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

Mokuba

A movie that thinks it is a lot better than it is.

ErnestBorgnine

Mokuba wrote: »

A movie that thinks it is a lot better than it is.

Movies are not sentient :rolleyes:

tylercheribini

ErnestBorgnine wrote: »

Movies are not sentient :rolleyes:

Perhaps its another fan theory.

evilcloud

Mokuba wrote: »

A movie that thinks it is a lot better than it is.

How so

ErnestBorgnine

tylercheribini wrote: »

Perhaps its another fan theory.

I wouldn't rule it out!

tigger123

Mokuba wrote: »

A movie that thinks it is a lot better than it is.

I've seen this comment around quite a bit and can't figure out what it means? What do you think it thinks it is, and how does it fall short? Genuine question.

tylercheribini

tigger123 wrote: »

I've seen this comment around quite a bit and can't figure out what it means? What do you think it thinks it is, and how does it fall short? Genuine question.

It thinks,therfore it is.

Relikk

tigger123 wrote: »

I've seen this comment around quite a bit and can't figure out what it means? What do you think it thinks it is, and how does it fall short? Genuine question.

I think it means that people are giving the film more credit than it deserves in terms of fucking with peoples heads about what was real and what wasn't, and generally thinking that the screenplay is more intelligent than it really is and "subverting expectations™". As far as I'm concerned what did and what didn't happen is clearly shown, and there's really nothing more to be read into.

Ferajacka

Right final thoughts on this.
This is an original origin story to Joker. Unless Phillips admits otherwise I will be disappointed.

Joker in this movie whether by delusion, circumstances, fighting back against oppression, loves infamy or whatever - goes crimminally insane.
As far as I care he is not dead in a fridge otherwise who will fight Batman...

Good movie l, can't wait to watch it again.

If Phillips says he's dead in fridge, or is not the joker that fights Batman I will demand my money back or watch it again for free...

Simmer down

Just back from seeing the movie. I loved it. Great performance.

Mokuba

tigger123 wrote: »

I've seen this comment around quite a bit and can't figure out what it means? What do you think it thinks it is, and how does it fall short? Genuine question.

I'm sure that Todd Phillips thought he was making his magnum opus. What I saw was a film that was so derivative of better works that it was almost shameful.

A film almost designed to make people think it's a revolutionary masterpiece because it takes the "superhero" genre, injects some gloominess and creates some ambiguity regarding the plot. What if we remade King of Comedy with a few tablespoons of Taxi Driver as a superhero movie, except badly? Well the answer is out there now.

Yet none of the (is it in his head?) really matters thematically. A question to distract you from how Phillips never really comes up with an effective, original idea. Does it even matter which of it was in his head? The answer doesn't add anything meaningful to the movie either way.

It can't decide who it likes or doesn't (the clowns/the joker himself/the wealthy) - it doesn't have the balls to take an actual stance and instead sits firmly on the fence despite pretending to make some sort of social statement.

The Batman connection felt completely out of place, like it was from a different movie. Which I guess it was, because forcing a Batman connection into a movie which tries it's best to rip off Scorsese will seem like something from a different movie. I found it exceedingly dull and boring. I felt like the director let Phoenix do whatever he wanted, probably shocked that he was getting to work with one of the best actors around, and didn't bother to reign him in like, say, Paul Thomas Anderson did in the Master - where a performance of equal intensity was delivered far more effectively and with far greater nuance.

Not really interested in going further into it because this thread has now turned into a "positivity only" zone.

I mean, on the previous page we had this nonsense:

I genuinely believe that if Todd Phillips had've used the pseudonym "Martin Scorsese" for this, it would be being held up by these same reviewers like Simba at the beginning of The Lion King!

Maybe watch the Scorsese movies that this fella tries to copy, before coming out with gargle like that.

Ironicname

Mokuba wrote:

It can't decide who it likes or doesn't (the clowns/the joker himself/the wealthy) - it doesn't have the balls to take an actual stance and instead sits firmly on the fence despite pretending to make some sort of social statement.

You are entitled to your opinion but I'm glad he didn't make a stance. I'm sick of being battered over the head by filmmakers social commentary and it was refreshing that this film left enough ambiguity to mean different things depending on your interpretation.

It's not Todd Phillips job to tell me what to think. It's his job to make me think.

johnny_ultimate

Ironicname wrote: »

It's not Todd Phillips job to tell me what to think.

Films can easily take a stance without being a lecture. A film having a clear, coherent worldview often makes everything feel more rounded and satisfying. I saw Knives Out a few days after Joker and that (broadly similar to Joker as a mid-tier Hollywood film harking back to neglected genres) is a film with a clear, consistent authorial view that greatly enhances the film’s themes, narrative and even the jokes. The ideas are explored from the beginning, and payoff until the very final shots. It is, crucially, not remotely hectoring.

Joker, in comparison, is an indistinct mush of vague ideas and references that don’t amount to anything. It works well enough as a sort of psychological spectacle movie, but not a lot beyond that IMO.

I do not for a second think every film needs to have ‘something to say’, and indeed some films have ‘something to say’ badly. But Joker was just frustrating - and the only reason I think it’s a bit of a dealbreaker here is because the film goes out of its way to reference various real-world themes and social issues, but just moves on without doing anything interesting with them.

JP Liz V1

pixelburp wrote: »

Yeah, posted that HR article a page or two back & while denied, I believe it. And now that it's released, there's probably something especially galling for Leto to watch an actual Method Actor inhabit a role, instead of his affected & strained efforts at the same.

Sorry missed your post

Is Leto the worse Joker of all time :P

MOR316

Maybe it's an idea rather than an individual?

Maybe it's saying society creates people and criminals like The Joker (everyone was wearing the clown masks) and the laugh at the end and the "you wouldn't get it" is directed at the audience, basically saying that we'll never change our ways or understand how our behaviour causes this?

Or maybe, I just think too much

MOR316

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

Sorry missed your post

Is Leto the worse Joker of all time :P

Sending a dead rat to Margot Robbie...

"Oh I'm method acting"

No, you're not! You're just being a tit.

And he was terrible

blinding

Method acting .

Imagine a normal person not coming out of the persona of their daily job after work .

Any actor / actress that say they do this need a root up the hole .

yourdeadwright

Mokuba wrote: »

I'm sure that Todd Phillips thought he was making his magnum opus. What I saw was a film that was so derivative of better works that it was almost shameful.

A film almost designed to make people think it's a revolutionary masterpiece because it takes the "superhero" genre, injects some gloominess and creates some ambiguity regarding the plot. What if we remade King of Comedy with a few tablespoons of Taxi Driver as a superhero movie, except badly? Well the answer is out there now.

Yet none of the (is it in his head?) really matters thematically. A question to distract you from how Phillips never really comes up with an effective, original idea. Does it even matter which of it was in his head? The answer doesn't add anything meaningful to the movie either way.

It can't decide who it likes or doesn't (the clowns/the joker himself/the wealthy) - it doesn't have the balls to take an actual stance and instead sits firmly on the fence despite pretending to make some sort of social statement.

The Batman connection felt completely out of place, like it was from a different movie. Which I guess it was, because forcing a Batman connection into a movie which tries it's best to rip off Scorsese will seem like something from a different movie. I found it exceedingly dull and boring. I felt like the director let Phoenix do whatever he wanted, probably shocked that he was getting to work with one of the best actors around, and didn't bother to reign him in like, say, Paul Thomas Anderson did in the Master - where a performance of equal intensity was delivered far more effectively and with far greater nuance.

Not really interested in going further into it because this thread has now turned into a "positivity only" zone.

I mean, on the previous page we had this nonsense:

Maybe watch the Scorsese movies that this fella tries to copy, before coming out with gargle like that.

Very interesting because what you have described above is basically the famous comic book Joker himself,


" Does it even matter which of it was in his head? The answer doesn't add anything meaningful " "It can't decide who it likes or doesn't (the clowns/the joker himself/the wealthy) "


The unknowing ambiguity is that very heart of what the character has always been , unsettling and hard to work out or put your finger on a why to the Joker,


So without you even realising , Todd Phillips gave you the feeling of exactly what the character is all about,


That's the beauty of the movie right there you have basically descried what the JOKER character has always suppose to be, he was never suppose to make sense ,


You've summed it up brilliantly without even realising ,

Foxtrol

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Very interesting because what you have described above is basically the famous comic book Joker himself,


" Does it even matter which of it was in his head? The answer doesn't add anything meaningful " "It can't decide who it likes or doesn't (the clowns/the joker himself/the wealthy) "


The unknowing ambiguity is that very heart of what the character has always been , unsettling and hard to work out or put your finger on a why to the Joker,


So without you even realising , Todd Phillips gave you the feeling of exactly what the character is all about,


That's the beauty of the movie right there you have basically descried what the JOKER character has always suppose to be, he was never suppose to make sense ,


You've summed it up brilliantly without even realising ,

So he could put together whatever garbage on screen that made no sense and he'd have 'well thats the character' excuse? Such a broad excuse is never justified.

I would have no issue with any ambiguity of the truthfulness of the narrator if they didn't hold our hand awkwardly to explain an instance of it. It completely throws things off and not in some smart 'it was all his plan' kind of way.

yourdeadwright

Foxtrol wrote: »

So he could put together whatever garbage on screen that made no sense and he'd have 'well thats the character' excuse? Such a broad excuse is never justified.

I would have no issue with any ambiguity of the truthfulness of the narrator if they didn't hold our hand awkwardly to explain an instance of it. It completely throws things off and not in some smart 'it was all his plan' kind of way.

Your opinion is your opinion but your in the minority its safe to say the vast majority of move going public really enjoyed to movie so job well done by Phillips ,

Mokuba

yourdeadwright wrote: »

The unknowing ambiguity is that very heart of what the character has always been , unsettling and hard to work out or put your finger on a why to the Joker,

That's the beauty of the movie right there you have basically descried what the JOKER character has always suppose to be, he was never suppose to make sense ,

,

As a villain in a Batman movie this makes sense, because Batman and the viewer start to become unsettled by what he is dealing with. We root for Batman and fear for him against this clearly dangerous and unstable enemy.

In this the Joker is the protagonist, the story is told through his eyes, from his perspective so the ambiguity serves no clear purpose. It doesn't add to the story, it detracts from it. We know that the joker is crazy from the outset.

Creating a story with an unreliable narrator, where nothing is added to the plot or thematically as a result of this choice, is so cheap. It feels like its made for lads to make long YouTube videos about, which parts are real and why?

In doing so they ignore the fact that Phillips has just made a crappy movie.

Foxtrol

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Your opinion is your opinion but your in the minority its safe to say the vast majority of move going public really enjoyed to movie so job well done by Phillips ,

A lot of people enjoy flawed or even plain old crap movies, myself included.

Again, I enjoyed this movie, but I disagree strongly at attempts to claim that it is some sort of masterpiece or that there aren't serious flaws there. Both opinions can exist at the same time.

Always Tired

peteeeed wrote: »

I'm a card carrying leftie but art does not have to be moral or right or even good, I think the director is a tool but this is a masterpiece, phoenix is mesmerising

It's not a masterpiece by any stretch. It was entirely predictable that it was going to be about how the Joker became evil because he was bullied and abused. It was full of cliches and tropes. Phoenix gave a great performance but the only way people think this is a masterpiece is because it lifted some gritty arthouse vibes from indie films which raised it above the now stale comic book movie genre. It seems great because Marvel movies have been so bad and for a lot of moviegoers that's all theyve been watching the past 10 or 15 years.

The cliches are all over this film. How many times have we seen films with a big reveal of insane asylum files? And films full of TV news reporters telling us plot points (somehow the main characters are always watching the news when things pertinent to their life are on)? And films where the public is a jeering mob?

It was illogical also. Like, despite the fact that in this film most members of the public are uncaring and selfish, suddenly they all get together to buy the same masks and riot in unison, that seemed totally unrealistic to me.

And why was the rich Wayne family, who keep themselves and their son behind a locked gate most of the time, walking through a dark alley in a bad part of town during a riot aimed specifically AT them? I mean it was a really bad time for a walk down a dark alley, which a rich family probably wouldn't venture into on the best of days.

I also didn't buy that someone in the 80s was filming an open mic stand up comedy gig at a tiny club, sent the tape into a national TV show, and it got aired. It was rare to even tape concerts back then, and the tapes themselves werent cheap at all. You wouldn't tape something unless you strongly suspected it would be good and worth saving. If it sucked you would tape over it. And you wouldn't just send it out for nothing in return, they cost around the equivalent of 20.00 in todays money in the 80s.

And then they not only play the tape on air, but invite who they know to be an awful peformer to be on the show also? Why would they do that? And then let him on with the clown suit on while the riots are on? And they kept the cameras rolling for ALL those awful inappropriate jokes and even for the hosts murder? It was ridiculous!

Anyone who thinks this is a masterpiece simply hasnt seen enough films, and is, I'm guessing, under 25 or so. Because it was really nothing new or groundbreaking, and it was quite unrealistic.

But the worst part of the film to me was the music choice for his dance down the steps. It was such a bad choice, just awful, it didn't fit at all, when I saw people posting clips of it on twitter I thought it was a parody and someone put that song in as a joke, I am actually astonished it was really used in the film, didn't suit the tone at all.

peteeeed

Always Tired wrote: »

It's not a masterpiece by any stretch. It was entirely predictable that it was going to be about how the Joker became evil because he was bullied and abused. It was full of cliches and tropes. Phoenix gave a great performance but the only way people think this is a masterpiece is because it lifted some gritty arthouse vibes from indie films which raised it above the now stale comic book movie genre. It seems great because Marvel movies have been so bad and for a lot of moviegoers that's all theyve been watching the past 10 or 15 years.

The cliches are all over this film. How many times have we seen films with a big reveal of insane asylum files? And films full of TV news reporters telling us plot points (somehow the main characters are always watching the news when things pertinent to their life are on)? And films where the public is a jeering mob?

It was illogical also. Like, despite the fact that in this film most members of the public are uncaring and selfish, suddenly they all get together to buy the same masks and riot in unison, that seemed totally unrealistic to me.

And why was the rich Wayne family, who keep themselves and their son behind a locked gate most of the time, walking through a dark alley in a bad part of town during a riot aimed specifically AT them? I mean it was a really bad time for a walk down a dark alley, which a rich family probably wouldn't venture into on the best of days.

I also didn't buy that someone in the 80s was filming an open mic stand up comedy gig at a tiny club, sent the tape into a national TV show, and it got aired. It was rare to even tape concerts back then, and the tapes themselves werent cheap at all. You wouldn't tape something unless you strongly suspected it would be good and worth saving. If it sucked you would tape over it. And you wouldn't just send it out for nothing in return, they cost around the equivalent of 20.00 in todays money in the 80s.

And then they not only play the tape on air, but invite who they know to be an awful peformer to be on the show also? Why would they do that? And then let him on with the clown suit on while the riots are on? And they kept the cameras rolling for ALL those awful inappropriate jokes and even for the hosts murder? It was ridiculous!

Anyone who thinks this is a masterpiece simply hasnt seen enough films, and is, I'm guessing, under 25 or so. Because it was really nothing new or groundbreaking, and it was quite unrealistic.

But the worst part of the film to me was the music choice for his dance down the steps. It was such a bad choice, just awful, it didn't fit at all, when I saw people posting clips of it on twitter I thought it was a parody and someone put that song in as a joke, I am actually astonished it was really used in the film, didn't suit the tone at all.

i disagree with most of those points but i hear what you're saying

peteeeed

serious serious money being made, on course to be the highest grossing R rated movie of all time

https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbean/2019/10/22/these-numbers-tell-us-joker-will-hit-1-billion-at-the-box-office/

cdgalwegian

Always Tired wrote: »

It's not a masterpiece by any stretch.

Your take on the mess to masterpiece continuum would be on the lower end, as a consequence of your take on the unreliable narrator trope:

Always Tired wrote: »

It was entirely predictable that it was going to be about how the Joker became evil because he was bullied and abused. It was full of cliches and tropes. Phoenix gave a great performance but the only way people think this is a masterpiece is because it lifted some gritty arthouse vibes from indie films which raised it above the now stale comic book movie genre. It seems great because Marvel movies have been so bad and for a lot of moviegoers that's all theyve been watching the past 10 or 15 years.

The cliches are all over this film. How many times have we seen films with a big reveal of insane asylum files? And films full of TV news reporters telling us plot points (somehow the main characters are always watching the news when things pertinent to their life are on)? And films where the public is a jeering mob?

It was illogical also. Like, despite the fact that in this film most members of the public are uncaring and selfish, suddenly they all get together to buy the same masks and riot in unison, that seemed totally unrealistic to me.

And why was the rich Wayne family, who keep themselves and their son behind a locked gate most of the time, walking through a dark alley in a bad part of town during a riot aimed specifically AT them? I mean it was a really bad time for a walk down a dark alley, which a rich family probably wouldn't venture into on the best of days.

I also didn't buy that someone in the 80s was filming an open mic stand up comedy gig at a tiny club, sent the tape into a national TV show, and it got aired. It was rare to even tape concerts back then, and the tapes themselves werent cheap at all. You wouldn't tape something unless you strongly suspected it would be good and worth saving. If it sucked you would tape over it. And you wouldn't just send it out for nothing in return, they cost around the equivalent of 20.00 in todays money in the 80s.

And then they not only play the tape on air, but invite who they know to be an awful peformer to be on the show also? Why would they do that? And then let him on with the clown suit on while the riots are on? And they kept the cameras rolling for ALL those awful inappropriate jokes and even for the hosts murder? It was ridiculous!

Anyone who thinks this is a masterpiece simply hasnt seen enough films, and is, I'm guessing, under 25 or so. Because it was really nothing new or groundbreaking, and it was quite unrealistic.

The same material provoking such wildly differing analyses could, in itself, make the film- for want of a better word- a masterpiece; whether by accident or design. (BTW- I personally don't think it's a masterpiece: I do think though it's a fantastic postmodern film)

El Duda

I too was shocked to find that an origin story about a man who dresses as a clown and fights a man dressed as a bat was unrealistic.

Mokuba

El Duda wrote: »

I too was shocked to find that an origin story about a man who dresses as a clown and fights a man dressed as a bat was unrealistic.

Ah yes, the Game of Thrones argument. A classic argument for those unable to actually debate a point like an adult.

There are dragons therefore *insert nonsense story/character/illogical crap here* is to be expected.

Bravo!

mathie

Mokuba wrote: »

As a villain in a Batman movie this makes sense, because Batman and the viewer start to become unsettled by what he is dealing with. We root for Batman and fear for him against this clearly dangerous and unstable enemy.

In this the Joker is the protagonist, the story is told through his eyes, from his perspective so the ambiguity serves no clear purpose. It doesn't add to the story, it detracts from it. We know that the joker is crazy from the outset.

Creating a story with an unreliable narrator, where nothing is added to the plot or thematically as a result of this choice, is so cheap. It feels like its made for lads to make long YouTube videos about, which parts are real and why?

In doing so they ignore the fact that Phillips has just made a crappy movie.

But this film is an attempt to show how he descends into 'crazy'.

Tazzimus

El Duda wrote: »

I too was shocked to find that an origin story about a man who dresses as a clown and fights a man dressed as a bat was unrealistic.

A comic book character that dresses as a clown, fighting a comic book character dressed as a bat. How dare it be unrealistic.