|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Oct 23, 2024 16:13:18 GMT
That's actually really impressive. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Oct 23, 2024 18:03:40 GMT
I have to say the soundtrack for Joker 2 is awesome.
LOVE this version of Close to You in particular. I've never been keen on this song. Karen Carpenter has a gorgeous voice, but it was too sappy for me. I think that AWFUL Simpsons episode about Homer meeting Marge ruined it for me. Honestly people do tend to overstate the greatness of the early Simpsons. I mean yeah seasons 3-12 is some of the best tv ever made, but they weren't completely perfect as nothing is. Those first two seasons meanwhile contained a lot of crap and that Homer meeting Marge in High School one is so f*cking mawkish it could be used as a form of torture. Don't even get me started on the cheesiness of what he says to her in the car. BLEUGH. Futurama always did emotional episodes better I think.
Anyway quite like this version. It's well done, but her voice does sound genuinely unhinged and unstable, which actually suits the lyrics more LOL than even the original, and certainly than the awful way the Simpsons uses it.
Its lyrics are so OTT when you think about it, they actually do sound like something a mad stalker who has developed a seriously unhealthy, disturbing obsession with someone would say, about how the angels made him for her, and her jealously of all the other girls following him around, but the fact that the Joker is singing along with it shows how mad and deluded he truly is. Anyone else would be scared at her being that crazy, but he thinks "yes she gets how fabulous I am." LMAO.
What a shame the movie just didn't love up to this mad love aspect, and made Gaga nothing but a shallow fangirl who dumps him and doesn't do anything even remotely criminal, doesn't kill anyone etc. We really should have seen this kind of mad, unhealthy, obsessive love play out onscreen with all of Gotham suffering at their toxic pairing (like the f*cking trailer promises with the clips of him and her dancing down the steps in front of their followers that wasn't in the f*cking film) instead of like I said Gaga not doing anything and Arthur not doing anything and being raped. Yeah definitely what I wanted to see in a film about a comic book supervillain.
Again would have suited Harley's delusion that he's picked her because she is special, when in actual fact it's because she's just a sad sack he could manipulate. Again though none of that plays out on screen. Hell even her manipulating him for what she thinks will be her chance isn't what we see. It's just nothing.
Sigh the big nosed goddess deserved better. Whether her acting career can recover who knows, who nose. Of course it wasn't her fault it flopped, but sadly they loved to blame someone. That said though I think that Todd Phillips career is certainly over. I don't like ending people's careers over one f*ck up, but he does only have himself to blame as he refused feedback from ANYONE over this. My OP about fearing it being too self indulgent was sadly spot on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Oct 23, 2024 23:06:08 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Nov 11, 2024 17:51:08 GMT
Finished The Penguin. Oz is such a loathsome scumbag. I can't wait until Batman gets his hands on him.
Brilliant series, by the way. Very dark but entertaining. I don't think the finale was as good as the rest but that's probably my problem since I often find finales a bit of a let down after weeks of build up.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Nov 11, 2024 18:21:37 GMT
Finished The Penguin. Oz is such a loathsome scumbag. I can't wait until Batman gets his hands on him. Brilliant series, by the way. Very dark but entertaining. I don't think the finale was as good as the rest but that's probably my problem since I often find finales a bit of a let down after weeks of build up. I've downloaded them now, (and the Joker sequel just coz it was there lol) I have to find time to watch it. I've got so much to catch up. I've been saying that for about 15 years. 😆 |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Nov 11, 2024 20:11:05 GMT
I saw Joker: Folie a Deux recently.
The performances, direction, cinematography and score are still very commendable. Even Gaga, despite my reservations, was infinitely more convincing than the appalling 2016 Margot Robbie rendition of Harley Quinn. As Maxil alludes to earlier on this thread, the sequence with Gary in the courtroom is genuinely tense and well-performed, despite featuring certain irritating qualities.
However, the film's core narrative, structure, screenplay and editing are incredibly sloppy and discordant. Swathes of the film lack any purpose beyond recitation, the musical segments themselves add precisely nothing to the story (beyond cack-handedly transforming the first film's implicitly musical character into an explicit exercise in marketing, with neither feeling organically linked), and thematically, it's considerably more vacuous than the first one.
The film ostensibly attempts to be a Jungian morality tale in which Fleck's inner shadow consumes his formerly benign and helpless self, thus rendering the Joker an altogether different personality. Yet this development not only misunderstands Jung's original conception of the shadow (as a potentially destructive but also cathartic, creative and necessary facet of ourselves, implicitly realised in the first film), but also erodes the first film's social character. During the trial sequences- in which said recitations take precedence- Fleck's prescription doctor makes an appearance to testify. However, rather than recalling her indignation at the austerity-laden system which produces Fleck's mental illness, social struggles and ultimately the Joker ("They don't give a shit about people like you, Arthur, and they don't give a shit about people like me either"), she simply blithely comments on Fleck's "unfunny jokes" and "fantasied relationships". This shift- and exchange- exists for little narrative reason, only reinforcing the morality tale mentioned above. It's as if Todd Philips was discouraged by the identitarian backlash hurled towards the previous film and thus decided to castigate Fleck for his "incel" status, irrespective of how little sense it made or how incoherently it jelled with his past work. As I feared, the film is highly self-conscious, with practically every line of dialogue constructed around this poorly worked-through idea instead of complimenting each other or cumulatively benefiting the narrative.
(In that sense, it reminds me of one of my early university essays!)
The ending is also nothing other than a damp squib. The film essentially concludes where it began- rendering the entire journey one of cyclical pointlessness- and the final scene itself is sloppily signposted. It's a film which is ultimately highly compromised in concept and fails to function as a convincing or coherent sequel. However, it has its technical merits, and it's more atmospherically engaging than some of the CGI-laden bollocks we've had to contend with lately. In that sense, I concur with much of the negative critical response, but I wouldn't quite call it the worst film from the genre I've seen lately (the response is relatively overblown). Just the most disappointing and frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Nov 12, 2024 13:40:24 GMT
I saw Joker: Folie a Deux recently. The performances, direction, cinematography and score are still very commendable. Even Gaga, despite my reservations, was infinitely more convincing than the appalling 2016 Margot Robbie rendition of Harley Quinn. As Maxil alludes to earlier on this thread, the sequence with Gary in the courtroom is genuinely tense and well-performed, despite featuring certain irritating qualities. However, the film's core narrative, structure, screenplay and editing are incredibly sloppy and discordant. Swathes of the film lack any purpose beyond recitation, the musical segments themselves add precisely nothing to the story (beyond cack-handedly transforming the first film's implicitly musical character into an explicit exercise in marketing, with neither feeling organically linked), and thematically, it's considerably more vacuous than the first one. The film ostensibly attempts to be a Jungian morality tale in which Fleck's inner shadow consumes his formerly benign and helpless self, thus rendering the Joker an altogether different personality. Yet this development not only misunderstands Jung's original conception of the shadow (as a potentially destructive but also cathartic, creative and necessary facet of ourselves, implicitly realised in the first film), but also erodes the first film's social character. During the trial sequences- in which said recitations take precedence- Fleck's prescription doctor makes an appearance to testify. However, rather than recalling her indignation at the austerity-laden system which produces Fleck's mental illness, social struggles and ultimately the Joker ("They don't give a shit about people like you, Arthur, and they don't give a shit about people like me either"), she simply blithely comments on Fleck's "unfunny jokes" and "fantasied relationships". This shift- and exchange- exists for little narrative reason, only reinforcing the morality tale mentioned above. It's as if Todd Philips was discouraged by the identitarian backlash hurled towards the previous film and thus decided to castigate Fleck for his "incel" status, irrespective of how little sense it made or how incoherently it jelled with his past work. As I feared, the film is highly self-conscious, with practically every line of dialogue constructed around this poorly worked-through idea instead of complimenting each other or cumulatively benefiting the narrative. (In that sense, it reminds me of one of my early university essays!) The ending is also nothing other than a damp squib. The film essentially concludes where it began- rendering the entire journey one of cyclical pointlessness- and the final scene itself is sloppily signposted. It's a film which is ultimately highly compromised in concept and fails to function as a convincing or coherent sequel. However, it has its technical merits, and it's more atmospherically engaging than some of the CGI-laden bollocks we've had to contend with lately. In that sense, I concur with much of the negative critical response, but I wouldn't quite call it the worst film from the genre I've seen lately (the response is relatively overblown). Just the most disappointing and frustrating. I agree with a lot of this. The other problem with the ending is that it makes Arthur's meeting with Bruce Wayne in the previous movie completely meaningless. It doesn't mean much in universe, only to the audience who are already familiar with the characters from other media. It's really disappointing. I do find the film visually appealing and you say it's nice to watch something where there isn't green screen trickery everywhere. It doesn't quite feel like a picture from a bygone era in the same way that the first film does, however. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Nov 17, 2024 11:35:11 GMT
I don't think it's wise for anyone here to disagree with me. If you do know me you'll know that I'm the sort of rough and tumble, hardened, macho, ex marine type you do NOT want to mess with. Oh dear I used this quote on another page. I really can be a tedious, boring twonk at times LOL. To be fair though that is one of my favourite Rimmer moments. You just think why does he even bother trying to lie about that haha. |
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Nov 17, 2024 11:51:39 GMT
I saw Joker: Folie a Deux recently. The performances, direction, cinematography and score are still very commendable. Even Gaga, despite my reservations, was infinitely more convincing than the appalling 2016 Margot Robbie rendition of Harley Quinn. As Maxil alludes to earlier on this thread, the sequence with Gary in the courtroom is genuinely tense and well-performed, despite featuring certain irritating qualities. However, the film's core narrative, structure, screenplay and editing are incredibly sloppy and discordant. Swathes of the film lack any purpose beyond recitation, the musical segments themselves add precisely nothing to the story (beyond cack-handedly transforming the first film's implicitly musical character into an explicit exercise in marketing, with neither feeling organically linked), and thematically, it's considerably more vacuous than the first one. The film ostensibly attempts to be a Jungian morality tale in which Fleck's inner shadow consumes his formerly benign and helpless self, thus rendering the Joker an altogether different personality. Yet this development not only misunderstands Jung's original conception of the shadow (as a potentially destructive but also cathartic, creative and necessary facet of ourselves, implicitly realised in the first film), but also erodes the first film's social character. During the trial sequences- in which said recitations take precedence- Fleck's prescription doctor makes an appearance to testify. However, rather than recalling her indignation at the austerity-laden system which produces Fleck's mental illness, social struggles and ultimately the Joker ("They don't give a shit about people like you, Arthur, and they don't give a shit about people like me either"), she simply blithely comments on Fleck's "unfunny jokes" and "fantasied relationships". This shift- and exchange- exists for little narrative reason, only reinforcing the morality tale mentioned above. It's as if Todd Philips was discouraged by the identitarian backlash hurled towards the previous film and thus decided to castigate Fleck for his "incel" status, irrespective of how little sense it made or how incoherently it jelled with his past work. As I feared, the film is highly self-conscious, with practically every line of dialogue constructed around this poorly worked-through idea instead of complimenting each other or cumulatively benefiting the narrative. (In that sense, it reminds me of one of my early university essays!) The ending is also nothing other than a damp squib. The film essentially concludes where it began- rendering the entire journey one of cyclical pointlessness- and the final scene itself is sloppily signposted. It's a film which is ultimately highly compromised in concept and fails to function as a convincing or coherent sequel. However, it has its technical merits, and it's more atmospherically engaging than some of the CGI-laden bollocks we've had to contend with lately. In that sense, I concur with much of the negative critical response, but I wouldn't quite call it the worst film from the genre I've seen lately (the response is relatively overblown). Just the most disappointing and frustrating. Sorry I missed this. I agree with a lot of that. It's not necessarily the worst, but by far the most disappointing. A sequel in hindsight was never a good idea, but there was at least potential for a really fun, crazy movie of the Joker and Harley played by an excellent actress, smashing up Gotham. Sure you could argue that doing that would have undermined the gritty realism of the first movie, but at least it would have been enjoyable, where as this both undermined the first movie in a far worse way AND it was unrelentingly miserable. Better luck next time Gaga. |
|
