• Coca_Cola_but_Commie [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 hour ago

    I hate this guy so much. Made a few admittedly pretty good movies in the '90s, but the rest of his films are terrible, and he’s been lauded as some sort of Film God ever since. I mean, I’ll always watch a new Tarantino movie because I know it’ll be decently fun to watch (and be mad at) and all his films are technically very well made and typically are full of good actors giving entertaining performances (of weak material). So I guess credits due where credits due.

    But his post-'90s work all feels so self-indulgent, so masturbatory. Clearly Quentin Tarantino also believes himself to be a genius, with very important ideas on film. Any time I hear this guy say anything he comes off as so smug and self-congratulatory and you can feel that attitude throughout every moment of his work. Add on the racism and zionism and he’s just a vile man who I wish would go away.

    But I can see where he’d get this read about Joker 2. It’s certainly the way chuds took it. Don’t think I agree, though. I feel like if anything this movie was like “all you dumbasses intentionally misconstrued the first movie as some sort of ode to toxic masculinity, so I’ll make the same point as last time but more clearly.”

    This is neither here nor there, but I somehow listened to this review podcast thing of Joker 2, I think it ended up on my twitter feed or something, and it was just three libs who didn’t like the movie, but I got the feeling they didn’t like it because the character of Joker was seized by chuds as an icon and they couldn’t articulate that. Anyway, one of their only cogent reasons for hating the movie was “Lady Gaga’s Harley gets used and tossed aside by a narcissist.” And I just wanted to ask them if they saw the same movie I did. How did they want it to end? With Arthur taking up Harley’s offer to full personify the Joker and live out the rest of his life as some kind of blood-crazed monster?

    They also complained that the musical numbers didn’t blow them away. Which I guess is fair, but I also feel like that’s not totally engaging with the movie on its terms. The musical numbers are the hallucinations of a deranged spree murderer who can only sometimes tell fantasy from reality. Complaining that they aren’t incredible is a bit like complaining that Arthur’s stand-up in Joker wasn’t funny. But, I don’t know, maybe I’m giving the movie too much credit there.

  • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      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?

      • Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        2 hours ago

        I’d say 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 the numbers 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).

  • Belly_Beanis [he/him]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    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.

    • imogen_underscore [it/its, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 hours ago

      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.

    • UlyssesT [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 hours ago

      He’s a sex pest and creeped on Uma Thurman for many years. I don’t accept “eccentric genius” passes from treat defenders, either.

    • Boxscape@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 hours ago

      he just takes scenes from other movies, mashes them together in a nonlinear story

      What about his camera angles?

  • FlakesBongler [they/them]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    3 hours ago

    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

  • Thallo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 hours ago

    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?

    • kleeon [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      4 hours ago

      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

      • FunkyStuff [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.