Exactly. A second screening is ALMOST NEEDED for this movie. It was a better “director’s dream project” than James Cameron with Avatar. Sincerely more original, lol. But this feels like a mix of 2001, Blade Runner, Inception and The Tree of Life for me. I think some of Shia did in the movie, he’s done in real life.
2 Likes
Joker: Folie à deux
I haven‘t seen this yet, and despite many fears about the first one realized (the wrong people interpreting it as a justification for their dangerous ideas) I find it hilarious that now those people turn on this sequel, apparently because it shows the true intentions of the first one and reveals the idiocy of the misinterpretation.
8 Likes
Could you explain that a little more, apparently I completely missed it, what happened after the first film?
I’ve seen the movie and liked it as a fan of the first. The savaging is completely undeserved. I found it to be a powerful experience with strong themes - namely the cult of celebrity worship, the reality behind myth and what is real and what is fantasy. It’s made from the same creative team and the production values are excellent. The main message is that all people see with Joker is just either an image of chaos, a lunatic or someone who dares to question the system. They don’t see the ill man behind it all. I understand this might not be for everyone but to have the lowest CinemaScore for a comic based movie in history is the real joke.
6 Likes
sharshooter says it perfectly.
4 Likes
Joker Folie a Deux (2024). Where do I begin with this uniqueness? Joker 1 was possibly just lighting in a bottle. While the acting is great (namely Lady Gaga), the script needed a rewrite. It is way too slow in many places. If the filmmakers wanted us to feel unconformable, they truly succeeded: not with tenseness, but with occasional boredom. Pacing is way off, and certain scenes went on for too long. It was more real-life than it should have been. I enjoyed it mostly, but I can see why a lot of people are turning away. So, like Reagan and Megalopolis, I can recommend and cannot recommend all three. It’s like voting: sometimes you have to go with your heart and gut, or simply flip a coin. As for another DC villain spinoff, it should be a more fantastical villain (Clayface by Mike Flanagan is one I would support). But for now, Matt Reeves and his Batman should be the main focus for WB and DC for now. Also, Todd Philips should NOT do sequels anymore. The quality drastically drops from one to another.
I can relate this movie to some of my Bond opinions. After watching Joker: Folie a Deux, Todd Philips has said that this is why Joker 1 & 2 were made with a bit of satire. He says he can’t make comedies anymore because people are offended by them. So, humor is like cartoons, is often of it’s time. So, a lot of Bond material can truly be of it’s time, because Bond is (usually) as modern of a character as you get. For better or worse.
While asking where does Bond go after Craig, hopefully it’s NOT with CINEMATIC spinoffs. Keep Bond spinoffs in the literary world. Joker 2 proves this. While I liked it more than most apparently people did, there is a reason it’s not getting good reviews/box office. WB and DC should have done a different villain, as this is almost too unique for a mainstream audience. However, for future Bond media, my point is that adult Bond should remain EON’s main focus for the time being. Even IFP needs some reminders of that if we don’t get an adult Bond novel soon. However, I’m still ok with Bond literary spinoffs. Lastly, I can see why fans don’t want spinoffs of certain characters. While I hope that Blofeld gets a modern day spinoff novel, I won’t debate fans on why my opinions are right. There’s a fair reason for why certain characters (from Batman, Bond and various other fictional characters) should just be supporting characters.
Also, Happy James Bond Day, Everyone!
5 Likes
It’s clear how a second „Joker“ could have been a massive hit: by letting the character go on a huge crime spree, making cruel jokes and killing lots of people.
I applaud the filmmakers for not giving that to the fanboys, by spending tons of money to do this instead.
Here‘s also an interesting take on audience behaviour during the film: Inside 'Joker 2' Opening Night Imax Screening
Oh. And NEVER EVER DO THIS:
ALWAYS, ALWAYS inform yourself and think about what you are enabling. This time it’s the easiest decision ever.
3 Likes
62nd New York Film Festival Report
Your intrepid filmgoer braved the wilds of Lincoln Center, and is happy to file this report:
NICKEL BOYS–Opening night, and an advance on the language of cinema. Takes at least two screenings to realize all of the film’s richness and exploration of the Black experience. A most daring choice for opening night.
THE ROOM NEXT DOOR–Centerpiece. Almodovar in English–beautifully acted, but English is not his best language for dialogue or direction. Will need to see again.
BLITZ–Closing Night. Steve McQueen on the Blitz. Fantastic set design, with a narrative that leans into Dickens at times, I am curious to hear the responses of our community’s British members.
ALL WE IMAGINE AS LIGHT–Superb. One of several films that demonstrate a new cinematic language–the melding of fiction and non-fiction cinema. This is not Mankiewicz or Wilder screenwriting–the rhythms are of life as lived. Bu there remains the skillful structuring of story, pulling the audience along to discover what happens next. Deserved winner of the Grand Prize at Cannes.
ANORA–Cannes Palme d’Or winner–another tall tale from Sean Baker that drips with NYC realism, humor, and pathos. Mikey Madison is amazing in the title role, and the rest of the acting ain’t too shabby either.
APRIL–Dea Kulumbegashvili’s tremendous film about a Georgian doctor who does abortions outside of the law. If you saw BEANPOLE and loved it, you will also like this film. Slavic realism gets no realer, and in the Q&A after the film, Kulumbegashvili said that all the stories in the film were based on her research in the area (where she had grown up). Again, the mix of fiction and non-fiction is amazing.
THE BRUTALIST–Brady Corbet discovers VistaVision, but doesn’t quite bring it off. He was joyful about using the old process, and filming on film, but clearly he had learned filmmaking with different equipment, and those are the skills he brought to the VistaVision camera. Adrien Brody spoke of the challenge of doing intimate scenes with this hulking equipment inches away. Actors and directors are just not trained for these cameras anymore. The scenic and panoramic shots come off best.
CAUGHT BY THE TIDES–Shot over the course of 23 years by Jia Zhangke, the film depicts the changes in Chinese society during this time. A must for Zhangke fans.
DAHOMEY–Mati Diop’s Golden Bear winner–the film is a cultural chronicle about the return of treasures, and how they should be handled/regarded. The most precise 67 minutes of cinema I have ever seen.
EEPHUS–a baseball movie that lost steam for me as it progressed. The audience liked it.
GRAND TOUR–the latest fantastical journey from Miguel Gomes–I liked it, but cannot say I want to see it again.
HARD TRUTHS–Mike Leigh being Mike Leigh. Performances, direction, script all as deft and beautiful as we have come to expect. Effortless filmmaking.
HARVEST–Medieval England as interpreted by Athina Rachel Tsangari out of Jim Crace. A fable with political overtones, the film is elegant, and one of the best examples of a movie centering on a character who does nothing that I have ever seen.
MISERICORDIA–Alain Guiraudie being queer in the French countryside again. The twisty byways of desire and secrecy play out with religion added to the mix this time. As enigmatic and alluring as Guiraudie can be at his best.
OH, CANADA–a Paul Shrader misfire. In the talkback, he said that he wanted to get away from the Travis Bickle character that had been at the center of his last three films, but the result has a fish-out-of-water quality to it. Fortunately, his next film returns to his strength, with the Bickle character being a philosopher this time.
ON BECOMING A GUINEA FOWL–an incisive film about family lies and secrets, and how they affect those members who are coming up, especially the women. The evocation of Zambian culture is superb, as is (yet again) the mixture of fiction and non-fiction.
THE SEED OF THE SACRED FIG–made clandestinely by Mohammad Rasoulof, who then had to flee Iran, the film portrays how cooperating with an authoritarian regime seeps into family life, where dad can easily morph into a tyrant. Women are again the moral center of a complex drama.
THE SHROUDS–Late Style David Cronenberg, and a wonder. More verbose and less visceral (but still bracing), the film combines social paranoia with a meditation on grief that rather than resolving all mysteries at the end, daringly allows them to multiply. Cronenberg’s mastery is complete, and I felt privileged to see a master’s late work (too often the camera is taken away from/denied them).
VIET AND NAM–a meditation on queer desire, war, and memory, Trương Minh Quý’s film is glorious in its combination of concreteness and ephemerality. My screening companions were struck by what they experienced as the deep sadness of the film.
EMILIA PEREZ-- Jacques Audiard’s vibrant mix of melodrama, musical, and gangster film (with a dash of late Hawks Western stirred in at the end), the film is a paean to change, possibility, and joy. Audiard remains sui generis in execution and result.
THE FRIEND–tidy, heartfelt drama by McGeHee and Siegel, THE FRIEND is a deeply New York City film, and a bit of plod for me. Almost everyone else loved it.
I’M STILL HERE-- Walter Salles’ first feature film in twelve years, and the wait was more than worth it. Documenting the disappearance of citizens during Brazil’s years of dictatorship, Salles focuses on the effects on the family left behind, and how life is carried forward.
MARIA–Pablo Larrain and Angelina Jolie do Maria Callas, and do her proud. The extraordinary production design and cinematography (Edward Lachman’s work is extraordinary) set the stage for a stoic Callas, rendered smart, knowing, and powerful in Jolie’s interpretation. The blending of Callas’ voice with Jolie’s (in certain moments) is remarkable, and the entire film feels like a work made by hand and not technology. A Fabergé egg of a film.
SCENARIOS–last, but definitely not least (and possibly first), Jean-Luc Godard’s final film–begun five days before his death, with the last shot (of him) done just the day before–is pure cinematic joy. At 18 minutes, it is succinct, but SCENARIOS is a complete work of cinema from the complete man of cinema. To be savored and enjoyed for all time.
5 Likes
An impressive itinerary and a cross section through current film d’auteur. These two weeks must have been quite a treat for connoisseurs.
2 Likes
… and I‘m exhausted just reading your report. How could you endure watching so much? Even in my early 20‘s, watching tons of movies and attending festivals, I could never watch more than four a day, and then had to pause a few days to reach that number again.
2 Likes
That program would last me a year and then some months more. Especially the substance films keep me pondering for much longer these days.
2 Likes
APARTMENT 7A
It’s not a bad little movie. I enjoyed it.
There’s a couple of things working against it, though. The inherent problem with it is if you know the story of ROSEMARY’S BABY then there are no surprises to be had here, as it’s essentially the same movie.
But the biggest problem for me is that Julia Garner is playing a character who is in ROSEMARY, so if you remember that movie, you will know the ending to APARTMENT before even seeing it as it is an event shown in ROSEMARY. When I say there are no surprises, there really are no surprises.
On its own though, they made a nice movie that punches above its weight. If you haven’t seen ROSEMARY you have a greater chance of enjoying it. It’s the same type of project as THE FIRST OMEN, but I enjoyed this more.
3 Likes
Thanks for the review. ROSEMARY‘S BABY is impossible to top, to follow or to precede. Despite the great actors involved I feared that this is just an IP wringing, even if made well.
1 Like
So, in other words, it’s a movie. 
4 Likes
I think years ago I learned to ration myself during the NYFF (this is my 48th go-round). I calculate how much energy to put into a screening, and if I am involved, I increase it, and if not captivated, I pull back (though it took years before I would actually leave a Festival film, and it is still a rare occurrence).
I will admit that my four-in-a-day days are over–with even three usually requiring a meal break. But even after all this time, I still enjoy it, and look forward to it every year.
6 Likes
The Black Hole (1979)
Somehow I’ve managed to miss this for 45 years, opting instead for a second viewing of Star Trek: TMP at the time and then never catching it on TV in the decades since. I finally decided to get some value out of my Disney+ subscription and searched it out.
This one tries to walk the line between cutesy kid film (what with the robot V.I.N.C.E.N.T., his busted-up pal B.O.B. and their shenanigans) and “Forbidden Planet” -like SF thriller with, at the very end, a bit of cinematic acid trip thrown in ala 2001. It just ends up being a mess.
I suppose in a way it’s unfair to judge an effects-heavy film four and a half decades later since filmmaking technology seems to progress so quickly and dramatically, but when you consider Alien and ST:TMP came out at the same time, and Moonraker a year before, and all of those hold up far better than this one, I don’t feel too guilty passing judgement. The fully-lit model of the Cygnus is impressive and as critics noted at the time, the scene where a flaming meteor rolls down on our heroes is well done (but illogical: its presence requires a massive hull breach which alone should have killed everyone) while other effects, mostly of V.I.N.C.E.N.T. flying around, are pretty weak. The sets, especially the “bridge” set, are well done, though not anything for Ken Adam to lose any sleep over. The climactic action sequence…when it finally comes…manages to go on forever without ever actually generating any thrills.
The most dramatic moment (SPOILERS!) comes with the revelation that Reinhart’s “robot” crew are all lobotomized humans, but all the drama of that reveal is undone by having one cutesy robot just blab it to the other, who then tells it to some of the humans who then go on to tell it to the others. Surely there was a better way to milk a little drama out of what could have been the most chilling angle of the whole story.
What kept me going to the end (besides the drive to finally see the whole thing before I’m placed in a home) was John Barry’s score, which naturally is wonderful and comes right on the heels of Moonraker. But even here, it seems like he’s in opposition to the filmmakers, who insist on ruining the few “action” scenes with bombastic fanfares that sound like they came from a Captain Midnight serial, whereas the Barry tracks that denote epic spectacle, moody suspense and peril and creeping dread almost feel like they belong in another film. I assume it’s the editor who gets final say in what music is paired with what scene, because I can’t imagine Barry wanting that generecised, rollicking “hero” music shoehorned into the proceedings every time a blaster pistol gets whipped out.
It was interesting how the characters kept comparing the black hole to Hell when it was shown as a fairly beautiful lightshow in blue, until the end when it suddenly turned red and looked like a volcano or a California brush fire. Also to fully enjoy the film it helps not to know anything about science.
I guess it’s cool that (SPOILERS) some of the cast survives at the end, although given that there’s no guarantee other humans exist in whatever universe they end up in, one wonders how things will play out with two males and one female left to live out their existence together. Maybe that would have made for an X-rated sequel, or a space-borne murder story.
Next up on my “finally get something out of Disney+” tour: TRON. That one I did see in the cinema but I can honestly say I remember absolutely nothing about it.
4 Likes
Great review and absolutely sensible points.
But if you had been a 10 year old, excited by Star Wars, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Star Crash, Buck Rogers and Battle beyond the stars, seeing THE BLACK HOLE on the big screen with ice cream in your hand, you might have reacted like I did: with wonder and excitement.
6 Likes
Watched the last couple of days Roger Moore stuff, because of his birthday an he was and still is my favorite actor and moviehero.
I watched a week ago “The Cannonball Run” and last weekend, in the late saterday afternoon “The Wild Geese” and monday first the first two episodes of “The Persuaders” and later on “Sherlock Holmes in New York” and I fell asleep, so I watched the last part again yesterday in the early evening.
4 Likes
There even was a comic movie tie-in that I had - and a novelisation by Alan Dean Foster. I even remember reading it - but it wasn’t really that much fun or I would have reread it like I did with other stuff from that era (the Han Solo original prequels come to mind, and the Galactica novels - and admittedly they were pretty dire affairs).
I never understood the cult following of that one. If it was THE FABULOUS BAKER BOYS or THE FISHER KING. But TRON struck me as wasted money back then, which was rare for me. Trips to the cinema always used to be an adventure when I was a kid.
Then again, it’s possible that one just caught me at the wrong time in my life and other adventures were more worthwhile.
3 Likes
They let you have ice cream in the cinema? I have to assume that was the only reason even a 10 year old could walk out of “Star Crash” feeling satisfied 
I was 14 at the time and had already cast my allegiance to Star Trek, so even Luke Skywalker had an uphill climb to win me over, but yes that was a thrilling time to be a young movie-goer with the likes of Star Wars, Close Encounters and Superman coming one after the other and Battlestar Galactica on TV.
In fairness, The Black Hole came early in the “sci fi blockbuster” craze while everyone was still figuring things out. The “cute robots” schtick was all some imitators took away from Star Wars at all, so I’ll give Disney some slack for at least trying to mix in a little spookiness and a “Captain Nemo in space” vibe. Possibly it was some bean-counter somewhere who poked his nose in and said, “There’s a robot in the script, right? Be sure to make him adorable so we can sell toys.”
Also Disney was in a state of flux at this point, branching out a bit from animated kiddie fare to take a tentative step into stronger stuff, so it makes sense they’d alternate between bold and cautious. Even to the extent the film is “grown up,” it’s in the sense of “Forbidden Planet” or “20 Thousand Leagues Under the Sea,” which is to say “grown up” like an SF film from the 50s.
Remarkable at the time – and in retrospect to this day – was that Star Trek TMP earned a “G” rating and “The Black Hole” got a PG. I can only guess that’s because of what happens to the Perkins character or maybe the reveal of what was behind the “robot’s” mask near the end? But frankly, “Pinocchio” has more nightmare fuel than this entry.
2 Likes