jmz-00111
Joined Nov 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews6
jmz-00111's rating
If Joker 2 was meant to expand on the tortured psyche of Arthur Fleck, it succeeded only in expanding my boredom. What made the first film so intriguing-the slow descent into madness-was replaced with a frantic, disjointed attempt to outdo its predecessor without any real sense of direction. Fleck's evolution (or lack thereof) feels more like a series of erratic, isolated scenes than a cohesive narrative.
The film struggles to find its tone, oscillating between forced social commentary and a carnival of absurdity, leaving neither thought-provoking nor entertaining moments to cling to. It's as if the filmmakers believed that more chaos automatically equals more depth, but instead, it comes off as empty spectacle with none of the philosophical grit that made the original resonate. The character development was shallow, almost as if they hoped we wouldn't notice the lack of story under the avalanche of neon-lit chaos and ominous laughs.
Joaquin Phoenix, ever the committed actor, did his best, but even his performance couldn't save a script that feels more like a checklist of provocations than an actual journey. Joker 2 is a poor imitation of its own predecessor, like trying to laugh at the same joke twice-only this time, it falls flat, and you're left wondering why you ever found it funny in the first place.
Verdict? Skip this punchline.
The film struggles to find its tone, oscillating between forced social commentary and a carnival of absurdity, leaving neither thought-provoking nor entertaining moments to cling to. It's as if the filmmakers believed that more chaos automatically equals more depth, but instead, it comes off as empty spectacle with none of the philosophical grit that made the original resonate. The character development was shallow, almost as if they hoped we wouldn't notice the lack of story under the avalanche of neon-lit chaos and ominous laughs.
Joaquin Phoenix, ever the committed actor, did his best, but even his performance couldn't save a script that feels more like a checklist of provocations than an actual journey. Joker 2 is a poor imitation of its own predecessor, like trying to laugh at the same joke twice-only this time, it falls flat, and you're left wondering why you ever found it funny in the first place.
Verdict? Skip this punchline.
David Fincher, a filmmaker once renowned for his distinctive and captivating style, seems to have hit a creative snag in his recent works. This downturn is notably apparent in projects like "Monk" and his latest movie. These films starkly contrast with the compelling narratives and intricate storytelling that defined his earlier successes such as "Seven," "Fight Club," and "Mindhunter."
"Monk," for instance, despite its promising premise, fails to engage the audience in the manner one would expect from a Fincher project. The film lacks the depth and complexity that were hallmarks of his previous works. It's as if the intricate layers and the psychological depth that Fincher so masterfully wove into his earlier narratives have been replaced by a more superficial, less challenging approach to storytelling.
This trend of decline continues in Fincher's latest movie. Here, the issues are more pronounced. The film, which had the potential to be a standout addition to Fincher's filmography, unfortunately, comes across as generic. It lacks the unique Fincher-esque touch - that blend of dark, psychological intrigue and innovative narrative techniques that fans have come to admire and expect.
A scene with Tilda Swinton in the movie exemplifies this. Swinton, a formidable actor known for her versatility and depth, is underutilized in a role that feels underdeveloped and inconsequential. This is indicative of a larger issue within the film - a lack of engaging character development and a narrative that fails to resonate on a deeper level. The scene, rather than adding to the story, feels disjointed, contributing to an overall sense of disjointedness in the movie.
Moreover, the film's narrative structure appears haphazard. Where Fincher once skillfully led his audience through complex storylines, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats, his latest work lacks this sense of suspense and intrigue. The plot meanders without a clear direction, leading to a climax that feels both unearned and unsatisfying. The storytelling, which in Fincher's earlier works was tight, focused, and impactful, now seems to lack purpose and direction.
Another critical aspect where Fincher's latest works fall short is in their visual storytelling. Fincher was once known for his meticulous and visually stunning compositions - each frame carefully crafted to contribute to the story's mood and tone. This meticulous attention to detail seems absent in his recent films. The cinematography, while competent, lacks the innovation and visual flair that once set his films apart. The color palette, lighting, and shot composition, which in films like "Seven" and "Fight Club" were so integral to the narrative, now feel more like an afterthought.
It's also worth noting the change in how Fincher approaches themes in his recent films. Previously, he explored complex themes like obsession, identity, and the darker aspects of human nature with a keen, almost surgical precision. His characters were layered, their motivations nuanced and often morally ambiguous, forcing the audience to engage with the film on a deeper, more intellectual level. This engagement is missing in his latest works, where the themes feel either overly simplified or not fully explored..
"Monk," for instance, despite its promising premise, fails to engage the audience in the manner one would expect from a Fincher project. The film lacks the depth and complexity that were hallmarks of his previous works. It's as if the intricate layers and the psychological depth that Fincher so masterfully wove into his earlier narratives have been replaced by a more superficial, less challenging approach to storytelling.
This trend of decline continues in Fincher's latest movie. Here, the issues are more pronounced. The film, which had the potential to be a standout addition to Fincher's filmography, unfortunately, comes across as generic. It lacks the unique Fincher-esque touch - that blend of dark, psychological intrigue and innovative narrative techniques that fans have come to admire and expect.
A scene with Tilda Swinton in the movie exemplifies this. Swinton, a formidable actor known for her versatility and depth, is underutilized in a role that feels underdeveloped and inconsequential. This is indicative of a larger issue within the film - a lack of engaging character development and a narrative that fails to resonate on a deeper level. The scene, rather than adding to the story, feels disjointed, contributing to an overall sense of disjointedness in the movie.
Moreover, the film's narrative structure appears haphazard. Where Fincher once skillfully led his audience through complex storylines, keeping viewers on the edge of their seats, his latest work lacks this sense of suspense and intrigue. The plot meanders without a clear direction, leading to a climax that feels both unearned and unsatisfying. The storytelling, which in Fincher's earlier works was tight, focused, and impactful, now seems to lack purpose and direction.
Another critical aspect where Fincher's latest works fall short is in their visual storytelling. Fincher was once known for his meticulous and visually stunning compositions - each frame carefully crafted to contribute to the story's mood and tone. This meticulous attention to detail seems absent in his recent films. The cinematography, while competent, lacks the innovation and visual flair that once set his films apart. The color palette, lighting, and shot composition, which in films like "Seven" and "Fight Club" were so integral to the narrative, now feel more like an afterthought.
It's also worth noting the change in how Fincher approaches themes in his recent films. Previously, he explored complex themes like obsession, identity, and the darker aspects of human nature with a keen, almost surgical precision. His characters were layered, their motivations nuanced and often morally ambiguous, forcing the audience to engage with the film on a deeper, more intellectual level. This engagement is missing in his latest works, where the themes feel either overly simplified or not fully explored..
Seriously this is by far the worst release of the Star Wars saga. Bad script (very childish), illogical, dumb, unentertaining, bad acting....terrible product.