I find it ironic that the director of Hannibal would make a comment like that.

Good point. Loved that film, by the way. The brain scene always makes me hungry, too.

So, you are a cannibal, Michael?

Either that or he was sarcastically mocking him.

Could be, Richie! 😉

I didn't like the way "House of Gucci" was rubbish.

Excuse you. House of Gucci was the second best Ridley Scott movie of 2021. 😭

i know sheet from choc late

That's just your .. opinion man

Hmm, the film isn't dangerous because it's a rallying cry to white male incels, it's just rather dangerous in relation to it's simple minded psychopathy. To me, this is where it showed it's cosmetic roots to the comic book character and not an actual real person. But kudos to Phillips for pulling the wool over most people's eyes into thinking it's profound when it's anything but... still, as a film or piece of pop art, it had excellent things in it, not least Phoenix, who finally managed to be in a hit film.

Very nicely worded, Teddy. Which reminds me - I forgot to congratulate Phillips for his deceptive little trick. 😂

I will concede, though, that this film would probably be more or less relevant to you depending on the country in which you live - and due to the gun violence in America, I’m guessing it would undoubtedly ring truer in some ways for U.S. audiences.

In Australia, it’s not easy to obtain gun ownership - and even then, the weapon cannot be stored in your own home. It needs to be carefully stashed (and discharged) in a separate facility (recognised and approved for such purposes), while being firmly secured and contained in a cabinet that’s bolted to the wall or floor (or both).

When placed in that context, the jacked-up monkey business of Joker probably feels absurd to someone such as myself, but a tad too close to home for other folk (which I can understand).

I approve of the Australian way! That seems more than sensible. Ha.

True, it's relatable or not depending on where you live.

That danger has been ingrained through media consumption, as white male loners are the sole target for disarmament. Persons of other races and genders are low-key welcomed to own and operate fire arms, in a fashion.

I appreciate its "gateway" quality. There's probably much more people that one could imagine(at least, I like to think that way😂) that, with the influence of Joker, saw Taxi Driver, King of Comedy and from that went on to explore cinema further.

Gladiator: I'm I a joke to you?

you think I'm a joke ?

i think you've been a joke all your life

The funniest part was people genuinely thinking that it would inspire real world violence. Unlike film twitter I love the film and wish more studio films would be as exciting as it but that is such a dumb thought to have.

what was exciting about it? it was so fucking BORING. that was the biggest problem.

Bored people have boring minds.

so Todd Phillips was bored then? I can understand after three Hangover movies.

TDK inspired real world violence

I still think Joker is great. While not the deepest film on the following topics perhaps, the fact that we got a mainstream studio film that dared to tackle working class oppression under capitalism, trauma and mental illness from parental abuse, and how all those things can cause a person and the rest of society to collapse, it was pretty great on all those levels. The film can be cathartic in some ways for those that have been abused and exploited in society, and the film shows the unfortunate and shocking outcomes of that when pushed to the extreme. A dark film, but a needed one I think.

No, it isn't. It was never any good and it still isn't. It wasn't a bad idea but it was badly executed. Nolan's Batman trilogy and TDK were Mann insured and he did a decent job. Phillips had a similar idea and his Joker was Scorsese-inspired except he completely misunderstood what Scorsese films are all about.

a sick film that will inspire sick people

It's a shame Ridley Scott is seemingly oblivious to his own shortcomings. How I'd love the opportunity to give the man a few home truths about some of his own work.

The guy who made Alien Covenant having the audacity to criticise a film publically (?) That's some nerve. It speaks volumes in regards to his arrogance and self-delusion both. Plus, because of his success decades ago, as well as him being such a cranky fucker, he gets away with saying what he wants without any retort.

Yes.

Even if what Scott says is true, it would seem he's never heard the expression "you're only as good as your last film".

He hasn't been able to walk the talk for a while now, and if you're going to rip arse on another filmmaker, at least put yourself in a position when your results can speak for themselves (instead of drawing attention to their weaknesses).

I think he was simply commenting. I don't think he was attacking the filmmaker or going as far as you guys seem to be suggesting. Are people not supposed to have an opinion about a film? Despite his recent out he still has made some of the greatest gikns ever made and his opinion matters. Let's just say it matters more than average joes. Also, we're only talking about a Todd Phillips film, not A Scorsese, PTA or any if offer great directors.

PTA is closer to Todd Phillips than he is Scorsese. he doesn't deserve to be mentioned.

his brother Tony directed scenes where peoples hand palms were slashed then splashed with whiskey

Clearly the movie struck a nerve because we're still talking about it 4 years later. Personally I thought it was a beautifully done movie. It deepened my respect for the mythology around Batman. Now I can't help but think that Batman and the Joker could actually be brothers.

It's an interesting perspective from a fan of superhero films. I don't like them and I was intrigued by Jojer because it was meant to be more adult-oriented and inspired by Scorsese film. But it turned out to be a major disappointment. It is one of my most disliked films in recent years. I thought the idea was very interesting but the execution was so. bad, mostly the screenplay and direction. The production wasn't bad, the score was good and acting was good, not great.

It’s just rubbish. A film for people too stupid to understand Scorsese

Hypothetically, how would you rate the intelligence of people who write basic, single sentences claiming that everything is rubbish?

Haha. At least he ever so briefly expanded on the word “rubbish” for a change.

And yet smart enough to write something other than "rubbish" under every single post.

FACT.

Exactly.

it was an homage to Taxi Driver and The King Of Comedy

“…it was a film that mirrored our own society, and dared to have us look at ourselves in the mirror”.

It did no such thing. That is some of the whiffiest and most unfounded hyperbole I’ve yet heard about this profoundly simplistic heap of vigilante nonsense.

What is it about this film in particular, and the people who lose their common sense and critical thinking over it? Beyond the pale.

Once again, the fat old Emperor’s lost his clothes!

Popular asshole talk show host, people being very crude to each other, mistreated disabled and mentally ill folks, destroyed institutions, mob mentality, media creating fake narrative around highly publicized incident, general lack of empathy and prevailed cynicism. Sounds accurate to me. It's just one of those movies which is cool to hate on the internet parroting the same nonsense. I wish you used the same energy towards other popular movies which are much worse across the board and have no merit even on craft level.

That’s a lazy rebuttal.

I didn’t even pick up on the fact that it was (allegedly) cool to hate this film. Mind you, when someone dismisses another person’s opinion out of turn by calling it “nonsense” (without further insight), what they’re really saying is “I’m just annoyed that you don’t agree with me, and don’t know how to grapple with your assessment in an intelligent and reasonable way”.

And no, all that stuff you listed (in an over-generalised and bullet-pointed fashion) does not sound “accurate” to me in the slightest. The film isn’t totally without merit, but it also happens to be gratingly facile, wildly overblown, and hyper-exaggerated - which is all well and good for the sake of questionable entertainment, but pretending that it’s a documentary-like rendering of daily life on the regular, in this sort of frenzied and flamed-up manner, is laughable.

Putting that aside, in your estimation what are some other “popular movies which are much worse”? I guess I’ll get around to commenting on them when Jordan posts about them.

For now, it’s Joker.

I don't think it's that exaggarated, everything I listed exists in one way or the other depending on where you live, let's not pretend it doesn't, it did portray a bunch of things related to every day routine of a mentally ill person very accurately and I'm saying that because I experienced that first-hand when I had to accompany a family member with a bipolar disorder to a dispensary: overworked psychiatrist who couldn't care less about his patient, cut funding of a dispensary, tons of meds that just don't help, trouble getting necessary meds or recipe for them because of shut down distribution, general awkwardness around random people and at times lack of understanding - those particular things are not exaggerated in the slightest, the only thing missing is interactions between mentally ill folks in the same group.

Tons of them. Most MCU movies, lazy cashgrab The Conjuring/Indicious/The Nun/Annabelle flicks, Sony's Venom stuff and so on, they are all much worse but don't get the same hate and discourse, I think this hate energy should be streamlined towards movies that deserve it more.

Do those filmmakers think they are making anything more than just popcorn trash? Probably not, but Phillips does. And that’s the reason for the hate; it masquerades as something deeper than it is. There’s a whiff of self importance that makes it an easy target

So many art films have a whiff self importance and probably not as deep as its creators think they are, but they still don't get the same hate or hate at all. Maybe the actual reason is when something becomes really really popular, it can become a punching bag for certain groups because of that, especially when it's a controversial film.

I think the point is that Joker went in a different direction from all those films and was a more dark and in a similar manner to Scorsese films. It tried to be a film that reflects real social ilks and did it most ignorantly and irresponsibly. That's the issue.

If it's accurate in many ways how is it ignorant exactly? And about "irresponsibly", are we gonna start this silly discource again about "it's gonna incite violence", "incels will rise" or "school shooter manifesto"? Travis Bickle shot up pimps in a brutal way, was hailed as a hero and went on with his life, sounds like something that could be interpreted as "irresponsible", in fact it was labeled just that when it was released.

The biggest reason I dislike it so much is its depiction of mental illness. But it's problematic in many ways. There's a way a director tells the story about social problems that are rooted in truth and don't look like simplistic and dangerous answers. Joker doesn't seem to get the films it was inspired by. Here's one of the ways why Joker is a bit failure.
https://www.indiewire.com/f...

Ehrlich is the last person I would listen to, he's completely crazy.
And what's wrong with its depiction of mental illness? That condition is real and portrayed accurately, the rest I listed above from a personal experience, I think it's a more accurate depiction of mental illness than many other movies about crazy lead characters which never explore mental illness beyond "this guy is nutjob". How is it more problematic and "dangerous" than Taxi Driver where lead character gets away with all the murders and hailed as a hero? Especially since it actually inspired an attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. I don't get it.
The same with this argument "movie A" doesn't get "movies it's inpsired by or books it's based on". I often come across that with Zack Snyder's Watchmen, that he doesn't understand Moore's graphic novel. Or Starship Troopers essentially making fun of its book. Who cares if it does or doesn't. if the movie works as it is, I don't see any issues, especially since they are clearly going for a different messages.

I think people should read David Ehrlich pointing out the failure of Jojer compared to David Fincher's Fight Club, another film that was criticised for its advocacy of violence as a solution. AO Scott simply dismissed it and said it couldn't even be worth discussing. I dislike it most for its depiction of people with mental illness.