Joker "The Joker" in development with Todd Phillips and Martin Scorsese attached? - Part 2

[-JKR-]

Critics need to get over the fact that there are sick people and tragedies out there. And it's not a dangerous exercise in cinematic nihilism because Arthur is not someone you would want to be, but someone you feel sorry for and hope will get help before his life escalates. You know what's dangerous? NOT telling this story, and NOT talking about these people, pretending we live in a perfect, sugary world

 

[Hollis Mason]

This one has 8.6 at Filmaffinity

So does that mean the critics that liked Joker are somehow more relevant than the ones that didn’t?

The thing is there are many critics that have good points and reasons to dislike the film, but there's also a lot (Like the ones from IndieWire, Time and EW) that are only giving this film a bad rating because it is "problematic". People read critics to see if a film is worth their time, and they do it expecting an objetive review about the quality of the film. But this people dont do that. Even them say so, that the film is good and well crafted, but still give it a bad rating.

Most people don't care if a movie is problematic or not. They just want to watch a good film. And a movie being problematic doesn't mean it's a bad film.

 

[Maze]

Critics need to get over the fact that there are sick people and tragedies out there. And it's not a dangerous exercise in cinematic nihilism because Arthur is not someone you would want to be, but someone you feel sorry for and hope will get help before his life escalates. You know what's dangerous? NOT telling this story, and NOT talking about these people, pretending we live in a perfect, sugary world

Exactly: you know what? Frakking Adolph was reportedly a good father. Was he less a monster because of that? No. But that's even more scary to know that, because it mean there could be an evil bastard in our mirror, just awaking to wake up. It's important to know it, to talk about it.

 

[-JKR-]

It's not problematic. Everything is problematic nowadays. Wait for the Comics Code to reappear. Batman will be wearing pink again soon.

 

[-JKR-]

The entire point of Arthur's portrayal is that he needs help. Which he doesn't get. That doesn't make him the hero of the story, but a tragic case of someone "not making it." And as for his followers, how many nutcase racists are convinced they're fighting for their rights and see racist leaders as their saviour?
The fact that US critics are judging the movie like they're responding to someone's tweet is, plain simple, unprofessional. It's off topic.

 

[Maze]

That's the point, a lot of cult followers actually "need help" : understanding, not encourage their madness, understanding. What did we acheived in bullying others?

 

[Astro13Zombie]

“Expertly crafted and features a stunning lead performance, but it's also a morally problematic exercise in cinematic nihilism.“

We’re seeing a lot of negative reviews like this one.

Wow

I for one am shocked that a joker movie would contain such things.

 

[JoyDivision17]

Just came back from the theater.

Movie is really good imo, the second half is insanity

 

[Maze]

Ahahaha They needed a Batman to say that Nilhilsm is wrong, and that people need to be rewarded with lies. Some moral

 

[-JKR-]

Yeah, it should be uplifting and end with a reformed Joker standing up for minorities, LGBT and strong women! Totally! 100% on RT and articles about how it deserves Oscars!!!

(Which it actually does)

 

[JoyDivision17]

The theater was full btw and the movie received a good round of applause at the end

 

[metaphysician]

If Michael B. Jordan couldn’t get a nom for Black Panther, what makes you think Phoenix will get one? Face it, the Academy will always be biased when it comes to CBMs in acting noms. Heath Ledger deserved his award, dead or alive, but it’s obvious they only nominated him in the first place because of his death.

Two simple differences, actually. One, Phoenix is in a "serious, respectable" film, rather than one that eagerly glories in its comic book nature. Two, Phoenix is white.

 

[-JKR-]

3. Jordan's performance wasn't Oscar worthy. Sorry. Neither was the movie.

 

[MovieSlave]

Two simple differences, actually. One, Phoenix is in a "serious, respectable" film, rather than one that eagerly glories in its comic book nature. Two, Phoenix is white.

Please, don't make me laugh. I'm so done with this horse s***. As if no black actors have ever been nominated or won an Oscar before.

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

“Problematic” that this movie going to make a lot of money. Probably going to start seeing that now.

 

[TheScarecrow]

So does that mean the critics that liked Joker are somehow more relevant than the ones that didn’t?

Having seen the film, I can see why people would walk out of it not having enjoyed it.

But no one can say credibly this film is not almost impeccably made. That’s what’s bothering me. There’s an inherent bias in about 50% of the negative reviews because their writers are not mature enough to deal with what the film presents.

I did not enjoy watching the film at all. I may see it again but will watch it sparingly. I nevertheless give it a 4-5/5. It was powerful filmmaking that has made me feel how I feel - disgusted, upset and frankly a little more dubious about people in the world.

 

[Hollis Mason]

The more i think about this film, the more i love it. I realize it isn't exactly a drama, but a satire of America and their system. It doesn't offer any solution, it just shows you what's wrong. It doesn't want to lecture you or give you a positive and hopeful message. It is more than nihilism, it's a mock.

 

[TheVileOne]

Alright I have seen this a second time, which did this thing no favors. Joaquin is great, but the Scorsese pastiche really begins to wear thin. The best stuff about this movie was done better by Scorsese 40 years ago. I’m afraid my initial worries after my first viewing are true regarding what Phillips is trying to say. JOKER is simply just a fairly shallow Scorsese cover by a director who doesn’t know what he’s saying. If you’ve seen The King Of Comedy, Taxi Driver and know the most basic Batman mythology, the film is terribly predictable and hollow. Arguably the best scene confirms that Joker is not that interesting without Batman which makes it not quite work as a Scorsese character study or a comic book film. It is awkwardly somewhere in between. However, a few fantastic scenes, great cinematography and a good score help Joaquin’s performance elevate a very weak script into a fairly enjoyable movie. I enjoyed my two viewings, but I probably don’t need to see this ever again. I can scratch this itch much more successfully with Taxi Driver, The King Of Comedy or The Dark Knight.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but isn't a masterpiece.

 

[Art Vandelay]

Please, don't make me laugh. I'm so done with this horse s***. As if no black actors have ever been nominated or won an Oscar before.

In fact, there was a stretch where black actors were winning awards fairly close together. I'm thinking of Denzel, Jamie Foxx, and Forest Whitaker all winning best actor.

 

[TheVileOne]

I've said it before but I honestly think that audiences would be far more forgiving of this movie if it built up to a Batman vs Joker film and had a tease at the end. At least that'd make them feel "the best is yet to come", and they'd feel the buildup and nihilistic misery has a point.
That isn't happening, though.

Honestly, I think it's for the best this movie has no connection to anything else. IMHO it's not really good enough to be some precursor to a shared Batman film series.

 

[The Endless]

If Michael B. Jordan couldn’t get a nom for Black Panther, what makes you think Phoenix will get one? Face it, the Academy will always be biased when it comes to CBMs in acting noms. Heath Ledger deserved his award, dead or alive, but it’s obvious they only nominated him in the first place because of his death.

As much as I enjoyed his performance, how can it be deemed Oscar worthy in a million billion years? He was a solid villain. Well acted. Well written.

But we're talking about Joaquin Phoenix going full method with the Joker here ffs.

 

[Arachnerd]

Just saw it.

This was less dour and violent than critics led me to believe, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. That being said, it's still a great movie and Joaquin Phoenix was (to no one's surprise) chillingly good. Also, some of these critics who are still calling the movie "problematic" must have seen a different movie than I am because the last 5 minutes laid out everything that happened beforehand perfectly, along with some stuff I wasn't expecting.

 

[TheScarecrow]

Honestly, I think it's for the best this movie has no connection to anything else. IMHO it's not really good enough to be some precursor to a shared Batman film series.

I don’t ever want to see another Batman film like this.

 

[Arachnerd]

Good thing it's not a Batman film then, huh?

 

[-JKR-]

As much as I enjoyed his performance, how can it be deemed Oscar worthy in a million billion years? He was a solid villain. Well acted. Well written.

But we're talking about Joaquin Phoenix going full method with the Joker here ffs.

Michael B. Jordan did a good job, but the character wasn't THAT well written or interesting. I was genuinely pissed off when he offed Andy Serkis' Klaue, because he was by far the most interesting and entertaining character. And I didn't think much of "Black Panther." It probably didn't help that I went in with high expecations, hoping for it to be one of the better Marvel Studios films, but instead it was pretty much mid-tier material. I loved the Wakandian scenes and the production design was gorgeous, but the rest just didn't really gel for me.