Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Are you guys aware the dude that played bender (from futurama) and Marcus Fenix from the gears franchise was a joker once in an animated film.

Under the Red Hood, which is definitely one of the better films in DCs recent comics > animation adaptations. It's also a LOT better than the comic its based on.

I didn't mind the Leto Joker all that much, it just wasn't a great iteration. I think a few bad choices held it back such as some bad tattoos (I don't mind a tatt'd Joker but 'Damaged' on the forehead? bleh) and making the Harley/Joker relationship more on the up and up instead of bad, one-sided relationship didn't sit right.

The huge cast list for Suicide Squad was recently released and Magrot Robbie is Harley again but no mention of Leto at all.

Couldn’t stand the Leto Joker.

He just came across as a wannabe, with nothing even remotely or unsettling about him.

 Ahtman wrote:
I didn't mind the Leto Joker all that much, it just wasn't a great iteration. I think a few bad choices held it back such as some bad tattoos (I don't mind a tatt'd Joker but 'Damaged' on the forehead? bleh) and making the Harley/Joker relationship more on the up and up instead of bad, one-sided relationship didn't sit right.

It doesn't help that there was apparently a lot of Joker footage cut. I'd also point out they did make it clear with the extended cut stuff that "this isn't a healthy relationship"...since it started with Joker giving her electroshock therapy during the escape from Arkham.

The huge cast list for Suicide Squad was recently released and Magrot Robbie is Harley again but no mention of Leto at all.

I doubt that he would have done it even if they tried to get him.

I have to admit, the Phoenix Joker movie looks like it will be good.... but I am not 100% sure it IS a Joker movie.

That said, I think Nicholason's performance was pretty scary. He was a man that laughed at your suffering and found humor in it. He was insane.... killing his own henchman, killing people randomly, and basically just being an over the top lunatic gangster.

Ledger was more an agent of chaos but he wasn't has in your face crazy to me. He seemed like he had an twisted ideology and clear goals he wanted to meet.

I do love me some 60's Batman, but Gorshin as the Riddler gets the best plotlines and crazy antics. Poor Romero couldn't out-clown Gorshin.

Actual reviews coming in are...mixed.

 Frazzled wrote:
Actual reviews coming in are...mixed.

Probably best not to read or watch them.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actual reviews coming in are...mixed.

Probably best not to read or watch them.

Always good advice.

Currently at a 70 on Metacritic and a 76 on RT, which seems pretty good(?) for a movie destined to be controversial.

The MC critic-by-critic breakdown also tells a story.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/joker

That Time Magazine review trended as a meme on another site I view.

That's funny, I missed that.

Critics need to be allowed their opinions, though! Can't be too...erm, critical...of critics liking different things than you. It's their job, and sometimes it can be useful to find critics who hate everything that you like.

But I feel like that review could have simply said "I hate everything about it with every fiber of my being" and saved people the time of reading it.

Nah, good criticism is a literary form in itself, and should be interesting and/or entertaining. Plus, this way you know _why_the author disliked the film; without that a review is worthless.

But when said review is full of hyperbole and so scathingly negative as that one, it ceases to be valuable. It doesn't hone in on particular perceived flaws. Instead it's just all bad. Phoenix's performance is bad and the direction is bad and the director himself is bad and the script is bad and the message is bad and the whole concept of the film is bad. It's not helpful.

Roger Ebert wrote a lot of books, and I read most of them. He always said that when a movie critic has done his job right, you know if you would like a movie even if they didn't.

I don't mind critics and have ones I watch/read but I don't use them to determine whether I see something or not. If I am going to see a film I will wait until after I have seen it to look at what is being written. Now if it is something I have no intention of seeing I'll watch/read about it out of curiosity.


Met Ebert once and he was a major jackass when I did. Others try to tell me about how nice he was but that was not my experience. It may have been an off day but it will always be how I remember him.

That makes me sad to hear. I'd never met him, just read the books. Never meet your heroes, indeed.

I don't use individual critics really but I do consider the aggregated opinion. I've never had bad reviews sway me out of a movie I really wanted to see, but - they have led me to movies I might not have seen due to very high reviews (Lady Bird), and have countless times had me not go to movies I was only sort-of interested in seeing. If I have nothing better to do and want to go to the movies, and one of the ones I was sort of interested in is rocking a 20% on RT, I am likely going to see something else or find something else to do.

Personally I really dislike the "wisdom of the crowd" approach to reviews, film reviewers are just as vulnerable to groupthink and badwagons as anyone else. For example, this Joker movie will now undoubtedly get far more positive reviews from a certain type of reviewer regardless of its actual quality because it's awards bait now, and so in the eyes of some is automatically worthy of more respect and serious consideration than your common plebian "capegak" movies.

I think you need to cultivate a stable of reviewers who A; broadly share your own tastes and opinions about film, and B; are capable of reviewing with a level of analysis that conveys more about the film than whether or not it matched said tastes and opinions. That way if they like it, you can be reasonably sure you'll like it as well, and if they dislike it, they can still discuss the film in a manner that might make you decide you'd like it anyway.

I don;t need or want reviewers but having looked at afew after the fact its obvious that many just regurgetate the press release they are given and spin it with their view.

I find trailers normally give me enough information to decide if a film is worth seeing or not without someone else telling me what I should like, why I should like it or the opposite.

Same with food, books and pretty muc anything else that has attracted a profesional inheriently parastic job called "critic".

 gorgon wrote:
Currently at a 70 on Metacritic and a 76 on RT, which seems pretty good(?) for a movie destined to be controversial.

The MC critic-by-critic breakdown also tells a story.

https://www.metacritic.com/movie/joker

I've never really been on the Metacritic site, but Rotten Tomatoes wouldn't be worthy of wiping my rear-end if they had a print copy. Case in point: Their reviews of Dave Chappell's last special. 30% fresh from critics, but 99% from the public. On the other end of the spectrum they gave glowing reviews to Ghostbusters 2016, and everyone thought that was a dumpster fire.

Alas, some of the critic's reviews refer to the Joker as a "manifesto for white-male violence". I mean, damn, leave politics out of this. Was it a good story? Was it acted well? Were the scenes shot well?

 Frazzled wrote:
Actual reviews coming in are...mixed.

My general advice is to use friends and people I know for reviews. For instance i'd probably take somebody with similar movie and video game tastes on dakka rather than most of these critic sites.

I actually have at least one friend with very similar movie tastes as myself so his personal reviews are worth more to me than a tidal wave of angry internet reviewers in one direction or another.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Actual reviews coming in are...mixed.

My general advice is to use friends and people I know for reviews. For instance i'd probably take somebody with similar movie and video game tastes on dakka rather than most of these critic sites.

I actually have at least one friend with very similar movie tastes as myself so his personal reviews are worth more to me than a tidal wave of angry internet reviewers in one direction or another.

Agreed.

Let's not rehash the "Reviewers are useless/have a purpose" argument here. Start a new thread if you must.

That said, I can see the "White Male Violence" argument considering the Joker from the TDK was a similar iteration and we live in a time where a significant number of the electorate just wants to watch the world burn for a variety of reasons. Since TDK the character has attracted that type of following online.

This seems like an origin movie that does not follow the character's actual origins. Therefore, I am interested to see how fanbois react as well.

 Easy E wrote:
Let's not rehash the "Reviewers are useless/have a purpose" argument here. Start a new thread if you must.

That said, I can see the "White Male Violence" argument considering the Joker from the TDK was a similar iteration and we live in a time where a significant number of the electorate just wants to watch the world burn for a variety of reasons. Since TDK the character has attracted that type of following online.

This seems like an origin movie that does not follow the character's actual origins. Therefore, I am interested to see how fanbois react as well.

Seriously I didn't even say reviewers are all trash or not since I watch some. I'm just saying friends with similar tastes are more reliable. Discussing 'white male violence' is just so much more controversial and could lead to a thread lock. You do know other people shoot up different crowds it's just the media doesn't report on it all. It's almost like media focuses on terrorism from one end or another and we don't talk about all the various murders. That or murder on the news has also become so commonplace nobody actually cares.

I don't see how wanting to watch batman causes white male violence. It's the same version of video games cause violence that we used to see and yes there were supposed video game shooters. I think it's more dangerous to ban books or tv because some crazy says xbox or something made them do it.

I like the part where you recognize going off on a, essentially, political tangent will get the thread locked and then immediately start pouring gasoline on fire.

Indeed, please don't do that.

Alright fine. Either way it's not where we should be going.

Wanting to see batman? There's no batman in this film, from what I hear. Maybe some Martha...

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Wanting to see batman? There's no batman in this film, from what I hear. Maybe some Martha...

Really?! Then who is that little boy in the trailer then? The one that the joker makes smile. I suppose that's young Bruce Wayne then. Btw wasn't there a series called Gotham that was live action? How did that turn out because I'm legitimately curious.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Btw wasn't there a series called Gotham that was live action? How did that turn out because I'm legitimately curious.

The first season is genuinely good and stands up on its own, focussing primarily on relatively grounded organized crime and the consequences of the Waynes being murdered.

Subsequent seasons get zanier as you go - and you can stop or continue depending on your taste.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Couldn’t stand the Leto Joker.

He just came across as a wannabe, with nothing even remotely or unsettling about him.

I actually think it would have worked well it they went with the "wannabe" angle more. Or rather, that the Leto Joker wasn't the original, but a brain-washed previous Robin. At least 1 clue was there in BvS.

-