Film Joker (2019)
- Thread starter Ahsan_6386
- Start date
Off to see it tonight...
Not to mention that the Joker has more than one origin stories.
Anyway, i strongly disagree with the poster above. One of the main reasons i want to watch this movie is the creators' decision to base this origin story (i don't know to what degree) on Alan Moore's The Killing Joke which in my opinion is one of the greatest graphic novels of both the DC and Marvel Universes.
But hey, to each his own.
Also I know that Taxi Driver was original but it's such an overrated film.
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.
Want to see again.
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.
Agreed.
I know this brilliant on its own and the director has said that they intend to leave it that way. But I'd love to this story to expanded with Batman and company.
Also, just as I'd love to see the full realisation of Phoenix's Joker, it would have been something to see a similar focus on Ledger's. Love that character and the way he played. So darn iconic.
Just watched this today and it was a pretty good film overall. Comparing with Nolan's joker is pretty pointless though. A good well rounded film with some great acting.
Reported for harassment. And for the record, I do work in the audiovisual sector.
You got owned.
Nah, I just got him reported.
It's a memorable film but not a 'great' 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.
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?
cry moreFair enough. I suppose the question initially was which is more frightening? And I'm not sure the more human one is.
Sounds like it
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.
I think that's a subjective of course.
Some people are afraid of demons, zombies and the supernatural in general. Ledger's Joker is in that category where if you buy into the idea that he can be real, he can of course be terrifying. It requires certain immersion into the fantasy, shall we say.
Fleck is the guy with mental health and anger issues you can spot from a mile away. He's terrifying because he's wildly unpredictable within the realms of possibility. If you were in Zazee Beetz's shoes, bringing up a kid in your flat while this stalking creep lives across the corridor, you'd be fecking terrified of him. That's before even knowing this psycho got his hands on a gun.
So nice of you to pop out. And so predictable.
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..
Add to the fact that Phillips seems wholly uninterested in discussing the actual themes to this film, what he wanted to say and why he made it, beyond thinking “wouldn’t it be cool to make a film like this?” which leaves me to believe this is an even more empty facsimile of another filmmaker’s style than TDK, which does at least seem to have had a reason and a purpose behind it, and the guts to put a giant great big silly Batman in it as a genuine genre experiment ... rather than just someone called “Bruce Battman” who goes around shooting people like a kind of comic book vigilante. And then be all smug about how they’ve “sneaked a proper movie into the system!”
I dunno... 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.
Again, I do think this is a pretty decent film... but Nolan’s first two Batman’s are still better, if for nothing more than a much greater sense of ambition.
Oh yeah. He just liked the aesthetic.
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..
Last edited:
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.
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.
Reported.
Free public forum thread + received about 9 agressive quotes.
You have 25 posts in a thread talking about a film you haven't seen.
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 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.
This film is based around Alan Moore's 'The Killing Joke', which is the most critically acclaimed DC/Batman comic. Phoenix's Joker is much closer to Alan Moore's version of Joker than Nicholson was. The Batman film Nicholson was in was based on a Joker origin story from the 1950s, of which Phoenix's Joker is nothing like. They're not really comparable characters. Then there's Frank Miller's Joker who neither Nicholson and Phoenix are like, plus loads more.
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.
That's fair.
For me Ledger was more daunting becuase the writing was strong enough for it to feel believable (same as 2019 Joker), however he actually seemed to be a force to be reckoned with, and the personality to match, whereas despite his rooted in reality nature (it's still fiction), he was too an unintimidating a fellow.
I guess for me, in this case, the fantasy version is more chilling and alluring.
Jack Nicholson's joker is bitchmade.
Thanks for letting me know.
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.
Still thinking about it 24 hours later. There's still part of me that thinks that it wasn't quite dangerous enough, that it was moving towards something even more uncomfortable but just stopped short. Then another part of me thinks that to add more of a 'message' or to hammer home a few points would have detracted from the nihilism and would have shifted the focus away from Arthur Fleck.
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.
"T'is but a flesh wound!"
Also the general mood and atmosphere of the film which has hypnotic effect that's hard to find in many films.
If there there is so much media drama over this movie, World really is becoming soft, bloody hell.