I think one of the aims of the movie was to leave what was true and what wasn't quite ambiguous. We probably all viewed it slightly differently which is interesting.
I really enjoyed this, thought it was quite obvious the GF scenes and when he is cheered on the Murray show were delusions. One of my friends who watched it recently voiced that he believed the whole thing was a delusion at the end, but I don't quite buy into that theory. Thought it was excellent throughout and Joaquin should be a shoe in for Oscars, I think if it wasn't a film based on a comic book character, and just a film about someone's descent into madness it would be nominated for best film.
I really enjoyed this, thought it was quite obvious the GF scenes and when he is cheered on the Murray show were delusions. One of my friends who watched it recently voiced that he believed the whole thing was a delusion at the end, but I don't quite buy into that theory. Thought it was excellent throughout and Joaquin should be a shoe in for Oscars, I think if it wasn't a film based on a comic book character, and just a film about someone's descent into madness it would be nominated for best film.
I think there will be quite a lot that was a delusion. Definitely the part after the Police car is crashed into at the end and the rioters cheer him seemed delusional to me and I thought perhaps the whole scene with him in the Murray show might also have been.
I really enjoyed this, thought it was quite obvious the GF scenes and when he is cheered on the Murray show were delusions. One of my friends who watched it recently voiced that he believed the whole thing was a delusion at the end, but I don't quite buy into that theory. Thought it was excellent throughout and Joaquin should be a shoe in for Oscars, I think if it wasn't a film based on a comic book character, and just a film about someone's descent into madness it would be nominated for best film.
I think there will be quite a lot that was a delusion. Definitely the part after the Police car is crashed into at the end and the rioters cheer him seemed delusional to me and I thought perhaps the whole scene with him in the Murray show might also have been.
It seemed to me that all the delusional parts didn't fit with the storyline of him and his life and his suffering (I.e. winning a girl, being cheered on tv by Murray and the audience) whereas after the crash he's cheered and accepted by the 'underbelly' of society rather than the larger population. That's how I saw it anyway.
As someone said previously, I suppose its supposed to be ambiguous as to what really happened and what was delusion for the viewer to have their own interpretation
I really enjoyed this, thought it was quite obvious the GF scenes and when he is cheered on the Murray show were delusions. One of my friends who watched it recently voiced that he believed the whole thing was a delusion at the end, but I don't quite buy into that theory. Thought it was excellent throughout and Joaquin should be a shoe in for Oscars, I think if it wasn't a film based on a comic book character, and just a film about someone's descent into madness it would be nominated for best film.
I think there will be quite a lot that was a delusion. Definitely the part after the Police car is crashed into at the end and the rioters cheer him seemed delusional to me and I thought perhaps the whole scene with him in the Murray show might also have been.
It seemed to me that all the delusional parts didn't fit with the storyline of him and his life and his suffering (I.e. winning a girl, being cheered on tv by Murray and the audience) whereas after the crash he's cheered and accepted by the 'underbelly' of society rather than the larger population. That's how I saw it anyway.
As someone said previously, I suppose its supposed to be ambiguous as to what really happened and what was delusion for the viewer to have their own interpretation
Agreed, I’m still thinking about it five days after I saw it - a film hasn’t impacted me like this for ages
Me too. I am thinking the film tells us when a scene isn't true. I could be totally wrong but the initial scene with Arthur in the TV audience was shown to be untrue as he was on the bed. Arthur's love affair was shown to be untrue as a future scene showed. But the clever bit was that she appeared to be in the comedy club audience, which the act part was shown to be true. Possibly! I want to watch it again and see if he looked at her! I think the last scene where he apparently kills his shrink isn't true. He simply imagined killing her. The corridor walk had similarities with Chaplin in hard times ( the film showing when Arthur met Wayne) and had impossible elements.
The political unrest was true as Joker didn't imagine it and it resulted in Thomas Wayne's death. Joker had no interest in the politics but it built the narrative around him, making him a hero to some. Was Arthur shooting three bankers a reference to the 2008 financial crash? Was Thomas Wayne's Joker's dad. The line in the asylum file suggested not, but it felt like Thomas Wayne knew he could be his father and the photo suggested it was true. That would give Joker a massive future reason for hating Batman and maybe loving him a bit. Also, if Penny had gone mad, how did she get to adopt a son?
Anyway, maybe a load of rubbish but demonstrates I am still thinking about it and trying to piece it together. I probably have to watch it again.
Joauqin Phoenix was very good. WIll probably be nominated for some awards. De Niro was pretty good too in his limited role.
The movie... eh. First of all its not a Joker movie, unless the whole thing happened in his head. The whole point of the Joker is no one knows who he is. According to this movie everyone knows his name, and saw him kill someone live on TV. I think Bruce Wayne would be able to track him down pretty quickly. But ok lets ignore that giant plot hole and treat the movie as its own thing, completely standalone from existing lore.
This was one of the least subtle movies I have ever seen in my life. From the very first moment it is rammed down our throats how bad Fleck has it. First we see some kids steal his sign and beat him up for no reason. Then his colleagues are mean to him and treat him like a freak while he isn't bothering anyone. Then his boss tells him he has to pay for the sign and is completely unreasonable as to why the sign is missing. On and on we see people giving him shit despite him not bothering anyone.
The bankers he killed are creeps, and only leave that woman alone when he draws their attention. They jump to violence extremely quickly.
His mother is a insane and we find out his condition was likely caused by abuse she allowed her boyfriend to cause. He thinks Thomas Wayne is his father and when he confronts him he doesn't get any sympathy, Wayne could have been much nicer in getting the message across. Similar but to a lesser extent from Alfred when he arrives at Wayne manor.
Thats not the only issue I have with a lack of subtlety. The Fight Club sequence? Did we need that? It was fairly obvious that most of the scenes with Zazie Beetz' character were in his head. Did we need the flashback? Bit on the nose isn't it?
The other issue I have is that this movie essentially stole from/paid homage to four other movies. The first (Fight Club) I have already referenced. Its far more obviously copying Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, but finally the end sequence hints at the entire movie being in Flecks head similar to Christian Bale's character in American Psycho.
I don't know how much I have a problem with those elements. If they hadn't done the Fight Club flash back sequence I'd probably be fine with it.
The filmmakers had a good idea but executed it poorly and could have done a lot more with a little more subtlety.
Do you think people don't get treated like shit for no reason. I thought the opening scene was very believable. I think part of the message was it was his problem, nobody else cared.
Do you think people don't get treated like shit for no reason. I thought the opening scene was very believable. I think part of the message was it was his problem, nobody else cared.
Sure but it was non stop. If they showed us some moments of him being down on his luck, or getting shafted then I'd be fine, but it was absolutely non stop.
Just got in from seeing it. Have avoided this thread and any reviews.
I didn't want it to end. And I'm not really a fan of the whole comic book genre.
Stunning visuals and set, a really clever narrative leaving you conflicted on who your sympathies should sit with, a soundtrack that really compliments the whole feel of the film, great support from Di Niro who's not afraid to send himself up almost to the point of parodying himself and a monumental performance from Pheonix. He should get the Oscar for his physicality alone which really captured the tortuous background to the character and perfectly portrayed how I would have imagined the Joker to run, walk, dance, etc. during their development (being brought up on the TV series).
I get that his treatment was laddled on a bit thick, but, a bit like Falling Down, it's the remorselessness of being treated like rubbish that leads to the complete breakdown of the character's restraint. He does actually recognise that one character had showed him kindness in juxtaposition to pretty much everyone else.
That said I hope we don't ever see Phoenix's Joker versus Batman.
I'll give it a very solid 8.5/10 and only because I'm a cautious bugger who likes to keep a point or two in reserve just in case, but I doubt I'll see a better movie in what remains of 2019.
Joauqin Phoenix was very good. WIll probably be nominated for some awards. De Niro was pretty good too in his limited role.
The movie... eh. First of all its not a Joker movie, unless the whole thing happened in his head. The whole point of the Joker is no one knows who he is. According to this movie everyone knows his name, and saw him kill someone live on TV. I think Bruce Wayne would be able to track him down pretty quickly. But ok lets ignore that giant plot hole and treat the movie as its own thing, completely standalone from existing lore.
That's not a plot hole. It's not even close to a plot hole. It's just a different take on the backstory. It's a different interpretation. It's fair if you don't like that version of the character's backstory, but it doesn't make it invalid.
Joauqin Phoenix was very good. WIll probably be nominated for some awards. De Niro was pretty good too in his limited role.
The movie... eh. First of all its not a Joker movie, unless the whole thing happened in his head. The whole point of the Joker is no one knows who he is. According to this movie everyone knows his name, and saw him kill someone live on TV. I think Bruce Wayne would be able to track him down pretty quickly. But ok lets ignore that giant plot hole and treat the movie as its own thing, completely standalone from existing lore.
That's not a plot hole. It's not even close to a plot hole. It's just a different take on the backstory. It's a different interpretation. It's fair if you don't like that version of the character's backstory, but it doesn't make it invalid.
Sure maybe its a different universe. We'll see. If they do follow this up or tie it to the current DC movies then they are in a difficult spot. Not my biggest problem with the movie though. I am fairly confident that the writer/director had a story they wanted to tell and used the joker as a way to do it because otherwise the movie wouldn't get made.
PWR, only just seen it. Loved it, Phoenix was superb for me an homage to Cesar in most of his movements. I just hope they credited Bob Monkhouse with his finest joke and am sad that Adam West was not around to portray Thomas Wayne as that would have been the cherry for me... 11/12
I actually believe there has never been a “great” Batman movie. Not the Keaton one. Not the Heath Ledger one. Most are average films at best and several are below average. I feel like everyone is expected to say they “like” Batman movies but I find them no better than most Star Wars movies, which had been bad too, except the first one in 1977. I even think Empire Strikes Back is silly over-rated. Any rate, back to Batman... I have not found any Batman movies to be “dark,” and the best I can say is they are dark compared to the 1969 TV show version. I may go see this movie based on recommendations here but I don’t consider this a “Batman” movie and thus maybe that is why I could like it.
Watched this yesterday. I'd say, if you like your films then it's a must see.
Personally I had the strange scenario of being able to appreciate how it was a good film, but because it was a bit slow paced I got a bit bored watching it. I understood it had to be a bit slower, as that was the whole point of it - showing how the character gradually turned to violence.
The main actor was remarkable. He must have been in virtually every scene. And, as my son said, "you'd avoid him in the street if you saw him." He came across as a proper unhinged and tortured Joker.
I am very much in a minority, obviously, but I thought it overlong and slow. Obviously Phoenix's performance is eye-catching to say the least but the film itself left me unmoved. As for all the stuff about is the whole story or bits of it figments of his imagination, if no one can work it out what's the point except to try to make the film look 'profound'.
i think the point is that we will all work it out as we go along, it is just we may work it out differently, which is interesting. We may then think about it and change our interpretation of this or that. It is a film that makes you do that and question things, but not in a frustrating way for me. It also highlights mental illness very well IMO.
I was rooting for him at the end, and as he was a dangerous psychopath, that is interesting in itself as I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I really do need to watch it again.
It's been confirmed that a follow up movie is in the works, even though they said it was a stand alone film. Be interesting how it plays out, as we could arguably be routing for the 'bad guy' if batman turns up in the next one.
OK, @MuttleyCAFC, but you have to care in order to spend time making your own personal interpretation and I don't because I don't think there's an answer and the film doesn't justify the effort. What's so wrong about making it clear what are figments of the imagination or not? For example we all know that the 'dagger' Macbeth sees or Macduff's ghost are figments of his guilty mind and our knowledge of that deepens our understanding of him. Whether the bloody footprints and the prancing about in the corridor, or the crowds cheering him on the car etc are Arthur's imaginings or not doesn't deepen our understanding (beyond thinking the poor guy is nuts - which we kind of figured anyway) so much as leave us confused and none the wiser in our assessment of the character. Basically we know nothing about his character beyond that he is unhinged because he's been bullied. A bit one dimensional
I am very much in a minority, obviously, but I thought it overlong and slow. Obviously Phoenix's performance is eye-catching to say the least but the film itself left me unmoved. As for all the stuff about is the whole story or bits of it figments of his imagination, if no one can work it out what's the point except to try to make the film look 'profound'.
Felt the same when I watched it. Hugely underwhelmed.
Comments
As someone said previously, I suppose its supposed to be ambiguous as to what really happened and what was delusion for the viewer to have their own interpretation
The political unrest was true as Joker didn't imagine it and it resulted in Thomas Wayne's death. Joker had no interest in the politics but it built the narrative around him, making him a hero to some. Was Arthur shooting three bankers a reference to the 2008 financial crash? Was Thomas Wayne's Joker's dad. The line in the asylum file suggested not, but it felt like Thomas Wayne knew he could be his father and the photo suggested it was true. That would give Joker a massive future reason for hating Batman and maybe loving him a bit. Also, if Penny had gone mad, how did she get to adopt a son?
Anyway, maybe a load of rubbish but demonstrates I am still thinking about it and trying to piece it together. I probably have to watch it again.
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/oct/15/gary-glitter-joker-royalties
I don't know how much I have a problem with those elements. If they hadn't done the Fight Club flash back sequence I'd probably be fine with it.
I didn't want it to end. And I'm not really a fan of the whole comic book genre.
Stunning visuals and set, a really clever narrative leaving you conflicted on who your sympathies should sit with, a soundtrack that really compliments the whole feel of the film, great support from Di Niro who's not afraid to send himself up almost to the point of parodying himself and a monumental performance from Pheonix. He should get the Oscar for his physicality alone which really captured the tortuous background to the character and perfectly portrayed how I would have imagined the Joker to run, walk, dance, etc. during their development (being brought up on the TV series).
I get that his treatment was laddled on a bit thick, but, a bit like Falling Down, it's the remorselessness of being treated like rubbish that leads to the complete breakdown of the character's restraint. He does actually recognise that one character had showed him kindness in juxtaposition to pretty much everyone else.
That said I hope we don't ever see Phoenix's Joker versus Batman.
I'll give it a very solid 8.5/10 and only because I'm a cautious bugger who likes to keep a point or two in reserve just in case, but I doubt I'll see a better movie in what remains of 2019.
Mostly due to the laughing condition Arthur had.
Loved it, Phoenix was superb for me an homage to Cesar in most of his movements.
I just hope they credited Bob Monkhouse with his finest joke and am sad that Adam West was not around to portray Thomas Wayne as that would have been the cherry for me...
11/12
Personally I had the strange scenario of being able to appreciate how it was a good film, but because it was a bit slow paced I got a bit bored watching it. I understood it had to be a bit slower, as that was the whole point of it - showing how the character gradually turned to violence.
The main actor was remarkable. He must have been in virtually every scene. And, as my son said, "you'd avoid him in the street if you saw him." He came across as a proper unhinged and tortured Joker.
Slightly surprising this wasn't rated an 18 but no complaints over the film content at all.
I was rooting for him at the end, and as he was a dangerous psychopath, that is interesting in itself as I'm sure I wasn't the only one. I really do need to watch it again.
Arthur probably doesn't know what is real and what isn't which I like.