|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 18, 2019 8:19:17 GMT -8
I think that, so long as a critic meets the Rotten Tomatoes criteria, his or her reviews always get tallied on the site.
And yeah, plenty of publications have had a lot of Joker takes - some better than others. Whether you love or hate the film (and I'm discovering more and more that a lot of top critics seem to hate it), it's certainly driving out the clicks.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 20, 2019 12:33:16 GMT -8
I've had a few days to reflect, and I've got some more detailed thoughts on Joker. MAJOR SPOILERS ahead:
So, let's talk about the unreliable narrator aspect - starting with Sophie. It wasn't quite clear while watching the movie how much of the interaction between Arthur and Sophie were actually occurring vs. in Arthur's head, and I'm still not fully certain. The early scene in the elevator does seem to be reality - it's what deludes Arthur into thinking he's formed a connection with his neighbor, with his too-charming-to-be-creepy finger gun. Everything after that, as I gather, is in Arthur's head, until the moment where he enters her apartment uninvited and... leaves shortly after, presumably having killed her. (I'm inclined to believe her daughter was left alone, but that's as optimistic as it gets.) It's probably the film's darkest moment, and is a terrific way to show that Arthur has crossed the point of no return.
The payoff to Arthur's relationship with the Wayne family is also pretty brutalizing, although that thread isn't sparked by Arthur's mental state. Watching him meet the young Bruce Wayne, I began to fear that the film was teetering into a misguided form of fanservice, trying to contrive a reason for the young Batman to play a role in the story by inventing a new relationship between him and his future arch-foe. Thankfully, that was mere misdirection. In the comics, Thomas Wayne is typically portrayed as saintly, generous, and fiercely protective of his family, and while the film doesn't portray him as truly flawless (particularly in the way his words do more than Arthur to spark the clown riots), it does respect the general essence of his character by not painting him as corrupt or adulterous.
Speaking of character essence, let's add a quick note about the film's portrayal of the Joker. As mentioned previously, I found this Joker to be a good rendition of the character, even if he's difficult to picture going toe-to-toe with Batman. Across comics and film, Joker has been portrayed as everything from "gleeful purveyor of mayhem" (1970s comics, Nicholson version) to "evil incarnate" (New 52, Ledger version) and the image of a white-faced Arthur tracing a bloodied grin over his lips suggests that his version could easily take either of those paths.
This is definitely a film that bears rewatching (though maybe not in theaters), but these are my impressions after one viewing.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 20, 2019 14:44:47 GMT -8
JOKER SPOILERS
I'm not convinced he DID kill Sophie, though perhaps I'm being too optimistic. I mean, she never really wronged him, and he let the little fellow go later in the film, so it's certainly open to interpretation. I think the definitive point-of-no-return is when he kills his mom in the hospital bed.
As for Thomas Wayne, I think he's portrayed in a fairly unsympathetic light, particularly in how he refers to the have-nots on the news broadcast. The fact that Alec Baldwin was originally considered for the role suggests the filmmakers were hovering in Trump-like (though obviously more mature and intelligent) territory. Also, shouldn't that old picture of Arthur's mom with some tender words and the initials T.W. on the back suggest that he DID cheat on Martha?
Some folks think most of the events of the film are just Arthur's imagination (while he's in the mental hospital), but I actually feel the "joke...you wouldn't get it" line, juxtaposed with an image of Bruce in that alley, suggests that he's amused by the trauma that another (biological) parentless child (possibly his step-brother) is gonna go through.
END JOKER SPOILERS
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 22, 2019 16:37:54 GMT -8
CONTINUED JOKER SPOILERS
I think it could be argued that Sophie does "wrong" him, though she's not at fault. Arthur convinces himself that they're in a relationship, and upon realizing she doesn't love him, he... doesn't respond well.
One theory I've heard is presumably pulled out of the Internet's Breaking Bad finale playbook - Arthur steps into the fridge, and everything after that is his hallucination before he freezes to death. Cute idea, but I think it's just fandom spitballing.
Truth told, I'd need to watch the film again to pick up on what is/isn't reality. I tend to take everything at face value the first time I watch a movie.
END CONTINUED JOKER SPOILERS
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Oct 23, 2019 5:41:21 GMT -8
So I saw Joker last night.
On the positive side, I really enjoyed the way the movie was crafted. It really digs in hard to taking on the Joker's point of view, which is a risk I think paid off in terms of giving the movie a distinct tone. I also really enjoyed the last 20 minutes or so, basically from the time the Joker started dancing on the staircase onwards.
That being said, overall I can't say I enjoyed the movie. To me the writing significantly lacked depth, and that's fine if the movie is entertaining or fun, but this was definitely not that movie. I didn't have a lot to bite into here, the concepts the movie delves into are neither particular original or particularly insightful, and have been covered elsewhere and better, even in other Batman movies. It just laid the misery that Arthur experienced on a little too thick, to the point where it suffocated everything else in the film. I think it might originate at the concept, coming out of this I was more convinced than ever the Joker doesn't need an origin story. I think it's always been heavily insinuated that this is a man who has been so hard done by the world that his response is to make it a joke, to see that in excruciating detail is a bit unnecessary.
I think the film was well crafted and well acted by Phoenix, but for me I really do typically need sharp writing to give a movie my recommendation.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 23, 2019 6:30:09 GMT -8
See, I've always found the Joker's "origin story" - as embellished in the comics and the first Burton movie - to be underwhelming. The guy's a loser criminal (or the leader of the Red Hood gang, if you prefer that version) who gets driven insane after he falls into a vat of acid. He's a very reactive character in his own origin story, which makes it the least interesting part about him. (Which is probably why DC has tried to paper over the character in recent years with "He doesn't have an origin story.")
The new film takes an entirely fresh perspective on the character's roots (even as it borrows certain elements from his persona). It doesn't go out of its way to be the Joker origin story we expect, which is partly why I was more receptive to it. It will probably never be seen as the character's "official" origin, but I don't mind.
|
|
|
Post by otherscott on Oct 23, 2019 7:06:13 GMT -8
Yes, that is also underwhelming and this is without doubt an improvement. I guess I just find it less fresh because my understanding of the root of the Joker has always been caused by the level of corruption and class division in Gotham - Gotham made the Joker based on how poorly it treated the less fortunate around it. I think this was always the theme of this movie - it's a bit of an Occupy Wall Street gone wrong.
And to be clear, I didn't mean that other Batman movies/ comics have done the origin of the Joker better. I more meant other Batman pieces have explored this theme of the corruption of the rich and the ignorance of the less fortunate just as well if not better than this movie did.
SPOILERS I actually think the ambiguity around whether Thomas Wayne truly was the father of Arthur was brilliantly done in this movie, to give another positive. I came out of the movie being sure that is what the movie was insinuating, but with more thought I think that lean was because the perspective of the movie was very much through Joker-coloured glasses. I think the evidence for it being possible was there in the movie, but I also think the movie (through the unreliable narrator conceit) filtered out all the information about why this either couldn't be true or wasn't likely to be true.
END SPOILERS
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 23, 2019 13:05:53 GMT -8
I think a broader, or larger-scale, exploration of Gotham's corruption and class warfare was always going to be kept at bay by the film's very focused, singular, and often unreliable perspective. Your initial response is actually what I expected, but as your second post suggests, more positives about the film (from your perspective) may pop up as you mull it over. I sat on it for a few days before saying anything here.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 23, 2019 18:14:23 GMT -8
Yeah, a friend of mine suggested that it's the type of film that many viewers won't be fully onboard with when they first watch it, especially if they have different preconceived notions of Batman and the Joker. (She hasn't see the film, just got the gist from the trailer and early buzz.)
It does improve the more you think about it. Of course, in the hyper-speed world of the Internet, folks always want to get their thoughts posted as quickly as possible, so don't expect a lot of reviews to take the "mull it over for a while" route.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 24, 2019 19:21:52 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 24, 2019 20:26:27 GMT -8
Oh no, the word of god! All fan theorizing goes out the window!
Actually, if true, this is good news. Will save me from some sleepless nights going forward.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 30, 2019 10:07:13 GMT -8
Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is one of the more pointless sequels I've seen this year (apart from Happy Death Day 2U, and Godzilla: King of the Monsters, and Secret Life of Pets 2, and... probably a couple of others), but it benefits from a decent story and some state-of-the-art VFX, as well as a greater sense of humor than the first film. More entertaining than most of the live-action Disney remakes which, of course, make a lot more money than it will. Angelina Jolie and Michelle Pfeiffer do strong work; Chiwetel Ejiofor is wasted.
On the classic side, I watched Taxi Driver. Despite some great performances and vivid atmosphere, this was not a film that appealed to me. Travis Bickle's arc, which the crux of the film hinges on, felt pretty flat, particularly as the story escalated in its look at the seedier, violent side of New York. There are some good individual scenes (like Scorsese's cameo as one of Travis' passengers), and it's clear how the film influenced Joker, but I definitely preferred King of Comedy.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 30, 2019 20:12:31 GMT -8
Yeah, I had a feeling you wouldn't like that nearly as much as The King of Comedy. That said, which of the two films do you feel JOKER draws more heavily from?
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Oct 31, 2019 7:15:41 GMT -8
I think the influence of King of Comedy is more overt, particularly through the hook of a failed stand-up comedian and the casting of Robert de Niro as the comedy legend he admires. I could easily recognize the comparisons between Joker and King of Comedy, but I probably wouldn't have thought to notice the Taxi Driver influence if others hadn't pointed it out first.
That said, on a subtextual level, Joker probably adheres closer to Taxi Driver, since Travis Bickle and Arthur Fleck are both societal rejects who take their anger out on a world that's perhaps just as mad as they are. Though I don't think those two films are alone in that category.
Oh, and feel free to recommend other Scorsese films. Despite his deeply blasphemous comments about the MCU, the guy certainly has his talents.
|
|
|
Post by ThirdMan on Oct 31, 2019 12:05:47 GMT -8
Hey, at least he didn't call them "despicable". Heh.
Though it's considered a classic, and one of the greatest films of the 80s, I don't think you'd like Raging Bull, as it leans very heavily on repetitive, self-destructive macho behaviour. But you'd probably be able to enjoy GoodFellas, as it moves along at a good clip, and is quite comedic in nature. You'd also see its influence all over The Sopranos.
|
|