Is Joker Actually ‘About’ Anything? | The Big Picture

December 5, 2019 posted by

So. For those of you who are feeling possibly
confused as to how exactly this month’s two-a-week show schedule “works”: On Tuesdays,
regular episodes of The Big Picture. On Thursdays, special Halloween-themed episodes
for Schlocktober. Why are we talking about Joker again already? Because I didn’t really want to… but I
also kind of… do…? Anyway, Thursday’s show is nuts so, stay
tuned for that too: Anyway! So Joker made a bunch of money at the box-office
over the weekend which is being treated as a “surprise” for purposes of further marketing
as though the idea that a movie about probably the second most popular character in one of
the most popular franchises the most popular movie genre on the planet for the last decade
of human history pulling a big number opening uncontested in early fall is some kind of
miraculous “unexpected victory” for the film and its fans against the overwhelming
adversary of… marginally divided reviews from professional critics and some scattered
overhyping of random concern trolling in the national media… [gibberish] “A fitting end for you Joker.” …which (you may recall) turned bizarrely political when director Todd Philips (previously
best known for Road Trip, The Hangover Trilogy and the feature adaptation of Starsky and
Hutch) stated that his making the film was inspired by traditional comedy having been
killed by quote-unquote “woke culture” and later pinned negative reviews on “The
Far Left.” So there’s a certain irony in one of his
film’s most passionate defenders turning out to be left-wing activist and documentarian
Michael Moore (of all people!) …who took to Instagram after a screening
for the film at the New York Film Festival to declare that he had “witnessed a cinematic masterpiece”
and that contrary to the supposed societal dangers posed by the film: “The greater
danger to society may be if you don’t go see this movie. Because the story it tells and the issues
it raises are so profound, so necessary, that if you look away from the genius of this work
of art, you will miss the gift of the mirror it is offering us.” In a subsequent post, Moore would further
elaborate: “Joker” makes it clear we don’t really want to get to the bottom of this,
or to try to understand why innocent people turn into Jokers after they can no longer
keep it together. No one wants to ask why two smart boys skipped
their 4th-hour AP French Philosophy class at Columbine High to slaughter 12 students
and a teacher. No one would dare ask why the son-” Uh, yeah… Mike, I’m gonna cut you off right there? Cuz… yeah, we actually do know why the two
kids at Columbine “did it.” Because they made videos and wrote it down
in journals beforehand. But anyway… the fact that I was overwhelmingly
certain that Joker was not, in fact, “about” the things Moore was ascribing to it in any
meaningful way (those of you who’ve seen my review of the film know, of course, that
I was not a fan) for me only served to highlight one of it’s most curious qualities: That
it’s a film comprised almost entirely of surface level texture – aesthetics, visual
cues, references to other movies, references to real-world events of the past and present,
needle-drop soundtrack cues, auditory mood notes, allusions to contemporary social topics
and politics – but with all of them decoupled from any inherent meaning they’d typically
possess and none of it unified by any cohesive theme. In other words, a movie that in certain key
points looks or feels like it has something to say or might even be about something but
in fact isn’t really about anything – even though it seems to have wanted to be and occasionally
sounds like it’s saying something… but then isn’t. To fully “get at” what I’m saying requires
describing basically the plot of the film and its major events so, as quickly as possible: This version of “The Joker” starts out a guy named Arthur Fleck who is poor and miserable
because he suffers from a neurological condition of initially unknown origin that causes him
to suffer fits of uncontrolled laughing in inappropriate situations. He lives alone in an economically-stagnant
1980s Gotham City with his ailing mother, works part time as a clown and dreams of becoming
a stand-up comedian and performing on the popular locally-recorded “Murray Franklin”
Late-Night Talk Show. During a particularly bad series of events,
Arthur shoots and kills three mean drunken investment bankers from the Wayne Enterprises
corporation who are bullying him on the subway, which seems to trigger the beginning of a
psychotic break that gives him the confidence to pursue a romantic relationship with his
pretty neighbor. Because Arthur was wearing his clown makeup,
it also creates an “urban legend” of an anti-greed killer-clown vigilante hunting
down Gotham’s 1%, which inspires billionaire Thomas Wayne to run for Mayor on a law and order platform and in turn inspires an underclass-revolution clown-mask protest movement. Arthur subsequently learns that his mother
used to work for Thomas Wayne, had an affair with him and that Arthur is actually Wayne’s
illegitimate son! But when he confronts both Wayne and actual
records about this, it turns out that Arthur’s mom was severely mentally-ill, hallucinated
the relationship, adopted Arthur to make her fantasy feel more real and neglected him being
violently abused by her “real” partners, causing the injuries that led to his neurological
damage. He also realizes that he himself has been
hallucinating the romance with his neighbor and learns that Murray Franklin
has used a video clip of him bombing at an open-mic comedy night as the subject of mockery
on his show – causing him to snap, murder his mother and finally adopt the identity
of The Joker… …agreeing to appear as a guest on the Franklin
show with the aim of committing an on-air suicide, he is instead riled up by surprising
positive reaction by the audience (and an outside mob of clown-masked protesters) to
his off-the-cuff rant against the madness of society that he murders Murray instead. Finally, when a police cruiser taking him
to jail is destroyed and Arthur himself is rescued and revived by the army of clowns
now destroying the city, “The Joker” strikes a triumphant pose as not far away one of his
self-declared acolytes stalks The Wayne Family into an alley and shoots Thomas and Martha
dead so that Bruce can begin his journey toward becoming Robert Pattinson like 2 years from
now. The end. [Bruce] “Golly thanks for taking me to the movie in this dangerous neighborhood, Dad. “Whoa, stop. You can’t go down there!” “That is crime alley you dumb, dumbs.” [gunfire and screaming] So… as you might now have surmised: There
are a lot of different angles from which to point out that this movie is… Extremely dumb in a way that makes the self-seriousness with which it takes itself a particularly bad approach – the wrong notes, played in the loudest
key all the way through. You could literally start your “what the
hell went wrong with Joker doctoral analysis with a hundred different ways and they’d all lead to the same breakdown. But since I don’t have all day, I’ll use
the one that jumps out at me the most clearly: Why does this movie takes place in the 1980s? [clock ticking] And I don’t mean minor annoying stuff like
how there’s no way Arthur Fleck is on seven psychiatric medications in the mid-80s and
not basically comatose all the time because prescription-strength was a whole other context
back then and their imposing a 2019 opioid/psych-medication context on an 80s setting or how a huge plot point turns on what’s essentially a video clip “going viral” which just didn’t
happen like this back then… I’m talking about the why of these issues. See, setting a movie “out of time” especially
into the recent past is a big undertaking – it’s probably where most of this movie’s $55
million budget went: “It’s not about money. It’s about sending a a message. You have to change backgrounds, use different lighting, dress sets
down to tiny details, get old cars, old clothes, old TV and video clips, match reference photos,
digitally-alter skylines if it’s a real location, all kinds of stuff – so there’s
usually a specific reason it has to be done, a point that the story is making or a portion
of the narrative that can only be conveyed or make sense in that temporal context; usually
of a socio-political or historical reference point. But, basically none of Joker’s socio-political
reference points have any connection to the historical context they’re juxtaposed with
– and neither does that juxtaposition provide any meaningful counter-context: The anti-rich-people
clown mobs are a Jokerified mash-up of “Occupy Wall Street” and “Anonymous,” both of
which were phenomenons of the early 2000s – they don’t make sense transposed into
what we’re (I guess?) supposed to take as an otherwise similar recreation of a 1980s
city environment because urban mass violence flashpoints in the 80s
were almost always about racial tension to one degree or another, and there’s no context
given in the movie for anything happening that’s making Gotham’s situation different. Speaking of which, the lone specific
historical allusion in the film is about that very thing: Joker’s first killing on the
subway and elevation to folk hero status by the media is a clear evocation of the 1984 “Bernie
Goetz Shootings,” wherein a white guy named… that, shot 4 black teenagers he claimed tried
to rob him on a New York subway and (eventually) surrendered to police claiming self defense
but was later revealed to have said a bunch of really really suspicious racist stuff leading up to it and also the kids were maybe just panhandling and the whole thing was a huge scandalous mess, but that happened after the media had already spent months writing about a “Heroic Subway Vigilante!!! “I don’t like the twist this joke is taking.” And so, Joker’s seemingly “edgy” maneuver
of evoking this infamous event, cutting out its distinctly 1980s race-politics and substituting
the visual-language of 2019 class politics allows it say…? [crickets chirping] It’s the same
way that Arthur’s issues with cuts to his social services and medication have the look
of an 80s health-care system but are presented in a manner that’s all about 2019’s various
prescription/addiction opioid crises, or the viral-video thing; which is trying (badly) to plug a critique
of present-day social-media shaming of ordinary people into an incompatible era where the
big concern about media privacy was paparazzi and celebrity tabloid obsessions – Using cheesy
references to a movie from that era about that thing!
A movie that was, of course, a “thematic reunion” feature for the director and star of the other
movie that Joker takes its the bulk of it’s late-70s/early-80sreference cues from (and very much wants you to be thinking of) at all times: Taxi Driver – because that’s a great film (perhaps the
great film) about an alienated loner losing his grip on reality and turning to violent
power fantasies in an unfeeling urban hellscape, it created the universally-understood “language”
of such films and while Joker may be running on fumes – those fumes are the understanding
that if it can recite that language phonetically it doesn’t need to understand or
speak it. [Joker yelling indistinctly] And that is what I mean by this movie not
really being “about” anything because it’s all texture with nothing under it:
Arthur’s big speech sounds and is directed and staged like a big important scene where
something meaningful gets said in “a movie like this at this point” “See, this is a…the scene in the movie where you help me out.” …but he doesn’t
really say anything. There are riots where the action and score
tell us “Society has broken down!” …but we don’t really know what “not broken”
meant in this world. It’s grimy and edgy and poised on the edge
of urban-apocalypse like early-80s movies were… but without any of the authentic real-world-outside-the-theater context those movies were feeding off of. It’s just an echo, a reference, the equivalent of an old-time video filter on a photo app. And what little semblance of a point it does
offer to make contradicts what little text it actually has: Arthur all but bellows that
“society” turned him into The Joker, but we and he just got done finding out that it
was actually just his mother that was primarily responsible for like 90% of what’s happened
to him and he killed her for it. In fact, if you pull out the ultimately meaningless
references to other movies and comic-book easter eggs and ignore that filmmakers
and Warner Bros marketing have claimed the movie is about and just went by what’s onscreen;
you might conclude that “Joker” is a just straightforward if pointedly extra-misogynist
serial-killer drama about how the abused, infantilized Arthur belated achieves psychotic
“manhood” as the confident, swaggering “Joker” by escaping and killing the controlling abusive mother figure who’d infantilized him in the first place. Now, I don’t know if that the movie that intended to make, but that’s kinda the movie they made. “Whoa” Now look – this is not like a “take two”
of my Joker review where I basically said it was mediocre and too empty to be “upset
about” or doubling down or anything else: I sincerely felt that the manner in which
the film managed to be self-righteously… “bland” was worthy of more in-depth elaboration and this was that. I also don’t think it was a film made lazily
or with cynical intent: It’s very possible that all of these less-than-functional decisions, that I observed, were made with high-minded intentions and that Todd Philips etc. and the other filmmakers have very detailed heartfelt explanations for each one. But… thing about explanations is, well… you
wanna take this one, Mr. J? “If you have to explain a joke, there is no joke!” I’m Bob and that’s The Big Picture.


100 Replies to “Is Joker Actually ‘About’ Anything? | The Big Picture”

  1. Shadow_Suspended_oNdust says:

    This tub of lard gave godzilla: king of monsters almost 4 stars. Also the reason this movie takes place in the 80s is most likely because we're facing the same social disparities as people in the 80s did. Nothing ends but nothing changes either. That's the joke.

  2. Matthew Charles Shivell-Saufley says:

    According to you, Bob, society+bad mom is what made Fleck into Joker and that's the point of the script.

    The movie gives us multiple conditions for Fleck's malevolent turn;

    -Childhood abuse and trauma
    -Brain injury
    -Adult denial/forgetfulness of childhood abuse and trauma
    -Medication with inadequate counseling
    -Physical assault from strangers
    -Inflated expectations of successful career in comedy
    -No decent career prospects followed by firing from unfulfilling job
    -Inflated expectations of romance
    -Killing in self-defense
    -Cut off access to counseling
    -Withdrawal from medication
    -Recovery of memories of childhood abuse and trauma
    -Revenge for childhood abuse and neglect, murder now gratifying
    -Deflated expectations of romance
    -Plan to murder one's self
    -Chance at televised spotlight
    -Murder of incriminating coworker
    -Shifting focus to cause of further humiliation (De Niro)
    -More murder, especially gratifying
    -Worship from followers
    -Enjoying worship

    Given all these conditions, Bob, while you say the script says 'nothing' is it possible that this is a detailed character study much like other scripts that are also character studies? Why do you say the script says nothing? Do you separate character studies from good scripts? Can a good character study make a good script?

    Do you still love THE LAST JEDI?

  3. John wayne says:

    Your analysis is dumb, sir .

  4. kris hall says:

    Why are we talking about joker again? Because you're self-justifying the position you took on it. Your review accorded entirely with the thoughts you expressed about the film before seeing it and this suggests you watched the film and experienced confirmation bias. The position you decided to take on it prior to seeing the film was that you agreed with what you thought to be the 'progressive liberal' view espoused by many of your peers. However, all that position really is, is the divide et impera position of the powerful interests threatened by the social message of the film. You suspect this to be true and you can't handle cognitive dissonance.

  5. Ian Smart says:

    Ppl here seem upset and i don't really care about if they think his points about the movie are true.

    What I DO wanna point out is Bob's really poignant point about acknowledging what's on screen and not what filmmakers and marketing teams are telling you the film is about or evoking. That the references, ideas, and depth in the film are the result of ppl telling us this is what we're doing. That needs to be said for more movies.

    I feel the same way about CA: Winter Soldier when they reference it as a political thriller in the same vein as All the President's Men or The Parallax View. I don't think that film does anything close to the one's it's "inspired" by, but ppl tend to run with that narrative and somehow view it through the prism of these films that actually earned prestige and not just referenced it in an attempt to seem deep.

    Not saying you're wrong for feeling like there's a lot of depth in any given film, but I find that films that claim that, "well we're making THESE kinds of movies," often only pay lip service to them and don't play to the context of the equivalent contemporary political landscape or just don't commit to fully interrogating what the questions that the way those older more ambitious films did.

    More than anything, It just showed me how many ppl in the media just DON'T watch movies (or don't really think about them). Because if they did, they'd realize a film like Winter Soldier or a film like Joker only really reference those film in a surface level and does none of the work to reach the depths of the ideas presented in those films (whether socially or politically). The fact that ppl reference JOKER'S depth in that it reminds them of older BETTER films says a lot about the lack of original ideas in the film.

    And it shows JUST HOW LITTLE the audiences defending Joker actually understand what Scorsese and similarly grimy NYC films were doing with their stories. Have these ppl seen BLUE COLLAR? Have they seen BLOW OUT or SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER or DOG DAY AFTERNOON? Because the ppl in Joker don't seem anything like the people in those films nor have any of the ideas that it's obviously trying to present.

  6. InMaTeofDeath says:

    It's amazing how someone who watches movies for a living can't understand that a character study is going to be a movie "about" said character, why he requires it to be more than that I'm not sure.

  7. Jordan Moscovitch says:

    Bob, my dear man, what is it with this most basic reading of the story? This is a film 'about' an angry man-baby who can't take responsibility for his own shortcomings and hides in fantasy. Only on the most superficial reading do you take the veracity of his subjective narrative (or the sympathy it's meant to generate) at face value, after the girlfriend reveal.

    The film is actually very critical of Joker, via his inability to be honest with himself, or us. And I would think that would be right up your alley. You must be quite exhausted to have not picked that up, because I think otherwise you would have. That being said, the last line of the film is something along the lines of "I don't think you'd get it…"

    Joker hints at Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, sure, but it's genius is that it's Shutter Island.

  8. vatsetis says:

    Well Mr Bob, you pretend to be very smart but you didnt understand a damm thing about this film plot… Alfred might believe that actually his mother is the only responsable about his bad situation, and thats is why he kills her (you know he is someone with mental and social issues). But to pretend that Thonas Wayne (how is clearly portrayed as the villain of the film) has nothing to do with Flecks destiny is non sensical. This is Internet film critic at it worst. 🙁

  9. Space Cowboy says:

    I have main 2 thought on this film after seeing it.
    1. Its pretense for meaning and social commentary are so disjointed and mishandled. The only was i can see it as intentional as if is some kind of dadaist take on message movies. A message movie with no messages.
    2. Who brings a wicker chair to a riot. Seriously in 2 scenes during the riot a man hold above his head a large wicker chair. It bothers me more than anything else about this film.

  10. Hank Dundon says:

    Is this video actually about anything?

    Or was just 11 minutes of Bullshit.
    Answer these questions to figure out
    1) did he say anything actually meaning full or relevant specifically to the movie he was reviewing?

    2) Is the criticism given explored upon in a meaningful way that gives understand to the viewer?

    3) Does the reviewer repeat a lot of the same criticism over and over again?

    If you answered yes to anyone of these three than that review is Bullshit

  11. Sunupu5150 says:

    You gave your hand away before even seeing this film with the "yet another portrayal of a sympathetic white male psychopath" drama. It's the same problem you demonstrate here with the Columbine kids – you conflate empathy with feeling sorry for them, but of course empathy is about understanding their perspective.

    I don't believe The Joker just wants you to feel sorry for Fleck, but it does want you to understand that lack of solidarity is one of the reasons he becomes the monster he is. Smug condescension doesn't solve this issue – we need to find a way to integrate people like this back into society or the problem will continue to get worse

  12. Army1601 says:

    Jeez, its Homecoming all over again with you Bob. Youre gonna have to accept that alot of people are with this version of the Joker, even if youre not…

  13. Benedict Saunders says:

    Your plot run down is completely botched! Arthur Fleck displayed his fantasy life and his escaping from his reality was shown at the very start of the film. You have changed the narrative of the film to fit your bias… Bob your better than this

  14. Jose 84 says:

    For someone who hates this movie so much, Bob dedicates it a lot of time…oh, right, money.

  15. Stanger_in_the_Alps says:

    Sometimes it feels like Bob is watching a different movie in his head.

  16. Cloud73 says:

    I feel like you've ironically given a bunch of reasons why it's worthwhile to see the movie. Just because something has been done before doesn't mean it isn't worth doing again, and if the movie restricted itself to outdated issues then it would, by extension, be outdated and not worth our time. It knows that it's taking from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, we know that, but why are you so put off by it?

  17. No one Nowhere says:

    So I went and saw the film. Here's my hot take:

    The pastiche is intentional, when the director said he was going to sneak a real movie into The Joker he meant it with no pretense he actually meant it literally.
    Because The King Of Comedy has literally been snuck into this film.
    The reason why it's been snuck in isn't just blatant copycatting or plagirism however.

    It's to tell us something very important: Arthur Fleck (Though perhaps not under that name) was indeed the first Joker,
    but the man we see at the end of the movie ISN'T Arthur Fleck, however he IS the Joker.

    His version of Arthur Flecks story is a pastiche of popular culture because he never actually knew Arthur,
    (who died in that car accident during the riots) but he recreates Arthurs story as best he can with help from popular culture,
    likely some of his own psychological trauma/whatever history is common knowledge and maybe even the Arkham Case Files on Penny Fleck since he's interned.

    The last scene is also set closer to the Batman part of the Gotham timeline.
    Thus explaining how Arthur Fleck can be the first Joker and The Joker can still be Batmans nemisis.

    Also the reason the society line is cringey is because it's coming from the real Arthur, the historical one who is now dead.
    It's his awkwardness, misery and self pity coming out on screen.
    This goes against the Jokers idealized depiction of him as fully realized and whole in his new role.
    But it is the actual history so the Joker has an actual memory of it and therefore doesn't embellish as much.

    The "you wouldn't get it" line refers to either the fact that this Joker is different or it is a fourth wall break refering to the fact that the Joker inadvertently (Or advertently if the masked man went on to carry on the legacy) created Batman (Or both of these things). The Therapist is the same Therapist and Arthur looks the same as this Joker because that is how the Joker sees Arthur, as himself and he likely sees no difference between Arthurs therapist and his own either, holding them both in contempt as shown by the blood on the shoes at the end.

    So in conclusion The Joker IS about something: It's about The Joker. The First One and His Sucessor or potentially Sucessors.

    Why you or anyone else would look for a moral or political message in a film about the Joker I'm not sure. Don't you know what kind of character he is?

  18. Kristopher Tadlock says:

    What I found interesting about Joker is how it made violence feel empowering. Aurther is poor, borderline autistic, and lacks opportunity or agency. He kills three men in a panic and suddenly this down trodden sob story becomes a powerful symbol of rebellion. I didn't see the purpose of the movie in aggrandizing and validating violence. Instead it shows how, through neglect, the weakest and most marginalized can be compelled to violence when it is their only option. Arthur becomes a more interesting, confident, and self actualized character when he stops trying to make it in society and instead actively rebels against it. It is a cautionary tale. Evil people are not born, they are created. It is just as important in the plot to believe that Arthur could have been a good person, because otherwise the sympathy and empathy we felt for him wouldn't have worked.

    I felt that the 80's setting was just an attempt to be faithful to the source material, and to serve the general visual themes the movie was going for. The social and political commentary being evocative of our time didn't bother me, as I was willing to accept it as a fantasy settings similar to our own, rather than the literal 80's of our time.

  19. sleepy says:

    Set in the 80s because of dark knight returns lol

  20. killustrator says:

    So the goal of this channel is to talk monotone as quickly as possible

  21. Liam - says:

    It's a shame you take certain interpretations you have at face value.
    i.e. the mother thing is left disputed in the end with the picture, that Fleck doesn't care does not diminish that, but your critique there is wholly based on him just being done in by his mom… which by the way is also fundamentally not the whole story.
    A second example would be that you've not taken the entire cutting of mental health funding leading to lack of both medication and Fleck into account and the fact that this is directly referencing a situation in the 80's.

    You've got some points, but some are not as strong as they can be because you were so set to gun this down from some point on it seems like you've not been looking carefully enough.

  22. Penguin Publisher says:

    I love Movie Bob's think pieces and well-formulated opinions, but sometimes it backfires because he ends up overthinking things too much and it can get in the way of enjoying a well-made movie. He needs to get politics out of his mind sometimes…

    The film is called "Joker". He's in every single scene of the movie. It's told from his perspective. He is a villain and has a twisted mind. He's a master manipulator and his greatest skill is psychological warfare. This movie is exactly that. An origin story told from the Joker's perspective to make you feel bad about him even though, at the end of the day, there are no justifications for his killings. Todd Phillips isn't that much of an idiot. He was never trying to comment on society or send that deep of a message. He's telling the Joker's story the way the Joker would tell it to you.

    Another reason why this movie really works is because it is able to act as a mirror. The audience will connect or react to Arthur Fleck in one of two ways. Either, they'll see a part of themselves in him (loneliness, anxiety, depression, sadness, etc.) or they'll feel guilt because someday (maybe back in school or on the play yard) they might have bullied someone the way the Joker was bullied and ask themselves if they might have been the bad guy to the bad guy at some point in their lives.

    The fact that this movie is so divisive and made everyone on both sides be so reactive to it shows how much the movie about the Joker is well made.

  23. adam122352 says:

    For my point here I will have to spoil the big thing at the end of the movie. So SPOILERS.

    I think the whole point of the movie, and in a weird way it's brilliance, is that we have no idea any of this actually happened or what parts are and aren't true. To understand what I mean you have to look at the final scene where he is in the asylum.

    This is a story told from the Joker's perspective, a character who is quoted as saying "if I'm going to have a backstory, I prefer it be multiple choice.". He is a liar, a conman, the best manipulator in the business, and smart to a level where it's on par with batman. There are so many clashing themes because he is just taking and appropriating some of the biggest issues of recent years he has seen on the news at the asylum and spinning them into his tale for craps and laughs.

    All of it could be true or none of it or somewhere in between. That's the point, its an origin story with no real origin, because the Joker has never needed a real origin to exist, that defeats the point of the joker if you understand or sympathize with him.

    That final scene of the film shows that he is manipulative, cunning, and based off the blood on his shoes, violent and unhinged. All the things the true Joker is, I loved the movie and as a massive Joker nerd, think it did wonderfully portraying him and getting out of Heath Ledger's shadow.

  24. Dominic Teoh says:

    Phillip's said he made Joker because wokeness 'ruined the game'. Well perhaps Joker is a condemnation of the extremes of wokeness, ie infantilism, irresponsibility/adopting a victim mindset, self-righteousness, self-delusion and entitlement.
    My reading of it was every single person in the film was responsible for Joker by failing to do their duties, and the result was 100% catastrophic for everyone, including Arthur. So the message, to me, is be as absolutely responsible as possible because it all matters.

  25. The Ouchiegiver says:

    Who actually watches this guy? I just come here to dislike the video cause movie Bob is a poor critic.

  26. Brandon Pye says:

    Bob chipman, why do you honestly still have a job? Did you even watch the movie? Why do movies have to be good because of their themes and not because of a well-constructed story. People like you are the reason that trash movies get praised and give other movie makers the wrong idea. Also, stop talking like a billion words a minute, you are not yahtzee and you will never be.

  27. Tulip Holmgren says:

    You are completely wrong to assume Thomas Wayne was right.

    If you re watch the scenes with Thomas and with (presumably) Alfred you will get that the photo you see at the end was actually taken by Thomas Wayne himself and the "boyfriend" who beat Arthur was TW himself. Thomas Wayne is a billionaire politician who punches guys just asking for the truth in the face before they make any hostile gestures.

    Honestly, the only type of people who would think Thomas Wayne was not most likely a monster after seeing that movie should be some kind of Trump supporter who also thinks "rich means never evil" or something.

  28. Dmol8 says:

    Literally 4 days after this Innuendo Studios released How to Radicalize a Normie. In today's terms Joker is a Gabe who got Black Pilled and then decided on the fact that he is popular to do murder to others instead of himself. The reason why the movie is meaningless is because on a meta-textual level the Joker is about refusing to give meaning to one self and instead drowning oneself in violence and negligence.

    You even touch upon that point by pointing out that the Bernie Goetz shootings are being directly referenced by the movie in the subway murders of Wayne Enterprises Employees by Arthur Fleck. Instead of being dangerous Black People in this violent fantasy it's Violent Drunk Wall Street types that are attacking Arthur and well he had to defend himself didn't he? Just one question already asked here before: What are Rich Bankers doing taking the subway? In reality Fleck probably killed some low level employees who had to take the subway and Wayne Enterprises just has a dress code that requires everyone to wear suits. Of course one of the fuck ups of this movie is to not show us this reality once it gets into revealing whats behind the curtain of Artur's psychosis.

  29. Dan Harvey says:

    Finally, somebody who doesn't ejaculate every time this movie is brought up. I was going to see this until people started treating it like a second coming of Jesus. Still haven't seen it, don't think I will.

  30. Benersan the Bread says:

    Ah, of course. People mean the entirety of the Left when they criticize the far left. But then again, you sound like one of the morons who think that the right is basically the same as the far right. God, this video is an assault against my eardrums…
    And no, I'm left wing. But I doubt you are considering this movie's ideas of support for impoverished and mentally unhealthy people apparently mean nothing to you.

  31. Ferdia O'Brien says:

    2:29 You're aware they weren't born that way right? Something caused those feelings and opinions to manifest. Also, do you really not get why movies set in different times touch on points relevant to today? Like, really?

  32. MCCrleone354 says:

    Not even a minute in and I call BS. Joker is an unexpected success, because the American media was out to get this film before it even came out. People were calling it a film that would insight mass shootings, it seemed as though such people even wanted one to occur for the sake of a, “see I told you so” moment. It freaked out theater chains to the point where some wouldn’t show the movie and others demanded extra security just to appease such moral busy bodies. And yet the film was a success. The moral panic had backfired. Even Todd Philips upset many moral busy bodies but calling out the stupidity of “offended” Twitter mobs.

    Also Joker is part of “the most popular (movie) genre in the world” (implying that Joker is a “Superhero” film) It’s not. It was clearly marketed as a psychological thriller that just has a superhero’s main villain as the star. Physiological thrillers have never made almost $1 billion. Even thrillers with superhero elements don’t make this kind of money!

    The premise is false, Moviebob. I’m now just watching to enjoy this train wreck of an editorial to see what else you get wrong.

  33. MCCrleone354 says:

    Todd Philips blames negative reviews on “Woke Culture” and the “Far-Left”…
    😜 MUH IRONY!!! Michael Moore likes Joker!
    Oh dear, Moviebob.

    You also aren’t addressing Philips’ point. He has called out “Woke Culture” and the far left, these phrases being pluralities or collectives. You point to one guy who loves Philips’ film
    The “Far Left” =/= Michael Moore. (one guy who is left leaning)
    You either don’t know what an anecdote is or you hope we don’t know what that is.

    By the way Michael Moore doesn’t want to be called a “Political Activist.” So at least portray him accurately.

  34. MCCrleone354 says:

    This movie is dumb to Moviebob because:
    It hits wrong notes the loudest. (Whatever that means)
    He doesn’t know why it takes place in the 80s… Because it’s an origin story. You usually ORIGINATE sometime in the past. Should it have been set in the 90s, the 2000s, the 70s modern day? You need to quantify this criticism.
    It must have been expensive to set the movie in the 80s. That doesn’t make the film good or bad.
    Opioid psych medication pasted on an 80s setting? Bob thinks people were not frequently being over prescribed or poorly prescribed in the 80s? Citation needed. Also, opioids are not mentioned by name in the film, this is just conjecture on your part. ALSO, 7 (different types of) medications? I’m going to have to watch the movie again to fact check that. It sounds like an exaggeration.

    Arthur bombing during stand up and him having a video clip of it on Murrey’s show is “going viral” and that “didn’t just happen” back then. This false equivalency is Moviebob’s crowning achievement in stretching the truth. First of all, Late night Comedians would play clips of people doing stupid things to riff for decades. Second, before his second TV appearance, where in the movie do people recognize Arthur, and say anything like “hey I recognize your crappy stand up from Murrey’s show”, or anything like that? Neither Arthur’s real name nor identity become immediately famous. (His Joker character however does. I hope you don’t think that’s what becomes “viral”. That’s like saying Charles Manson’s or Varg Vikernes’ personality cults came as a result of “going viral.” No it’s because sensationalist books and documentaries, TV shows were made about them making them “infamous.”) I’m only halfway in and your script is hemorrhaging when exposed to the truth.

  35. MCCrleone354 says:

    “ there’s usually a specific reason or point of a narrative as to why movies take place in the past” Here is why Phillips set it in the 80s: he wanted to create a universe/continuity divorced from the DC movie continuity so that the film can do its own thing and “isn’t fucking with anything (DC/Warner Bros) have going on”. You wanted Joker to do more with the 80s setting? This is purely subjective. It did a lot with the setting IMO. Clint Eastwood PSAs. Phillips can make whatever movie he wants, the setting is going to do little to make it a good or bad film. The movie takes place in the 80s because it’s an origin story/prequel for a character and we the audience can be immersed with the character as being in the past with him. Another fine reason. Moviebob is harping on a nonpoint here.

    TANGENT: I think the reason why more movies will be set in the past is because our modern-day it-communication centered lives are not cinematically interesting. There’s nothing dramatic about staring at your smart phone and posting on social media, staring at computers to read emails etc. so in order for movies to have different opportunities for drama they’re gonna have to take place in times where technology was more limited. The plot of Many Western movies, crime thrillers and horror films would be over in 20 minutes thanks to cell phones, cars, Omnipresent Surveilence cameras etc.

  36. Adam Bram says:

    I just got back from seeing this. And while I am a little more charitible because the good parts WERE really good and legitimately entertained me, its anachronistic bits and muddled social commentary do bring it down for me too. Especially at the ending.

  37. TattooedTarotReader says:

    It's just a fun, nihilistic movie. It's like if the Naked Massacre aped Taxi Driver and somehow ended up with a huge theatrical release.

  38. Gabkicks says:

    Damn this took the words right out of my mouth. i was kinda disappointed with the joker.

  39. Magic Man says:

    Did you really put a "womp womp womp" trombone after revealing a plot point about CHILD ABUSE?! I know you didn't like the film Bob, but that was in poor taste.

  40. Andrew Camden says:

    Wow! I knew that moviebob was something of a hack ever since I saw him say that "any criticism of Rey as a Mary Sue is 1000 percent sexism" but this is bad even for him. I think it's safe to say that this is the last time I watch any of his reviews. Fortunately the Joker, which is the most profitable R-rated movie ever, doesn't need the highly suspect opinions of people like him to succeed.

  41. Anton A. says:

    Is MovieBob a joke? Well, yes he is. Just not a funny one.

  42. Alexander Sinco says:

    I agree with your plot summary and with your conclusion starting at 9:45 but that´s maybe I didn´t see the trailers, nor read the reviews before or was exposed to tv or social media before seeing the movie. To me it´s a great movie, because it´s well made and it was entertaining, but I don´t think is a revelatory film. I take the film for what it is and not for what I would like it to be.

  43. I only know says:

    I've never seen a bigger idiot

  44. Snakeye Plissken says:

    Is Joker Actually About Anything? | The Big Picture

  45. TheGhostComputer says:

    Comparing this to Bernie Getz and then insisting that was a way of whitewashing racism and dressing it in the cultural trappings of 2019 class politics… wow. This guy goes so far out of his own way to serve up these piping hot galaxy brain hot takes it would be impressive if it wasn't pathetic. Also, trying to dismiss the amount of money it made in its opening weekend as meaningless rings particularly hollow now that the film is quite literally the most successful film of all time.

  46. The Cinema Grotesque says:

    During the filming of Taxi Driver there was a garbage strike. Made the streets look dirty as well as being literal and metaphoric filth overflowing into the streets. The joker movie incorporated the garbage strike because Taxi Driver inspired the movie, the trash works and does the same thing along with giving the story another point of financial/class tension. That's why it's there.  
    The story takes place in the 80's for a few reasons but one of them is because excess and prosperity is something we largely associate with the 80's so the movie Makes Thomas Wayne represent that excess while showing us characters who were still financially suffering, which as you say is something topical today. Yeah the occupy thing happened in like 2010 but it's still something that people talk about regardless if they still wear the silly masks or not. Did it HAVE to take place in the 80's? No. Does it make sense that it does? Yes. Is it fun in movies to be transported to different times or places? Also yes.

  47. T- time 21 says:

    God it must have hurt Moviebob to know Michael Moore loved Joker

  48. Jay Simpson says:

    Cinema Roberto foiled again.

  49. bronze189 says:

    why does zero punctuation share a channel with this clown named movie blob (yes i know his name is not "blob" but his personality and shape definitely resemble one)?

  50. Justin K says:

    Your take on joker is bad. You come across as pompous and butt hurt. You appear as someone who is mad at it’s success. Your takes are out of touch and your reviews are lazy. Its almost like you didn’t watch the movie, or was more interested in the nachos. Way wrong on this one. You are irrelevant now

  51. Grant Paulsen says:

    It’s amazing the lack of self-awareness that pretentious, self impressed douchebags like this guy has.

  52. Justin K says:

    How do you get money for this? Your employer and patrons must be as dense as a ping pong ball

  53. W33B LORD says:

    What the fuck is "eye-ran-ee?" Did you recently have a stroke?

  54. Justin K says:

    And do you speed up your speech in hopes no one will actually process your garble and realize you actually have nothing to say?

  55. MR. J says:

    jesus christ did you even watch the movie? you leave out so much context list events out of order and outright make some shit up.

  56. Joseph Valencia says:

    Smile! You're on EFAP, fatty! 😂👌

  57. GRIN TV says:

    Bob is a pseudo intellectual with brain damage

  58. Happy Nihilist says:

    This idiotic video got what it derived, from EFAP!!!!!

  59. Grey, Son of Krieg says:

    This "man" is making $3600 on Patreon. Just letting everyone know that you can be shit and successful at the same time.

  60. Ethen Millard says:

    Is moviebob an idiot? This is the first video of his I've watched and it's like he didn't even watch the movie, just read a few Vice articles and decided to make a video.

  61. Steven Donald says:

    I enjoyed it.
    I'm me, and that's the bottom line.

  62. Nicholas Quinton says:

    Dear Escapist,

    Please unhire Bob. He has no idea what he is talking about and this has been obvious now for years. Seriously fire this weasely asshole.

  63. MrNinjaBurger says:

    I'm not even convinced you watched this movie. That or you're perhaps one of the most obvious people I've ever seen.. Escapist this guy hurts your brand and you would be better served cutting him off sooner rather than later.

  64. Fellowdeer says:

    did bob just play a wa, waaa after talking about a little boy being abused repeatedly so much he developed physical and mental problems. Bob is the best example of someone who decides if the movie is good or bad in advance and then start to find reasons. That's why he can find meta-naratives and super deep themes in TLJ, but tries as hard as fuck to undermine the Joker, while getting things wrong again and again. And here I thought that the joker was quite simple and easy to understand, but yet again i have underestimated the capacity for human ignorance.

  65. Dáithí Ó Murchú says:

    What MovieBob is really saying; this film does not hold my political and social views, therefore it's bad.

  66. Abso Lutely says:

    I was almost waiting for a term like "masochist" to show up in this review somewhere. This is the state of Hollywood folks. If any characters or film directors aren't non-binary gender fluid blue haired Twitter activists they don't have anything to say. You can dislike joker that's fine, but straight out making shit up makes no sense

  67. DarkraiKing says:

    I hear a lot of talking and no substance in any of it. You make statements without supporting them, just acting like everything you said was fact. I did not like the movie, but even I realize that this movie is more than you are letting on. You are so wrong about so many aspects of this movie I doubt that you actually watched the thing.

  68. GarlicPudding says:

    The triggered meatheads in the comments amuse me.

  69. BirdBro says:

    Joker fanboys big mad about this one.

  70. Reed McKinney says:

    Really hard to believe that a smart chap like Yahtzee can be on the same channel as this psuedo-intellectual ham sandwich of a human being.

  71. Timefliesbye says:

    It's quite funny that a show called "The big picture" is able to offer the most myopic peripherally blind view on any topic.

  72. Shinku no Yami [Not for kids] says:

    Bob's first point… He is aware of all the superhero movies that have failed, right? A movie is not immune to failure just because it's of a popular character and/or series. There have been so many DC movies that came out that haven't done well.

  73. Shinku no Yami [Not for kids] says:

    Also first and foremost, I kinda assumed that Joker was about showing how Joker came to be. It establishes that he has a fundamental problem with society, and that how he came to be was not just the result of one freak accident or one specific event/issue. This is very in-line with at least the Dark Knight's Joker, as he makes it abundantly clear that he has a problem with how society operates at its core, himself being a monster that was born as a culmination of all the corruption and from the underbelly of that society.

  74. Shin Kanzato says:

    God stop talking Bob, I can't believe anyone likes you.

  75. Daniel Thompson says:

    Did you watch the movie?

  76. Lord of Subspace says:

    I guess Bob doesn't understand how the poor deal with things, considering he makes more than twice the amount of someone working minimum wage at 40 hours a week. Yeah Bob, the poor don't have problems, it's all race issues. That's the only problem America's ever had and ever will have.

    Also I love how you claim the film is misogynistic for "the mother causing 90% of the problems." You know, cause the film doesn't actually say that and it speaks more about you. I mean, how'd you even come to that conclusion? His mom essentially does two things that assist in the creation of the Joker- allowing a spouse to abuse him to the point he started developing mental issues (probably on top of already present issues that were passed down through genetics), and saying that Thomas Wayne was his father. Both of these problems stem from her own mental problems, so I wouldn't even blame her entirely for what goes on. She's literally delusional. She struggles to remember things such as the fact he was adopted or that he was being abused.

    Now what else happens to the Joker? Well, due to his mental illness and his job as a clown, he probably was beaten up more than just the one time by the kids. However, if I'm limited to what is actually shown in the movie… Well, for starters, he works for a terrible company. His boss is dismissive and uncaring. Apparently all his co-workers, aside from Gary, were cruel to him, Arthur says as much when he lets the poor man go. His psychiatrist doesn't help him much, or at least she isn't doing enough in Arthur's eyes. I went to a lot of people as a child to deal with my autism, so maybe those shrinks were a little different, but mine were always kind and listened to my problems. The social worker doesn't even seem to care about the hints of suicidal tendencies. Then there's the government whose cutting funding for social programs, meaning that Arthur no longer has access to several very vital medications. He bombs repeatedly as a comedian, essentially his dream job. He bombs so bad his lifelong idol, a man he sees as the closest thing to a father figure, mocks Arthur.

    I mean, Joker even says he only killed the people who wronged him. Which is why the first three killings were against the young, successful guys on the subway who were assaulting him, then there was his mother, the man who gave him a gun in the hopes of getting him fired, and the idol that mocked him.

    Finally, I thought a man who advocated for social justice would understand the message of the movie. Villains aren't born, they're created. Molded slowly over time by genetics, societal influences, individuals such as family, friends, co-workers, and of course, the government whose every miniscule action will affect millions of people. We are all in some way responsible for the horrors that afflict society. People aren't born evil, society molds them to be.

  77. watchALLthethings says:

    Uhm, did you watch the movie? You got a lot of things wrong in this. He was already psychotic before the shooting, and Thomas Wayne was running for mayor before the protests, and Arthur was also losing his shit because the state and social services cut funding to his medication and psychiatric care. What's the point of reviewing or critiquing a movie if you don't even have the basic shit down? And his mother isn't primarily the reason he loses it, it's a culmination of being kicked the shit out of, treated like shit, his boss not giving him the benefit of the doubt, his co-worker giving him a gun to protect himself and later getting fired for having it on his person (granted, was stupid, but was likely forgotten about by Arthur), getting kicked the shit out of again, being deified and condemned by two factions of a shitty society, being roasted by his fantasized father figure on national television and then actually being invited on the show to be mocked. Watch the movie again dumbass. And how, HOW, HOW the fuck, in what way is he a misogynist? Explain your baseless criticisms please, because you make no sense and you come off as an excruciatingly fat idiot.

  78. Bernard Oliveira says:

    As you can see from this video there are many ways we can tell Bob is retarded. But seeing as he didn't bother to explain any of his points or even get the order of events right I will not bother too either.

  79. kulthobbit says:

    Movie Roberto: The Rise of Diabeto

  80. Toomany .Toastuhs says:

    Usually Moviebob's commentaries are just laughably stupid… but this shit is actually insulting. If this is what you TRULY believe, Bob, then you're actual human garbage. Especially for using Columbine, nay, mischaracterizing such a tragic horrible disgusting event to fit a modern political agenda to make some backward point about Joker is sickening. You're scum.

  81. Shinku no Yami [Not for kids] says:

    When Bob was summarizing the plot, is it me or did he really mix up the order of the events, and straight up forget to mention some? Arthur started imagining his fake relationship with that girl before he killed the 3 guys on the subway, which would be an early indicator of his mental breakdown. Also that shooting didn't inspire Thomas Wayne to run for mayor, because he was already running for mayor by that point. He'd called the rioters "clowns", which iirc is what caused them to start donning the clown masks.

    And while the inspiration for this movie being set in the 80s is because of Reagan cutting funding for mental health help, and I did read that in 1992 there were mass riots that broke out because one man was beaten by the police, this is still just a work of fiction. It's not a documentary, so it doesn't 1-to-1 have to line up with all the events of our world, unless your argument is "Film is shit. None of this happened in the real world". But still, riots aren't specific to a decade. They can happen at any time.

    Sure it didn't have to be set in the 80s, but what's wrong with it being in the 80s? How is that worse than the 90s or 2000 and up?

    This video says that Joker doesn't mean anything or say anything, but ironically this video also hasn't said anything about how that is the case. Nothing he's said has proven his conclusion. Nothing he's said is relevant to his conclusion nor counters the opposition. He'll I've seen people complaining that the message was too obvious – people like Jenny Nicholson. That's gotta be awkward for Bob.

  82. SvendleBerries says:

    Moviebob – "Arthur lives alone."
    Also Moviebob – "Arthurs mother lives with him."

  83. Japeth321 says:

    I like how most defenses of Joker start with: "You seem so privileged. Of course you don't understand this film, because you have never truly suffered in society. I mean… not that I have, but I've briefly talked with people who have AND THIS MOVIE TOTALLY GETS IT!!!"

  84. VoiceMonkey says:

    Does Bob not understand that by labeling the Columbine shooters white supremacist neo nazis and not looking deeper or asking why or how those two boys ended up there is proving Michael Moore's point?

    Bob really thought he had one up'd Moore didn't he?

  85. Brotmeister says:

    "It's not about race! 0 out of 10!"
    – Bob, a big brained racist

  86. Ronald Macdonald says:

    Serious question:
    Did you watch the same movie?

  87. polixter421 says:

    "Why is the movie set in the 1980s"? Maybe cause that was the defining decade of neoliberalistic policy and cuts to social services that ultimately made the world's Jokers

  88. Channel Pup says:

    YoU dIdN’t DiSlIkE tHe MoViE, yOu JuSt DiDn’T uNdErStAnD iT. To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to enjoy Joker. As proven by the crybabies in the comments section that can’t handle a different opinion. Pathetic.

  89. Firensid says:

    You know… I personally actually agree that Joker kind of fails to get its messages across without fumbling all the way through with shallow explanations that could’ve felt true and more well reasoned.
    However! I kind of think the same thing about this video, I feel like Bob also fails to convey why Joker doesn’t always convey what I think it’s trying to say in the most convincing of ways.

    And don’t get me wrong, I also kind of liked Joker and Joaquin was absolutely fantastic in it. I think some of the themes of society letting people down and the need for treating mental health seriously are really worthy themes to explore and show people. I just think that it could’ve done a better job exploring and showing these themes.

    I don’t begrudge people who don’t feel like me either, if you got those things out of the movie and felt that those parts were well told, then that’s just great and I wish I could’ve had that too, because then this movie would truly resonate with me and be more than just a fairly good movie I saw.

  90. That Goth Nerd says:

    You did not see the the movie.

  91. yeti112 says:

    After his investigation Detective Ham Hock came to the conclusion that Joker isn't about anything.

  92. Jesse Golo says:

    7:58 It's saying that even though the murders, and anything joker doesn't have a political agenda, people are desperate to see one anyway. I knew that before I eve watched the movie because people were comparing the media's reaction to joker to what happened.

  93. Jesse Golo says:

    9:44 And if society didn't act as apathetic and 'ridiculously' horrible as it does in the movie, he may have turned out different. He even spares the dwarf who was nice to him. I'll ask again, did you watch this movie?

  94. Jesse Golo says:

    What misogyny? Because he hallucinated having a girlfriend? You're just saying words with no meaning.

  95. Jesse Golo says:

    Maybe Moore liked joker because it's a kinda apolitical movie, regardless of what he director said. Oh yeah, there are political opinions, but most are misinterpreting apolitical actions.

  96. Lethos1000 says:

    Ok from what I´m getting from this Video you are complaining that there are no real mentions for the big events that seemed to be the reason for everything that happaned in the Movie, like that it´s the Reagen era Budget cuts or that the scene in the Subway should have been about racism and that riots in that time era couldn´t have been about anything other than racism???
    But you are AWARE, that this is a fictional Movie about a fictional character in a fictional City in a fictional world that for all we know might not even be our reality of said world (and we know that there are parallel worlds in the DC Universe).
    That´s like complaining that there was the Red Skull in and Supersoldiers WW 2 in the Marvel Universe. Also the technology in Marvel and DC was always ahead of the real world, even if it was just slightly.
    You can take events from our reality as inspiration to put events with similiar effects in your stories without them having the same source. Joker is not a documentary.
    And riots in the past had other reasons than racism too. They are not an invention of our time! You just need the right circumstances and the right person to get the masses to go ape shit.
    And his Mother was respnsible for 90% of what had happened to him??? Did she paid the thugs to fuck him up with the sign?
    Did she pay the three guys in the sub to kick his ass?
    Did she tell someone to sell him a gun?
    Was she the one who told the TV Show Host – who he has seen as a father figure – to make fun of him?
    Yes she did fucked up things to him, but they were still just some of the reasons he snapped.
    And everybody is complaining that this Movie is a ripoff of Taxi Driver, it sure had inspiration from it, but even if it would be a total ripoff I say so what? I take a ripoff of Taxi Driver anytime over the next 50 Marvel Super Hero Movies like Captain Marvel and 100 Disney life-action adaptation ala Lion King or 6 more AVATAR Movies, thank you VERY much.

  97. Doktor Rudolf Heükmenn says:

    Are you seriously insinuating that the Columbine Massacre was entirely based on racism and nothing else? Are you joking me? You do realize that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were bullied beyond belief, which led them to the point of no return, right? I resent Michael Moore, but he's spot on with his views on this movie and the Columbine Massacre. I WAS ALMOST A FUCKING SCHOOL SHOOTER! WHAT MICHAEL MOORE DESCRIBED WAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS FUCKING GOING THROUGH!!!! LUCKILY ENOUGH, I GOT HELP AND I'M A BETTER PERSON NOW! I'M HISPANIC, SO ARE YOU GONNA BLAME MY FEELINGS ON RACISM?!?!?!
    It takes a lot for me to say this to someone, but fuck you, Robert Chipman. You're a complete idiot who pretends to know exactly how mental health works and what real life is like, but actually know jackshit about it.
    Fuck. You. Bob.

  98. Filip Stellberg says:

    More than 2700 people clicked "Like" on this pile of horse poop. Let that sink in for a moment.

  99. Devan Sires says:

    Mate wtf are you talking about, this makes no sense nor is this consistent with what the actual movie you're talking about

  100. Captain Anopheles says:

    You asked for the worst possible take to this movie and here it is.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *