JOKER: THE MOVIE produced by Martin Scorsese (TBD) 1 1

[Bosco685]

Another TIFF critic review to the positive.

Beautiful, haunting cinematography - from the technical aspects to the performance to the sound design to the editing - excellence!

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]

[fantastic_four]

15 hours ago, Mr Sneeze said:

16 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

This reminds me of Requiem for a dream, a movie that is troubling and difficult at times to watch 

however the movie is brilliant and doesn’t hold back, the director is bold and I wish we would have more movies like that instead,of the same carp that hits the theatres week in and week out

One of the best movies ever made!

I'll always love that film for being the only full frontal that my dream girl Jennifer Connelly has done.   

[Bosco685]

Joker Movie Is Using Negative Reviews For Marketing

Quote

Warner Bros. is using negative critic reviews to promote the upcoming film Joker. Directed by Todd Phillips and starring Joaquin Phoenix, the psychological thriller recently won the prestigious Golden Lion award at the Venice International Film Festival. Despite mostly positive reviews, Joker has received polarizing reactions from North American critics.

 

Critical reviews aside, Joker has been controversial on many levels. For one, the film is directed by Todd Phillips, who’s known for helming The Hangover trilogy, along with the 2003 comedy classic Old School. Naturally, not all fans of the DC character have been entirely pleased with the director picked for Arthur Fleck’s origin story, set in 1981. In addition, Joker is a standalone film, which means that the narrative doesn’t set up any sequels like the MCU or DCEU. After the Venice premiere, various North American critics expressed their displeasure on Twitter and in official reviews, unimpressed with Phoenix’s perceived over-acting, along with how the stylized violence could transfer over into the real world. Joker currently holds a 78 Tomatometer score at Rotten Tomatoes.

 

On Twitter, Next Best Picture’s Will Mavity pointed out that Warner Bros. used an interesting quote from Indiewire’s David Ehrlich to promote Joker:  “An Immaculately Crafted Piece Of Mass Entertainment.” In the critic’s official review, however, the lead-in describes Joker as “incendiary, confused, and potentially toxic.” By the end, Ehrlich muses about Phillips’ intentions as a filmmaker, which precedes the quote snippet that Warner Bros. decided to use for marketing purposes. The review ends with Ehrlich describing Joker as “good enough to be dangerous, and bad enough to demand better.” Despite the mostly-negative assessment and a C+ grading, Warner Bros. used the kindest portion of the review. Check out Mavity’s Joker tweet below.

 

 

 

[Bosco685]

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: In Defense of 'Joker' and Its Repulsive Violence

Quote

Todd Phillips' bravura work dares to confront the things we're most afraid to see.

 

In 1971, Warner Bros. released one of the most controversial films in movie history. 

 

A Clockwork Orange told the dystopian story of a brutal young man, Alex DeLarge (Malcolm McDowell), who leads a band of thugs (“droogs”) on a terrifying crime spree, beating, raping and committing acts of what’s called “ultra-violence” along the way. At one point, he bludgeons a woman with a phallic sculpture; at another, he and his droogs bash a man and rape his wife while chanting "Singin’ in the Rain."

 

Stanley Kubrick’s film drew an immediate outcry despite its box office success. Pauline Kael called it “pornographic” because, she argued, it dehumanized the suffering of Alex’s victims while eliciting sympathy for Alex’s own. The Catholic Church forbade its members from seeing the picture, which was given an X rating in North America.

 

But what made Clockwork Orange especially troubling was the spate of copycat incidents that followed, or at least incidents that looked as if they’d been shaped by the film.

 

In early 1972, a British prosecutor slammed it for influencing a 14-year-old accused of manslaughter. Later, a 16-year-old, pleading guilty to killing an old man, said he’d heard about the movie, while his attorney assured the court that “the link between this crime and sensational literature, particularly A Clockwork Orange, is established beyond reasonable doubt.”

 

There, of course, is the rub. No study has ever established that link beyond a reasonable doubt; nor is there any evidence to show that a criminal — even one who imitates something on film — wouldn’t have done something equally abominable at another time.

Interesting how a fellow critic site had to be the voice of reason.

[Bosco685]

On 9/11/2019 at 11:22 AM, Bosco685 said:

Even the assumption James Holmes did what he did because of the Joker leads to concerns facts are being ignored due to one statement: 'I'm the Joker!'

James Holmes Picked Midnight Movie To Avoid Shooting Children, Psychiatrist Says

it had nothing to do with Batman, Joker or even Robin. It is a sad situation which from the details was boiling to the top, and ended up in a film theater. Unless airports have something to do with those characters.

Once again, a negative critic review references the 2012 Aurora shooting being inspired by Heath Ledger's Joker.

So in other words, if Joker gets released to the general audience it will have 'the same impact' - which is a misquote of historic and tragic events to detract from a film.

It's okay to not like a film, and state it in a critique. But to twist history to fit a negative narrative is some poor research work.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Bosco685

[zhamlau]

I think anomaly films like this cause problems for many reviewers. I would think if a film comes out they all know is great but it might have social or political overtones they don't like, they are trapped in no-mans land. How can they like the movie without feeling like they are undermining their own driving set of core beliefs? This is the problem with using reviews as tools for advancing social/political issues. It forces you to occasionally do a weird limbo-style review that both tears down a likely very good film, but that doesn't make you look to incompetent to the buying audience when they see it for themselves and potentially love it.

You basically have to say the equivalent of "video-games cause real life violence" to attack it while simultaneously being viewed by your audience as someone who scoffs at the "video-games cause real life violence" opinion in other circumstances. You need to find a way to tear this movie down for reasons that you likely have laughed at before publicly, but you need to not look like your trying to eat your cake and have it too.

It seems a version of this situation came up earlier with Dave Chappelles new netflix special.

Either way, it should be fun to watch this play out. Looking forward to seeing this one.

 

[Bosco685]

10 minutes ago, zhamlau said:

It seems a version of this situation came up earlier with Dave Chappelles new netflix special.

I had no idea this even occurred until recently as part of the Joker critic reaction folks started calling out how RT limited the number of critics covering his show.

Why Dave Chappelle's Netflix Special Has Such Divided Critic & Audience Scores

 

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

 

[theCapraAegagrus]

16 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

 

Nice. I'm gonna get tickets for that Friday night, then, instead of the usual Thursday "preview".

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

The success of Joker truly rests on the shoulders of Joaquin Phoenix - some of his most exceptional work to date

8.7/10

[Bosco685]

One of the most compelling yet disturbing of films I've seen in a long time - rated 'EARN IT' (solid)

[Bosco685]

[Bosco685]