Meathead

We caught the 7p IMAX showing last night. Really enjoyed it. Phoenix was great.

2 security guards checking bags at the entrance. Friend thought he saw plainclothes security roaming the parking lot.

Orbi-Wan Techno

Well, given all the news coverage and reports that Joaquin Phoenix gives an Oscar-worthy performance, I am see this after work today, and posting my review tomorrow.

TomOpus

I didn't stay but I don't believe there is.

Why So Blu?

There are no mid or after credit sequences.

Wolf359

I loved the movie but can you really see this guy being Batman's arch nemesis? He was pretty much just a crazy guy who killed people, not a criminal genius mastermind.

james2025a

Well i thought it was a work of genius. It felt like the most Alan Moore Joker story of all time, without it being an Alan Moore story.

I felt clear influences from Taxi Driver (Gods Lonely Man, making his entrance at home felt very "You Talking to Me?"), King of Comedy (De Niro, the black girlfriend, talk show, imagining being on a talk show etc.), Requiem for a Dream (Mother obsessed with a TV Show and having serious issues, imagined sequences) and Network (raging at society, the media).

Phoenix was a Tour de Force in the role. He should get nominated for an Academy Award and if there was any justice he would win it. He just totally submerses himself in the character and by the end we feel the danger he has become, to the world and to himself.

The cinematography is top notch, just some beautiful shots and lighting. Making grit and grime so beautiful to look at takes skill and this movie has it in spades.

Soundtrack was also good. I did wonder when it shows the scene of him jumping down the steps to the Gary Glitters "Rock & Roll Part 1 and 2" if it was an intentional nod as he is now recognized as a pedophile.

I think this is the first movie i have ever seen where i could feel that the movie could be dangerous to those unhinged among us in society. I do not condemn the movie in any way, in fact i support this kind of movie through and through. The problem is that there are way too many people who live life on the very edge. I could easily see some of those watching this movie and feeling empowered by a message that they wrongly interpret. At the end of the day the problem isn't with the movie its with our own Governments and society and how we deal with those with real mental illness. Too many on the streets, uncared for, ignored and probably with a whole lot of anger due to exactly that. I think the movie does a great job of giving it to us clearly and saying there is something very rotten in this world we live in, and it needn't have to be that way.

Why So Blu?

For the first time in a long ass time I agree with about 95% of Grace Randolph's video review. She posted her spoilers video. The only thing I don't agree with her on is that of Robert DeNiro. She says that he was awful in the role.

OldBoy

thanks guys!

TomOpus

I wouldn't say he was awful but I thought he kinda coasted. But, then, it's not his movie. The focus is on Joker.

SmackDaddy

I was thinking another standalone, but in this style of Gotham. I just loved the atmosphere and look.

Perkinsun Dzees

Liked it, didn't love it. It's worth seeing mainly for Joaquin's nutty performance and a couple of standout sequences (his dance on the steps).

Storyline doesn't really hold up. The character is basically just a relatively harmless nutjob in the beginning who endures a ridiculous series of humiliations, physical beatings, and has his delusions of grandeur and a normal life shattered until he finally loses it and goes over the edge. But his mental disintegration feels too calculated and predictable. Why does he bring a gun to the kids' hospital? It does make for an amusing scene and sinks him further into despair when he loses his job, but even a nutjob prolly wouldn't be dumb enough to carry a gun into a place where he has no reason to fear for his safety. Especially when Arthur made it very clear earlier that he knows he's not supposed to have a gun at all.

Was the co-worker who gave Arthur the gun and lied about him to the boss, scheming against him to get him fired? Why? Why does he show up later at the Joker's apartment to comfort him, knowing that Arthur is aware that he's a two-faced liar? (Obvious answer: he shows up at the Joker's apartment for the sole purpose of getting himself brutally murdered). Why does a young Bruce Wayne allow a complete stranger to put their fingers into his mouth and not react at all? How could those detectives who are after Arthur be so fricking incompetent?

The movie has nothing interesting to say about the class divide other than that the rich can be pompous assholes and the miserable lower classes will go postal if you push them too far. When Arthur kills a trio of upper class douchebags in the subway, it's not because he was targeting them due to their wealth or privilege. It's simply an act of self defense because he happened to have a gun on him while they decided to beat the shit out of him. He does go Bernie Goetz on the last guy, but because the assailants are all conveniently annoying upper class white guys who like to harass women, they pretty much "deserved" their fate. The movie avoids any real layers of controversy unlike in the actual Goetz case.

Arthur barely stands for any kind of social agenda other than he's got a screw loose and is finally pushed over the edge by all the humiliation and abuse he endures. He would likely embrace the upper class if his make-believe father (Thomas Wayne) and his hero (DeNiro) didn't treat him like trash, though it's hard to quibble with their treatment of him considering how out-of-whack he clearly is in their presence. In the end he makes a big speech before knocking off DeNiro, but his words lack any real substance. He's just pissed off because DeNiro made fun of him -- hardly the stuff that would incite the under-privileged to riot and see him as a messiah instead of just an obviously deranged clown.

The plot also borrows heavily from Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy to the point of distraction.

Still, like I said before, see it for Joaquin's intensely committed performance and a few very stylish interludes.

.

Mabuse

Mabuse

nasesco417

DJariya

I saw this tonight in an almost full house. I thought it was very good, but honestly this is not something I would ever re-watch again.

But, Phillips did a great job turning a comic villain into a character study of a damaged individual and his shitty circumstances, which turned him into a psychopath.

Phoenix was amazing. Of the modern day portrayals of The Joker, this was by far the most compelling and I also liked that it was made as a early 80's period drama. The way he transformed his body was also startling. I wonder how much weight he lost. He was literally skin and bones.

Question, did anyone actually catch that Arthur's "girlfriend" was just a figment of his imagination? Just curious if there was any underlying clues before the big reveal that none of it was real.

Overall, I would give this an A, but I don't need to re-watch this again. I think Phoenix absolutely deserves a best actor nomination.

Why So Blu?

^ He lost 52 lbs. No, I didn't catch it until it was revealed.

Mike86

james2025a

I am surprised mate, I think this was telegraphed right to the viewer practically from her first scene. The fact she finds it amusing that he did the fingers to the head after walking out of the elevator seemed off. Every scene from then on seemed obvious she was not really there, I even said it to myself when I saw her in the hospital with him. Her going to the comedy routine and laughing, and especially him walking into her apartment and kissing her were very obviously delusions. The fact it showed the scene demonstrating the fact he had simply been imagining her in these scenarios I felt was uneeded. We got all the explanation we needed by him being in her apartment and she barely knew him and asked him to leave. I recall when I saw Fight Club for the first time I quickly caught on to the fact that Tyler Durden isn't real and was probably a figment of his imagination simply because I noticed most of the actors were not looking at him directly or acknowledging him in their scenes. Plus the splices basically spell it out as well. That's almost like the character being created by Ed Nortons mind. Like a car engine spluttering and starting with the roar of the gas being Tyler Durden.

The one thing I have thought about since seeing the movie is how much of the whole movie could be considered a delusion. The whole thing could be in his mind except the two scenes showing him in the asylum, and even that final scene comes off as a delusion with the comedic back and forth running from security. His mother, Thomas Wayne, Gotham itself could all simply be figments of his imagination. And that's where this movies strength really lies I think, it's open to so much interpretation and will keep people talking for some time to come. Personally I consider the shit parts of his life to be real, he did get invited onto the show, he did kill the people he killed, but he had no triumphs. Any success or positivity he attains in this movie is only in his imagination.

Orbi-Wan Techno

From my review page ORBI-WAN GOES TO THE MOVIES:

JOKER [R] - Dark, gritty, bleak and violent character study of the man who ultimately becomes Batman’s greatest nemesis, featuring a tour-de-force performance by Joaquin Phoenix

CAUTION: My review is my opinion of a film that has become the focus of much media attention. You may not agree with it, but I promised an honest review. Also, I might touch on some items that may be considered mild spoilers.

Well, I can honestly say that I walked out of the theater in a stunned daze after my screening of JOKER last night. I knew what to expect, for the most part, but seeing what may be considered one of the most realistic portrayals of the origin of an iconic comic book villain kind of hit me like a 2x4 upside my head. Was I entertained? I can’t really say I was. Was I informed? I can affirm that, yes, I was reminded just how much mental illness sucks, how it really can drive people to extremes, and how it can affect others around the afflicted, even in this fictional portrayal.

Joaquin Phoenix absolutely inhabits Arthur Fleck, the revisionist version of the tortured individual who becomes the Clown Prince of Crime in the DC Universe. Watching JOKER, from my perspective, I could tell that Phoenix suffered for this role, starting with his shocking weight loss (yes, I know Christian Bale (!) and Robert DeNiro (!) went through similar transformations). His portrayal of Arthur’s pain is real and present from the first scene and is masterfully carried through to the film’s shocking third act. However, this does NOT make him any type of hero or role model at all. Instead, we see a tortured soul whose life slowly cracks, crumbles and finally snaps because of his inability, and sometimes unwillingness, to deal with the forces and circumstances that constantly chip away. Arthur starts out as a very sympathetic character, but halfway through the story, he allows his psychotic side to take control, and has no regrets in doing so.

It’s 1981, and Gotham City is in crisis. A months-long garbage strike is taking its toll on citizens. There seems to be little hope or happiness. Arthur, a clown-for-hire and aspiring stand-up comedian who lives with and cares for his elderly mother (Frances Conroy), attempts to eek out a living, and dreams of appearing on the local late night talk show hosted by Murray Franklin (Robert DeNiro). His profession and his Tourette’s style laughing fits makes him a target of disdain and bullying. After suffering a beatdown, a coworker offers Arthur a gun to defend himself. Arthur, in clown make-up, uses it to defend himself during a subway beating, killing his attackers and getting away with it. The lower-class masses hail the “Clown” as a hero for standing up to the upper class, and Arthur, who’s also recently lost his city-funded medication benefits, but seems to have struck up a relationship with a pretty neighbor (Zazie Beetz), starts to wonder if his life path is taking a different direction.

Lies, old family secrets, and further humiliations drive Arthur further into madness, delusion and denial, and he briefly crosses paths with Thomas and pre-teen Bruce Wayne, solidifying this tale in the Dark Knight mythology. A video of a failed attempt at standup also puts Arthur on Murray Franklin’s radar. From there, things get even darker and more dangerous.

Again, I do respect what director Todd Phillips and writer Scott Silver have attempted, and they are successful at it. This is not intended as a “learned lesson” story, no story of redemption, there is no “fun” or levity, but a dark morality tale that explores the making of a super-villain. This is NOT a story for children, and probably not even most teens.

Do I recommend JOKER? That’s a tricky question. This movie is really for folks who enjoy really dark alternative versions of familiar comic book stories with the bad guy at the center, but I am not sure this is for the average movie goer who know little about the background of Joker, Batman or comic books in general. This is not light entertainment in any shape, form or fashion, and some people will find it very unpleasant. It is not an action movie, it is not a crime thriller, it is a serious character study of how an iconic bad guy got that way. I can honestly say It is successful at that. Please do not interpret my lack of assigning a score to JOKER as saying it’s a good or bad movie. It succeeds in what it does, it does it well, but I am not really the audience for it. Thanks for bearing with me.

NOTES TO PARENTS (Mild Spoilers) - Joker is rated R for some graphic, bloody violence, language, some sexual content, and pervasive themes that center on, and stem from, mental illness. The F-bomb is scattered throughout the film. Arthur is seen in his underwear in his apartment, and his bruised, emaciated body can be a bit disturbing. Arthur gently baths his elderly mother, but nothing graphic is shown or implied. Arthur’s joke book has random nude magazine cutout pictures that have been scribbled over, all very briefly glimpsed. At least two scenes of Gotham City’s seamy streets feature signs and movie titles of a sexual nature. Arthur is bullied, kicked and beaten by both street punks and well-dressed business men. Arthur shoots three attackers with a handgun. Arthur kills someone with a pillow, and later attacks another person with a pair of scissors in the movie’s bloodiest scene. Arthur shoots someone else in the head in a very shocking and unexpected moment. It is heavily implied at the end of the film that he has killed someone else. In addition to his delusional behavior, Arthur suffers from a Tourette’s-style condition that causes him to begin laughing uncontrollably in uncomfortable and stressful situations.

MID-and AFTER CREDIT SCENES: There are neither. Once “THE END” comes up, you can leave without missing anything.

LIKE and SHARE the review page ORBI-WAN GOES TO THE MOVIES with friends and family.

ORBI-WAN GOES TO THE MOVIES is protected under CREATIVE COMMONS.

Why So Blu?

In my defense, I had a little buzz going since we had some drinks before watching the film. The other thing was I figured when she opened the door and he walks in and kisses her outright -- I figured that was him getting his balls back. For everyone of those that he did, there would be an opposite effect that she would do to sort of ground the scene. There's the scene where they're both sitting at the hospital at the foot of his mother's bed after the stroke and she gives him an innocent kiss on the forehead and walks away. A scene like that, at least for me, neutralized that he was having a delusion.

That's an interesting take on the last part of your post. I don't think that's true, but interesting perspective.

Mike86

Raul3

Really liked the movie. Amazing performance from Joaquin Phoenix of course.

I think the comic book related background works against it. If you are not that big fan of comics, you'll probably enjoy it more. If you are a comics fan you'll probably spend the whole movie looking for clues.

For me the movie was pretty straight, dark, movie. The parts that were imaginary the director showed us, as flashbacks, that they were. The rest is real.

DJariya

Ash Ketchum

I just read a Twitter account of a screening last night at AMC 25 on New York's 42nd Street, in which a dude poured a bottle of tequila into his slushie and after drinking it, he started spitting on people and applauding loudly whenever the Joker killed somebody. He freaked people out and about a third of the audience left. One big guy approached the crazy and calmly talked to him and deescalated the situation until security came and took the guy out. I wonder if this will make the news. If this had been the OLD 42nd Street, this guy's behavior would have been the norm.

mapasu

Watched it last night with the family (Embassy Santikos in San Antonio). There were 2 cops, one outside the theater entrance and another coming in and out of the theater. Also, there were 2 clerks inside the theater on both sides, one checking the exit door a couple of times making sure it was locked. As for the movie, it was great, a close representation of the Joker character seen in some of the darker Batman stories. Common folks will not catch all references to Batman & DC. The movie questions who the real monster is here, the normalization of crime and chaos by the citizens of Gotham, or the Frankenstein incarnation of the Joker as a representation of all the vile.