I saw the film last night and I enjoyed it. It was a bit long and could have done with better editing. They should have leaned harder into the musical elements. But it wasn’t the train wreck I’d been led to believe it was.
I recommend people see it and make their own minds up
i rlly want to see it. i want it to be a proper musical but it sounds like it’s not :(
is it like the Barbie movie where it’s mostly just scenes that put more importance on the music and only one proper musical scene with singing and choreography?
I’d day there are maybe 8 to 10 musical numbers. They are all very short though and they are often interrupted. The movie is not a musical and anyone who says it is has clearly never seen a musical. About half of them take place in some sort of liminal musical reality whilst the others take place directly where the characters are in the moment. I think they work very well which is why I wanted to see more of them. Sometimes it felt like they were scared to commit.
The rest of the film was good I thought, and I was never bored. I just wish they’d got the most out of the concept. It’s sad that this will probably be the end of this continuity as I think it could have continued (albeit in a different direction).
Hot take: Quentin Tarantino is the most overrated living director. His only good movies were Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction. Everything else is a parody of itself (not in a good way) because he just takes scenes from other movies, mashes them together in a nonlinear story, then has everyone die because he doesn’t know how to write an ending to the incoherent plot he’s spliced together from better filmmakers.
I also suspect he was buddy-buddy with Harvey Weinstein but managed to slip under the radar because he avoids talking about his personal life.
not really a hot take. he is a technically proficient slop merchant, makes some enjoyable movies but it’s laughable when he comes up in the conversation for best american director. Kubrick imo is basically untouchable in that department.
He’s a sex pest and creeped on Uma Thurman for many years. I don’t accept “eccentric genius” passes from treat defenders, either.
he just takes scenes from other movies, mashes them together in a nonlinear story
What about his camera angles?
Cinema geek revels in Comic Book geeks finally getting there’s
theirs
they";rez
He’s absolutely right but I’m surprised he was able to sit through the movie considering they never show lady gagas feet
I notice that this narrative is getting passed around. There’s this idea that the movie was specifically made to piss off the people who liked the first one. I’ve also seen the weird term “Hollywood humiliation ritual” being thrown around again.
But why would a studio spend millions of dollars to do this? I just don’t get it.
It really has vibes of (((Hollywood))) attempting to humiliate a certain demographic (white males) by degrading their cultural iconography.
It just seems like a really chud way to frame the narrative. Wouldn’t they actually try to make money by producing the same slop for the same audience?
Wouldn’t they actually try to make money by producing the same slop for the same audience?
There wasn’t really a “they” apparently. The studio basically gave the director free rein to do whatever he wants with the movie, given how successful the first one was
Wasn’t Bob Kane Jewish??
They’re used to being angry, you can’t beat them by making a bad movie
It’s a waste of effort
Just make good shit that doesn’t have anything to do with their crime clown
deleted by creator
I enjoyed Joker, because it was basically Taxi Driver with minimal capeshit lore thrown in. Not sure if I’ll bother watching II
I hated Joker because it was Taxi Driver with a smidge of “lore” attached and none of the subtlety. You’re not making Joker better, you’re just making Taxi Driver worse.
