I think it was unoriginal because it is basically King of Comedy + Taxi Driver mashup but as a movie it was really well made. Cinematography, music, acting and atmosphere it created were very damn good. As far as script is concerned I really liked its ambiguity because of how it informed on Arthur's deteriorating sanity, loved its minimalistic approach to dialog, its thematic focus on mental illness, how it builds it's horror alike atmosphere and how it ultimately handled Arthur's character in terms of how audience should feel about him but lack of originality and clunky social commentary about capitalism really dragged it down. On the level of writing all that can be said is that it 'worked' nothing more nothing less. I can't agree with you on the tone being monotonous. Instances like Arthur's meetings with Sophie, his happy dance with his mother, that moment when he was on stage during his standup comedy thingy, the scene in his apartment with dwarf guy or scene in hospital were either funny, heartwarming or touching. They break monotony while still being tonally consistent (concept that seems to be forgotten in recent times, yeah I'm looking at you 'It'). I'm on the mind that sequels or prequels 9 out of 10 times are completely unnecessary and so are "origin stories" but who cares? Terminator could be a single movie but we got an unnecessary sequel that is even better, Blade Runner could be a single movie but we also got really good sequel, we didn't need Joker's origin story but thanks to that I experienced A+ level filmmaking and acting and that's all that counts. I also firmly believe that Phoenix' Joker is the best live action one followed by that played by Nicholson (the absolute king though is Mark Hamill who nota bene really liked Phoenix' creation). I also don't get the complaint about being very far from comic books. Like just 10 years ago we got The Dark Knight that was all about realism with Joker that had nothing going on as far as comics and animated series are concerned with the exception of his synergy with protagonist (immovable objects meets unstoppable force thingy). If this is a problem here then it should be also a problem in TDK. Also style is substance though the 'substance' you are concerned with although clunky at large (ekh ekh social commentary about capitalism and shit) I thought it was enough in the sense of being revolved around plight of mentally ill person and how lack of empathy and understanding from outside can make them dangerous (it also is somewhat clunky but much less than other thematic things in the movie). I can't agree with that randomness is a bad thing and I also think that you hyperbolize it. Life is random at large, movie shows how protagonist lives day to day and how these random things build up to him finally snapping. Movie is also big on 'Chekhov's Guns' so most of what's presented had foreshadowing (whole deal with his mother or Sophie being the prime examples) making it not as random as you suggest. I'll give that movie 7,5/10 or maybe 8/10 and it's only because idea behind it is wholly unoriginal and script is clunky but every other element of the movie is top notch so it still deserves to be called good, imho. EDIT: also because of lack of faith in the audience: the whole editing with beating over the head that "relationship was not real" was really dissapointing, reminding me of Blade Runner 2049 where they did the same thing.
Very interesting take! Thanks for the response! I guess as far as the monotony is concerned, my issue was that those moments of levity felt too few in between the grim misery. And that some scenes, I just did not feel the levity. For example, I didn't feel any joy watching Arthur dance with his mom because I knew right away it was a calm before the storm moment. And sure enough, that's when the letter happens. I question how much the writing worked for me personally, but I can see why it worked for many. I lean towards it being on the iffy side since I'm just not a fan of randomness when it comes to storytelling. Personally, I *need* there to be structure, or else, the film starts to lose me, and I think that's partially what happened here. Regarding why it being so different was an issue, it's not that being unique is bad. I actually very much welcome a unique take on a villain, because I'd rather have multiple variations than just slight retellings of the same character again and again. However, where I differ is that I felt that Heath Ledger, different as he was, still captured the overall essence of the Joker. He was psychotic, but he was also funny, charismatic, and a strategic mastermind (in the logistics of the film, which, honestly, is questionable). If Arthur were a unique Joker in, say, a series, instead of a film, one gradually being built up and made into an overarching villain, *that* I could get behind. Because that would give him more room to really dig his heels into those clown shoes. But since this is an origin film without any real foil for Arthur, I just didn't think the film fully felt like a *Joker* movie so much as it did an amalgam of Taxi Driver, KoC and Falling Down at points. And the problem there is, masterfully acted as this movie was, and masterfully shot as it was, those were all films I can watch repeatedly and enjoy due to the quality in just about every aspect or sheer entertainment value. But leaving the theater, Joker wasn't a film I felt like I ever needed to re-watch a second time because I just out-n-out didn't enjoy it as much as I did those films.
You're allowed to have your opinions but many of your sentences are claims. For example, you said the film is "monotonous", "isn't the least bit funny" and "relentlessly sad" . These are all objective claims and need to be backed up with proper references from the film. There are moments of levity or straight up laugh out loud scenes sprinkled throughout the film that also help flesh out the characters. So they're not just jokes for the sake of levity, they're "character rich" moments as you would call them. I recall at least 7 moments from the film that made my theater laugh. 7 moments that were intended to be funny and were, at least to me and many others. I know comedy is subjective to an extent but what matters here is discerning whether the film intended it to be funny or not: 1. Penny telling Arthur _"Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?"_ -It's funny because you'd expect her to be a bit more supportive of her underdog son but she's being realistic with him. A dark humor scene. -Also a character moment revealing that Arthur's mother isn't very supportive of his dreams and in general. We later find out why she was so detached from him. She had mental issues, adopted Arthur and enabled his abuse as a child. 2. Arthur dancing with his gun while watching TV at night as he fantasizes about impressing Sophie with his dance. Then, he accidentally fires a shot from the gun, which wakes up his mother but he tells her it's just the TV. -Him wanting to impress a woman with some skill is relatable, silly and weird as it is. It's a good character building moment. Arthur is lonely, has a bit of a sense of humor and wants to impress the neighbor. He just wants a human connection, like how he fantasized about Murray being his father earlier in the film. -It's also decent world building. This is a place where you can hear a gunshot and neighbors seemingly don't panic. Perhaps because it's a regular occurrence. 3. Sophie telling Arthur on his doorstep that she wishes the bank got robbed and Arthur responding with _"I have a gun, I can come back tomorrow if you want."_ -It's funny because he's not joking. He really does have a gun at that point but she doesn't know it. Dark humor. -On second watch of the film, it's also a hint that Sophie isn't there in that scene. Any normal person would be creeped out by the stalking and the comment about the gun. The fact that she complements him instead of being suspicious is hint that the relationship is imaginary. 4. Arthur slams into the hospital door not noticing the transparent glass and enters through the way he's supposed to exit. A bit of slapstick. -He's clumsy, doesn't understand social clues and is a little shaken because his mother just fainted after the detectives questioned her. Also, he just killed 3 guys so he's anxious about getting exposed by the detectives. 5. Arthur drops his gun while dancing for children in a hospital as he clumsily tries to pick it up. Then looks at one kid and puts a finger on his mouth as a way of requesting him to not tell anyone. Dark humor. -We know Arthur is screwed at this point but it's also partially his fault. It's an unfortunate mistake and him trying to still save his act till the end is endearing. 6. Perhaps the funniest scene in the film is the dark comedy moment with Gary. Arthur has just killed Randall and Gary is absolutely horrified. Arthur tells him to leave but he's too short to reach the door latch. Arthur opens it for him, kisses his head and let's him go. -The fact that Gary actually asks Arthur to open the latch for him is funny and at the same time tense because he doesn't know when Arthur might snap again and this small inconvenience has the potential to end his life. -Great character moment for Arthur. At least at this point in the film, he doesn't just randomly kill anyone, he only kills the ones that wronged him. Gary was very kind to him so he let him go. A bit of humanity left in him still. 7. Arthur enters the stage on Murray Franklin's show as Joker and he dances his way to kissing the old Doctor lady on the mouth. -It's random, unexpected and it's inappropriate. Arthur was told not to do or say anything inappropriate backstage but he completely ignores that and does this. -This scene is an indication that he's not only gleeful but he just doesn't care about social etiquette anymore. It's the end for him because he was about to kill himself on stage. That is why after sitting down he cracked some inappropriate jokes and lashed out about all his grievances with Gotham and it's people. This funny scene is a stark contrast to what happens later and puts the viewer in a comfortable mode so the shock will be more shocking. Simple bait and switch. We think he's gonna kill himself later but he changes his mind and kills Murray. You made some more claims that I want to call out but I'm too tired right now. It seems like you either didn't watch the film or have watched it once and are recollecting events from the film erroneously. I recommend giving it a second watch. It's better than you give it credit for.
I've watched it three times, and my opinion of the film hasn't changed. I wouldn't have reviewed it if I were uncertain about my feelings towards the film. The fact that you only have seven moments of levity to share in a two plus hour long film kind of lends credence to my point. I *did* say in the review that the film had moments of comedy, but the fact that there were so few in a perpetually miserable journey just made them feel tonally inconsistent as a result. You're perfectly free to disagree with me. Quite a few people have popped up all at once interestingly enough to do so, but I made the points I made whilst doing my best to avoid spoilers, because when I made this review, many hadn't seen the film yet. If I could be bothered, I would probably make a much longer, spoiler-filled video pointing out my issues in more detail. I covered it broadly because this was safe as it could go before entering spoiler territory. And to be frank, I don't feel strongly enough about this movie in particular to bother with that. I'm not someone who's going to make video after video trying to expand on why I didn't like one movie. I made the one video, was satisfied with it, and moved on. If people dislike this video and my opinion, then that's absolutely their right.
The movie ripped off taxi driver so much it even used the same convention in naming its character. Paul Schrader said decades ago that he wanted his characters name to both reference his glamorized delusional self image as well as his ugly, repulsive reality. He came up with “Travis Bickle” - a first name that sounds regal and knightly (because that’s how Travis sees himself) and a last name that reflects how offputting and unpleasant he was in reality. What name did they come up with for Joker? Arthur Fleck. It’s literally the same naming convention from Taxi Driver and it’s a movie that’s so obviously inspired by Taxi Driver that I can’t believe this is was just a coincidence. He definitely researched the shit out of TD before making this film and took that idea directly from Schrader.
I thought it was pretty boring myself. I would say it's probably also because I've seen Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy which were expertly done whilst Joker was just released at the right time and place. Then again, even if I hadnt seen them I still probably would have thought it was flacid. Not a comic book guy either so maybe that's it too. Cheesy music and saw everything coming from a mile away too.
Yes this Movie has nothing to do with Joker besides the name and make up, but like Bojack it makes you empathize with depression and the aimlessness represents that.
just because you say something (quickly at that) that doesn't make it correct, you're so beyond wrong in this entire 10 minute analysis, and you did absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your claims.
A review is a subjective opinion. There's no right or wrong to it. You're free to dislike my opinion, but simply calling it "wrong" is kind of missing the point. It's not about right or wrong. It's essentially how a person felt and why, that's all. Regarding substantiation, in the video, I talked about how I felt the story was a bit aimless without organic transitioning from one beat to the next. How many parts of the film felt too underdeveloped for their payoffs. How the film was mostly perpetually miserable in tone, which became a bit numbing, whereas the other films that played to this type of story weren't nearly as monotonous. And how the message about society abandoning Arthur fell flat when, without wanting to spoil in the review too much, he is the way he is because of a very specific person, not society. So yes, I do believe that I elaborated my points as much as I needed to do within the specific points raised. I think you're misinterpreting the point of the review. It wasn't to say "Here's why the movie sucked." It was a way of elaborating why I didn't like it all that much. And I'm no more objective than any individual, yourself included. We all have subjective tastes and all have things that appeal to us more than others. This movie simply didn't appeal to me because, while it's beautifully acted and masterfully crafted, when it came to the writing, I thought the film collapsed within itself. Again, you're perfectly free to disagree. That's the beauty of subjectivity, we all look at things through very different lenses. And that's all this is, one perspective from a very specific lens, nothing more. However, I also think it's a bit lopsided to make generalizations about how I don't substantiate any of my points, while also completely ignoring the points I did raise and expand upon.
@@KeivReviewsThings There is more to a movie than feelings, you come off as very dismissive of the quality of the film seemingly from a personal hatred of Tod Phillip's. But when called out you default to "it's just an opinion, don't criticize me." Says quite a bit about your arguments and how you don't actually judge films, just what they made you feel, and that, your feelings are subjective, but the movie itself, not so much
@@KeivReviewsThings also, the title of the video is "brilliant acting, Incompetent storytelling" that doesn't give the idea of an opinion, that sounds more analytical and factual.
@@thejabberwocky9620 At what point did I say not to criticize me? I bring up subjectivity because you harped on me being "right." At no point did I claim that I was right or that people who liked the film were wrong. I stated that I didn't think the film was all that great and went on to elaborate why I felt that way. I noted the quality of the filmmaking but emphasized that a good film starts with the script, and that I thought the script was incredibly weak. That's kind of all that really matters to me by that point. You can have beautiful cinematography, Oscar-worthy acting, a masterful soundtrack and top-notch production value. But if the foundation, aka the script, is weak, then this is all just fine dressing in service of a weak core. That's my personal opinion on films. You need a strong script to be a strong movie, and I don't think Joker had a very strong script. Hence why I didn't enjoy it as much. You clearly disagree, and that's fine. But besides berating me, nothing you've said has really given me any reason to view the script of Joker any more favorably.
@@thejabberwocky9620 It's definitely analytical, but it's still just an opinion. Surely, you've seen reviews on TH-cam with a title that hints at what the reviewer thought about the film. You have to give your videos an attention grabbing header. The "this is just my opinion, you guys" part is always implied on the mere basis that this is a review, and reviews are always just opinions, nothing more.
Sadly, that's my natural speaking voice when I have a large amount of text to get through. If I try going slower, it ends up sounding stilted and dry. I do try to ensure the pacing doesn't sound like rambling insanity, but when sentences are lengthy, this is the beat I just naturally gravitate towards. I may just include the entire transcript I write up and copy paste 'em in the descriptions from now on, if need be.
I just looked them up, and sincerely doubt that a channel with tens of thousands of subscribers would care what someone with under one hundred subscribers has to say.
I think it was unoriginal because it is basically King of Comedy + Taxi Driver mashup but as a movie it was really well made. Cinematography, music, acting and atmosphere it created were very damn good. As far as script is concerned I really liked its ambiguity because of how it informed on Arthur's deteriorating sanity, loved its minimalistic approach to dialog, its thematic focus on mental illness, how it builds it's horror alike atmosphere and how it ultimately handled Arthur's character in terms of how audience should feel about him but lack of originality and clunky social commentary about capitalism really dragged it down. On the level of writing all that can be said is that it 'worked' nothing more nothing less. I can't agree with you on the tone being monotonous. Instances like Arthur's meetings with Sophie, his happy dance with his mother, that moment when he was on stage during his standup comedy thingy, the scene in his apartment with dwarf guy or scene in hospital were either funny, heartwarming or touching. They break monotony while still being tonally consistent (concept that seems to be forgotten in recent times, yeah I'm looking at you 'It').
I'm on the mind that sequels or prequels 9 out of 10 times are completely unnecessary and so are "origin stories" but who cares? Terminator could be a single movie but we got an unnecessary sequel that is even better, Blade Runner could be a single movie but we also got really good sequel, we didn't need Joker's origin story but thanks to that I experienced A+ level filmmaking and acting and that's all that counts. I also firmly believe that Phoenix' Joker is the best live action one followed by that played by Nicholson (the absolute king though is Mark Hamill who nota bene really liked Phoenix' creation). I also don't get the complaint about being very far from comic books. Like just 10 years ago we got The Dark Knight that was all about realism with Joker that had nothing going on as far as comics and animated series are concerned with the exception of his synergy with protagonist (immovable objects meets unstoppable force thingy). If this is a problem here then it should be also a problem in TDK. Also style is substance though the 'substance' you are concerned with although clunky at large (ekh ekh social commentary about capitalism and shit) I thought it was enough in the sense of being revolved around plight of mentally ill person and how lack of empathy and understanding from outside can make them dangerous (it also is somewhat clunky but much less than other thematic things in the movie).
I can't agree with that randomness is a bad thing and I also think that you hyperbolize it. Life is random at large, movie shows how protagonist lives day to day and how these random things build up to him finally snapping. Movie is also big on 'Chekhov's Guns' so most of what's presented had foreshadowing (whole deal with his mother or Sophie being the prime examples) making it not as random as you suggest.
I'll give that movie 7,5/10 or maybe 8/10 and it's only because idea behind it is wholly unoriginal and script is clunky but every other element of the movie is top notch so it still deserves to be called good, imho. EDIT: also because of lack of faith in the audience: the whole editing with beating over the head that "relationship was not real" was really dissapointing, reminding me of Blade Runner 2049 where they did the same thing.
Very interesting take! Thanks for the response!
I guess as far as the monotony is concerned, my issue was that those moments of levity felt too few in between the grim misery. And that some scenes, I just did not feel the levity. For example, I didn't feel any joy watching Arthur dance with his mom because I knew right away it was a calm before the storm moment. And sure enough, that's when the letter happens. I question how much the writing worked for me personally, but I can see why it worked for many. I lean towards it being on the iffy side since I'm just not a fan of randomness when it comes to storytelling. Personally, I *need* there to be structure, or else, the film starts to lose me, and I think that's partially what happened here.
Regarding why it being so different was an issue, it's not that being unique is bad. I actually very much welcome a unique take on a villain, because I'd rather have multiple variations than just slight retellings of the same character again and again. However, where I differ is that I felt that Heath Ledger, different as he was, still captured the overall essence of the Joker. He was psychotic, but he was also funny, charismatic, and a strategic mastermind (in the logistics of the film, which, honestly, is questionable).
If Arthur were a unique Joker in, say, a series, instead of a film, one gradually being built up and made into an overarching villain, *that* I could get behind. Because that would give him more room to really dig his heels into those clown shoes. But since this is an origin film without any real foil for Arthur, I just didn't think the film fully felt like a *Joker* movie so much as it did an amalgam of Taxi Driver, KoC and Falling Down at points. And the problem there is, masterfully acted as this movie was, and masterfully shot as it was, those were all films I can watch repeatedly and enjoy due to the quality in just about every aspect or sheer entertainment value. But leaving the theater, Joker wasn't a film I felt like I ever needed to re-watch a second time because I just out-n-out didn't enjoy it as much as I did those films.
You're allowed to have your opinions but many of your sentences are claims. For example, you said the film is "monotonous", "isn't the least bit funny" and "relentlessly sad" . These are all objective claims and need to be backed up with proper references from the film. There are moments of levity or straight up laugh out loud scenes sprinkled throughout the film that also help flesh out the characters. So they're not just jokes for the sake of levity, they're "character rich" moments as you would call them.
I recall at least 7 moments from the film that made my theater laugh. 7 moments that were intended to be funny and were, at least to me and many others. I know comedy is subjective to an extent but what matters here is discerning whether the film intended it to be funny or not:
1. Penny telling Arthur _"Don't you have to be funny to be a comedian?"_
-It's funny because you'd expect her to be a bit more supportive of her underdog son but she's being realistic with him. A dark humor scene.
-Also a character moment revealing that Arthur's mother isn't very supportive of his dreams and in general. We later find out why she was so detached from him. She had mental issues, adopted Arthur and enabled his abuse as a child.
2. Arthur dancing with his gun while watching TV at night as he fantasizes about impressing Sophie with his dance. Then, he accidentally fires a shot from the gun, which wakes up his mother but he tells her it's just the TV.
-Him wanting to impress a woman with some skill is relatable, silly and weird as it is. It's a good character building moment. Arthur is lonely, has a bit of a sense of humor and wants to impress the neighbor. He just wants a human connection, like how he fantasized about Murray being his father earlier in the film.
-It's also decent world building. This is a place where you can hear a gunshot and neighbors
seemingly don't panic. Perhaps because it's a regular occurrence.
3. Sophie telling Arthur on his doorstep that she wishes the bank got robbed and Arthur responding with _"I have a gun, I can come back tomorrow if you want."_
-It's funny because he's not joking. He really does have a gun at that point but she doesn't know it. Dark humor.
-On second watch of the film, it's also a hint that Sophie isn't there in that scene. Any normal person would be creeped out by the stalking and the comment about the gun. The fact that she complements him instead of being suspicious is hint that the relationship is imaginary.
4. Arthur slams into the hospital door not noticing the transparent glass and enters through the way he's supposed to exit. A bit of slapstick.
-He's clumsy, doesn't understand social clues and is a little shaken because his mother just fainted after the detectives questioned her. Also, he just killed 3 guys so he's anxious about getting exposed by the detectives.
5. Arthur drops his gun while dancing for children in a hospital as he clumsily tries to pick it up. Then looks at one kid and puts a finger on his mouth as a way of requesting him to not tell anyone. Dark humor.
-We know Arthur is screwed at this point but it's also partially his fault. It's an unfortunate mistake and him trying to still save his act till the end is endearing.
6. Perhaps the funniest scene in the film is the dark comedy moment with Gary. Arthur has just killed Randall and Gary is absolutely horrified. Arthur tells him to leave but he's too short to reach the door latch. Arthur opens it for him, kisses his head and let's him go.
-The fact that Gary actually asks Arthur to open the latch for him is funny and at the same time tense because he doesn't know when Arthur might snap again and this small inconvenience has the potential to end his life.
-Great character moment for Arthur. At least at this point in the film, he doesn't just randomly kill anyone, he only kills the ones that wronged him. Gary was very kind to him so he let him go. A bit of humanity left in him still.
7. Arthur enters the stage on Murray Franklin's show as Joker and he dances his way to kissing the old Doctor lady on the mouth.
-It's random, unexpected and it's inappropriate. Arthur was told not to do or say anything inappropriate backstage but he completely ignores that and does this.
-This scene is an indication that he's not only gleeful but he just doesn't care about social etiquette anymore. It's the end for him because he was about to kill himself on stage. That is why after sitting down he cracked some inappropriate jokes and lashed out about all his grievances with Gotham and it's people.
This funny scene is a stark contrast to what happens later and puts the viewer in a comfortable mode so the shock will be more shocking. Simple bait and switch. We think he's gonna kill himself later but he changes his mind and kills Murray.
You made some more claims that I want to call out but I'm too tired right now. It seems like you either didn't watch the film or have watched it once and are recollecting events from the film erroneously. I recommend giving it a second watch. It's better than you give it credit for.
I've watched it three times, and my opinion of the film hasn't changed. I wouldn't have reviewed it if I were uncertain about my feelings towards the film. The fact that you only have seven moments of levity to share in a two plus hour long film kind of lends credence to my point. I *did* say in the review that the film had moments of comedy, but the fact that there were so few in a perpetually miserable journey just made them feel tonally inconsistent as a result.
You're perfectly free to disagree with me. Quite a few people have popped up all at once interestingly enough to do so, but I made the points I made whilst doing my best to avoid spoilers, because when I made this review, many hadn't seen the film yet. If I could be bothered, I would probably make a much longer, spoiler-filled video pointing out my issues in more detail. I covered it broadly because this was safe as it could go before entering spoiler territory.
And to be frank, I don't feel strongly enough about this movie in particular to bother with that. I'm not someone who's going to make video after video trying to expand on why I didn't like one movie. I made the one video, was satisfied with it, and moved on. If people dislike this video and my opinion, then that's absolutely their right.
The movie ripped off taxi driver so much it even used the same convention in naming its character. Paul Schrader said decades ago that he wanted his characters name to both reference his glamorized delusional self image as well as his ugly, repulsive reality. He came up with “Travis Bickle” - a first name that sounds regal and knightly (because that’s how Travis sees himself) and a last name that reflects how offputting and unpleasant he was in reality.
What name did they come up with for Joker? Arthur Fleck. It’s literally the same naming convention from Taxi Driver and it’s a movie that’s so obviously inspired by Taxi Driver that I can’t believe this is was just a coincidence. He definitely researched the shit out of TD before making this film and took that idea directly from Schrader.
I thought it was pretty boring myself. I would say it's probably also because I've seen Taxi Driver and the King of Comedy which were expertly done whilst Joker was just released at the right time and place. Then again, even if I hadnt seen them I still probably would have thought it was flacid. Not a comic book guy either so maybe that's it too. Cheesy music and saw everything coming from a mile away too.
@Danny Centeno Vazquez If you can’t take someone expressing their own opinion about a movie on the fucking internet than IDK man
Yes this Movie has nothing to do with Joker besides the name and make up, but like Bojack it makes you empathize with depression and the aimlessness represents that.
just because you say something (quickly at that) that doesn't make it correct, you're so beyond wrong in this entire 10 minute analysis, and you did absolutely nothing to substantiate any of your claims.
A review is a subjective opinion. There's no right or wrong to it. You're free to dislike my opinion, but simply calling it "wrong" is kind of missing the point. It's not about right or wrong. It's essentially how a person felt and why, that's all.
Regarding substantiation, in the video, I talked about how I felt the story was a bit aimless without organic transitioning from one beat to the next. How many parts of the film felt too underdeveloped for their payoffs. How the film was mostly perpetually miserable in tone, which became a bit numbing, whereas the other films that played to this type of story weren't nearly as monotonous. And how the message about society abandoning Arthur fell flat when, without wanting to spoil in the review too much, he is the way he is because of a very specific person, not society.
So yes, I do believe that I elaborated my points as much as I needed to do within the specific points raised. I think you're misinterpreting the point of the review. It wasn't to say "Here's why the movie sucked." It was a way of elaborating why I didn't like it all that much. And I'm no more objective than any individual, yourself included. We all have subjective tastes and all have things that appeal to us more than others. This movie simply didn't appeal to me because, while it's beautifully acted and masterfully crafted, when it came to the writing, I thought the film collapsed within itself.
Again, you're perfectly free to disagree. That's the beauty of subjectivity, we all look at things through very different lenses. And that's all this is, one perspective from a very specific lens, nothing more. However, I also think it's a bit lopsided to make generalizations about how I don't substantiate any of my points, while also completely ignoring the points I did raise and expand upon.
@@KeivReviewsThings There is more to a movie than feelings, you come off as very dismissive of the quality of the film seemingly from a personal hatred of Tod Phillip's. But when called out you default to "it's just an opinion, don't criticize me." Says quite a bit about your arguments and how you don't actually judge films, just what they made you feel, and that, your feelings are subjective, but the movie itself, not so much
@@KeivReviewsThings also, the title of the video is "brilliant acting, Incompetent storytelling" that doesn't give the idea of an opinion, that sounds more analytical and factual.
@@thejabberwocky9620 At what point did I say not to criticize me? I bring up subjectivity because you harped on me being "right." At no point did I claim that I was right or that people who liked the film were wrong. I stated that I didn't think the film was all that great and went on to elaborate why I felt that way. I noted the quality of the filmmaking but emphasized that a good film starts with the script, and that I thought the script was incredibly weak.
That's kind of all that really matters to me by that point. You can have beautiful cinematography, Oscar-worthy acting, a masterful soundtrack and top-notch production value. But if the foundation, aka the script, is weak, then this is all just fine dressing in service of a weak core. That's my personal opinion on films. You need a strong script to be a strong movie, and I don't think Joker had a very strong script. Hence why I didn't enjoy it as much. You clearly disagree, and that's fine. But besides berating me, nothing you've said has really given me any reason to view the script of Joker any more favorably.
@@thejabberwocky9620 It's definitely analytical, but it's still just an opinion. Surely, you've seen reviews on TH-cam with a title that hints at what the reviewer thought about the film. You have to give your videos an attention grabbing header. The "this is just my opinion, you guys" part is always implied on the mere basis that this is a review, and reviews are always just opinions, nothing more.
you are talking wayyy too fast
Sadly, that's my natural speaking voice when I have a large amount of text to get through. If I try going slower, it ends up sounding stilted and dry. I do try to ensure the pacing doesn't sound like rambling insanity, but when sentences are lengthy, this is the beat I just naturally gravitate towards. I may just include the entire transcript I write up and copy paste 'em in the descriptions from now on, if need be.
Efap is going to have fun time with your video
I just looked them up, and sincerely doubt that a channel with tens of thousands of subscribers would care what someone with under one hundred subscribers has to say.