Joker

JPNola said:
You make it sound like the film is a sham that "suckers" audiences into wasting their money. Below you make it out, based on what you "heard", as if the director of the film had no interest in the film being in any way related to the DC character and only did so grudgingly, against his will. And then unhappily made a film that wasn't what he wanted to make but he had no choice in the matter.

I'm annoyed by your posts, honestly.
Click to expand...

I don't get this reaction. I read Josh Bass's remarks to be: "I'm interested in seeing this movie. (in response to DLD quoting Rotten Tomatoes, where the audience likes it more than the critics) Well, my tastes are more like a general audience's than a critic's."

I have no desire to see this movie, but I felt compelled to chime in after reading such interpretations of another member's posts.
 
David Cronenberg commenting on the violence in his film "Eastern Promises" (2007) ...

I remember when I first picked up the script and saw the title, Eastern Promises. I thought, this sounds like a cheap perfume, especially since in North America, “Eastern” doesn’t mean Russia, whereas in England it does. But then, the first scene changed my whole attitude, not only because it was violent, but because it introduced so many interesting elements—a kind of retarded murderer and a Turkish/Chechen cultural combination. And there are very few characters in the violent scenes. It’s intimate, which makes it more intense. The placing of those scenes is crucial. We need to know all the time that they are criminals and they are dangerous. The response I’ve gotten is that the movie is incredibly violent. And I keep saying, “Did you see The Departed? The body count there and the brains all over the wall?” But some people seem to feel that this movie is more violent than The Departed. So then, what are you talking about? You’re not talking about how many incidents, because The Departed has dozens and we have four. Somehow, it’s the close-up, the intensity, the carrying-through.
Click to expand...
 
combatentropy said:
....in response to DLD quoting Rotten Tomatoes, where the audience likes it more than the critics ...
Click to expand...
Let me correct my old data. I was going off various articles but, having searched further back now, discovered that early reviews were actually pretty high on the film but then went down to 69% that I quoted before the opening.

The RotToms audience scores, apparently, don't register until the release day.

A bunch of articles came out Friday/Saturday talking about the "24 point gap". And they weren't talking the Packers-Cowboys third quarter score either.
 
.
*** SPOILERS *** *** SPOILERS *** *** SPOILERS ***

Director Todd Philips comments on how he established the look and feel of "Joker", and how it was maintained as they shot the film...

 
Just got out of the movie. Now I dont go to the theater much anymore because frankly I find most of what ends up in there to not be worth the space or money... but man, like the first guy said.. THIS IS A MOVIE! Very much do I believe Phoenix dethroned Ledger and honestly, this film is far better than Chris Nolan's trilogy ( which im very partial to given its Chicago roots ). The Dark Knight was my all time favorite movie in a super hero universe.. that changed today with JOKER. If oscars are not thrown at this film next spring im going to be very upset at the academy in their poor lack of judgement lol (granted we all know its just a political game).

People need to go into this knowing though this movie IS NOT FOR KIDS, its very dark, when the violence happens its the most real and brutal violence ive ever seen in a super hero film (more along the lines of Goodfellas or Taxi Driver) and this has NOTHING to do with the narrative in the comics or any previous films but does have elements it uses in terms of characters, etc. I would love to see the birth of batman in this universe... badly.. like very badly. I think it would be amazing! 10/10 for me.
 
Joker - what a vacuous mess. Don’t know what I was thinking seeing it. Soaked all night in a bath of kerosene in the hopes of washing this stink off of me. There were some great photography no doubt and the location scout should win an Oscar. And Phoenix - sure throw him an Oscar too - he lost 53 pounds, came up with a good cackle and some nice dance moves. I got stuck watching one of the hangover movies years back and that resulted in another kerosene bath. Same with last years a Star is born. How I thought these two shills cooper and philips would suddenly wake up one day and have sprouted some talent I don’t know. It doesn’t work that way. In philips case you don’t do exploitive/tasteless work and then decide to do a work with some gravitas. Philips and the likes would pimp their mother for a guest spot on the jimmy fallon show. I found the film exploitive of humanity. It’s porn of some kind. Can’t quite put my finger on it. Anyway - the ghouls of Hollywood are alive and well.
 
I hear ya - but I doubt everyone got on board to make that film to prove "that Narcism rules these days" - but you did give me pause with that line.
The script is too geared towards beating this guy up emotionally and physically and then letting him get his revenge while the viewers throw back the popcorn.
It's not like say Taxi Driver - where 20 minutes into the film you realize, oh **** this guy is not all there and then in the last shot where you realize again - **** he's gonna go ballistic again next week. He's no hero as the papers claim.
Anyway - I thought the filmmakers were just adding to the confusion in life - there's no insight into humanity - keep walking folks. As Scorsese said recently -

I don’t see them. I tried, you know? But that’s not cinema. Honestly, the closest I can think of them, as well made as they are, with actors doing the best they can under the circumstances, is theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being.
 
For me Joker is a character study about a simple man's descent into mental illness that gives birth to his criminal identity. On this level it's a great film, but I wouldn't recommend it to my friends or family because they're expecting a traditional superhero movie with action, excitement, and a good story, along with a fair dose of humor. ( coming out of the theater I could see that many of the people that saw it with me were not happy with the film and it showed on their faces )

I really liked the cinematography of Joker, and checking IMDB I saw that it was shot in three formats: Arri Alexa 65, Arri Alexa LF, Arri Alexa Mini, all using Hasselblad Prime DNA lenses. ( recording ARRI RAW 3.4K, 4.5K, 5.1K formats )

From the "looking out the bus window" medium close-up that was inserted near the beginning and near the end of the film, it looked like it had been shot with a FF camera which I'm guessing was the ARRI 65 in this case. ( I am a bit surprised that they shot in three different formats, but they blend together pretty seamlessly ) I also noticed that a fair bit of vignetting that was done in post to highlight Joaquin Phoenix and dull down unimportant things in the background, and sometimes this made Joaquin appear more isolated from his environment which I'm sure was entirely intentional.

Overall I'm glad I saw Joker, but I think it will be a very long time before I ever see it again. ( I felt this way about Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" (2000) which is a brilliant film, but I never wanted to watch it more than once )
 
What do those of you who have seen the film make of the criticism that the film is boring and doesn't bring anything new in terms of the narrative to a story that's been done many times before?
 
"Requiem for a Dream" yeah - I wasn't in a rush to see it again - but after that film - specifically because of Ellen Burstyn's performance - which is one of the greatest I've ever seen. It was one of the three times in a cinema where I had to sit there in my seat for at least 20 minutes after the film was over trying to pull myself together. The Pianist did that to me as well. After the Joker I only wanted to scrub myself from head to toe with a steel scrub brush. I just wanted it off of my skin. t"he film is boring and doesn't bring anything new in terms of the narrative to a story that's been done many times before?" It was BORING! "bring anything new in terms of the narrative to a story" in terms of the narrative - not sure what ya mean?
 
kevin baggott said:
" After the Joker I only wanted to scrub myself from head to toe with a steel scrub brush. I just wanted it off of my skin.
Click to expand...


Out of curiosity, do you generally dislike "dark" films? Did you also want to scrub after seeing Taxi Driver? How about Nightcrawler?


"bring anything new in terms of the narrative to a story" in terms of the narrative - not sure what ya mean?

I mean, the film is loosely the same story of guy is bullied and treated horribly by a cruel world, he gets revenge. We've seen that story many times before. A criticism I read of Joker is that the film brings nothing new to that tired plot. It just presents that same story even more darkly and graphically. You already know what is going to happen, from the start. And it plays out exactly as you anticipated. There isn't even some twist, as there was in Outlaw Josey Wales, of the main character turning out to have been a ghost or possibly satan. A criticism is that Joker is a straightforward story with no twists, no surprises, no originality, no cleverness, and nothing new brought to a re-treaded plot.
 
No - I probably saw Taxi Driver in theatres as a young man about 70 times. I saw Nightcrawler - but for some reason it didn't stay with me. I have no problems with dark films. I used to say Shoah was my fav film. I've made 5 indy features and they're pretty dark at times.
Regarding what you say above - i see what you mean. To tell you the truth - a genre of films (supposedly) of bullied having his day - I can't say I've ever seen a film knowing it fit into that genre. I guess I don't categorize films like that. I just never been aware for myself of subgenres within genres.
there were a couple of things that did get my toes twinkling - tiny little moments. Wont spoil for anyone - but a moment with a fridge, a moment with a card the joker shows peeps, a sign at his work place - little things like that. I also just hated that the film was shot in alot of neighborhoods that I grew up in up in the Bronx and Washington Heights, etc. i know those streets and tenements and people and they just brought no warmth to the place - no humanity. it looks they're striving for that - the mother bedridden, etc - but its just a cartoon. Anyway - enuf for me about this film. It's just mock not the real turtle soup.
 
I posted this on FB but, what the hey, I'll throw my .02 here as well just for fun.

Warning, 100% spoilers ahead.

(space intentionally left blank, turn back now if you haven't seen the film)

The greatest joke in Joker is on an audience who thought this was another comic-book, sci-fi fantasy. What we get is a painful look in the mirror at a society who’s turned a blind eye to its most desperate citizens.

Travis Bickle, err, Arthur Fleck is a sad characterization of a deeply disturbed person in the throws of mental illness. He is at once aware of his illness, yet wholly unqualified to deal with it without his meds, a social worker, a stable home, or family.

As Arthur’s life spirals out of control neither he or the audience are certain what’s real, what’s imagined, or what is a cover-up. He’s not even sure of his own identity. Has the life he’s been living been his own or a fiction created by a mother in the final stages of her own mental illness?

“Joker” is a complex film that feels like it was written by The Joker, starring The Joker, only, it’s as if he can’t decide whether or not the sad scenes that play out are a movie or his own pathetic reality. Which life he leads, the lonely, misunderstood like of Arthur Fleck, or the magnetic life of The Joker, and the circumstances which drive him to the ultimate conclusion are the underpinnings of this film.

Joker is a hard film to like, there's no hero, no winners, only losers. I suspect those who've had struggles in their own lives will be able to relate to aspects of this character, which in no way condones his behavior.

Joaquin Phoenix deserves an Oscar, and the DoP Lawrence Sher did a phenomenal job. See it in IMAX. And yes, my audience did applaud at the end.

Those who applauded, I think, were applauding the courage of Director Todd Phillips for not selling us another silly, one dimensional shoot 'em up, action film. This is a movie for adults.

Just one man's opinion.
 
bill totolo said:
I posted this on FB but, what the hey, I'll throw my .02 here as well just for fun.

Warning, 100% spoilers ahead.

(space intentionally left blank, turn back now if you haven't seen the film)

The greatest joke in Joker is on an audience who thought this was another comic-book, sci-fi fantasy. What we get is a painful look in the mirror at a society who’s turned a blind eye to its most desperate citizens.

Travis Bickle, err, Arthur Fleck is a sad characterization of a deeply disturbed person in the throws of mental illness. He is at once aware of his illness, yet wholly unqualified to deal with it without his meds, a social worker, a stable home, or family.

As Arthur’s life spirals out of control neither he or the audience are certain what’s real, what’s imagined, or what is a cover-up. He’s not even sure of his own identity. Has the life he’s been living been his own or a fiction created by a mother in the final stages of her own mental illness?

“Joker” is a complex film that feels like it was written by The Joker, starring The Joker, only, it’s as if he can’t decide whether or not the sad scenes that play out are a movie or his own pathetic reality. Which life he leads, the lonely, misunderstood like of Arthur Fleck, or the magnetic life of The Joker, and the circumstances which drive him to the ultimate conclusion are the underpinnings of this film.

Joker is a hard film to like, there's no hero, no winners, only losers. I suspect those who've had struggles in their own lives will be able to relate to aspects of this character, which in no way condones his behavior.

Joaquin Phoenix deserves an Oscar, and the DoP Lawrence Sher did a phenomenal job. See it in IMAX. And yes, my audience did applaud at the end.

Those who applauded, I think, were applauding the courage of Director Todd Phillips for not selling us another silly, one dimensional shoot 'em up, action film. This is a movie for adults.

Just one man's opinion.
Click to expand...

+100...amazing performance, cinematography and production design....for me a film with similar weight to Deerhunter and Taxidriver....
 
Saw it yesterday. First feature I've seen in a long time that really got its claws into me. So impressed by Joaquim's performance, the production design and Larry's fantastic cinematography. I admit I'm partial to films where the audience is taken along for the ride with the protagonist's insanity/paranoia (Jacob's Ladder and The Stunt Man come to mind).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top