit they come out with now.

 

[Hollywood Jack]

Spoiler free:

I saw it in the theater once already. I want to see it again because I saw it on a shitty old screen and missed the beginning. Joaquin Phoenix is awesome, but it seems like he's getting screwed out of an Oscar because of political bullshit. I think I need to see it again to really review it correctly, but I gave it 9/10 in the poll.

Almost all of the Academy voters I’ve spoken with praise Phoenix’s performance. “He’s brilliant,” one says. As the lights went up after the New York Film Festival premiere, I heard more praise than disapproval.

At the same time, voters appear to be resistant to rewarding the actor. It’s not because they don’t think his work is worthy; they just don’t like the idea that their vote could come off like an endorsement of violence.

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/joaquin-phoenix-joker-oscar-chance-1203362204/

 

[Peteyandjia]

scientifically OBJECTIVELY

Those are my gender pronouns

 

[armbarforhire]

Here’s a deleted scene between Arthur and Sophie. It looks like he might have imagined her to have the same laughing condition that he has.

I think its more he was imagining he was hilarius enough to charm the girl (ie just like the scene at the bar where he bombs but imagines he nails it and you see her laugh )

 

[Steve Rogers]

Ironically, I do respect your opinion. However, I don't agree. Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art, and specifically the artform at hand, acting; but I do believe there is also quite a lot which is objective about it. It's not as entirely quantifiable as something like say, athletics; and yet, much of it is. There is a basis of craft to it, like carpentry; and then beyond a certain degree of fundamentals, plenty of room for creative experimentation, which can be interpreted or felt subjectively. The fundamental craft of the art remains however, and can be judged objectively. So if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong. And I don't mean they have a different opinion than me, I mean they are scientifically, objectively wrong. That doesn't mean I would insult them for it, but I do believe it to be a fact.

Spoiler

Absolute nonsense. Completely illogical. You're making no logical sense. None. "Sure, there is a lot of subjectivity in art". There's nothing but subjectivity in art. Art is all subjective. Did you bother to watch the video? Hume said beauty is in the eye of the beholder. He was right. Beauty is in each individual beholder's eye. It is not objectively present in the object or person or whatever itself. Because if it were, we would be able to scientifically measure it. There would be a scientifically standardised, universally agreed upon unit of beauty, just as there are units of length, speed, distance, etc. There would be a beautimetre or a qualimetre. There is none. Therefore, there is no aesthetic objectivity. Objectivity, in the sense of statements like A is not as good as/as good as/better than B, does not and cannot exist where there is no standardised unit of measurement to assert such a claim as fact. If you look at a certain flower and think it's beautiful, and ask me for my opinion, and I think it looks dull and is nothing special, what right have you to tell me I'm wrong? My opinion is my opinion and yours is yours and neither of us is wrong because we're not talking facts, we're talking opinions. As I said before, opinions are opinions and facts are facts and never the twain shall meet. Never. Ever, ever, ever. How many times will I have to repeat that in order to get the message through to you? Learn the difference between a fact and an opinion. A fact is true regardless of what anyone thinks about it or anyone's reactions or anyone's feelings or anyone's emotions. A fact is true regardless of whether or not there even is anyone in existence to be aware of its truth. Imagine for a moment our entire species were to be wiped out tomorrow. Just imagine that tomorrow every man, woman and child on the planet were to suddenly drop dead. All that would be left besides our corpses would be our own creations, the plants, the animals, and the planet itself. Now say a tree falls over in a forest, and at that time, there are no lifeforms in the forest capable of perceiving it falling over. Forget about whether or not it makes a sound. The question now is does it fall over? Well if it falls over, it falls over. It doesn't matter that there was no wolf in the forest who saw it falling over. It doesn't matter that there are no humans around to come across the fallen tree and say, "Well this tree has to have been upright at some point. So therefore, to get to where it is now, it must have fallen over." No, none of that matters. The FACT remains, the tree fell over. I'll give you an historical fact. The American Civil War. The American Civil War... happened. That is a fact. No one ever disputes that. No one ever denies it. And even if there were no longer anyone around to know about that war, it still... happened. Long before the species died out, that war took place. Our extinction would do nothing to change what happened in the past. What happened happened.

"There us a basis of craft to [acting]. Ya know, it's funny, but I was never taught anything about craft in mathematics or science class. I had to learn about length and distance and weight and gravity and solids and liquids and gases and this and that and the other; no math or science teacher ever mentioned to me a word about craft. So I never learned the unit of it. Please, enlighten me, o wise one, what, pray tell, is the standardised, univerally agreed upon unit of CRAFT?! And shouldn't there also be a different unit for each form of craft? The craft of composing, the craft of painting, the craft of writing, etc., etc., etc., the craft of acting. What about all the distinctions that exist within each one of those crafts? Please, tell me, o wise and ancient master of all objective truth, what is the unit of the craft of composing pop music/heavy metal/grunge/New Wave? The craft of painting in oils/watercolours/acrylics? The craft of writing magazine/newspaper articles/books/critical reviews/historical essays? The craft of voice/stage/film/television acting? "As you can see from their respective performances in Taxi Driver and Speed, De Niro's acting level is 3.796 Brandoes higher than Reeves's. If only the difference had been 3.793, Reeves would, we can be sure, have won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his compelling and electrifying turn in Always Be My Maybe." Oops, spoiler alert!

"A certain degree of fundamentals". Oh I do love the objective vagueness and non-specificity of that phrase. Allow me to repeat it so I can once more experience tand be enraptured by the syllabically exquisite melody. "A certain degree of fundamentals". Damn... I should have worn my white pants. What the fuck are ya talkin' about?! "A certain degree of fundamentals"?! Well if it's so certain, would it kill ya to specify exactly what degree that is? 97? 132? And are we talking degrees North or degrees West? I'm not a mind-reader, ya know. Come to think of it, how can ya specify? Ya haven't yet told me what these so-called "fundamentals" are. Head-tilting? Lip-smacking? Pussy-eating? I must ensure I achieve mastery over these "fundamentals" so I can become the next President of the Screen Actors Guild and revel in anonymity and despair for the seemingly interminable remainder of my abjectly futile existence.

"if someone thinks that say, Tommy Wiseau is a better actor than Daniel Day-Lewis, they are entitled to their opinion; but they are also certainly wrong." Certainly wrong. It is a fact that their opinion is scientifically, objectively wrong. Bullshit. Utterly, offensively bullshit. Again, where's your scientifically standardised, universally agreed upon unit of quality, where's your qualimetre, by which you can objectively state, as a fact, that their subjective opinion is wrong? A fact is something that is true irrespective of whether anyone can perceive it or is aware of it. Again, going back to my scenario of every huiman being dying tomorrow, historical facts will still be true. Events that did take place will still have taken place. Nothing can change that. The fact that no one is aware of those events can't change that. For a scientific fact, an 8 foot long table will still be longer than a 4 foot one. These are truths. These are facts. Human beings are completely irrelevant when it comes to cold, hard, scientific or historical facts. The moment you introduce an observer into the situation, the moment they start thinking about what it is they're perceiving or learning and deciding how they feel about it, how it hits them, then you exit the world of objective fact and enter the world of subjective opinion. And a subjective opinion cannot be judged objectively. It cannot be proven false. Or true, for that matter. That's the main difference bettween a fact and an opinion. Whether something is a fact depends on whether or not it can be proven. If it can't, then it's just, at best, an opinion. So you can't judge an opinion objectively, nor should you ever think that you can. Because the moment that you do think that, the moment you think that you can objectively call someone else's opinion wrong, and yours right, therefore factual, then what's to stop you from stating any opinion as fact? What's to stop you from saying it's a fact that a certain person is ugly? Now you may say you'd never say that. But what's to stop you? Seriously. Nothing. Again, I implore you, understand the difference between a fact and an opinion. You may say you wouldn't insult a person for having an opinion you think is objectively wrong, but just to be told that your opinion is objectively wrong is insulting. No one wants to be told that their subjective opinion is objectively wrong. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no matter what it is, or how crazy anyone may think it is. No one should be told their opinion is wrong because an opinion cannot be wrong. That's what makes it an opinion.

 

[Steve Rogers]

I just saw it yesterday, it was really good. That's the kind of superhero or comic book type movie I can get behind, whatever you want to call it. Not that cartoony shit they come out with now.

It's definitely not a superhero movie; there's no superhero in it.

Leto overdose looms.

Well that's a pretty fucked up and horrible thing to say.

"... As Todd Phillips’ dark take on the villain looks likely to gross more than $700 million worldwide,..."

Will this be considered a good world wide gross for this film? A success??

Um, it did only cost around $70 million so... yeah?

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

It's definitely not a superhero movie; there's no superhero in it.

Well that's a pretty fucked up and horrible thing to say.

Um, it did only cost around $70 million so... yeah?

You know exactly what I meant.

 

[Steve Rogers]

You know exactly what I meant.

I only know exactly what you said. I never infer what isn't said or put words in other people's mouths.

 

[RemyR]

I dug it. It was almost uncomfortable to watch how tortured he was, but it was a refreshingly unique movie for me.

 

[Hans Gercmiov]

I only know exactly what you said. I never infer what isn't said or put words in other people's mouths.

You never infer? So, you wait for a chick to say fuck me right in the pussy?