He's been at that weight since then at least, he was in the excellent episode of Black Mirror last season (the USS Callister, which was the best of the season) and he played a similar role to Todd being the dark/twisted antagonist.
I've been watching a lot of the Halloween movies over the past week, seeing some for the first time and others for the first time in a while. Halloween, Halloween 2, and Halloween H2O I usually end up re-watching once every few Halloween seasons, and I still enjoy those ones a lot. I saw Halloween 2018 over the weekend for the first time, and while I've never had an issue with the Halloween 2 and H20 familial story arc, I appreciate the retcon of that element out and prefer this as the true sequel to the original (even with the final act falling back on illogical slasher-movie clichés and leaving things open ended to set up for another trilogy when I'd prefer they just give this story closure). Halloween 3 is hot garbage and shouldn't even carry the franchise name. I'd never previously seen the middle trilogy of 4, 5, and 6, and after watching 4 for the first time and continuing into maybe the first 15 mins of 5, I'm just going to carry on ignoring those ones forevermore. I can't even imagine how stupid the rest of 5 must get, let alone 6. Resurrection isn't quite as bad, but it's still not good. It's about as ludicrous and unnecessary of a story continuation from H20 as H4 was from H2. As for Rob Zombie's Halloween remake, in a vacuum it's an okay horror/slasher movie, but certainly pales in comparison to the original. I'd watch it over all those other middle installments though. I haven't seen the second Zombie installment yet so I can't speak to that one.
So for me Halloween, Halloween 2018, Halloween H20, and Halloween 2 are my favs, in that order. The Zombie remake is in the middle (or more like at the top of the bottom of the pile), and then the rest of the series I'll be happy to never see again.
The Lighthouse (2019) - 9/10 - So, in the end I did like this which surprised me none. It's definitely worth a re-watch and VERY much so meant for artsy fartsy types. Not sure of it was the B&W or maybe similar themes, but it reminded me a lot of Eraserhead. There was even a scene/shot based off a Sascha Schneider painting.
@Stiler re: Jesse Plemons - he did put on weight years ago, in 2015 for his part in Black Mass. If you look at him in "Game Night" he's considerably slimmer, except that his face never really lost the chubbiness. He then must have put it back on for Fargo, and definitely did for his role in The Irishman (the role I had mentioned earlier).
He mentioned in an interview somewhat recently that he had intentionally put on weight for a part (I'm assuming Black Mass or Fargo) and that when it came to shedding a few pounds it was just a matter of "not eating crap anymore". Then he signed on for the role I mentioned for Irishman, where the real-life character was heavy, so I imagine he put it back on (or kept it). Either way it seems the weight gain was a deliberate choice, even if it wreaked havoc on his once-babyface haha
I caught Rob Zombie's Halloween 2 today, and yup, that movie is absolute trash. All of the characters seem like they had personality transplants and show no similarities to their original characterizations (young Michael was even changed out to a different actor, which killed things for me right out of the gate as I thought the original kid actor was pretty creepy and disturbing). It's dumbfounding how utterly loathsome Laurie and Loomis became after only a year. Michael speaking was dumb, but I also hated that during some of his kills he was also audibly grunting in rage. His silence and total lack of emotion was what always made him so scary, so hearing him make any noise at all ruined things for me. The ending where he speaks is apparently an alternate ending, and that's the version that was on AMC today. The ending described in the movie's Wiki synopsis is a lot different and sounds better than what I saw. Not that it would make any difference.
Oh and I did catch the tail end of Halloween 6 before H2 came on. Watching Paul Rudd go head to head with Michael Myers was kind of fun, though not enough to make me want to see the whole movie.
I mean that for too long now, the lines of good and bad/evil in pop culture have been blurred too often. Just beyond bored with softening the edges of the villain. Sadistic, methodical, and unforgiving Joker is now...
...a blubbering, frantic, malnourished, anxiety-ridden mess that we are supposed to feel bad for? That's Batman's arch nemesis? A frail failed comedian that runs from everyone and has a Tourette's style laughing tick? All brought on by his "rough" upbringing?
That understandable. Although it doesn't necessarily bother me, I have felt that not EVERY character needs to be so deep. It's to have those "some men just want to watch the world burn" characters too. I think there's room for both, but I've definitely seen a huge decrease in the latter.
Read that spoiler @MikeyWhoa but those details could be figured out just from the trailers so no harm done. I still haven't seen it so I can't imagine I spoil anything below, but don't read if you want to be mega-safe. Just my opinion on a general Joker origin...
I agree with Mikey's comment to be honest. Joker was always supposed to just be evil incarnate - the best versions of the dude having no true origin story. IMO "The Killing Joke" was one of the most detrimental things to Joker's character (and Barbara Gordon's but that's another story) that still gets cited and referenced to this day as canon, even if I do think the actual story is alright. And when I say alright, I mean alright - not a "classic" like so many suggest. The possibility of giving away too much and humanizing the character has always given me a little apprehension for the Joker stand alone movie, even if Joaquin Phoenix plays the role written for him real well (which I assume is the case, dude is a great actor).
The best "origin" I've read for Joker were just the suggestions of an origin that Scott Snyder wrote during DC's "New 52" run. "Death of the Family" with the "horror movie villain skin-mask" version of Joker was probably the weakest story involving him, but set up the themes for his other Snyder-New 52 appearances well. The "Zero Year" story with the Red Hood Gang and the later "Endgame" arc that sort of tied the Joker/Batman relationship together was great. Both stories hinted toward a few vastly different origins but never gave one away, and I thought that was great.
I don't know, to me when you have a villain who is simply "evil" for the sake of being "evil" with no character arc or motivation behind it they are just far less interesting and shallow.
Like take Marvel movies/shows. The villains in almost all the movies are just so damn shallow and are simply "bad" for the sake of being bad and for the heroes to fight against, we never really get a glimpse behind them or anything and I can not think of a single villain in the movies that isn't forgettable, including Thanos. They just never give them time or really delve into their reasoning or motivations aside from "Argh, I'm EVILLL!!1" and it makes them so fudging boring to me.
Now look at the Daredevil netflix series. Kingpin was brutal and evil BUT we understood why, we saw his motivation, his reasoning, as twisted as it was. This gives him depth and makes his character more interesting. Kingpin was the best Marvel villain bar none. Vincent D'Onofrio was the perfect Kingpin and it's a shame he won't be in the MCU where he belongs.
I feel you, I'm not saying all villains should be origin-free. Most of them should be built the way you're describing. Some villains, like say Heisenberg from Breaking Bad, depend on their crazy origin to make an impact. But Joker is just a different character, a different beast. One of the best ideas behind the Joker is that, one day, without any warning, he just showed up. Like Batman's shadow, as if the universe created him as soon as Batman came to be in order to create some sort of balance. Not knowing what drives somebody to dress like a clown and murder people solely to act opposite of Batman is what makes that character great. That's part of his character and when presented in the writing well, it's great. I don't necessarily look at that as a lack of development like the worst MCU villains.
Not saying it's impossible to tell a good Joker origin story, I just appreciated the never-ending mystique behind the character. Scott Snyder tried to bring that back during his New 52 run, and did a good job at it. His take proved that you don't need to know exactly who he is and that in a lot of cases, not knowing works best.
Well, it makes sense in a TV show or a villain/focused story, but it's too often done nowadays just for the sake of it. It's ok for them to just be evil although I think there's still a lot of that too. Most Marvel villains (not Thanos, he's smoking crack on that one) are pretty shallow. Most horror movie villains are mostly shallow. Maybe they'll have a touch of origin, but it's not usually good turned bad.
Under-developed villains (i.e. Malekith from Thor 2) aren't what I'm talking about with Joker though. His lack of origin isn't an under-development - part of Joker's actual character is the mystery, the question of what he is and where he's been. I love when writers write him specifically to hint at a history but without completely revealing it, and imo the best versions of him hint at more than one history. You can still use that mystique to build his "aura", to help dictate his motivations, and use that as his general mythology. Overall it helps the reader put themselves in Batman's shoes, not knowing the extent of the threat he's facing.
Conversely Malekith and similar under-developed villains let their motivation be known and then stick to hitting that one note. There's no real mystique, and they just don't develop past their initial portrayal. Joker can and does, and is able to without feeding the reader a true origin story.
One of the actual dumbest movies I've ever seen. Unrealistic CG monster movies aren't my thing to begin with but almost every line or dialogue or actions the characters take makes no sense. Kinda shocked at the rave reviews on this one, but maybe I just don't turn my brain off enough for big dumb alligator movies.
Just one example: At one point the lady "needs" to swim from a house across a flooded road to get to a boat (outswimming giant alligators, naturally) despite the fact at multiple times in the movie they show a kayak in the house they're in...
Are we safe on Joker spoilers at this point? Anyways, Joker wasn't an origin story anyways, so really it doesn't matter that the story was kinda dumb. Doesn't excuse it from behing meh (or invalidate anyone who thought it was warm buttered bread), just becomes an "oh well" to me.
I'm sure I'll pick it up on Bluray when it comes out because I did genuinely enjoy a few parts of it. But by the ending it's pretty much confirmed that if you didn't think it was a fitting origin, that's totally fine because it isn't.
I'd imagine this has zero chance of molting into the DCCU unless Joaquin and the director get a truckload of money, so I'm curious to see where Gunn and crew take Joker moving forward, since Leto's definitely out.
If anything, I'd want him to resurface in the sequel to Matt Reeves' "The Batman" movie, granted the timeline works out. I don't want a solo Joker series of movies, only so long until he becomes the hero in that case.
>> I don't like the term Hispanic. It means from Spain, it's generalized and overused,
>> and doesn't really have any value or meaning in current culture.
> I thought it could be someone from Spain OR a Spanish speaking country.
I was making a joke based on my SJW comment.
There's no 100% agreed upon definition. Some groups feel that way though. It gets complex when you look at definitions because they're often culturally-based, so different cultures may defind something different. Most of our definitions are through a "western lens." This is not to say that's wrong. It's just more complicated. This is from a sociological, intersectional, and intercultural perspective.
I am also no expert. My focus is primarily adult mental health. This is based on a Latinx culture class I took in my undergrad and an intercultural class I took in graduate school.
What I like about rob zombie Halloween that when Michael was being human instead of monster towards Laurie, trying to reach out to her and be with her instead of trying to kill her It made Laurie monster towards Michael
Then in sequel Michael went 180 on her after feeling betrayed by her
As a whole, even with the janky cast, I think Genysis was a better movie with a better plot and was more cohesive even with the stupid "app" angle which was barely a mention. At first, the first 2/3 of Dark Fate, I was ready to give it a 7/10 because it was actually a pretty solid movie just with rather crapty CGI in a lot of places. Some of the CGI was really good, and then they would do some unnecessary crap that could have been done (less dramatically) without CGI puppetry and a decent stuntman / camera work. I really was like "oh ok, this is going to continue to be a good movie that just plays it straight"... then - and this is no spoiler because the trailer spoils too much - Arnold shows up... and I really thought I had the angle worked out on why Arnold was even there. I really thought this would be some cool little epiphany from a movie that was good, if just a little uneven. Then they explained Arnold, and from there it just kinda went downhill. By the last 20 minutes or so, it turned into a janky and stupid CGI fest with all the hamfisted "girl power" crap you were afraid would be there but wasn't for the first 2/3 and what I thought was going to be something played straightforward and be what it was without any obvious slants. Literally by the last like 5 minutes, they had ruined what little good faith was left by pulling some Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull level CGI unrealistic fudgeery ...and I'm supposed to believe a 65 year old lady is somehow surviving this crap along with some 4ft tall Spanish 18 yr old. It just went too far and too big and should have found a good way to end on a smaller scale 10-15 minutes sooner.
And now onto spoilers...
Ok, so up front it really would have behooved the movie to not show who the chick non-terminator was in the trailer and in the promotional posters etc...or at least play her off as ambiguous or even a possible terminator, because the way the film starts, they play looming music and a setup for her as if you're expected as the audience to THINK she may be bad, or a terminator. This whole segment is all completely deflated because you know she is good. At least, if anything, first show the real terminator disguised as her in this scene to fool the audience. And then the other issue I had was that the real terminator stayed as his terminator body (the Spanish guy) almost the whole film. There was very little trickery on his part to look like someone else to Sarah/Grace/Girl John Connor except at the very beginning. There were some minor things like that which nagged the film on occasion, but really since it was a good movie at this point, a lot of it I gave a pass.
Now onto the Arnold part which will be a major spoiler or sorts... ... ... .. . . . .
So, in the very very beginning, the movie is supposed to take place right after T2 and an Arnold model Terminator shows up out the blue and kills teen John (yes, they did a really good CGI young Sarah and John, but a really bad CGI Arnold). So yeah, he kills John in the beginning and they leave that hanging the whole film until about 2/3 of the way through when they find Arnold in this remote house, and Sarah sees him answer the door and loses her crap. Grace stops her with little reason and Sarah yells "you killed John you fudgeer!!" and Arnold is like "yes, I'm sorry for that", then Girl John Connor takes her aside and they have a decent moment together about John. So then we get into the cabin with Arnold and he explains he has been living this life with some lady and helping this lady raise a kid together (not his), and I'm thinking.... oh crap, JOHN fudging sent this terminator back to kill HIMSELF because he had some key info that his death would cause a turn in time where others rise up instead and lead the revolution that STOPS skynet...right? But no. Fudging the gosh darn TERMINATOR after killing John had no objective left and wandered around until he decided to learn about humanity and try to be more human, so he became Terminator Dad. Yeah dumb as fudge.
On a side note, there was one point when old Sarah called in a favor from an military (Army or Air Force, can't remember) Major who shows up with an EMP she needed. He supposedly was someone who owed her a favor...so when he gets out of the vehicle and he's a black dude, I'm thinking "oh neat, we get a T2 reference and this is Miles Dyson's kid, and he's risking his life/career for Sarah because he knows if she calls, Judgment Day is near"... but nope. He's just some rando guy name Major Dean. Would it have been so hard to just stitch "Dyson" on the uniform? give me that much, for fudge's sake. Who is this Dean guy?
Anyways, so apparently, yeah that stopped Skynet somehow and made an even worse future where Skynet was replaced by "Legion" which was essentially the same crap. And Girl John Connor isn't Sarah and they make a point to say "you save the world because you give birth to a guy who is the savior" in a manner that is 'bad', and then a few minutes later then say "oh, you don't give birth to some stupid MAN who saves the world, YOU the awesome and bold girl are the new alternate reality John Connor and can totally do a better job than any man could". I crap you not. This is pretty close to verbatim. It wasn't necessary. I get it - it's a mostly girl dominated cast and they were holding their own against a super terminator. It was fine how it was. There was no need to just SAY that crap like that.
Ultimately, this movie was sort of a ho-hum "greatest hits" Terminator where they stole bits and pieces from the entire series. They stole the general plot of T1, set it post-T2, pulled some bits from T3 like the solid/liquid terminator and some mild silliness in the last 1/3, and an alternate future ala Salvation where it;s not the T1/T2 future and isn't dark with lasers. Unfortunately, as a whole, it just kinda doesn't manage to come together because of the weak ass over-the-top end bits. Part of me wants to give this like a 5.5/10 but really the first 2/3 of the film was pretty solid, so I feel like it's better than OK as a whole. I still think Genesys was better, but this one is better than T3 and T4... maybe not so much better than a fanedit T3 that takes out the silly crap, but I feel like maybe this could be fixed with some fan trickery too.
It's not a bad movie. It really is decent. It can't hurt to go see it if the trailer didn't scare you away. It just took some stupid turns by the end, and too much reliance on unrealistic CGI action segments. Also, do you think a 65 year old 90 lb Sarah Conner wouldn't be severely hurt after getting full-force backhanded by a gosh darn no-skinned metal terminator? Come on, man.
Did Enix seriously just say T1 and T2 are realistic, or did I read that wrong? I probably read it wrong.
Anyway, realism is never the point. The point is whether it fits into the universe they created. If you were in this universe, does it fit within the physics, or did they do a sufficient job explaining why it doesn't. Even in Harry Potter, there are limits, and that's fantasy. This is Sci-Fi. You've still got to address the sci part.
You know what I mean. Don't play this semantics fudging game with me.
Yes, "does it fit in the world created" and Terminator is supposed to happen in the actual real world.
And the kind of crap I'm referring to is that rubbery puppet CGI crap like the Black Panther scene where he was fighting Killmonger in the subway rail track thing and they're just weightless bouncing around CGI puppets in a fully CGI world that looks like a game. A lot of that happens in this movie with super girl and the terminator.
I don't know. I see what you're saying, but I see it as more of an alternate universe than our world. If it were actually our world, that crap wouldn't exist. Plus, it's in the future, and when you're dealing with time travel, all bets are off.
Still, I definitely think that films can go too far.
Sorry, if it's an action move, it's supposed to be over-the-top. Humans wouldn't have been able to actually-survive the action in T1 and T2 without any down-time... but they did. I wasn't into the Black Panther climax at all and understand your opinion there, but unless Dark Fate reaches that level, I'm not sure I get the point. Obv haven't seen the movie though.
But tbh I love "Shoot Em Up" so I'm lenient with action movies... most are completely unbelievable, real-world speaking.
I love those movies too, but there a place for everything. I wouldn't be cool if Rey started slicing up dudes with a machete and using rocket launchers in Star Wars, and that series has fudging space magic and faster than the speed of light travel.
That's an excellent example. I mean, that's a series where a dude rips people's hearts out of their chest with his bare hands, a 1,000-year-old knight guards a magic cup, and a chest is opened which melts people's faces off. Yet, they still somehow managed to make people go, "Ok, Spielberg/Lucas. That was a bit much." It's because it just felt off. It's super subjective, but it's just one of those things.