Imagine liking a film because you think it insults a certain demographic that’s what makes a experience worthwhile how pathetic and incels are weirdos but you incel obsession is The same
@@MovieMan101 I didn’t like the pacing, overall story, or Harlen quinzel as a character. I did like the scene with Gary and the cinematography Edit: also I liked the songs, but I didn’t like the songs as apart of the story
I don't mind that it wasn't great (even though a part II was always a bad idea for this movie), but I do mind that this movie ruins the legacy of the first Joker movie. It's like Todd tried to undo what he did... but worse in every way? This is like Marvel remaking Infinity War and letting the Avengers win the first time around.
How is this a middle finger to incels? It supports the mindset that women just want assholes. Arthur only gets laid after he becomes a violent criminal.
Because Gaga doesn't represent all women in the movie -- she represents the audience who loved Joker for the wrong reasons, the ones who made him into the hero of the story
damn, amidst all the negative reviews your review actually made me excited to see it (even though i spoiled myself a bit with it, but at least i know what to expect and i wanna watch it unfold)
Idk if incels relate to the first movie as much as people say. If you call anyone ill and lonely an incel then it kinda proves the point from the first movie about society having no compassion (maybe for sexually confused people and colored people compassion is reserved for some reason)
true, its also interesting, that self appointed critics regularly use terms like pandering, when it comes to movies, that rely on selling woke culture, but then something like this comes along, is actually about something, or rather someone, a certain type of individual, who would otherwise never have a platform, the message gets twisted and then, ironically, people hate, that a movie comes along, that, for a change, panders to no one- ironic, how this film is the mirror image of the first and the response to it comes full circle, its an ouroboros of storytelling expectation
@@lepersonnage371 also the claim, that because arthur ends up where he started (which is debatable, in itself) he somehow has no character arc, while wanting the movie to be joker and harley carnage, which would be the start and end of their character arc- it wouldnt piss me off, if i could buy into the claim, its a cynical cash grab, despite costing a lot more and being designed, to divide- its ok, to just want to be entertained, by a comic book movie, but the discourse about this film, which tried to do, what art aspires to be, to challenge its viewers....i feel, thats not hating on your audience, but trusting them to empathize, which is most certainly not the case. its a flawed film, i can admit as much and still try to be civil, yet the discourse about this film copy pastes the same buzzwords, loser, incel, hates its fans etc- what the world needs now, is love, sweet love
@@fabianhammer2864 I think this sequel is the most true to the character and realistic, Arthur as a character can't be the price of crime, the Joker persona was the armor, but it's not a split personality situation, he in his core just wants the goodness, but being drived to ruin he can't continue the hopeless act and drops it, and people walk away from him, same as the audience show their true colors and only wanted to see the Joker, and when Arthur drops the act they hate on him.
@@lepersonnage371 agreed, i also think that some critics of it, are kind of pissed, about the notion, that arthur has more empathy left, than they have, for the character. hes not always easy to love, i get that, but i appreciate the road taken with him and that it was ultimately his story, not jokers- that was a shared delusion, by all of us, all the characters wanted something out of him, wanted him to be something, which he just wasnt and the audience is complicit, we have been told all about him and still wanted more joker and i for one, dont even think, that the guy at the end is THE true joker- in this incarnation i see him as a shadow, that insists upon itself, regardless of the vessel and it doesnt even negate the realism, in these films, since im convinced, the guards wanted to get rid of arthur and took their shot, when they knew he would be forgotten and couldnt cause any more trouble- by organizing his killing by the next joker, the society creates its own monsters theme of the first one and i like to think, that the guards themselves created a worse monster, than themselves and eventually got their comeuppance- though theres still other possible interpretations, especially if you choose to believe, harley is alive, at the end- just throwing that out, because i think its bullshit, how many critics claim, this doesnt leave any ambiguity, that the first one had and theres no character arc, for arthur, which wouldve been the case, if it was just a crowd pleasing joker carnage flick
It's certainly proving to be a VERY divisive film, seems people either love it or hate it. Even in my friend group, it seemed that we were more or less split down the middle. I say (if you're interested) give it a watch and decide for yourself :)
I wonder if Harley was a proxy for the audience. When its shown the symbol of the Joker couldn't be maintained under the weight of real-world consequences, Arthur was discarded. Arthur by the end tragically does have some growth in his identity, but devotees didn't care about that. They wanted the vicarious rage & catharsis, fake power in a monotonous world. Ultimately consequences prove too great for Arthur to continue his journey. Also the musical stuff was so bad lmao
not just harley, i think the same applies, to the joker fanatics, who hyped him up, the guards, who brutalized him, (undoubtedly leading some people to believe, he would go full joker, after they raped him and killed his friend) and the next proto-joker, who stabs arthur, deeming him not worthy, of the title- hell, even the interviewer wanted him to be something he wasnt, even mary anne, the lawyer, who was pretty much the only one, who had his interests at heart, didnt really figure it out
Imagine liking a film because you think it insults a certain demographic that’s what makes a experience worthwhile how pathetic and incels are weirdos but you incel obsession is The same
Incels are crying haha
I REALLY liked 30% of this movie, but I really HATED the other 70% of it
What aspects didn't work for you? Genuinely curious
@@MovieMan101 I didn’t like the pacing, overall story, or Harlen quinzel as a character. I did like the scene with Gary and the cinematography
Edit: also I liked the songs, but I didn’t like the songs as apart of the story
70% is all the singing
I don't mind that it wasn't great (even though a part II was always a bad idea for this movie), but I do mind that this movie ruins the legacy of the first Joker movie. It's like Todd tried to undo what he did... but worse in every way? This is like Marvel remaking Infinity War and letting the Avengers win the first time around.
I didn’t Ike the movie but I love the idea of a guy trolling so many people at the same time 😂😂😂
How is this a middle finger to incels? It supports the mindset that women just want assholes. Arthur only gets laid after he becomes a violent criminal.
Because Gaga doesn't represent all women in the movie -- she represents the audience who loved Joker for the wrong reasons, the ones who made him into the hero of the story
Yep very true there are people who thought he was the hero of it i was like what hes a physco
damn, amidst all the negative reviews your review actually made me excited to see it (even though i spoiled myself a bit with it, but at least i know what to expect and i wanna watch it unfold)
Idk if incels relate to the first movie as much as people say. If you call anyone ill and lonely an incel then it kinda proves the point from the first movie about society having no compassion (maybe for sexually confused people and colored people compassion is reserved for some reason)
true, its also interesting, that self appointed critics regularly use terms like pandering, when it comes to movies, that rely on selling woke culture, but then something like this comes along, is actually about something, or rather someone, a certain type of individual, who would otherwise never have a platform, the message gets twisted and then, ironically, people hate, that a movie comes along, that, for a change, panders to no one- ironic, how this film is the mirror image of the first and the response to it comes full circle, its an ouroboros of storytelling expectation
@@fabianhammer2864 yes, all true
@@lepersonnage371 also the claim, that because arthur ends up where he started (which is debatable, in itself) he somehow has no character arc, while wanting the movie to be joker and harley carnage, which would be the start and end of their character arc- it wouldnt piss me off, if i could buy into the claim, its a cynical cash grab, despite costing a lot more and being designed, to divide- its ok, to just want to be entertained, by a comic book movie, but the discourse about this film, which tried to do, what art aspires to be, to challenge its viewers....i feel, thats not hating on your audience, but trusting them to empathize, which is most certainly not the case. its a flawed film, i can admit as much and still try to be civil, yet the discourse about this film copy pastes the same buzzwords, loser, incel, hates its fans etc- what the world needs now, is love, sweet love
@@fabianhammer2864 I think this sequel is the most true to the character and realistic, Arthur as a character can't be the price of crime, the Joker persona was the armor, but it's not a split personality situation, he in his core just wants the goodness, but being drived to ruin he can't continue the hopeless act and drops it, and people walk away from him, same as the audience show their true colors and only wanted to see the Joker, and when Arthur drops the act they hate on him.
@@lepersonnage371 agreed, i also think that some critics of it, are kind of pissed, about the notion, that arthur has more empathy left, than they have, for the character. hes not always easy to love, i get that, but i appreciate the road taken with him and that it was ultimately his story, not jokers- that was a shared delusion, by all of us, all the characters wanted something out of him, wanted him to be something, which he just wasnt and the audience is complicit, we have been told all about him and still wanted more joker and i for one, dont even think, that the guy at the end is THE true joker- in this incarnation i see him as a shadow, that insists upon itself, regardless of the vessel and it doesnt even negate the realism, in these films, since im convinced, the guards wanted to get rid of arthur and took their shot, when they knew he would be forgotten and couldnt cause any more trouble- by organizing his killing by the next joker, the society creates its own monsters theme of the first one and i like to think, that the guards themselves created a worse monster, than themselves and eventually got their comeuppance- though theres still other possible interpretations, especially if you choose to believe, harley is alive, at the end- just throwing that out, because i think its bullshit, how many critics claim, this doesnt leave any ambiguity, that the first one had and theres no character arc, for arthur, which wouldve been the case, if it was just a crowd pleasing joker carnage flick
Tbh haven’t seen it but i’m interested to see if the movie is as the title claims (which would be fresh and cool)
Gary Puddles.
Cool just from general word of mouth i wasnt going to see it but ill give it a try. Appreciate the review man
It's certainly proving to be a VERY divisive film, seems people either love it or hate it. Even in my friend group, it seemed that we were more or less split down the middle. I say (if you're interested) give it a watch and decide for yourself :)
I wonder if Harley was a proxy for the audience. When its shown the symbol of the Joker couldn't be maintained under the weight of real-world consequences, Arthur was discarded.
Arthur by the end tragically does have some growth in his identity, but devotees didn't care about that. They wanted the vicarious rage & catharsis, fake power in a monotonous world.
Ultimately consequences prove too great for Arthur to continue his journey.
Also the musical stuff was so bad lmao
not just harley, i think the same applies, to the joker fanatics, who hyped him up, the guards, who brutalized him, (undoubtedly leading some people to believe, he would go full joker, after they raped him and killed his friend) and the next proto-joker, who stabs arthur, deeming him not worthy, of the title- hell, even the interviewer wanted him to be something he wasnt, even mary anne, the lawyer, who was pretty much the only one, who had his interests at heart, didnt really figure it out
Feels more like a middle finger to audiences in general lmao
here's your attention