JO1s Posted October 15 Posted October 15 58 minutes ago, Vegvisir said: It's a solid 6/10, with terrible structure and a weak script. So a 2/10 5 1
Rotunda Posted October 15 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, Doctor Dick said: No, it's serving incompetence. The reason why the film bombed and is heavily disliked is mostly due to its marketing targeting the wrong demographic, which also explains its Cinemascore being a D. The easiest comparison would be American Psycho with Christian Bale which is regarded as a great film but when it was released it flopped and... received a D Cinemscore as well. Why? Because it was branded the wrong way so when people bought a ticket they got something completely different than what they were anticipating. JFAD and American Psycho are literally perfect examples of bad marketing. WB should've marketed it as a musical instead of an r-rated thriller. It was the wrong approach and ended up burying the movie. Yes and no. The issue isn't just the marketing of the movie, but that it's a sequel that is a major departure from the original. You don't take a major movie with an established POV and then drastically change it for the sequel. The movie was always doomed to fail, not because if subverts audience expectations but because it has no reverence for what the audience liked about the original.
halcyonday Posted October 15 Posted October 15 It's the worst panned movie of the decade. It deserves the lashings. 2 3
Orsay Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I still haven't seen it shhdjdn it has to be bad but I do feel the hate is overblown. it was just a bad idea that didn't land at all. it is what it is, Gaga will be fine
Rotunda Posted October 15 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, SUNSET BLVD said: But Joaquin and Todd had a very specific vision for the story they wanted to tell and how they wanted to do it and this is what they chose. I know it's incomprehensible to some people but sometimes people feel really strong about an artistic vision even with the risk of a financial loss. If film and music and merely created to make a profit than WHAT IS THE POINT So would you say art and capitalism were friends or enemies in this instance?
ineedboxinggloves Posted October 15 Posted October 15 1 hour ago, Vegvisir said: It's a solid 6/10, with terrible structure and a weak script. There are great ideas in there, and fantastic performances, but after it's all said and done Joker 2 was an unnecessary sequel. People are just foaming at the mouth to have a chance at tugging Gaga's wig on here - the rest of the world does not care about J:FAD lol This comment right here 1
Pikacho Posted October 15 Posted October 15 2 hours ago, SUNSET BLVD said: Agree. It's not great but the narrative that's taken over IG and tik tok that it's the "worst movie ever made" is actually really comical. It's like the gays really let the incels win - even if you don't like Gaga, chiming in on the unnecessary dogpiling really let the straight man create a false narrative all because they hate musicals and can't fathom unconventional, non-literal storytelling. Like…the movie is simply not that bad. I'll bet actual money that the movie will be rediscovered in a few years and appreciated down the line for what it is. Lol
Jessie Posted October 15 Posted October 15 The point of the first movie was about how a badly run society ignores and let's down the mentally ill and provides the space for violence to erupt and the sequel… continues being about how mentally ill people are ignored and walked over in such a system, even moreso when criminalised and left to rot, and how people's violent crimes are used for mass entertainment… It continues to look at villainy as a societal disease in the same tone as set in the original. People (and even some critics) are angry because they wanted to see Arthur win and change the tune when the point is he's life's loser. And there's lot of people who claim to love the original (a more grimdark movie) who just can't stand that when even in real life people treat him like an icon; to them only a happy end AKA cathartic anti-hero violence and mayhem is acceptable and satisfying. The genuine hurt feelings from some corners of the internet is an amusing one when this movie is just as laden with oppressive atmosphere and casual violence as the first. Just not in the way they wanted. 1 1
watawa Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I think it's a matter of expectations. I also went with the idea that it was the worst movie in history and I didn't find it that bad...of course it's not good, let's say it's just another one of the bunch, just a little longer. 1
Genius2 Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Welcome to the world of 143. Exactly the same thing happened, it's not a bad album, it just has a train of unnecessary hate 1 2
FrederickGa Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Personally, I liked it But it's okay to admit most people don't like it.. the creatives literally took a risk that went against the want&need of its core base
nsst Posted October 15 Posted October 15 liddos be like: 'this movie has terrible characterization of Harley, no depth, and a horrible script... BUT I'll give it a 7/10.' like, they're really trying to convince themselves it's a good movie just because of her 2
$ebert Posted October 15 Posted October 15 I have seen the movie, people have killed my will to go watch it. I will wait for it to be on any streaming platform to judge it. I get what you're saying, I don't care for people making fun of the director. At the end of the day it's his fault, not the actors fault. So blaming on them is just a reach. I've seen criticism about the ending and storyline…so yeah, the directors fault. 15 minutes ago, Genius2 said: Welcome to the world of 143. Exactly the same thing happened, it's not a bad album, it just has a train of unnecessary hate She worked with a rapi**, and you say is unnecessary hate 2 1
Poker Face Posted October 15 Posted October 15 it's just a boring movie that doesnt progress the plot of jokers story with a bad ending. no one asked for a musical or court drama but thats what we got. idk if some of yall just dont watch movies, but at worst it's mediocre anyways we all know what the thread titles would be if this movie was a box office smash, so dont try iT. 1 2
Rihinvention Posted October 16 Posted October 16 (edited) I don't think people are hating on Gaga's performance specifically. The movie was just bad, and Monsters were really cocky before it came out. It might seem like they're attacking her, but I think in reality, they're just having fun riling up her fans. I do hope she steps away from acting a bit though…I think her desire to be taken seriously as an actress exceeds her natural-born talent for it. This might piss some people off, but I'm going to critique her acting (and these opinions are just that — my own, personal opinions). Everyone's entitled to not like them, but this is how I genuinely feel: I think she was brilliant in the first half of 'A Star Is Born', but she really lost me in the second half. So much so that I was actually kinda surprised when she got an Oscar nomination. I think her vocal chops were what secured her nomination. I remember when I was doing high school plays, our drama teacher always gave direction about not doing "three quarter turns." If you're familiar with a room, you take the shortest turn to exit. I watched 'A Star Is Born' again recently and noticed she screwed this up twice (at 1:56:12 and 1:56:24). I know some liddos will be like, "you cannot be serious. You're saying she's a bad actress because of the way she walked out a room…?" But it's little details like that which separate a good performance from a great performance. It took me "out" of the film momentarily and reminded me I was watching a movie, rather than watching a real woman leaving her boyfriend's bedroom. Rachel Sennott recently did a feature on her character in 'Saturday Night' and I noticed something similar. In the film, her character says, "It's postmodern, it's Warhol, it's iconic." People in the 70s weren't using "iconic" like they are today. Yes, it was still a word back then, but it wasn't common slang. I immediately thought, "she should have said groovy, or rad, or dynamite." All of this to say — it's little moments like that which "take you out" of a film and break the illusion. You're not longer suspending disbelief. I think Gaga has a fair amount of those moments. They're what separate a good actress like her, from a great actress like Meryl Streep or Cate Blanchett. Sometimes I think monsters have rose-coloured glasses on, and believe she's a better actress than she is. Going back to 'A Star Is Born', I sometimes wonder if they filmed all of the "pop star Allie" scenes first, so that she could feel more comfortable stepping into a character who was already so similar to "Lady Gaga." I just found her acting *noticeably* better in the first half. The first half, I was like "oh she's getting that Oscar." And the second half, I was like "wait…maybe not." And like many others, I also couldn't get into her accent in 'House of Gucci.' I didn't see Patrizia Reggiani. All I saw was Gaga trying to do an accent. I know this comment is going to get downvoted into oblivion, but these are my real, honest thoughts. When I see Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence, Saoirse Ronan, Zendaya, Viola Davis, Jessica Chastain, Amy Adams, Margot Robbie, Florence Pugh (and SO many others) give a performance, I'm like "oh…THAT'S an actress." But the thing is — NONE of them could do what Gaga does. They couldn't be pop stars who sing and dance like she does. They couldn't pull off couture fashion the way she does. They couldn't write songs the way she does. I just want her to go back to being a pop star full-time, because that's what she's good at, and the full-time actresses are just that — full-time actresses who are exceptionally talented at it. She's spending too much time and effort chasing something (an acting Oscar) that, at least, 5 other women are always going to be better at in any given year. I think 'A Star Is Born' worked out because it was so close to her actual life, and music/mental health/pop stardom was the whole point of the film. I don't think that will happen again, and as a result, I think she should focus entirely on music again. That's where her talent lies. /end rant, and commence the downvotes. Edited October 16 by Rihinvention
Dula Peep Posted October 17 Posted October 17 On 10/15/2024 at 5:54 PM, Jessie said: The point of the first movie was about how a badly run society ignores and let's down the mentally ill and provides the space for violence to erupt and the sequel… continues being about how mentally ill people are ignored and walked over in such a system, even moreso when criminalised and left to rot, and how people's violent crimes are used for mass entertainment… It continues to look at villainy as a societal disease in the same tone as set in the original. People (and even some critics) are angry because they wanted to see Arthur win and change the tune when the point is he's life's loser. And there's lot of people who claim to love the original (a more grimdark movie) who just can't stand that when even in real life people treat him like an icon; to them only a happy end AKA cathartic anti-hero violence and mayhem is acceptable and satisfying. The genuine hurt feelings from some corners of the internet is an amusing one when this movie is just as laden with oppressive atmosphere and casual violence as the first. Just not in the way they wanted. this
Calvin Posted October 17 Posted October 17 No, it's a horrible film that deserves more lashings. @Assassin @Riverbank have made me laugh sm these past weeks. 1 1
Youngbae Posted October 17 Posted October 17 On 10/15/2024 at 10:15 PM, SUNSET BLVD said: even if you don't like Gaga, chiming in on the unnecessary dogpiling really let the straight man create a false narrative all because they hate musicals and can't fathom unconventional, non-literal storytelling. Like…the movie is simply not that bad. What kind of logic is that? Turn a blind eye to what's in front of you and fake praise a movie that's simply "not that bad" so that incels don't win? And well, if even those who "don't like Gaga" have to support it, how about we stop being shady to other girls and support them too? Or is it only Gaga that needs to be celebrated to spite the incels? 1 1
nhatpb Posted October 18 Posted October 18 On 10/16/2024 at 1:57 AM, vuelve88 said: Nobody wants a superhero musical i think this is not superhero movie 1
STMG23 Posted October 18 Posted October 18 The "hate-train"-thingy has to be banned. This also applies to Kitty Purry- and J.Low-stans: Get over it, sisters!
terrijoe Posted October 18 Posted October 18 Gaga is the new this is me jlo flop. Well deserved backlash for ruining peoples childhood's and dating a powerful Zionist for roles. If she leaves her boyfriend and stops acting, she can still recover from this.
terrijoe Posted October 18 Posted October 18 10 hours ago, Youngbae said: What kind of logic is that? Turn a blind eye to what's in front of you and fake praise a movie that's simply "not that bad" so that incels don't win? And well, if even those who "don't like Gaga" have to support it, how about we stop being shady to other girls and support them too? Or is it only Gaga that needs to be celebrated to spite the incels? Incels won. Gays lost. Sometimes we aren't giving cun_tY and we have to accept this. 1
Recommended Posts