วีดีโอ

I hate Alien 4 for no other reason than making that stupid word xenomorph canon, according to nerds. Lt Gorman was the only other one to use that word. No other character in no other movie calls the beast “xenomorph “

Alien 3 is inexcludable. David Fincher style fits the trilogy really well. Also I love its unhappy ending - fits the whole franchise universe. Aliens is the worst in trilogy imo - the less artistic one, more bombastic, while obviously still cool - i just prefer Alien and Alien 3 slower pace and gloomy atmosphere without shootouts

The answer is there are no good Alien films. They're all mid.

All of them are good, some better than others.

One of my favourite unpopular opinions is that AvP is no worse than Prometheus. They're both dumb action movies, but only one is a pompous defence of Intelligent Design with people doing actively moronic things to get themselves killed. And as for the utter trash that is Covenant... Alien Three Stooges nearly broke me laughing

Evil Dead Remake was full of stupid characters. Even more stupid, than in Alien prequels.

Aliens was cool back in the eighties in your teens in the cinema complex. Mighty fine. Alien was another movie completely, more like a horror and suspense piece. Both masterpieces. Alien 3 doesn't really exist in my alien universe. Maybe I need to watch it again?

Aliens is a poor Alien movie--it is too upbeat and positive. The Alien universe is supposed to be bleak and hopeless. Alien 3 is by far the superior movie.

They only made two films. They’re making another sequel? Aliens zzzzz ?

Alien 3 has a ridiculous amount of hate. It's a pure horror story, beautifully shot, graphic. There's no hope there at all, especially with the opening.

i enjoy every one of them, the new ones are cool too even with their problems

Alien and Aliens are the only canonical films of the original 4. Alien 3 is a nightmare that Ripley had while in cryo sleep. Alien 4 "Resurrection" is a nightmare that Newt had during cryo sleep - she witnessed experiments by Weyland Yutani and being an impressionable child influenced it. That's how I reconcile it and no one can tell me different.

YOU TALK SHIT

Admittedly i enjoyed Alien 3, Resurrection, and Prometheus in spite of how flawed they were. I recognize they're universally hated and that's fine. The first two will always be the staple masterpieces.

Yeah, Evil Dead remake was solid. It was gross AF. I haven't seen Alien, or Aliens. I've seen Prometheus, and Alien Covenant. I thought those movies were cool. I think Ridley Scott makes really visually interesting movies. I'll have to check out Alien, and Aliens. Thanks for the recommendation!

Alien & Aliens are the best. Everything else is mildly interesting.

There’s a argument to be made if he’s actually ‘the’ joker. Or if, like at the end, he’s just part of the chaos and he will eventually just influence the real Joker character…

ur voice sucks

boring insight dude

I’m on bored with what you said Every word.

Django is his worst film -- even more so than Death Proof. I'm not saying that it's a bad film by any stretch of the word. But it is his worst. I think it suffers a great deal from the loss of his editor Sally Menke, as well as it being a purely surface level entertainment which has nothing new or innovative to say on the whole issue of America's history of slavery. Indeed, by the inclusion of such elements as Mandingo Fighting (which I could not find any historical reference for -- the act, not the word), isn't the plight of the slave made a mockery of? It's the film which Tarantino has nothing to say about the subject matter and therefore becomes his most gratuitous.

Joker sucked. It was a sh!t film. THE JOKER IS BATMAN's BROTHER!!!! OOOOOHHHHHH WHAT A TWIST. Thomas Wayne was a rich white man who is a bad husband and terrible father. Shittttttt film.

Loved only the last part. The second movie bringing a singer to act opposite joachim is an insult. As a DC fan, i did not like The Batman casting that twilight actor but once i watched it, the story, the performance, the goth everything was made to perfection. For me hands down, that was not the best mass entertaining batman but it was the best BATMAN.

these aren't batman movies

isnt what you said a little contradictory? if you have a specific knowledge of media and film and a particular life experience only then can you understand the movie objectively. in the description you said that people were "watching movies wrong" but for something to be objective - you dont need to take time out of your day and learn about the history or how it was made. sure when the filmmaker displays something on the screen that's what we see, but how we respond to it/the way it makes us feel can be wildly different. and at the end of the day film is what it makes you feel, and therefore it is definitively subjective. i just feel the argument you were trying to make or the idea you were going for really wasn't that fleshed out and could use some improvement but i look forward to watching more of your content. (also i really don't mean this in a rude or argumentative way, im just trying to give some constructive criticism)

The sequel is gonna be so stupid. They're going to take a weird direction away from the original.

His genius may have been suppressed by his constant battle against letting his mental illness take over. Hopefully we’ll see more of that as he falls deeper into his joker persona.

It's not the actor's fault that you cam in with your own preconceived ideas.

I always thought that the Jokers weapon that he uses to battle batman was randomness and chaos.

You missed the point of this movie. It’s not a superhero movie by any stretch of the imagination, and it’s not meant to be. Joaquin phoenix’s joker is a political commentary about how we’re so sick as a society, that someone like Arthur fleck can become a hero in public opinion.

NiLSadrsa

The Joker does not need an origin story, like all good psychopaths, he protects his past by constantly changing it. Do we have to have everything spelt out for us? The movie sucked and so did Joachim. Only my opinion but it bored me shitless.

Art is never 100% objective. You are young. You will change your opinion as you grow older.

This Joker isn't from the same universe as the previous Jokers..He hasn't reached that level madness yet as the others before him..

I agree all of that. Same perspectives

I disagree Joker always meant chaos more than strategy

Thank you! When I first saw the movie, I was like it's alright, a one-time watch movie. But when I watched it again, I started critiquing a lot, and this movie is a rip-off, and it's like a bad rip off of Robert DeNiros movie called King of Comedy. We were supposed to relate to Arthur Fleck bc life kept dealing him shitting hands every single time. He wasn't that smart, articulate, mentally ill patient. It wasn't Joker it was about mentally ill patient going on a kill streak just because he couldn't handle what society threw at him, and somehow, the same society started worshipping him. Like, huh!?

I’d say a better title for this would be “ when the director thinks your audience is stupid so they dilute what a actor is capable of” in less words of course :)

"Beauty is subjective: Bette Davis wasn't beautiful, but she was more than beautiful." - Jacques Audiard Well now that I have chosen a quote from a filmmaker to make my rebuttal for me I just wanna say, obviously La La Land is the best movie of all time and anyone who says that it isn't, wouldn't know a good movie if it were to steal their insurance money. If you don't like the same movies that people more popular than 99% of the U.S. population like then not only is your taste in movies awful, YOU'RE AWFUL. Furthermore, filmmakers are superior to regular humans in every single way and if some french movie director that I haven't heard of before disagrees with you, you gotta put the fries in the bag. *as I say with MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF SARCASM* Edit: Anyways, do you use Letterboxd? I feel heavily inclined to know your thoughts on many movies despite my probably pointless rant.

lol, christian bale. there are SO many better actors then Bale. dont get me wrong, he knows what dfaq he is doing. but he isnt even in the top 10's

Well the whole point of it was about his descent further and further into madness, until he finally sheds the shy and awkward Arthur Fleck and truly becomes the Joker. His tick of laughing is an indicator of one aspect of his mental illness, although at the end when he's sitting with the psychologist and is laughing we assume he's just laughing in the same fashion, that its his condition although she asks him what he's laughing about and he says he was thinking about a joke and she responds would you like to tell it to me and he says you wouldn't get it. Here we see that he's actually laughing because he finds something funny. The character of the Joker is insane, unhinged and psychotic but they had to show us how he got there. If you remember on the Mory show he was going to kill himself at the end but then ended up killing Mory and reveling in the chaos his actions caused in Gotham, if the Joker is anything he is unpredictable. There was a line once said by Batman to Superman in the DC animated cartoon series where he said "with the joker expect the unexpected". And yes the Joker is smart Genius level even as portrayed by Heath Ledgers Joker, but that was a seasoned Joker this was an origin, we have yet to see the extent of his strategic criminal intellect.

I thought Joker was boring. I didn't like the mental thing angle with the laugh. That was lame because it didn't feel natural, just something that was always apart of him, and not something that developed within him as a character. Yeah, he didn't seem all that smart either, which I also think Joker is supposed to be this secret genius. I won't be seeing the second movie.

You should review “Beau is Afraid”

I'd be very surprised if most film makers themselves wouldn't laugh at you for making this point There's nothing objective about a persons experience

The part of your analysis that was (objectively) correct is that one of the things that can be objectively considered in a piece of media is intent. So…”I want the audience to understand that the character walked from one side of the street to a different side of the street.” Did the filmmaker satisfy that intent? That’s an objective critique. Where I think maybe you might want to spend more time considering your thesis is as it pertains to what an artist is and what it is we do. I’m an artist, and I can tell you plainly that my intent is to present the truth as I would any memory. But the outcome of a truth PRESENT in the work itself, isn’t something an artist works to manifest, rather that is the role, exclusively, of the craftsman. The craftsman works to create a thing to the ends of whatever manipulation they seek to achieve. Either to manipulate matter into a useful item, to generate propaganda (good or bad) to influence the sociopolitical ideologies of those who experience it; the craftsman works to serve the ego and man. The artist operates antithetical to the craftsman. Unlike the craftsman, the artist is burdened by what they are driven to make manifest in our world, not in service to man or the self, but rather in service to that ethereal - that thing that’s observed and recorded and then displayed in our world. But the artist is incapable of having any grasp on the reason for it (the intent of the thing itself). The artist makes a painting or film or writes a book not to arrive at the ends you’re describing, but rather to satisfy their burden. That book might exist to, 70 years from now, be lying on a strip of wet pavement so that someone will trip over it. The craftsman, alternatively, did not write that book so that it would be tripped over 70 years from now. They wrote that book to serve the ego and man. So while there are technical aspects to filmmaking that are objective, when dealing with art (not craft), we also have to accept that the artist is only sketching for us a memory. What that memory means to give to us, may not be universal. The work may exist INTENTIONALLY to draw entirely different experiences from each person who views it. I used Donnie Darko footage in my latest video about comics, because I observe Donnie Darko to be a superhero film. That’s WHY it’s meaningful to me. Donnie sacrificed himself to save the world, and the people who loved him (some who would never even know he existed) would never know that’s what occurred (other than in a vague sense of knowing). However, others experience Donnie Darko as a story about someone committing suicide because their mental illness got the better of them. It’s hard for me to say the director failed because of this, especially since the director’s cut of the film is widely reviled (by myself included). It was rather when the filmmaker spoke to nothing and no one about any true thing, that the film became what it was. A modern masterpiece. The moment he worked to have the film speak to a truth, it failed entirely. So, is clarity objective? I think so. Facts (once certain presuppositions are agreed upon) exist. But what is true and what truths we glean from a piece of art - that’s not something that can be grasped, and it’s certainly not something any artist would ever try to pursue. That is solely in the domain of the craftsman, the propagandist, the satirist, the entertainer, the educator, et al. And just as a brief caveat, anyone can operate as a craftsman. Including an artist. Your video here is propaganda/education (media created with intent to persuade others to adopt your ideological positions), and though I make art, I also do make precisely the same things you’re making when the ego (and/or my desire to assist others) gives the itch to do it. There’s no hierarchy of more or less important. Craftsmen and artists are just doing different things, while each being engaged in the creation of media. Anyway, I liked your analysis. Keep up making the vids! I’m just starting out myself. 👍

Isn't a deeply layered film not a subjective experience? You kind of get to chose whether to follow the text or the subtext.

The majority of people would disagree.

When you add more words to your vocabulary for “rip-off” you let me know. Google “Thesaurus”. It’s not a dinosaur bro.

Philip Seymour Hoffman is the guy you could argue this film made, not the elder P Baker Hall

Robert Altman is also a big influence on Boogie Nights.