Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 3, 2019 2:12:09 GMT -5
The Fake News Media got it right. They’ll be riots in the street. Or not. Truth is. This isn’t an “incel Joker.” It’s very irresponsible to be creating that illusion. What we really have here is... The Joker. This is a character that throughout its history has been a beacon for our failed mental health care system. Here we have a Joker with an abusive past, which child care services failed to protect, in a society that won’t provide adequate social services. It’s all set in the backdrop of a city in which the 1% are at war with the 99% and there’s loads of civil unrest caught in the middle. This is a Joker created by his environment who in turn sets a precedent for the future. It’s what the Joker has mostly been throughout its history. Lots of negativity will surround this movie. Take a deep breath. Don’t let it get to you. It’s just a movie that’s posing a lot of questions and opening up a debate. It’s not a political statement. It’s not a social statement. It’s art.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 3, 2019 2:35:18 GMT -5
|
|
1godzillafan
Studio Head
Join Date: Feb 2017
I like pie!
Posts: 9,480
Likes: 6,217
Location:
Last Online Nov 8, 2024 5:42:00 GMT -5
|
Post by 1godzillafan on Oct 3, 2019 20:47:29 GMT -5
It's better than I thought it would be.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 4, 2019 0:28:50 GMT -5
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,532
Likes: 3,135
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 0:22:29 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 4, 2019 8:20:23 GMT -5
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 4, 2019 13:05:52 GMT -5
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,532
Likes: 3,135
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 0:22:29 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 4, 2019 13:12:56 GMT -5
Too busy seeing Aladdin on stage tomorrow.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 4, 2019 21:16:44 GMT -5
|
|
Nilade
Director
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,687
Likes: 426
Location:
Last Online Nov 18, 2024 0:05:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Nilade on Oct 5, 2019 0:39:30 GMT -5
Oh wow, that theater's pretty close to me. Seen quite a few films there.
|
|
FShuttari
CS! Bronze
Join Date: Jan 2005
SPIDEY do! What SPIDEY DOES!
Posts: 14,031
Likes: 225
Location:
Last Online Nov 18, 2024 14:51:59 GMT -5
|
Post by FShuttari on Oct 5, 2019 4:55:53 GMT -5
I won't rehash what everybody has been saying, suffice to say that I thought Joker was great but harrowing.
Bottom of the stairs: Fully Arthur Fleck. Defeated, passive.
Midway up the stairs: Angry Arthur. Gears turning on what to do with those that have wronged him.
Top of the stairs: Killer. Afraid, not of others, but of an event that just gave him...joy?
Coming back down the stairs: Finally happy, Arthur is no longer with us. Joker has arrived!
It's simple, but I really liked the stairs being a sort of progression bar for Arthur's transition into Joker.
I'm glad Todd Phillips (Director) addressed the elephant in the room, that this Joker will never show up in a Batman Movie. And I'm glad he's not... since this movie works better as a stand-alone R-Rated film.
9/10
|
|
Virus
Director
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,372
Likes: 26
Location:
Last Online Apr 11, 2021 17:26:12 GMT -5
|
Post by Virus on Oct 5, 2019 7:38:48 GMT -5
I honestly don’t know if I saw a work of art, or a poorly written movie.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 5, 2019 13:51:57 GMT -5
Incredible movie. Give it all the fucking Oscars. 10 outta fucking 10. Yes.
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 6, 2019 7:36:47 GMT -5
Having slept on it, and now that the alcohol has worn off, I am revising my score down to 9.5/10.
|
|
Dracula
CS! Gold
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,106
Likes: 5,732
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 22:45:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Dracula on Oct 6, 2019 11:14:57 GMT -5
Joker(10/3/2019)
Rather than simply opening the movie Joker wide in early October Warner Brothers decided to premiere the film a month earlier at the Venice Film Festival, which is a move that garnered the film some initial raves and won it the prestigious Golden Lion award. Ultimately though I think it was a bad move because it meant that critics would spend the next month very publically arguing about a movie no one else was able to see in a way that’s much more visible than it is when they see arthouse movies early, and the discourse has not been pretty. There were initial grumblings as early as that Venice premiere with people saying the movie was potentially “toxic,” which is one of those imprecise words that headline writers and no one else likes to use. From there a certain subset the media decided there were clicks to be found in going full Tipper Gore and drumming up a sort of panic that the movie will cause mass shootings or something. Even ignoring the fact that these articles were making long disproven arguments about violence in cinema and essentially advancing NRA talking points, there also seemed to be an inherit elitism to the whole thing. This type of gritty violence has long been seen as understandable in limited release arthouse contexts but suddenly they were freaked out because it was in a movie that might be seen by the great unwashed masses. But what really annoyed me about the whole thing is that there was this widespread argument about cinema going on and I had no way to weigh in or even follow it because the damn movie hadn’t even come out yet. Well, it’s finally out and I have some thoughts.
Joker presents an origin story for the famous Batman villain as it examines the mental deterioration of a man named Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix), who starts the film with a long history of mental health problems. Fleck lives with his mother Penny (Frances Conroy), herself someone of questionable psychology, and takes multiple medications and has a condition which causes him to laugh uncontrollably at times regardless of his mood. Fleck is working as a clown for hire and has some rather delusional aspirations at becoming a stand-up comedian and idolizes a late-night talk show host named Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). None of this is working out very well for him but his life starts to take a turn when he gets his hands on a handgun and ends up shooting three bullies who try to attack him on an empty subway.
It is nearly impossible to talk about Joker and not bring up the two Martin Scorsese films that inspired it: 1976’s Taxi Driver and 1983’s The King of Comedy. Robert De Niro of course starred in both of those movies and his presence here seems to be a tacit nod to this inspiration. Like Taxi Driver this is following a man with a clear screw loose as he loses it, begins arming himself, and forms unhealthy stalker-like obsessions with a woman and with a politician and like The King of Comedy this unhinged man has delusions that he’s a talented comedian and wants to find his way on a popular talk show by any means necessary. That the film is plainly derivative is something of an albatross around the movie’s neck which for many will blunt whatever it accomplishes what with it standing on the shoulders of giants to get there, and I do sort of feel that way to some extent but simply dismissing it as a rip-off seems unfair and inaccurate as well. First of all, a lot of perfectly good movies do stuff like this. Boogie Nights is basically Goodfellas in the porn industry, Black Swan is basically Repulsion meets The Red Shoes, First Reformed is basically a hash of ideas from 1950s art films, and perhaps most comparably there's the movie Logan, which could easily be described as a watered down and comic bookified rehash of Children of Men and The Road. Let's also not ignore the fact that Scorsese himself is second only to Tarantino in his propensity to proudly wear his influences on his sleeve.
Of course the thing that does differentiate Joker from the Scorsese movies that inspired it is that this is a comic book movie, a fact that’s often been downplayed when arguing in favor of the movie but which is actually kind of crucial to it. The things that happen in Joker are generally bigger and more operatic than they would be in a Scorsese movie from the 70s. Also the film is quite specifically set in Gotham City rather than New York, and not even the kind of hyper modern Gotham that we say in Christopher Nolan’s Batman films but a kind of decaying Gotham of the past. This isn’t the first time Batman has been done as a semi-period piece. Tim Burton’s Gotham was a mix of 30s art deco and futuristic technology, possibly as a means of bridging the comic book’s Golden Age origins with modern cinema and other Batman properties like “Batman: The Animated Series” and “Gotham” followed suit. This film never cites a year it’s supposed to be set in but it certainly looks like it’s straight up set in the 70s or early 80s both in terms of technology (all televisions in the movie are CRTs) but also in terms of social conditions because the city seems to be dealing with the kind of crime rates and budget shortfalls that New York was experiencing when Travis Bickle dreamed of a rain to “wash away the garbage and trash off the sidewalks.” Almost like what Tim Burton’s version of the city would have become in about thirty years were it not for the intervention of The Dark Knight.
That this is set in a fictional time and place is, I think, what’s maybe throwing some critics for a loop. People seem to be expecting this to be a movie that is making a statement about America today when I think it was actually meant to be a bit more off in its own world than that. This is still very much a comic book movie, just more of a gritty 80s comic book than a fun silver age comic book. Its set in a city that’s over-run by crime, not necessarily a problem in America today (at least not relative to 1976), but it was certainly a problem in the Gotham City that gave birth to Batman, and while it does have some interest in the plight of the mentally ill Arthur Fleck’s situation is pretty specifically rooted in a fictional condition that’s poorly treated by the shortcomings of a fictional city’s healthcare system. This isn’t to say there isn’t some relevance to real life conditions here, after all this fictional world was inspired by social problems that have and do exist in the real world, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to be as tapped into the current zeitgeist as it’s been suggested.
This I suppose brings me to the criticism that the film in some way endorses or glamorizes the violent actions of unhinged individuals, which I think is largely unfounded. First and foremost it should be noted that the Joker in this movie is not exactly what you’d call a mass shooter. Any violence in the film is generally quite personalized and is committed by small and unglamourous weapons like knives and snub-nose handguns. There are no assault rifles to be seen and even at his worst this Joker isn’t taking out his anger on random individuals. Then there’s the rather lazy assertion that the film is some sort of “incel” manifesto, which is odd given that “incels” are a fringe online group who are defined almost entirely by their rage at women who don’t want to sleep with them, and while Arthur Fleck has all sorts of grievances with the world his sex life or lack thereof is not really a focus of the film and also isn’t one of the character’s main stated grievances and very few of his victims are women. This isn’t to say that the character is entirely free of misogyny, his treatment of the Zazie Beetz character is certainly all kinds of creepy, but he generally seems far more angry about his trouble holding onto a job and random street violence than he is with the women of the world. Additionally, the movie never falls into the trap of suggesting that Fleck is some sort of kind soul who’s just misunderstood. The film has enough sympathy with him to not want him to be assaulted on the street and wants him to have access to social services, but it’s upfront about how messed up he is from the very beginning and why everyone around him has very good reasons to keep their distance.
So if this isn’t trying to make a grand statement about society what is it trying to do? Well, I think it’s trying to say something about Batman. Specifically it seems to be contrasting the oft filmed origin of the caped crusader with this new birth of the clown prince of crime and suggest that one is the funhouse mirror reflection of the other. And I’m going to have to get into spoilers here. Batman was famously born of a tragedy caused by street crime but it’s also said to have been Bruce Wayne’s unconventional means of carrying on the legacy of his enlightened Carnegie-esque millionaire father. Joker rather cleverly re-casts Thomas Wayne as someone who was also a father figure to Fleck, at least in his own head, but also suggests that he viewed him as being less of a swell humanitarian and more of an out of touch condescending Randian asshole and that Wayne was more the cause of than the solution to Gotham’s many problems. Where the real son opted to emulate his father (or his conception of him) and rebuild law and order by peaceful means, the fake son opted to rebel against his “father” (or his conception of him) and go on a sort of nihilistic crusade against law and order. There’s obviously more to Fleck’s decent into madness than that and his murderous ways are of course wrong whether or not he’s “right” about Thomas Wayne, but the movie does do a very good job of decontextualizing the origin story we all know and love.
So how does one make a final analysis of Joker? It’s certainly no Taxi Driver, but then again what is? I’ve certainly seen lesser riffs on that formula like The Assassination of Richard Nixon and One Hour Photo. Ultimately I think the choice to draw inspiration from that film is an aesthetic choice more than anything and it makes Joker something rather unique among comic book movies: one that plays like a drama rather than an action movie. To me that’s something that’s unique and valuable but it’s only an impressive aesthetic choice if you’re looking at the movie as a comic book movie rather than as some sort of realist drama: looked at as a comic book movie it’s one of the most impressive entries in its form but looked at as a realist drama it’s… not, and probably never could be given the fantasy elements that are inherent to its very nature. Either way it’s an exceptionally well made movie that’s hard to look away from and features a bravura performance by Joaquin Phoenix. It’s certainly better than director Todd Phillips has made previously and significantly better than the more conventional superhero fare that Warner Brothers has been giving us through its DC Cinematic Universe. Just maybe don’t take it too seriously.
**** out of Five
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,628
Likes: 3,184
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 21:44:13 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Oct 6, 2019 12:56:56 GMT -5
This was... not very good. Phoenix's performance was excellent, but Todd Phillips is trying to do his best Scorsese impression and fails on nearly every story beat. Movie is incredibly heavy handed with everything from plot to its meager themes, and the ugliness that the film embodies comes off as cheap and devised as attempts to shock in obvious and contrived ways. In the end I don't even think the movie was anything to really say other than a simplistic "if you keep kicking us eventually we're gonna revolt". Some cool moments but overall a very poorly written script saved by a tremendous performance from Phoenix.
I'll write a full review when I can, but this is a disappointment that could have been spectacular if it were in the hands of a stronger director. Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy this is absolutely not.
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 6, 2019 13:02:58 GMT -5
This was... not very good.
|
|
PhantomKnight
CS! Gold
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 20,532
Likes: 3,135
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 0:22:29 GMT -5
|
Post by PhantomKnight on Oct 6, 2019 15:21:53 GMT -5
Some initial thoughts: this kind of floored me. As a down and dirty Taxi Driver-style character study, this was pretty fantastic and I'm a bit surprised that a mainstream studio put out a comic book movie like this, but in a good way. I think Todd Phillips definitely achieves what he was going for, as this has an aesthetic and tone that would really feel at home in the 70's. He also creates some really striking imagery throughout. One could argue that the film's message about mental illness is "simplistic", but by God, is it delivered with such hard-hitting effectiveness. There was never a moment where I wasn't captivated. Joaquin Phoenix is out of control here. He goes deeper down the rabbit hole than Heath Ledger and the film wisely never tries to glorify him, even if characters in the movie may do so. He was just scary, and you could almost call this something of a horror film. I'm sure this one's gonna stick with me for a while.
****/****
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 6, 2019 17:42:44 GMT -5
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 7, 2019 9:24:55 GMT -5
|
|
frankyt
CS! Gold
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 21,947
Likes: 2,017
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 22:21:29 GMT -5
|
Post by frankyt on Oct 7, 2019 22:46:47 GMT -5
Dug it.
8/10
|
|
Deexan
CS! Silver
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 18,196
Likes: 2,995
Location:
Last Online Nov 13, 2021 19:23:59 GMT -5
|
Post by Deexan on Oct 8, 2019 17:24:55 GMT -5
|
|
Fanible
Administrator
Join Date: Oct 2002
I peered into the vastness and saw nothing. Felt nothing.
Posts: 19,184
Likes: 788
Location:
Last Online Nov 6, 2024 0:31:29 GMT -5
|
Post by Fanible on Oct 8, 2019 18:33:54 GMT -5
An interesting mix of votes.
|
|
SnoBorderZero
CS! Silver
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 17,628
Likes: 3,184
Location:
Last Online Nov 25, 2024 21:44:13 GMT -5
|
Post by SnoBorderZero on Oct 9, 2019 13:25:59 GMT -5
It’s not often that any properties related to comic books, especially ones belonging to a franchise as staunch as Batman, are labeled polarizing or controversial. Generally, studios play it safe and offer up satisfying but largely vanilla renditions of heroes and villains, knowing that the films will make a lot of money regardless and won’t offend or invite debate from viewers. An example of this was last year’s disastrous Venom from Sony, a PG-13 softball that was not a bland mess but even sidestepped the actual guts of throwing a true antihero up there, and even worse actually made Venom a hero. Studios time and time again fail to respect their audiences or learn from successes like Logan, frustrating viewers with one uninspired take after another. Well, then Joker comes along, and while I have a lot of issues with this film I certainly understand why people are positively reacting to it as well and are applauding Warner Bros. for having the guts Sony doesn’t have and making an actual antihero, villain focused film that’s every bit as unapologetic and gritty as one could hope for. It’s a film you just don’t generally expect to be rolled out at all, let alone when it’s a lucrative property like a slam dunk origin story about Batman’s greatest nemesis. We’ve now seen several iterations of the character, most triumphantly of course in the Oscar-winning performance by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight, but certainly never like this. Todd Phillips has certainly delivered a film that doesn’t pull punches or sugarcoat its subject, but unfortunately as much as I want to admire the film I also take several issues with it as well. Not because of its polarizing nature, but rather the heavy-handed direction and sloppy execution of narrative that I think many are overlooking because the film is a welcome deviation from the standard comic book fare we’re mostly subjected to. It’s a film that could have been something truly spectacular in the hands of a more talented filmmaker, but Phillips isn’t up to the level of his subject matter and is unable to deliver on making the thought-provoking film Joker wants to be.
Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) lives in 1981 Gotham City with his deranged and ill mother (Frances Conroy), working as a sign-twirling clown in the midst of extreme poverty and crime, punctuated by a garbage strike that has its citizens literally walking in in Gotham’s grime. Arthur’s dream is to be a comedian, as he duly notes on multiple occasions that his mother tells him he was put here to make people laugh. Arthur suffers from multiple conditions, one of which is uncontrollable fits of laughter in nervous situations and the other a serious case of depression and delusion. Arthur slips in and out of the conscious world, including a scene where he inserts himself onto the talk show of late night comedian Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro in a flip of his Rupert Pupkin character from The King of Comedy taking Jerry Lewis’ role) and seems to only be happy when living in his fantasies. Things begin to spiral out of control for Arthur after a brutal beating and the revelation from his mother about his potential upbringing, all culminating in a violent encounter on a train that signals the true creation of Joker. It’s a story about his uprising that parallels with the city’s denizens also uprising and turning Gotham over to the downtrodden that city’s elites have largely ignored, and I’ll leave the plot at that.
So with all of these solid pieces in place, what holds the movie back from being the intriguing blend of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy that many have likened the film to? Well it’s certainly not Phoenix, who gives an absolutely tremendous performance as Arthur here and saves the film from dwelling in pure mediocrity. He inhabits his character so well, seamlessly dipping from a tragic, sympathetic symbol of people suffering from mental illnesses to the cold and calculated murderer we know he’s shifting towards. There’s absolutely a dynamism to his character and performance, which is badly needed since none of the supporting characters display anything more than one-dimensional traits throughout the film. And therein is the problem. For all the praise this film should be getting surrounding its gritty tone, none of it comes off as particularly genuine or earned. There’s a pervasive nastiness to this picture, which is completely fine with the tone of the film, but it doesn’t work in the sense of it working in say Taxi Driver because there are never any deviations from it. Outside of perhaps one or two supporting characters, everyone in Gotham is just a relentlessly awful person. The most poorly handled character and prime example of this is Thomas Wayne (Brett Cullen), who the film instead of displaying as a true philanthropic character only to pull the rug out when that altruism is tested firsthand has footage of him displaying Donald Trump-like soundbites denouncing the poor and painting him as a soulless Gotham elite and nothing more. Arthur is the only character that isn’t a surface level caricature, and that becomes an issue when Phillips attempts to shock the audience with narrative revelations. There is no surprise here because we know exactly how every character, including Arthur as a result of playing off the supporting players, will react to every situation. No one has redeeming qualities, thus no one acts in redeeming manners. It’s a repetitive exercise in storytelling and the biggest aspect of the film that feels like a comic book’s storytelling, by which I mean hammering points home with blatant exposition and one-dimensional expressions of characters. Flashbacks are sloppy, cheap information dumps that are also inherently unnecessary. Everyone in Gotham is irredeemable, so when Arthur fights back it’s deserved.
The screenplay and direction by Phillips doesn’t have the faintest trace of subtlety or depth, and we’re left with one contrived sequence after another. Arthur just seems to drift in and out of confrontations with characters, the worst of all when he speaks with Thomas Wayne in a bathroom. The idea of him waltzing into a theater while a massive, violent protest happens outside unnoticed is absurd, donning a bellhop outfit is immensely convenient, and then walking up to Thomas Wayne with no one around to get us to the film’s most heavy-handed and sloppy moment yet is just one of many egregious examples of the viewer having to really suspend their disbelief and invest in a world that’s filled with convenience. Another of these are when his former coworkers happen to drop in later in the film, all to set up a very obvious confrontation with Arthur that’s designed solely for cheap shock value that we see coming a mile away. It’s funny that a film designed to be thought provoking is a very illogical one, where things just seem to happen with no real setups that all result in contrived payoffs. One or two of these in a film is a given to condense screen time; having around ten of these is simply bad writing.
And at the end of the film, what does it really have to say? The film’s climax is also a wasted opportunity to shock (Phillips took the Chekov’s gun theory far too literally here, another plot device we see coming a mile away) as it attempts to both justify and critique Arthur’s violent spree, but the film itself doesn’t really critique Arthur or the protestors at all. If we don’t take mental illness and the poor seriously then there’s going to be a violent upheaval? Is there anything else the film is trying to get at? Taxi Driver’s ending is such a powerhouse because when Travis Bickle walks in and kills the pimps in the apartment, we don’t know if we’re in the real world or Travis’ fantasy of ridding society of its worst inhabitants. We empathize with Travis despite his obviously screwed up view of the world because we see him truly attempt to immerse himself among its people, most comedically and charming in an odd way when he takes a date to a porn theater thinking it’s a common movie house. We see him get kicked around by New York, but he also has genuine interactions with good people in the city, pushing him to avoid assassinating a politician but towards the supposed tolerant ideology of the city’s upstanding people that killing bad people is okay, even heroic as shown in the newspaper clipping at the film’s end. Or is it? I’ve always interpreted that ending as Travis’ final fantasy, that the upstanding people he naively identifies himself as belong to would shun his actions no matter who the victims were or what they did. He doesn’t fit with society, and never will, and that in itself is one of many fascinating societal examinations that Martin Scorsese offers.
But Todd Phillips, notably of The Hangover and Old School fame, is not Scorsese and doesn’t seem to do anything with theme that he isn’t doing with narrative which is hammer the viewer over the head with one obvious element after another. Is there a moral responsibility that Arthur is deviating from in this film? Doesn’t seem like it to me. Phillips seems to suggest “well, you asked for it” and while that’s fine in a sense it just doesn’t lead one to any conclusion other than that either. It’s not that the theme itself is problematic but that it has no depth beyond that one idea and no real wiggle room around it to discuss. This is again the issue with the film’s one tone of being constant nastiness, because we don’t really empathize with anyone and so when things get really out of hand we don’t care because this world isn’t a genuine one. There are some excellent moments in this film, from a wonderful crane shot of Arthur standing on top of a car admiring the revolution he’s begun to him dancing on the stairs after his transformation, but I just can’t entirely embrace the film’s sloppiness in delivering ham-fisted themes and simplistic storytelling and characters to fully enjoy it. In the hands of a better filmmaker, Joker could have been a stunning piece of cinema, but it’s nothing more than a hacky copy job of Scorsese and never rings true in the process. Not a misfire, but a disappointment when realizing the film is as shallow as the city that serves as its backdrop.
6/10
|
|
Neverending
CS! Platinum
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 65,792
Likes: 8,649
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:12:58 GMT -5
|
Post by Neverending on Oct 9, 2019 15:46:12 GMT -5
An interesting mix of votes. Doomsday gave it a 10 and then logged into his alt and gave it a 1.
|
|
Doomsday
Administrator
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 23,307
Likes: 6,774
Location:
Last Online Nov 26, 2024 1:47:44 GMT -5
|
Post by Doomsday on Oct 9, 2019 16:00:57 GMT -5
An interesting mix of votes. Doomsday gave it a 10 and then logged into his alt and gave it a 1. The days of that kind of trolling are far behind me, my grifts are far more complex now. The fact that you guys haven't figured out that I'm also PhantomKnight is mind boggling. I mean nobody, nobody likes that many movies.
|
|