|
|
Post by iank on Apr 10, 2024 23:31:41 GMT
I couldn't make it past 45 mins of The Batman. Snooze-inducing to the max.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spark Doll King on Apr 11, 2024 7:37:33 GMT
I really liked the first one and wasn't overly into the idea of a sequel but this trailer has got me interested. Lady Gaga is probably one of the best picks for Harley. It's the only comic movie that's caught my eye in years. The main part I'm interested in in were dose it go wrong? One the one hand, Joker is clearly starved for understanding and kindness but love...? His only experiences with love are abusive. His only good romantic relationship was with a women he barely knew in fantasies. I forsee that Harley is either going to make a mistake and disappoint him, or she is just not really able to deal with the monster she's courting. Agreed. My biggest worry is that Harley will just be a delusion of his. The fact that she was doing the gun to the head thing he did in the first film which she couldn't possibly know about made me worried about that and it would tie into his character, being a more pathetic Joker, and imagining his perfect partner, but where as in the first film when he was still relatively normal it was a normal girl, now it's a mad sexy charismatic bitch to match his fractured mind. Sorry but that would be a bullshit twist, and I'd hate it if Gaga didn't actually get to play a Batman villain after being hyped for it for so long. That's my fear but then the title is "Shared Psychosis" Or "Madness Shared By Two". Someone is haring in Joker's insanity. Now if Harley isn't real, then maybe it's ment to be us the audience but I'm hoping thats not the case. The main examples of this in films I know of is an anime called Perfect Blue and the movie Bug. Bug is a 2006 film about a lonely women who falls in love with a war veteran suffering from paranoid delusions, over time she becomes wrapped up in his issues and begins sharing in his madness. Perfect Blue is about a Japanese's pop idol Mimia who want to expand her career, however the first role she gets involves a rape scene in a tv drama and the experience leave her distressed. Afterwards Mima starts feeling paranoid about being stalked and begins having hallucinations of herself as an idol, claiming to be the "real" her. This latter issue comes from the fact that prior to her change in career she had found a website that had daily uploads about herself, written in the first person and worst of all, contained detailed information about her actual thoughts. As several people involved with the TV Drama are murdered, Mima's mental health deteriorates and she begins to believe she or at least the "real" her committed the murders. It eventually revealed that the culprit it all is Mima's manager Rumi. Rumi is a failed former idol herself, who seems to have developed an obsessive psychosis around Mima, to the point of developing symptoms resembling Dissociative Identity Disorder. Rumi sees herself as the "real" Mima, and that Mima has tarnished her perfect image by trying to do anything else. If this new Joker film dose follow that line of thinking, then Harley has to be real, but that raises the question, who's being drawn into who's madness? Also is the Lady Gaga Harley the real Harley or just how he perceives her? I mean it's not impossible that maybe some of Joker's first integration with Zazie Beetz's character was real, it's hard to say given how unreliable his perspective round her is, and she would have likely been questioned about him post-arrest. Or maybe Harley dose that simply because she "gets the joke" and sees things the way he dose. Or maybe is just his imposing his ideal over an obsessive fan and as their relationship crumbles Joker begins to see the "real" Harley and not his ideal women. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Apr 11, 2024 22:02:36 GMT
I just felt The Batman was them trying to do their own version of Se7en, the critically acclaimed rain drenched serial killer flick from the 90s. It doesn't really hold a candle to it. I like the Gotham in the film, but three hours is pushing it. Who can hold it in for that long? There are 5-hour films that can hold my full attention and barely-feature-length films that bore me to tears. I don't think the running time is the problem, it's always the pacing. Some films are easy to sit through. The Great Escape and Heat are both longish films I can sit through in one sitting. I tend to like films that are between 90 and 120 minutes generally. I'm not sure why, but I often feel the time as I'm watching it. It can sometimes grind on especially if I'm not enjoying it. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Sept 19, 2024 14:34:58 GMT
I'm watching the first Joker tonight. Not expecting it to be a feel good watch lol
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 19, 2024 15:28:49 GMT
I thought the 2019 film was very strong, with a particularly impeccable central performance and score. The amount of vitriolic, frothing-at-the-mouth reviews hurled at it by the same artistic-critical clique who lauded Feigbusters and The Last Jedi as masterpieces was amusing and baffling in equal measure at the time. Reviews have been exceptionally mixed for the sequel, but given the unwarranted hysteria thrown at the first film, I've no clue what to make of that.
As for the other Batman instalments:
I like the Tim Burton films, but not as much as the bulk of the Hive's membership. They benefit largely from excellent set design and music, but I always found them narratively and thematically mildly lacking. The original is fairly air-tight- and features two very strong leads- but I don't find it especially thought-provoking. Batman Returns is better aesthetically but has a far weaker script. Although well-acted, I never found Catwoman believable in the slightest- not least her inexplicable resurrection- and Batman himself plays second-fiddle to an even greater extent than in The Dark Knight Rises (which at least had a thematic and emotional rationale for doing so). There's no clear narrative reason for this beyond Burton's lack of interest in the key source material, demonstrated by the fact that his primary familiarity with the Batman canon is that of The Killing Joke, rendering the Joker his primary intuitive strength. Still, they aren't bad films, and I've re-watched the first one fairly often.
The Joel Schumacher films are dumbfuck in every sense, although as insinuated elsewhere, Batman Forever may have a good film in there which was subsequently destroyed in the edit. The deleted scenes are infinitely better than the final film. Batman & Robin is a quagmire of awfulness from start to finish, although whether it's more entertaining whilst drunk isn't yet known to me. Still, at least Schumacher apologised. Davies, take note...
Christopher Nolan's trilogy is probably the iteration I find most compelling in live-action- especially if I were assessing them purely from a narrative perspective. Batman Begins has an alluring operatic quality to it, helped by Nolan being influenced by the set design and architecture explored by filmmakers like Lean, Kubrick (Wayne Manor is the Eyes Wide Shut "fidelio" castle) and Scott (Gotham still resembles Blade Runner in this one, contrary to the Chicago-Gotham seen in the latter two). His version is also aided by his blending of these influences with the best of mainstream action cinema (having cited On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) as his favourite Bond outing), and by his dislike of metatextual/postmodern allusions so as to strengthen immersion. The first film's biggest flaws are its final act (in which the budget begins to show- Nolan wasn't yet an experienced blockbuster filmmaker) and Katie Holmes' casting- she's far too young and impressionistic to be a convincing lawyer, even less a convincing romantic foil. The Dark Knight is an exceptional exercise in tension building, spearheaded by a phenomenal turn from Heath Ledger. Rises, as alluded to earlier, is the least focused of the three, although still benefits from an excellent cast and scope. The Burton films are objectively more stylistically assured, but I don't re-watch them as frequently as these films.
The Zack Snyder films blur into a haze, primarily because they feel so studio-mandated. I don't hate them as some do- and they benefit from not completely emulating the Marvel films- but they don't compel re-watches at all.
I didn't mind the Matt Reeves/Robert Pattinson version as much as many here did. From a technical perspective, it's more ambitious than the Nolan films- especially in its blending of POV shots and narrow depth of field- and arguably benefits from stronger world building and music. Gotham is more convincingly "lived in" (and, by extension, alive) than it's ever been, excluding Joker, and I thought individual moments (the opening sequence, the orphanage sequence, Paul Dano's Riddler turning himself in with that unsettling grin) were all well done. However, it's narratively weaker, offset by a poorly signposted fourth act (the controversial final hour didn't help!) in which the city is suddenly flooded, with no pre-established basis or foreshadowing (as seen in Batman Begins). Some have likened the film to Se7en, and while superficially similar, it owes a lot to Polanski's Chinatown narratively- albeit less clearly choreographed in how and why corruption dominates as much as it does.
|
|
|
|
Post by burrunjor on Sept 20, 2024 10:23:39 GMT
I'm watching the first Joker tonight. Not expecting it to be a feel good watch lol How did you find it? Sadly early predictions suggest Joker 2 will be a flop. I was really hoping it would topple Deadpool and Wolverine. I so f*cking hate the makers of that film and it's f*cking typical for geek culture to overlook those c*nts like the sell out hypocrites they are, but well what can you do. |
|
|
|
Post by Ludders II on Sept 20, 2024 10:30:56 GMT
I'm watching the first Joker tonight. Not expecting it to be a feel good watch lol Hope you avoided drinking any gin. 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 20, 2024 10:41:01 GMT
Sadly early predictions suggest Joker 2 will be a flop. I was really hoping it would topple Deadpool and Wolverine. That would be disappointing. Whether the sequel is genuinely bad or not- and it could well be- it looks more aesthetically and narratively interesting (by default) than anything shat out by Marvel of late, insofar as it isn't simply a CGI f uckfest. I'd rather see this than any of their recent offerings. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Sept 20, 2024 12:09:16 GMT
I'm watching the first Joker tonight. Not expecting it to be a feel good watch lol How did you find it? Sadly early predictions suggest Joker 2 will be a flop. I was really hoping it would topple Deadpool and Wolverine. I so f*cking hate the makers of that film and it's f*cking typical for geek culture to overlook those c*nts like the sell out hypocrites they are, but well what can you do. I thought it was very well made. Depressingly bleak obviously, but well worth watching. De Niro getting shot in the face is probably the most shocking moment although I like the twist with the girl in his apartment complex. I wouldn't watch it again myself but I appreciate it for being a raw and realistic take on mental illness. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Sept 20, 2024 12:16:41 GMT
I also rewatched the first 90 minutes of The Batman with my mum last night (we were both shattered though so we've left the rest for tonight) and we both enjoyed it more than the first time. We might give The Penguin series a go. I actually like Matt Reeves's Gotham. I was never keen on Nolan's depiction of the city to be honest. This version has more of an atmosphere and as a rain fanatic I love seeing the gloomy streets drenched. Zoe is also a better (and sexier) Catwoman than Anne Hathaway. The real highlight for me though is the terrific score. Is it me or does it the opening to the Batman theme sound a bit like The Imperial March from Star Wars?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 20, 2024 12:24:39 GMT
I also rewatched the first 90 minutes of The Batman with my mum last night (we were both shattered though so we've left the rest for tonight) and we both enjoyed it more than the first time. We might give The Penguin series a go. I actually like Matt Reeves's Gotham. I was never keen on Nolan's depiction of the city to be honest. This version has more of an atmosphere and as a rain fanatic I love seeing the gloomy streets drenched. Zoe is also a better (and sexier) Catwoman than Anne Hathaway. The real highlight for me though is the terrific score. Is it me or does it the opening to the Batman theme sound a bit like The Imperial March from Star Wars? I generally have more fondness for Nolan's iteration (and likely the first Burton film too), but in terms of isolated world building and atmosphere, this version is definitely more ambitious and noteworthy. The opening 20 minutes- in which Batman exploits the concept of his presence in the dark rather than his genuine appearance (making mere shadows intrinsically terrifying)- is a highlight for me. And yes, the score elevates it far beyond what it otherwise would have been. It's sometimes redolent of a neo-noir film from an altogether different era. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 20, 2024 12:27:51 GMT
How did you find it? Sadly early predictions suggest Joker 2 will be a flop. I was really hoping it would topple Deadpool and Wolverine. I so f*cking hate the makers of that film and it's f*cking typical for geek culture to overlook those c*nts like the sell out hypocrites they are, but well what can you do. De Niro getting shot in the face is probably the most shocking moment "You get what you f ucking deserve!". I like the sequence set in the cinema in which Gotham's bourgeoise watch Modern Times (1936) and- simply laughing at Chaplin dangling over the chasm- completely miss the point of the film. Hildur Guðnadóttir's score is also a highlight, especially "Bathroom Dance". Immeasurably chilling. |
|
|
|
Post by Cherry Pepsi Maxil on Sept 20, 2024 13:00:10 GMT
Sadly early predictions suggest Joker 2 will be a flop. I was really hoping it would topple Deadpool and Wolverine. That would be disappointing. Whether the sequel is genuinely bad or not- and it could well be- it looks more aesthetically and narratively interesting (by default) than anything shat out by Marvel of late, insofar as it isn't simply a CGI f uckfest. I'd rather see this than any of their recent offerings. I agree. I'm definitely going to watch the sequel not least because I like the direction of taking the story into musical territory. It's nice that I've not actually had to wait five years for it like everyone else. I've seen a few early bad reviews, but then I've also seen bad reviews for the first film which I found very stupid. Here are a few: "Joker, directed by Todd Phillips, is the worst kind of bad film. It’s a technically proficient and gorgeously presented falsehood. One that rejects responsibility as it strives to understand and empathize with the stereotypical white mass murderer.""The joke in both cases is that the director both gets to disavow white male murderousness and claim credit for it.""Cinema is dead. Here is your proof."The last one in particular is bizarre. Other reviews have gone after it for making them feel "uncomfortable." I agree with this actually. I don't think a movie about a mentally ill man's rise (or fall, if you like) to becoming a mass murderer should be unsettling at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Bernard Marx on Sept 20, 2024 13:09:15 GMT
That would be disappointing. Whether the sequel is genuinely bad or not- and it could well be- it looks more aesthetically and narratively interesting (by default) than anything shat out by Marvel of late, insofar as it isn't simply a CGI f uckfest. I'd rather see this than any of their recent offerings. I agree. I'm definitely going to watch the sequel not least because I like the direction of taking the story into musical territory. It's nice that I've not actually had to wait five years for it like everyone else. I've seen a few early bad reviews, but then I've also seen bad reviews for the first film which I found very stupid. Here are a few: "Joker, directed by Todd Phillips, is the worst kind of bad film. It’s a technically proficient and gorgeously presented falsehood. One that rejects responsibility as it strives to understand and empathize with the stereotypical white mass murderer.""The joke in both cases is that the director both gets to disavow white male murderousness and claim credit for it.""Cinema is dead. Here is your proof."The last one in particular is bizarre. Other reviews have gone after it for making them feel "uncomfortable." I agree with this actually. I don't think a movie about a mentally ill man's rise (or fall, if you like) to becoming a mass murderer should be unsettling at all. I loathe the notion that a film spectator can’t experience “central imagining” for a character they aren’t even necessarily meant to condone. It rests on the assumption that all audiences are stupid and need to be morally coddled. And what does Arthur Fleck being “white” have anything to do with his decline? His decline is the result of mass media falsehoods (Ala, Murray Franklin rendered an idol to him), mass economic inequality and state-sponsored abuse (with which his Mum is ultimately complicit). Hell, two of the only sympathetic characters in the film (Fleck’s initial Doctor and Sophie) *are* black. I don’t know why these critics don’t at least watch the bloody film first. |
|
|
|
Post by iank on Sept 20, 2024 13:27:57 GMT
Basically it went against the toxic narrative these freaks love to push that white people are somehow inherently privileged by the magic of their skin colour. Or something. So a film about a white guy pushed over the edge by an ignorant, uncaring society made them lose what little was left of their rotting brain cells.
|
|
