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

tylercheribini

El Duda wrote: »

He's too weak and pitiful as well.

Glad to see Phillips comments chime in with my exact reading of the film. Makes me rate it a lot more.

Can't see a sequel working. And Shoehorning this Joker into another DC film would be awful. Imagine him appearing in Justice League?! **shudder**

Absolutely everyone on this earth has a price.

sydthebeat

techdiver wrote: »

Thankfully I'm not the only one who thought that. Was it not obvious?? Also talk about him being too weak to take on batman is ridiculous! The Joker is never meant to be a physical match for Batman, very few non "enhanced" humans are.

agreed , pretty much every man on man fight they have Joker gets the sh!t beaten out of himself ... yet still laughs it off

He has the toys to get himself out of most circumstances

Tazzimus

techdiver wrote: »

Thankfully I'm not the only one who thought that. Was it not obvious?? Also talk about him being too weak to take on batman is ridiculous! The Joker is never meant to be a physical match for Batman, very few non "enhanced" humans are.

Very few enhanced are either, for that matter.

Foxtrol

Drumpot wrote: »

There also seems to be an almost over reaching effort to distance this from the movies Phillips has said inspired it. This is exactly what fanboys do when prequels “we didn’t need” are made and they spend all their time moaning about it. In this case it’s a “this isn’t comparable with taxi driver” sort of snobbery. Ok, well don’t compare it with it then, that was made 40 years ago. Maybe judge it as a remarkable achievement for a comic book movie in this day and age. More so for Warner brothers who are the glazers of comic book movies, don’t seem to have a clue what to do.

I feel The only fair way to judge a movie is basing it on how it worked on its own. It might of drawn inspiration from elsewhere but it’s got its own unique take. I’ve been trying to understand why people could actually make “it’s hard to work out what they are trying to say” an issue. They said it themselves , the movie is whatever you make of it. If that doesn’t suit how you like movies to be made then maybe it’s just a case that this movie isn’t for you. Why does everything have to make sense and be easily explainable? Why can’t the entire movie be ambiguous for us to enjoy it?

Are you not contradicting yourself here? You don't want this movie to be compared to movies in the same genre when it looks inferior, like Taxi Driver, but then go ahead to compare it to other comic book movies, which are much further from being peers to what Joker is.

Between how physical he got with smashing yer man's head repeatedly off his apartment wall, and the scene with him stomping trash in an alleyway, this Joker seems about as physical as any of the other big screen incarnations.

Before someone says 'Yeah cause stomping trash or a stabbed man is the same as taking on Batman', that is not my point at all.

MOR316

Deleted User wrote: »

Between how physical he got with smashing yer man's head repeatedly off his apartment wall, and the scene with him stomping trash in an alleyway, this Joker seems about as physical as any of the other big screen incarnations.

Before someone says 'Yeah cause stomping trash or a stabbed man is the same as taking on Batman', that is not my point at all.

Joker was never a physical match anyway. It's all mental.

Personally, I think this version, given the character of Arthur/Joker, would be a fascinating foe for Batman.

Imagine his obsession with Batman, considering Joker's motives in this film and what Batman's beliefs and ideals are?

Having said that, if it's anything like the current DC product, it would be destroyed

brevity

faceman wrote: »

The Red Letter Media folks give a good analysis on the movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAGA82ajAdo

I think Mike appreciated the effort and could see what Todd Philips was trying to do but Jay couldn’t let go of the fact that it was the guy from the hangover movies that directed it.

ardinn

I think if you just let them at it they could do a very good seperate universe involving joker/batman - with this film as the beginning. The certainly laid the foundations,

Batman now has a purpose!

Talk of physical ability is rubbish, and as rightly pointed out above anytime batman met joker he kicked 7 shades of shíte out of him.

If

the bruce kid could act you could have a great origin

story

siblers

I loved the homage to Heath Ledger's Joker

JP in the cop car at the end took me back to the Dark Knight scene with Heath Ledger in the cop car, felt like I was watching Heath Ledger's Joker

siblers

For all the people moaning it was directed by Todd Phillips. Had they seen the film without knowing the director before hand, there isn't a hope they would have guessed it was directed by a comic director afterwards.

Its not perfect, has some flaws with the story line but thought he did a superb job

I'm glad I didn't look up Todd Philips in advance. As soon as I saw that first trailer, I knew I wanted to see it, so I stuck my head in the sand until release.

Drumpot

Foxtrol wrote: »

Are you not contradicting yourself here? You don't want this movie to be compared to movies in the same genre when it looks inferior, like Taxi Driver, but then go ahead to compare it to other comic book movies, which are much further from being peers to what Joker is.

You are right to a degree to be fair.

However this movie is set in a comic city, has at very least characters from a comicbook hero’s story and is Interpreted by most as the origin story, on some level, of one of the most famous comicbook villians. The director admitted that are elements influenced by taxi but I don’t necessarily agree that it makes it fair game to be vilified for not being taxi driver.

faceman

fluke wrote: »

Yeah but in this movie's world Bruce is a kid. Both would have a long way to go before becoming filling out their characters as we know them.

That’s what I’m saying. It might be interesting to see the next step for Joker but given the overhang of mental health I’m not really sure where they can take while retaining the grounded approach of this movie

Foxtrol

Drumpot wrote: »

You are right to a degree to be fair.

However this movie is set in a comic city, has at very least characters from a comicbook hero’s story and is Interpreted by most as the origin story, on some level, of one of the most famous comicbook villians. The director admitted that are elements influenced by taxi but I don’t necessarily agree that it makes it fair game to be vilified for not being taxi driver.

I asked earlier in a thread how do you define a comic book movie and used the example of whether a movie automatically becomes a western because in the end the main character becomes a cowboy.

None of the items you mention for it to be a comic book movie play that much impact to the overall story, if anything most are either at an 'easter egg' level or feel extremely forced. You could take each away and have just as good a movie, though not near the audience interest or acclaim.

I agree that I don't think it is fair to be vilified for not being Taxi Driver but in the same regard I don't think it should be elevated through comparing it to the standard comic book blockbuster.

take everything

Just watched it.
Not as great as I thought it would be.

What happened to him in no way justified his behaviour so it he became an unsympathetic character pretty quickly. The narcissistic mother thing (every second person nowadays has a narc mommy) surely isn't justification.

I may have missed it but can anyone tell me what happened to his

"girlfriend"

in it.

Also, as he's an unreliable narrator, I'm left wondering just what exactly was fantasy and what wasn't.

Edit:

the ending where they rise up and idolise him as a killer seemed to not be properly motivated as well.

johnny_ultimate

Films don’t exist in a vacuum.

Todd Phillips has made some ****ing awful films. It takes more than one step up - which this is, if IMO a few cautious, welcome steps forward rather than a giant leap - for him to fully escape that legacy. The sort of witless mean-spiritedness that pervaded the Hangover series (particularly the sequels) at its worst can inform one’s readings of this film. Take the film on its own merits for sure, but putting it in the context of the lead filmmaker’s career can be informative and illuminating - no more so than we’d do the same with Wes Anderson or Claire Denis or Michael Bay or whoever!

If you’re going to blatantly call attention to the Scorsese comparisons, it’s more than fair game to use them as a point of reference. I mean the casting of Robert de Niro as a talk show host is such a blatant metatextual callback to the King of Comedy it’s hard to ignore. Similarly it’s full of nods and references and allusions to other versions of the Joker - again, the filmmakers actively inviting us to make the comparisons. Whether you think the comparisons are favourable or not is almost besides the point - it’s been a while since a Hollywood blockbuster so overtly called attention to its influences, and the conversation has adapted accordingly

And finally, if the film’s going to have overt references to modern social movements (there is IIRC a shot of a ‘RESIST’ sign) or ideologies, it to me invites analysis of how it addresses or tackles these things (badly IMO). Again, films don’t exist in a vacuum - especially one liberally packed with callbacks, references, homages, allusions and so forth.

PressRun

The stuff about society crumbling was really half-baked tbh. If the movie had leaned into that more and explored the Joker's relationship with the anti-rich ideology a bit better, I might have enjoyed it more as an origin story, and it would have tied in well with his rivalry with Batman.

Drumpot

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Films don’t exist in a vacuum.

Todd Phillips has made some ****ing awful films. It takes more than one step up - which this is, if IMO a few cautious, welcome steps forward rather than a giant leap - for him to fully escape that legacy. The sort of witless mean-spiritedness that pervaded the Hangover series (particularly the sequels) at its worst can inform one’s readings of this film. Take the film on its own merits for sure, but putting it in the context of the lead filmmaker’s career can be informative and illuminating - no more so than we’d do the same with Wes Anderson or Claire Denis or Michael Bay or whoever!

If you’re going to blatantly call attention to the Scorsese comparisons, it’s more than fair game to use them as a point of reference. I mean the casting of Robert de Niro as a talk show host is such a blatant metatextual callback to the King of Comedy it’s hard to ignore. Similarly it’s full of nods and references and allusions to other versions of the Joker - again, the filmmakers actively inviting us to make the comparisons. Whether you think the comparisons are favourable or not is almost besides the point - it’s been a while since a Hollywood blockbuster so overtly called attention to its influences, and the conversation has adapted accordingly

And finally, if the film’s going to have overt references to modern social movements (there is IIRC a shot of a ‘RESIST’ sign) or ideologies, it to me invites analysis of how it addresses or tackles these things (badly IMO). Again, films don’t exist in a vacuum - especially one liberally packed with callbacks, references, homages, allusions and so forth.

What do you feel is informative and enlightening about the directors connection to this movie and his previous movies? I suppose I don’t think knowing anything about his previous movies makes any difference to my sentiments on this movie other then surprised he even attempted such a different kind of movie. I think he deserves credit for going outside his comfort zone! Not just that he’s attempting to make a movie that’s partially inspired by a movie making genius, there are easier directors to try and copy.

I wonder If you hadn’t seen taxi driver, do you think you would of enjoyed it more? And maybe if you didn’t know Phillips was director would that of changed your view? This is the counter question to benchmarking the movie by these two barometers. These facts shape your expectations and your prejudices when forming an opinion on it. Obviously you can’t unknow what you know but that’s more a question to ponder then to answer as many movies have their own baggage that equally moulds our sentiments. I’m just curious if these things didn’t matter would you of felt differently towards the movie!

Is it a reference to a modern social movement or of just a reference of human behaviour and ignorance that pretty much most generations could identify with on some level?. The Poor or anti hero’s rising up agaisnt the rich is nothing new. People treating people like sh*t is nothing new. Society has been broken for a long time, I’m sure there are plenty of other generations that could identify with the general commentary on society.

Adding a more psychological theme isn’t particularly radical either. In many regards this is a challange to the modern social movement of discussing mental health. People don’t want to see broken individuals humanised because it gives them comfort to class them monsters or evil. They dehumanises people who do terrible things. . The thought that society plays a massive role in nurturing their darker tendency’s is too much for most. In many regards I think this movie challanges some peoples close minded views on how people can be so cruel.

This movie has inspired a lot of excitement , anger and discussion and has left things to the imagination, surely that’s a quality that should be celebrated in this day and age? Or do you feel it’s a wannabe Scorsese rip off that’s dressed up In a shallow comicbook coating?

I will be honest Johnny, you do articulate your points very well but I do not understand how anything you said really takes away from the quality of the movie. Perhaps I just don’t find The things you have said particularly important to enjoy it..

Drumpot

PressRun wrote: »

The stuff about society crumbling was really half-baked tbh. If the movie had leaned into that more and explored the Joker's relationship with the anti-rich ideology a bit better, I might have enjoyed it more as an origin story, and it would have tied in well with his rivalry with Batman.

What other information did we need to know about the jokers relationship with the anti rich ideology to make this a better movie? This is not a snotty post, genuinely interested in what bugs people about this movie and curious to understand what might of made it better. Like the way Kevin smith always asks Kevin Barnard for alternative things that would of made a movie better

Hal3000

Didn’t enjoy it. Most dialogue lacked any tension, felt the plot was quite thin and sluggish at times. Most of the characters Joker interacts with are terribly cast with the exception of the midget guy and admin guy in the mental hospital. Several aspects of the story just didn’t work. Scene in the bathroom with his so called father could have been really special but was just rushed and again lacked any tension. Felt this throughout the movie with other characters. Let down of a movie in my opinion. Such as shame as Phoenix was great.

Drumpot

Foxtrol wrote: »

I asked earlier in a thread how do you define a comic book movie and used the example of whether a movie automatically becomes a western because in the end the main character becomes a cowboy.

None of the items you mention for it to be a comic book movie play that much impact to the overall story, if anything most are either at an 'easter egg' level or feel extremely forced. You could take each away and have just as good a movie, though not near the audience interest or acclaim.

I agree that I don't think it is fair to be vilified for not being Taxi Driver but in the same regard I don't think it should be elevated through comparing it to the standard comic book blockbuster.

Ha, Logan is a cowboy movie

I get your point though.

tylercheribini

Drumpot wrote: »

Ha, Logan is a cowboy movie

I get your point though.

Dirty Harry is an urban western.

PressRun

Drumpot wrote: »

What other information did we need to know about the jokers relationship with the anti rich ideology to make this a better movie? This is not a snotty post, genuinely interested in what bugs people about this movie and curious to understand what might of made it better. Like the way Kevin smith always asks Kevin Barnard for alternative things that would of made a movie better

Well, he doesn't really have one other than the fact that he killed some Wall Street guys (which as an incitement to anarchy seems flimsy). He says himself that he's not political and yet we're invited to view the masses as being 'on his side' and viewing him as a figurehead so to speak. I get that movements can pop up around all sorts of people and flash moments, but I felt that the movie was trying to make this link between the Joker and the disillusioned masses, but was being a bit non-committal about it by not really having him fully engage with it. It's just happening around him, but he doesn't really have anything to say about any of it. I think there could be a compelling story in how civil unrest in the city could lead to the rise of a charismatic Joker-like figure who was able to rally disenfranchised people against wealthy one-percenters and the whole apparatus of power, but the fact that this guy doesn't seem to actually care a whole lot about that just takes the bite out of it a little, for me.
I think I would have liked it more if he actually had some real thoughts about those issues and it would have linked up well with his feelings about Batman later on down the line when they meet again and might have added more bite to his interaction with the Wayne patriarch.

And I get too that part of the Joker's character is the commitment to chaos and not really believing in anything, but then I think you are going to run into issues with that when you try to get to the heart of their motivations. Maybe like another poster said, my issue is really with the demystification of the Joker. He's not as compelling when you strip away the myth.
Heath Ledger's interpretation is so good is because they don't know what he's after and maybe I just prefer it that way.

Just my opinion.

Uncle Charlie

Hal3000 wrote: »

Didn’t enjoy it. Most dialogue lacked any tension, felt the plot was quite thin and sluggish at times. Most of the characters Joker interacts with are terribly cast with the exception of the midget guy and admin guy in the mental hospital. Several aspects of the story just didn’t work. Scene in the bathroom with his so called father could have been really special but was just rushed and again lacked any tension. Felt this throughout the movie with other characters. Let down of a movie in my opinion. Such as shame as Phoenix was great.

I had very high expectations for this film.


But I found it a snoozefest that takes forever to get going.


Its certainly no Dark Knight only the last 20mins of the film are really worth watching.


I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

baamus

Don't have any expectations but was really going to sacrifice my food shopping this week to see Phoenix now after reading some comments here not quite sure.

baamus

baamus wrote: »

Don't have any expectations but was really going to sacrifice my food shopping this week to see Phoenix now after reading some comments here not quite sure.

The majority in here got some enjoyment to a lot of enjoyment from the movie, a minority didn't like it. You should check it out for yourself if you were interested in the first place.

Forget that though, if it's a choice between a movie or food shopping...don't go hungry

Keyzer

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

Get the boat.

Seen Joker last night - loved it.

If I had to find any faults I'd be nit picking.

And Phoenix's performance was incredible - if he doesn't win an oscar for this its a travesty.

Tazzimus

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

I had very high expectations for this film.


But I found it a snoozefest that takes forever to get going.


Its certainly no Dark Knight only the last 20mins of the film are really worth watching.


I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

Were you expecting a superhero movie, by any chance?

The Nal

Keyzer wrote: »

Get the boat.

Seen Joker last night - loved it.

If I had to find any faults I'd be nit picking.

And Phoenix's performance was incredible - if he doesn't win an oscar for this its a travesty.

Which actors has he been better than in which movies?

Keyzer

The Nal wrote: »

Which actors has he been better than in which movies?

I'm not going to get into a rating/competition argument with you - its a waste of time.

Regardless, if you can't see how outstanding a performance JP put in for this movie then you clearly cannot appreciate acting of a high caliber.

Perhaps you we're expecting a super hero, action fest.

I walked out of the cinema last night thinking how I felt must have been comparable to how people felt seeing Taxi Driver for the first time. His performance was that good - beyond good. Incredible stuff.