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

johnny_ultimate

Drumpot wrote: »

I’m just curious if these things didn’t matter would you of felt differently towards the movie!

I mean fundamentally they do matter so it’s hard for me to imagine a situation where they don’t As you say, I can’t ‘unknow’ what I know - the film exists in a wider cinematic world, and that inevitably feeds my response to it. It’s very hard to ignore that, and honestly I think it does a disservice to the film to ignore the context it explicitly draws our attention to! I stand by my initial assessment of the film which I feel draws on both the film as its own thing and the wider context in which it exists.

I think I’ve addressed most of your other points in my initial post on the film - tl;dr it’s a curious effort that I didn’t think really worked all that well. I’ve seen several other films in the cinema in the days since Joker that I’m far more excited about. I’m glad Joker has got other people excited though, and I’m enjoying the conversations around it - just didn’t do much for me

The Nal

Keyzer wrote: »

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.

I loved it. He was incredible.

Just pointing out that you think he should get the Oscar despite the fact you haven't seen any of the others movies. They haven't even released the nominations yet!

El Duda

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

I watched half of The Dark Knight yesterday evening and, dare I say it, I prefer Joaquin Phoenix's Joker. This boils down to the fact that I don't really like comic book films in general. Heath Ledger's Joker is utterly ridiculous in comparison, but it really is apples and oranges.

maximoose

Enjoyed Joaquin Phoenix much more than the overall film. Great performance in an otherwise average film IMO.

Uncle Charlie

Tazzimus wrote: »

Were you expecting a superhero movie, by any chance?

I was sort of expecting a film like the dark knight.

Tazzimus

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

I was sort of expecting a film like the dark knight.

May have misinterpreted the trailers.
The Dark Knight was still a superhero movie, this was just dark.

Mark Hamill

Thread title says "May Contain Spoilers", so not spoiler tagging any of this.

Personally I loved this, thought Phoenix was fantastic and the story really good. Loved the tension throughout.
Some of the complaints posters are making in this a thread are a bit confusing to me though.

Posters are complaining about Wayne's murder in the movie - I could understand if it was at the start and was used as a driving point, but it just happened at the end, so what's the big deal? It fits with the rest of the movie, both in terms of it being related to Batman and in terms of the escalation of civil unrest shown throughout.

There are posters on the one hand complaining that the girlfriend reveal was too heavy handed and then complaining that the justification for the riots weren't explained directly and well enough in the movie. I thought the girlfriend reveal was fine (it was direct, but so what) and the riots and everything leading up was also justified well (less directly, but plenty of background hints about the civil dissatisfaction rising up in the city).

I'm not a fan at all of the idea that it was all in his head, "it was all a dream" is just stupidly cliched and a bit cowardly for a storyteller to use to be honest. You would also have the situation that not only was his girlfriend all in his head in the movie, but the idea that it was all in his head was also all in his head, which is just plain dumb.




While I agree that I don't see him working in a Justice League movie, I think there are plenty of places sequels could go.

First sequel could follow the jist of the game "Arkham Origins" Joker and Batmans first meeting from Jokers POV- Joker recklessly causing chaos around Gotham, nearly dies but a young newly arisen Batman saves him. Joker is baffled by him doing so, Joker is clearly a bad person so who should care if he dies, and this sets up his infatuation with Batman (in the game, it comes across as almost romantic in nature imo). Joker sees Batman as a kindred spirit and becomes hell bent on proving to him that the world is as dark as he is. (Video of relevant scene from game here, but I obviously don't think it should be even nearly as bombastic as that, or include the secondary characters that appear).

Sequels could then have the Jason Todd storyline (Joker can't change Batman so goes after his protégé, seemingly killing him). They could then have Todd comes back as the Red Hood in a later movie, demanding why Batman didn't kill Joker for what he did to Jason, and then it come out that Batman knows that Joker is his half brother and is simply not able to (Usually, in the comics, nobody knows the Jokers origin, but I think it would be more interesting if Batman did find out the same things Arthur/we the audience did during Joker 2019, but hides it for his own reasons).

blade1

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

Necro

Uncle Charlie wrote:

I actually enjoyed Rambo 5 better than the Joker.

That probably says more about your own personal taste in movies rather than Joker being bad tbh.

TheRodgers

i was hoping this would have an original take on the joker origin story but no nothing new just moved to a alt reality time line a 6 out of 10 for me.

ricero

Phoenix portrayal of the joker is by far the most realistic and emotional but for me Ledger is still has the best on screen performance of that character.

Would love to see more of this joker though. I may be one of the very few who would enjoy a sequel and maybe even interactions with a more darker Batman.

homerun_homer

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I thought the riots and everything leading up was also justified well (less directly, but plenty of background hints about the civil dissatisfaction rising up in the city).

The problem with the background to the rioting is how the viewer is to just go along with the idea that they support murder, just because Arthur murdered three rich prats. While they certainly deserved punishment, do they deserve to die? The rioters then all lap this up. To take a real world example and turn it hypothetical; Extinction Rebellion are protesting on our streets, yet if the Minister for the Environment (or any other relevant member of Gov) was murdered they wouldn't be cheering this on, adopting 'masks' of the murderer just because he didn't do enough to appease their requests for change.

For it to work in the film you need a bit more to at least somewhat try believe that aspect.

Uncle Charlie

homerun_homer wrote: »

The problem with the background to the rioting is how the viewer is to just go along with the idea that they support murder, just because Arthur murdered three rich prats. While they certainly deserved punishment, do they deserve to die? The rioters then all lap this up. To take a real world example and turn it hypothetical; Extinction Rebellion are protesting on our streets, yet if the Minister for the Environment (or any other relevant member of Gov) was murdered they wouldn't be cheering this on, adopting 'masks' of the murderer just because he didn't do enough to appease their requests for change.

For it to work in the film you need a bit more to at least somewhat try believe that aspect.

10 years ago if Bankers in Ireland had of been murdered I don't think anyone would of lost much sleep.

brianregan09

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thread title says "May Contain Spoilers", so not spoiler tagging any of this.

Personally I loved this, thought Phoenix was fantastic and the story really good. Loved the tension throughout.
Some of the complaints posters are making in this a thread are a bit confusing to me though.

Posters are complaining about Wayne's murder in the movie - I could understand if it was at the start and was used as a driving point, but it just happened at the end, so what's the big deal? It fits with the rest of the movie, both in terms of it being related to Batman and in terms of the escalation of civil unrest shown throughout.

There are posters on the one hand complaining that the girlfriend reveal was too heavy handed and then complaining that the justification for the riots weren't explained directly and well enough in the movie. I thought the girlfriend reveal was fine (it was direct, but so what) and the riots and everything leading up was also justified well (less directly, but plenty of background hints about the civil dissatisfaction rising up in the city).

I'm not a fan at all of the idea that it was all in his head, "it was all a dream" is just stupidly cliched and a bit cowardly for a storyteller to use to be honest. You would also have the situation that not only was his girlfriend all in his head in the movie, but the idea that it was all in his head was also all in his head, which is just plain dumb.




While I agree that I don't see him working in a Justice League movie, I think there are plenty of places sequels could go.

First sequel could follow the jist of the game "Arkham Origins" Joker and Batmans first meeting from Jokers POV- Joker recklessly causing chaos around Gotham, nearly dies but a young newly arisen Batman saves him. Joker is baffled by him doing so, Joker is clearly a bad person so who should care if he dies, and this sets up his infatuation with Batman (in the game, it comes across as almost romantic in nature imo). Joker sees Batman as a kindred spirit and becomes hell bent on proving to him that the world is as dark as he is. (Video of relevant scene from game here, but I obviously don't think it should be even nearly as bombastic as that, or include the secondary characters that appear).

Sequels could then have the Jason Todd storyline (Joker can't change Batman so goes after his prot, seemingly killing him). They could then have Todd comes back as the Red Hood in a later movie, demanding why Batman didn't kill Joker for what he did to Jason, and then it come out that Batman knows that Joker is his half brother and is simply not able to (Usually, in the comics, nobody knows the Jokers origin, but I think it would be more interesting if Batman did find out the same things Arthur/we the audience did during Joker 2019, but hides it for his own reasons).

This is all too sensible for DC to pull off

PressRun

ricero wrote: »

Phoenix portrayal of the joker is by far the most realistic and emotional but for me Ledger is still has the best on screen performance of that character.

Would love to see more of this joker though. I may be one of the very few who would enjoy a sequel and maybe even interactions with a more darker Batman.

Ledger changed how people view the character. Everything after him inevitably gets compared to him.

He had an element of surprise going for him though. Few were expecting the performance he gave. I even remember people complaining when it was revealed he'd been cast in the role. Then of course they had to eat their words when the movie came out.

Tazzimus

TheRodgers wrote: »

i was hoping this would have an original take on the joker origin story but no nothing new just moved to a alt reality time line a 6 out of 10 for me.

What other origins have we had? The whole thing about the Joker was his origin was fairly unknown.

tylercheribini

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

10 years ago if Bankers in Ireland had of been murdered I don't think anyone would of lost much sleep.

The effects pf the resulting austerity are still very much with us.

Foxtrol

Uncle Charlie wrote: »

10 years ago if Bankers in Ireland had of been murdered I don't think anyone would of lost much sleep.

Absolute nonsense. There was barely an act of violence against bankers or politicians and any acts were frowned upon, outside of the lunatic fringe.

In this movie they barely touch on the driving factors for the protest, aside from a garbage strike and a rich guy making an unadvised comment.

Hal3000

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Thread title says "May Contain Spoilers", so not spoiler tagging any of this.

Personally I loved this, thought Phoenix was fantastic and the story really good. Loved the tension throughout.
Some of the complaints posters are making in this a thread are a bit confusing to me though.

Posters are complaining about Wayne's murder in the movie - I could understand if it was at the start and was used as a driving point, but it just happened at the end, so what's the big deal? It fits with the rest of the movie, both in terms of it being related to Batman and in terms of the escalation of civil unrest shown throughout.

There are posters on the one hand complaining that the girlfriend reveal was too heavy handed and then complaining that the justification for the riots weren't explained directly and well enough in the movie. I thought the girlfriend reveal was fine (it was direct, but so what) and the riots and everything leading up was also justified well (less directly, but plenty of background hints about the civil dissatisfaction rising up in the city).

I'm not a fan at all of the idea that it was all in his head, "it was all a dream" is just stupidly cliched and a bit cowardly for a storyteller to use to be honest. You would also have the situation that not only was his girlfriend all in his head in the movie, but the idea that it was all in his head was also all in his head, which is just plain dumb.




While I agree that I don't see him working in a Justice League movie, I think there are plenty of places sequels could go.

First sequel could follow the jist of the game "Arkham Origins" Joker and Batmans first meeting from Jokers POV- Joker recklessly causing chaos around Gotham, nearly dies but a young newly arisen Batman saves him. Joker is baffled by him doing so, Joker is clearly a bad person so who should care if he dies, and this sets up his infatuation with Batman (in the game, it comes across as almost romantic in nature imo). Joker sees Batman as a kindred spirit and becomes hell bent on proving to him that the world is as dark as he is. (Video of relevant scene from game here, but I obviously don't think it should be even nearly as bombastic as that, or include the secondary characters that appear).

Sequels could then have the Jason Todd storyline (Joker can't change Batman so goes after his protégé, seemingly killing him). They could then have Todd comes back as the Red Hood in a later movie, demanding why Batman didn't kill Joker for what he did to Jason, and then it come out that Batman knows that Joker is his half brother and is simply not able to (Usually, in the comics, nobody knows the Jokers origin, but I think it would be more interesting if Batman did find out the same things Arthur/we the audience did during Joker 2019, but hides it for his own reasons).

If a movie needs to be explained that much it’s usually not very good, which Joker is...

Riddle101

Saw it today on my day off and I am impressed. Joaquin put on a masterful performance. Kind've makes me miss Heath Ledger though. I feel like Ledger's Joker kind've opened the doors for the The Joker movie. He helped make The Joker a cool character in the world of movies and without The Dark Knight, we might not have had a Joker film. Maybe i'm wrong about this, but I couldn't help but think about Heath Ledger today as I was making my way to the cinema.

But yeah, Joaquin really nailed it and I would love for him to get the Oscar and to see a sequel.

I also loved that the movie tied in with the Batman origin. I mean we already know the Batman origin but it was still impressive to see how everything transpired. The culmination of events that led to the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne and what would ultimately lead to the rise of Batman.

Foxtrol

Riddle101 wrote: »

I also loved that the movie tied in with the Batman origin. I mean we already know the Batman origin but it was still impressive to see how everything transpired. The culmination of events that led to the deaths of Thomas and Martha Wayne and what would ultimately lead to the rise of Batman.

Problem is that if they go with this as a standalone or separate to the wider DC universe it makes inserting it completely pointless fan service. Made even worse by the vagueness that we don't know what is real or what is in his mind.

The Golden Miller

Foxtrol wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. There was barely an act of violence against bankers or politicians and any acts were frowned upon, outside of the lunatic fringe.

In this movie they barely touch on the driving factors for the protest, aside from a garbage strike and a rich guy making an unadvised comment.

That's Ireland though. Half the population are happy to go along with the corruption if they also benefit somewhat, the other half moan and do nothing. We are passive people by comparison to other countries.

Gotham is meant to be a volatile sh!thole, and has always been portrayed as such. Within those parameter's, what transpired in the film is believable enough for me

Foxtrol

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's Ireland though. Half the population are happy to go along with the corruption if they also benefit somewhat, the other half moan and do nothing. We are passive people by comparison to other countries.

Gotham is meant to be a volatile sh!thole, and has always been portrayed as such. Within those parameter's, what transpired in the film is believable enough for me

Again, that sounds like another case of us being asked to look at the movie as a standalone with no baggage from other movies but at the same time keep all the presumptions we have about certain aspects that suit them, where they don’t bother to fully fill out during the movie.

The Golden Miller

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, that sounds like another case of us being asked to look at the movie as a standalone with no baggage from other movies but at the same time keep all the presumptions we have about certain aspects that suit them, where they don’t bother to fully fill out during the movie.

Look at the US over the last few years. Serious rioting taking place where minorities have felt discriminated against. Places and communities always teetering on the edge, with one incident escalating the whole situation causing mayhem.

Gotham for all intents and purposes, is supposed to be far worse, but always relating more so to class divisions. It's always portrayed as morbid, gothic and miserable with huge undercurrents of tensions between the rich and poor.

mikhail

Foxtrol wrote: »

Again, that sounds like another case of us being asked to look at the movie as a standalone with no baggage from other movies but at the same time keep all the presumptions we have about certain aspects that suit them, where they don’t bother to fully fill out during the movie.

You should get all that baggage from the cultural associations of the period setting. Movies have to do that sometimes, or they'd all start with a star wars style scrolling text.

leahyl

Saw it tonight, thought Joaquin Phoenix was absolutely phenomenal. Really enjoyed it.

Mark Hamill

homerun_homer wrote: »

The problem with the background to the rioting is how the viewer is to just go along with the idea that they support murder, just because Arthur murdered three rich prats. While they certainly deserved punishment, do they deserve to die? The rioters then all lap this up. To take a real world example and turn it hypothetical; Extinction Rebellion are protesting on our streets, yet if the Minister for the Environment (or any other relevant member of Gov) was murdered they wouldn't be cheering this on, adopting 'masks' of the murderer just because he didn't do enough to appease their requests for change.

For it to work in the film you need a bit more to at least somewhat try believe that aspect.

Don't forget that they had started harassing a woman on the train first. Arthur started laughing at them so they turned on him and then the woman left. I think it's safe to assume the woman was found by the police and told them what happened. It's then not a big jump to assume her story reached the public, so the public would then see it as 3 drunk sleazeball rich guys were harassing people on a train and just harassed the wrong guy and therefore got what they deserved.

This was reasonable and obvious to me, so complaining that the girlfriend reveal was belaboured but the civil unrest and lead up to the riots was not seems a bit inconsistent.

sydthebeat

Yeah personally I did not have a problem at all going from the disquiet to outright rioting. Gotham is portrayed as a tinder box of social unrest from the outset of the movie.
Its actually a clever mirror to Arthur's own turmoil till he gets to the "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" point.

Occupy wall street, race riots, disaffected youth movements, Incel, heck even extinction rebellion all have mirrors here.

silverharp

Came across an interesting symbolic attachment to his name, intended or not? Arthur as in King Arthur had dubious parentage and Fleck is kind of obvious, a particle of dust/stain.