Movies & TV

22938 readers

280 users here now

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion

Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.
Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.
On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.

Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.

AVATAR 3

Perverts Guide to Ideology

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

WhyEssEff@hexbear.net

Zoift@hexbear.net

thelastaxolotl@hexbear.net

Walk_On@hexbear.net

Infamousblt@hexbear.net

Grebgreb@hexbear.net

ultraviolet@hexbear.net

Sulvor@hexbear.net

I watched Joker 2 and I liked it (hexbear.net)

submitted 2 months ago by dead@hexbear.net to c/movies@hexbear.net

46 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm writing this post because it's getting very low ratings. From the reviews that I read, many people say it doesn't meet their expectations of what a superhero movie should be.

I'm not a capeshit enjoyer. I chose to see Joker 2 because Joker 1 had vague themes of "defunding welfare programs is bad". In the first movie, Joker loses access to his mental illness medication because the politicians defund the welfare programs and that leads Joker to start doing crimes.

What I liked about Joker 2 is that everyone around him wants to make him miserable, but instead he chooses to be happy. In my opinion, it is the most pure example of absurdity. The whole world wants to make Joker miserable and he is powerless to change other people, but he can deny giving the world what they want so he chooses to laugh. I find that to be entertaining.

The movie was about 60% musical. Whenever Joker starts to hallucinate, everyone starts singing. I think it was okay, but other people did not like that. You probably won't like the movie if you are expecting it to follow the superhero movie formula.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

Wasn't Dark Night antifa? I mean Batman lost his best ally because they took the moral high ground and resigned when he hacked everyone's phone "for the security of the people"

[–] CommunistCuddlefish@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I havwnt seen it in 14 years so Im fuzzy on the detaila but when I watched it it seemed very pro surveillance state in a war on terror way to me.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

You're misremembering.

The movie showed scenes of the possibility to exploit mass dragnet surveillance "for security" by targeting cell phones.

It was especially remarkable because it shows this in 2008, 5 years before we learned (from the Snowden revelations) that the NSA was doing this "for security".

But the film didn't champion it, it made it clear that doing it was unethical, and it condemned it. It painted Batman as a villan because he chose to harm innocent civilians in his increasingly maddening obsession to get revenge against the Joker.

The movie wasn't subtle about this. When we learned how batman hacked into the phones of everyone at Gotham, Morgan Freedman's charscter said "this is wrong" and then he resigned.

Edit: the clip of this dialog is on YT https://youtube.com/watch?v=0Yb7Ps2gA0w

[–] Cutecity@hexbear.net 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yeah but as I remember it he accepts to do the surveillance job to find Joker before resigning and then he has to press a button that unbeknownst to him makes the system explode, so it was "fine" in the end and he doesn't resign.

[–] delirious_owl@discuss.online 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I think he resigned still.

[–] koberulz@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 months ago

You're wrong.