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

JP Liz V1

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

In regard to Zazie Beetz character

Fleck's neighbour, did he kill her and her kid?

Didn't occur to me

mikhail

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

In regard to Zazie Beetz character

Fleck's neighbour, did he kill her and her kid?

I interpreted it as such. Others have given decent reasons to imagine not. It's certainly ambiguous.

just saw it. i think i am mixed on it

agreed that i didn't like the dumbed down montage about her not being his gf. we got it, you don't have to browbeat us with it

i didn't like the music in parts. it was too hamfisted. 'feel some emotion here!!' give the poor cello a rest.

i am not sure about joker's origin being a mental illness/child abuse situation

could have done without another wayne shooting

can't argue that JP was incredible in it though

johnny_ultimate

A mixed bag if ever there was one... a sometimes visceral curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless.

It does look and feel the part, even if there’s not much bubbling beneath the surface. When you hire Joaquin Phoenix you know you’re getting something good, and the man offers an intense, physical performance that while maybe not his finest work (that’d be something like The Master or You Were Never Really Here or Her - the man boasts one hell of a CV) is definitely a hell of an effort nonetheless. Just a full-on, physically gruelling performance. The film looks and sounds good for the most part - never as good as the many films it explicitly and implicitly draws influence from, but nonetheless a big step up as far as modern comic book films go. I saw it on a proper IMAX screen, and I appreciate how the camera focuses so much on Phoenix’s distorted expressions. And it does boast the sort of discordant, invasive soundtrack that has you quietly squirming throughout. It looks pretty cool throughout all round, especially since it takes a few opportunities to step beyond just being a vision of grim urban despair.

Speaking of comic book films... It seems mental to type this about a film based on one of the most iconic comic characters ever created, but bear with me a second: One of Joker’s major flaws is that it misjudges how isolated it wants to be from its comic book origins. At times this could be any grubby, bleak New York psychological character study. But the

overt references to Batman lore are neither needed nor handled well. It drags the film down in the middle act particularly, and I genuinely feel the film would have benefited from divorcing itself more completely from what came before. That we get again see the Waynes being murdered only adds to that frustration.

At worst, I think it only serves to demystify the Joker somewhat - given the character is at his very best when there’s a sense of mystery around him (like Heath Ledger’s take, with the ever-shifting, never-reliable backstories).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, it’s too hesitant to address real world issues as anything other than background colour - and this is only an issue because it wades straight into the territory.

The impromptu radical protest movement that springs up around Arthur’s action is random, nonsensical and barely explored as anything other than a series of broad slogans; actual social issues like police violence are addressed with kids’ gloves.

This film wants to be provocative, but it’s too shallow to say much of substance - a reminder that we’re firmly in the realm of mainstream studio movie. This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t hint at this stuff - but it does, and therefore left me feeling quite unsatisfied with where they went with it (i.e. nowhere).

There’s a point explicitly referenced in the film (quite rightly) that Joker as a character is without ideology beyond chaos - but this film on the whole comes across as confused rather than artfully chaotic. This is also all compounded by the film’s rather underwhelming vision of Gotham - basically just 1970s New York, but with the odd CG enhanced building with a sign saying ‘Gotham XXXX’ on it.

The film is most effective then, as a sort of psychological spectacle film - a raw, persistently bleak portrait of a broken man being pushed over the edge into the realm of a psychopath, all done with a more cartoonish style than that type of material usually gets. It’s like Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but defanged. While there are definite accomplishments here in that regard, there are limits too. The first act is the strongest, because that’s when you’re not quite sure what to make of everything.

I got this potent sense of everything being off kilter and not right - there was clearly a murky line between Arthur’s reality and Arthur’s fantasy. I think the film sadly goes too far in making those blurred lines overt - the big neighbour reveal IMO would have worked much better had they not slotted in those flashbacks to underscore the point. The unreliable narrator aspect is basically a really good idea - initially handled well, but just becomes rather less effective as the movie travels towards its final destination.

There’s also a busyness here that you usually see in messy first features or overindulgent sophomoric ones, even though this is neither. The film has four or five different strands going throughout - this means it’s unfocused, but again not in an artfully chaotic way that would befit the character. Instead there’s a sense of interesting subplots battling for space, and key ideas can be pushed to the side for reasonably long stretches before feeling somewhat under explored.

It’s not a bad film, but it’s far from a great one - often pleasing in the moment, but frustrating as a whole. Todd Phillips isn’t Lynn Ramsey or Martin Scorsese, and for the superficial similarities to other, better works there’s just not the depth here to push it to another level. Don’t get me wrong: I’d take this over pretty much any other comic book movie of the past half decade (Spiderverse, as ever, excluded). It’s pushing in the right direction, and lower budget (although let’s not pretend for a second this DC, Warner Bros film based on an iconic character is an underdog ) oddities are a better idea than dozens of virtually identical hyper-blockbusters. But if movies like this want to play in the same territory as some giants of modern cinema, they’re going to be held to the same standard. Joker is, in that respect, an interesting failure.

Slydice

'Joker' Delivers Largest October Opening Ever with $93.5 Million
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4552&p=.htm

but that's just the USA!

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=joker2019.htm

Worldwide: $234,000,000

I'd say it's already around 100% to 200% profit after one weekend!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(2019_film)

Budget $55–60 million

Probably $55–60 million on top of that for advertising.

Man Vs ManUre

Man Vs ManUre wrote: »

Can the title of this thread be changed?? The name of the film is ‘Joker’ not ‘The Joker’. Such schoolboy errors cannot be tolerated. Failure to prepare then prepare to fail.

Schoolboy error? I created the thread when the movie was just announced over a year ago and had no official title.

...............................

Just saw this tonight, loved it.

faceman

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A mixed bag if ever there was one... a sometimes visceral curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless.

It does look and feel the part, even if there’s not much bubbling beneath the surface. When you hire Joaquin Phoenix you know you’re getting something good, and the man offers an intense, physical performance that while maybe not his finest work (that’d be something like The Master or You Were Never Really Here or Her - the man boasts one hell of a CV) is definitely a hell of an effort nonetheless. Just a full-on, physically gruelling performance. The film looks and sounds good for the most part - never as good as the many films it explicitly and implicitly draws influence from, but nonetheless a big step up as far as modern comic book films go. I saw it on a proper IMAX screen, and I appreciate how the camera focuses so much on Phoenix’s distorted expressions. And it does boast the sort of discordant, invasive soundtrack that has you quietly squirming throughout. It looks pretty cool throughout all round, especially since it takes a few opportunities to step beyond just being a vision of grim urban despair.

Speaking of comic book films... It seems mental to type this about a film based on one of the most iconic comic characters ever created, but bear with me a second: One of Joker’s major flaws is that it misjudges how isolated it wants to be from its comic book origins. At times this could be any grubby, bleak New York psychological character study. But the

overt references to Batman lore are neither needed nor handled well. It drags the film down in the middle act particularly, and I genuinely feel the film would have benefited from divorcing itself more completely from what came before. That we get again see the Waynes being murdered only adds to that frustration.

At worst, I think it only serves to demystify the Joker somewhat - given the character is at his very best when there’s a sense of mystery around him (like Heath Ledger’s take, with the ever-shifting, never-reliable backstories).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, it’s too hesitant to address real world issues as anything other than background colour - and this is only an issue because it wades straight into the territory.

The impromptu radical protest movement that springs up around Arthur’s action is random, nonsensical and barely explored as anything other than a series of broad slogans; actual social issues like police violence are addressed with kids’ gloves.

This film wants to be provocative, but it’s too shallow to say much of substance - a reminder that we’re firmly in the realm of mainstream studio movie. This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t hint at this stuff - but it does, and therefore left me feeling quite unsatisfied with where they went with it (i.e. nowhere).

There’s a point explicitly referenced in the film (quite rightly) that Joker as a character is without ideology beyond chaos - but this film on the whole comes across as confused rather than artfully chaotic. This is also all compounded by the film’s rather underwhelming vision of Gotham - basically just 1970s New York, but with the odd CG enhanced building with a sign saying ‘Gotham XXXX’ on it.

The film is most effective then, as a sort of psychological spectacle film - a raw, persistently bleak portrait of a broken man being pushed over the edge into the realm of a psychopath, all done with a more cartoonish style than that type of material usually gets. It’s like Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but defanged. While there are definite accomplishments here in that regard, there are limits too. The first act is the strongest, because that’s when you’re not quite sure what to make of everything.

I got this potent sense of everything being off kilter and not right - there was clearly a murky line between Arthur’s reality and Arthur’s fantasy. I think the film sadly goes too far in making those blurred lines overt - the big neighbour reveal IMO would have worked much better had they not slotted in those flashbacks to underscore the point. The unreliable narrator aspect is basically a really good idea - initially handled well, but just becomes rather less effective as the movie travels towards its final destination.

There’s also a busyness here that you usually see in messy first features or overindulgent sophomoric ones, even though this is neither. The film has four or five different strands going throughout - this means it’s unfocused, but again not in an artfully chaotic way that would befit the character. Instead there’s a sense of interesting subplots battling for space, and key ideas can be pushed to the side for reasonably long stretches before feeling somewhat under explored.

It’s not a bad film, but it’s far from a great one - often pleasing in the moment, but frustrating as a whole. Todd Phillips isn’t Lynn Ramsey or Martin Scorsese, and for the superficial similarities to other, better works there’s just not the depth here to push it to another level. Don’t get me wrong: I’d take this over pretty much any other comic book movie of the past half decade (Spiderverse, as ever, excluded). It’s pushing in the right direction, and lower budget (although let’s not pretend for a second this DC, Warner Bros film based on an iconic character is an underdog ) oddities are a better idea than dozens of virtually identical hyper-blockbusters. But if movies like this want to play in the same territory as some giants of modern cinema, they’re going to be held to the same standard. Joker is, in that respect, an interesting failure.

Great post Johnny!

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

A mixed bag if ever there was one... a sometimes visceral curiosity, but a curiosity nonetheless.

It does look and feel the part, even if there’s not much bubbling beneath the surface. When you hire Joaquin Phoenix you know you’re getting something good, and the man offers an intense, physical performance that while maybe not his finest work (that’d be something like The Master or You Were Never Really Here or Her - the man boasts one hell of a CV) is definitely a hell of an effort nonetheless. Just a full-on, physically gruelling performance. The film looks and sounds good for the most part - never as good as the many films it explicitly and implicitly draws influence from, but nonetheless a big step up as far as modern comic book films go. I saw it on a proper IMAX screen, and I appreciate how the camera focuses so much on Phoenix’s distorted expressions. And it does boast the sort of discordant, invasive soundtrack that has you quietly squirming throughout. It looks pretty cool throughout all round, especially since it takes a few opportunities to step beyond just being a vision of grim urban despair.

Speaking of comic book films... It seems mental to type this about a film based on one of the most iconic comic characters ever created, but bear with me a second: One of Joker’s major flaws is that it misjudges how isolated it wants to be from its comic book origins. At times this could be any grubby, bleak New York psychological character study. But the

overt references to Batman lore are neither needed nor handled well. It drags the film down in the middle act particularly, and I genuinely feel the film would have benefited from divorcing itself more completely from what came before. That we get again see the Waynes being murdered only adds to that frustration.

At worst, I think it only serves to demystify the Joker somewhat - given the character is at his very best when there’s a sense of mystery around him (like Heath Ledger’s take, with the ever-shifting, never-reliable backstories).

On the opposite side of the spectrum, it’s too hesitant to address real world issues as anything other than background colour - and this is only an issue because it wades straight into the territory.

The impromptu radical protest movement that springs up around Arthur’s action is random, nonsensical and barely explored as anything other than a series of broad slogans; actual social issues like police violence are addressed with kids’ gloves.

This film wants to be provocative, but it’s too shallow to say much of substance - a reminder that we’re firmly in the realm of mainstream studio movie. This wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t hint at this stuff - but it does, and therefore left me feeling quite unsatisfied with where they went with it (i.e. nowhere).

There’s a point explicitly referenced in the film (quite rightly) that Joker as a character is without ideology beyond chaos - but this film on the whole comes across as confused rather than artfully chaotic. This is also all compounded by the film’s rather underwhelming vision of Gotham - basically just 1970s New York, but with the odd CG enhanced building with a sign saying ‘Gotham XXXX’ on it.

The film is most effective then, as a sort of psychological spectacle film - a raw, persistently bleak portrait of a broken man being pushed over the edge into the realm of a psychopath, all done with a more cartoonish style than that type of material usually gets. It’s like Taxi Driver or King of Comedy, but defanged. While there are definite accomplishments here in that regard, there are limits too. The first act is the strongest, because that’s when you’re not quite sure what to make of everything.

I got this potent sense of everything being off kilter and not right - there was clearly a murky line between Arthur’s reality and Arthur’s fantasy. I think the film sadly goes too far in making those blurred lines overt - the big neighbour reveal IMO would have worked much better had they not slotted in those flashbacks to underscore the point. The unreliable narrator aspect is basically a really good idea - initially handled well, but just becomes rather less effective as the movie travels towards its final destination.

There’s also a busyness here that you usually see in messy first features or overindulgent sophomoric ones, even though this is neither. The film has four or five different strands going throughout - this means it’s unfocused, but again not in an artfully chaotic way that would befit the character. Instead there’s a sense of interesting subplots battling for space, and key ideas can be pushed to the side for reasonably long stretches before feeling somewhat under explored.

It’s not a bad film, but it’s far from a great one - often pleasing in the moment, but frustrating as a whole. Todd Phillips isn’t Lynn Ramsey or Martin Scorsese, and for the superficial similarities to other, better works there’s just not the depth here to push it to another level. Don’t get me wrong: I’d take this over pretty much any other comic book movie of the past half decade (Spiderverse, as ever, excluded). It’s pushing in the right direction, and lower budget (although let’s not pretend for a second this DC, Warner Bros film based on an iconic character is an underdog ) oddities are a better idea than dozens of virtually identical hyper-blockbusters. But if movies like this want to play in the same territory as some giants of modern cinema, they’re going to be held to the same standard. Joker is, in that respect, an interesting failure.

While I do agree with some of these points, they didn't affect my overall enjoyment of the film. I did get the sense that this didn't even need to be a Batman related Joker film. What if they left that connection out entirely. Would it still be as interesting. Or is the connection to Gotham, the Wayne's and this iconic villain that brings it all together. Would it work in a vacuum. I imagine it wouldn't be as highly rated as it ends rather abruptly in that case.



I'm not a die hard Batman fan by any stretch of the imagination so I wasn't rolling my eyes at his parents being shot yet again. It's not something I've exposed myself too many times. My missus didn't even know who the Wayne's were in the greater context and she loved the film.



I actually enjoyed their vision of Gotham. I completely forgot it was set in Gotham and it felt like New York. It's one of the many things that allowed me to enjoy this more. Generally speaking, I don't like comic films. The further away from that nonsense and more into the realm of realism, the better. This Gotham is much more relatable.



As of demystifying the joker... its an origin story. That's a moot point imo. I have always been curious how someone apparently completely insane could command any kind of following and respect. It makes sense now. He became an accidental hero. Someone else mentioned that the usual origin story is that he fell into a vat of acid... that's infinitely worse.



I definitely agree that they handled the neighbour reveal far too obviously. They could have had one or two nonsensical scenes to hammer home his descent into delusion and then had the scene where he's sitting in her apartment. When its clear she doesn't really know him, the audience could piece it together themselves. It would have been much more powerful that way.



I don't agree that its as shallow as you say. It had me guessing the whole way through. I was in awe of how it it all tied together.

Dravokivich

Slydice wrote: »

'Joker' Delivers Largest October Opening Ever with $93.5 Million
https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4552&p=.htm

but that's just the USA!

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=joker2019.htm


I'd say it's already around 100% to 200% profit after one weekend!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joker_(2019_film)

Probably $55–60 million on top of that for advertising.

I think the main reason it was made is because the production budget was around 35million and from what I've read, they kept close to it. So that budget on IMDB should also be accounting for promotions.

sydthebeat

i personally dont have a problem at all with the chaotic nature of the movie... even trying to be "artfully chaotic" wouldnt be suitable to the theme of this movie... which is the breaking down of an already seriously damaged persons psyche.

The Nal

Anyone else think

using a Gary Glitter song

was a bit odd?

KilOit

Job done, a movie that keeps you thinking long after credits roll is hard to do. Loved it

Drumpot

Why do people who don’t want origin story’s complain about then when they are made? Same thing happened with SWs, alien and I’m sure other movies.

When reviewing a movie on its merits “we didn’t need to know backround to” is not reviewing the movie. It’s confirming that you hated the idea of it before it was even made.

Did it need the Wayne’s in it to make it better or worse? No but like PJ said, it didn’t matter to people who didn’t know the batman universe so it didn’t need to matter to people who did. Sort of feels like , as with all prequels, people want to find faults that don’t need to be issues or effect enjoyment. This was a joker movie set in Gotham city, it didn’t pretend other wise.

bmcc10

Just out from it thought it was very good. JP is brilliant

runningbuddy

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

In the Odeon there are signs everywhere saying "Joker is 16s, I.D. may be required and anyone underage will not be admitted to the screening". There was also a security guard type bloke standing near the ticket check.

Aside from that, a 12 year old would be probably bored stiff by this. Nothing like a stereotypical comic book film. I loved it, very dark, gritty and kept you guessing all the time.

FellasFellas

You know the scene where

Arthur is kicking the bin bags in the alleyway, is that just him kicking the bin bags or is he beating his boss?

Gloomtastic!

The Nal wrote: »

Anyone else think

using a Gary Glitter song

was a bit odd?

I was going to post something similar. Not so much odd but why?

I'm sure he's not complaining though, it must be his first royalty cheque in years. :rolleyes:

Anyone gone back for a second viewing yet? Thinking of going this evening again.

silverharp

Deleted User wrote: »

In the Odeon there are signs everywhere saying "Joker is 16s, I.D. may be required and anyone underage will not be admitted to the screening". There was also a security guard type bloke standing near the ticket check.

Aside from that, a 12 year old would be probably bored stiff by this. Nothing like a stereotypical comic book film. I loved it, very dark, gritty and kept you guessing all the time.

I brought my son who is 15 , I had taken him to see Rambo (18s ) the previous week :pac: no issues, this time "what age is he?" me 16 , then to my son "I have to ask you your dob? and he rolls it back a year.
Its not a movie for 12 year olds which is correct they would be bored stiff

Bigboldworld

Thought it was amazing, intense, uncomfortable at times, stays with you when you leave, imo this film is not 16, 18s would be fitting, some of the violence is brutal to say the least.

El Duda

Joker - 8.5/10

An excellent film with a truly superb central performance. It's great to see Todd Phillip's prove all the doubters wrong. Phoenix deserves the Oscar. This performance will live through the ages. There aren't many actors working today who can pull this off. He is mesmerising and his arc is enthralling.

At times I felt like the film was commenting on the publics post-Dark Knight obsession with the Joker character. Ledger's performance left such a huge cultural impact and this film tries to shed light on what exactly it is that resonates so much with so many people. The exploration of mental health being the key aspect. Showing how beaten down and unwanted the current system can make people feel.

I can’t help but think that it being part of the Batman universe didn't really add anything. You could easily write that stuff out and still have an equally great film. I completely understand it from a marketing point of view though, it certainly gets bums on seats.

Not flawless by any means but a very strong film and an extremely challenging one in this age of wall-to-wall Superhero films.




I could talk about this a lot more.

Does anyone else think that its highly likely that most of the movie is a complete fantasy? The final shot suggests that he may havennever even left the social workers office.

I also thought that it wasn't very violent at all. Even films like Goodfellas & Casino are more violent.

Kind mods, any chance of marking this as 'Spoilers from post X' soon?

klose

El Duda wrote: »

I could talk about this a lot more.

Does anyone else think that its highly likely that most of the movie is a complete fantasy? The final shot suggests that he may havennever even left the social workers office.

I also thought that it wasn't very violent at all. Even films like Goodfellas & Casino are more violent.

I think that's the beauty of the film that everyone can have their own little interpretation of if it, the next person you talk to has theirs and makes you think about it and so on.

bunderoon

klose wrote: »

I think that's the beauty of the film that everyone can have their own little interpretation of if it, the next person you talk to has theirs and makes you think about it and so on.

Thinking the same. Has to be.

Did you notice the clock in the office and also in the asylum (when he was bashing his head of the door) was both at 11:10 ?
And the point where he himself didnt kill Bruce's father?

panevthe3rd

bunderoon wrote: »

Thinking the same. Has to be.

Did you notice the clock in the office and also in the asylum (when he was bashing his head of the door) was both at 11:10 ?
And the point where he himself didnt kill Bruce's father?

Spotted that yeah.

actually thought it looked like the same clock

sydthebeat

jesus... if youre a fan of this movie dont read TIME magazines reviews.

heres one short snippet from one reviewer

Phoenix is acting so hard you can feel the desperation throbbing in his veins. He leaves you wanting to start him a GoFundMe, so he won’t have to pour so much sweat into his job again. But the aggressive terribleness of his performance isn’t completely his fault

while another reviewer wrote:

But Joker made me realize that my tolerance for shoddily thought-out visions of glamorized nihilism is lower than ever.

Tazzimus

sydthebeat wrote: »

jesus... if youre a fan of this movie dont read TIME magazines reviews.

heres one short snippet from one reviewer


while another reviewer wrote:

Clearly Marvel fan boys :pac:

Sleepy

An interesting take on the world we live in today:

In the 1990's, to get someone as disturbed as Joker, they dropped an already sociopathic murderer /gangster into a vat of acid.

In the 2010's, they just needed to throw a vulnerable person with mental health problems into the "care" of social services.

This is actually a really good Joaquin Pheonix interview, never mind a Joker-related interview.

It's interesting that he's not ruling out more Joker work, and says that he and Todd Phillips have specifically discussed what else they could do with the character.

Personally, I would be just fine if it was left as a once off, but I trust Pheonix with his movie decisions and role choices.

After such a strong opening weekend and some of the high praise, I imagine that there is currently a host of executives filling trucks with money to drive up to Pheonix's front door for more Joker movies.

humberklog

Anyone else laugh out load at Joker dancing to Gary Glitter when he was making his way down the steps with the police looking down at him?

I'm in the camp of Great movie but understand how people wouldn't like it.

bunderoon

I let out a little roar of laughter when he was outside the hospital and the two cops were trying to question him and he turns and walks off right into the glass door.