Stephen Duncan

Reviews and other content aren't verified by Google

Doesn't look or behave anything like a Pixar movie, and it most certainly is not suitable for children. Here we have perhaps the greatest stride into what is called 'cultural terrorism' in big budget animated movie form. It pains itself to subvert the minds of those watching it, particularly promoting female masculinity and homosexuality, male fragility, while laughing at the literally half-dead father figure. Children need protecting from many of these themes until they are of an age they can understand and decide for themselves how they want to live their lives. Unfortunately, something wicked is stirring in Hollywood and they don't have our best interests at heart.

"There was a new Addams Family movie last year?" was my question before curiosity guided us to select it for last night's movie. It didn't take long before I regretted agreeing to watch it. This is yet another hijacked franchise, using Hollywood's favourite template plot of the last decade about the need to break family and cultural traditions, promote inclusiveness, yet counter consumerist conformity while being the biggest promoter of it, etc. So familiar were the plots, the jokes, the art direction, etc, this film could have been advertised as anything, but we got Addams Family. The only time the movie worked was when we were at the House with the family; it becomes painfully generic as soon as we begin to follow Wednesday into the modern world (the depiction of this clash could easily be mistaken as Despicable Me) and watch as this Mary Sue 'takes down the school establishment' while repeatedly boasting about taking prisoners rather than being one. Rarely did I feel I was watching The Addams Family. If you haven't figured out yet, I didn't like this movie. I'm going back to watching films that were made more than 5-10 years ago to avoid the degenerative recycled garbage Hollywood is producing now.

It is an example of our times that the more a movie tries to be depraved, the more it’s praised and celebrated as a bold artistic statement. Whilst male superheroes are being emasculated in Hollywood, their archenemies are being turned into antiheroes. Here we witness the 'Clown Prince' being hailed as a champion of the people like an unsuspecting Che Guevara. It's a retched movie, a grinding experience from start to finish. The repetition of Joaquin's laugh/cry becomes almost unbearable, as does the sight of him routinely parading himself semi-naked, bulging out his bony limbs for attempted shock effect. I might have been suitably disturbed if this happened once or twice, but it's constant and irritating. We're also treated to the repetitive sight of him contemplating shooting himself, again for shock factor. Gary Glitter in the soundtrack? Shocking! Onwards. The mastermind criminal we've all grown up to know as quick-witted and sharp - so sharp he uses his intelligence to match Batman's brawn - is depicted in this movie as slow, lumbering and uneducated. This is compounded by severe mental health condition, which the director has shamelessly and lazily used in such a sloppy fashion as justification for the Joker’s jolt towards resolving his problems by murdering people. This film could be completely unrelated to the Batman universe. Gotham and its inhabitants are mundane. Joker is at least 35 years older than Bruce Wayne. Thomas Wayne never previously sought to be Mayor, and he and his wife were not murdered by a masked hooligan in the middle of a class-war riot. Without these few inaccurate ties to Batman, we could simply have a movie about an oddjob loser that blames the world for his own shortcomings. The only aspect of this movie I thought was intriguing was the story of the Joker's mother and the way this connects Joker to the Batman. Other than that, I genuinely struggle to find something of merit to make this joyless Joker worth a recommendation.