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

[Greens]

The reviews I’ve been reading - both bad and good - are certainly suggesting that this is the case.

It sounds more like pearl clutching to me than an actual critique. Do these people really believe Todd Phillips was out to glorify Joker's deeds? Not any more than action films that make violence look cool glorify punching someone in the face. We all cheer for unscrupulous characters and deeds, that's part of what makes movies fun.

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

“The movie isn't badly made or even ugly to look at, but there's a mean, smug little heart at the center of it that, at best, irresponsibly frames a familiar male power fantasy as a revolutionary act.“

This was added to RT today.

 

[FunkMiller]

It sounds more like pearl clutching to me than an actual critique. Do these people really believe Todd Phillips was out to glorify Joker's deeds? Not any more than action films that make violence look cool glorify punching someone in the face. We all cheer for unscrupulous characters and deeds, that's part of what makes movies fun.

No idea. Can only go by what I'm reading. Looking forward to drawing my own conclusions.

 

[BarryLyndon]

Plus joker is in this movie for not more than one scene. A 10 minutes or so.

It really has a "taxi driver" structure.

 

[dhandler01]

That’s not the issue though. Providing context and motive for a character’s descent into madness / evil etc. is absolutely fine, but from the reviews I’m seeing, people are having issues with that descent being contextualised as something almost heroic and justified. Essentially - “Arthur Fleck is downtrodden by society... look how he snaps and fights back!”

It’s one thing to present a character study of a man who is driven to acts of abhorrent violence because of the way the world has treated him... it’s rather another thing to position those acts as somehow correct or justifiable. That appears to be the issue a lot of people are having with Joker.

It’s not about the reasons for his evil, it’s about the framing - and potential glorification - of it.

This was always going to be an issue when attempting to humanise and mythologise the Joker as anything other than the antagonist.

Obviously, I’ve not seen the film to render my own personal opinion of how they handle the character, but I can understand why some folks are criticising the way he is being portrayed.



The reviews I’ve been reading - both bad and good - are certainly suggesting that this is the case.

Then I wonder how they feel about other films that frame the story the same way. And I dont mean that as a rip on them I would generally find that curious. I mean do they think the same way about "Falling Down" where you dont even know the main character HAS justifications for snapping until halfway through the film? Do they watch Breaking Bad and critique it the same way? (which would be cool that is a legit opinion)

It appears some are too worried about what Joker says about our society than how he (in this film) compares to similar characters in other films.

 

[Greens]

No idea. Can only go by what I'm reading. Looking forward to drawing my own conclusions.

I mean, obviously I haven't seen the movie but I think we can arrive at the right conclusion using common sense. Of course Todd Phillips doesn't stand behind what Joker does. That would make him a psycho.

We all love a good revenge story. There's plenty of good revenge movies that don't go out of their way to explain that the main character is wrong. We revel in that kind of stuff. It looks like this movie does it in a more confrontational manner, which only sounds exciting to me.

 

[BarryLyndon]

And I think some critics are right, sometimes Joaquin is a load damn better than the actual storyline.

Maybe a bit more of context with the riot would have made it more complete.

But that is just nitpicking.

The fan in me screams : masterpiece!
The cinema critics says : some things could have been more profound.
But the feeling the movie leaves while you walk out is disturbing.

In now way the joker is a fun ride. When he’s on screen at the final, it ain’t fun or cool. He’s hard to look at, his make up is not good, he’s awkward and scary in such a human way it is creepy and again, disturbing.

He’s not playing a psychopath, he’s just completely Disconnected with the world.

 

[FunkMiller]

Plus joker is in this movie for not more than one scene. A 10 minutes or so.

It really has a "taxi driver" structure.

Thats a shame.

 

[TMP98]

I saw the movie, and in no way it justifies ou glorifies Arthur’s actions.

It is disturbing and awkward, it is a complete psychose of a real person.

When you see it, you’ll understand. He’s not becoming the clown prince of crime, he’s just at the deepest his psychose can go.

His acting is haunting because you understand why he’s there, it really humanize joker.

It is not the psychopath you hope for, it is a real troubled person at his peak.

A tragedy for sure, but that does not glorify his act.

And his craziness is so human it is disturbing. Not at all like anything we’ve ever seen, but at the same time it got the spirit right.

Im still shocked by this movie.

It stays with you in such an inconfortable way.

Thanks for the review! From the leaked clips and the script I didn't think it was glorifying Arthur either, nice to know the film as a whole doesn't either

 

[BarryLyndon]

Thats a shame.

Maybe but it makes the scene more impactful and the meaning of the movie a lot more deep. It’s all about context.

When you see him the make up full on, it really is upsetting and it really is in a zone you do not feel comfortable.

Plus it feels so real it makes it so much more difficult to watch.

 

[AcidRain]

Maybe but it makes the scene more impactful and the meaning of the movie a lot more deep. It’s all about context.

When you see him the make up full on, it really is upsetting and it really is in a zone you do not feel comfortable.

Plus it feels so real it makes it so much more difficult to watch.

I wish you would quit posting what you know about this movie. Or just leave this board altogether.

 

[Arachnerd]

Why? He isn't spoiling anything.

 

[AcidRain]

Bull. He loves knowing the movie and sharing little pieces of information. I'm out.

 

[TMP98]

So is RT just not gonna fix the top critic score and not change the BBC guy's review score?

 

[AcidRain]

Why? He isn't spoiling anything.

I would say telling people how long Joker appears in the film constitutes "spoiling the movie". Major a-hole move.

 

[MahvelBaby!]

All I care about is that the movie is good-great

 

[Micromind]

I have seen people on Twitter claim that Warner Media (that is, AT&T) owns Rotten Tomatoes, that's not entirely true.

The truth is Fandango owns Rotten Tomatoes, and Fandango's ownership is :‎Comcast‎ (75%) and ‎AT&T‎ (25%).

So, AT&T (Warner media) is a minority stake holder in the Company.

 

[TheSmoothKnight]

New fresh review added.

TIFF19 Review: Joker

“Joker is powerful and disturbing..in a good way. Phoenix has never been better AND scary. A highly entertaining drama that evolves to a can't forget thriller.“

 

[Gothamsknight]

Bull. He loves knowing the movie and sharing little pieces of information. I'm out.

But he hasn't spoiled anything? Of course he knows the movie, he saw it. He has every right to be here as anybody else

 

[FunkMiller]

But he hasn't spoiled anything? Of course he knows the movie, he saw it. He has every right to be here as anybody else

Possibly spoiler warning how long The Joker is actually in the movie would have been a good move though.

I’m actually fine with it, now I’ve thought about it. I’m seeing this more as a one off character study of a man’s descent into madness, rather than a full adaptation of the DC villain, so his appearance time feels about right, to be honest.

 

[Gothamsknight]

Possibly spoiler warning how long The Joker is actually in the movie would have been a good move though.

I’m actually fine with it, now I’ve thought about it. I’m seeing this more as a one off character study of a man’s descent into madness, rather than a full adaptation of the DC villain, so his appearance time feels about right, to be honest.

I've been anticipating that is what this film would be for a long time now, so i'm ready and very excited haha.

 

[BarryLyndon]

Sorry guys, didn’t want to spoil anything, I can erase the post I’m good with that, I just wanted to give a good direction to what the movie is going for and what not to expect.

It will be out of your comfort zone. That is all.

I’ll stop posting until October 4th so we can all talk about it.

 

[BarryLyndon]

And thanks for those who support, Good watch!

Hope you like it!

 

[Holy Slapper]

So is RT just not gonna fix the top critic score and not change the BBC guy's review score?

Oh who gives a **** anymore? Let it go, man.

 

[Hollis Mason]

Oh who gives a **** anymore? Let it go, man.

Well, a mistake is something that should be fixed. Ignoring the mistake isn't a solution, it's laziness. RT is an international website that gives a service, and if that service is wrong, the customer has the right to be angry. He has the right to want that mistake fixed.

TLDR: If he gives a ****, it isn't your problem.