Quoted from James McClung Still haven't seen this. I'm officially intrigued. Many conflicting opinions among people whose opinion I usually trust. Rare that that'll happen. A close friend made a projection that I would hate it. We'll see. I did make a point to see The King of Comedy based on the constant name-dropping in Joker conversations. I thought it was quite good, particularly the ending (that is to say, the "act"). I wouldn't call it spectacular though. It also almost felt like I'd seen it already, given all the hubbub. Will be interesting to see how the parallels play out in Joker.

Look forward to you weighing in.

Caught this last night. Definitely had its number from the getgo.

Quoted Text ...something like Watchmen: bleak, gruesome, and entertaining but surface-level and subtely-free despite much reaching (with the director bearing the brunt of scrutiny)

In fact, I'd say this was several kicks down from Watchmen, which I happen to have many issues with in and of itself. Watchmen still has original dialogue from Alan Moore, which is often thoughtful and evocative, no matter how clunky/embarrassing the acting/directing makes it seem. That quality of writing is definitely missing in Joker. It's not so much reaching for bigger themes as it is gesturing at them, if not just name-dropping. The whole rich vs. poor "theme" in particular was absolutely DOA.

The Scorsese comparisons are on point in a sense but don't amount to anything. You can tell Todd Phillips wants you to know he's seen those films, but the influences aren't substantive. Where they seem substantive, I think it's generally just riding coattails. Something seems to work in Joker because they worked in King of Comedy, say, and Joker makes you think of King of Comedy (based on some superficial visual or narrative reference).

At the same time, I more or less enjoyed the film. Joaquin Phoenix is great, of course. I don't think the film can really take credit for that; he's gonna do his thing no matter what. But he does help. And while many of the sequences are obvious (I'm sure thousands of comic book nerds/wannabe screenwriters have conceived of the exact same stairs sequence, song and all), they are fun to have seen actualized. I also do have to give the film credit that I never really thought of it in terms of Batman, comic books, or anything like that even though it's totally tied to a franchise. That's gotta be a small victory, for sure.

I'm also glad it was made. For all intents and purposes, this is a character study. It's not smart or deep (far from it), but it's the kind of flick I'm glad to see make a billion dollars. That goes double for it being as ugly as it is. Certainly the ugliest film to make a billion dollars, which is another win as far as I'm concerned.

But... definitely overblown. People have called this a masterpiece. HA!!! I'd love to have that kind of mindset; you'd get to see a masterpiece practically every week by that metric. Also, people were offended by this? Before it even came out??!! Some folks need to get a fucking life!

Quoted from James McClung Caught this last night. Definitely had its number from the getgo. In fact, I'd say this was several kicks down from Watchmen, which I happen to have many issues with in and of itself. Watchmen still has original dialogue from Alan Moore, which is often thoughtful and evocative, no matter how clunky/embarrassing the acting/directing makes it seem. That quality of writing is definitely missing in Joker. It's not so much reaching for bigger themes as it is gesturing at them, if not just name-dropping. The whole rich vs. poor "theme" in particular was absolutely DOA. The Scorsese comparisons are on point in a sense but don't amount to anything. You can tell Todd Phillips wants you to know he's seen those films, but the influences aren't substantive. Where they seem substantive, I think it's generally just riding coattails. Something seems to work in Joker because they worked in King of Comedy, say, and Joker makes you think of King of Comedy (based on some superficial visual or narrative reference). At the same time, I more or less enjoyed the film. Joaquin Phoenix is great, of course. I don't think the film can really take credit for that; he's gonna do his thing no matter what. But he does help. And while many of the sequences are obvious (I'm sure thousands of comic book nerds/wannabe screenwriters have conceived of the exact same stairs sequence, song and all), they are fun to have seen actualized. I also do have to give the film credit that I never really thought of it in terms of Batman, comic books, or anything like that even though it's totally tied to a franchise. That's gotta be a small victory, for sure. I'm also glad it was made. For all intents and purposes, this is a character study. It's not smart or deep (far from it), but it's the kind of flick I'm glad to see make a billion dollars. That goes double for it being as ugly as it is. Certainly the ugliest film to make a billion dollars, which is another win as far as I'm concerned. But... definitely overblown. People have called this a masterpiece. HA!!! I'd love to have that kind of mindset; you'd get to see a masterpiece practically every week by that metric. Also, people were offended by this? Before it even came out??!! Some folks need to get a fucking life!

It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought:

1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.

This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process.

2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched.




Only joking, of course

It's a great film that will be talked about for years. It's the only film I've seen for a long, long time that has provoked conversation amongst normal people. Hairdressers leaving their station to offer their opinion on it, couple's arguing about it in a restaurant. Only great films do that.

The film got eleven nominations in the Baftas, more than even Once Upon a Time and The Irishman...films directed by legendary Directors... so it's comfortably in the masterpiece territory based on expert opinion.  

Wow, James. I'm totally with Rick here. I thought it was a VERY powerful film. Hard to watch at times, but brilliant regardless. I think this will be a classic for sure. I mean, who even talks about Shape of Water or Moonlight anymore? Joaquin should absolutely win an Oscar for his performance, IMO.

Nice to see a standout film for a change!

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought: 1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others. This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process. 2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched. Only joking, of course It's a great film that will be talked about for years. It's the only film I've seen for a long, long time that has provoked conversation amongst normal people. Hairdressers leaving their station to offer their opinion on it, couple's arguing about it in a restaurant. Only great films do that. The film got eleven nominations in the Baftas, more than even Once Upon a Time and The Irishman...films directed by legendary Directors... so it's comfortably in the masterpiece territory based on expert opinion.

I see you're one of the "masterpiece" folks. Not my intention to call anyone out, as it were; I've listened to a lot of podcasts recently where people have called the film a masterpiece. Very popular amongst comedians, strangely.

Anyway, I appreciate your take. I meant what I said in my initial post. If I'd had a different mindset, I would've had the more positive experience between the two parties. That'd be a win, I expect.

I do think conceptually, the film is inherently compelling. I mean, I was adamant about avoiding it back when I thought it'd be just another comic book movie and was successfully flipped in the end. Rare that that'll happen, especially with a film like this, which is still a franchise film at the end of the day. I also agree films that are polarizing and create discussion are usually successful films. Even from the other side, the fact that this film has been so polarizing does mean something to me.

Just so happens I was less than impressed with the execution this time around. That doesn't mean much, frankly. Ultimately, I can't say I didn't enjoy the film, and there are still many things about it that I do appreciate, including being able to join in on an interesting discussion.  

Quoted from Grandma Bear Wow, James. I'm totally with Rick here. I thought it was a VERY powerful film. Hard to watch at times, but brilliant regardless. I think this will be a classic for sure. I mean, who even talks about Shape of Water or Moonlight anymore? Joaquin should absolutely win an Oscar for his performance, IMO. Nice to see a standout film for a change!

Hey Pia! Didn’t see you there. Looks like we posted around the same time.

Believe me, I really wanna like this more than I did. The general approach, vibe, and themes are all firmly in my wheelhouse. In fact, I think that might be part of the reason why I expected more from it. As bleak as it is, I still feel like a lot of the heavier stuff was handled in too broad strokes. Although based on some folks’ response, perhaps it might’ve been too much for some people if it went the way I expected and wouldn’t have been as successful (said success being an absolute win IMO; that would’ve been the case even if I hated the film).

Agreed on the rest though. Phoenix absolutely deserves an Oscar. In fact, I had to check just now to see if he’s ever gotten one (I always assumed he had) and he hasn’t. Borderline disgraceful. This really oughta be the year.

Watching this tonight... Trying hard not to read any Spoilers.

I just know opinions vary widely. Husband's choice. Should be interesting.

I guess I had trouble with this because it felt like it was reaching for profundity that it never got to. It really felt a lot like an emo 14 year old's journal. The characterisation of the Joker is really "stacked" in such a way to evoke sympathy and almost in an attempt to excuse his violence. Literally everybody in his life mistreats him and his life is impossibly bleak. It also keeps touching on class issues but never really explores them in any real way; there's a great thought in there about how Arthur's experience of violence begets more violence due to his position in life, and Batman's experience of violence makes a super hero. But instead, we get an A to B to C plot with everything explained the natural result of the event before it.

Didn't hate it, wouldn't watch again.

Quoted from LC Watching this tonight... Trying hard not to read any Spoilers. I just know opinions vary widely. Husband's choice. Should be interesting.

Don't make the same mistake I did.

Quoted Text 2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched.

I knew I shouldn't have gone VHS.

Micro Mv is definitely the best way to experience it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmkHywQ_M1k

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others.

Makes me think of Pauline Kael on Straw Dogs:

Quoted Text What I am saying, I fear, is that Sam Peckinpah, who is an artist, has, with Straw Dogs, made the first Amer­ican film that is a fascist work of art. It has an impact far beyond the greedy, opportunistic, fascist Dirty Harry or the stupid, reactionary The Cowboys, because—and here, as a woman, I must guess—it gets at the roots of the fantasies that men carry from earliest childhood. It confirms their secret fears and prejudices that women respect only brutes; it confirms the male insanity that there is no such thing as rape. The movie taps a sexual fascism—that is what machismo is—that is so much a part of folklore that it's on the underside of many an educated consciousness and is rampant among the uneducated. It’s what comes out in David’s character—what gives him that faintly smug expression at the end. Violence is erotic in the movie because a man’s prowess is in fighting and loving. The one earns him the right to the other. You can see why Peckinpah loaded the dice against David at the beginning: he had to make David such a weakling that only killing could rouse him to manhood. [...]Despite Peckinpah’s artistry, there’s something basically grim and crude in Straw Dogs. It’s no news that men are capable of violence, but while most of us want to find ways to control that violence, Sam Peckinpah wants us to know that that’s all hypocrisy. He’s discovered the territorial imperative and wants to spread the Neander­thal word.

Anyway, it's interesting to hear you articulate the main strengths of the movie for you, Rick. And it's definitely true that wide release movies aren't typically thematically coherent enough to be explained this way, or gutsy enough to take a stance on the Big Questions.

Ultimately a depressing but engrossing and artfully done tale about a psychopath.

What message is it trying to send? I agree with a lot of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/sep/28/he-is-a-psychopath-has-the-2019-joker-gone-too-far

It certainly does stay with you long after watching, and it's an Oscar worthy performance byJoaquin Phoenix.

I dare say this has been growing on me. I might revisit with a friend who's a big Joker fan. He'd been intentionally avoiding this one but seemed to come around after we'd discussed my experience (I don't think he was crazy about the take, initially, and he's something of a Jack Nicholson fanboy -- don't see a lot of those around, do you?).

At the very least, I'll concede that this is not several kicks down from Watchmen. I tend to look back at Watchmen through Rorschach-colored glasses, but I forgot how much dumb shit there is in that movie. Plus Todd Phillips is definitely a couple kicks up from Zack Snyder, Hangover sequels and all. But again, I enjoyed and was dismayed by both films.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films It's a difficult film to talk about because ultimately there are two schools of thought: 1. It's a stone cold masterpiece that's a deep, subtle, profound examination of the human condition that reveals in stark brutality how close we all are to violence; That all anyone needs is an excuse and that all forms of human interaction are based on power, and that power, whether physical, political or financial, is used to bully others. This school of thought sees how heavily layered each scene is in terms of psychology, power structure, entitlement, race, gender, perspective etc and marvel at how the film subverted the Hollywood 'Rags to riches" template and forged its own identity by using obvious influences while managing to transcend them in the process. 2. The dummies who wouldn't know a great film if it inserted itself up their rectum on a VHS tape and don't have a clue what they watched. Only joking, of course

Three schools:

3. Those who think it's neither a masterpiece nor trash, just mediocre.

I was fully invested in Phoenix's performance almost immediately. I felt sympathy for Arthur; I felt Phoenix did a good job of showing Arthur's anger and humiliation at not being able to control his nervous laughter condition.  Those moments were effective, I thought.

But after the subway killing, I felt the movie jumped the rail and only grew more and more preposterous as it went along -- and took Phoenix's performance with it. Even ignoring the lazy, cause-and-effect movie psychology (I'm an experienced social worker and dual diagnosis counselor, I know what real mental illness looks like), so much of what happens in the movie makes no sense. For instance, a single subway shooting involving a guy in clown make-up immediately inspires a violent and murderous city-wide revolt with people killing police in the street?

I've read some fans arguing that the movie is supposed to be preposterous, that the subway shooting was Arthur's breaking point that detached him from reality and that everything that happens after that point is all in his head. But that's a lame excuse, IMO, and is basically the same thing as the ol' "it was all a dream" twist.  And even if that is the case, the final scene blows that notion right out of the water.

Phoenix is a fantastic actor, but I think he's given better performances than this, in better films than this. For this movie to be given 11 nominations would make me believe that every other movie this year was so turd-tastic that this flick must have looked like pure gold in comparison. But I know that's not true, because I've seen better movies and better lead performances this year.  The only thing I would have nominated this flick for would be the cinematography. It really captures the gritty big city feel of the early '80s, while also making it feel modern.

Phoenix deserves an Oscar. And I'm sure some day he'll get it. But not for this performance, and not for this film.

My two cents.

Quoted from Lon Three schools: 3. Those who think it's neither a masterpiece nor trash, just mediocre. I was fully invested in Phoenix's performance almost immediately. I felt sympathy for Arthur; I felt Phoenix did a good job of showing Arthur's anger and humiliation at not being able to control his nervous laughter condition.  Those moments were effective, I thought. But after the subway killing, I felt the movie jumped the rail and only grew more and more preposterous as it went along -- and took Phoenix's performance with it. Even ignoring the lazy, cause-and-effect movie psychology (I'm an experienced social worker and dual diagnosis counselor, I know what real mental illness looks like), so much of what happens in the movie makes no sense. For instance, a single subway shooting involving a guy in clown make-up immediately inspires a violent and murderous city-wide revolt with people killing police in the street? I've read some fans arguing that the movie is supposed to be preposterous, that the subway shooting was Arthur's breaking point that detached him from reality and that everything that happens after that point is all in his head. But that's a lame excuse, IMO, and is basically the same thing as the ol' "it was all a dream" twist.  And even if that is the case, the final scene blows that notion right out of the water. Phoenix is a fantastic actor, but I think he's given better performances than this, in better films than this. For this movie to be given 11 nominations would make me believe that every other movie this year was so turd-tastic that this flick must have looked like pure gold in comparison. But I know that's not true, because I've seen better movies and better lead performances this year.  The only thing I would have nominated this flick for would be the cinematography. It really captures the gritty big city feel of the early '80s, while also making it feel modern. Phoenix deserves an Oscar. And I'm sure some day he'll get it. But not for this performance, and not for this film. My two cents.

Yep - a lot of people in that category.