“JOKER” is a PHENOMENAL Film and Character Study

I did not like Heath Ledger in his role as “Joker”.

'JOKER' is a rehash of "The King of Comedy." I'd rather watch that again instead.

No r2. It isn’t. You haven’t even seen it.

R1 this has nothing to do with Ledger

OP sounds like a publicity shill. Anyway, the reviews are less than stellar. I'd say this movie is much ado about nothing.

Arthur Fleck lives with his mom and wants to be a stand up comic, just like Rupert Pupkin The King of Comedy. Robert de Niro is playing the Jerry Lewis role (talk show host) From TKOC. Zazie beets plays the black love interest, just like the original film. The major difference is the amount of violence.

While everyone seems to agree that Phoenix's performance is stunning, the movie seems to be a slog.

The movie is fantastic. It’s a slow burn film. People were expecting a film full of shooting and killing, like most Comic movies, but this was LITERALLY a character study.

Joaquin Phoenix is and always has been one of the most naturally gifted actors out there. I can’t wait to see this, this weekend.

I just saw it, and it was good. The critics complaining were expecting an Avengers movie but got a serious drama with violence (PS its not even that much. He kills 3 men on the train, which is what sets off the riots, He kills his mother, He kills his former co-worker that got him fired, and he kills De Niro).

Surprisingly good.

Thanks for blowing it for the rest of us, R9. I know you think you’re funny, but you’re just a cunt.

I agree with OP. It is a film that deals with the consequences of poverty and lack of mental health services. I can’t believe the guy responsible for The Hangover directed this intense, strange and moving film.

The Oscar race will be close between Driver and Phoenix. Driver is liked but Phoenix is loved, despite his odd behaviour. I think Joaquin will grab the trophy, despite all the controversy.

How does Brad Pitt fare in the Oscar race?

How does Brad Pitt fare in the Oscar race?

"I did not like Heath Ledger in his role as “Joker”."

You're in the minority. He won an Oscar for it and he deserved it.

NY Times pretty much panned it.

The NY Times found it bland and uninteresting

Joker's interesting... because you can critique it on its filmmaking merits, or you can critique it based on the conversation it's already generated, and whether or not it's deserving of/lives up to its reputation. Because of this, I think you'll get various responses, a lot of projecting, and a lot of politicizing.

At the end of the day, what Phoenix is doing here is undeniable. I mean... I can understand detractions about the narrative or the film's political point of view, but Phoenix's commitment here is staggering. The scene of him dancing after the subway killing was transcendent. Phoenix's physicality, Hildur Guðnadóttir's score, and the camera all work in harmony to illustrate a very troubling, and dangerous ecstasy... it was a surprising moment and I can't shake it.

Yeah, it's derivative as fuck, and not at all subtle. Todd Phillips is doing a lot of "this" meets "that" in an attempt to capture the zeitgeist, and I think, in spite of myself, he pulls it off, but largely because he had the good taste to build upon the language of Martin Scorsese, the mythology of DC Comics, and whatever it is that makes Joaquin Phoenix better than so many other actors working today.

It was ok. The scene with the midget was both unnerving and funny.

His appearance on Murray's show really is the best part of the film.

The Bruce Wayne stuff was a bit unnecessary.

Fuck the N.Y. Times.

Every time I see a film starring Joaquin Phoenix, I know I’m gonna see a good to great performance from him.

I imagine our DL elders thought similarly regarding DeNiro, Pacino & Nicholson, just to name a few.

There are very few people who can truly act. It can be learned, yes, but some people really are just born with it. That’s Joaquin. He’s one of those, & that’s why most people who appreciate the art of acting will pay to see this movie, because he is that good at what he does.

I loved him in Signs. It was a silly movie but he was perfect in every scene.

So good

[quote] You're in the minority. He won an Oscar for it and he deserved it.

He won because he died cut the crap.

True, R22. It was a Pity Oscar.

[Quote] The Bruce Wayne stuff was a bit unnecessary.

????

I think the NY Times critics pretty much suck and I usually discount their reviews. They're fucking elitist snobs.

Ledger did not win because he died. That theory was debunked years ago when it was released that Ledger was tapped to win the Oscar while he was filming still!

WB allowed critics to see some screeners and everyone was speaking about how he’s going to win an Oscar.

So sick of the stupidity on here.

Phoenix has become a tedious, humorless "artiste" actor. Who nonetheless would fashion his own belly into a drum if he could bang it.

It was clearly difficult for all involved to have him do the publicity for this movie.

It’s incel straight white male violent garbage.

Stop trying to sell this shit here. Fuck off.

R28 = trigglypuff. Sorry, hon, it just broke box office records. It happened. Get over it.

[quote] Ledger did not win because he died. That theory was debunked years ago when it was released that Ledger was tapped to win the Oscar while he was filming still!

Not true. Try again.

You know, people love to go on and on that Heath won because he died. They've been doing it for a decade now, and you want to know what I never see these people do? Suggest who they think would have won had Heath lived.

SO... Those who think he won because he died, who else do you think would have won that year?

Josh Brolin – Milk as Dan White

Robert Downey Jr. – Tropic Thunder as Kirk Lazarus

Philip Seymour Hoffman – Doubt as Father Brendan Flynn

Michael Shannon – Revolutionary Road as John Givings Jr.

I'd argue that, while I like/love all of these performances, none of them impacted their film, and the culture, the way Heath Ledger did, and I'd also argue that we would have had the same response had he lived. But we don't know, because history happened the way it did, and Heath won, so it's futile to keep harping about a hypothetical past. It's a bridge to nowhere.

How many actors have won posthumous Oscars?

This will tell you that Ledger didn’t won because he died. And he DID get Oscar buzz while filming.

Old people showing their age some more b

Getting bad reviews. It's boring. Just boring.

It has 70% positive reviews.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman & Michael Shannon are the only two actors, other than Heath, deserving of a win that year.

Seymour Hoffman was tremendously talented, & I’ve thought of him repeatedly while reading this thread, and other threads discussing & speculating who the noms will go to for the upcoming Academy Awards. Seymour Hoffman was a national treasure, & losing him as a gifted actor still hurts, because there aren’t too many out there in our current landscape, who have that level of skill.

Shannon will eventually win his bald, little dude. He’s the real deal.

That said, it matters not if a percentage of us believe Ledger won due to his death, or due to his talent. Either way, Ledger too, was very talented. He deserved one for BBM, in my opinion, so why sit here & quibble amongst ourselves regarding a moot point? It’s done.

The poster above, who aptly observed Hollywood’s love of Joaquin is spot on. Joaquin is a fucking natural, and much of what he harnesses comes from some extremely dysfunctional shit. My exposure to him personally or socially is limited, but I know that he has certain ideals and convictions that he doesn’t abandon, & despite what is perceived as bravado or uncooperative push back from him in recent press junkets, that I have even rolled my eyes about, Joaquin is a fucking RARE diamond in a town filled with thousands of no talent hacks who undisputedly are in for the glory, glam, and cash. He has struggled with his personal demons & character defects for many years, & he’s been vilified by the press for being openly vulnerable and human.

Comparing Phoenix to Ledger is ridiculous. Two very different men, coming from two very different backgrounds, with different experiences , that separate their performances of the same character in nuanced, yet distinctive applications & interpretations of the materials, personified into that same foundation of a fictional character that is as much a part of Americana as a Norman Rockwell piece, by these genuinely gifted actors themselves.

What we should be discussing is this. That a character whom most of us have known since childhood, has been stretched beyond any conceivable, early construct of its creator original intent & has not only withstood the test of time, but has enthusiastically engaged us decades in, through film & through those who are uniquely talented enough to play him in a variety of ways, and spectacularly so.

Putting all on Joaquin for 2020 - all the way.

Ledger was the best in his category. Easily. And the only performance that year that had a cultural impact all over the world

R36, yes. But I was also blown away by Michael Shannon in RR. Blowing people away in a few minutes ain’t easy. And he’s not a one trick pony, either. The man can act well and does.

R37 you’re not in the majority. Most people haven’t seen RR yet alone know about Shannon’s performance

There's no such thing as a "pity" Oscar.

It was funny, because I remember watching Revolutionary Road and thinking that Michael Shannon's performance functioned similarly to Heath Ledger's in that both exist to sort of upend the facade put on by society. Shannon probably could have played an iteration of The Joker.

[quote]What we should be discussing is this. That a character whom most of us have known since childhood, has been stretched beyond any conceivable, early construct of its creator original intent & has not only withstood the test of time, but has enthusiastically engaged us decades in, through film & through those who are uniquely talented enough to play him in a variety of ways, and spectacularly so.

[bold]JOKER SPOILERS BELOW[/BOLD]

There's a moment at the end of the film when a couple rioters pull Joker out of a car accident and place him on the hood of a cop car. He then stands, surrounded by his new admirers, who then applaud. Whether it's a fantastical moment in Joker's mind or not, it doesn't really matter. What we're seeing is essentially what we've been doing to this villain since his inception: praising him. Lifting him up. There's something about this psychopath that we just can't get over, and we'll likely be reinterpreting him for years to come.

R38, um... that’s not how it works, R38. No patronizing or talking down to you, either, by the way.

I’m not a member of the Academy, or any Guild, so my opinion means nothing when deciding noms, and/or wins. However, others agreed that his performance in RR was outstanding, because 1) they saw the film, 2) he was nominated based on the opinion that he was good enough to be nominated, even with a role that had him within the parameters of limited screen time & exposure. And I believe he was nominated again. Correct me if I’m wrong. I very well could be mistaken.

R38, the first time I saw RR, I thought back to one of my all time faves, NETWORK, where an actress by the name of Beatrice Straight won her little bald guy, despite a very short, yet brilliantly acted, scene. Now, the first time I saw Network, in the early 2000s, I recall thinking to myself, I wonder if this woman won an Oscar for her performance, because she was so fucking good! I googled her, & sure enough, she did!

It’s not a mystery. Outstanding performances by talented actors is as obvious as any other, obvious thing. You know a winner when you see one. It really is quite simple.

I heard it was boring and it has cringe scenes catering to white incels.

Maybe you should see it for yourself instead of going off what others are saying.

A friend of mine just saw it and said it was slow and disappointing.

I’m sure r44. I’m sure.

My only issue was during the scene when Arthur goes into Zazie Beetz apartment and we see that he created that relationship with her in his mind. It was done well, but then we see him look at her and make the gun blowing his brains out gesture and she looks frightened, and then it cuts to him laughing in his apartment.

Did her kill her or not?

An Oscar for a superhero movie?

This movie is NOT about the Joker from Batman. It literally has only taken liberties with the Batman character and spun it into some sort of bullshit. It is the King of Comedy with makeup.

"It is The King of Comedy" with makeup."

Bingo.

[quote]Did her kill her or not?

I don't think he did. He mainly killed people who he believed wronged him in some way.

[quote]It is the King of Comedy with makeup.

It's not just King of Comedy. He's doing Taxi Driver, Network, Dog Day Afternoon... he's pulling from many sources.

This is not King of Comedy.

Wtf is wrong with people judging a film WITHOUT SEEING IT

I've seen the film, and I enjoyed it a lot, but you'd have to be ignorant to dismiss the blatant King of Comedy allusions. Even the director has cited it, along with many other films from that era, as a source.

Fucking Robert De Niro's in the film playing a talk show host. He literally passed the Pupkin role to Joaquin while taking on the Jerry Lewis one.

Why can't we have a film called THE JERKER?

"This is not King of Comedy."

Have you seen The King of Comedy, R51? The parallels are undeniable.

I seriously doubt he will win the Oscar. The film is getting bad reviews from the people considered the top critics--AO Scott, Anthony Lane, Joe Morgenstern, Ty Burr--, and in any case it's a role many people have played before in the last 30 years,a nd Phoenix doesn;t seem to bring a lot to it. And the Academy hates to award oscars to comic book film performances.

The biggest reasons Heath Ledger got the Oscar were that he was dead, and got the sympathy vote, and because his performance was considering groundbreaking. Joaquin Phoenix is well liked, but he has played this kind of part before (in "The Master"), and his performance, while praised, is considered to owe a lot to Ledger's.

Finally, I think people in Hollywood are unhappy that the film may be a danger to audiences and thus their reputation. Even if no violence emerges from the screenings, I think people think making this film was a bad idea.

I think Phoenix might be lucky enough to get a nomination; but the actual Oscar is pretty unlikely.

How is R9 not F&Fed yet? Spoilers or potential spoilers are so lame.

*Sorry, that should read "and Phoenix doesn't seem to bring a lot new to it." Every review I've seen--even the positive ones--say the performance is derivative of his co-star Robert De Niro as both Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin, and as Ledger as The Joker.

Just what this country needs... a movie about a violent psycho. Don't we have enough of that in real life.

[quote] It’s incel straight white male violent garbage.

[quote] I heard it was boring and it has cringe scenes catering to white incels.

R28, R42 - "Wolf of Wall St" was "incel straight white male violent garbage" too. Wolf of Wall St even glamorised it. But so what - it was pretty spot on.

Jordan Belfort is a real person, and I don't remember him murdering anyone.

There needs to be more people calling out that ridiculously named "SlutPuppyJade" cunt at R9.

I don't even give a shit about this film, but I've had films I DID care about get ruined by inconsiderate jackasses like that.

How is Wolf of Wall Street incel, or violent? Do people know what incel means? Involuntarily celibate people. No one in Wolf of Wall Street was involuntarily celibate. Actually, the women and the sex are easily attainable by the people in the film. I'll give you straight, white, and male though. It's not a garbage film, however. It's quite exceptional and easily boasts DiCaprio's best performance.

I didn't find Joaquin's performance to be all that derivative of Ledger's. They're operating at completely different frequencies, but do exactly what their respective takes on the mythos need them to do. I get the comparisons to De Niro... sure... but honestly, if anything, like someone said above, it's The Master that most strongly informs Joker, and even then Freddie Quell and Arthur Fleck are very different characters.

[quote] How does Brad Pitt fare in the Oscar race?

R13, Pitt did not have any big metamorphosis in his role. He pretty much played himself - laid-back, confident, aging guy, who is sexy and topless and walks & talks like he has a big cock. No surprises there. He did a decent job with the limited scope of the role - but it wasn't really a challenging role.

Users like R9 are so common on Datalounge. Actually, you want to know what's particularly embarrassing? Spoiler etiquette is stronger on Reddit than it is on DL. It doesn't matter the film, tv show, book... whatever, there will be someone in the comments here spoiling it within the first 20 replies. I actively avoid message boards for things I haven't seen in general, but I especially do it here because no one, and I mean absolutely no one, goes out of their way to spoiler warn. On the contrary, I think the users here love doing it, and can't imagine a reality wherein them blathering isn't a conversational benefit.

4chan and DL are the sites you can regularly expect flagrant spoilerism.

R11: You only need to listen to the promo interviews to realize that he is the same asshole who directed the hangover

[quote] No one in Wolf of Wall Street was involuntarily celibate.

R62, 
Many of the fat or scrawny unattractive geeks trying to become big-shots in finance are involuntary celibate (unless they pay for it). Jonah Hill’s character, Donnie Azoff (the best friend & sidekick of DiCaprios’ anti-hero), even resorted to marrying his cousin. No one else would give that character the time of day.

Wolf of Wall Street is what happens when finance geeks, who were previously involuntary celibate for most of their lives, suddenly strike it rich and get intoxicated on such a sudden surge in ‘power’, hiring hookers, snorting coke and eventually imploding.

I saw the film. It IS the King of Comedy with makeup. There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING original in this film.

It is NOT a superhero film. The Joker’s origin is from falling into a vat of chemicals. That is the story. That is nowhere near this story. At least Heath Ledger’s father disfigured him.

The stupid liberties take in this story are indecipherable for why they needed to make this film. It will eventually be looked at like at better acted, better written Catwoman.

The people claiming they “saw it” (it just opened last night) and saying it’s 100% The King Of Comedy 100% DID NOT SEE IT. You can’t even give specifics. You’re lying for the sake of lying? Do you think you sound cool?

I’ve seen both, and while you can make some comparisons it’s not that much the same to be making a big deal of anything.

Ledger DID NOT WIN FOR DYING. ONLY 2 ACTORS HAVE WON POSTHUMOUSLY

Ah yes, ALL CAPS are always persuasive.

R68 you are an idiot. There are a number of people on here who work in the entertainment industry and have ways of seeing films early. Especially if one is a voting academy member.

I think it's fine if they did take inspiration from TKOC - as long as they openly acknowledged it and payed homage to it. Which it seems they did, both in an interview and in hiring De Niro for a role (as a tongue-in-cheek nod to the earlier film).

Yeah, one could argue that The King of Comedy is part of the film's text. The director's asking for comparisons to be drawn. R68 is losing his mind over nothing. I wonder if he'd yell at director Todd Phillips for bringing up the King of Comedy connection himself. "NO, SIR! It's obvious that you DIDN'T direct this film, because there are NO connections to THE KING OF COMEDY! You're being ABSURD, Todd Phillips!"

[quote]At least Heath Ledger’s father disfigured him.

You think Heath Ledger's character was telling the truth? If I'm not mistaken he provided like three different backstories. In the comics, Joker said that when it came to his backstory, he preferred that it be multiple choice. That inspired Nolan's take on the character, and allowed Phillips to provide his own interpretation. The Joker's origin story has always been multifaceted throughout time... to complain about this interpretation not adhering to your preconceived expectation is kinda ridiculous.

Because River died, we're left with a harelip reminder of what might have been.

This film isn’t as much about an Incel, as it is more about things that we tend to disparage and reject, the very qualities that we need more of in today’s society, and our refusal to allow young boys and men to express those qualities. It isn’t about lack of material things, or physical beauty, which “incels” claim to be missing or lacking in. It is about what we are as a society lacking in: compassion, and acceptance of those who are different than ourselves.

This incarnation of the Joker, and the world in which he lives, goes far beyond material possessions, or rare opportunities available to a select few. It is about how rare it is to see something within someone, that is still unspoiled, or hardened by cynicism and often replaced with competition with our fellow man. It’s about how we’ve been taught to believe that our uniqueness or our special thing, that makes me, me, and makes you, you, cannot live in a world which values conformity over all. It shows how we have lost the ability to express ourselves in meaningful and profound ways, & our desire to share ourselves with others is now seen as a huge risk, rather than normal bonds of friendship. We view sensitive men, as men who are to be rejected, ultimately proving to them that we believe that they are unworthy of love, and therefore life. It speaks to a world that demands a certain type of performance, those who fail to measure up, turn to express themselves through violence, because violence has now replaced artistic abilities that are seen as vulnerabilities within white men. Violence has become the only acceptable language, because everyone we meet, is violent to us, if we aren’t violent first. This is what men learn.

We are no longer recognizing & cultivating a sensitive, withdrawn man. Now he’s on the spectrum. Nurturing men who write poetry, who play violin, folk music on a guitar, who cry when they sing about losing the one they love, is a lost form of expression. We stripped our schools of any creative outlets for children, especially boys, yet have managed to hold onto the sports programs, programs which reaffirm violence and “winning”, where many boys will not excel. So where do these boys go?

Incel culture is a construct presented for the purpose of selling young men misogyny & self loathing, while simultaneously cranking out inspirational speakers and self help gurus who make money off their hocus pocus, or whatever it is that one is lacking in, which they claim to have, in order to just BE. We no longer evolve in ways that allow us to solve our problems amongst ourselves, face to face. We depend on others to guide us, & oftentimes, the guidance, good or bad, comes from a stranger online. In a way, this film affirms ideas correspondent to what authoritarians have always known, take away a society’s ability to express itself through the arts, and you end up with a society that is prime for subjugation and domination. Give them nonexistent reasons to be angry at something other than their leadership, and eventually, they will become more & more passive, and some, of course, will not want to surrender. The men are always the ones you must have onboard, in order to take over a democracy. So target them while young. And it works, because the autocrats taught them to hate the Jews in Germany and Europe before WW2. Now, they must be taught to blame it all on Mexicans, The Stacies, and the Chads. They have become convinced at an age when sex is EVERYTHING to them, that they’re not desirable, and have nothing to fight for or live for, e.g. sex with their female peers, and offspring produced thereof.

By denying human beings the ability to express themselves in ways that don’t entail violence, we are responsible for the idea and cultivation of incel culture, its myths and for promoting its pathos. Everything in front of us, Gods and monsters, we created. Denying this film to oneself is fine, but lots of people want to see this, and the majority, if any, will not leave the theater, inspired to kill.

Sweetie, you didn’t see the movie r70. Repeating shit others say is not seeing it for yourself.

Everything is inspired by something else. Nothing is original anymore. It’s 2019. Hollywood is out of ideas.

People CLAIM to work in the Entertainment industry on here. Very few actually do. Most of the shit they say is made up boo.

Lame ass incel movie shilling.

Wolf Of Wall Street and The Big Short always get praised on here and those men always have these old white men defending them but they take issue with a fictional character killing or the women that stole from the men that stole from others?

I am laughing at all the old white liars on here claiming they saw a movie that hasnt even been out for 24 hours, but making it obvious they have not seen shit lol.

90% of the audience on opening weekend.

R78, LoL all you want, however, most people have manners, and don’t spoil a film for those who have yet to view it, as you managed to do upthread, while adding nothing of value to the discussion, other than your boisterous proclamation seeing it before others, which was basically the equivalent of pissing on a fire hydrant.

You’re young, Jade. Youth is no excuse to be an asshole, however, when you hit 50 and over, like your dad, you’ll learn to appreciate how fucking awesome it is to have the privilege of growing old, & hopefully, you’ll have mastered your bladder when coming upon a fire hydrant.

R78 Showtimes for the film here in Southern California started at 4PM on Thursday. That's when I went to see it, and my theater was relatively full. By now many people have seen the film. There are full, rich discussions of it happening on Reddit right now. You're acting like this film didn't draw interesting from tons of people who wanted to finally see this hyped up film. You're not special for having seen this film, or having an opinion on it.

It seems like you're just mad that some people are criticizing the film, or at least an aspect of its audience that the media wouldn't stop talking about.

Part 1 of the Murray Scene

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Saw it today. It's just an atmospheric suspense drama. Good acting; good production design... But most audiences will be bored and disappointed it's not "Batman: Part VIII". No special effects; no gadgetry; no superhero fights.

Why the Ledger comparison? The definitive Joker will always be Jack Nicholson.

Critics are being the biggest hypocrites about this movie, considering that they have lauded far more "offensive " movies in the past. It's to the point where I can't tell from the reviews whether the film is actually poorly made or they just feel pressured not to be seen as endorsing it. Truthfully I don't understand all the fuss. Philosophers and playwrights have discussed the complex roots of villainy and madness for centuries.

"Definitive" Jokers are likely generational. Heath Ledger's mine, for others it's Mark Hamill, but I can appreciate and love what others have done with the character.

Cesar Romero...the Original!

Ledgers Performance is way better than Nicholson.

R88 they’re always being hypocrites. DC can put out a film copy of any Marvel movie, scene for scene and they will tear it apart, meanwhile Marvel can do the same with DC and they will applaud it.

I bet if Batman vs Superman were the same exact movie but with Iron Man and Captain America they would be praising the shit out of it.

Awesome! I'm really looking forward to not seeing it!

I feel critics are being pressured to speak against the violence, not because there is so much of it (there isn’t, if anything there is less than many other films) because the movie shows this episode in poverty and lower middle class and full on homeless finally taking a stand against the Upper Middle Class and rich and fighting back against the Government and cops. They’re probably afraid this movie will give people courage to not continue to sit silent and actually realize YOU CAN FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE SYSTEM

Are the videos at r82 r83 r84 r85 playing?

Reference... as well as a decent POV from the narrator.

This movie has nothing to do with celebrity

'JOKER' is a rehash of "The Man Who Laughed"

The videos are playing for me.

R93 I'm certain that many of the critics' takes are valid, and sincere, but I do think that they feel a certain pressure to downplay the film because they don't want to be responsible should the fears they've conjured in their head come to pass. It makes discussion about the film difficult because people may be disingenuous.

[quote]This movie has nothing to do with celebrity

That's not true. Arthur wants to be a stand up comedian. He fantasizes about being singled out by a talkshow host and becoming a beloved public figure. He wants to bring laughter to the world. At the end of the film, he wants to confess, and make a huge display on television. You can see, when he stands up at the end of the film, that he loves public admiration.

Disney who owns MCU and the media tried to take the Joker down and ruined the box Office success with their shills that is why you saw so many negative articles and tweets from those shills but I’m glad it didnt work. Glad Martin Scorsasse who was responsible for making the Joker movie for DC got revenge with his viral quote stating that Marvel movies is “ not cinema”

If you watch the movie Jokers goal is not to be famous.

[quote]If you watch the movie Jokers goal is not to be famous.

It's a bit more complicated than that. His goals, as developed as they are, change throughout the film. What they are in the third act isn't what they were in the first, but he definitely had a delusional aspiration to have a career in the realm of fame.

I don’t think he wanted fame as much as he wanted to feel loved and adored.

I think r93 is on to something . Plenty of vile behavior can be shown in movies and no one blinks but all of a sudden these movie critics are moralists. I think they are uncomfortable at who is depicted as targets. Such an American viewpoint. All sorts of injustices are allowed to stand but leave the precious rich "job creators " alone (even in a work of fiction ). For what it's worth, I don't think this movie is anymore likely to insight unrest than anything else on TV or cinema.

I saw it. It's the King Of Comedy.

Sure you did.

I saw it a few hours ago and I fell asleep in the theater. Boring as fuck.

Well, sure, R104. And it makes one lift the veil, and then one realizes that the job creators, also create news, etc.

It’s all a humongous farce, that if truly laid bare and examined, is so grotesque,and sinister, we either deny it and laugh, or recognize it and understand that we are already crushed, and have nothing left to lose in an uprising against “them”.

It’s not unique to America, but we are relatively young in our experiment with democracy, and the longer it goes on, the more it is put to the test, collectively and in our individual, day to day lives.

Some of us break. We cannot withstand the truth: that it’s all absolutely meaningless in the end anyhow.

The line between civility and depravity is often erased, redrawn, hidden, and even disguised.

OP does sound like a shill

OP does sound like a shill

It has shades of Michael Jackson. Phoenix is emaciated thin, with longish hair and a fey manner. Slathers on white theatrical make-up, dances at the drop of a hat and likes to be around kids. Also has daddy issues.

Cartoons and comic books.

This is America today. People falling all over themselves to praise a comic book movie.

This film has nothing to do with the classic Batman & Robin comic book series, R112. This film is a character study on someone’s personal take on how a man who came to call himself “The Joker”, because he wanted to make others laugh, became a killer.

Had you watched the film, or had you bothered to read just this thread, you would have had some semblance of this.

Praising someone such as Mr. Phoenix, for performing a role as an actor, is completely benign. And to use your own words, what America has come to is the inability to recognize when elected officials aren’t fit for duty, when it is plain as the rising sun, that they indeed are grossly unfit for office.

Perhaps you should ponder upon your own personal perspectives regarding things that are much more important, rather than scolding us peasants, for fawning over an individual who was able to show up to his job every day, and deliver the goods that he was contractually obliged to deliver, despite his own personal woes or shortcomings.

After hearing endlessly that this film caters to incels, what a surprise to find out that it's not the Joker, but Thomas Wayne (who is running for mayor to try and fix the city which is already in the process of crumbling) and ironically enough, Robert Deniro. All these reviewers who blasted this movie as incel porn have been exposed and the movie is exceeding box office expectations and is even getting near unanimous praise on Twitter of all places. Hate to say I told you so.

Thought Joaquin bested Heath Ledger in this. The character is compelling enough without all the exaggerated vocal tics of Ledger. Joaquin's transformation was far more subtle but it worked great. Wish we could have gotten more of it.

After hearing endlessly that this film caters to incels, what a surprise to find out that it's not the Joker, but Thomas Wayne (who is running for mayor to try and fix the city which is already in the process of crumbling) and ironically enough, Robert Deniro who are the moral characters in the film. All these reviewers who blasted this movie as incel porn have been exposed and the movie is exceeding box office expectations and is even getting near unanimous praise on Twitter of all places. Hate to say I told you so.

The shills are still at it with a recent article on CNN Disney really controls a part of the media.

It's not getting my attention. Nope.

[quote] What it seems to be saying is utterly incoherent, beyond the suggestion that Arthur, who is mentally ill, becomes violent after being assaulted by a group of people of color—and he suffers callous behavior from one black woman, and believes that he’s being ignored by another, and reacts with jubilation at the idea of being a glamorous white star amid a supporting cast of cheerful black laborers

Another bullshit review.

The reason the critics are afraid of the film is not because Joker is portrayed as a sympathetic character (he's not), but because he's portrayed as the leader of the resistance against Thomas Wayne (who many thought were Trumpian) and Robert Deniro's talk show host who is a symbol of entitlement. If anyone decides to watch those clips above (don't, watch the movie instead) it's clear as day that the Joker views himself as a victim who is justified in performing acts of violence.

yea but Phoenix is so dam fugly…….ugh......I mean major creepo zero hots ville….

Anything with Joaquin in it is so boring depressing and flopsville…..gimme a break.

The Joker is not the hero of the story. The only "good" characters are represented by rich, white men, hence why critics loathe this movie. The whole incel angle is a failed marketing ploy to detract people from seeing it.

I’m so sick of the dozens of Joker threads. Who cares.

Like the poster upthread said, it’s a rehash of King Of Comedy. This character is not The Joker. Alan Moore made The Killing Joke a one-shot for that exact reason. He doesn’t need to be explained, his motivations don’t need a backstory. The thing that makes him so terrifying, which is the same reason everybody loves Nolan’s Joker, is that he is a man without reason. He does things that harm others, he does things that harm himself, he does things for the hell of it. He is chaos personified, and he gets off on destruction. He has no goals, he has no ambitions, and most importantly he has no backstory. There is no need for a backstory when a character is essentially supposed to be insanity personified.

You’d really think that after the success of The Dark Knight people would realize that.

The Joker isn’t this character. This is just Todd Philips’s ‘King Of Comedy’ with some dumb political aspects added. It’s clear he just wanted to do a remake of that, but thought it wouldn’t ever get off the ground, so he slapped a DC logo on it since people will pay to see whatever has a comic book company attached to it. My problem with this movie isn’t the stupid psuedo-political parts of it, everyone arguing over that is idiotic. My problem is that this fucks up everything that makes the Joker a good villain. Again, I can’t believe people still don’t get this post-Heath Ledger.

[quote] Like the poster upthread said, it’s a rehash of King Of Comedy. This character is not The Joker. Alan Moore made The Killing Joke a one-shot for that exact reason.

This movie is also a one shot and a much more successful comic adaptation than the animated version of The Killing Joke that came out a few years ago.

[quote] He doesn’t need to be explained, his motivations don’t need a backstory.

He's explained just as much as the character was in The Killing Joke. Neither adaptation is definitive. They each bring something unique to their their respective mediums. This version would not work on the printed page just as The Killing Joke didn't work as an animated feature. The Joker is a fascinating enough character who could be dramatized a number of different ways. This version also leaves much to interpretation, which is why it's encouraged so much discussion among the fanbase.

R126 The Killing Joke works in the spaces where they don’t delve into that Joker’s backstory. IMHO, if they had stuck with the main plot of the Joker trying to prove to Batman that all it takes is one bad day, the story would have not only been better written, it would have better inspired the fear that the Joker is supposed to convey. It doesn’t matter what version of justification it is, giving the Joker justification PERIOD ruins the character. It makes him just another part of the rouges gallery. The fact that the Joker has no justification makes him such an amazing villain. The idea that a human could create such violence and destruction for absolutely no reason at all is horrifying. When you give that character a reason, the actions become less horrifying.

This Joker doesn't kill innocent people like in the darker DC universe; he has a code it seems. Kinda like Dexter in big shoes. Also, DeNiro brought nothing special to this party. But go see it. There are worse movies out there.

[quote]This film has nothing to do with the classic Batman & Robin comic book series

...Are you retarded? Even if you ignore the "Joker" title, it takes place in GOTHAM CITY and features the characters THOMAS WAYNE and BRUCE WAYNE—the Bat himself!

I don't do comic book movies.

Can that weird poster obsessed with The King of Comedy stop commenting over and over? It’s weird. You haven’t even seen it.

[quote]It doesn’t matter what version of justification it is, giving the Joker justification PERIOD ruins the character.

You, and a couple people here, seem to be operating under the notion that this film claims to be the definitive Joker origin story... as if DC has decided to make THIS film THE canonical film to explain where The Joker came from. It's not. If you've heard of DC Comics' publication imprint Elseworlds, you'll know that DC themselves have been telling various, non-canonical stories that shift the narratives of their iconic characters. No one read Gotham by Gaslight and bitched about how Batman doesn't actually take place during the 19th century and never met Jack Ripper.

[quote]You’d really think that after the success of The Dark Knight people would realize that.

The Dark Knight, while exceptional, isn't the definitive interpretation of the Joker, nor should it be. This character has been changing and evolving for decades. You mentioned The Killing Joke in which Joker says he prefers his origins be multiple choice. Well, all Phillips is doing here is providing one out of a myriad of choices and never once claimed that this was Joker's definitive story.

Also, that Richard Brody critique at R119 is strange considering how many rich white people were either killed by the Joker or died by the hands of those influenced by him.

None of my friends liked the film. Said it was boring, no action, feels unoriginal like they’ve seen it before. So I think the shills attacking anyone who has criticism for the film should shut up.

Oh sweetie, all those friends (plural) don’t exist.

Looks like the weird man-boy DC fans have found the DL.

Updated, Late Friday PM w/chart: Joker continues to rob a record amount of cash from the October box office with Friday looking at an increased $39.8M, now putting the Warner Bros./Village Roadshow/Bron Studios pic’s 3-day at $94M. One rival distribution source believes that Joker, in play at 73 offshore territories, is heading to a worldwide opening between $188M-$194M. That would be right behind Venom‘s opening October global record of $207.4M.

For director Todd Phillips, Joker reps a career opening record, besting the 3-day domestic start of The Hangover 2 ($85.9M). It’s also an opening record for Joaquin Phoenix, far exceeding the $60.1M 2002 opening of Signs, and a great major studio comeback for the three time Oscar nominee who has starred of late in a string of indie pics like Mary Magdalene, the Sisters Brothers and You Were Never Really Here. And for Robert De Niro, even though he’s a supporting player in this, Joker reps his biggest domestic B.O. opening of all-time, ahead of Shark Tale ($47.6M).

R136 It's clear that attempts to scare people away from this movie didn't work. It may have made people even more interested in seeing it.

I think people would have seen this film regardless, but the R-rating, the media hoopla... all of that makes the film seem more tantalizing. Who doesn't want to watch the potentially dangerous comic book movie about one of the most popular villains in pop culture?

[quote] The war between Poor vs Rich is compelling, as it’s happened in the past and is something I always say will happen again one day. Middle Class and Rich think the poor will roll over and die, but nope. Many will fight back and do whatever to survive

This explains all the poor reviews and the over-exaggerated articles about people walking out. The rich media owners don't want people to see it. That type of thing explains why the media will get trump elected, he helps all the billionaire owners of media companies

The best comparison between Ledger and Pheonix I read is that Ledger's version is more rational, even though his motives are crazy, while Pheonix appears more insane and unpredictable with little regard to himself.

The only question I have after seeing Joker is this: which movie did Bruce's parents take him to see -- Blow Out or Zorro The Gay Blade?

R141 I noticed that too. But that’s just the titles. It was not dirty films.

Whomever produced the trailers for this movie needs to get a huge bonus. The trailers themselves were cinematic masterpieces that created a feverpitch of buzz without revealing too much.

r142, Blow Out and Zorro The Gay Blade are actual films released in 1981.

Blow Out:

Zorro the Gay Blade:

My , my , my, so much commentary....

You couldn't pay me to see this thing.

[quote]You couldn't pay me to see this thing.

And a beaver couldn't kick me out of my house.

R134: Why? Some of you seems to expect that everyone acclaim this as a masterpiece when it's another superhero (supervillain in this case) film

If he was going to borrow Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, couldn’t he update it? Make it a podcast instead of a tv show that he’s obsessed with. Show people ignoring him because their faces are riveted to a screen. An elevator full of silent people staring at screens. A subway full of screen starrers. Parents on a bus staring at screens, their little kids playing games on their kiddie screens. A man driven crazy by the sound of silence. A computer at a mail order pharmacy makes an error and cuts off his meds and nobody knows or cares enough to fix it. Overhearing rich people talking about letting old people, those with chronic medical conditions and those with mental illness die to save money and line their own pockets. Have the Joker’s laugh be the result of botched experimental brain surgery to stop depression that used poor people as guinea pigs.

If you’re going to borrow huge swathes of 1970s movies, don’t fucking place them in the 1970s. Use a little imagination.

I'm thankful we didn't get that.

R149 Exactly. It’s sad that all the DC fanboys on this thread can’t remove their lips from Todd Phillips’ asscheeks long enough to get an objective look at it.

Four homeless guys where beat to death last night, and I can't help but think...

A homeless person beat up the other homeless people.

[quote]Cartoons and comic books. This is America today. People falling all over themselves to praise a comic book movie.

People take their mythology where they can find it.

Are all you who argued about Heath's Joker new to Datalounge? R1 is a long-standing DL in-joke.

It’s gotten terrible reviews and the bad reviews are REALLY bad. Todd Phillips is no fucking auteur, and who cares about fug mumbling Phoenix? The award they bought in Venice or wherever is EMBARRASSING. It will deservedly get nothing at the Oscars.

The fangurling here is bizarre and annoying, and I’m just blocking all you obnoxious cunts. If I see one more fucking opinion piece on this garbage I’m going to punch someone in the throat.

Just shut the fuck up about this middling dreck comic book palaver.

GROW UP.

R149, why? Why does this have to placate your sensibilities? Look at the grit, lighting, texture of this film. How does something so fragile, as the ego of our protagonist, even begin to rage at a society transfixed by today’s smartphones or AI, when in all likelihood, he too, may have barely gotten by or remained unnoticed, coasting, like so many of us today, on some universal pacifier, induced by the lack of personal eye contact with other sentient beings within small, tight, personal spaces?

It’s good that this environment bugged you. It’s supposed to. Before you came along, people looked at each other constantly. We held the gaze of strangers, and existed like wildflowers, outside of some bullshit iPhone frame. We used to feel each other’s gaze, like a hot and passing breath upon the nape of a bare and cold neck.

Acting is about connecting, and when you cannot touch the audience with your hands, you do it with your eyes. The best performances involve very little, other than skin, and soul.

I’m flabbergasted that you cannot appreciate this story without the presence of a fucking smartphone in the story.

JFC.

R155 has stated her boundaries!

Hi Joaquin, @ R155! 🌹💩🌹

Either this thread is full of PR people, fanboys, or idiots who think a shitty comic book movie that rips off Scorsese properties is “high art”.

It has 70% positive reviews by critics, not bad for the genre. Don’t lie

92% positive audience score

I suspect Joker will under-perform at the Oscars; Phoenix will probably be nominated, but I suspect he won't win. The only other nods it might get are for Cinematography and/or Original Score. It strikes me as far too divisive for a Best Picture nominee.

By the way: I'm wondering if the casting of Brett Cullen as Thomas Wayne is meant as an easter egg or in-joke -- Cullen's first big role in the 1980s was on Falcon Crest, where he appeared alongside Cesar Romero, who famously played The Joker in the 60s Batman TV series.

CinemaScore audiences gave Joker a B+ grade tonight with Screen Engine/Comscore’s PostTrak exits still showing 4 stars and a 60% definite recommend. These are solid grades to keep turnstiles spinning even though they’re not perfect scores.

Yeah, the people claiming it’s getting “abysmal” reviews don’t know what that is. It’s at 70% positive. That’s not abysmal.

Those 4 homeless men were not beaten by a homeless man. They’re blaming a homeless man, but he didn’t commit the crime.

I haven't seen it yet, but I thought the trailer was really good and Joaquin Phoenix is just... I think he's one of the best actors of his generation. I'm not much of a cinema goer these days (in times of Netflix and Amazon Prime, I've became quite lazy in that regard), but I'll go and watch Joker.

I saw it yesterday. There's a reason it's getting mixed reviews. It's a violent piece of shit. Terrible.

BUT: Yes, Joaquin Phoenix is amazing. Too bad the rest of the film isn't on the level with him. Is it worth seeing just for him? Kind of, but waiting for it to be on Netflix would be the cheaper option.

R167 is Trump

[quote]I'm wondering if the casting of Brett Cullen as Thomas Wayne is meant as an easter egg or in-joke -- Cullen's first big role in the 1980s was on Falcon Crest, where he appeared alongside Cesar Romero, who famously played The Joker in the 60s Batman TV series.

That's a pretty obscure "Easter egg." No one, but no one, remembers him from Falcon Crest except elder gays because he was so hot in his youth. And the fact that Cesar Romero was on the show at the same time? That's a stretch. If Cullen himself had a part of the Batman franchise in his history it would be one thing, but the fact that he appeared on an ancient TV series at the same time as an actor who played the Joker on a 56-year-old series? That's not an in-joke.

R168 is the OP. In fact, most of this thread is the OP. He really IS a shill!

R170 that’s very false, actually. Most of the thread is NOT me lmao

Yeah, actually it is. "Ignoring" you and seeing what you had "contributed" it was all there.

The shilling here is bizarre. This website is not the audience for this movie. Go to the alt right sites.

Geez, r169, so it's just a coincidence. Still, for those of us who grew up with the 60s Batman and watched Falcon Crest as young adults, it's a pretty cool coincidence.

Except, r173, Joker isn't a film that alt-righters would likely enjoy: Arthur's motivations are not misogyny or racism, but simple paranoia; in fact, the only people who appear to empathize with him or try to help him are black and/or women.

There are valid reasons to criticize the film -- the turgid script, the mundane pacing, the monotonous lead performance -- but it's not an alt-right film.

His performance was incredible!

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

R175 The Joker is supposed to be apolitical but his supporters are far left. Thomas Wayne would be the villain in any other Hollywood film, especially during the Trump era, but here he is actually a noble character who wants to clean up Gotham.

It's worth watching for Joker, the cinematography, and score. Like R162 said, those were the qualities that elevated the film in my estimation, and they're the only aspects of the film deserving of the Academy's recognition. I have no idea what Best Picture's going to look like, honestly... no idea how strong or not it is, but I'm going to leave this one as an outlier for now, Golden Lion be damned.

[quote]We used to feel each other’s gaze, like a hot and passing breath upon the nape of a bare and cold neck.

The insane publicity stunts created for this film have not been seen since the exorcist.

"The Blair Witch Project" comes to mind, R182.

My favorite part is the look of it. New York (oops, I mean "Gotham") circa 1981. Dirty, dangerous, dilapidated and depressing. Pre-Ghouliani, pre-Disney. It's the NYC I remember from 1970s TV shows and movies, as a flyover tot.

They usually use Chicago as the aesthetic for Gotham. Wonder why they went with NYC this time.

Dirty, dilapidated, dangerous NYC for Gotham has been done, over and over.

Chicago has been done in more recent years, sweetie.

It's all been done.

Friends of mine saw it. They said it was boring.

Can you imagine if Alec Baldwin played Thomas Wayne as was originally intended? Robert Deniro and Alec Baldwin in a film being called alt right propaganda? The irony would have been too much.

I just saw it tonight. I'm far from a fanboy (though as an EG, I did grow up with Adam West series as a kid) and do not tend to go to comic book movies (I found The Dark Knight tedious, though was impressed by Heath Ledger, and thought Black panther was well-done, if not compelling). I thought Phoenix gave a fascinating and gutsy performance, one worthy of nominations and could deserve awards, depending what else comes out by the end of the year). I was most compelled by what the film made me consider about how societies not only fail mentally ill people, but may, indeed, create or intensify such illnesses. And how cities themselves are mentally ill.

I thought De Niro would have been more effective in a cameo. He's okay in the role; the Director wasn't going to let him phone it in and cash the check- like he's done his past 50 films.

It's an unrelentingly downbeat film, and particularly wince-inducing to anyone who's ever been bullied and/or abused.

Oh well, let's see what happens in the next Joker movie. He'll be more devilish in sequels: no more Mr. Niceguy.

The idea that there will be sequels bothers me, but even Joaquin implied that he was up for it during his Peter Travers interview. I thought that was fascinating... always assumed he was averse to these types of films. A sequel in this universe, with this tone... it'd be tricky. I don't think it's necessary.

This song was so perfect for the movie. Sad, lonely, wistful. Like Joaquin's sad life.

Okay, so that Wall Street douche knew way too many lyrics to "Send in the Clowns" to be straight, right? He definitely sucked a cock or two on his way up.

Send in the Clowns was popular among straight men also.

Was it? Well okay then...

been around him? he stinks of cigs and poppers and day old fart britches....

[quote] Hate to say I told you so.

O prophetess Cassandra, we are merely grateful you deign to favor us mere mortals with your predictions!

Blessed are thy gifts of prognostication from the great Apollo!

its a dippy little independent movie with crazy old J Phoenix as his usual nutcake role.....b fukin deal....

Not a flattering review.

Since when does DL go based on reviews?

When Hustlers got mostly fantastic reviews DL dismissed them because they don’t listen to reviews. Yet all they do is post reviews...

[quote] ut the film does ask the audience to vaguely sympathize with him as an “incel” like white male, even if it provides very little context for why we should (or why we should not). So it’s not surprising the film has been interpreted as taking these men who murder friends, family members, classmates and strangers, and saying “but you understand we should feel sorry for them right?”

Yawn. It's the same review we've been forced to read again and again. I wonder if the reason why these reviewers are so offended by the movie, or declare it incoherent, is because they themselves are able to justify his actions against those evil white men.

There are two legit flaws from the movie that have been echoed by some fans but every single negative review I've read doesn't even mention them, choosing instead to go after the film's message, or supposed lack of one. The message is there and not that hard to understand.

Just set a record

[quote] do not tend to go to comic book movies (I found The Dark Knight tedious, though was impressed by Heath Ledger, and thought Black panther was well-done, if not compelling). I

And yet you’ve just listed three comic book movies you’ve seen. I’ll bet you saw Wonder Woman, too. Maybe even Aquaman.

[quote] Just set a record

Every comic book movie that opens sets records. It’s par for the course for this genre (save for the occasional flop).

R207 false. Many don’t.

r205

That really doesn’t mean shit these days. That “record” is going to be broken again within a couple years.

Yuge!

All the #Joker box office records broken

[quote]If Cullen himself had a part of the Batman franchise in his history it would be one thing, but the fact that he appeared on an ancient TV series at the same time as an actor who played the Joker on a 56-year-old series? That's not an in-joke.

Not an Easter egg or an in-joke but Cullen played a politician in THE DARK KNIGHT RISES.

The Easter eggs or nods to the universe I noticed was Bruce sliding down the pole like Adam West's Batman; a tweak of the canon with the Waynes leaving a theater showing Zorro the Gay Blade versus The Mask of Zorro and Arthur in the back of the squad car like Ledger's Joker.

Upthread someone mentioned DC Elseworld and that what I took this film to be. Just another DC sanctioned Elseworlds. To me it also ties into the Three Joker theory. Arthur is Joker but not The Joker. He's not the agent of chaos, the true Clown Prince of Crime. He has unwittingly inspired people to pick up on his "message" and run with it.

I hate the fact that politics is blinding everybody to how mediocre the movie is. If this movie had come out before Trump it would just be another comic book movie, nobody would bat an eye. But because american politics have been forced into every goddamn conversation since 2016, everybody is either hating this movie because it’s “alt-right propaganda” or loving it because it’s “about fighting capitalism”. I’m sure this movie isn’t getting half this much press overseas. Anyways, congrats to the studio and the press for getting their marketing campaign to work. They’ve proven people will go see whatever shitty movie comes into theaters as long as it can be spun into a “Trump good” or “Trump bad” narrative by the media. God, I hate America so much.

It’s not just a comic book movie though. I don’t know why you keep saying that. Watch 99% of the comic movies and none are like this.

R212 false.

R214: Not false. The buzz is not that high here (even if it's the film of the week) and the reviews are so so. Phoenix on the other hand is receiving a lot of praise (with the exception of Spain's most famous critic who hates his guts)

Is Sophie's daughter young Selina Kyle?

This movie isn’t art. It’s a comic book movie masquerading as something deeper by telling a story that has been told already by better filmmakers. I can’t believe we’ve gone so downhill as a society that we think something like this is groundbreaking social commentary. This story has been told again, and again, and again. God, maybe film really is dead, since movies like this prove that people will see recycled schlock regardless of if they’ve seen it before. Actually, with the recent remake cycle and superhero trend that shouldn’t be surprising. This movie isn’t original, it isn’t deep, it isn’t even controversial. It’s a fucking boring rehash that has had a stupid political connotation hoisted upon it to trick audiences into thinking it’s something they haven’t seen before.

Why are the haters on here more than anyone? We get it, you aren’t a fan. Move on.

R212 STFU, troll. Only Janbot is more cuntish or stupid than you.

R218 Because of all the Joker fanboy trolls who have posted millions of threads about this movie on here over the past two weeks. We’re sick of it.

A few friends of mine just saw it. They said it was slow and disappointing.

Wow, people are really worshipping this shit everywhere like it’s the best thing they’ve seen. Wtf, people are really being brainwashed and I have a suspicion that this movie is a sign that a dark tragedy is to come. People are so distracted and desensitized.

Something just doesn’t feel right to me with this. Not only that, but things seem to be getting darker. It’s not just my depression. I feel like something terrible is about to happen.

R221 you’ve said the same thing like 30 times. How many times are they gonna just see it?

Who called the film groundbreaking? I don't think I've heard anyone, even fans of the film, call it groundbreaking. For the most part, Joaquin, the cinematography, and score are the highlights of the film. Everyone agrees that it's a derivative picture, and that it's not that thematically complex, but who cares?

R212's reading is profoundly reductive. My appreciation for the film has absolutely nothing to do with Trump, anti-capitalist views, or anything at all political. I'm into it mainly because of the emotionality that Phoenix conveyed. There's so much complexity in his performance. That's what resonates with me.

Fear mongering and doomsdayisms from users like R222 are fucking absurd and honestly part of the problem when it comes to discussing this film.

R222 if you are thinking about kicking the proverbial can, just do it! No one will give a fuck. You will be put in the anonymous trash where you belong.

Wish that Phillips had been up to the challenge, as Phoenix’s performance is worthy of a better director. Phillips work isn’t bad, but the film just feels a bit sketchy and derivative in contrast to Phoenix.

'Joker' got me shook 😳 . I just saw it and am at a lost for words. It’s truly an astounding film. It is not merely supremely disturbing, but also very poignant, haunting, and sad. Joaquin is spellbinding and brilliant, as is the rest of the cast. The movie looks incredible visually. The score powers the emotion, with the song “Send in the Clowns” leaving some in tears at the end. I did not expect to tear up at this movie, but alas I did. An instant classic.

R222 I have that feeling right now too, but it has nothing to do with this movie. I feel like a war is about to start, the final one.

The public viewing audience is giving it near unanimous positive reviews

Justin Bieber was just praising this film on his live.

Part of the potency of this movie is that it feels so realistic. The fear, the rage, the anarchy, The despair, the sadness feel to speak to the soul and state of the world today.

Indiewire: Todd Phillips’ “Joker” is unquestionably the boldest reinvention of “superhero” cinema since “The Dark Knight”; a true original that’s sure to be remembered as one of the most transgressive studio blockbusters of the 21st Century. It’s also a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels, and a hyper-familiar origin story so indebted to “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy” that Martin Scorsese probably deserves an executive producer credit. It’s possessed by the kind of provocative spirit that’s seldom found in any sort of mainstream entertainment, but also directed by a glorified edgelord who lacks the discipline or nuance to responsibly handle such hazardous material, and who reliably takes the coward’s way out of the narrative’s most critical moments.

This movie SUCKED. Acting strange - which is very much in Joaquin’s wheelhouse anyway - does not a performance make. This is indulgent, grim and dull.

I would imagine a HUGE drop off next week - like 60%. Ain’t nobody gonna sit through this shit again.

Empire: “ Mention must be made of Joker’s cello score by Hildur Guðnadóttir — mournful, dark and fractured — and the cinematography by Lawrence Sher. In his hands, Gotham is alive as a flawed, brutal, broken-hearted character in its own right. Oppressive and oppressed, with a glimmer of light that never truly gets in. It throbs at the very heart of the film, waiting for what is destined to come. And the two things entwine perfectly as Arthur dances between the light and the shadows, each bone visible and sharp as the strings swell and scratch.”

An incredible Score

They did a great job with recreating NYC (yes, I know it's supposed to be Gotham) from that era.

I concur. I was wondering if they used CGI it looked so real

R234 That's a pretty perfect summation of the film's strengths. Captured everything I loved about it.

Here's the track that plays during Joker's iconic dance.

Josh Brolin/Thanos: "To appreciate Joker I believe you have to have either gone through something traumatic in your lifetime (and I believe most of us have) or understand somewhere in your psyche what true compassion is (which usually comes from having gone through something traumatic, unfortunately). An example of dangerous compassion would be to, say, make a film made about the fragility of the human psyche, and make it so raw, so brutal, so balletic that by the time you leave the theatre you not only don't want to hurt anything but you desperately want an answer and a solution to the violence and mental health issues that have spun out of control around us. This film makes you hurt and only in pain do we ever want to change. It's all in the irony of trauma - a fine line between the resentment of wanting to hurt society back for raping you of a decent life, for not protecting you, and accepting what feels like alien feelings with softening to those others who seem freakish in our era of judgment, and digital damnation."

I was wondering the same r237. Was it CGI or sets? I'm just old enough to remember NY in the 80s and it looked pretty authentic, from what I can remember.

Deadline: There was simply no clowning around for Warner Bros/Village Roadshow/Bron Studios’ Joker which has grossed a record-busting $234M worldwide in its first weekend out. Of that, Todd Phillips’ origins story made $140.5M from 73 markets at the international box office. The figures set a new domestic, overseas and global October record, topping last year’s Venom which previously held the mantle for each.

The results on the Joaquin Phoenix-starrer are simply staggering, particularly versus what sources saw as a dicey movie to call amid starkly lower predictions. It was considered a difficult one to read in offshore markets where there was concern that Joker risked to be frontloaded by fanboys during early play (which began on Wednesday, see previous posts below) and perhaps not perform like a superhero movie since it doesn’t fit the genre to which we’ve become accustomed. Ultimately, Joker was so in the zeitgeist, aided in part by its mass coverage coming out of the Venice Film Festival Golden Lion win, that people turned out.

Joker love interest Zazie Beetz is hot AF

I’m pretty surprised by the some leftist critical and twitter response. The antagonist in the movie are wealthy straight white men, the two white cops are portrayed in an unflattering light, there are scenes of civil protest by the multiracial working class and poor of Gotham, the movie as a whole is an indictment against the system that denies people the mental health resources they so desperately need...

Really, they should be embracing it.

R243 They should but because the right has blamed gun violence on the mentally ill, any depiction of a gun violence that even infers that mental health services are just as important as gun restrictions lead reviewers to call the film incoherent or irresponsible in its messaging. Leftist critics are nothing but predictable.

He wasn’t just mentally ill by virtue of genetics, he was a victim of abuse and social exclusion

King of Oral only

Oops my bad yo

Ugh... made it so far without porn. Anyway...

[quote]Joker love interest Zazie Beetz is hot AF

I fucking love Zazie. She belongs on the screen. She's magnetic as fuck. I just binged the two seasons of Atlanta the other week and boy was she a wonder. Throughout the film I kept thinking about how thin her character felt... she'd appear, as if from nowhere, knew Arthur's name, and seemed to fulfill his supportive fantasies. I was kind of frustrated, because I felt like she, as an actress, deserved more to work with. Once the reveal came, and we realize that every moment we've seen of her has been a fantasy in Arthur's mind, it all came together in a pretty surprising and satisfying way. What I thought was poor writing turned into something profoundly unsettling, and Zazie sold the terror in that moment so fucking well.

Phillips must have been on an Atlanta tear too as Brian Tyree Henry's pretty memorable in that one scene where Arthur steals his mother's files.

Phoenix was interviewed by Jimmy Kimmel, and Kimmel springs an outtake on him sent by the director. And you can tell Phoenix was not happy at all about it (8:20 mark).

Why is Kimmel such a shit?

Kimmel has always had the persona of a rapist who would roofy his own cousin every chance he got. I have always hated him.

Jimmy shouldn’t have shown that clip. It wasn’t even funny. It was him having a bad moment.

It's strange to see so many Joaquin interviews. They're really running for this Oscar. Joaquin notoriously dislikes the game, but he's playing it... and honestly, he's playing it well. He's got this off beat sense of humor, but he's honest, and never malicious... even after the really voyeuristic and exposing footage Kimmel aired, which he shouldn't have, Joaquin still graciously explained the situation, which he never should have needed to in the first place! Those weren't bloopers... that was like... watching an actor's process behind the scenes... that wasn't a fun extra for the audience, and never should have been presented as such.

I get why Joaquin doesn't like the whole circuit.

R243 Yes it is interesting the disproportionate amount of outrage this movie has engendered among the chattering classes, for reasons that don't make a great deal of sense. As you point out, it is not some sort of blanket endorsement of straight white males. This movie is about mental illness, lack of resources and social support and the pathologies that sometimes develop because of these factors.

I have a theory that there is an aspect of social contagion to the criticism of this film. A few loud voices proclaim that it's "incorrect " to like this movie and then everyone feels compelled to repeat the criticism lest they be ostracized. It's a pattern I've seen again and again with social and cultural discussion over the last few years. There is one "correct " viewpoint that everyone MUST endorse or else. I don't bother reading online opinion pieces anymore because I know that multiple writers will endorse the same exact opinion for the same exact reasons.

Phoenix isn’t doing interviews to try and get an Oscar, he’s doing it because in his contract he has to promote this.

Interestingly enough, I watched this interview a few days ago and it opens with like... a humor bit of beef between Joaquin and the cinematographer. It kind of becomes a subplot during the whole Q&A. I didn't know what it was about at the time, but I'm wondering now if it had to do with the Kimmel footage.

[quote]Phoenix isn’t doing interviews to try and get an Oscar, he’s doing it because in his contract he has to promote this.

You're right. It's in his contract, but this is also being done for awards. It's all business for Warner Bros.

R253, except audiences are giving it rave reviews. The contagion hasn’t reached the masses obviously

God, I hope this movie doesn’t get nominated for an Oscar. Superhero movies aren’t art, superhero movies aren’t deep. Whenever they try to be deep, like Civil War or like this, it comes off the same way that a fifteen year old’s emo poetry does.

This isn’t a superhero movie

I’m glad I don’t see movies in theaters anymore. Idiots who think this movie is deep are the last people I want to be sharing a theater with. The stupid masses have ruined the experience of going to see a film.

Who called the film deep?

R260, you seem insufferable and the type everyone avoids

R261 Are you kidding me? Everyone’s implying it with their “this says so much about our society” bullshit. But then again, you sound like a fan of the movie, so subtlety is probably lost on you.

[quote]This movie is about mental illness, lack of resources and social support and the pathologies that sometimes develop because of these factors.

That is accurate. Unfortunately, it's a lot easier for the chattering classes and the Wokesters to blame it all on Straight White Males instead of doing any kind of analysis or thinking about a particular issue. We live in such a knee-jerk world now.

[quote]The stupid masses have ruined the experience of going to see a film.

A weekday afternoon is the best time to go to a movie theater, if you can manage it. At that time, it's mostly older people who are quiet and not on their phones.

Almost 45, Phoenix is turning into a hot silver daddy.

Michael Moore: I would suggest the opposite: The greater danger to society may be if you DON’T go see this movie. Because the story it tells and the issues it raises are so profound, so necessary, that if you look away from the genius of this work of art, you will miss the gift of the mirror it is offering us. Yes, there’s a disturbed clown in that mirror, but he’s not alone — we’re standing right there beside him. Joker is no comic book movie. The film is set somewhere in 1970s Gotham/New York City, the headquarters of all evil: the rich who rule us, the banks and corporations whom we serve, the media which feeds us a daily diet 'news' they think we should absorb.

R267 who gives a fuck what that fat tranny thinks. Fuck off.

Most of the posts on this thread praising the movie were made by the same two people, who have also made numerous other threads talking about how “great” the film is. Permission to call these people the “Joker trolls”?

[quote] The film is set somewhere in 1970s

It's pretty clearly established that the film is set in 1981.

Yeah 80s

Michael Moore is a lady now?

Super fatsos like Ms Moore produce a ton of estrogen and zero testosterone, so yes she may as well be a lady.

R269 et al. seems obsessed. Block her and a third of the thread is gone.

This is only my third post, dear, in case you’re keeping count.

I saw it. I love these types of movies. But to be honest in my opinion. It was just OK. Way overhyped. Once Upon A time in Hollywood was just OK too and overhyped.

It reminded me of when I went to go see the movie Precious. Every critic was saying how gritty and amazing Precious was and Monique played a monster so well. It was ok.

Anyway... Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, something about his Joker is almost faggy and feminine. I think that has to do with him being an involuntary celibate, which explains the comedians he watches all about sex stand up routines.

Heath Ledger. Still waaaaaaaaaaaaay better. Phoenix didn’t give me tingles. Ledger did. I saw Dark Knight in Chicago opening night. That memory will last forever. Ledgers joker will never be topped.

“Joker” was a good movie. Not great or iconic. But yea it is the perfect film for 2019. Of the times we live in,. Did not exceed my expectations and kinda fell short for me. I also think that interview joaquin walked off because it never occurred to him the movie would inspire others, definitely a publicity stunt. Him and Phillips planned that to get free press imo

[quote] A few loud voices proclaim that it's "incorrect " to like this movie and then everyone feels compelled to repeat the criticism lest they be ostracized. It's a pattern I've seen again and again with social and cultural discussion over the last few years. There is one "correct " viewpoint that everyone MUST endorse or else.

Yes, the eerie similarity among all the negative reviews suggests you're on point. Most of these reviews don't even talk about the movie or they'll mention the race of Joker's "girlfriend" as if it's an important to the film (it's not), or even the muggers who jump him in the beginning (should anyone give a fuck what race they were?).

The hypocricy is staggering. We want more minority representation in film but they must play only virtuous characters, and be given a substantial role in every project, even if the film is a character study that focuses almost entirely on the point of view of a single character.

Joaquin’s Joker is much more poignant, Nuanced, and sympathetic than Ledger’s.

I don’t recall lots of people saying Ledger’s Joker made them Cry, feel sad, or think deeply the way many are saying thusly about Joaquin’s.

I have said this fifty times before to others but The Dark Knight was a shit film. As bad or worse than Inception. I hated Nolan after The Dark Knight Rises. That was a terrible movie. Everyone else in The Dark Knight was horrible. Ledger was the one good thing about the film and he was in it for maybe ten minutes. So there is no fucking way Ledger's ten minutes compares to two plus hours about Phoenix's Joker.

Truedat

I loved the Nolan Batman films. Yes, I know I'm in the minority on DL.

Nolan's films are all fat and zero substance. None of his Batman film's were actually about Batman. Like Ledger's Joker there was maybe ten minutes per film about his alter ego. All the rest was just fluff. Batman Begins was about his origins but focused too much on the other characters. The Dark Knight had almost nothing about Bale as Batman. Two Face was a waste of a character. Not interesting at all. His role as the White Knight was the central idea of the whole movie, along with his romance of the wretchedly ugly Maggie G as his "love interest". Both these losers were charisma-free. Bad actors suffering from even worse direction. There is no universe where two hot guys would ever compete for an ugly dog like Maggie with her weird lisp, old looking face, horrible clothes, and square unladylike body. The central theme of the White Knight allowing Batman to retire forever and these two fighting for ugly Maggot Gyllenhaal? Yuck. Heath Ledger in his ten minutes was awesome but the character was undeveloped and as pointless as every other character.

A friend just texted me after it ended tonight. He said it was a letdown and was pretty boring.

R284 good analysis, you brain dead fucktard.

[quote]Heath Ledger in his ten minutes was awesome but the character was undeveloped and as pointless as every other character.

The point of The Joker was someone to challenge Bruce's code and his spirit. The Joker tried to break him. Bruce's purpose in becoming Batman was to clean up Gotham. His hope was that donning the cowl would inspire others to invoke change in Gotham. The exploits of the Joker set it up for Bruce to see that although a white knight didn't come (but eventually did in "The Dark Knight Rises" in the form of Joseph Gordon Levitt's John Robin Blake), he was bolstered by the fact that The Joker was wrong - there was still good in Gotham's citizenry.

[quote]Batman Begins was about his origins but focused too much on the other characters.

Batman's villains are as essential to the story as Batman himself. It's always been like that. The villains are half the story.

I agree about Maggie G. though. A fuggo and annoying as hell. They should've gone with another actress. Katie Holmes also sucked.

Indeed! Maggot was always grotesque. She was perfect for Nolan's shitfests. I liked Defecatie Holmes a bit better. She was not ugly at least.

Katie Holmes was totally unbelievable as the assistant DA of a major metropolitan city. She came off as a simpering ditz, no discernible intelligence. They should've gone with a Rosamund Pike type.

Maggot is number three but she should have been one through ten. I agree with all the others except for Jenny Aniston.

After hearing all the hoopla...….was sooooo disappointed when I saw the piece of shit.

Phoenix doin his usual meth burnout schtick....HAND ME THE PUKE BUCKED MARYMARGARET.

It made me think of the British film "Trendy". Similar character study.

Comparing Phoenix’s Joker to Ledger’s is like comparing Travis Bickle to Hannibal in SOTL. They’re just completely different parts and what’s required of the actors can’t really be compared.

But I’m with you r275, in that I too saw TDK on opening night (sold out midnight show!) and will never forget it or Ledger.

They used a song from convicted pedo Gary Glitter? Really?

This movie is A PIECE OF SHIT. And you fangurls need to FUCK OFF.

Glad to see it’s a huge box office hit. It’s a franchise now.

The movie is brilliant and sad.

My only complaint is that it had too many endings. Just fade to black after the Joker stands up on the car in the riot.

Yeah

A couple of good friends of mine saw it this morning and thought it was too long and dragged a little.

It was barely two hours. Not too long

Well, right now that's average (or even below the average). HW right now produce too long movies (and unfortunately most of them are not very good)

I was thinking about going to see this movie but am now utterly bored with it already after reading this thread.

R301 Well thanks for sharing your initial intention... now we can be just as utterly bored as you are.

R26 Yes, he got Oscar buzz during filming, but he wasn't yet poised as the frontrunner. Not until he died shortly after filming.

R31 I think if Ledger had not died, RDJ would have been the frontrunner. He had the comeback narrative and had a banner year with TROPIC THUNGER and IRON MAN. Not to mention, he was in his forties which is the average age of Supporting Actor winners.

That's another thing, Ledger's youth might have worked against him. The Academy is biased against actors under 30. Very rarely do they get nominated, never mind win. In the Academy's 91 years of existence, these are the only Supporting Actor winners under 30: George Chakiris in WEST SIDE STORY (27), Timothy Hutton in ORDINARY PEOPLE ( 20), Cuba Gooding Jr. in JERRY MAGUIRE (29), Heath Ledger in THE DARK KNIGHT ( 29).

Ledger wouldn't have had an easy road to the Oscars had he not died. Even in 2008 the Academy appeared hesitant to nominate, never mind award, a superhero movie performance. But his death caused so much furor which the Academy wouldn't ignore or risk backlash. They learned the hard lesson when THE DARK KNIGHT failed to get a Best Picture nomination. (That's why they expanded the category to 10 for the following year.) After that snub, they really had to give it to Ledger.

I wonder if Ledger had lived, would he even have been nominated, given it was a superhero film, and there have been plenty of acclaimed villain performances in such films that deserved Oscar consideration and were ignored by the Academy (Terence Stamp in Superman II, Michelle Pfeiffer in Batman Returns, Jim Carrey in Batman Forever, for example).

Hey all of you " It's a commentary on today's society" people: Go see Slave Play. You'd love it. Especially those of you who apologize for being white.

Todd Phillips breaks down a scene from the film. Pretty cool. For those who asked above, they filmed some of the picture in Newark, and used CGI to build some of the backgrounds, but the foreground is all production design.

Rex Reed: Even if you hate it, it’s unlike anything you’ve ever seen before—like waking up next to a poisonous snake nestled on your blanket, poised and ready to strike. You’re horrified but unable to move. Regardless of my mixed feelings, I think it’s the best film about the psychological effect of violence as pop art since Stanley Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange.

Reed: Joker is most definitely not a movie for everybody, but in the greatest performance of his career, Phoenix is electrifying. Weeping, shrieking, dragged screaming through police stations and mental asylums, then pausing after each evil slaughter to dance balletic tour jetés, he’s a cross between Jacques D’Amboise’s Prince Siegfried in Swan Lake and James Cagney’s Cody Jarrett in White Heat. As a sick, twisted failure in life who takes his torment out on the rest of the world, he reveals the soul of a monster in Hell, in a movie that borders on genius—repellant, dark, terrifying, disgusting, brilliant and unforgettable.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie -- even saw it twice. Clearly, they were trying to make him out to be a sympathetic character whose behavior is justified to some extent. The joker was shown letting a potential victim go because that individual never slighted him, but his encounter with Zazie seemed like it was cut short. So did he just scare her and leave, or do you guys think he attacked her and that was cut because it would undermine the image of him as a sympathetic figure?

r243: It's almost as if they aren't the caricature you make them out to be. Funny that, huh?

r275: [quote] Anyway... Joaquin Phoenix is a great actor, something about his Joker is almost faggy and feminine.

I definitely got that impression in his interactions with Murray (on and off camera). But, then again, I was also distracted trying to figure out who he reminded me of in the third act when he's in full makeup. A hybrid of Brandon Lee and Bill Hader in clown makeup. it's the eyes.

He did not kill the girl. Why would he? She never did anything bad to him. I don't think he killed the psychiatrist at the end either. These were just fantasies.

"Joker" is a pretentious and portentous sack of garbage that's just right for the illiterates.

It's an example of [bold]super sanity.[/bold] Remember in The Matrix when a chr said "I don't see the world anymore, I just see code." [bold]Joker says "I don't see the hierarchies and social constructs anymore, just the underlying power relationships."[/bold]

Lots to see - biggest is Phoenix's ability to evoke pathos in a character that is at best dismissed, at worst locked up. One feels for Joker, his indignities, his disabilities, his little dreams, his pathetic desire to break free of mental illness. And an unreliable narrator and what's not to like.

You really want to make Joquin Phoenix a double Oscar winner? I think not.

He is not going to win, in the Metoo era, the rival studios will throw shit in his way to the Oscar.

Oscars are a popularity contest, sometimes good acting is the less important thing

Saw it yesterday. This movie is shitful. Phoenix is chewing so hard on the scenery it would even embarrass Daniel Day-Lewis.

Piss-poor script. Stupid, annoying soundtrack. This movie isn't heavy, it's vapid.

Oscar Voters React to "Joker," With Many Avoiding It:

Is it all violence?

Is it all violence?

I love Phoenix and Casey Affleck. I like their films.

[quote]He is not going to win, in the Metoo era, the rival studios will throw shit in his way to the Oscar.

There’s never been a hint of that shit with Phoenix, excepting his association with Casey Affleck who, to be fair, is also his (former?) brother in law.

He most likely won’t win because the film is too dark. But if Marriage Story isn’t a critical hit, and Driver is no longer the front runner, then Phoenix may just get it after all.

Marriage Story is a significant critical hit. 100% on Rotten Tomatoes with 74 reviews.

Reactions from Academy members.

Male member of executives branch: "My son, who is 21, liked the movie, and I'm sure at his age that might make some sense. But if you look at the beginning of that movie, [Fleck] gets his board stolen and then he gets beat up, so you feel sorry for him. Then you find out he's got mental issues, so you feel sorry for him. And then he's given a gun and uses it, so you've got this crazy guy who goes on a crime spree, and you're supposed to like him, even though he's stabbing and shooting people? And the way he acts with kids leaves a lot to be desired. To me, that kind of gratuitous violence sends a very strange message. It's going to make a lot of money, so if you're running a studio you're supposed to make that movie, but is it responsible? I was once confronted with that same question, and I decided not to make the movie — and the movie got made and made a lot of money anyway."

Female member of executives branch: "Whoaaa. Strange, depressing film. I was vaguely mesmerized but... to what end? I found it severely lacking any specific thematic point. Great performance and impressive filmmaking, but a rather unpleasant experience overall."

Male member of executives branch: "I think the performance is outstanding, but overall the film is highly questionable morally. As a former exhibitor, I would have serious doubts about playing the film because of the message it sends. I don't think the Academy should honor a film with such controversial elements. I found the film overall to be so unpleasant that I could not vote for it."

Female member of members-at-large branch: "I saw the film last night at the Landmark with another Academy member, and my stomach was still churning this morning. It made me uncomfortable from the very first frame to the last, but I thought the movie was extraordinary. I didn't read anything about it beforehand, so I thought I was going to be getting, sort of, Batman. It's the most outstanding performance I've seen in many years — the way he moved, everything, I mean, he's really a consummate actor, and there's not a frame he's not on camera, too. What I don't understand is what everyone's all upset about? Just pick up the morning paper and see the asshole that's running our country if you want to worry about violence. It's still early, but I can certainly see myself nominating it for best picture. And he has to get nominated, or the actors branch doesn't know what it's doing."

That last female viewer had the most refreshing take.

I think there are enough people like that last woman to get this film nominated and maybe Joaquin the win. Driver is still young, he’ll have time. Joaquin too but he’s been working for four decades now without big time recognition. It just might be his time.

Yeah, I hope so. It's interesting... I feel like there should be an overdue narrative developing for Joaquin, who's been giving great performances for decades... but there's way too much noise surrounding the film for it to pierce through.

The film's divisive nature might hurt him, but I hope it doesn't. I'd love to see Joaquin with an Oscar. He should have won for The Master, but no one was beating Daniel Day-Lewis that year.

I walked out.

This sounds like one of those movies that leaves you depressed and suicidal .

I intend to see this. In my home, on my television. I'm not going to the theatre for this one.

A movie that has left me shook and unsettled days after seeing it.

But where is the gay porn parody?

Men will probably make one.

I knew it would be huge since I first saw the trailers back in the winter. The trailers for this movie were unlike Anything I have ever seen

It has to hit at least 800 million.

People are still arguing about a comic book movie.

More box office records to add to Joker‘s list: The Todd Phillips-directed Warner Bros./DC movie earned $9.72M yesterday, repping the best Monday in October for a movie. Joker beats Venom‘s Monday record from last year of $9.63M. The pic’s four-day run including previews stands at $105.9M.

Joker also beats September Monday B.O. record, which is owned by New Line/Warner Bros.’ It ($8.76M). Joker also blows away the Mondays of R-rated Logan ($7.2M) and DC’s PG-13 pic Justice League ($7.5M).

Even more impressive was the fact that yesterday was a non-holiday for Joker‘s turnstile action. Last year at this time, Venom made its moola on a Columbus Day Monday. Between K-12 and colleges yesterday, 11% schools were off according to Comscore. Next Monday, which is Columbus Day Monday, that combined figure jumps to 60% on break.

Do you like cutting and pasting articles, moron.

So awesome! Much-deserved box office success! 👍🏾

It’s not a realistic movie, it’s a typical superhero movie. Shy and downtrodden outcasts don’t all of a sudden become murderous psychopaths, just like mousy spinsters don’t all of a sudden become catwomen. I find it telling how even left-leaning reviewers use the word ‘loser’ to describe the protagonist, thus revealing their true nature. Apparently they only care about downtrodden people if they are trendy and sexy.

I think we'll look back on this Joker coverage and feel ashamed of how the press handled it. There were no shootings, which you'd think they'd longed for by the way they went on and on about it. Instead it was a success and nothing happened other than everyone was witness to a great Joaquin Phoenix performance.

R338 is either brain dead, retarded, or special needs. Of course it was realistic. Everything about the movie was plausible. It was not a "typical" superhero movie since Arthur Fleck has zero superpowers and demonstrated no criminal mastermind like in the comics. He was not tough at all and got his ass beat the whole entire film. The idea that the Joker was a psychopath is false because he only murdered people who deserved it. Anymore stupid, retarded ideas, lady?

r340 Yo momma is so ugly, whenever she goes to the plastic surgeon, she brings along a picture of Quasimodo.

[quote]There were no shootings,

It's only been out for a few days. Give it time.

Realistic? People in clown masks taking over New York is realistic? Some dude in a clown mask kills three people on a subway and that starts off this movement?

Anyway, the movie was perfectly fine, mainly because I enjoyed watching Phoenix's performance but some people are way over hyping it which doesn't do the film any favors.

I wish some changes had been made. Did we need the flashback showing he imagined his girlfriend, ut was established through dialog. The scene on the late show dragged on too long and Arthur became pretty annoying. And how many damn times do we need to see Thomas and Martha die and those damn pearls.

Also what was the point of the final scene? The movie should have ended the night of the riot. That scene of him and the therapist added nothing and just made a weird denouement.

That final scene was just one more example of [italic]Joker[/italic] trying to "reference" (rip-off) other movies that are so much better than it. On that occasion, it was Hitchcock's 'Psycho', which famously finishes with Norman Bates in a white room saying he "wouldn't hurt a fly". Very creepy.

The final scene in [italic]Joker[/italic]? As Madonna would say, "Reductive".

Excellent review. (for some stupid fuck on here to cut and paste)

Comic book movie

Bump

Warner Bros/Village Roadshow/Bron Studios’ Joker earned $13.9 million on Tuesday, easily making it the best Tuesday at the October box office and continuing to pummel Sony’s Venom records from a year ago. That movie owned the previous October Tuesday high of $8.2M.

The domestic total for Todd Phillips’ R-rated movie stands at $119.8M through five days, 22% ahead of Venom at the same point in time. Venom ended its run at $213.5M, and as we mentioned over the weekend, industry estimates believe Joker will final around $265M.

Joker also bested a slew of other Tuesday autumn records as well: Similar to its Monday, Joker yesterday came in ahead of the highest September Tuesday, which belongs to It ($11.4M), and when compared to November Tuesdays, the pic is second behind The Hunger Games: Catching Fire ($15.96M).

Jonathan Pageau analyzes the symbolism in Joker and the real reason why the establishment class are appalled by it.

My buddy and I were going to see Joker after work tonight but it was sold out everywhere from 8 to 10:30pm. Only shitty seats were left.

[quote]Only shitty seats were left.

Well it's a shitty movie, so that would have worked out nicely for you.

R352 Fuck u clueless cunt. Start another thread on the Golden Girls.

Good one.

R353, fuck you too, tasteless cunt.

Joker is a giant nothingburger, stuffed with ham.

I think the thematic disdain for the film is based on the unsettling nature of the film; the fact it shines a light on the cesspool nature of human existence.

No, "the thematic disdain for the film is based on" it's [bold]lameness[/bold]

its not it's

God, people like you who think this movie is so deep and ground breaking embarass me r356.

Yeah compared to Justice League it might look special, but in the canon of film this movie is nothing. I guess if you only watch comic book movies this happens.

70 percent of critics gave this movie a positive review. Nearly 90% of viewers are giving it a positive review. The minority disdain is overwhelmed by the love for it.

I saw the movie today.....loved the actress who played his mother....she has such a whiny voice....glad he smothered her... Joaquin looked so thin The Gotham City locale was NYC Bklyn and Bronx but must have really dirtied the locations up, because there is no where that ugly in NYC these days.

So many movies now with evil men having had single mothers.

Good review.

Joker‘s second weekend is more powerful than imagined, busting past its low $40M projections to what is now looking like $58.7M, which would make it the best second weekend for a film in October, easily beating that of Warner Bros.’ Gravity ($43.1M).

@KissMeInThe_Am Opening night sales project a film's performance at the box office. 'Joker' only cost $55 million to make & last week it made $13 million on its opening night, and $96 million its opening weekend and last night it made another $17 million while Gemini Man only made $7.5 million

It actually cost 70 million to make and 120 million for advertising. It was not a low budget film.

Why did he want to be called Joker and not The Joker.....any reason?

Is anyone surprised that a movie based on the most popular comic book villain is a hit?

Even fuckinf Venom made a lot of money.

The bathroom dance scene was Joaquin's idea.

Fan theory-The dwarf that Arthur let go becomes The Penguin.

R367 Same reason you are cunt and not The Cunt.

Good point, r371. He couldn't be THE cunt, because that's you!

Nobody's been shot yet, so that's good.

R372 that's the best your aids/disease riddled mind could come up with lol.

SNL can still strike gold every now and then.

SNL can still strike gold every now and then.

Golden bars of shit. That is horrible, you moron.

Someone is triggered r377!

Even making a parody of this movie you worship is not allowed I see. Your posts in this thread are disturbing man.

R378 No. SNL is just unfunny, cue card reading fucking crap and has been for decades now, shit for brains.

I liked it better when it was called "Taxi Driver"

The idea that it’s anywhere near as good as Taxi Driver is the only funny thing about this Joker.

The ComicCon crowd will embrace anything. They have no taste. They’ll never admit how conned they were by this tedious piece of shit film. Since when did they care about mental illness? It’s only because it’s called Joker. You could offer them a bowl of cat poo and call it “Joker” and clearly they would eat it and ask for more.

Oh, I understand now. The OP is obsessed with this film, will accept no differing opinions, and can’t even take a parody. The OP is a bit loony, a bit aspie, a bit fatt.

R341 yeah, well, your mama's so fat that when she had her period it came out red.

Still arguing about a cartoon.

Get with the program r384.

I can't be the only one who was reminded of Eric and Donald Trump Jr. during the subway scene with those three Wall Street, richboy douches.

R386 It is broader than that, moron. They represented all of the 1%.

R387, which Trump's sons perfectly epitomize, bitch.

It was amusing to see all these Ivy League ,friends -of -the -rich and- comfortable movie critics clutch their pearls over this film. These critics regularly lionize far more offensive movies. What it was really about is that the one percent were shown to be among the films fictionalized targets. If Joker were just going off on Average Joe they wouldn't have cared. All this white male incel BS is a smokescreen. Not that there aren't legitimate criticisms of the film but all these complaints about how the movie is some sort of ode to the white patriarchy are ridiculous.

R388 is truly the stupidest cunt who ever cunted.

R388 is truly the stupidest cunt who ever cunted.

R391 is triggered because I insulted his King Trump and his idiot sons. He probably identifies strongly with the Joker's sad, pathetic, sexless life.

Not quite cuntbag. The lowest of the low go on every day of their useless lives about Trump. I have never given him a second thought.

[quote]LITERALLY a character study.

Some character study.

Seemingly delusional possible psychopath reveals that he is, in fact, a delusional psychopath. The End.

The movie was ok. It was not amoral or anything for the moral majority to be offended about but it was never more than ok. If if didn’t rely on its links to The King Of Comedy, Taxi Driver and DC it would be a quarter as interesting.

Michael Moore called this film a "genius work of art". I don't think it's "genius" - it's just a very simple, straight-forward story of a person with a mental illness who reaches breaking point and lashes out. Nothing new here. Though the social commentary about the dangers of cutting funding for treating mentally ill people is very topical.

[quote] Realistic? People in clown masks taking over New York is realistic? Some dude in a clown mask kills three people on a subway and that starts off this movement?

Ironically, the film has some parallels to Extinction Rebellion in London :). Now, ER was supposed to be a non-violent protest, but yesterday some activists got on top of a tube/subway train during morning rush-hour (to stop the trains from running). The passengers, trying to get to work, tried to pull them off the train. Someone threw food at one of the activists. The activist then KICKED the passengers - this INFURIATED the crowd, they dragged him down and started kicking him back. It was a full-on brawl at morning rush-hour!

This happened in London, but it was like a mayhem scene from a third-world ('developing') country. Like an extra cut "bedlam" scene from the "Joker", ironically.

The brawls in the "Joker" were over social inequality, social funding cuts and the inefficiency of the political system (elitism, possibly corruption). The brawl in London was over environmental issues and vital transport disruption. The brawls in the "Joker" were somewhat prompted by a mentally ill character. The Extinction Rebellion brawls were somewhat prompted by angry, panic-rising, social blame-game speeches by a Swedish minor with Autism and other mental conditions. The Joker was somewhat justified in killing (at least 2) of the 3 people who battered him (it was partially self-defence and provocation). The Swedish autistic minor is also somewhat justified in giving angry speeches. However, life parallels art sometimes. Any "rebellion" speech or action ("I want you to panic, I want you to act like the house is on fire"), even if well-intended or done in justified self-defence, can prompt mass violent clashes on the streets.

So, ironically, the "Joker" is actually far more "realistic" than one would think. Even people with a mental condition can prompt a movement, which may then erupt into street violence and full-on brawls.

R396 Who gives a fuck about some paid assholes on top of a train. Lame.

R343 wasn't the subway shooting "derivative" of the vigilante Bernhard Goetz from the 80s.

Except that instead of paralyzed black kids we get dead Wall Street 1%

R397, the passengers cared, it seems. Because they beat the living daylights out of that activist. Though, to be fair, he kicked one of the passengers first.

R399 I am on the side of the passengers, fucking obviously. Paid outrage activists can go fuck themselves.

[quote] Ironically, the film has some parallels to Extinction Rebellion in London :). Now, ER was supposed to be a non-violent protest, but yesterday some activists got on top of a tube/subway train during morning rush-hour (to stop the trains from running). The passengers, trying to get to work, tried to pull them off the train. Someone threw food at one of the activists. The activist then KICKED the passengers - this INFURIATED the crowd, they dragged him down and started kicking him back. It was a full-on brawl at morning rush-hour!

[quote]This happened in London, but it was like a mayhem scene from a third-world ('developing') country. Like an extra cut "bedlam" scene from the "Joker", ironically.

Missing the point here. It happened in Canning Town, a very poor working class area. So yes, the crowd consisting of low income workers will fight back if they are kicked and if they have a chance of losing their jobs for being late.

As ever, these protests should be directed at the fat cats who live in wealthy areas, but they never are.

R401 While this particular protest took place (counterproductively) in a working class area, the Brits and Europeans seem to have less of an issue with confronting the rich and powerful than Americans. The French seem to be the boldest in that regard and I've always respected that. French workers will full on get in a CEO 's face if they feel that their quality of life is being fucked with.

In the US, no one ever seems to confront the rich. There is a cultural mentality that they are our untouchable betters and even many democrats don't seem to question that. It's almost like our version of the monarchy.

Holy shit. Joker is projected to get to 700 million in the next few days. 250 million domestic after this weekend.

Joker is KILLING IT

Joker now at 737 million.

Joaquin will get nominated, but won't win- there is no way the academy will give an Oscar to the same character twice. It should win for the score.

I found it mostly boring, nowhere near as clever as it thought it was, shallow, basic direction, his laughing was annoying, there was no sense of environment and the uprising didn't feel earned or natural.

The chat show scene was the only good bit really.

R407 Good thing no one gives a fuck what you think.

Holy shit, JP was absolutely amazing. He better win.

In spite of all the hype and hoopla over the many BATMAN movies over the years I still like the 1960's BATMAN tv show the best.

R410- I did not mean to sign it batman. That was a typo.

According to @DanielRPK, Actor Jared Leto wants to star in a Joker movie or series exploring Robin’s death.

A new report says that Todd Phillips, who directed and co-wrote the original Joker movie, has been brought on officially to co-write Joker 2. The first film, which starred Joaquin Phoenix as the titular DC supervillain, earned widespread critical acclaim and won several major awards, including an Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role for Phoenix. The sequel has been highly anticipated by fans since the original’s release.