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

runningbuddy

humberklog wrote: »

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.

An odd choice of song. Really hope Glitter doesn't get ant royalties

AlanG

A good movie but I don’t think it was fantastic. Came out of the cinema having really enjoyed the second half of the movie but on looking back I think it was a bit shallow. The character didn’t seem to develop all that much as he started off not much different to how he ended, just that he got his hands on a gun. The most disappointing aspect was that there was no sign of anything resembling a criminal mastermind in the final character.
The use of a Gary Glitter song is just wrong – using his song is no different to hiring him to play a part, if I realised that song was in it I would have stayed away as I don’t want my money going to a person convicted 3 times for pedophile activities.

The Nal

AlanG wrote: »

A good movie but I don’t think it was fantastic. Came out of the cinema having really enjoyed the second half of the movie but on looking back I think it was a bit shallow. The character didn’t seem to develop all that much as he started off not much different to how he ended, just that he got his hands on a gun. The most disappointing aspect was that there was no sign of anything resembling a criminal mastermind in the final character.

Not yet! The Joker is much older than Batman. I thought he evolved a lot. Even his walk.

AlanG wrote: »

The use of a Gary Glitter song is just wrong – using his song is no different to hiring him to play a part, if I realised that song was in it I would have stayed away as I don’t want my money going to a person convicted 3 times for pedophile activities.

Very odd.

Tazzimus

AlanG wrote: »

A good movie but I don’t think it was fantastic. Came out of the cinema having really enjoyed the second half of the movie but on looking back I think it was a bit shallow. The character didn’t seem to develop all that much as he started off not much different to how he ended, just that he got his hands on a gun. The most disappointing aspect was that there was no sign of anything resembling a criminal mastermind in the final character.
The use of a Gary Glitter song is just wrong – using his song is no different to hiring him to play a part, if I realised that song was in it I would have stayed away as I don’t want my money going to a person convicted 3 times for pedophile activities.

We only got to see him become the Joker at the end, he'll develop into him from there, if that's how they want to go with this movie.

Strange musical choice alright, but as someone who has avoided GG's music most of my life (before the convictions I didn't like his music, since the convictions I didn't like him) I didn't actually know it was a GG song while watching the movie so it didn't take me out of it. Of course I recognised the song, I just didn't know GG was the artist.

When 'Me Too' was peaking a year or so ago, I read some things on Reddit which were not favourable at all to Todd Phillips or which painted him in a good light. Not quite GG kind of stuff, but enough to give people reason to avoid his work (if true, of course).

This thread probably isn't the time or place for such discussion, but I don't personally hold Todd Phillips in high regard.

Shred

I'm really surprised that both TP and (in particular) JP would consider a sequel, all the talk previously was that this was to be a standalone, but positive box office can change things I suppose.
I'm almost disappointed tbh as I'd really prefer that they just let it stand on its own, with all of it's questions & ambiguity left hanging. Why does everything have to be spun into a bloody trilogy these days (money, I know).

Agent Coulson

I went to see it this afternoon and watched myself clocking watching a number of times something I don't do even with terrible popcorn movies.

Phoenix was very good other than that the whole thing felt flat to me and everything was telegraphed very obviously for me.


I agree a strange choice to use Glitter and I really hope he doesn't get royalties from it and to be honest If I had known it was in the film I might not have gone and given my money over.

Over all about six out of ten for me.


I'd be more interested in seeing where Philips and Phoenix would have taken the film if the ending was the start of the film.

If GG still owns the publishing for his music and is in control of it, he will most definitely receive royalties plus a large licencing fee from this production.

Drumpot

Shred wrote: »

I'm really surprised that both TP and (in particular) JP would consider a sequel, all the talk previously was that this was to be a standalone, but positive box office can change things I suppose.
I'm almost disappointed tbh as I'd really prefer that they just let it stand on its own, with all of it's questions & ambiguity left hanging. Why does everything have to be spun into a bloody trilogy these days (money, I know).

Yeh, I was convinced this would just be standalone. I can’t believe they would do it with Batman, that’s way to real a Batman movie, very restrictive artistic authority and very likey Limited PG13 restriction. Can’t see that happening.

Interesting if DC tried to hire an actor in their 50s as joker to try and link up with this in some way.

Dravokivich

The Nal wrote: »

Anyone else think

using a Gary Glitter song

was a bit odd?

I was annoyed by it. The constant use of that song is making him a lot of money.

Dravokivich

runningbuddy wrote: »

An odd choice of song. Really hope Glitter doesn't get ant royalties

He will always make money on it, until public domain, which wknt be until long after he's dead.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

I was annoyed by it. The constant use of that song is making him a lot of money.

There is a chance that in the midst of all his legal trouble and ruination, he desperately sold the rights and publishing to his music.

I'm sure a quick Google would answer it, but frick that!

1800_Ladladlad

I took time off work and went to see the movie early on Friday, just to be sure it wasn’t ruined by some tool on twitter or online, this is also why I haven't commented on this thread. Iv been looking forward to this movie for a long time so I viewed the trailer once and that was it. No other research. I'm glad I did this.

Phoenix’s portrayal of the character, to me, is about the systematic decline of a mentally ill man in a society that made him an outcast, through disturbing and disgusting neglect by the mother, who failed to care for him as a child and failed to provide to the child’s core needs. A lack of care and inclusion from a society that threats them like a slug, as as a result of this, a series of bad days lead to full-time psychosis.

Joker was thoughtfully done. The film got to me and spoke to me in many ways that has only happened once before. It affected personally. The portrayal of the character was raw, genuine and it resonated with me. I felt involved with the film because of the cinematography and the powerful visuals along with the acting of Phoenix of course. It felt like every scene that conveyed emotion, was mirrored in me. I felt it. I was sad, angry and ironically happy. I was empathetic towards Arthur Fleck and was concerned about him at the same time. When he was Joker, there were no negative emotions that I associated with Artur, I just felt the Positive. I was pleased for him in a way because I could see him feeling content or at ease. I was proud of him at the end when he stood on top of the cop car. Very strange. There were parts of the film I laughed out loud that were both intense and provocative, when no one else reacted in the cinema like when his mother was in the hospital after having a stroke and after walking away from he officers questioning him, Arthur walks into the door.

The positives far outweigh the negatives. The underlying message of the film's plot smartly mirrors the many issues that are currently happening in society. Showing the true consequences and repercussions of people threatening others like they are sub-human.

Of course, the film was going to be politicized and used as a tool by anyone who is just soft. The media simply sensationalized what happened at the Batman screening to further clicks and exposure. They fear monger, that what they do. Anybody with an ounce common sense knows this. Most people are not heartless as to what happened to the victims that night but to make a connection between the two is just disingenuous. There are more violent tv programs on all platforms. The amount of deluded beliefs based on violence is whats scary to me.

Conall Cernach

Dravokivich wrote: »

I was annoyed by it. The constant use of that song is making him a lot of money.

I think his music still gets played at American football games and events like that.

Dravokivich

[Deleted User] wrote: »

There is a chance that in the midst of all his legal trouble and ruination, he desperately sold the rights and publishing to his music.

I'm sure a quick Google would answer it, but frick that!

His legal troubles didn't give him any financial issues
Its also being reported a lot on a range of newspapers.

HighLine

A masterpiece of a film. Loved every bit of it. An Oscar for JP for sure. Personally I find it baffling that people are debating where music royalties are going but to each their own.

McLoughlin

AlanG wrote: »

A good movie but I don’t think it was fantastic. Came out of the cinema having really enjoyed the second half of the movie but on looking back I think it was a bit shallow. The character didn’t seem to develop all that much as he started off not much different to how he ended, just that he got his hands on a gun. The most disappointing aspect was that there was no sign of anything resembling a criminal mastermind in the final character.
The use of a Gary Glitter song is just wrong – using his song is no different to hiring him to play a part, if I realised that song was in it I would have stayed away as I don’t want my money going to a person convicted 3 times for pedophile activities.

Its hardly unlikely that any of your money is directly going to Gary Glittler and do you check the music of every film to make sure no money is going towards people who maybe convicted of a sexual offence not even the music but the cast ?

Anyway its covered here
https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/oct/07/could-gary-glitter-really-make-hundreds-of-thousands-from-the-joker-film

Dravokivich

HighLine wrote: »

A masterpiece of a film. Loved every bit of it. An Oscar for JP for sure. Personally I find it baffling that people are debating where music royalties are going but to each their own.

If I knew it was in it, I wouldnt have gone to see the movie.

1800_Ladladlad

There has to be something going on here with these twats

HighLine

HighLine wrote: »

A masterpiece of a film. Loved every bit of it. An Oscar for JP for sure. Personally I find it baffling that people are debating where music royalties are going but to each their own.

I didn't bring it up, just tried to offer some enlightenment since it was.

Ironicname

Dravokivich wrote:

If I knew it was in it, I wouldnt have gone to see the movie.

That's so odd. I despise the man but wouldn't miss something because of him. Do you do the same for all films?

Dravokivich

Ironicname wrote: »

That's so odd. I despise the man but wouldn't miss something because of him. Do you do the same for all films?

If I know stuff is associated, with something I dont want my money going to by proxy, I'm not going to go for it.

vriesmays

McLoughlin wrote: »

Its hardly unlikely that any of your money is directly going to Gary Glittler and do you check the music of every film to make sure no money is going towards people who maybe convicted of a sexual offence not even the music but the cast ?

Anyway its covered here
https://www.theguardian.com/music/shortcuts/2019/oct/07/could-gary-glitter-really-make-hundreds-of-thousands-from-the-joker-film

How come there's no fuss over the song in trailer 1. The actor-composer once got a 16-year old pregnant.

The Nal

I do find it odd they used the song. Glitter is a relentless paedo. A merciless hunter. Proper evil.

There is a line and he's miles over it.

Ironicname

vriesmays wrote:

How come there's no fuss over the song in trailer 1. The actor-composer once got a 16-year old pregnant.

If everyone held on to the same moral values, nobody would watch anything that had Elvis, Bowie, rolling stones, Jerry Lee Lewis, Polanski, michael Jackson etc. Seems silly.

Do the same people refuse to watch naked gun because of oj?

Or is it because glitter was convicted? In that case is Jimmy Saville ok? He was never convicted

JP Liz V1

Agent Coulson wrote: »

More Jack Joker to me.

I did think more like Jack's (Tim Burton Batman) Joker near the end with the dancing

1800_Ladladlad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l98OMyDrqU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoQuVq2yYc

PTH2009

Just saw it amazing and a lot of suspense and surprise jumpy moments. Amazing performance from Phoenix and De Niro

I wonder is this leading to another film coming out in a fe years with a certain Twilight actor in it ???

This is not a comic book movie and messes with ur head. Not fit for anyone under 16

9/10

lord quackinton

Excellent Movie
For me the movie tries to get the viewer to think about how people with serious mental health issues are treated by their community, social care and government
What was real and what is fantasy?
I see people linking to king of comedy and I think there is some symmetry
The joker is not a bad man, he has real serious issues, who needed real medical help
Go see it

Foxtrol

I enjoyed it but it got me thinking of what we classify as a comic book movie.

Obviously, Joker is a character from comic books but aside from the forced Wayne scenes this movie could stand by itself as a drama/thriller.

Does creating a completely new story that can stand by itself but references a comic book character still make it a comic book movie? Is a movie a Western just because it has a cowboy in it?