|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Oct 6, 2019 19:20:25 GMT
Ya know, it's weird that the controversy behind Joker is the "potential" to incite violence but hardly anyone's been more uncomfortable with the fact that Gary fucking Glitter is gonna get royalties from it.
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Oct 6, 2019 22:41:26 GMT
Ya know, it's weird that the controversy behind Joker is the "potential" to incite violence but hardly anyone's been more uncomfortable with the fact that Gary fucking Glitter is gonna get royalties from it. I winced so hard at that scene.
|
|
chris3
Badass
I just ordered a slice of pumpkin pie...
Posts: 1,050
Likes: 1,045
|
Post by chris3 on Oct 6, 2019 23:57:38 GMT
That song was so ABSURDLY out of place that I was genuinely baffled when it was happening in theaters. I couldn't wrap my head around why Phillips would choose such an ill-fitting song for the scene most clearly designed to reach iconic status (it might as well have been the Cha Cha Slide). Then I went home, found out it was Gary Glitter, and it all made sense. Just more dumb, empty provocation at the expense of actual quality filmmaking.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 7, 2019 0:18:24 GMT
Haven't seen this yet - this week hopefully, but I'm shocked no one talked about his film on GG Allin - Hated (In The Nation). That film, about the most vile, mentally unbalanced, master of "empty provocation" (to use the term chris3 used) is in a way (not literally) what everyone is describing Joker as. GG Allin was a nihilistic "loser" who turned his genuine venom against society into an obscene performance Art - not recommending that film or (God forbid) his music but Phillips knows his way around Punk Rock outrage more than just being the guy who made The Hangover.
|
|
|
Post by therealcomicman117 on Oct 7, 2019 0:46:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sterlingarcher86 on Oct 7, 2019 16:10:24 GMT
The first two acts I found repetitive and derivative and I liked it better when it was called Taxi Driver/ The King of Comedy. The last act was admittedly exciting. Score was fantastic. Phoenix did a great job with a one note role.
I don’t understand the controversy though. It feels like the news was trying to make something happen. This movie is harmless.
|
|
|
Post by Viced on Oct 7, 2019 18:07:20 GMT
Are we sure Todd Phillips is done with comedy? Because this was one of the most hilarious pieces of trash I've ever seen. Clearly made by someone with zero grasp on loneliness, mental illness, society, or really... anything. Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin both have some screws loose of course, but this isn't 100% evident from the first 15 minutes of their movies, making the rest of their journeys a chore to watch. It also helps that they went on dates that actually happened. Both of them unraveling is fascinating to watch, but in Joker it's just a totally misguided and exhausting bore. When it's revealed that he was abused as a child and his mother is some sort of lobotomized nut, I thought: "makes sense." The character is clearly deeply disturbed, which just makes him depressing to watch. But at the same time, I'm not gonna act like I wasn't laughing my ass off while he was dancing around and laughing like an idiot. This whole thing felt like the worst episode of BASKETS ever. Joaquin unfortunately never rose above the shit heap that surrounded him... he embarrassed himself here. Which means he'll probably win the Oscar. Everyone that said the Joker didn’t need an origin movie was right. 2/10
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Oct 7, 2019 18:33:44 GMT
Maybe one of the worst movies of the decade.
|
|
AKenjiB
Badass
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 653
|
Post by AKenjiB on Oct 7, 2019 18:49:32 GMT
Joaquin Phoenix is unsurprisingly the best part, the direction is solid, the score and soundtrack is MOSTLY well-utilized, and the vaguely-themed script is more of a mixed bag that isn’t quite as smart or deep as it thinks it is, but at least Arthur doesn’t get “damaged” tattooed on his forehead. I think I liked it, but with the script being the weakest part, I understand why somebody wouldn’t. But I thought the rest of the production was strong enough that it helped elevate the screenplay. I think it worked for what it was, which is Scorsese-inspired Batman fanfiction, but the incredibly divisive reaction isn’t surprising at all.
Now that I’ve seen it, I’m really confused as to how this film, other controversies aside, got associated with incels. I didn’t see anything to indicate that Arthur had particular animosity towards women or was bitter over romantic rejections.
|
|
|
Post by Lord_Buscemi on Oct 7, 2019 19:36:45 GMT
Finally sat down and wrote something up on this after waiting a few days thinking it over. Still surprised by the extreme reactions on either side because honestly the film's main flaw is that it's frustrating inoffensive.
"This sure is a confused film, isn't it? Fans of the Joker as a character will always, for the most part, envision Health Ledger as the definitive portrayal and the two scenes where Ledger recalls how he got his facial scars, both differing stories, are amongst the most iconic scenes from The Dark Knight. By both these stories contradicting, there's a mystique surrounding his background. Do you really think Todd Phillips now expects people to view the Joker as a sobbing wimp, being beaten up by teens and living with his mother? No, Joker is an excuse to use a big-budget blockbuster as a New Hollywood homage vehicle. It's a perfect and admirable troll, also mirrored by the ridiculous outrage the film has generated that has Warner Bros laughing all the way to the bank. However, even fans of Phillips' overt influences (Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, The French Connection) will also be put off, feeling the film may borrow too heavily from those. Forget all of that, though, this film's real crime is just how tame it is. I'm not so much irked at a supposed lack of originality rather I'm bothered that Phillips believes he can have the Joker remain apolitical (as he explicitly states during his climatic speech), despite making him a product of his cruel environment and tacking on underdeveloped social commentary as shallow window dressing. His actions are constantly the result of external forces, he's always the victim - whether he's fired, abused, lied to, publicly humiliated, you name it..........yet he doesn't see himself as part (or the face) of this larger movement he spawned? For a film that has generated this much (undeserved) controversy, Phillips has taken the coward's way out under the guise of moral ambiguity, refusing to tie Joker's actions to any ideology at risk of creating something that would be genuinely provocative rather than this anodyne centrist nightmare."
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,530
Likes: 1,619
|
Post by Javi on Oct 7, 2019 19:48:03 GMT
Finally sat down and wrote something up on this after waiting a few days thinking it over. Still surprised by the extreme reactions on either side because honestly the film's main flaw is that it's frustrating inoffensive. "This sure is a confused film, isn't it? Fans of the Joker as a character will always, for the most part, envision Health Ledger as the definitive portrayal and the two scenes where Ledger recalls how he got his facial scars, both differing stories, are amongst the most iconic scenes from The Dark Knight. By both these stories contradicting, there's a mystique surrounding his background. Do you really think Todd Phillips now expects people to view the Joker as a sobbing wimp, being beaten up by teens and living with his mother? No, Joker is an excuse to use a big-budget blockbuster as a New Hollywood homage vehicle. It's a perfect and admirable troll, also mirrored by the ridiculous outrage the film has generated that has Warner Bros laughing all the way to the bank. However, even fans of Phillips' overt influences (Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, The French Connection) will also be put off, feeling the film may borrow too heavily from those. Forget all of that, though, this film's real crime is just how tame it is. I'm not so much irked at a supposed lack of originality rather I'm bothered that Phillips believes he can have the Joker remain apolitical (as he explicitly states during his climatic speech), despite making him a product of his cruel environment and tacking on underdeveloped social commentary as shallow window dressing. His actions are constantly the result of external forces, he's always the victim - whether he's fired, abused, lied to, publicly humiliated, you name it..........yet he doesn't see himself as part (or the face) of this larger movement he spawned? For a film that has generated this much (undeserved) controversy, Phillips has taken the coward's way out under the guise of moral ambiguity, refusing to tie Joker's actions to any ideology at risk of creating something that would be genuinely provocative rather than this anodyne centrist nightmare." I think that the Joker pretending not to believe in anything makes sense. But yeah, the movie fails to make a connection between his wounded individualism and the obvious anarchic sentiment in the streets. That would've been a more interesting movie imo.
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 7, 2019 21:51:55 GMT
Are we sure Todd Phillips is done with comedy? Because this was one of the most hilarious pieces of trash I've ever seen. Clearly made by someone with zero grasp on loneliness, mental illness, society, or really... anything. Travis Bickle and Rupert Pupkin both have some screws loose of course, but this isn't 100% evident from the first 15 minutes of their movies, making the rest of their journeys a chore to watch. It also helps that they went on dates that actually happened. Both of them unraveling is fascinating to watch, but in Joker it's just a totally misguided and exhausting bore. When it's revealed that he was abused as a child and his mother is some sort of lobotomized nut, I thought: "makes sense." The character is clearly deeply disturbed, which just makes him depressing to watch. But at the same time, I'm not gonna act like I wasn't laughing my ass off while he was dancing around and laughing like an idiot. This whole thing felt like the worst episode of BASKETS ever. Joaquin unfortunately never rose above the shit heap that surrounded him... he embarrassed himself here. Which means he'll probably win the Oscar. Everyone that said the Joker didn’t need an origin movie was right. 2/10I've struggled with loneliness and clinical depression, and I identified with the way the film portrayed it 100% so...you're WRONG. Your hatred for the film is 100% valid as art is usually subjective. But those who struggle with the conditions portrayed in the film (be them psychological, economic, or societal) are the more informed judges of how accurate the portrayal is. Same lame arguments were made about SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK, but like I said then, if even 50% of those struggling with bipolar disorder identified with the film's portrayal, than it captured it well. Those with the condition would know better. Eh, or maybe not. Whatever. I guess you can't really argue if something seems inauthentic to someone. I guess I just take it personal because of my personal experience with depression. I didn't relate to his homicidal tendencies, but I felt a lot of his pain and it felt DEEPLY authentic. Probably more because of Phoenix's REMARKABLE portrayal than the direction or script, but still. But hey: Opinions!
|
|
|
Post by RiverleavesElmius on Oct 7, 2019 21:58:23 GMT
David Benioff, the now notorious Game of Thrones co-writer, once said, "Themes are for eighth-grade book reports." It's one of the most egregious phrases of condescension that I've ever heard come from a writer, as it's basically equivalent to admitting that your art has no purpose (other than making money, I suppose). I bring this up in my review of Joker because I can't help but feel like director and co-writer Todd Philips created it with the same exact mindset. The more I try to wrap my mind around Joker, the less sense it seems to make. It's so inconclusive, incoherent, and voiceless that it's not really "about" anything. It hardly ever feels like anything more than a "cool story" that the filmmaker wanted to tell. Now, the discourse around this film has already been exhausting, from both those praising it and those berating it, and it seems like everything that could be said about Joker has already been stated and overstated to death. It's an overwhelming amount of discussion, one that seems to be growing more toxic by the day as most of the perspectives on this film continue to lose their nuance. With that in mind, I really have no interest in contributing any further to the already overdone debate, something I'm concerned about given that many of my thoughts are exact concerns that have already been voiced to death by others. However, I do still want to be able to speak candidly on my own personal experience watching Joker, so, at the risk of sounding as derivative in my writing as this film's script, that's exactly what I'll do here, with an attempt made at brevity. Therefore, I'm not out to push any buttons when I say that Joker is a film that I at times struggled to watch (and not in the good "it's bold and challenging" way), and often found to be incredibly problematic. It's merely an expression of my own uncomfortable, confused, and, ultimately, tremendously disappointed experience while watching this film. (Rest of my review has been placed under spoiler tags for convenient reading, it doesn't contain actual spoilers:) For one, the baselessness of the film really does lay a shaky foundation for the whole thing. Dealing with subject matter this sensitive and difficult is generally not a wise endeavor without a stance, and in particular without a stance of condemnation. While I personally was dubious of some of the early reviews of this film claiming that it condoned or even encouraged violence, I found myself more or less sharing those same concerns while watching the film for myself. It would seem obvious that because this is a supervillain origin story, and everyone entering the theater would presumably already be aware of that, that it should almost go without saying that the film is not an endorsement of the character and his heinous actions. But within the context of the film itself, Philips is always framing the character in a way that we are forced to sympathize with him. The injustices and harassment that we see Arthur struggle with are very real conflicts; and, for quite some time, we are presented with an image of this character (a mass-murdering maniac) as a victim. While the film doesn't go so far as to present Arthur's violent acts as heroic, it still goes way too far in basing them in some sort of reason. It explains his actions almost to the point of justification.
And the thing is, even while the sociopolitical conflict is a bit vague and comes off as window-dressing, it is still evident that these conflicts (e.g. psychiatric treatment being defunded, an impoverished majority being owned by a billionaire, etc.) absolutely call for solving -- without any alternative to Arthur's violence suggested. The "revolution" that he inspires almost seems truly uplifting and hopeful for these people, when it absolutely shouldn't. Either the film is siding with acts of extreme violence, or it is saying that the less-fortunate masses are the sort of people who will take inspiration from a maniac and attempt to solve their problems with such violence. The film making either of these statements would, of course, be a problem. But Joker is so inconsistent with any form of ideology or moral that it may even suggest to present that it ultimately just seems to do something that might, somehow, be even worse: it's not saying anything at all.
It's further concerning when you take into consideration Philips's own recent (and idiotic) comments regarding why he pivoted away from comedy, and how these ideas, whether intentionally done or not, seem to be reflected by the titular character of Joker himself. Without delving too much into spoiler territory, I'll just say that there's a crucial moment here where Arthur blames his failures as a comedian on the society around him rather than his own shortcomings as an artist or person -- which, more or less, is the exact defense that Philips has attempted to make of his own work. And while of course I will always attempt to separate art from artist, moments like these were sort of astonishing to witness, and not in a good way. The degree to which we're meant to self-critique "society" in favor of someone like Arthur is disturbing, made even more so when you see the artist's own viewpoints represented by this purely evil character, as if it couldn't be more clear that we are meant to identify with him.
And, of course, Arthur's denouncements of society almost always go hand-in-hand with his shocking outbursts of violence. And while some have certainly exaggerated the violent content in Joker, the violence is still nonetheless startling and utterly excessive when it does occur. It's cruel, graphic violence for the sake of cruel, graphic violence, much like how the film itself is purely cynical and nihilistic for the sake of being cynical and nihilistic. It's hard to consider a film like this to be truly "bold" and "daring" when it's clearly trying so hard to be edgy, but has nothing to actually say for itself.
But then again, there is an argument to be made that all of this stance-less chaos is, perhaps, the point. After all, the Joker character has always been best defined by his random, excessive acts of cruelty. But that also brings us back to the fact that there still *is* a point to Arthur's actions much of the time, the film does give him motivations that are all too easy to want to root for. Do we only see the Joker as a sympathetic figure to rally behind because the film is from a limited perspective that is entirely in his head? Is the film meant to be lacking in any semblance of ideology because the character himself is? Perhaps, but there isn't enough evidence offered for me to believe that that's the intention -- after all, it'd be an incredibly complex move, so extrapolating that far feels like giving this juvenile film far too much credit.
Joker is a self-proclaimed "agent of chaos," and Joker is utterly a cinematic piece of chaos, but, again, for a film that begs us to take it far too seriously for too much of its runtime, it's hard to think that that was actually the point. For as often as the film can be as good as you expect a "Joaquin Phoenix playing the Joker" movie to be, it's even more often just as much of an immature, cringeworthy disaster as you expect a "Todd Philips directs a movie about a homicidal maniac" movie to be. While Phoenix's grotesque and intense physical performance and Hildur Guðnadóttir's chilling, menacing score are so effective in interpreting the dark tone of the subject matter, there are so many moments where Philips will force an embarrassing needle drop or some misplaced, awkward humor that really reminds you that this is the guy who did The Hangover (and almost always in the least opportune moments). Joker is so hard to watch not just because of its content and its thematic incoherence, but for its tonal and structural incoherence as well. The first thirty to forty minutes are compelling enough in their own right, but the film gradually descends into absurdity and it continuously trips over its own contrived plot points until the finish line. It's fascinating to me how much past reviewers have insisted this as a "character study," when to me Joker gets so bogged down in its over-plotted narrative that the end result is just an incredibly awkward experience.
And, again, I'm sure a lot of people will try to argue that the chaotic nature of Joker is precisely the point. I disagree, but it's an argument that could be made. But, even if that is the case, a film where "there is no point is the point" is inherently something that doesn't appeal to me, nor is it something I feel should be promoted in general. The character of the Joker has had such a lasting cultural impact for so long precisely because he is such a brilliant character foil to Batman -- they are too characters who couldn't exist without each other. On-screen depictions of Batman have hardly ever worked without Joker, so it should almost follow that an on-screen depiction of Joker shouldn't work without Batman. When there's nothing to counter-balance the Joker's warped view of the world, what we're left with is a "story" that comes across as nothing more than a cynical piece of garbage. When we're all coming out in droves to pay for something like this and sit through it for two hours, the joke's on us. Yeah, this it the kind of take I'd expect from someone who can't "get" Woody Allen.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Oct 7, 2019 22:14:50 GMT
Discussions like this make me miss Mitch.
|
|
erickeitel
Junior Member
The beauty of life is in small details, not in big events.
Posts: 464
Likes: 383
|
Post by erickeitel on Oct 8, 2019 0:30:14 GMT
Discussions like this make me miss Mitch. He gave it a 0.5 on LB.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan_MYeah on Oct 8, 2019 0:31:34 GMT
Discussions like this make me miss Mitch. He gave it a 0.5 on LB. I just read it. Glorious!
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 8, 2019 10:21:28 GMT
Thoughts under spoilers as usual for total freedom of expression: So I've said before that Russian audiences don't really clap at the movies unless it's some sort of a special screening, and it takes something for a movie to elicit that kind of response from them. Well, I saw this on Monday during daytime with the room being not even half-full and, lo and behold, folks were applauding when the end credits started. I didn't join them but the fact itself, I believe, shows just how damn popular Joker is as a character. "The Dark Knight" specifically brought a whole new life to him and so now there's this huge Joker fanbase which even made "Suicide Squad" a great success money-wise. And it is pretty interesting for me to see such adoration and unabashed love for a clearly villanous psychopath. Just like at the end of this film where he's standing on the car and the crowd with clown masks is cheering him on - it's peculiar that the audience did pretty much the same thing when the movie ended. And it's evidently happening all around with the user scores for "Joker" rising to high heavens (#9 on IMDB's Top 250 as of now, #46 on the Russian Kinopoisk's Top 250). Whatever panic or uproar the media tried to create with this film, people clearly sympathize with Arthur and clearly relate quite strongly to the social context depicted in the movie. Now, I think the film actually makes it far easier than expected to sympathize with him because by all means he is mistreated, abused and abandoned. And then there's of course the traditional 'it was all because of his childhood!' aspect to his violent impulses too. So even though he committs some pretty henious things, the movie definitely sides with him at least partially. And honestly...I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Of course many audiences are eager to be on his side anyway just because they love the character so much but I'm not really in that same crowd so for me watching the film was a bit more interesting, feeling my sympathies tested and switched and turned upside down. I certainly don't see anything bad in this combination of 'Yeah, I feel bad for the guy' and 'Damn, he's a cold-blooded killer' - if anything, I'm all in for those uncertain, mixed emotions because they make the experience more layered. But I must say that pretty much all of that experience for me was because of Phoenix.
There are times when a movie is elevated by a performance or vice versa, but I think "Joker" is a case of the performance truly making the film. I do consider it to be a big step for Todd Phillips as a filmmaker (he was the primary reason I was sceptical about the movie in the first place) and I think he did a fine job directing it (the script is not as strong though). But this is a film that Phoenix doesn't just carry on his shoulders - there really isn't much to it beyond him. But strangely enough I mean that as a compliment because the movie barely stays away from him. Realizing his strength, Phillips just focuses pretty much every shot on him, only occasionally giving us glimpses of the context of that world. And even though the glimpses are scarce and the character's journey itself is a fairly obvious and predictable one which doesn't seem to amount to much, just simply watching Phoenix devour this role was not merely enough for me - it was a total blast. It's not my favorite performance of his and not even my favorite performance of this year (DiCaprio's Rick Dalton is unsurpassed for me now) but that doesn't mean that it's not a total masterwork. I was blown away by him, by his physicality, by the pain, by the sheer discomfort Arthur seems to be experiencing half of the time because of his condition and of course by the transformation. And beyond the disturbed nature of him, there's (I think) a genuine plea for affection inside him that Phoenix portrays beautifully - when he goes to comfort Thomas Wayne, for example, it's not just a raving lunatic we're seeing, it's someone who has been longing for warmth his whole life but whom life has always rejected as far as that was concerned. So of course he's like a kettle that is gradually boiling and boiling. But maybe a little bit of affection could've cooled the whole thing down. I thought Phoenix portrayed all those layers magnificently and gave a truly amazing performance that'll definitely remain one of my absolute top choices for 2019.
As I've said, the rest of the film is significantly less interesting for me but it's still pretty solid. Yes, the world of Gotham is not explored too deeply but again, the film's choice to stay so close on Fleck is the reason for that. There was enough context for me to understand this world even if really diving into it would've been much more impressive. I didn't fully buy the rapid explosion of clown-masked protesters but I guess this is still somewhat of a comic book film so those leaps didn't feel too extravagant. And I like how different this Gotham is from the other cinematic depictions of it. Mark Friedberg is a pretty underrated production designer and he once again did a wonderful job here creating a trash-infested grimy place which I could believe was on the verge of collapsing at any minute. I certainly could've done without Phillips hammering this idea of a seedy Gotham over our heads every time Fleck stepped outside with someone always shouting something nasty/scary in the background (I kinda got the point after the first couple of time he did it) and the production design itself was doing enough for me to emphasize that. The music worked pretty well to amplify that unpleasant feeling too.
And now some specific problems I had with it (even though overall I quite liked the film):
- It was obvious as all hell that his meet-ups with Zazie Beetz were just his imagination but that was okay as the film clearly showed that he was having these fantasies all the time...But I guess Phillips didn't believe in his audiences when in the apartment reveal he had to literally flash back to all their dates AGAIN to show that she wasn't actually there. The impact of her shocked reaction to him being in her apartment was so damn strong and was so totally enough. Why he had to then show the actual flashbacks I have no idea. Did he really think that folks in the back row wouldn't get it even when she was all like 'Your name is Arthur, right? You live down the hall?'
- I really could've done with the two detectives since they really barely had any purpose here apart from the subway riot starting because of them.
- Really could've done without the Wayne murders too. The Thomas Wayne storyline was pretty interesting but I don't think the film needed to show the murders for a hundredth time. The more removed it stayed from its Batman connection, the better it was.
- Joker's supposedly 'iconic' dance on the steps gave me "Spider-Man 3" flashbacks. Two dorks dancing in the streets without any music playing, looking like buffoons.
- The extended Murray Franklin scene at the end was really good but then the writing just fucking HAD to spoil it a little bit. 'What do you get when you cross a mentally ill loner with a society who abandons him and treats him like trash?' was such a lame line, such an obvious way of putting the movie's main theme in the character's mouth, and such an uncharacteristic thing for Fleck to say. I didn't buy that he would actually say that for a moment. I understand that in that scene he gained a new confidence, a new persona basically but that line still struck me as something that sounded phony coming from him. Thanks for spelling it out, movie, I really didn't get what you were saying all this time...
Again, these are pretty specific complaints and they didn't lesser my overall feelings about the film too much. But I wish those issues weren't there.
TLDR: The film's pretty good because Phoenix makes it so, carrying it, rising above it and taking it with him. The script isn't too interesting and goes to some pretty obvious places. The grimy oppressive aesthetic works well. But again, it's all Phoenix.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 8, 2019 10:29:18 GMT
If the film had ended 10 minutes earlier at a fantastically old-school shot of multiple news programs with the line "Gotham is burning," I think it would have worked much better and I would have felt more satisfied that I had just enough of what the film was offering. Alas, it goes on for not one but two more endings, which escalate in silliness and end with a resounding "eh, alright, I guess." Hehe, I'm actually glad it didn't end on that TV screens shot. It already took so much from Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy that I'm glad it didn't take its very ending from Network as well
|
|
The-Havok
Badass
Doing pretty good so far
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 552
|
Post by The-Havok on Oct 8, 2019 20:16:35 GMT
Cahiers gave it 4 stars out of 5.
Any negative opinion is now discarded immediately
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 8, 2019 20:31:20 GMT
Haven't seen this yet - this week hopefully, but I'm shocked no one talked about his film on GG Allin - Hated (In The Nation). That film, about the most vile, mentally unbalanced, master of "empty provocation" (to use the term chris3 used) is in a way (not literally) what everyone is describing Joker as.
GG Allin was a nihilistic "loser" who turned his genuine venom against society into an obscene performance Art - not recommending that film or (God forbid) his music but Phillips knows his way around Punk Rock outrage more than just being the guy who made The Hangover. Ok, I could see how people could hate this film - I mean really hate it - but alas, I really didn't. As a movie it sort of doesn't really work - it's rhythms are off or swiped, it's missing the connective tissue in between scenes and instead plays as one death knell after another, the script is mostly trite.........but: In Art, it's common often to the "wiping the slate clean" work - the act of the redefining of the narrative of tearing it down entirely - to work regardless if it works completely.......... Never Mind The Bollocks or Phillips GG Allin documentary for one (see above) - in literature it happens quite often (Evan S. Connell's "Diary of a Rapist" - which Schrader used for Taxi Driver - whether he admits it or not), in movies this is tougher to do this because we respond to every piece of a film (written, visual, musical, narrative plot, subtext, etc.). But as a "fnck you" as a "wiping the slate clean" it hits the target pretty consistently - it just doesn't mesh with the comic tropes - as it goes along, it repeats which is a letdown, and disheartening. But the performance is nothing short of extraordinary and extraordinarily beautiful too - the way he uses his body alone here would be a marvel. I say Phoenix sometimes invites those people who say he can't just play "normal" - even I wasn't THAT taken with one of his most acclaimed roles for that reason (You Were Never Really Here), but I found this performance was rather palpably sad and relatable rather than just merely oddball and ugly. It's terrific and terrifically perceptive - he gets tremendous interacting mileage out of his reactions to people he has no real emotional connection to which isn't easy to portray at all. 7+/10 for the performance and the performance is the film and to me it's an unforgettable performance.
|
|
Lubezki
Based
the social distancing
Posts: 4,332
Likes: 6,554
|
Post by Lubezki on Oct 8, 2019 20:49:56 GMT
Haven't seen this yet - this week hopefully, but I'm shocked no one talked about his film on GG Allin - Hated (In The Nation). That film, about the most vile, mentally unbalanced, master of "empty provocation" (to use the term chris3 used) is in a way (not literally) what everyone is describing Joker as.
GG Allin was a nihilistic "loser" who turned his genuine venom against society into an obscene performance Art - not recommending that film or (God forbid) his music but Phillips knows his way around Punk Rock outrage more than just being the guy who made The Hangover. Ok, I could see how people could hate this film - I mean really hate it - but alas, I really didn't. As a movie it sort of doesn't really work - it's rhythms are off or swiped, it's missing the connective tissue in between scenes and instead plays as one death knell after another, the script is mostly trite.........but: In Art, it's common often to the "wiping the slate clean" work - the act of the redefining of the narrative of tearing it down entirely - to work regardless if it works completely.......... Never Mind The Bollocks or Phillips GG Allin documentary for one (see above) - in literature it happens quite often (Evan S. Connell's "Diary of a Rapist" - which Schrader used for Taxi Driver - whether he admits it or not), in movies this is tougher to do this because we respond to every piece of a film (written, visual, musical, narrative plot, subtext, etc.). But as a "fnck you" as a "wiping the slate clean" it hits the target pretty consistently - it just doesn't mesh with the comic tropes - as it goes along, it repeats which is a letdown, and disheartening. But the performance is nothing short of extraordinary and extraordinarily beautiful too - the way he uses his body alone here would be a marvel. I say Phoenix sometimes invites those people who say he can't just play "normal" - even I wasn't THAT taken with one of his most acclaimed roles for that reason (You Were Never Really Here), but I found this performance was rather palpably sad and relatable rather than just merely oddball and ugly. It's terrific and terrifically perceptive - he gets tremendous interacting mileage out of his reactions to people he has no real emotional connection to which isn't easy to portray at all. 7+/10 for the performance and the performance is the film and to me it's an unforgettable performance.
|
|
|
Post by JangoB on Oct 8, 2019 23:15:38 GMT
7+/10 for the performance and the performance is the film and to me it's an unforgettable performance. That's exactly where I am with this too
|
|
|
Post by moonman157 on Oct 9, 2019 3:33:53 GMT
Joaquin is fucking awful in the movie btw. The worst performance of his career.
|
|
Drish
Badass
Posts: 2,012
Likes: 1,749
|
Post by Drish on Oct 9, 2019 4:28:26 GMT
Very rarely comes a film which shakes you to the core. It stays with you long after you see it. Joker did that for me. I admit, I don't have much knowledge about movie technicalities neither do I know about the controversies surrounding this movie. As a "general" audience, I was fascinated by this Joker and the world of it. Now I agree that the whole talk show monologue felt somewhat on the nose to me, but that's just a part of it I wasn't quite a fan of. After almost 5 days of processing it, I can say I absolutely adored this movie and MAJOR credit to the astonishing performance by Joaquin. I sympathized with Arthur while at the same time condemned his actions and that's really quite a feat if you ask me. Just goes on to show what a marvel of an actor he is. Sure, there are lots of glitches in the writing part but there are so many things to love about it. Cinematography, score and of course the acting. Phoenix rises above all the shortcomings and just haunts you with his portrayal of a mentally disturbed character descending into madness. I wanted to give Arthur a big hug and say to him that everything will be fine but then we see him do certain things which makes you question does he deserve our sympathy? He plays with your mind with his unpredictability and that's what I loved about this performance. It's an absolute masterclass of an act and if he wins (which I am not sure he will), it'll be among my favorite wins. Robert De Niro is love! I so expected all the negative reviews which is understandable but yeah, I'm definitely on the love side of it. ❤️
|
|
|
Post by Pavan on Oct 9, 2019 8:34:01 GMT
Sitting at #9 on IMDb top 250
|
|