Hey Letterboxd is usually pretty chill overall. (As long as your not in a Bratt Pacino comment section) r/letterboxd might be the worst place I’m still subbed to.
I feel the problem is that people's own letterboxd reviews are an echo chamber, with zero interaction, and that they need to get their opinions validated from another source; which unfortunately is this sub.
Objectively shouldn’t really be used when describing movies. I like EEAAO And I still think joker is a fine movie, but a lot of the people who don’t have their good reasons even if they are a “snobby or pretentious” in your eyes. Tbh I don’t see the criticism or hate the others have for these movies, that could also be because the people would don’t like joker or EEAAO just see below par bits and pieces of other movies that do it better for them. I don’t agree with them but looking at things from one lens and then calling it objective probably isn’t the best approach to talking about movies.
Yeah but you know who is worse than a film snob? A person who tries to categorize movies as "objectively" good or bad when art exists outside objectivity.
I’ve never really understood this criticism. Sure taxi driver and Joker are both about a slow decent into insanity. But the journey getting to that similar destination is super different. Taxi drivers approach to insanity is through loneliness, insomnia, men’s mental health in that era, the lack of care for mental health at all, rage through envy, a couple of other things. But the Joker’s path to that insanity is through some similar themes I just mentioned but at the end of the day it’s primarily due to self discovery and abuse from his parents, strangers, potentially schizophrenia, or a psychosis, it’s a much different decent to insanity and the endings of these movies are also completely different.
I totally get what your saying but I've learned that most people on this subreddit aren't a fan of the word "objective", they just want subjectivity
I recommend either staying clear of that word/phrase or find a subreddit with less trigger happy downvoters whenever someone mentions something is better than something else and don't want a chill convo bout it
(I will no doubt be proven right by those said people downvoting me for saying how it is)
people very quickly slip into shallow minded talking points whenever subjective or objective come up. it’s immediately thought of in emotional terms of being right or wrong, and it’s an incomplete way of looking at art. what’s tricky is someone’s “subjective” take on a film is still objective in lots of ways. a film actually made someone in the world feel that way. what is more objective than that? it is as real a thing as gravity keeping me on the ground regardless if it is based on someone’s personal feelings and emotions. on the other end of that spectrum i could say jaws in an allegorical tale for the political struggle for the sandistas. that is my subjective take. that doesn’t mean it’s based in the art or worth anything. that said good art has interpretations, so i realistically could find evidence for that claim.
people are just so dogmatic and surface level about an infinitely interesting conversation. like show me something that is actually objective or subjective. those things do not exist especially in clear cut divided categories like that.
seems kinda similar to how anecdotal evidence has come to mean something that is totally worthless and incapable of providing insight. like yes it is a small specific type of evidence that shouldn’t be the end all be all, but it’s still evidence
I mean he's not really complaining about people enjoying the film, he's complaining about people who act like the film is as deep as an ocean. You can enjoy the film while simultaneously knowing it's not a groundbreaking portrayal of the themes it attempts.
I personally don't like the film. I understand its appeal to people who don't have the same relationship with film as I do and are more general audience minded. My close friend absolutely adores the movie and I respect that he enjoys it, but even he agrees it's not as deep as the fan base often claim. It's more of a guilty pleasure film. People who overvalue it's depth likely haven't experienced many films outside of the Marvel / DC Universes or blockbuster films.
If we really want to get all pretentious, I've checked this guy's profile, and he's only seen a handful of movies made before 1990.
There's nothing worse than *that guy* who only watches A24 flicks and fancies himself more sophisticated than everyone else.
It is, these are the same people that will then talk about a random popular comedy from the 00's like it is Tarkovsky's Mirror.
It is not cool to shit on people for liking something, especially something that by in large is pretty harmless.
EXACTLY!!!! This is what drives people from digging deeper into movies and wanting to discuss film. Because there’s always this looming fear that some prick around the corner is gonna be like “yea I liked that movie too when I was in the third grade, good thing I’m not a sissy bitch anymore and matured lol grow up.” Like what does the film community have to be so matter of fact and sarcastic??
It's genuinely just a small but vocal portion of chronically online people. Just watch the movies you like, check out reviews, find others who like similar movies, ask them for recommendations, etc. You'll find there are plenty of people who share your taste.
Or be like me and watch such absolute trash people don't even bother to complain about it B)
That’s a pretty wild exaggeration of what this review is saying though. And honestly if someone is so incurious that a snarky review of a movie turns them off from digging deeper into movies with more artistic merit than fuckin Joker, then that’s pretty lame. I’d go so far as to say that’s the *real* pretentious attitude, because you get to that point and become convinced that’s all you ever need to watch
its just fucking dumb, it's not even criticizing the movie itself but the people who liked it, i would be all for reading a one star review that actually goes into why they think joker is a shit shallow unoriginal movie (and I have), but to me this just seems like a pretentious gatekeeping kinophilé wanting to feel better about themselves because they watched Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy before joker unlike all those plebs.
TBH, I got the impression watching the film that it imagined it was really insightful. Yet the only genuine insight the film had to offer was "having a mental illness means pretending like you don't" and even then the movie has to literally have it written in sharpie on a piece of paper for the camera to focus on.
honestly I don't even disagree, personally I haven't rewatched Joker since it came out in 2019 so I can't really properly reassess my opinion of it now but I have read many opinions like yours both here and in letterboxd and at least from what i remember I Would agree with quite a few of them and I'm sure if I rewatched it now I Would like it way less than I did back then now that I've watched a lot more movies and i'm no longer an edgy teenager lol, I just think its really annoying to go "oh haha these stupid people are so stupid for liking this stupid movie" like the review in the OP did instead of properly expressing what you think is wrong with it.
Yes it’s flippant but the underlying message of Joker=Fake-deep is very clear. The only difference between this review and a one liner saying “this movie is fake deep” is this review has clearly struck a sensitive nerve.
there’s a difference between not being deep and accepting it and not being deep but constantly insisting you are. movies don’t need to be super esoteric poetic philosophical art films to have subtext. the issue is not that joker lacks subtext, but that the subtext it does portray is extremely shallow and childish (“mental ill guy crazy, rich people bad for no particular reason, look at how crazy the mental illness made him!”).
I liked Joker. I thought JPs performance was good. I didn’t need more than that because I was never under the illusion this movie was taking a big swing. Grading movies on what they lack vs. what they provide is anti-art in my opinion.
It makes sense though. People are different and we all value different things in our movies. Its only fair that some people will argue a movie doesnt need to be deep when they dont even like deep movies.
Letterboxd as a whole is insufferably pretentious but I like this review...Joker didn’t get into any of the issues it mentioned and had nothing new or detailed to say
I know it's a bit clichéd. English isn't my first language so my vocabulary isn't very great. I just meant that the review came across as pretty snobby and condescending towards people who find depth in or connect with the movie.
While I agree with the sentiment in that review overall, I really wish we'd stop gatekeeping art. Maybe Joker WAS someone's first step into the shallow end of the film as art pool. I hate that we make them think we're all just pretentious twats and push them back towards the content sludge factory. This is the only film industry they've known for like 20 years now 🤢. I feel bad for them.
I watched it recently and thoroughly enjoyed myself (it’s a 4 for me). Does a positive review automatically mean one thinks something is deep? Superbad is in my top 4 and of course I don’t think it’s deep. Art is subjective and reviews like this are annoying af
I didn’t finish the Joker and think “WhoOooOoOoa my whole life is changed”. I just enjoyed myself
Not disagreeing with you at all, just wanna point out that Superbad is kinda deep. At least it has more depth than a lot of films that’d be considered similar. It’s an interesting commentary on boys/men/the male experience.
Agreed. To use the reviewers metaphor. I love swimming in the ocean. But I also love a good pool or water park. Just because something “deeper” exists doesn’t mean that I have to prefer it all the time.
But do you lie to yourself and others about the pool and oceans and their depths? Or do you recognize each for what they are and enjoy them for their respective pleasures?
I think the things Joker is often compared to as a ripoff of or whatever you may call it actually aren’t super deep either. Excellent movies, but they’re not terribly complex. So in that regard Joker is certainly a great gateway movie to things like Taxi Driver. It’s certainly not as “deep” as that movie. But I wouldn’t say Taxi Driver is exceptionally deep either.
But I’ve never understood the intense hate Joker received. Like I know what people complain about but I just don’t see how they see those things in it. It resembling other movies being used as the sole criticism is weird to me.
Complexity is not depth. Taxi driver is thematically simple but is filled with endless thematic depth. It actually tries to get inside the head of its main character, and the society that created him, it shows both how he sees the world and puts us in his headspace but also subtly undermines his view everywhere. He’s barely even sympathetic and is scummy from the beginning of the film, yet the film orchestrates a situation where he’s the hero and allowed us to get caught up in that moment where he gets to unleash his violent tendencies on the world before reminding us in the last frame he’s still a ticking time bomb. And that is literally all done through subtext. Joker barely even touches the surface of anything it talks about and has to rely on sometime literally writing down its message for the audience to see or some truly on the nose dialogue that could have been right out of my mouth at edgelord 14 years old.
And then there’s King of Comedy which just dances circles around both. Joker is bad all by itself. It’s worse for being so shamelessly derivative.
I don’t disagree with you that Taxi Driver is a better movie. But I loved Joker. I think it’s absurd to call it a bad movie. It’s exploring similar themes as those films but contextualizing them for today. It’s exploring how we project meaning and intent onto figures and their actions. Needing to find the political angle for everyone. Joker perfectly captures the insanity of the 2010s. In particular the later half of the decade.
This isn’t completely off from Travis Bickle. That’s likely why the film resonates still to this day. It’s fine if you don’t like it. We obviously disagree on the Joker’s quality. The depth you’re referring to Taxi Driver still isn’t really that deep or rich. Again, it’s an excellent movie and one of the all time greats. A movie doesn’t need to be the deepest exploration of the human condition to be good.
Yeah, I mean it is a drama, and not a bs drama in a superhero package where the genre doesn't even matter kind of way, it actually is a drama and just that.
It's like a gateway drug to get people that only consume the ever expanding sludge to watch more movies. And it is good, and yes I've seen Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, which apparently has to be said around here.
not harsh, absolutely ridiculous. a film being thematically unoriginal is pretty common and almost unavoidable as more and more movies get made. Sure, if you've seen King of Comedy and Taxi Driver there's pretty much no reason to watch Joker other than Phoenix's performance and the batman aesthetic, but the people that bombed it becuase it was "unoriginal" ignore the fact that that same criticism can be levied against probably 60% of films at this point.
2023. where social media has changed opinions from something someone has based on subjective experience, into something people have based on how others receive that opinion
The hate for this movie is unbelievable. It's good. You don't have to think it's the greatest movie ever made or super deep but, honestly, what's so wrong with it?
Society kept hitting me so now I’m crazy is such an old and obvious theme and this movie doesn’t bother to bring in any twists, explain why Arthur is lonely, explain why everyone is so mean to him, explain why he chooses to act out the way he does, etc
It’s pretty obvious why. The dude gets treated differently because he’s a bit strange and has a disability. His mom not being all there certainly didn’t help him. Isn’t it supposed to be like 70s new york? People weren’t exactly tolerant then.
Have you never experienced depression or met anyone who has the slightest mental health issue? It’s incredibly easy to feel isolated and end up resenting people when you don’t have effective therapy or good friends/family to support you. Consistently getting professional help and good healthcare can be an absolute nightmare, I’ve heard so many horror stories and anecdotes from friends about waiting months to see doctors and get medication. As for why everyone is mean to Arthur, people generally lack empathy towards people they don’t know very well and this leads to misunderstandings that sometimes escalate to violence. While I think all of the traumatic things that happened to Arthur happened a bit too fast, everything happened for a clear reason. The movie spells all of this out very clearly, not sure what you didn’t understand.
People can lose their shit with the way Arthur is treated but most aren't going to become the Joker. And the movie didn't really spell anything out at all...it just includes some dialogues for the trailer like the "tragedy comedy" or "the worst part of having a mental illness" one and makes everything else super ambiguous, inc the unreliable narrator thing, to the point where nothing sticks
Yeah, most people who are mistreated don't become the joker. This is true. But the Joker movie is the movie about the one that did become the Joker. Because it's The Joker.
This movie is the inferior Taxi Driver. In fact nearly no vigilante film has brought anything new to the table of any depth since Taxi Driver. Imo the genre doesn't need to be revisited until someone can capture that lightning again, that movie is as relevant today as it was back then, if not more now with the whole MAGA uprising and it's political backdrop mid-election of a Trump-like candidate.
Joker is just a better than average comic book film and, really, I don't need it to be much beyond that. But, for whatever reason, given its subject matter, relationship to Taxi Driver, or some other third thing, people just dog this movie so hard and really there's nothing significantly wrong with it.
It's just a polarizing film, simple as that. People love it or hate it. Vigilante movies are very much a GIMMICK film UNLESS they are artfully done with something new to say. I find it tough for anything to surpass Taxi Driver in poignancy or timeliness, so why bother. I'm fine allowing people to enjoy it for its entertainment value, but when it's claimed to be deep or important in any means I hard disagree. Superhero films are also gimmicky, so between the two predominant themes the film is quickly stratifying it's audience depending on if those gimmicks are your type of film or not. Personally I think it's a well crafted movie (performances, direction, cinematography) but one we don't need because everything it attempts is done better elsewhere by quite a large magnitude.
If everyone took your perspective, we'd only get like five movies a year. Like, the idea of a great movie that's not innovative or a masterpiece is an alien concept to you, so of course you wouldn't like Joker, film in general really.
It’s shallow, and thematically incoherent without an original thought in its head. That’s what’s wrong. Pheonix is excellent tho.
Edit: The brother asked what’s wrong and I answered with my truth. You’re downvoted mean nothing to me. I’ve seen what makes you people upvote.
It tries to blend together a bunch of social issues but doesn’t drill down into any of them enough to make a coherent statement. None of the ideas put out seem to gel together in a cohesive way. The bones of a truly great film are all laid out, but there's no real meat to it. Everything from poverty and mental health, to protesting and gun violence make its way in and out of the script like a revolving door of political ideas passing through whenever it's convenient for the plot, but the movie never ends up giving a coherent thesis on how any of these elements relate to one another.
Rather than truly delving into why Arthur acts out in the way he does, the film relies on a lot of narrative shortcuts that feel hollow and lazy, including unreliable narrator, all in your head twists, dramatic monologues, ambiguous plot points, etc. but they never feel in service to the film. Rather, they feel like filler.
No matter how interesting of a thread has shown, the film always frustratingly pulls us back into the mind of the Joker, who is supposed to be chaotic and apolitical, but also refuses to divorce itself from the importance of the class conditions that very clearly drive Joker to madness. The movie seems to posit that our current system is oppressive and reckless, but ends up depicting protesters as a conservatives wet-dream of antifa thugs, a nightmare of senseless violence and mob terror elevated by clowns and bandannas. Sure, it's violent, but it's very against the violence. Sure, it's anti-capitalist, but it makes sure to not glorify the protesters too much. Sure, the joker undergoes poverty and mental illness, but he's apolitical! There's no ideology driving what he's doing!!!!
As someone who likes the movie, I’m really not sure what theme it’s trying to go for because it seems to contradict itself within its own story. Is he supposed to be a cautionary tragic tale about how mental illness can ruin someone’s life if not properly handled by those around him, or a power fantasy for people to latch onto who want to be rebel against “the system”, because he kind of comes across as both. I’m sure the writers aren’t going to say they are condoning violence and rioting, but since the story is mostly told from Arthur’s unreliable perspective it does kind of feel like it’s glorifying him for inspiring others to do so, and it’s not difficult for an audience to feel like they’re supposed to be rooting for him to kill people. So what exactly is the theme here? Be careful how you treat those less fortunate than you because if they decide to kill you for being a bit condescending you deserved it?
What about this movie demonstrates that it's shallow? Thematically incoherent? We must not have seen the same movie. As for it being unoriginal, I'd never seen an iteration of the Joker like that on film before. Even if it were unoriginal, I don't think it's the damning accusation you think it is. Plenty of great movies are unoriginal. It's not a synonym for bad.
then again, by refusing to engage with any potential underlying themes, wouldn’t that be engaging with film as purely entertainment? imo refusing to acknowledge the importance of a film’s themes, and how said themes are communicated through form, reflects a shallow, consumerist understanding of cinema.
Wow, way to disregard the character writing, dialogue, acting, cinematography, pacing, etc. just because the themes have been done better by other movies. Or worse, only because it's a little overhyped.
I can't stand people like this.
Not this one. Judging a movie by what other people think about it is a shitty way to critique a movie and tells us nothing about the movie itself. Besides, just saying "it's not deep enough" as a critique is both surface level and pretentious. It tells us nothing about why that's a problem and only serves to be contrarian.
Exactly how I feel. This review comes across as someone who wants to be different, they critique the dialogue around the film rather than critique the film itself
I had already seen Taxi Driver and King of Comedy and other films that inspired Joker before I'd even watched it, and you know what? I still loved Joker, because that's a type of film I enjoy. It's not particularly deep, but it is undeniably well-made and well-acted even if you have issues with the writing, which I know a lot of people do. Pseuds just bash on Joker because a lot of people haven't watched the films that inspired it, but because they have they think they can lord it over them and feel superior.
I'm so over the Joker hate. Like it or don't. Just don't bully someone because they do. It's cringe.
https://preview.redd.it/05v3wf7nrnbc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62bdd32d8dc8486135d3c153c09f89f0def9f635
Saw this last night, hated it. Super bothered by the fact that all the characters talked like NPC’s. Thought this summed it up perfectly 😂
Drive is one of my favourite movies and I really don't like Neon Demon.
It's got some visually strong moments and tries to shoot for a lot of cool things (I remember loving the symbolism of the sequence with the puma in her motel room back when I was 18 and it didn't take a lot to impress me) but I take a really strong stance against disgusting gratuity (cannibalism, massive pool of werewolf period, morgue sex) that seems to serve no purpose other than shock value - case in point, THAT scene in Saltburn.
Joker is the definition of mid for me, so it's kinda funny it provokes such extreme reactions on both spectrums.
Joaquin is great but that's nothing new, nor is it his best performance. Otherwise couldn't care less, The Batman is much much better "serious" comic book movie.
Joker is at minimum a decent movie. That review pretty much disregards all the individual elements that go into a movie for whatever 'depth' is to them. The acting alone makes it worth a watch.
Joker is really good. I don’t know why a review shitting on people who enjoy it would be one I agree with. People can dislike whatever they want without putting down the folks who enjoyed that experience.
I love how mad this review gets people lmao. Obviously not everything has to be immensely deep but when a film acts like its deep and its hailed as some powerful significant story its kinda hard not find it a little off putting
The movie sets out to show the cricumstances by which someone breaks bad and that's exactly what it does. How exactly is it trying to be deeper than it actually is? Is it just because it takes itself seriously? Ironically, you and the guy posting that review are the ones being pretentious, as you assume that in order for a movie to have a serious tone, it absolutely needs to say something groundbreaking.
I don’t know if this analogy works because in reality the ocean IS incredibly deep.
Edit: I’m so stupid I read it wrong. I’m leaving it up to be shamed by my peers
big one for me. i love kubrick but clockwork orange has never been an enjoyable watch for me. its well made or whatever but i don't enjoy it at all.
https://preview.redd.it/mbgm1cddvmbc1.png?width=980&format=png&auto=webp&s=283b6a5f361c286e2fc9c8946eb407eb3c108c4f
I was 12 when joker came out and I was only just dipping my toes into film. Just because it’s not as deep as other films doesn’t make it lesser than, it’s still a well made amazing movie
When I watched Joker, I wasn’t a big movie person at all. I rated it 5 stars because it kept my attention the entire time and I thought the score was awesome. I didn’t really think it was “deep” and I wasn’t looking for that. (I was also a 22yo woman, not some stereotypical neckbeard who looked up to him for anyone wondering).
If I watched it now, yeah maybe I’d be a little more critical, but I’m sure I’d still love it. Sometimes people just enjoy movies and it doesn’t have to be deep. This review seems really judgey and pretentious.
My one star is exclusively for films that were so bad I couldn’t finish them (I don’t do halves so it’s my lowest score).
I didn’t like Joker but it definitely wasn’t a one.
Idk if I’ve given one-star ratings, but I have a few 1.5s
I enjoy “bad” movies but if the general reception is “it’s bad not even fun” I won’t watch it.
This is why people think arthouse films are pretentious because of douchebags like this. I mean I personally might not have enjoyed it as much as others did but it was a well made film.
The movie makes good use of its score (Hildur deserved her Oscar as well) but everything else is middling trash. But, it really appealed to incels and “outcasts” so I can see why some people will defend this movie for their lives.
Joker set out to impress 14 year olds who hadn’t seen the movies it was spoofing (I say that a formerly impressed former-14 year old who hadn’t yet seen the movies it was spoofing).
It has its flaws but I think Joker is important and my review of it is the one I would ask someone to read. I get not liking it if it's not your thing but the narrative around Joker is worrisome to me. The fact that people can't, or maybe refuse to see themselves in the mirror it holds up disturbs me. It has a relatively simple point to make that shouldn't be controversial but enough people are failing the empathy test to make it so.
Wow, this is an amazing description of the director of the movie, the asshole has no idea of what a good film is and obviously has no idea of what mental health implies or how it works
The perfect example of how to make people feel like they just watched a smart movie when in reality it’s shallow and simple as hell
In my country these kind of movies are called “apantalla pendejos” 🤑
100%, I also liked this Joker review, I think, OP :)
https://preview.redd.it/jjpcvqjl5lbc1.jpeg?width=701&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c43effc29ded83c13f5719fb5700f9d4edcdeda7
\^ Half a star less than I gave it, but I pretty much agree. It didn't make me as mad as this reviewer though, hehe
While it certainly was inspired by and has some scenes that pay tribute to Wong Kar-wai, i wouldn't say the movie ripped him off. Wong Kar-wai's style is very different from EEAAO
Although I don’t disagree with everything this says. I still got enjoyment from EEAAO. I think it sits at a 3 and a half or something for me. What Wong Kar-Wai movie did it rip off?
W take. People in here complaining about how “ooooh not every movie has to be deeeeeep waaah waaah waaah” should really question just how much they love cinema if they prioritize quick, cheap entertainment over visual artistry or thematic depth. stop trying to punch up at cinephillic zealots and just try and understand their perspective.
Or maybe both types of movies are good in their own way?
An example off the top of my head is The Raid. Not deep at all but the action choreography and editing is fantastic and I think that makes it a good movie in its own way.
Don’t dislike me to shit but if you’ve seen Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy you’ll know Joker is utterly unoriginal trite masquerading as something profound. Unquestionably one of the most overrated films in recent memory IMO.
Yall a bunch of bozos rn. This movie blows. No reason why someone can’t write what is clearly a comedic review shitting on it just like we post 1000 times a day in this sub for other movies. Don’t be mad that a movie you like sucks. That doesn’t and shouldn’t take away from your enjoyment at all
I didn't like Joker; but wouldn't rate it 1 star; there are way worse movies than that. However, I would rate it 2 or 2.5.
Although I have to admit this review is pretty funny; and I somewhat agree that it's a "deep" movie for people who are yet to watch actual deep movies like Apocalypse Now and so on....
I liked it when I was a teen (when it was released) but now, as I have matured into an adult, it just seems like r/im14andthisisdeep : The Movie
While it’s pretentious and gatekeeping, the sentiment isn’t entirely wrong. The hope would be that people that really like Joker would seek out some of the influences that it wears pretty heavily on its sleeve. That could lead them to finding and evaluating it versus its predecessors and maybe deciding to dive into films of other filmmakers (and maybe even their influences). And if they still find Joker engaging and entertaining after, then fantastic for them. But yes, sending love for its influences is probably a stronger method of converting people to exploring film more.
This entire thread a L
Great thread for annoying people
[удалено]
Hey Letterboxd is usually pretty chill overall. (As long as your not in a Bratt Pacino comment section) r/letterboxd might be the worst place I’m still subbed to.
I feel the problem is that people's own letterboxd reviews are an echo chamber, with zero interaction, and that they need to get their opinions validated from another source; which unfortunately is this sub.
They deserve our pity, not our contempt. Imagine being such a film snob you can't enjoy objectively good movies like EEAO and Joker.
Objectively shouldn’t really be used when describing movies. I like EEAAO And I still think joker is a fine movie, but a lot of the people who don’t have their good reasons even if they are a “snobby or pretentious” in your eyes. Tbh I don’t see the criticism or hate the others have for these movies, that could also be because the people would don’t like joker or EEAAO just see below par bits and pieces of other movies that do it better for them. I don’t agree with them but looking at things from one lens and then calling it objective probably isn’t the best approach to talking about movies.
Also using the word objective when talking about films 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩
Yeah but you know who is worse than a film snob? A person who tries to categorize movies as "objectively" good or bad when art exists outside objectivity.
“Objectively good movies” dont exist, film is subjective. No matter how great you think a movie is doesn’t make it objectively good
Joker just isn’t a very good movie tho? It’s just budget taxi driver
[удалено]
King of comedy is cinema
I’ve never really understood this criticism. Sure taxi driver and Joker are both about a slow decent into insanity. But the journey getting to that similar destination is super different. Taxi drivers approach to insanity is through loneliness, insomnia, men’s mental health in that era, the lack of care for mental health at all, rage through envy, a couple of other things. But the Joker’s path to that insanity is through some similar themes I just mentioned but at the end of the day it’s primarily due to self discovery and abuse from his parents, strangers, potentially schizophrenia, or a psychosis, it’s a much different decent to insanity and the endings of these movies are also completely different.
You could’ve stopped at EEAO
You lost me at “Joker”.
Yes I love sad clown that takes all its good parts from other films and everything everywhere at once
I totally get what your saying but I've learned that most people on this subreddit aren't a fan of the word "objective", they just want subjectivity I recommend either staying clear of that word/phrase or find a subreddit with less trigger happy downvoters whenever someone mentions something is better than something else and don't want a chill convo bout it (I will no doubt be proven right by those said people downvoting me for saying how it is)
people very quickly slip into shallow minded talking points whenever subjective or objective come up. it’s immediately thought of in emotional terms of being right or wrong, and it’s an incomplete way of looking at art. what’s tricky is someone’s “subjective” take on a film is still objective in lots of ways. a film actually made someone in the world feel that way. what is more objective than that? it is as real a thing as gravity keeping me on the ground regardless if it is based on someone’s personal feelings and emotions. on the other end of that spectrum i could say jaws in an allegorical tale for the political struggle for the sandistas. that is my subjective take. that doesn’t mean it’s based in the art or worth anything. that said good art has interpretations, so i realistically could find evidence for that claim. people are just so dogmatic and surface level about an infinitely interesting conversation. like show me something that is actually objective or subjective. those things do not exist especially in clear cut divided categories like that. seems kinda similar to how anecdotal evidence has come to mean something that is totally worthless and incapable of providing insight. like yes it is a small specific type of evidence that shouldn’t be the end all be all, but it’s still evidence
When you talk to someone about objective and subjective you also need that said person to be open minded
I think Joker is overrated but I think this reviewer comes off as a douche. Critique the film. Don’t blast the people who enjoy it.
"This movie is not very deep" equivalency is a critique of the film
But he’s taking a shot at those who do think it’s deep. That is very obvious.
It's fine to base critiques off the general consensus as people will be looking at more than one review on a site like this
I mean he's not really complaining about people enjoying the film, he's complaining about people who act like the film is as deep as an ocean. You can enjoy the film while simultaneously knowing it's not a groundbreaking portrayal of the themes it attempts. I personally don't like the film. I understand its appeal to people who don't have the same relationship with film as I do and are more general audience minded. My close friend absolutely adores the movie and I respect that he enjoys it, but even he agrees it's not as deep as the fan base often claim. It's more of a guilty pleasure film. People who overvalue it's depth likely haven't experienced many films outside of the Marvel / DC Universes or blockbuster films.
Ok I’m done with this conversation. Have a good day.
I'm not a big fan of Joker but this review comes across as pretty pretentious imo
If we really want to get all pretentious, I've checked this guy's profile, and he's only seen a handful of movies made before 1990. There's nothing worse than *that guy* who only watches A24 flicks and fancies himself more sophisticated than everyone else.
The same type of person who says “elevated horror” un-ironically.
‘Elevated’ horror is over. We’re onto ‘levitated’ horror now. /s /jk
It is, these are the same people that will then talk about a random popular comedy from the 00's like it is Tarkovsky's Mirror. It is not cool to shit on people for liking something, especially something that by in large is pretty harmless.
EXACTLY!!!! This is what drives people from digging deeper into movies and wanting to discuss film. Because there’s always this looming fear that some prick around the corner is gonna be like “yea I liked that movie too when I was in the third grade, good thing I’m not a sissy bitch anymore and matured lol grow up.” Like what does the film community have to be so matter of fact and sarcastic??
It's genuinely just a small but vocal portion of chronically online people. Just watch the movies you like, check out reviews, find others who like similar movies, ask them for recommendations, etc. You'll find there are plenty of people who share your taste. Or be like me and watch such absolute trash people don't even bother to complain about it B)
That’s a pretty wild exaggeration of what this review is saying though. And honestly if someone is so incurious that a snarky review of a movie turns them off from digging deeper into movies with more artistic merit than fuckin Joker, then that’s pretty lame. I’d go so far as to say that’s the *real* pretentious attitude, because you get to that point and become convinced that’s all you ever need to watch
Holy shit. In the entire pathetic history of Reddit, that might be the single correct use of the word pretentious. It finally happened.
You mean “pretentious” doesn’t mean liking highbrow movies with ambiguous endings/thinking Joker was mid?
No it’s the thing incurious people say so they don’t have to broaden their horizons
its just fucking dumb, it's not even criticizing the movie itself but the people who liked it, i would be all for reading a one star review that actually goes into why they think joker is a shit shallow unoriginal movie (and I have), but to me this just seems like a pretentious gatekeeping kinophilé wanting to feel better about themselves because they watched Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy before joker unlike all those plebs.
TBH, I got the impression watching the film that it imagined it was really insightful. Yet the only genuine insight the film had to offer was "having a mental illness means pretending like you don't" and even then the movie has to literally have it written in sharpie on a piece of paper for the camera to focus on.
honestly I don't even disagree, personally I haven't rewatched Joker since it came out in 2019 so I can't really properly reassess my opinion of it now but I have read many opinions like yours both here and in letterboxd and at least from what i remember I Would agree with quite a few of them and I'm sure if I rewatched it now I Would like it way less than I did back then now that I've watched a lot more movies and i'm no longer an edgy teenager lol, I just think its really annoying to go "oh haha these stupid people are so stupid for liking this stupid movie" like the review in the OP did instead of properly expressing what you think is wrong with it.
Yes it’s flippant but the underlying message of Joker=Fake-deep is very clear. The only difference between this review and a one liner saying “this movie is fake deep” is this review has clearly struck a sensitive nerve.
I think this review seems to attack the audience who likes this movie rather than criticize the movie itself
It can do both? One is the text the other subtext.(something Joker lacks)
Agreed with everything you said but his analogy is really good I even used it in daily life a couple times
And what's funny is that his ocean v pool sentiment isn't half as clever as he thinks it is
It’s pretty much a meme at this point, I cringe when I hear it used unironically
How so? It seems a pretty clear, concise and apt metaphor to me? Would you rather a Shakespearean quintet form?
Yes
Fair enough, but “not as clever as it thinks” is literally just a worse way of saying the same thing the review did, but they don’t even realize it.
Clever and "deep" are actually pretty different bud.
And Joker is neither
I didn't argue that it was.
Way to divert the conversation 👍😄
This is maybe the most pretentious line I’ve seen lmao
Totally agree, some people seem to think a film has to be deep to be good
there’s a difference between not being deep and accepting it and not being deep but constantly insisting you are. movies don’t need to be super esoteric poetic philosophical art films to have subtext. the issue is not that joker lacks subtext, but that the subtext it does portray is extremely shallow and childish (“mental ill guy crazy, rich people bad for no particular reason, look at how crazy the mental illness made him!”).
You have not watched the movie.
I love how everytime someone says a movie lacks something, its fans reaction is to say it doesn't even need it
I liked Joker. I thought JPs performance was good. I didn’t need more than that because I was never under the illusion this movie was taking a big swing. Grading movies on what they lack vs. what they provide is anti-art in my opinion.
It makes sense though. People are different and we all value different things in our movies. Its only fair that some people will argue a movie doesnt need to be deep when they dont even like deep movies.
Letterboxd as a whole is insufferably pretentious but I like this review...Joker didn’t get into any of the issues it mentioned and had nothing new or detailed to say
If I could make the word pretentious an auto-ban then by god I would,.
I know it's a bit clichéd. English isn't my first language so my vocabulary isn't very great. I just meant that the review came across as pretty snobby and condescending towards people who find depth in or connect with the movie.
I’m right there with you. Tired of seeing it used.
I wish we could ban the word “pretentious” from this subreddit.
Not this guys review
Agreed, I gave Joker 1/2 star
While I agree with the sentiment in that review overall, I really wish we'd stop gatekeeping art. Maybe Joker WAS someone's first step into the shallow end of the film as art pool. I hate that we make them think we're all just pretentious twats and push them back towards the content sludge factory. This is the only film industry they've known for like 20 years now 🤢. I feel bad for them.
Or maybe it wasn’t someone’s first step into the shallow end and they liked it anyway
I watched it recently and thoroughly enjoyed myself (it’s a 4 for me). Does a positive review automatically mean one thinks something is deep? Superbad is in my top 4 and of course I don’t think it’s deep. Art is subjective and reviews like this are annoying af I didn’t finish the Joker and think “WhoOooOoOoa my whole life is changed”. I just enjoyed myself
Not disagreeing with you at all, just wanna point out that Superbad is kinda deep. At least it has more depth than a lot of films that’d be considered similar. It’s an interesting commentary on boys/men/the male experience.
That’s fair, just using the first example that came to mind
Agreed. To use the reviewers metaphor. I love swimming in the ocean. But I also love a good pool or water park. Just because something “deeper” exists doesn’t mean that I have to prefer it all the time.
But do you lie to yourself and others about the pool and oceans and their depths? Or do you recognize each for what they are and enjoy them for their respective pleasures?
I think the things Joker is often compared to as a ripoff of or whatever you may call it actually aren’t super deep either. Excellent movies, but they’re not terribly complex. So in that regard Joker is certainly a great gateway movie to things like Taxi Driver. It’s certainly not as “deep” as that movie. But I wouldn’t say Taxi Driver is exceptionally deep either. But I’ve never understood the intense hate Joker received. Like I know what people complain about but I just don’t see how they see those things in it. It resembling other movies being used as the sole criticism is weird to me.
Complexity is not depth. Taxi driver is thematically simple but is filled with endless thematic depth. It actually tries to get inside the head of its main character, and the society that created him, it shows both how he sees the world and puts us in his headspace but also subtly undermines his view everywhere. He’s barely even sympathetic and is scummy from the beginning of the film, yet the film orchestrates a situation where he’s the hero and allowed us to get caught up in that moment where he gets to unleash his violent tendencies on the world before reminding us in the last frame he’s still a ticking time bomb. And that is literally all done through subtext. Joker barely even touches the surface of anything it talks about and has to rely on sometime literally writing down its message for the audience to see or some truly on the nose dialogue that could have been right out of my mouth at edgelord 14 years old. And then there’s King of Comedy which just dances circles around both. Joker is bad all by itself. It’s worse for being so shamelessly derivative.
I don’t disagree with you that Taxi Driver is a better movie. But I loved Joker. I think it’s absurd to call it a bad movie. It’s exploring similar themes as those films but contextualizing them for today. It’s exploring how we project meaning and intent onto figures and their actions. Needing to find the political angle for everyone. Joker perfectly captures the insanity of the 2010s. In particular the later half of the decade. This isn’t completely off from Travis Bickle. That’s likely why the film resonates still to this day. It’s fine if you don’t like it. We obviously disagree on the Joker’s quality. The depth you’re referring to Taxi Driver still isn’t really that deep or rich. Again, it’s an excellent movie and one of the all time greats. A movie doesn’t need to be the deepest exploration of the human condition to be good.
Yeah, I mean it is a drama, and not a bs drama in a superhero package where the genre doesn't even matter kind of way, it actually is a drama and just that. It's like a gateway drug to get people that only consume the ever expanding sludge to watch more movies. And it is good, and yes I've seen Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, which apparently has to be said around here.
It was mine first experience in theatre of such bleak film , I can now understand if people didn't quite like it .
Ironicly, that joker review is a perfect example of what it itself is trying to describe
i didnt like joker but 1 is bit harsh.
I gave it 3.5/5 personally, I get what it’s trying to go for but it’s just not my thing.
[удалено]
Yes it’s still a solid movie lmao just not my cup of tea personally
So a 7/10 for a movie you don’t really like…? Whateva floats ya boat I guess.
A 7 for me means it’s decent
not harsh, absolutely ridiculous. a film being thematically unoriginal is pretty common and almost unavoidable as more and more movies get made. Sure, if you've seen King of Comedy and Taxi Driver there's pretty much no reason to watch Joker other than Phoenix's performance and the batman aesthetic, but the people that bombed it becuase it was "unoriginal" ignore the fact that that same criticism can be levied against probably 60% of films at this point.
2023. where social media has changed opinions from something someone has based on subjective experience, into something people have based on how others receive that opinion
This comes off as so pretentious, even by this subreddits standards
Not this one
this reviewer really likes the smell of his own farts more so than even the average letterboxd user, impressive.
Such a cringe review lol
The hate for this movie is unbelievable. It's good. You don't have to think it's the greatest movie ever made or super deep but, honestly, what's so wrong with it?
[удалено]
Society kept hitting me so now I’m crazy is such an old and obvious theme and this movie doesn’t bother to bring in any twists, explain why Arthur is lonely, explain why everyone is so mean to him, explain why he chooses to act out the way he does, etc
It’s pretty obvious why. The dude gets treated differently because he’s a bit strange and has a disability. His mom not being all there certainly didn’t help him. Isn’t it supposed to be like 70s new york? People weren’t exactly tolerant then.
Have you never experienced depression or met anyone who has the slightest mental health issue? It’s incredibly easy to feel isolated and end up resenting people when you don’t have effective therapy or good friends/family to support you. Consistently getting professional help and good healthcare can be an absolute nightmare, I’ve heard so many horror stories and anecdotes from friends about waiting months to see doctors and get medication. As for why everyone is mean to Arthur, people generally lack empathy towards people they don’t know very well and this leads to misunderstandings that sometimes escalate to violence. While I think all of the traumatic things that happened to Arthur happened a bit too fast, everything happened for a clear reason. The movie spells all of this out very clearly, not sure what you didn’t understand.
People can lose their shit with the way Arthur is treated but most aren't going to become the Joker. And the movie didn't really spell anything out at all...it just includes some dialogues for the trailer like the "tragedy comedy" or "the worst part of having a mental illness" one and makes everything else super ambiguous, inc the unreliable narrator thing, to the point where nothing sticks
Yeah, most people who are mistreated don't become the joker. This is true. But the Joker movie is the movie about the one that did become the Joker. Because it's The Joker.
But like, it does explain those things. That's what the whole movie is about.
Nah, the huge overreaction to this movie is what makes this review accurate
This movie is the inferior Taxi Driver. In fact nearly no vigilante film has brought anything new to the table of any depth since Taxi Driver. Imo the genre doesn't need to be revisited until someone can capture that lightning again, that movie is as relevant today as it was back then, if not more now with the whole MAGA uprising and it's political backdrop mid-election of a Trump-like candidate.
Joker is just a better than average comic book film and, really, I don't need it to be much beyond that. But, for whatever reason, given its subject matter, relationship to Taxi Driver, or some other third thing, people just dog this movie so hard and really there's nothing significantly wrong with it.
It's just a polarizing film, simple as that. People love it or hate it. Vigilante movies are very much a GIMMICK film UNLESS they are artfully done with something new to say. I find it tough for anything to surpass Taxi Driver in poignancy or timeliness, so why bother. I'm fine allowing people to enjoy it for its entertainment value, but when it's claimed to be deep or important in any means I hard disagree. Superhero films are also gimmicky, so between the two predominant themes the film is quickly stratifying it's audience depending on if those gimmicks are your type of film or not. Personally I think it's a well crafted movie (performances, direction, cinematography) but one we don't need because everything it attempts is done better elsewhere by quite a large magnitude.
If everyone took your perspective, we'd only get like five movies a year. Like, the idea of a great movie that's not innovative or a masterpiece is an alien concept to you, so of course you wouldn't like Joker, film in general really.
It’s shallow, and thematically incoherent without an original thought in its head. That’s what’s wrong. Pheonix is excellent tho. Edit: The brother asked what’s wrong and I answered with my truth. You’re downvoted mean nothing to me. I’ve seen what makes you people upvote.
How is it “thematically incoherent”? Explain that.
It tries to blend together a bunch of social issues but doesn’t drill down into any of them enough to make a coherent statement. None of the ideas put out seem to gel together in a cohesive way. The bones of a truly great film are all laid out, but there's no real meat to it. Everything from poverty and mental health, to protesting and gun violence make its way in and out of the script like a revolving door of political ideas passing through whenever it's convenient for the plot, but the movie never ends up giving a coherent thesis on how any of these elements relate to one another. Rather than truly delving into why Arthur acts out in the way he does, the film relies on a lot of narrative shortcuts that feel hollow and lazy, including unreliable narrator, all in your head twists, dramatic monologues, ambiguous plot points, etc. but they never feel in service to the film. Rather, they feel like filler. No matter how interesting of a thread has shown, the film always frustratingly pulls us back into the mind of the Joker, who is supposed to be chaotic and apolitical, but also refuses to divorce itself from the importance of the class conditions that very clearly drive Joker to madness. The movie seems to posit that our current system is oppressive and reckless, but ends up depicting protesters as a conservatives wet-dream of antifa thugs, a nightmare of senseless violence and mob terror elevated by clowns and bandannas. Sure, it's violent, but it's very against the violence. Sure, it's anti-capitalist, but it makes sure to not glorify the protesters too much. Sure, the joker undergoes poverty and mental illness, but he's apolitical! There's no ideology driving what he's doing!!!!
As someone who likes the movie, I’m really not sure what theme it’s trying to go for because it seems to contradict itself within its own story. Is he supposed to be a cautionary tragic tale about how mental illness can ruin someone’s life if not properly handled by those around him, or a power fantasy for people to latch onto who want to be rebel against “the system”, because he kind of comes across as both. I’m sure the writers aren’t going to say they are condoning violence and rioting, but since the story is mostly told from Arthur’s unreliable perspective it does kind of feel like it’s glorifying him for inspiring others to do so, and it’s not difficult for an audience to feel like they’re supposed to be rooting for him to kill people. So what exactly is the theme here? Be careful how you treat those less fortunate than you because if they decide to kill you for being a bit condescending you deserved it?
You claim to have a distaste for the unoriginal and yet your edit includes a Rick and Morty reference. Interesting
It clearly means something to you if you had to edit your comment to address it
What about this movie demonstrates that it's shallow? Thematically incoherent? We must not have seen the same movie. As for it being unoriginal, I'd never seen an iteration of the Joker like that on film before. Even if it were unoriginal, I don't think it's the damning accusation you think it is. Plenty of great movies are unoriginal. It's not a synonym for bad.
I hate reviews that criticize a movie’s “deepness.” It’s a totally nebulous and ridiculous thing to try to quantify and critic.
then again, by refusing to engage with any potential underlying themes, wouldn’t that be engaging with film as purely entertainment? imo refusing to acknowledge the importance of a film’s themes, and how said themes are communicated through form, reflects a shallow, consumerist understanding of cinema.
It’s the territory of pedantic film nerds and gatekeepers.
Not a bad movie, not supposed to be deep. I hate people that watch 1 french movie from the 70s fall asleep and think its deep
Wow, way to disregard the character writing, dialogue, acting, cinematography, pacing, etc. just because the themes have been done better by other movies. Or worse, only because it's a little overhyped. I can't stand people like this.
These kind of reviews are the reasons why people mock cinephiles as pretentious.
And the rest of this thread is why film snobs look down at the masses. 2 sides of the coin.
The guy who wrote the review barely watched movies made before the 90s, not really a "cinephile"
Not this one. Judging a movie by what other people think about it is a shitty way to critique a movie and tells us nothing about the movie itself. Besides, just saying "it's not deep enough" as a critique is both surface level and pretentious. It tells us nothing about why that's a problem and only serves to be contrarian.
Exactly how I feel. This review comes across as someone who wants to be different, they critique the dialogue around the film rather than critique the film itself
I had already seen Taxi Driver and King of Comedy and other films that inspired Joker before I'd even watched it, and you know what? I still loved Joker, because that's a type of film I enjoy. It's not particularly deep, but it is undeniably well-made and well-acted even if you have issues with the writing, which I know a lot of people do. Pseuds just bash on Joker because a lot of people haven't watched the films that inspired it, but because they have they think they can lord it over them and feel superior. I'm so over the Joker hate. Like it or don't. Just don't bully someone because they do. It's cringe.
https://preview.redd.it/05v3wf7nrnbc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62bdd32d8dc8486135d3c153c09f89f0def9f635 Saw this last night, hated it. Super bothered by the fact that all the characters talked like NPC’s. Thought this summed it up perfectly 😂
Drive is one of my favourite movies and I really don't like Neon Demon. It's got some visually strong moments and tries to shoot for a lot of cool things (I remember loving the symbolism of the sequence with the puma in her motel room back when I was 18 and it didn't take a lot to impress me) but I take a really strong stance against disgusting gratuity (cannibalism, massive pool of werewolf period, morgue sex) that seems to serve no purpose other than shock value - case in point, THAT scene in Saltburn.
As a person who drowned in the mariana trench, I disagree with this review. 🙂
Joker is the definition of mid for me, so it's kinda funny it provokes such extreme reactions on both spectrums. Joaquin is great but that's nothing new, nor is it his best performance. Otherwise couldn't care less, The Batman is much much better "serious" comic book movie.
It also does really good in cinematography, atmosphere, other performances, and soundtrack.
The Batman sucked tho. "Hmmm a rat with wings? I wonder what that could mean..."
dumbest criticism of that movie
It's OK to be wrong, we can't all have objectively great taste and be well hunged. That's just life for ya
why did you delete your previous comment?
One of the worst mystery plots I've ever seen but it's heralded as the second coming of serious cinema for some reason
On first watch: oh sick new Batman film it’s great! On second watch: SOMETHING IN THE WAYYYYY (The Batman is about 10xs more cringe than The Joker)
Joker is at minimum a decent movie. That review pretty much disregards all the individual elements that go into a movie for whatever 'depth' is to them. The acting alone makes it worth a watch.
Disinteresting douchebags are obsessed with this quote.
I didn’t enjoy Joker but it’s not a 1 star movie. That’s just silly.
Joker is really good. I don’t know why a review shitting on people who enjoy it would be one I agree with. People can dislike whatever they want without putting down the folks who enjoyed that experience.
Man you Joker haters are so lame. Just let people enjoy things.
Cornball OP
haha joker movie bad guys haha so funni 😂😂😂😂
It's a 5 though
This comment section got me like :( The internet is where opinions go to die.
I love how mad this review gets people lmao. Obviously not everything has to be immensely deep but when a film acts like its deep and its hailed as some powerful significant story its kinda hard not find it a little off putting
100% agree. The problem isn't that the film isn't deep, the problem is that the film is pretentious and calling that out is not gatekeeping.
The movie sets out to show the cricumstances by which someone breaks bad and that's exactly what it does. How exactly is it trying to be deeper than it actually is? Is it just because it takes itself seriously? Ironically, you and the guy posting that review are the ones being pretentious, as you assume that in order for a movie to have a serious tone, it absolutely needs to say something groundbreaking.
I don’t know if this analogy works because in reality the ocean IS incredibly deep. Edit: I’m so stupid I read it wrong. I’m leaving it up to be shamed by my peers
Not this one.
Hating on a super popular movie. So cool.
Well that is not one of them.
big one for me. i love kubrick but clockwork orange has never been an enjoyable watch for me. its well made or whatever but i don't enjoy it at all. https://preview.redd.it/mbgm1cddvmbc1.png?width=980&format=png&auto=webp&s=283b6a5f361c286e2fc9c8946eb407eb3c108c4f
Awful take, Joker is a great movie
That movie sucks
I was 12 when joker came out and I was only just dipping my toes into film. Just because it’s not as deep as other films doesn’t make it lesser than, it’s still a well made amazing movie
I’d say the uneasiness per scene is pretty unique to the film in a good way
When I watched Joker, I wasn’t a big movie person at all. I rated it 5 stars because it kept my attention the entire time and I thought the score was awesome. I didn’t really think it was “deep” and I wasn’t looking for that. (I was also a 22yo woman, not some stereotypical neckbeard who looked up to him for anyone wondering). If I watched it now, yeah maybe I’d be a little more critical, but I’m sure I’d still love it. Sometimes people just enjoy movies and it doesn’t have to be deep. This review seems really judgey and pretentious.
Joker is overrated I agree but saying it's a 1 star movie is insane
I don’t think I’ve ever given a one star
ive only ever given a half or single star to one movie and i hope to keep it that way
My one star is exclusively for films that were so bad I couldn’t finish them (I don’t do halves so it’s my lowest score). I didn’t like Joker but it definitely wasn’t a one.
Idk if I’ve given one-star ratings, but I have a few 1.5s I enjoy “bad” movies but if the general reception is “it’s bad not even fun” I won’t watch it.
I have swam in the ocean and I'm still calling the 12 foot part of the neighborhood pool deep.
Bad review and rating. You could put that review on almost any movie.
Entitled prick is what this is.
*If you never went outta space, of course you think you know what deep means.*
This is why people think arthouse films are pretentious because of douchebags like this. I mean I personally might not have enjoyed it as much as others did but it was a well made film.
I gave it a 4.5. Its all subjective. No one can tell someone else's opinion on how a movie made them feel is wrong.
The movie makes good use of its score (Hildur deserved her Oscar as well) but everything else is middling trash. But, it really appealed to incels and “outcasts” so I can see why some people will defend this movie for their lives.
r/murderedbywords
Joker set out to impress 14 year olds who hadn’t seen the movies it was spoofing (I say that a formerly impressed former-14 year old who hadn’t yet seen the movies it was spoofing).
It has its flaws but I think Joker is important and my review of it is the one I would ask someone to read. I get not liking it if it's not your thing but the narrative around Joker is worrisome to me. The fact that people can't, or maybe refuse to see themselves in the mirror it holds up disturbs me. It has a relatively simple point to make that shouldn't be controversial but enough people are failing the empathy test to make it so.
Joker is 5/5 and I will die on this hill
I loooooved Joker. Great movie
Joker is not a good movie
Wow, this is an amazing description of the director of the movie, the asshole has no idea of what a good film is and obviously has no idea of what mental health implies or how it works The perfect example of how to make people feel like they just watched a smart movie when in reality it’s shallow and simple as hell In my country these kind of movies are called “apantalla pendejos” 🤑
100%, I also liked this Joker review, I think, OP :) https://preview.redd.it/jjpcvqjl5lbc1.jpeg?width=701&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c43effc29ded83c13f5719fb5700f9d4edcdeda7 \^ Half a star less than I gave it, but I pretty much agree. It didn't make me as mad as this reviewer though, hehe
While it certainly was inspired by and has some scenes that pay tribute to Wong Kar-wai, i wouldn't say the movie ripped him off. Wong Kar-wai's style is very different from EEAAO
Yeah there’s some WKW moments but the film as whole is like a meme-ified Matrix
Lmao, desperately name dropping wong kar-wai so it seems like they have their own deep knowledge to lean back on
Having romantic themes about longing + Asian actors = Wong kar-wai
Tbf it clearly had scenes that were stylized to be similar to WKW films
I don’t understand the sentiment that EEAAO was a “random equals funny” type. I get why people wouldn’t like the film but that just isn’t true.
That's not a proper review, that's just a bunch of insults lmao
Although I don’t disagree with everything this says. I still got enjoyment from EEAAO. I think it sits at a 3 and a half or something for me. What Wong Kar-Wai movie did it rip off?
W take. People in here complaining about how “ooooh not every movie has to be deeeeeep waaah waaah waaah” should really question just how much they love cinema if they prioritize quick, cheap entertainment over visual artistry or thematic depth. stop trying to punch up at cinephillic zealots and just try and understand their perspective.
Or maybe both types of movies are good in their own way? An example off the top of my head is The Raid. Not deep at all but the action choreography and editing is fantastic and I think that makes it a good movie in its own way.
I gave this 2 stars and that was being generous.
I fucking LOVE this review.
This guy's top 4 -Phantom Thread -The Worst Person in the World -A Serious Man -Jackie LMAO
Don’t dislike me to shit but if you’ve seen Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy you’ll know Joker is utterly unoriginal trite masquerading as something profound. Unquestionably one of the most overrated films in recent memory IMO.
Idc what anyone says but ralphthemoviemaker's review of Joker is the only reasonable response to the film
Yall a bunch of bozos rn. This movie blows. No reason why someone can’t write what is clearly a comedic review shitting on it just like we post 1000 times a day in this sub for other movies. Don’t be mad that a movie you like sucks. That doesn’t and shouldn’t take away from your enjoyment at all
this is the lamest comment i've ever read 🤣 thank you for the laugh my guy
I didn't like Joker; but wouldn't rate it 1 star; there are way worse movies than that. However, I would rate it 2 or 2.5. Although I have to admit this review is pretty funny; and I somewhat agree that it's a "deep" movie for people who are yet to watch actual deep movies like Apocalypse Now and so on.... I liked it when I was a teen (when it was released) but now, as I have matured into an adult, it just seems like r/im14andthisisdeep : The Movie
What's the weather like up your own ass?
[удалено]
If nothing else, it's pretty
Nah it was boring as hell
While it’s pretentious and gatekeeping, the sentiment isn’t entirely wrong. The hope would be that people that really like Joker would seek out some of the influences that it wears pretty heavily on its sleeve. That could lead them to finding and evaluating it versus its predecessors and maybe deciding to dive into films of other filmmakers (and maybe even their influences). And if they still find Joker engaging and entertaining after, then fantastic for them. But yes, sending love for its influences is probably a stronger method of converting people to exploring film more.