site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2277 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for October 4, 2024

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

3
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

The new joker is so bad that both critics and audience score at rotten tomatoes agree at 33% . In a way I am impressed how they achieved that with the talent and budget that they had. It is not exactly culture war because in culture war usually there is sizeable gap between the two score.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/joker_folie_a_deux

I still don't understand why the first one achieved the acclaim it did, although that might have been primarily the result of the expectations I had going into it than the film itself.

When I heard that it had won the Golden Lion and was being praised as this incisive portrayal of mental illness, I was anticipating a sensitive, intelligent art film. What I actually got was an overwrought early-2000s psychological thriller, which clumsily attempted to tie in Arthur Fleck's origin story with Batman's (to the detriment of both) and featured a completely superfluous pseudo-romantic subplot for no good reason. The supposedly realistic portrayal of mental illness bore about as much relationship to the genuine article as Norman Bates in Psycho.

The only really positive things I can say about it are a) Joaquin Phoenix conjured a genuinely impressive performance out of a decidedly underwritten character, the most powerful portrayal of the character since Heath Ledger's; b) the score and cinematography were decent, if unremarkable; and c) I liked that they made no attempt to sanitise the violence in the film, and instead endeavoured to milk it for all the horror it was worth. The latter choice lent the film a gritty integrity which would have been sorely lacking without.

Well - it was the first non shitty comic book movie since thor ragnarock, the main performance was amazing, and there is something utterly enjoyable in watching someone that is only kicked when trying to play by the rules finally snapping. And the realization that if enough people snap simultaneously it will be hard to stop them.

Probably that was what scared Hollywood - that the small people filled with angst liked it and liked the protagonist.

People like to throw taxi driver, but I think that falling down is somewhat overlooked as the inspiration.

I noted the parallels with Falling Down, a movie I disliked far more than Joker.

The cult classic signal boost means movies become memes and, if the meme gets popular, they trend from underrated to overrated. Although maybe that's just how the culture creates consensus in general.

'93 had some real cultural bangers. Looking at the link I clearly missed a a few highlights! Falling Down is lower in the list at #33. Snobbery aside, I appreciate it was made instead of an additional Grisham or Clancy derivative screenplay.

'93 had some real cultural bangers

What are the entries highlighted in yellow?

The Fugitive holds up pretty well, and In the Line of Fire absolutely slaps. John Malkovich is fucking terrifying in it.

Initially I intended to highlight "cultural bangers" as a comparison to Falling Down's more humble release, but when I actually looked at the year I just ended up highlighting movies I liked, remembered fondly, or considered significant. Excluding the you-can't-handle-the-truthers (not gonna rewatch to see if I actually would like it as an adult) and Dennis the Menace (nostalgic but not a cultural banger); Into the Line of Fire which I haven't seen in 15+ years, but recall as a solid thriller. The Fugitive I watched a few years ago and it definitely holds up.

If I look at a list of a year like 2022's box office I need to scroll past the top 30 to make a new, equally meaningless highlighted list. The Northman was cool-- down at #55. I imagine I would enjoy Everything Everywhere, but haven't gotten around to watching it. Nor RRR, which I've been told to see, though I am no Bollywood fan.

So, you and your snobbery can eat a big spoon of Free Willy along with your Falling Down takes, bucko.

Everything Everywhere

Watch the first half, then stop. The second half is just the jokes from the first half beaten like a dead horse.

I enjoyed Top Gun Maverick despite never having seen the original. Suzume was decent, even if it's transparently the director trying to recapture the magic of Your Name (which also describes his previous film Weathering with You). The Black Phone was alright but forgettable, and not a patch on Sinister by the same director. I didn't like The Banshees of Inisherin at all and don't understand the hype one iota. The fact that Tár is at #85 is a travesty, easily the best film on this list and it's not even close. Decision to Leave was pretty good, not as good as Oldboy.

The Banshees of Inisherin Top Gun Maverick

I clearly didn't read the list. I saw both of these and enjoyed them both. Top Gun was, ironically, a breath of fresh air in its formula. That was the normie take and I agree with it.

I enjoyed Banshees. Tragedy, absurdity, and a story told through a dialogue that wasn't convoluted for the sake of complexity. Carried by a pair of actors with a chemistry and history together I appreciate. I also recall it being smartly humored. It kept me entertained and it worked. But, I may well be the cinema equivalent of a midwit, so a slightly different artsy but not-arthouse film might be my kryptonite.

Tár

Is on my list. I'll add Decision to Leave and give Suzume a try. My boomerism typically limits my anime viewings, so my exposure is limited to Miyazaki films (great!)

More comments

Joaquin Phoenix conjured a genuinely impressive performance

This is why I liked the movie. The guy can act. I've loved him in everything he has done.

"Her" was a masterpiece.

And I even liked him in "Napoleon", even though the movie itself was ahistorical garbage.

Napoleon is pretty great if you consider it less as a serious biopic on the life of Napoleon and more as an adaptation of a British political cartoon circa 1812.

I guess overwrought early-2000s psychological thrillers are just that much better than 2020 bullshit -- if somebody wants to start churning out mediocre-but-fun 90s movies again I won't complain.

Bad Boys 4 arguably did this this Summer and did well at the box office. Feels straight out of the 90s.

Exactly, the standard of Hollywood slop in 2019 was so poor that a movie which would have been straight-to-DVD in 2004 makes a fortune and is praised as a masterpiece.

Was straight-to-DVD ever particularly viable for (wannabe) psychological thrillers? I got the impression that it was used more for genre schlock and feel-good films.

I'm thinking about seeing it this afternoon to see how I feel about it, but the reviews don't bode well.

How was it? I'm surprised by how unified everyone is in not liking it.

Just saw it myself. Didn't love it but if it hadn't been a musical I would have said it was "good". An amazing piece of art that just wasn't that enjoyable to watch. In contrast I'd put the first movie at "great", no qualifications.

I don't really get the "dunking on incels" critiques. Like who came out of the first movie identifying with Joker?

I'm impressed by them trying to make a sequel at all. The first movie didn't need one, it was an exploration of a loser's life: stupid, awkward, ugly, poor, mentally ill Arthur Fleck is not the usual charismatic megalomaniac madman that draws people in like a maelstrom. The clown posse overtaking Gotham didn't worship the real Joker/Fleck, they worshipped a meme, like QAnon. He has his 15 minutes of fame and is then arrested and institutionalized.

How exactly do you make a sequel to this story? The old Fleck is gone, his story has been told. The only pitch I can come up with is the QAnon/book ending of Fight Club/The Huduscker Proxy one: while Fleck is being intimately acquainted with haloperydol, the group that worships the Joker grows. They break him out of Arkham asylum and start asking him for guidance. His simple ideas are amplified by the group effort and result in his growing notoriety.

I feel like they could have gone a different route with the talk show character Murray. They made him too much like Johnny Carson. A show and character resembling Dick Cavett would have been able to navigate the complex emotional aspects of what Arthur did on the subway. I thought that was the weakest point of the film. Murray didn't give Arthur what he wanted, IMO, which was understanding. Instead he got ridicule.

Joker (the film) always reminds me of Christine (2016), about the on-air suicide of Christine Chubbuck, and anecdotally, I heard that she is somewhat of a martyr for the incel community, as well. I sympathize with her more than I do Arthur from Joker because she wrestled with her interpersonal and intrapersonal struggles for as long as she could before they became too burdensome.

It's a Joker-themed courtroom jukebox musical with a bad ending that retroactively undermines the previous film, which was a Joker-themed King of Comedy and Taxi Driver remake that only did as well as it did due to the Batman IP and the media acting like it was the catalyzt of an impending incel revolution. It was a dumb idea from the start. Might've been a Matrix 4 situation, where Todd Phillips didn't want to make a sequel. Not sure.

WB is a dumpster fire and DC is on life support. Good luck James Gunn. You're gonna need it.

The joke being shared on social media is that this Joker film actually will cause mass shootings, but only on account of how bad it is.

Everything I've heard and read about this film sounds like it's almost apologizing for audiences liking the first one so much.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats