amolbhatia50k
Sneaky bum time - Vaccination status: dozed off
I've read the plot.
I've read the plot.
Not to mention that the Joker has more than one origin stories.There's no room for growth if everyone sticks to the forensically accurate origin story & personality of a character.
I think a big part of that is down to the Joker that Ledger portrayed being a fully fledged Joker whereas Phoenix is a (normal??) guy who becomes the Joker - I'd really love to see a follow-up to Joker with Phoenix playing the character but who is now 100% the Joker in the same way Ledger's was. Would be fantastic to see and compare the way they do it.Felt the other way round. They're both very good. But Ledger's was the more intimidating and charismatic, whereas Phoenix's portrayal was more like a regular (albiet nuts) Joe playing the Joker.
Don't see why Ledger's joker is implausible. Just becuase he isn't a dunce or displaying weaknesses, and is at the top of his game, doesnt mean he isn't a human character. It's just more writing material and spotlight for this version of Joker.
Want to see again.Off to see it tonight...
Yes want to see that too. I think the talk show scene was especially chilling so would love to watch a whole movie of him being the fully evolved joker.I think a big part of that is down to the Joker that Ledger portrayed being a fully fledged Joker whereas Phoenix is a (normal??) guy who becomes the Joker - I'd really love to see a follow-up to Joker with Phoenix playing the character but who is now 100% the Joker in the same way Ledger's was. Would be fantastic to see and compare the way they do it.
Agreed.I think a big part of that is down to the Joker that Ledger portrayed being a fully fledged Joker whereas Phoenix is a (normal??) guy who becomes the Joker - I'd really love to see a follow-up to Joker with Phoenix playing the character but who is now 100% the Joker in the same way Ledger's was. Would be fantastic to see and compare the way they do it.
Reported for harassment. And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.Those decisions are made by professionals who have the ability and experience of turning scripts into movies to know what they're looking at. Not some eijit on the internet with a comic book collection and delusions of grandeur.
Reported.
You got owned.Reported for harassment. And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.
Nah, I just got him reported.You got owned.
It's a memorable film but not a 'great' film.Also I know that Taxi Driver was original but it's such an overrated film.
Pretty cheerful insulting people miles away behind a laptop?
He's implausible in the same way that Batman is implausible. He's a super villain. He walks around in clown make up but has somehow brought all diverse mobs to heel. He stages bank robberies, hospital blow ups and politician assassinations with impunity and no one can lay a glove on him. He's virtually unkillable. He's a one-man wrecking machine only stoppable by a super-hero with non-existent technology.Don't see why Ledger's joker is implausible. Just becuase he isn't a dunce or displaying weaknesses, and is at the top of his game, doesnt mean he isn't a human character. It's just more writing material and spotlight for this version of Joker.
cry morePretty cheerful insulting people miles away behind a laptop?
Fair enough. I suppose the question initially was which is more frightening? And I'm not sure the more human one is.He's implausible in the same way that Batman is implausible. He's a super villain. He walks around in clown make up but has somehow brought all diverse mobs to heel. He stages bank robberies, hospital blow ups and politician assassinations with impunity and no one can lay a glove on him. He's virtually unkillable. He's a one-man wrecking machine only stoppable by a super-hero with non-existent technology.
Fleck's just a guy with severe mental health problems and a history of being abused. Who's a victim of his life's unfortunate circumstances. Who spirals out of control, gets a gun, lashes out and gets locked up in a psych ward. And all his glorious, super-hero moments are just wild fantasies like those of a child who's watched too much TV.
Which one sounds human and which one sounds super-human?
Sounds like itI've lost the plot.
Well it's all opinions but for me, Phoenix was more frightening because he was more human - it had a realism with it that made it much more unsettling.Fair enough. I suppose the question initially was which is more frightening? And I'm not sure the more human one is.
I think that's a subjective of course.Fair enough. I suppose the question initially was which is more frightening? And I'm not sure the more human one is.
So nice of you to pop out. And so predictable.cry more
I somewhat agree, but also, I tend to think it’s a lot more impressive to have made a modern era-Mann film with a giant silly great Batman in it, and have that be an immersive transgressional comic book movie... than make a solid if so-so written Scorsese film (with elements of Network & Fight Club) and just use a couple of names from comics, and expect people to think its somehow a groundbreaking genre experiment..I just view DK as a very entertaining but somewhat empty rip off of Michael Mann Heat.
Oh yeah. He just liked the aesthetic.Nolan is clearly a very smart bloke when it comes to film making etc but that doesn't mean it will translate into politics. My reasoning being when people tried to point out this vague socialist revolution backdrop to him, he had no idea what they were on about. To him it really might just be about funny sounding muscle man fighting batman and oh no big bomb! Which would be great as I quite like the idea that Nolan has no idea how deeply reactionary his films are.
I mean, kinda. Like I say it’s a poorly nuanced and clunky one, that could just as easily be saying “look at these horrible violent occupy/quasi-antifa bastards!” if you’re so inclined to see it that way... hence why the idea this film is particularly deep or “immense” is pretty bizarre to me. I do like it. It’s presentation and performances are top notch, but it’s content is entirely surface level..A clown movie as you said has more of a left wing message.
I don't agree. It's one of the few Scorsese film that I believe isn't overrated and deserves its place as one of the best films of the 70s.Also I know that Taxi Driver was original but it's such an overrated film.
Yeah, this is similar to my perennial moan about Game of Thrones: if one is familiar with the Wars of the Roses, GoT presents few surprises.It reminds me a bit of the wankfest over LaLa Land, and how it was basically just a “not quite as good version of some better old genre films” which somehow had all the people who’d never seen those old films, raving about how amazing it was that this amazing film had rescued the dying musical genre, whilst completely ignoring all the many much more modern, original and ingenuitive musicals that already existed.
Reported.So nice of you to pop out. And so predictable.
Reported for harassment. And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.
Free public forum thread + received about 9 agressive quotes.Ok we get it you aren't interested - why keep posting about it then? Nobody cares if you see it or not.
Fair enough. It was really underwhelming for me. It lacked genuine impact and petered away. I know Joker is heavility inspired by it, but as a standalone film, it was far better.I don't agree. It's one of the few Scorsese film that I believe isn't overrated and deserves its place as one of the best films of the 70s.
I disagree. The comic book version of the Joker is as varied as the one you see on screen, it's been done in various different ways, with many contradicting back stories. He's even had different real names, hence various on-screen adaptations of the character that are all very unlike one another.Nicholson's Joker is still the most accurate of the comic book version of Joker.
Don't agree with this, love the gritty aspect of Scorsese's film as well as De Niro's performance (who was truly superb back in the day when he actually cared about acting) but to each their own.Fair enough. It was really underwhelming for me. It lacked genuine impact and petered away. I know Joker is heavility inspired by it, but as a standalone film, it was far better.
That's fair.Well it's all opinions but for me, Phoenix was more frightening because he was more human - it had a realism with it that made it much more unsettling.
Ledger's Joker was amazing but it was a pure fantasy that couldn't work in reality therefore you always felt it could only exist in that universe.
Thanks for letting me know.And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.
So you work in the audiovisual sector but you'd rather read the plot of a film to judge it instead of watching the visuals and listening to the audio? You must be fecking shit at your job.Reported for harassment. And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.
"T'is but a flesh wound!"I'm going to go out on a limb here, and suggest it's not in the department of deciding which plot summaries get turned into movies? Considering that the one you've just dismissed as shite, did in fact get greenlit for pre-production and just took $250m worldwide on its opening weekend.
Also the general mood and atmosphere of the film which has hypnotic effect that's hard to find in many films.Don't agree with this, love the gritty aspect of Scorsese's film as well as De Niro's performance (who was truly superb back in the day when he actually cared about acting) but to each their own.