Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)

Options
1…910121415…47

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    murphyebass
    Registered Users Posts: 5,553 ✭✭✭murphyebass


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    You can't really trust The Guardian's reviews. They often seem biased, in this case by the alleged incel cannotations (I note the reviewer deliberately addresses this to state it's not an issue but I suspect the lady doth protest too much).


    I'd trust Donald Clarke's review as an honest assessment of the film itself over the Guardian's, in fact much of media has gone the same way or has just totally sold out in its reviews.

    In scientific terms this is known as a false positive where you keep running the same test until you get the result you want.

    Ie review one bad, review two bad, review three good. Let’s go with three being correct.

    Ultimately it’s all opinion.

    Personally I would love to seen what Ledger or Nicholson would have done with the role as by the acting in the trailer at least again in my opinion was rubbish.

    I will go and see it and i hope it’s good but the trailer has my hopes / expectation pretty low


  • Options
    #333
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    murphyebass wrote: »
    In scientific terms this is known as a false positive where you keep running the same test until you get the result you want.

    Ie review one bad, review two bad, review three good. Let’s go with three being correct.


    Or it's just trusting a reviewer based on experience and not trusting another publication's reviews based on experience. No need to try and look smart with pseudo-scientific nonsense.


  • Options
    #334
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Ethereal Cereal wrote: »
    By referencing sexual assault allegations? This is a thread... about a movie...
    :confused:

    Nothing wrong with what I posted.
    Except the wrong thread perhaps


  • Options
    #335
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    You can't really trust The Guardian's reviews. They often seem biased, in this case by the alleged incel cannotations (I note the reviewer deliberately addresses this to state it's not an issue but I suspect the lady doth protest too much).


    I'd trust Donald Clarke's review as an honest assessment of the film itself over the Guardian's, in fact much of media has gone the same way or has just totally sold out in its reviews.

    Personally, I don't believe what the media says, even reviews. Loada bollocks as far as I'm concerned.

    Best to go and watch it and judge for yourself. After all, I don't know of anyone who didn't go and watch a movie they wanted to all because of a bad review it got


  • Options
    #336
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Happy with RT , if the reviewers say its bad and the audience likes it will be good go see it, if reviewers lurve it but audience doesn't concur, go with the audience and avoid

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Harry Addignton
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Harry Addignton


    "Joker" is shrouded in the sort of esteem that fools you into believing there's something increasingly important there: surly cinematography, blasts of extraordinary savagery, an entertainer who doesn't to such an extent as perform however clairvoyantly channel a character.


  • Options
    #338
    CrankyHaus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,281 ✭✭✭CrankyHaus


    MOR316 wrote: »
    Personally, I don't believe what the media says, even reviews. Loada bollocks as far as I'm concerned.

    Best to go and watch it and judge for yourself. After all, I don't know of anyone who didn't go and watch a movie they wanted to all because of a bad review it got

    I disagree. Good reviewing has value. Not merely in allowing you to know if a film is good or not but whether it's something that a particular viewer will enjoy, by highlighting where it shines and where it does not. Donald Clarke, and other good reviewers, do both.

    For instance I recall his review of Hell or High Water praising it as a film in the style of Sam Peckinpah. I went in pumped and loved it. I probably would have seen it anyway but I may not and I may not have brought my GF to it if I wasn't confident she'd like it too (she loved it).


  • Options
    #339
    The White Wolf
    Registered Users Posts: 5,157 ✭✭✭The White Wolf


    peteeeed wrote: »
    the guardian critic hated it

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/oct/03/joker-review-joaquin-phoenix-todd-phillips

    That's weird....I'm almost sure Bradshaw did the original Venice review where he loved it.

    Ah....incorrect so I was

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/31/joker-review-twisted-tour-de-force-joaquin-phoenix

    They've put up two other negative articles besides for Bradshaw's review..... I really wish that they'd enable the comments section on all articles instead of putting up such opinion pieces that can't be held to account. They've already amended one of theme due to inaccuracies.


  • Options
    #340
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    CrankyHaus wrote: »
    I disagree. Good reviewing has value. Not merely in allowing you to know if a film is good or not but whether it's something that a particular viewer will enjoy, by highlighting where it shines and where it does not. Donald Clarke, and other good reviewers, do both.

    For instance I recall his review of Hell or High Water praising it as a film in the style of Sam Peckinpah. I went in pumped and loved it. I probably would have seen it anyway but I may not and I may not have brought my GF to it if I wasn't confident she'd like it too (she loved it).

    Fair enough, point taken


  • Options
    #341
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,152 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Saw the premiere and it's good. Very good. Jaoquin Phoenix is terrifying and it really doesn't feel like a "comic book movie" at all. The comparisons to Taxi Driver, while a little stretched, are fair.

    The on-line criticism of this from people who haven't yet watched it is going to look particularly silly to most people when they've seen it. The politics of socialised healthcare are actually a fairly central theme of the movie and while it's portrayal of the Joker's origin story is almost tender in it's sympathetic telling of his tale, it doesn't hold back on how scary his volatile nature is.

    Absolutely recommended.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    gizmo
    Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭gizmo


    The White Wolf wrote: »
    That's weird....I'm almost sure Bradshaw did the original Venice review where he loved it.

    Ah....incorrect so I was

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/aug/31/joker-review-twisted-tour-de-force-joaquin-phoenix

    They've put up two other negative articles besides for Bradshaw's review..... I really wish that they'd enable the comments section on all articles instead of putting up such opinion pieces that can't be held to account. They've already amended one of theme due to inaccuracies.
    As a matter of interest, are these the two stories you're referring to?

    Why so stupid: how Joker is too juvenile to be provocative

    Joker makes great disability art by letting its hero bite back


    EDIT: Found another two possibilities...

    Joker strives to capture our cultural moment – but it’s smug and banal at heart

    ‘He is a psychopath’: has the 2019 Joker gone too far?


  • Options
    #343
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    Like, why even bring up The Guardian, when 99% of follow-up remarks inevitably veer towards dog-piling on Bradshaw or the newspaper in general. It should be clear by now most people on this forum don't seem to rate the guy as a reviewer. A thousand critics out there of equal of not greater renown, yet invariably The Guardian gets name-checked when any film of repute crops up: or it it because of the nature of the paper's editorial stance, that it's shared for the sake of causing a stir? Cos it does sometimes feel that way, which would kinda make it trolling at worst, clickbait posting at best :D:)


  • Options
    #344
    The White Wolf
    Registered Users Posts: 5,157 ✭✭✭The White Wolf


    gizmo wrote: »
    As a matter of interest, are these the two stories you're referring to?

    Why so stupid: how Joker is too juvenile to be provocative

    Joker makes great disability art by letting its hero bite back


    EDIT: Found another two possibilities...

    Joker strives to capture our cultural moment – but it’s smug and banal at heart

    ‘He is a psychopath’: has the 2019 Joker gone too far?

    Why so stupid and smug. To be fair you have highlighted a bit of balance there.


  • Options
    #345
    Shred
    Registered Users Posts: 2,468 ✭✭✭Shred


    pixelburp wrote: »
    I wouldn't agree that "none of" any reviews can be trusted: critics are no different to people in that tastes will differ; so the trick for me is to find those whose broad preferences run roughly parallel to my own. This - for instance - would be why I listen to Kerdmode's podcast, even if there's still deviance between his & my own tastes. In terms of spoilers, he's also fairly circumspect, where possible keeping things to a sense of tone or the texture of a film, rather than plot details.

    It's easy to find critics you don't like, and equally easy to use that as a rod to batter all critics; not having a shot at you Shred, but I'm a bit done with this whole "x% crtics vs. X% audience" rationale that crops up these days.


    All fair enough and perhaps I was generalising a tad by saying "none of them". It's just that I personally stopped putting the same stock into the view of a critic as I might have once done a long time ago. I'll read a preview, watch one of the 5/10 trailers and that's enough for me to decide whether I will see a film or not.
    As for all of the adversarial rubbish that goes along with it (and everything else for that matter); yes I agree - yawn.

    On a related note, am I being rose tinted in thinking circa 15-20 years ago (or at least prior to clicks being monetised) that reviews gave more of a general idea of the themes and flow of a film without revealing specific plot events that occur as seems typical these days?


  • Options
    #346
    runningbuddy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭runningbuddy


    Looking forward to this. Love Joaquin. Is it really violent?? It is rated 15.


  • Options
    #347
    El Duda
    Registered Users Posts: 868 ✭✭✭El Duda


    Seeing it tonight.

    OOOOOOOOOOH!!!!!!


  • Options
    #348
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    runningbuddy wrote: »
    Looking forward to this. Love Joaquin. Is it really violent?? It is rated 15.

    its 18s

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #349
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Imagie going dressed as The Penguin and walking out in disgust.


  • Options
    #350
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,504 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Like, why even bring up The Guardian, when 99% of follow-up remarks inevitably veer towards dog-piling on Bradshaw or the newspaper in general. It should be clear by now most people on this forum don't seem to rate the guy as a reviewer. A thousand critics out there of equal of not greater renown, yet invariably The Guardian gets name-checked when any film of repute crops up: or it it because of the nature of the paper's editorial stance, that it's shared for the sake of causing a stir? Cos it does sometimes feel that way, which would kinda make it trolling at worst, clickbait posting at best :D:)

    Heres Peter Bradshaws 5 star review from the Guardian (same bloke who reviewed Joker) of "The Other Guys". A fukcing terrible movie.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/sep/16/the-other-guys-review


  • Options
    #351
    pixelburp
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 35,941 CMod ✭✭✭✭pixelburp


    The Nal wrote: »
    Heres Peter Bradshaws 5 star review from the Guardian (same bloke who reviewed Joker) of "The Other Guys". A fukcing terrible movie.

    https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/sep/16/the-other-guys-review

    Well that's the other tired argument: pulling out that one silver-bullet review that personally offends taste; as if critics aren't guilty of either lapses in judgement, or just have a guilty pleasure from time to time. If they're not pilloried for being Ivory Tower snobs, they're pilloried for not enjoying the right movies. Can't win! :).

    Mostly just sick of Bradshaw & the Guardian getting referenced for cheap outrage & trolling points, every time a "worthy" film comes out; I don't care for Bradshaw but so what if he found The Other Guys funny? Wasn't great, but it's hardly The Room or Freddy Got Fingered 🤷


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,504 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Well that's the other tired argument: pulling out that one silver-bullet review that personally offends taste; as if critics aren't guilty of either lapses in judgement, or just have a guilty pleasure from time to time. If they're not pilloried for being Ivory Tower snobs, they're pilloried for not enjoying the right movies. Can't win! :).

    Mostly just sick of Bradshaw & the Guardian getting referenced for cheap outrage & trolling points, every time a "worthy" film comes out; I don't care for Bradshaw but so what if he found The Other Guys funny? Wasn't great, but it's hardly The Room or Freddy Got Fingered 🤷

    Hardly a 5 star comedy though! Even if he was really stoned.

    Anyway seeing it today and looking forward to it. So much controversy. I bet its fine. Nothing amazing, nothing shít.


  • Options
    #353
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,847 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Rotten Tomatoes Critics score 69% Audience score 93% , tells you all you need to know, go with the audience on this one

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #354
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,109 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Any given critic is entitled to give any given film a good or bad review, regardless of the broad consensus. As long as it’s a genuine response, well argued and made in good faith, it’s valid and worthy. I’ve sadly often seen online (Twitter, Rotten Tomatoes and the like) that some viewers believe it’s a critic’s job to directly echo either the viewer’s own individual opinion or some sort of groupthink consensus, but that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a critic. That said, anything that can be said for the film discourse in that respect is quadruply true of the gaming discourse :pac:


  • Options
    #355
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,109 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    silverharp wrote: »
    Rotten Tomatoes Critics score 69% Audience score 93% , tells you all you need to know, go with the audience on this one

    I mean, the film is literally only out a few hours :pac: And 70% of critics liking it seems like a pretty decent result?

    I wouldn’t trust a Rotten Tomatoes audience score as far as I could throw it TBH. Too prone to review bombing and culture warring - see the recent Dave Chapelle special or the Captain Marvel / Last Jedi fiascos. Something like Letterboxd thankfully offers far more reliable audience reaction without the frantic fanboy wars waged within the confines of RT.


  • Options
    #356
    The Nal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,504 ✭✭✭✭The Nal


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    I mean, the film is literally only out a few hours :pac: And 70% of critics liking it seems like a pretty decent result?

    I wouldn’t trust a Rotten Tomatoes audience score as far as I could throw it TBH. Too prone to review bombing and culture warring - see the recent Dave Chapelle special or the Last Jedi fiasco. Something like Letterboxd thankfully offers far more reliable audience reaction without the frantic fanboy wars waged within the confines of RT.

    Yep its 9.3/10 on IMDB but these are the IMDB users who down voted Godfather 2 to 0/10 and The Dark Knight to 10/10.

    What a bunch of losers.


  • Options
    #357
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Forrest Gump got panned by critics when it came out...


  • Options
    #358
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,109 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    MOR316 wrote: »
    Forrest Gump got panned by critics when it came out...

    Good. It’s mawkish nonsense.


  • Options
    #359
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    johnny_ultimate wrote: »
    Good. It’s mawkish nonsense.

    Tough call but, I'm gonna go with the 6 Oscars and it's cultural and artistic impact on this one


  • Options
    #360
    RocketRaccoon
    Registered Users Posts: 4,396 ✭✭✭RocketRaccoon


    Why the **** do people care about reviewers? Or even rotten tomato scores for that matter?

    Go and see the movie and form your own opinion and completely ignore critics etc. If you enjoy it then great, if you don't then that's OK too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    MOR316
    Registered Users Posts: 2,205 ✭✭✭MOR316


    RocketRaccoon wrote: »
    Why the **** do people care about reviewers? Or even rotten tomato scores for that matter?

    Go and see the movie and form your own opinion and completely ignore critics etc. If you enjoy it then great, if you don't then that's OK too.

    I agree in the main
    All about one's perception and what they take away from it.

    Having said that, I read a post some years (not on here) slating Godzilla for being unrealistic, stupid and because of that, the person wouldn't recommend it to anyone...

    Strange


Advertisement