New topic
Printable
|
This is a fucken MASTERPIECE. Definitely in my top 3 favorite movies ever |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
JOKER:SYMPATHY FOR THE DEVIL. Way back when, when Watchmen was being discussed prior to release, it was reported that an executive in a private pre-screen made the comment, "This makes Superman (et.al. comic book movies) look stupid." WATCHMEN never earned that statment in quality or execution. Joker appears to meet that exagerration. Its a gamechanger regarding the comicbook genre. Its everything WATCHMEN wanted to be even though the WATCHMEN graphic novel is the apex of graphic novels. Joker is not for everybody. Maybe 20 percent of the general movie going public, but for someone like me who has seen flicks from age 3-4, its for me. Its basically a drama. More "comic book” movies deserve this realism take and R ratings. Avengers Endgame and TDK had its emotional pull that is rare in movies such as these. Phoenix's Joker also has that pull and stays with you, and not in a good way. It's almost like remembering a faces of death meme that got placed in your media feed. I've always felt The Dark Knight was the most realistic comic book movie, but this one ups that ante, even though its not overall as dynamic. The dynamics in Joker come from its realistic take on the character and world..and it tops The Dark Knights' Joker. Yes, its a typical origin story with typical tropes and is predictable, but props for them doing it this way. This is the first comic book movie that feels youre watching/reading an undergound graphic novel. It also unnerves you and puts you at unease. Forget the razor violin theme from The Dark Knigh whenever Joker is near, this Joker is sad, pathetic, frightening, and mad. And finally as ugly yet beautiful as a wasp being born
. [Edited 10/9/19 15:20pm] "Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just seen it this morning and I'm very impressed. I had anticipated it to be quite good anyway but it actually turned out even better than I thought it would. The Good The first thing everyone will mention is how good Juaquin Phoenix is as The Joker. And he is very good, in fairness. However, I think the biggest praise should go to Warner Bros for allowing this kind of movie to be made in the first place. OK, so it's not in the same league as the movies it's trying to emulate like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy but WB have released a serious, yet still quite "comic-book" movie about mental illness. It's not as depressing as the trailers made it out to be and aside from one scene, it's not particularly violent either despite what the movie's marketing machine would have you believe. It falls into a comfortable middle ground that seems to be targeting both comic book movie fans and fans of cinema in general. And for the most part, it works. As for The Joker himself, Juaquin Phoenix does a great job and is my second favourite live action Joker behind Jack Nicholson. However, I can honestly picture him moving above Jack if we get a sequel where he gets to truly let loose. He doesn't really become The Joker we all know until the very end so I'd like to see more of that crazy side of him. The Bad Not much to really talk about here other than one or two small things. There are far too many scenes of him dancing in slow motion. Far too many. I think I counted about 8 or 9 and that's 8 or 9 too many. I get what they're going for but it's really over done. Another thing was his "girlfriend" completely disappearing halfway through with no explanation. Like, did he just leave her place? Did he kill her and her daughter? What, if anything, actually happened? Maybe she appears again in a deleted scene but they removed it for another slow motion dance? The Ugly Gary Glitter. Why???? Overall, I really liked it. Juaquin Phoenix is certainly looking at an Oscar nomination for this but I don't think he'll win. Very good movie though and a solid 4/5 for me. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Co-sign, this is EXACTLY how I feel about this movie. . And yes, there was barely enough "Joker" time in the movie to be able to compare him to the other Joker incarnations, so let´s wait and see if there´s a sequel (which I doubt ) to give him room for more. . The Gary Glitter thing rubbed me the wrong way, too. Many people thought "What´s the big deal, so what? It´s just a song." but I find Glitter and his crimes disgusting and wouldn´t want him to collect any royalties from this song being used in a movie, and also, I just don´t like the idea of keeping his legacy alive, even if it´s just one song in a movie. But maybe the director had his artistic reasons for that, but I´m not sure. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
How did the rest of your family like it? |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Have you seen "The Boys"? My art book: http://www.lulu.com/spotl...ecomicskid
VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com MUSIC: https://soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Funny you mention that, I just watched the first 3 episodes just today. It has a Watchmen feel to it aka getting at what Watchmen wanted to be. "Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EmmaMcG said: The Bad Not much to really talk about here other than one or two small things. There are far too many scenes of him dancing in slow motion. Far too many. I think I counted about 8 or 9 and that's 8 or 9 too many. I get what they're going for but it's really over done. Another thing was his "girlfriend" completely disappearing halfway through with no explanation. Like, did he just leave her place? Did he kill her and her daughter? What, if anything, actually happened? Maybe she appears again in a deleted scene but they removed it for another slow motion dance? Subtle aspects of the story went over your head. This is a story being told by an unreliable (key word) narrator. Watch 1 or 2 more times and you’ll get why she just disappears and seems to have no purpose in the movie other than to be his *cough* *cough* fantasy *cough* |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The greatest scene is the scene near the end where he comes on the Murray Franklin show. Fantastic dialogue and MIND-BLOWING(hehe) build up to the climax |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
If anything this movie questions how society treats certain people just because they appear to be bad at the certain moment. People will leave a handicapped person be because they see something is wrong with them, but idiots don’t SEE anything wrong with one person that may be behaving rash, but they’re unhealthy in their mind yet society will hurt them just because they don’t SEE that something is wrong with them. They treat them like SHIT because they don’t understand them and they feel the only proper response to their behavior is to BULLY them and BELITTLE them in public. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
In a hamfisted tone-deaf manner as well lol.
"Climb in my fur." | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KoolEaze said:
Co-sign, this is EXACTLY how I feel about this movie. . And yes, there was barely enough "Joker" time in the movie to be able to compare him to the other Joker incarnations, so let´s wait and see if there´s a sequel (which I doubt ) to give him room for more. . The Gary Glitter thing rubbed me the wrong way, too. Many people thought "What´s the big deal, so what? It´s just a song." but I find Glitter and his crimes disgusting and wouldn´t want him to collect any royalties from this song being used in a movie, and also, I just don´t like the idea of keeping his legacy alive, even if it´s just one song in a movie. But maybe the director had his artistic reasons for that, but I´m not sure. Well both Gary Glitter and the Joker are sick in the head so maybe that's why? The song was used at a point in the movie where Arthur becomes the Joker so perhaps that explains it? I don't know though. It's a shame to see Gary Glitter still collecting royalties though, regardless of their reasons for including his music in the movie. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
kpowers said:
How did the rest of your family like it? My daughter hasn't seen it yet, she'll need to wait for the DVD because she wouldn't get in. Even I get asked for ID sometimes and I'm 29 years old. What chance does a 7 year old have? My husband liked it though. He laughed at some inappropriate moments though but that's to be expected. He's got a weird sense of humour. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AvocadosMax said: EmmaMcG said: The Bad Not much to really talk about here other than one or two small things. There are far too many scenes of him dancing in slow motion. Far too many. I think I counted about 8 or 9 and that's 8 or 9 too many. I get what they're going for but it's really over done. Another thing was his "girlfriend" completely disappearing halfway through with no explanation. Like, did he just leave her place? Did he kill her and her daughter? What, if anything, actually happened? Maybe she appears again in a deleted scene but they removed it for another slow motion dance? Subtle aspects of the story went over your head. This is a story being told by an unreliable (key word) narrator. Watch 1 or 2 more times and you’ll get why she just disappears and seems to have no purpose in the movie other than to be his *cough* *cough* fantasy *cough* It's not that it went over my head, it's that I choose to believe that this entire movie did NOT take place in Arthur's imagination because that would be shit. I liked the twist where he had imagined his whole relationship with her and only realises it when he's sitting on her couch and she's wondering why he's in her apartment. It mirrors his mother's relationship with Thomas Wayne. He's delusional. He never had a relationship with her. But that still doesn't explain what happened when she discovers him on her couch. We see him leave but we don't know what happened to her and her daughter. Did he just leave when he realised his whole relationship with her was in his head? Did he kill her and her daughter? No explanation was given. Now, I'd prefer to think that, being the mad bastard he is, he killed them both. But the movie never explains it and whereas it might have been their intention to present it as vague as possible, it comes across as a bit of a plot hole. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
I see the whole movie as him imagining a "Joke" (the movie) while he's sitting there with the shrink at the end and then laughs in himslef and when the shrink asks him what so funny he sais 'nevermind, you wouldn't get it.' That's pretty typical for The Joker as in his origin is always something different and just imagined by himself.
|
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
JorisE73 said: I see the whole movie as him imagining a "Joke" (the movie) while he's sitting there with the shrink at the end and then laughs in himslef and when the shrink asks him what so funny he sais 'nevermind, you wouldn't get it.' That's pretty typical for The Joker as in his origin is always something different and just imagined by himself.
I disagree. That whole "it was all a dream" twist endings are bullshit and they've been done to death. If the director came out and said that was the case, my opinion on the entire movie would change. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
[Edited 10/11/19 6:07am] |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
The entire movie for sure did not just take place in his head. But the girlfriend was obv just his imagination. I think the movie’s events did take place, but is just told through Joker’s perspective so its a mix of his perception and own twist on these events |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AvocadosMax said: The entire movie for sure did not just take place in his head. But the girlfriend was obv just his imagination. I think the movie’s events did take place, but is just told through Joker’s perspective so its a mix of his perception and own twist on these events I don't think her entire character was just his imagination. I think she did exist but his whole relationship with her was in his head. I think that she actually only appears in two scenes. The one in the elevator and then the one in her apartment when Arthur is sitting on her couch and she's wondering what he's doing there. They're the only two scenes in which she actually appears. Everything else was just Arthur's fantasy. But that still doesn't answer the question as to what happened between them when she discovers him in her home. She questions why he's there and asks if he needs her to call anyone. He doesn't answer, then we see her become worried about her and her daughter's (who's asleep in the other room) safety. In the next shot, we see Arthur leaving her apartment but because we never see her again, we still don't know if he killed her or not. Personally, I believe that he probably did. But that's probably more because I think it would be better if he did because he is supposed to be a villain after all. An irredeemable villain at that. And there is no better way of portraying that than for him to kill an innocent woman and possibly her sleeping child. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EmmaMcG said: AvocadosMax said: The entire movie for sure did not just take place in his head. But the girlfriend was obv just his imagination. I think the movie’s events did take place, but is just told through Joker’s perspective so its a mix of his perception and own twist on these events I don't think her entire character was just his imagination. I think she did exist but his whole relationship with her was in his head. I think that she actually only appears in two scenes. The one in the elevator and then the one in her apartment when Arthur is sitting on her couch and she's wondering what he's doing there. They're the only two scenes in which she actually appears. Everything else was just Arthur's fantasy. But that still doesn't answer the question as to what happened between them when she discovers him in her home. She questions why he's there and asks if he needs her to call anyone. He doesn't answer, then we see her become worried about her and her daughter's (who's asleep in the other room) safety. In the next shot, we see Arthur leaving her apartment but because we never see her again, we still don't know if he killed her or not. Personally, I believe that he probably did. But that's probably more because I think it would be better if he did because he is supposed to be a villain after all. An irredeemable villain at that. And there is no better way of portraying that than for him to kill an innocent woman and possibly her sleeping child. Did he kill her? Did he spare her life like he spared one of his ex-coworkers? The entire movie is multiple choice. Staying true to the character. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nice review ! " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AvocadosMax said: EmmaMcG said: I don't think her entire character was just his imagination. I think she did exist but his whole relationship with her was in his head. I think that she actually only appears in two scenes. The one in the elevator and then the one in her apartment when Arthur is sitting on her couch and she's wondering what he's doing there. They're the only two scenes in which she actually appears. Everything else was just Arthur's fantasy. But that still doesn't answer the question as to what happened between them when she discovers him in her home. She questions why he's there and asks if he needs her to call anyone. He doesn't answer, then we see her become worried about her and her daughter's (who's asleep in the other room) safety. In the next shot, we see Arthur leaving her apartment but because we never see her again, we still don't know if he killed her or not. Personally, I believe that he probably did. But that's probably more because I think it would be better if he did because he is supposed to be a villain after all. An irredeemable villain at that. And there is no better way of portraying that than for him to kill an innocent woman and possibly her sleeping child. Did he kill her? Did he spare her life like he spared one of his ex-coworkers? The entire movie is multiple choice. Staying true to the character. Perhaps. But there's a fine line between staying true to the character and just lazy writing. It's almost as if they were actively trying to prevent any kind of backlash from crazy fans by having him do something "out of character" so rather than just saying what happened, they left it up to the audience to decide. Which I suppose is kind of understandable. Comic book fans aren't exactly known for their calm demeanour. But speaking as someone who doesn't read comics and who only knows these characters from the movies, I was a bit let down by the decision to leave certain things open to interpretation. Like, if I wanted to do that, I could have saved my money and just came up with my own plot myself. But these are just small, nitpicky things. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie and I do hope we get a sequel at some point so we can get a whole movie of this version of The Joker because I definitely think it has potential to be better than Jack Nicholson. I can't say it's better yet though because we only get about 15 minutes of The Joker in this movie so it's kind of an unfair comparison. Having said that, I still rate Juaquin Phoenix above Heath Ledger's Tom Waits impression. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Now you got me curious about Tom Waits. Think I´ll go to Youtube and look for him because I only know him vaguely and wonder what similarities you see. . Good point about the last 15 minutes. Phoenix is great in this movie but juxtapositions are a bit difficult with such little "Joker time" in the movie. I was surprised that his look was a little bit reminiscent of Heath Ledger, with the long, greasy hair and similar make up. Not that that´s a bad thing but there was already a huge weight on his shoulders because people really liked Ledger so much and he raised the bar, and it takes some extra nerve to then use a similar look, unlike Jared Leto who went a drastically different route. " I´d rather be a stank ass hoe because I´m not stupid. Oh my goodness! I got more drugs! I´m always funny dude...I´m hilarious! Are we gonna smoke?" | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Kind of loved this flick. In the same way that you get attached to a romantic partner who's absolutely no good for you. These are all great reviews from you guys. I really like hearing everyone's opinions on the movie. However there is one thing that's really bugging me. Most on here and elsewhere online are saying that he doesn't become the Joker until the very end. Hogwash! I think as soon as he shoots those three men on the train and stops taking his meds he's the Joker we know from that point on. Arthur hasn't quite Got The Gift of Gab yet at that point but that's probably because the meds he was on are still partly in his system, By the end, they've run their course and his famous phrasings are on full display. The only time we see him truly happy is in the very beginning when he's twirling his sign. I believe that's because he's in his clown outfit. He loves that persona because it's an avatar that he can use to escape all the dreary doldrums of his daily existence. He believed in his Mother's programming that he should bring joy and laughter to the world. Even if only by spinning a sign and acting like a happy dancing clown. Phoenix's pantomiming is incredible during this bit. Watch his movements, He's truly a joyful clown not somebody just earning a paycheck. He's the antithesis of the later JOKER persona; sweet and innocent. Until he starts getting the crap beat out of him, of course. The gun, the clown outfit, and his burgeoning consciousness then conspires to elevate him to true JOKER status, but I feel that his journey begins much sooner. Justmy2cents. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
THE JOKER: What a beautifully shot ambitious piece of crap.
Oh well. It's DC; expected. Right down to the THEME SONG DROPS (*"WHITE ROOM" - CREAM) When will the studios stop LABORING films through a process and let the "vision" sink or swim???? That was pretty awful I know some people are convinced that this was a character study of someone at the wrong end Of the stick for so long... But he'll, I've had WORSE **DAYS** than this guy! (Excepting getting beat up by kids) I really don't get it. All the praise. Same with the ludicrous concept of incorporating the OLD "RATED X STYLE" WARNER BROTHERS LOGO... Just absurd... Those things shouldn't be tampeted with. Just like the CHEESE of a 90's ORION picture (with corny chiming synth), crapfest CANNON PICTURES CRAWL, or the incredible UNIVERSAL speckled revolving 90's globe crawl.... You KNEW WHAT YOU WERE GETTING.... This film was mostly a front of that. Never convinced he'd Garner any of that interest. The music cues, both b cheesy and faux Arty. The head games spin didn't have it going for me either cause there was little to distinguish what was immediate or fiction aside from the one quick and hot humping with the lady in apartment XXX I can't see any teens (save for folks dealing with similar situations of isolation) incorporating this guy into any stunts out there thankfully. So maybe that was all marketing They'll probably wonder why having a shitty life is being celebrated here....I don't see the appeal beyond this being an oddity [Edited 10/13/19 0:10am] ♫"Trollin, Trolling! We could have fun just trollin'!"♫ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Maybe I should watch it again on a day off.
I liked Joaquins performance. Just wasnt much of anything (it's a pointless film except to maybe frame Bruce Wayne into it: there's no psychological study, no emailing because it's a cheap ploy caricature). Also the dancing was cute but stupid and misplaced. I don't understand the comparisons to people "on the fringe" since I live in Los Angeles and unless you've interested money and security or married into it, the fact is we do do one or two things for the grind to make the bills. Losing his job as a sign twirler might be devastating if it weren't likely he'd get hired somewhere else in 3 days. If you lose the drama and APPLIED WITH to it, this is all pretty ludicrous. That's just my opinion [Edited 10/13/19 0:16am] ♫"Trollin, Trolling! We could have fun just trollin'!"♫ | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
KoolEaze said:
Now you got me curious about Tom Waits. Think I´ll go to Youtube and look for him because I only know him vaguely and wonder what similarities you see. . Good point about the last 15 minutes. Phoenix is great in this movie but juxtapositions are a bit difficult with such little "Joker time" in the movie. I was surprised that his look was a little bit reminiscent of Heath Ledger, with the long, greasy hair and similar make up. Not that that´s a bad thing but there was already a huge weight on his shoulders because people really liked Ledger so much and he raised the bar, and it takes some extra nerve to then use a similar look, unlike Jared Leto who went a drastically different route. Just Google Heath Ledger Joker Tom Waits. You'll see what I mean. The Juaquin Phoenix version seems to have been designed to pay homage to all 3 popular live action Jokers. He's got the costume of Cesar Romero, the hair of Heath Ledger and some of the antics of Jack Nicholson. And despite that, Juaquin Phoenix still manages to make the character his own which I think is probably the most impressive thing about his performance. On a side note, I kind of feel sorry for Jared Leto. Most of his scenes were cut out and the ones that were left framed his performance in a way he was not intending when he took the role. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
EmmaMcG said: KoolEaze said:
Co-sign, this is EXACTLY how I feel about this movie. . And yes, there was barely enough "Joker" time in the movie to be able to compare him to the other Joker incarnations, so let´s wait and see if there´s a sequel (which I doubt ) to give him room for more. . The Gary Glitter thing rubbed me the wrong way, too. Many people thought "What´s the big deal, so what? It´s just a song." but I find Glitter and his crimes disgusting and wouldn´t want him to collect any royalties from this song being used in a movie, and also, I just don´t like the idea of keeping his legacy alive, even if it´s just one song in a movie. But maybe the director had his artistic reasons for that, but I´m not sure. Well both Gary Glitter and the Joker are sick in the head so maybe that's why? The song was used at a point in the movie where Arthur becomes the Joker so perhaps that explains it? I don't know though. It's a shame to see Gary Glitter still collecting royalties though, regardless of their reasons for including his music in the movie. He won't be getting any royalties: https://screenrant.com/jo...royalties/ But even if he would, who gives a shit? As if him not collecting royalties for his work changes anything... Neversin. O(+>NIИ<+)O
“Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Neversin said: EmmaMcG said: Well both Gary Glitter and the Joker are sick in the head so maybe that's why? The song was used at a point in the movie where Arthur becomes the Joker so perhaps that explains it? I don't know though. It's a shame to see Gary Glitter still collecting royalties though, regardless of their reasons for including his music in the movie. He won't be getting any royalties: https://screenrant.com/jo...royalties/ But even if he would, who gives a shit? As if him not collecting royalties for his work changes anything... Neversin. He should be put to death for being a child molesting scumbag so the idea of him earning royalties just doesn't sit right with me. If that report is accurate, then it makes the situation a little better but I still don't like his music being widely promoted. He may not earn royalties from this but his record sales will likely increase due to the extra promotion. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |