The Joker movie - starring Joaquin Phoenix (MOD: May contain Spoilers)

Jamiekelly

SexBobomb wrote: »

"You Shouldn't See 'Joker' This Weekend" by Phil Pirrello

Pretty disappointing to read this kind of stuff, if you don't like it cool give a bad review but jeez.
I usually enjoy their content as well but I'll be looking elsewhere from now on.

https://nofilmschool.com/joker-movie-should-you-see-it

Any "journalist" that uses the word problematic tends to be more of an activist rather than an actual journalist. Also it's a terrible use of the English language when they end a sentence with it, problematic to what exactly? Using the word requires a context directly after it, otherwise it just becomes a blanket statement that isn't defined. Journalism 101 - Never make the reader guess the meaning behind a sentence, always define and refine what it is you are trying to convey.

sonic85

I enjoyed it but didn't love it as much as others did! It was a mental movie and a great performance from JP but did they really need to make it a movie about the Joker? Could have changed some of the details and had it a totally different character in a different universe and it wouldn't have taken away from the film. Him being the Joker didn't really add anything IMO.

Will there be a sequel to this I wonder.

mdwexford

Thought that was incredible.
Haven’t felt that wowed leaving the cinema in a long long time.

Was expecting a lot and it delivered.

Phoenix was amazing. Has to get an Oscar for that performance.

Hopefully no sequels. Don’t want to see him fighting Batman or some tripe.

sonic85

mdwexford wrote: »

Thought that was incredible.
Haven’t felt that wowed leaving the cinema in a long long time.

Was expecting a lot and it delivered.

Phoenix was amazing. Has to get an Oscar for that performance.

Hopefully no sequels. Don’t want to see him fighting Batman or some tripe.

Why would it be tripe out of interest? Is that not the reason for Jokers existence? He is Batmans main adversary is he not?

This is why I asked if there would be a sequel - it's only natural that a sequel would expand on what this movie started. Otherwise why make it in the first place and set it in Gotham call him Joker etc. The content of this movie would have worked just as well without the links to DCs characters

Drumpot

I’ve been looking forward to this for so long and at the end I didn’t know what to make of it. I am really tired so that played a role. I was chatting with my friend afterwards and we both agreed the fact we weren’t disappointed says a lot and if you think about it, it’s quite a tragic story and difficult to watch at times so I shouldn’t of been expecting to be fist pumping at the end.

Some people have given me good reasons to watch it again.

I don’t get the furore surrounding it as it definitely does not glorify the joker in anyway.

That bit with

the midget having to ask him to open the door was just superb

.

Also the absolute torture

in the jokers face, at times crying while smiling

was immense acting. It really was aremarkable performance and work that must of gone into getting his body like that!!!

I think I called it right when I said it wouldn’t be the easiest of watches. I hope it cleans up so we get more of these kind of one off classics.

Also a friend said if wouid be interesting to watch TDK imagining this as the jokers back story. It certainly would explain how somebody can go so psychoticly off the rails.

sonic85

Quite a lot of the time I found myself rooting for Arthur. I don't know if that's what the film makers wanted though! For large parts I thought he was a very sympathetic character and I absolutely hated that feeling because I don't want to feel any sympathy for somebody who revels in murder and mayhem

Spon Farmer

sonic85 wrote: »

Why would it be tripe out of interest? Is that not the reason for Jokers existence? He is Batmans main adversary is he not?

This is why I asked if there would be a sequel - it's only natural that a sequel would expand on what this movie started. Otherwise why make it in the first place and set it in Gotham call him Joker etc. The content of this movie would have worked just as well without the links to DCs characters

It was not made with the intention of being part of a series or connected to other movies.

There are talks of a "DC Black" label - standalone movies, experimental projects, Elseworld stories, etc. WB doesn't want to make a big deal until it sees what kind of reaction Joker gets.

I'd like to see the version of Joker again and in a Batman movie. However, this would require said Batman movie to as "adult" as Joker is - if not more so.

I would imagine they are unsure about removing the younger audience.

Although, speaking for myself, since Batman Begins the only DC movie (including the animation) I find suitable for children is Wonder Woman.

So DC should go "full adult" anyway.:)

Drumpot

sonic85 wrote: »

Quite a lot of the time I found myself rooting for Arthur. I don't know if that's what the film makers wanted though! For large parts I thought he was a very sympathetic character and I absolutely hated that feeling because I don't want to feel any sympathy for somebody who revels in murder and mayhem

There is nothing wrong with being sympathetic to such a broken person. It doesn’t excuse their crimes. Some People often confuse compassion/empathy with endorsement of bad behavior, the two don’t necessarily go hand in hand. I agree with your sentiments, I think his story is a horrible tragedy.

sonic85

Spon Farmer wrote: »

It was not made with the intention of being part of a series or connected to other movies.

There are talks of a "DC Black" label - standalone movies, experimental projects, Elseworld stories, etc. WB doesn't want to make a big deal until it sees what kind of reaction Joker gets.

I'd like to see the version of Joker again and in a Batman movie. However, this would require said Batman movie to as "adult" as Joker is - if not more so.

I would imagine they are unsure about removing the younger audience.

Although, speaking for myself, since Batman Begins the only DC movie (including the animation) I find suitable for children is Wonder Woman.

So DC should go "full adult" anyway.:)

I cant see any movie like this that's set in the DC universe being a stand alone. I'd have said if this makes good money that they'll look to make a sequel - whether JP would ever return is a different matter but I couldn't see DC not take advantage.

Personally I don't want to see a sequel - not because I didn't like this film but more because this version of Joker wouldn't have a hope of matching Batman. Unless the next version of Bats is a moron

jk23

sonic85 wrote: »

I cant see any movie like this that's set in the DC universe being a stand alone. I'd have said if this makes good money that they'll look to make a sequel - whether JP would ever return is a different matter but I couldn't see DC not take advantage.

Personally I don't want to see a sequel - not because I didn't like this film but more because this version of Joker wouldn't have a hope of matching Batman. Unless the next version of Bats is a moron

Will this version of the joker be fighting the Robert Pattinson batman?

nix

Yeah i liked the movie for the most part,

they should have kept the waynes characters out of it tbh, they really didnt need the inclusion of Thomas, Bruce or Alfred at all, felt shoe horned to be honest, likely the studio demanding it.

If i see that pearl necklace, waynes murder scene one more time my head will fall off :rolleyes:

But yeah, incredible performance from Mr Phoenix, really enjoyed the final act of the movie..

I would hate to see a sequel and very much doubt we will see Phoenix reprise his role anyway.. :pac:

The White Wolf

jk23 wrote: »

Will this version of the joker be fighting the Robert Pattinson batman?

Very unlikely but you never know. Never underestimate what studios would be willing to do. Fleck's Joker wouldn't be a physical match for Batman but that's not an issue; in fact my preferred Joker adaptations are ones when he's not a physical match. Just an absolutely manipulative and brilliant nutter.

In the final scene Fleck looked about 10 years older with grey hairs showing.

CrankyHaus

Great film.
Interesting to see how much of his comedy elements Todd Phillips brought to it, including moments of slapstick.

The only criticism I could think of is that everyone elses' performance gets put into the background by Phoenix, because it is an excellent supporting cast.

The parts that seemed like an homage to King of Comedy and The Warriors were also cool.

runningbuddy

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

The White Wolf

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

I didn't see any kids at mine but if he's 12 and the fact he's being accompanied by a parent you might get away with it? Sorry I don't really know how the ratings work.

micks_address

The White Wolf wrote: »

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

I didn't see any kids at mine but if he's 12 and the fact he's being accompanied by a parent you might get away with it? Sorry I don't really know how the ratings work.

Son is 16 and a few or his friends seen it and were quite freaked out by it.. I haven't see I yet so can't comment

Slydice

Do yis all live in the UK? It's 16s here in Ireland.
There's a big 16 planted on the screen right before the film starts.
Definitley not a 12a or 15a.

That being said, the scene where

yer man gets the scissors to the eye

.. that had me a bit surprised, I thought that would get it to 18. I remember reading the IFCO guidelines before and that the decision guidelines get pretty complicated but this definitley is a hard 16s borderline 18s film.

Wayne Jarvis

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

If you have ever seen the movie Taxi Driver then that's the kind of movie this is. It's not like a Marvel movie or even like the DC Batman ones. It is gritty, grim and violent. I think 12 would be too young personally having seen the movie.

Wayne Jarvis

I saw it today as the previous post indicates, I thought it was mostly boring with some good bits.

Mickeroo

The White Wolf wrote: »

Very unlikely but you never know. Never underestimate what studios would be willing to do. Fleck's Joker wouldn't be a physical match for Batman but that's not an issue; in fact my preferred Joker adaptations are ones when he's not a physical match. Just an absolutely manipulative and brilliant nutter.

In the final scene Fleck looked about 10 years older with grey hairs showing.

Is there any version of the joker that was a physical match? I can't think of one, certainly none of the definitive incarnations. Would kInd of defeat the point of the character imo.

The White Wolf

Mickeroo wrote: »

Is there any version of the joker that was a physical match? I can't think of one, certainly none of the definitive incarnations. Would kInd of defeat the point of the character imo.

You could argue Ledger's was. He had Bats beaten only for his bag of tricks.

OU812

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

Odeon have signs up saying absolutely nobody under age will be admitted & if found in there will be ejected. There was an usher in my show looking at people to judge their ages & I saw one person have to produce ID

sonic85

Mickeroo wrote: »

Is there any version of the joker that was a physical match? I can't think of one, certainly none of the definitive incarnations. Would kInd of defeat the point of the character imo.

I never thought any of the versions of the Joker I've seen were a physical match for Batman and like you said that's not the point of him but I always thought Joker was more than a match intelligence wise. JPs version though didn't seem to have any smarts about him at all along with being a weak and weedy individual so I'm wondering what exactly he could do to give Batman something to think about. The only thing he does have is a propensity for graphic violence but that alone wouldn't be enough surely.

To the previous poster about the 12 year old you definitely shouldn't bring somebody that young to a film like this. It's dark and grim right from the start and doesn't let up. Not suitable IMO

Minime2.5

So whose performance as the joker is better ledgers or phoenix?

The White Wolf

Minime2.5 wrote: »

So whose performance as the joker is better ledgers or phoenix?

Can't compare. It's hard to explain without spoiling.

Both are class, brilliant, portrayals that stand shoulder to shoulder.

Relikk

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

It's rated 16. My local cinema staff were actively looking at anyone that looked below that age trying to get into it, most likely due to the unwarranted media generated controversy surrounding the movie.

sonic85

Minime2.5 wrote: »

So whose performance as the joker is better ledgers or phoenix?

Personally I preferred Ledgers portrayal of the Joker. I thought and still think that was the best possible way to play the character. But that's just personal preference and judging by what I've seen so far most people seem to be giving JPs version rave reviews. I thought he was excellent but just didn't seem like the Joker to me.

otnomart

Just seen it,

Great performance by Phoenix.
He previously played a character with a few similarities

(living with his parents, mental health issues)

in Two Lovers (2008).


Very, very troubling story, parts of it it reminded me of Tony Manero (a Chilean movie from 2008) and also Fight Club.
I don't feel to need to watch it again; would still like to see this Joker facing a new Batman though.

tony1kenobi

runningbuddy wrote: »

Lads, this is rated 15?? Don't judge me...my 12 year old is Joker obsessed.. always has been. Doubt I'd get into cinema with him anyway but anyone notice kids going to see it yesterday? He knows it's not a batman movie

I saw it yesterday. No kids at it.

I don’t know if your boy would get in to see it, but I doubt very much he would enjoy it. It’s a great film but it isn’t much fun.

runningbuddy

Cheers folks. I'll leave him at home. I get a real Taxi Driver vibe from the trailer. Love JP. Looking forward to seeing it