koberulz

"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 only just discovered recently that TPJ had a Blu-ray release. Deeply annoyed; I could've added it to an order I made a while back.

Yeah, I watched it because it was on TV and I was in the mood to just veg out and watch something stupid, and I found it...fine? Like, it's definitely not bad enough you can enjoy ragging on it, so it's not as fun an experience as something worse while also not being very good, it's just there.

I don't care for music as an art form, I can't stand musicals, and I loved Once. Didn't even realise it was a musical until reading up on it later.

You're wrong.

There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn't The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.

Everyone keeps saying it's three hours, but Letterboxd lists at less than 2.5?

The Sprinkler Sprinkled was released in 1896 and remade in 1897.

It's expensive, often less comfortable than my own home, and I like theatre in which the crowd plays a part in the experience,

This is why I don't understand the "big action movies need a cinema, small comedies you can watch at home" argument. My home theatre can replicate the big-screen action experience just fine, but a comedy with a crowd is immediately 35% funnier.

...which side of this argument are you on?

"There's no benefit to physical media." "Yes there is." "Why are you defending corporations?"

...what?