*Please no spoilers for people who haven't seen it yet*


Last night I saw Joker. It's gotten some great praise. However, their has been some criticism of portraying someone like that as sympathetic despite doing terrible things.

I went in with high hopes based on the praise and was greatly disappointed. The movie dragged for me despite being at just around two hours.

However, the movie wasn't without its positives. I felt bad for how Arthur was treated. It does give good insight as to how miserable people can be toward those deemed by society to be inferior, especially the mentally ill. I think this can be said about all people treated like trash for being different. I think it was a good message to show compassion should be afforded to all. I also think Phoenix did a great job showing glimpses of the mind and life of one with mental illness and living in basically destitute conditions. I really like the bending of reality in his world. I also liked that I could be submersed into the 80s with all of the visual details.

Despite these positives, I felt the movie's pace was painfully slow. Maybe that was intentional to imitate the slow descent of one with mental illness into something recklessly dangerous. Also, I feel like we really only get a glimpse of who Arthur is even after he becomes Joker. I much prefer the transformation and ethos of what Travis Bickle represented in Taxi Driver. To me, this movie felt like getting a Rolex from a guy selling them out of his trench coat on the street. It looks like a Rolex from far away, but it's really a bad knockoff. Additionally, this movie is so gritty in its atmosphere that I feel like I'm being beaten brutally buy it as I watch. By the time I got to the end of it I wanted it to just be over. I felt sick watching it and I don't mind watching disturbing movies, except for those extreme torture kinds of movies. Lastly, I'm for more realistic Batman type movies, I really enjoyed the first two Nolan Batman movies, but this did not feel at all like a comic movie and should not have any crossover into other DC movies going forward. I feel like the director tried too hard to make this gritty and prove that he was more than a comedy director.

There's more that I could say, but I'll leave it at that and I intentionally tried to keep the discussion more thematic to avoid spoilers.

What did everyone else think of the movie?


 

I have/had high hopes for this and I still plan to see it. I take most comments in stride, but the one that got me from and early previewer was that "there was no way you could imagine this guy fighting and beating Batman."

It's a cool concept to give the guy a pseudo-realistic back story, set 30 years ago, but the end result needs to be a villain that you could see in the actual DC universe that's capable enough to compete with the good guys.

I don't know if that's the case and I have no clue how this film resolves. That said, for all "messages" that the film tries to make, a villain origin story must actually make the villain seem like a plausible threat to a super hero.

Do you feel that the film even remotely ended with that vibe?

If one thinks about the possibilities running a criminal organization, it could be possible. I think timelines are more of an issue. I also think the door is open for different Joker possibilities. I just think this film feels like a standalone and should stay that way.

Arthouse psychological character study. But since it's called "Joker" it's somehow a blockbuster. People are weird.

Good movie though.

Oh hey, I was just thinking about posting a Joker discussion thread myself, good timing! I definitely think the praise and high hopes kind of ruined it a bit for you, personally I absolutely loved it. The acting was amazing from everyone, but ESPECIALLY from Joaquin Phoenix. As expected, he kills it in this role. He does a fantastic job of making you feel legitimate empathy for the Joker, whilst still occasionally reminding you that he is a deranged psychopath. And man, that laugh. You can really hear and see the pain in his voice and face when he's Arthur, but when he starts legitimately laughing later on in the movie... oh man. Personally, I thought the story was actually quite gripping, and there is actually a bit more to the story than "Man becomes Joker." There are a few twists and turns, which kind of surprised me honestly. The plot was solid. The score was also really great IMO, I'm really glad they did end up using some of the songs from the trailers, those were some of my favorite moments of the movie, the moments which use actual songs instead of a traditional movie score, which of course includes, y'know, THAT scene.

The cinematography was also really on point. One really nice detail I noticed that other people I discussed it with later confirmed for me, is that in the first act or two of the movie, everything feels really claustrophobic. The city feels like it's looming over Arthur, and you barely ever get a glimpse of the sky. But as he undergoes his evolution in to the Joker, it starts feeling less and less closed in, and you start seeing more and more of the sky, I suppose symbolizing Arthur feeling more and more free, which of course all comes to a head in, again, THAT scene. The film is also really vibrant, at least I think it is. It manages to capture the gritty underbelly of Gotham without sacrificing having a fairly vibrant color palette, and I love pretty much any piece of entertainment that does that. It's definitely a slow movie, but when we're talking about a movie about a man's fairly realistic descent in to madness, that's to be expected, I wasn't expecting this to be a fast-paced movie at all when I went in to the theater. I also, without any spoilers, really liked the ending, all the scenes including and leading up to the final scene were absolutely amazing.

I could and honestly want to say more, but that would be getting in to serious spoiler territory.

Addressing your criticisms, if you don't mind... well I already talked about the slowness of the movie, but as far as who Arthur is, I don't know why you say that, I feel like we get a pretty damn good look at his character by the time the movie ends. I won't get in to specifics even though the stuff I'm talking about is fairly early-mid movie, but I personally disagree on that one, I feel like I know Arthur well enough to completely understand how and why he ends up becoming someone as insane and immoral as the Joker, which really is all the movie needed to accomplish I think.

Also, as far as the grit goes... I mean we're talking about GOTHAM here, and not just Gotham, but the decaying, trash-infested, filled to the brim with poor people ghetto of Gotham. Did you expect anything other than incredibly gritty? This isn't the type of movie where it feels like it's being gritty just for the sake of it, the plot and especially the setting warrants having grittiness, and as I said above, it managed to feel gritty while still having color to it, unlike some of the movies from the 2000s. Personally I think having this level of grit was the right choice given, as I said, the plot and setting of the movie.

Hm... yes, but not in the sense of a one-on-one confrontation. I think the Joker of this universe is much more about strength in numbers, and in that sense I could totally see him being a threat to Batman, but perhaps not directly in a physical confrontation. And I mean hey, we've still got a solid 20+ years before Batman becomes Batman, so the Joker's got some time to get some meat on his bones  

I also agree with punch-out about different Joker possiblities, especially considering the age-gap between Bruce and Joker by the time Bruce becomes Batman, and given the plot of the film, it's entirely possible and perhaps even likely that this Joker isn't the one Batman faces, and that's definitely an intentional decision on the filmmaker's parts.

Not to mention it's 70s Gotham aka 70s NYC. Not exactly a time and place renowned for it's safety or optimism

That too, yeah.

It was actually set in 81. I thought that the city was represented well and I liked the civil unrest. I do agree that the cinematography was fantastic and totally agree on the change from dark and claustrophobic to open and brighter as he frees himself.

With respect to Fleck, I compare this movie to Taxi Driver and I believe that we were able to see a much more developed character in Travis Bickle. His interactions with his coworkers, his love interest, and his isolated moments seemed much more detailed, intricate, dialogue driven, and more fleshed our. We got some of each of those in this movie, I just don't think it was enough. I would have loved to explore more of his relationship with his mom too.

With respect to pace, yes, I was not expecting a fast paced movie. However, once again looking to Taxi Driver, I failed to get immersed in the world as much in this movie and I failed to empathize as much with the main character in this movie. That made it drag on for me whereas the other passed so quickly. Unfortunately, for me, this movie is so influenced by Taxi Driver that I cannot help but compare the two and this one is vastly inferior at pretty much every level.

Phoenix was awesome though, I thought he was incredible. Like I said, it definitely had some positives and it's not a bad movie. However, knowing that it was trying to be much more than a realistic comic movie, I hold it to a higher standard. To me this movie should be viewed outside of the context of the comics completely. When I do that it's ambitious but just doesn't quite deliver.

Yeah, that's all fair enough. I totally respect your opinion on the movie, I just wanted to explain why I disagreed with most of your cricisms so we could have a discussion about conflicting opinions like civilized people without bickering and namecalling! So rare for that to happen nowadays  

Oh yes, I appreciate your thoughts and that why my goal of this topic. I'm curious to see other's thoughts. The whole claustrophobic to opening point you made had me go back and visual the movie in my head and you were spot on! I think that was great cinematography. Keep it up, I'm definitely not trying to be dismissive.

Very good film. JP will get a best actor Oscar nom I feel.

I enjoyed it from the first moment to the very last. Engaged the entire time.

I haven't seen it yet but I assume it's really just passion of the Christ but for juggalos

Well I've pretty much already drained all my non-spoiler thoughts on the movie, I can't really think of anything else to say about it unless we want to make a seperate thread for spoilers or you wanna discuss it further in PMs. And yeah I didn't see you as dismissive at all, quite the opposite, I was very appreciative that you were genuinely looking to start some discussion about the movie. Especially the fact that you agreed with me on the cinematography, agreeing with someone who has the complete opposite opinion to you on anything is especially rare, so I was just very happy about that  

That's sort of a weird way to look at it in my opinion.  There have been many variations and interpretations of the Joker in different media over the years, but the vast majority portray him as a person who wouldn't stand a chance up against Batman.  Most of the time, the threat the Jokers poses is the type and amount of damage he can create before Batman can find him.  But any time Batman and the Joker confront each other, it usually ends pretty quickly with either the Joker defeated or retreating.  

I've not seen this new movie but from what I gather it's an origin story. This joker likely isn't very experienced in fighting compared to an older version of himself who will likely get into a scuffle or two before facing batman. Generally speaking the joker who is seen fighting batman is a more experienced criminal.

And further to that of course is your point, which is that I don't think I've ever actually seen joker whomp the bat. Fight him, sure, but come close to winning without some trick up his sleeve? I don't think so.

Lol'd pretty hard at that shit! 🤣

He never went the direction i expected him to. The murders aren't maniacal but rather just a dude getting pissed off and also Joker's personality to me isn't a response to bullying either. It can have abusive aspects *partially* in his history but to me he's way larger than merely a dude tipped over the edge. I was hoping for him to derail and start offing people left n' right just for fun but as i said it never went there, he just became a guy taking revenge on douchebags.

I saw the first half and got interrupted and had to leave. I got to the spot where Joker meets Bruce Wayne. I was really, really, impressed with the movie so far.

I enjoyed the slowness (character development), grittiness, exploration of mental illness, and some parallels to current politics/society, but there are definitely some racial, misogynistic, incel overtones, and I can't tell what the intended message there is. I mean, if the director just wants me to be wondering what his intended message was, then it worked.

The movie is too full of itself. Too melodramatic with the swells of the music, the tai chi, the anti-rich sentiment which was never part of Joker's motivation in any previous incarnation afaik. I don't think the Joker needed a backstory or to make sense. He's an agent of chaos and that's what makes him so intriguing. You don't know his motivations, he just wants to watch the world burn.
He didn't feel like the Joker to me in a lot of ways. Too vulnerable. Not funny and charismatic enough. I was expecting the Heisenberg effect to kick in more than it did. He was only funny in two parts. Scaring the midget after killing the dude with the scissors and kissing the old lady on the talk show. Those two moments were funny and felt like the Joker. Another line that should have been funny but wasn't was "My mother just died, I'm celebrating." His standup wasn't funny at all.
All in all when he stood up on the cop car at the end I didn't really buy that this was the new baddest dude in Gotham, the Clown Prince of Crime. I was thinking that this dude was too sentimental and too big of a pushover to be the new kingpin.
And then it was revealed at the end that the whole thing was probably a delusion, and I thought that it was a huge waste of time haha.

I have to admit, I really don't understand where people are getting misogynistic or incel overtones from this movie beyond all the massively overblown media bullshit. Like the race thing, I guess, Arthur's "relationship" is with a black woman, but it isn't really about the race with that. The woman just happens to be black and Arthur just happens to be white, the race of them isn't an important factor to that aspect of the plot at all. And as far as the other two go, I really just don't quite understand where that's coming from at all honestly, I'd love it if you could shed some light on that to help me understand a bit better where you're getting those overtones from.

I think... well, first of all I think not all movies have to have some profound message to them, I think there's nothing wrong with just trying to make a good movie and tell a good story without trying to gleam some kind of a message out of it. But with that said, if this movie does have a message, I think it's just that we should give mentally ill people as much care as we can and not treat them like completely fucked up individuals, to not treat them as lower than everyone else. I think the movie is just saying that we should treat mentally ill people with just as much kindness and respect as anyone else, and being mentally ill myself, that's definitely a message I can get behind.

I won't bother trying to argue my opinion on the movie since it's pretty clear that you really didn't like it, but I will at least say that the whole anti-rich thing came from the huge mobs of people, that wasn't something Arthur himself came up with at all, IF I remember correctly, but it's been a few days since I've seen it so I may not be.

Well if the man wants a relationship with the black woman then surely he is affirming her, isn't that a good thing? If she was white instead then the issue could've been "oh look why aren't there black character" so then what the fuck do you want? But that's how it is with this social justice shit you just spin one way or the other until it fits.

Yes Arthur clearly states that he isn't political he simply was pushed over the edge and lost it. Altough i feel the anti-rich thing felt forced and tacked on... too vague connection between him, a subway revenge massacre and Thomas Wayne being this elitistic richman towards people less fortunate. Garbage littering the streets? Whatever. I fail to see Joker as the new face of the revolution even more so than the revolution itself kicking off at all. It just felt like a plot device for him to become celebrated.