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

The Nal

I watched hardcore porn when I was 10 and I turned out porn

tylercheribini

Tazzimus wrote: »

I watched Nightmare on Elm street when I was about ten.
Casino and the likes way younger than I should have as well. I turned out fine, for the most part.

I think a 14 year old would be bored by this, if they didn't understand what was happening to the character throughout.

If violence in films actually solely created killers then murder rates would be far higher. Its a testament to the power of Joker that people seem to find it far more disturbing than say Rambo Last Blood which is far more gruesome and yet came and went without fanfare.

one armed dwarf

I think the question of 'is it suitable y/n' is complicated by the way Arthur is humanised. His problems are very real and genuine but it's hard to separate that from his crimes.

The film needs to be a bit longer.. imo.

Like the object of Arthur's frustration is the collapse of safety nets for people like him. Which is a real problem. But then he murders people.

It's a weird film for me cause I want to commend for the focus on the underfunding of social services. But the "you get what you deserve" ending complicates it for me.

Which might be the point as well. Movies don't have to paint things plain or in black and white. But the messy messaging is the bigger problem for younger viewers imo, not necessarily the graphic violence.

The gore/violence/other content is fine for a 14 year old.

They would be bored senseless by it, though.

This is not a superhero movie.

Dravokivich

Deleted User wrote: »

The gore/violence/other content is fine for a 14 year old.

They would be bored senseless by it, though.

This is not a superhero movie.

Why would it be a superhero movie if the lead is a villain?

joe40

The "violence" shown on video clips on YouTube, WhatsApp etc which are often real life are far more damaging and dehumanizing in my view.
Some clips on WhatsApp showing actual accident as funny clips are often quite horrendous.
No concept of was someone seriously injured there?

Foxtrol

The Golden Miller wrote: »

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.

You can't compare rioting in the US after police killed 'innocent' minorities to the rioting to support someone on the run for murdering 'rich snobs', especially when at least 1 was clearly not in self defense.

Again, you're going back to relying on the history in Gotham as a crutch when going in we're told that we should look at this movie in isolation, as a standalone, during a time period that hasn't really been dealt with before.

Another claim is that the woman story might have gotten out to the wider public and if so they could have easily showed us that, they wasted a newscast with a nod to 'super rats' when they could have used it to provide background to growing public unease at a deeper level.

A movie has issues when the audience has to either make up explanations or shrug their shoulders at something that is leveraged repeatedly for the overall narrative.

homerun_homer

jackboy wrote: »

I think it is quite easy to accept and quite common in real life. Such things have happened many many times on this island. In less stable poorer parts of the world such things are widespread.

Would love to hear some real life, like for like examples of people cheering on this island in support of murder.

rossie1977

Saw it last night.

In many ways the theme of the story is comparable to Falling Down the 93 movie starring Michael Douglas and filmed on same Warner lot.

Dravokivich

Dravokivich wrote: »

Why would it be a superhero movie if the lead is a villain?

Suicide squad is a superhero film where all of the main leads are villains, if you want to get bogged down in semantics.

The White Wolf

I find the social uprising similar to Fleck's imagined relationship with Sophie.

In that relationship the dots never quite lined up and it felt like there were literally scenes missing. When the twist was revealed that's the only thing that could have possibly made sense.

The social uprising is very much the same in that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.....and that's the point I think.

That's why I think it's a bit pointless to get bogged down in how "believable" the social uprising was because by doing so, you're getting played by Fleck/Joker.

The whole film is a head **** and I love it for it.

jackboy

homerun_homer wrote: »

Would love to hear some real life, like for like examples of people cheering on this island in support of murder.

Well there are all the obvious examples in the north over the last few decades. Some in the south also which in some ways were more disturbing.

Foxtrol

The White Wolf wrote: »

I find the social uprising similar to Fleck's imagined relationship with Sophie.

In that relationship the dots never quite lined up and it felt like there were literally scenes missing. When the twist was revealed that's the only thing that could have possibly made sense.

The social uprising is very much the same in that it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.....and that's the point I think.

That's why I think it's a bit pointless to get bogged down in how "believable" the social uprising was because by doing so, you're getting played by Fleck/Joker.

The whole film is a head **** and I love it for it.

I'm all on board with this line of thinking of it, which is why it didn't bother me too much while watching.

It does however highlight how badly forced the reveal flashback explanation for the girlfriend was. If they didn't do that it would allow us more freedom to work out what we think is real or not. The addition of it makes everything messier when it comes to working through what we saw.

The White Wolf

Foxtrol wrote: »

I'm all on board with this line of thinking of it, which is why it didn't bother me too much while watching.

It does however highlight how badly forced the reveal flashback explanation for the girlfriend was. If they didn't do that it would allow us more freedom to work out what we think is real or not. The addition of it makes everything messier when it comes to working through what we saw.

The flashbacks were unnecessary, and was a weird choice in an otherwise loose narrative that allowed the audience to decide what was real or not.

joe40

The White Wolf wrote: »

The flashbacks were unnecessary, and was a weird choice in an otherwise loose narrative that allowed the audience to decide what was real or not.

I didn't mind the flashback scenes, don't like too much ambiguity in a story. Major spoiler coming up..
One thing I'm not sure about is did he hurt/kill Sophie when he was in her apartment and the flashbacks revealed his delusion.

The White Wolf

joe40 wrote: »

I didn't mind the flashback scenes, don't like too much ambiguity in a story. Major spoiler coming up..
One thing I'm not sure about is did he hurt/kill Sophie when he was in her apartment and the flashbacks revealed his delusion.

The simple answer is that it's hard to know. He let the midget go but again, that unreliable narrative comes into play because I couldn't believe he let the midget go. The whole 3rd act is particularly dubious to be honest in that there's unreliable narration all over it.

Ferajacka

I reckon the what was real what wasn't is simpler than we think.
Sophie being his girlfriend was not real.
He was at the comedy club. Sophie was not.
The comedy club thing ended up on the talk show was real or else we wouldn't have joker dress up, like joker and ask to be called joker.

We we're spoon fed the Sophie reveal so why not anything else.

Personally I think the car crashing the cop car and the rise sequence was not real and was a delusion. Or else he would not have ended up in Arkham as quickly as he did with that anarchy in the city.
The blood footprints signify to me he was escaping from Arkham killing whatever was in his way and very real.

Underground

Enjoyed the movie, a solid 7/10 for me. I'm glad they got Phoenix as without a strong lead this could have fallen flat on his face.

I was expecting it to be way more violent than it was, what with all the controversy. It was extremely mild in terms of violence and I'm still at a loss as to what the whole kerfuffle was about. Is it because he's a loser "incel" and portrayed in a sympathetic manner? Is that where we are today?

It has its flaws, but still very enjoyable.

faceman

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The gore/violence/other content is fine for a 14 year old.

They would be bored senseless by it, though.

This is not a superhero movie.

It would be more helpful for parents if IFCO gave their viewing guidelines like this

faceman

From reading this whole thread and particularly the negative views on the film it’s very apparent that a lot of the negative comments are coming from a place of trying to fit the film in with existing Batman lore and material. You can’t watch the film with that. It’s not a comic book movie in the traditional sense and the director has heavily alluded to the fact that the story is all in Fleck’s head and there is a high probability that Fleck is not the ‘real’ Joker but likely an inspiration to whoever dons the true Joker mantel.

Also to the poster who claims that Rambo 5 is better than this film, I’m going to watch Rambo 5 on your recommendation. But please note that if Rambo 5 is crap I shall be lobbying my co-mods to have you perms-banned from this forum.

Foxtrol

faceman wrote: »

From reading this whole thread and particularly the negative views on the film it’s very apparent that a lot of the negative comments are coming from a place of trying to fit the film in with existing Batman lore and material. You can’t watch the film with that. It’s not a comic book movie in the traditional sense and the director has heavily alluded to the fact that the story is all in Fleck’s head and there is a high probability that Fleck is not the ‘real’ Joker but likely an inspiration to whoever dons the true Joker mantel.

I feel the opposite is just as true.

Plenty of the positive comments highlight comparing this movie to other comic book movies, when as you said it isn't a traditional one so that view is unfair. Many posters are also reverting back to pointing to Batman lore when issues with the narrative are raised.

There's a lot of trying to have things both ways.

Ferajacka

Something else occurred to me about the studio section. ( Definitely needs a second watch)

When pushed, and remember the director eludes to that joker will kill himself on TV. Of course as the audience you know he will not coz who else will fight Batman. /

But the bueaty of this movie is it presents a man with really nothing else to lose...?
I remember thinking "what else will he do here..."

But he admits he is responsible for the three deaths in the train. Like finally he realizes that this helped or was responsible for the up rising though he didn't exactly give a **** about it before that.

But his murders of his Co worker or his mother (or non girlfriend and kid) are not worth the mention coz he's the joker and it doesn't matter to him.

Addle

I thought it was great but I also thought his laugh sounded

just like Elmo’s

, which I found distracting.

Riddle101

Ferajacka wrote: »

I reckon the what was real what wasn't is simpler than we think.
Sophie being his girlfriend was not real.
He was at the comedy club. Sophie was not.
The comedy club thing ended up on the talk show was real or else we wouldn't have joker dress up, like joker and ask to be called joker.

We we're spoon fed the Sophie reveal so why not anything else.

Personally I think the car crashing the cop car and the rise sequence was not real and was a delusion. Or else he would not have ended up in Arkham as quickly as he did with that anarchy in the city.
The blood footprints signify to me he was escaping from Arkham killing whatever was in his way and very real.

I would say that Sophie was real, but not his girlfriend. The scene when she finds him sitting on her couch and is clearly scared is probably real. Also the scene when he meets her for the first time, and when he's stalking her is probably real too.

stesaurus

When talking with his mam at the hospital he says he's never known a moment's happiness. I think after that statement anytime he was seen happy is part of the delusion. So the train murders, going on TV as Joker, killing his mam, killing his friend in his apartment, dancing scene etc.
There's just so much unbelievable about the story. Killing 3 rich elite in seemingly cold blood does not warrant a ground swell of public negativity towards the rich. There's no chance that he gets invited onto live primetime tonight show and if he did there's no chance he'd be allowed do what he did or broadcasting to stay on.
The true narrative plays out like getting the **** kicked out of him on the train, fired from work and winds up in wrong apartment. I think he then kills Sophie and the kid, he's clearly not manic or happy afterwards and that's how he ends up back at Arkham.
He's not Joker at all as that was never referenced outside his head but perhaps his delusions are what inspires the Joker from rising.

1800_Ladladlad

faceman wrote: »

From reading this whole thread and particularly the negative views on the film it’s very apparent that a lot of the negative comments are coming from a place of trying to fit the film in with existing Batman lore and material.

This the expectation of the viewer and not a valid excuse to drag the movie its self. The viewers pissing and moaning about this are just generic movie-goers, a-kin to those who go to see the likes of the Disneys star wars or the marvel films without known any history. Plus, if this was within the universe, it would have been marketed that way to appeal to more people and be a cash cow. This is clearly not like any other DC film. Marvel and DC created this bull**** of other characters making cameos in films. I didn't know anyone who wasn't aware
of this being a stand-alone.

Beechwoodspark

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.

Have to say I agree with most of this. Although it had its moments I was hoping it would be better than it ultimately was.

Beechwoodspark

Sudden Valley wrote: »

Thought it was an okay movie. Still think Ledger has the best depiction of the Joker as the Joker in this movie was a bit pathetic throughout . Mother Son relationship was great but thought this would have worked better as a generic clown murderer movie rather than him being the Joker.

Yeah that crossed my mind too. Had he just gone by the name carnival or whatever, no mention of the Batman universe

yourdeadwright

Very hard to know what in the third part of the movie was real and what was just in his head ,

Homelander

sydthebeat wrote: »

its not an "adult" movie... its 16s rated

That's not really much of an argument, very few films are rated 18's anymore so by that yardstick, only a small percentage of films are 'adult' films.

Anyway, went to see Joker and thought it was absolutely magnificent.