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.
"It should have been a fun movie where Joker goes on a rampage through Gotham and causes chaos" is a take I've seen far too much of. It's "Gandhi should have finished with him gunning down his opponents" levels of missing the point.
FWIW, I can't really agree with the "it's a genius depiction of mental illness and will be reappraised in time" takes, either. I just thought it was...fine? Not great, not terrible, just there.
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.
I’d like Tarantino more if he compared himself to Michael Bay or Christopher Nolan instead of Scorsese and PTA.
"It should have been a fun movie where Joker goes on a rampage through Gotham and causes chaos" is a take I've seen far too much of. It's "Gandhi should have finished with him gunning down his opponents" levels of missing the point.
FWIW, I can't really agree with the "it's a genius depiction of mental illness and will be reappraised in time" takes, either. I just thought it was...fine? Not great, not terrible, just there.