• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

JOKER: THE MOVIE produced by Martin Scorsese (TBD)
1 1

1,790 posts in this topic

6 hours ago, jsilverjanet said:

I saw it on Sunday night

Theater was full and I expect most people in the audience had mixed reviews 

I think the general audience may have not liked it as it’s not like anything that has been shown to such a mass audience 

it’s difficult to watch at times because it’s a slow winding tragedy of a human being

my wife who loves heath’s version asked me about it (she didn’t go) and I told her the biggest difference between both characters is that Heaths version is likeable. Joaquin’s isn’t. You can’t feel pity for him either. I think that’s why his portrayal is so magnificent.

you don’t hate him and don’t like him. You’re not sure what to feel but it’s so hard to look away.

i thought the direction was very good and wasn’t sure why some said it was boring at times. It is certainly well crafted and very solid throughout. 

I thought the stairs seen was perfect.

id love to see where he goes from here. This is the origin. The true Joker is what happens afterwards and would love to see what happens next 

this sign was posted on the door of the theatre and police patrolled the parking when the show was over

 

8E46600E-FE6E-473E-84E1-9BAA773D0BBB.jpeg

The film is a surgical operation, carefully showing Joker's troubled past, his struggles to conform, and how the system abandons him.  It's hard to like the Joker or empathize with him and that clashes with the film's relentless effort to show how and why he descends into madness.  We should feel sorry for him, the film gives us every reason to, but we can't.  The Joker's hair is always messy and hanging into the camera view, his body is posed in unnatural positions, the camera angle is always dark and unflattering, and he's not a nice person.

Don't go to see this movie because it's entertaining.  Go to see it because it's a fascinating dissection of what it takes to create a monster.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2019 at 7:11 AM, Bosco685 said:

 

By far the best podcast around. I rather watch Joe Rogan and his guests on YOUTUBE than anything on network or cable tv. People who haven't watched  his podcasts are missing out. 

The Joey Diaz ones are must viewing.

Edited by ComicConnoisseur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, thehumantorch said:

The film is a surgical operation, carefully showing Joker's troubled past, his struggles to conform, and how the system abandons him.  It's hard to like the Joker or empathize with him and that clashes with the film's relentless effort to show how and why he descends into madness.  We should feel sorry for him, the film gives us every reason to, but we can't.  The Joker's hair is always messy and hanging into the camera view, his body is posed in unnatural positions, the camera angle is always dark and unflattering, and he's not a nice person.

Don't go to see this movie because it's entertaining.  Go to see it because it's a fascinating dissection of what it takes to create a monster.  

I was absolutely amazing.  But I found it entertaining to see how they crafted this to make the monster he becomes.  The little things that if you are not mindful will miss.  I called a couple of things early on, like Sophie and part of the Wayne path (not all of it though).

To call this anything less than a masterpiece is an injustice, one that Joker will come for you later to correct for sure.

I didn't think I would ever see what I felt was a better portrayal than Nicholson, Ledger, or even the voice-scripted Hamill.  But Joaquin sure is making me doubt that now.

I rarely see movies more than once in the theaters, but I am sure I will be back to see this again very soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, HENRYSPENCER said:

This is the kind of film you don't want there to be a sequel.  This was standalone piece.  It should be appreciated as such and kept that way.

I’d see a sequel gladly. That’s the beauty of making a piece of art out of something already known with a 1000 stories behind them, it’s not inappropriate to continue and explore it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, HENRYSPENCER said:

It was a great one, for sure. I've been now two nights in a row. I have a plot hole kind of question, though. Wayne is only a boy in the film and Joker is what in his 30's or 40's? Of course, Wayne and Joker become nemesis years later when Wayne becomes Batman, but doesn't that put Joker in his sixties? What's the story behind this?

Joker is in his 20s in the movie

Say Joker is 25 and Bruce is 12,  that only makes 13yrs difference in age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 8:46 PM, thehumantorch said:

Saw Joker last night.  It is dark and disturbing and complex and it isn't easy to watch but I consider it a masterpiece. 

I need a few more viewings to figure out how good the film is, but I'm not particularly motivated to get those viewings in for this exact reason--it's not an easy watch at all. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2019 at 8:52 PM, punksdropdirtysrh said:

It will definitely be remembered for years to come just like the Dark Knight. :sumo:

The film as a whole doesn't hold a candle to Dark Knight, but Phoenix's performance does hold up well against Ledger's performance.  Having said that, I still prefer the Ledger version.  Watching Joker as a criminal mastermind is more thrilling than watching him struggling with mental disorder.  Taxi Driver is a similar hard watch to Joker, both films are full of moments where you're torn and inspired to wince and/or turn away due to how pathetic the protagonist is.  I may end up only seeing Joker once for the same reason I only saw Taxi Driver once, I'm just not sure I'll be able to make it through the discomfort of a second viewing.  :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/8/2019 at 1:09 AM, www.alexgross.com said:
On 10/7/2019 at 8:46 PM, thehumantorch said:

Saw Joker last night.  It is dark and disturbing and complex and it isn't easy to watch but I consider it a masterpiece.  Joaquin Phoenix should get an Oscar for best performance, he was absolutely amazing and 100% convincing.  See this movie. 

ditto! i expect he will get the oscar. the direction and cinematography were outstanding and will be nominated at least. i loved it. even the music was great. 

I'll be surprised if he isn't nominated, but I don't get the idea of people chalking up a win in a vacuum.  A quarter of the potential nominees aren't even out yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

"I wouldn’t have thought of this as my dream role. But now, honestly, I can’t stop thinking about it. I talked to Todd a lot about what else we might be able to do, in general, just working together, but also specifically, if there’s something else we can do with Joker that might be interesting. So, it ended up being a dream role. It’s nothing that I really wanted to do prior to working on this movie."

 

Although Joaquin Phoenix certainly does seem open to more JOKER, he admits that he doesn't know if there's more to do, but said that, "Me and Todd would still be shooting now if we could, right? Because it seemed endless, the possibilities of where we can go with the character." As JOKER has taken in close to $250 million world-wide, the film is already a financial success, so it will be interesting to see just how high it will go and how much that might influence the chances of a sequel. Would you like to see a sequel to JOKER?

I'm more likely to enjoy a sequel than this film, so I hope they do it.  In my mind I'm envisioning something with Batman that works well in a similar way that Dark Knight did, but I don't particularly trust Phillips to do that well so meh, I sorta hope that doesn't happen.

Phoenix is 44...did they ever establish how old Arthur Fleck was in the film?  Bruce looked to be about 10, so what's the age difference between them?  35 years?  Nicholson is only 14 years older than Michael Keaton, and Caesar Romero was 21 years older than Adam West.  If they do Joaquin and a 10-year old Bruce 10 to 20 years in the future that's the biggest age gap between the characters yet on screen, probably also in the comics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, HENRYSPENCER said:

Also is Joker the 1/2 brother of Bruce Wayne? Have there been stores written about this?

They left that open, but the film implied strongly that's not the case.  Or I suppose you can assume Thomas Wayne really is a monster and was lying.  If so, that's the most unsympathetic version of Batman's dad I've ever seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1