Yeah I'd agree. The performances really make the movie but I thought the plot was a bit meh.
Film Joker (2019)
- Thread starter Ahsan_6386
- Start date
Watched it over the weekend and this was exactly my thoughts on it.
What an actor Phoenix is. Phenomenal. Cant remember a bad job he did.
Loved it. Phoenix is incredible.
Not enough to keep you from posting here it would seem
I should elaborate, I found Pheonix's performance captivating. Plot line was just okay.Not enough to keep you from posting here it would seem
Yeah, I wasnt sure what was going to happen. You kinda felt for the little guy as you could see even he wondered what was going to happen.
I was sure that the end of him.. but I was happy when he was just allowed walk on out of there.
I watched this for the second time this evening and loved it all over again. Phoenix is an incredible actor.
Trying to watch it for a second time but it's been difficult to get through. Seems to be a one time watch for me and has been a flaccid experience on repeated viewing. I really did like it initially but I believe, in my head at least, it rode the wave of the aura of Ledger's joker. And hence once that's worn off, it's gone down on my estimation.
It's still a good film of course. The peformance by Phoenix is strong (but also overrated), the score is fanatastic and in general it's just so well put together. But it's not a great film for me. Due to A) lack of originality and B) being predictable and hence uninteresting on second viewing. It wouldn't make any 'list' of mine even though I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of watching it.
It's still a good film of course. The peformance by Phoenix is strong (but also overrated), the score is fanatastic and in general it's just so well put together. But it's not a great film for me. Due to A) lack of originality and B) being predictable and hence uninteresting on second viewing. It wouldn't make any 'list' of mine even though I thoroughly enjoyed the experience of watching it.
Finally got around to watching it. Thought it was excellent, Phoenix was completely immersing and the plot/arch was relatively fresh, was fully expecting the usual interesting Act 1 followed by the usual falling in line with generic Act 2 and 3. Great cinematography too.
Saw this for the first time last night, and I really enjoyed it. Phoenix was great and did a really good job with the character. It is fairly slow paced, and I wouldn't call it a superhero movie at all because if you didn't already link the joker character with batman and such you wouldn't have even put it in that category.
Just finished watching it for the first time.
It was okay. I thought Phoenix performance was a bit hammy, if anything. Nowhere near as good (or as nuanced) as Ledger's. There was relatively little left to the imagination.
I also thought the storytelling was way too expositional. I guess that's what you get with the director of the Hangover movies. Most of the atmosphere came from the heavy-handed soundtrack and sly nods to audience. I suppose the song selection was to his credit, though.
I was really hoping it would live up to expectations.
I know I'm being quite critical here. Ordinarily, I'm fairly positive about TV and movies. But given the acclaim this film has received, I'm comparing it to the best rather than the average. I don't see this movie will go down as a classic a decade from now.
It was okay. I thought Phoenix performance was a bit hammy, if anything. Nowhere near as good (or as nuanced) as Ledger's. There was relatively little left to the imagination.
I also thought the storytelling was way too expositional. I guess that's what you get with the director of the Hangover movies. Most of the atmosphere came from the heavy-handed soundtrack and sly nods to audience. I suppose the song selection was to his credit, though.
I was really hoping it would live up to expectations.
I know I'm being quite critical here. Ordinarily, I'm fairly positive about TV and movies. But given the acclaim this film has received, I'm comparing it to the best rather than the average. I don't see this movie will go down as a classic a decade from now.
The soundtrack drives the film.
I think it's better than that, but many of your cricisms are valid. And I believe the hype machine has carried this film far higher than it deserved to go. Both the movie as well as Phoenix's peformance are now well overrated IMO.
Most of the opinions that I've heard from the film are all the same. Movie ok to good, not great. Phoenix was good, score was good.
I saw it about two weeks ago and I sheepishly agree with all of it.
As I was watching, I thought to myself that you could remove all the dialogue and still know exactly what was going on.
Phoenix spent the whole movie chewing the scenery and the soundtrack was very much on the nose. It was almost impossible for me, as a viewer, to miss what the director was trying to convey. Very unsubtle.
Last edited:
Subtlety's incredibly hard to master, and is often 'in the eye of the beholder'. As an example, Tommy Lee Jones's scenery-chewing performance as Warden McClusky in what is considered a poor film - Natural Born Killers - nevertheless displayed fleeting subtlety, courtesy of a knowing director, amongst the ham and flash: a split-second shot of McClusky 's arm with a gaudy, show-off bracelet upon it. This shot told me all I needed to know about the loud, confident authoritarian macho man: he was vain, weak, hypocritical, secretly awash in self-doubt and resultingly bad at his job. All that from a half-second frame...and yet that (supposed) subtlety only worked for me because somehow I already suspected, inwardly, that he might be an empty suit. And it only worked well because of my own, pre-existing views on certain types of men.
It surely does, it's a great soundtrack. The scene on the the stairs was improvised by Phoenix with the score running. The soundtrack was ready for the film during filming only through storyboard and script. It absolutely drives this film.
I’m kinda tempted to re watch it just to see how it views a second time. Initially I wasn’t impressed and even considered leaving the cinema, it was that boring. Glad I stuck it out for that last 5-10mins as they are where I felt it actually showed any quality along with Phoenix.
The problem with comparing Ledger's Joker with this film's Joker is that they are not playing the same role.
One is a psychopath, the other is someone with serious mental illness who is in desperate need of help - those are not interchangeable conditions and should not be compared as such.
Ledger in The Joker could not act in the manner he did in The Dark Knight and vice versa.
There are numerous iterations of The Joker in comic form - you're better off pairing performances of those iterations within their own bubbles and spotlight rather than trying to transpose as it simply doesn't, and shouldn't, work.
Saying you prefer x Joker over the other, if not the same iteration trying to convey the same state, is saying you prefer The Joker psychopath over the others' descent into mental destabilisation and eventual calamity.
One is a psychopath, the other is someone with serious mental illness who is in desperate need of help - those are not interchangeable conditions and should not be compared as such.
Ledger in The Joker could not act in the manner he did in The Dark Knight and vice versa.
There are numerous iterations of The Joker in comic form - you're better off pairing performances of those iterations within their own bubbles and spotlight rather than trying to transpose as it simply doesn't, and shouldn't, work.
Saying you prefer x Joker over the other, if not the same iteration trying to convey the same state, is saying you prefer The Joker psychopath over the others' descent into mental destabilisation and eventual calamity.
What’s the consensus then? Did he make the whole thing up from the asylum?
hard to speculate because we already know where he ended up, as a supervillain
I watched it for the second time at the weekend and I don’t view it that way.
I saw a clear mix of real events and events that took place in his head. He ended up in the asylum as a result of his actions in the film.
Really good film, holds up well in second viewing.
Of course they are entirely different characters which had to be played in a very different manner and underlying context. However, at the same any two roles are comparable - in how iconic they are, in their allure, in how much they make you want to watch them, or indeed in how they feel like the ultimate version of the character (of the Joker).
So while I understand that they're entirely different portrayals that cannot substitute one another, for me, Ledgers portrayal was the one I'd want to re-watch (multiple times), was stupidly iconic, more fascinating and the one I'd think of when Joker comes to my mind. Phoenix's in many wasnt even a proper portrayal of Joker. I liked the film but he mostly a dude - Arthur Fleck, and he played him very well. But as the Joker, he was okay/good-ish, but not a portrayal to sweep you off your feet, or anything. I think his Joker (or Arthur) is also hurt by the film being fairly predictable and unoriginal despite being very well made. I liked it first time around but couldn't make it it past 20 minutes whereas the Dark Knight is one of the best action/blockbuster films of its generation IMO.
Agree.
Both were immensely watchable and I don't think either are a million miles from each other. If you take JP's joker then it's an origin story. The journey to becoming what we would follow as the joker we recognise from the Dark Knight. At the end of Joker, JP is a very different character to Arthur from the start of the film. He has begun the transformation. By the end of the film Arthur is lost to his new persona.
If you then leave JP's joker in Arkham for a number of years, comfortable in his new skin and mental shape then there is scope for him to develop further into what we recognise as Heath Ledger's Joker.
I think the biggest difference is the world they inhabit, not the character itself. Heath Leadger's Joker wouldn't have worked in the pseudo-real world of the 2019 film and vice-versa.
I don't think it is beyond reason that JP's end of film joker could turn into HL's type of joker. Just my opinion obviously.
I think he must have, but then again, why would the movie explicitly let you know the parts that are only in his mind (like his neighbour not really being with him at the hospital) if everything is?
I think that discussion is one of the more important parts of the film. I like to think the beginning started as genuine story but as he became more warped he inserted more of his own fantasies. Not knowing for sure exactly what went on in his mind and what didn't is part of the intention of the film I guess and you can discuss that part of it for ages.
I don't think the whole thing was played out as fantasy - it is possible the whole tale is being recollected from Arkham though certainly.
I don't think this is likely @The Cat - if it was all from his recollection there would be no need to differentiate between real and not real. No need to reveal there was no romance / friendship with the lady from down the hall.
This. If this were the case, it would actually make it a bad movie.
No I mean the whole story is being recollected and he's adding the fantasy bits in as well - if that makes sense.
I was thinking that Arthur might not necessarily be the joker that became the criminal mastermind, rather that he inspired him. As far as character development goes, Phoenix Probably couldn’t turn into ledgers joker.
Think that was quite widely suggested when the film came out - certainly possible.
It's far, far easier to play a psychopath than a possible paranoid schizophrenic descending into a state of mental collapse - one role is there for the actor to have fun with and is full of expression, anarchy and mischief, the other is restrictive, binding and has to be plausible due to the sensitivity of the subject matter.
Psychopaths tend to be enthralling, charasmatic and perfect cinematic matter: they are larger than life, wild, uninhibited, unrestricted and everything is mostly outward (or expressed in due course) and there to be easily ingested by the audience. Better still, they are incongruent, which gives the actor massive scope to perform within. Ledger gave a stellar performance, but his remit was so much easier as, to me, to be incomparable.
As I said in my initial post, they are such different Jokers, I wouldn't even begin to pair them off. Perhaps, if there is a follow-up and Phoenix is allowed to be a more sociopathic Joker, we (I) can draw some kind of similie.
I don't connect this version of the Joker with Ledger's, and I think that's how it should be. They're separate entities, different interpretations etc.
Regarding the metamorphosis into the Joker, you do see a certain level of cunning develop with Arthur as events progress. His mimicry and the way he uses the masks to blend in with the crowd on the train show some level of intelligence. The little quips on the Murray show 'They couldn't carry a tune to save their lives' are classic Joker and the delivery is great by Phoenix. If a sequel does happen they could maybe show how his meds were inhibiting his cognition.
The film definitely holds up on repeat viewings. The soundtrack in particular is fantastic. I would love to see a sequel but I think they have to be very careful so as not to diminish the interpretations that the original is open to (e.g is it all in his head)
Regarding the metamorphosis into the Joker, you do see a certain level of cunning develop with Arthur as events progress. His mimicry and the way he uses the masks to blend in with the crowd on the train show some level of intelligence. The little quips on the Murray show 'They couldn't carry a tune to save their lives' are classic Joker and the delivery is great by Phoenix. If a sequel does happen they could maybe show how his meds were inhibiting his cognition.
The film definitely holds up on repeat viewings. The soundtrack in particular is fantastic. I would love to see a sequel but I think they have to be very careful so as not to diminish the interpretations that the original is open to (e.g is it all in his head)
Agreed.
I would love to see a batman film done in this world. Batman would have to be just as vulnerable and unstable a character as the Joker.
Batman with a speech impediment really isn´t an enjoyable watch.. Watch it again and you cannot unnotice it. It´s a very overrated film IMO with a very emotional undertone due to Ledgers death, it had fecking 10 rating at IMDB after a month so emotions were running wild with that one.
Easier? Phoenix did very well but it was a really hammy peformance which the movie completely served on a platter for him to over indulge. Ledger had to work within the confines of being one of the characters in a film rather than canvass especially put up for him to do his acting thang. And Phoenix in the time that he was the Joker showed that it isn't really to be that enigmatic iconic character. He didn't have the voice and intimidation when did portray the Joker. Each did well in their domain. I don't believe one is much easier than the other.
Psychopaths aren't necessarily more enthralling. Walter White remains the most fascinating character I've seen in any piece of entertaining - film, shows etc and he wouldn't fit that description. He was nuanced and he was human rather than being overly manic. But it was as incredible a peformance as I've seen. It helps when your script is miles better than the Jokers of course but it is what it is. For me, Joker was a good film but predictable and unoriginal (clearly) which makes the lead protagonist as well to an extent those things.
It was bloody fantastic. Watched it again after a long time and absolutely loved it. This one didn't hold me for more than 20 minutes on second viewing. Mostly because its so straightforward and unsubtle. A few posters above have captured those limitations pretty well.