Who saw Joker?

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

Joker isn’t nearly as good as taxi driver and heat > every movie In the Batman universe. 

 

still, I think the critics got it wrong with joker. 

[kokujin 558]

What's heat and taxi driver, and what year did they come out?? Lok

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

Just now, kokujin said:

What's heat and taxi driver, and what year did they come out?? Lok

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/taxi_driver

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1068182_heat

 

 

De Niro and Pacino GOAT

 

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

if you could only watch one, i'd say go with taxi driver. de niro with a mohawk, keitel as a pimp and a young jodie foster as a prostitute. epic film. 

Edited October 8, 2019 by -GD-

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

now i'm youtubing scenes. non- spoiler. just badass to watch again. i think i may rewatch the movie. it's been a long time.

 

 

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

57 minutes ago, -GD- said:

now i'm youtubing scenes. non- spoiler. just badass to watch again. i think i may rewatch the movie. it's been a long time.

Gonna rewatch as part of a week of Scorsese leading up to Irishman. 

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

https://apple.news/AVktTSc3pRBqaot-S_1YjNA

 

good interview with the joker cinematographer 

[SheepKilla 473]

despite it's flaws, I can't stop thinking about this movie. 

 

this movie owned hard. 

[-GD-X★ 7,729]

16 minutes ago, SheepKilla said:

despite it's flaws, I can't stop thinking about this movie. 

 

this movie owned hard. 

Yes! I found myself feeling more connected to it the day after. 

[SheepKilla 473]

2 minutes ago, -GD- said:

Yes! I found myself feeling more connected to it the day after. 

I describe the feeling as wishing I could see more, set in the same style and city, etc. It has a unique style. And I'm more curious about the Joaquin Phoenix character and his backstory. I also find myself laughing and reminiscing about various scenes (like the midget scene - that's legitimately side-splittingly funny humor to me). 

 

 I just loved the vibe/aesthetics. It somehow felt like a comic book, whereas The Dark Knight really didn't capture the comic book feel at all and was more gritty. In a lot of ways, this is a really good movie. 

[Hot Sauce 2,727]

Joker has probably my favourite depiction of Gotham. Grimey Gotham. 

[jehurey 3,227]

It probably would've worked better as a short mini-series. Because even though it was a longer-than-average movie, it feels like they didn't properly flesh out important things.

 

I haven't read any reviews, but I've heard that maybe there's complaints about the story being "messy" in certain parts?  And I definitely saw how things happened in the movie that left me asking a question as to how it got from Point A to Point B.

 

The most glaring being the "uprising" in the city. They vastly under-explained that and didn't pace it out in a logical way.

 

The other thing is I have an issue with the attitude of this Joker. Either make him a truly small and tragic man who falls deeper and deeper into desperation until he acts out wildly OR make him a completely unreliable narrator (i.e. a genuine mental liar) which implies that he's more sinister than he lets on.

 

They sorta try to have him be both things, and his story can be tragic, but they never make it quite work out.  For example, if he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.

 

He probably should already have a small, petty criminal record from the very beginning, and that's why he goes to a psychiatrist. Or, as I had speculated before the movie came out, just make him a complete liar and that mother that he's taken care of is a complete stranger, just an old lady who has Alzheimer's or something, and he's been staying there the entire time and his name isn't really Arthur Fleck.

 

The final 15-20 minutes are quite compelling. There's alot of dialogue, and even though you kind of know what will probably happen, you feel so engrossed that you get a genuine sense of uncertainty and tension.

 

This feels like a movie suffering from the limitations of the director. Joaquin Phoenix was in Inherent Vice, playing a burnt out stoner, and the way conveyed him being mentally "burnt" and distant is vastly superior. No surprise, that's a Paul Thomas Anderson movie, and he knows how to do that type of film-making.

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

I feel like we watched different movies because they most definitely did a lot of what you say they didn't 

17 minutes ago, jehurey said:

The most glaring being the "uprising" in the city. They vastly under-explained that and didn't pace it out in a logical way.

We don't see the progress because the movie follows Joker 99% of the time (and the 1% it doesn't is probably the weakest scene in the movie)

Joker didn't care about the uprising and so neither does the movie, we get snippets of it in the snippets we see Joker leave the house and in effected by it.

 

17 minutes ago, jehurey said:

or example, if he was adopted and then beaten by his mother's boyfriend when he was young, then it should've been conveyed that he has repressed memories, and they should've connected his mental problems and laughing condition from him having suffered a brain injury from when he was beaten.

They very clearly do this. We know about his repressed memories not only because he doesn't remember stuff from childhood but he doesn't even remember why he was in the pscyh ward from his adulthood. He is asked about it and he doesn't know. That's a very clear scene earlyish in the movie. And they do connect his injuries from childhood to his conditions. The card he hands out says 'from neurological conditions', we don't know it at the time but the reveal of the brain trauma he sustained as a child is the cause of it. THe movie isn't exactly subtle but it feels like you really wanted them to just hit you over the head with it and spell it out.

 

 

[jehurey 3,227]

9 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

I feel like we watched different movies because they most definitely did a lot of what you say they didn't 

We don't see the progress because the movie follows Joker 99% of the time (and the 1% it doesn't is probably the weakest scene in the movie)

Joker didn't care about the uprising and so neither does the movie, we get snippets of it in the snippets we see Joker leave the house and in effected by it.

 

They very clearly do this. We know about his repressed memories not only because he doesn't remember stuff from childhood but he doesn't even remember why he was in the pscyh ward from his adulthood. He is asked about it and he doesn't know. That's a very clear scene earlyish in the movie. And they do connect his injuries from childhood to his conditions. The card he hands out says 'from neurological conditions', we don't know it at the time but the reveal of the brain trauma he sustained as a child is the cause of it. THe movie isn't exactly subtle but it feels like you really wanted them to just hit you over the head with it and spell it out.

 

 

The uprising of citizens is vital to Arthur feeling confident and feeling like he's making a difference. I'd say we need him to see how the city is changing around him. It goes from the shooting, to a news report and some newspaper headlines, to him walking around town and now there's huge protests with hundreds of people wearing masks.  The jump just feels too disconnected.

 

I don't seem to remember anything specific from the beginning of the movie, the conversation between him and the social welfare/psychologist lady doesn't seem to establish his previous history, but only asking how he feels about these meetings.

 

He's an adult, he's not a child. So its not like the government is having look after him for social welfare, therefore the point of those meetings, from my initial impression, is that A.) He may already have a criminal record, or B.) He was already in a mental ward.

 

But later on in the movie, he goes to Arkham Hospital to retrieve Penny Fleck's file, and he's specifically asking what's it like to be in such a place.

Edited October 9, 2019 by jehurey

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

The uprising of citizens is vital to Arthur feeling confident and feeling like he's making a difference. I'd say we need him to see how the city is changing around him. It goes from the shooting, to a news report and some news headlines, to him walking around town and there's huge protests with hundreds of people wearing masks.  The jump just feels too disconnected.

 

I don't seem to remember anything specific from the beginning of the movie, the conversation between him and the social welfare/psychologist lady doesn't seem to establish his previous history, but only asking how he feels about these meetings.

 

He's an adult, he's not a child. So its not like the government is having look after him for social welfare, therefore the point of those meetings, from my initial impression, is that A.) He may already have a criminal record, or B.) He was already in a mental ward.

 

But later on in the movie, he goes to Arkham Hospital to retrieve Penny Fleck's file, and he's specifically asking what's it like to be in such a place.

It isn't vital to the journey at all though because all that matters is the reality that Arthur sees in his mind. 

The night at the comedy club he bomb in 'reality' but in his delusional mind he was hilarious and a giant success.

His relationship to his neighbour was non existent in reality but in his mind it was a flourishing, close, intimate relationship.

Same with the uprising in the town, after he kills the 3 ppl he reads some headlines and sees some effect but in his mind he makes it out that he is the hero (portrayed in the scene when he is walking with his gf that doesn't exist and they see the newspaper articles and she says something along the lines of 'guy who did it is a hero in my eyes', which we know is his own mind creating the reality).

It's definitely vital to the end scene but even then by that time Gotham is the Gotham we know from comics and other sources.

The point is that this isn't a story about the city, it is purely about Arthur. The only scene that feels so disjointed is the scene of the Wayne murders. 

 

There is a very specific scene where the psychologist tells him 'why do you think you were in the hospital before' and he basically brushes it off and I can't remember the exact words but he doesn't even remember the exact reason. There is no interpretation needed, the movie tells you that is why he is on 9 different meds and seeing a psych (Because he was discharged from the mental ward). We then later find out about the physical abuse as a child which caused his neurological issues and he suffers from delusionals (portrayed very clearly in the movie) just like his adoptive mother. He has all those things you are critical about, you just missed them. 

 

Even when he asks about what it's like to be in such a place at Arkham Hospital after he is told the reasons he says something along the lines of 'I know what that's like' and the guy gives him that strange look. 

 

Both interpretations what you wanted are wrong:

'Either make him a truly small and tragic man who falls deeper and deeper into desperation until he acts out wildly OR make him a completely unreliable narrator (i.e. a genuine mental liar) which implies that he's more sinister than he lets on.'

 

He's neither of those things. His story is tragic but he himself isn't a small and tragic man and while he is a very unreliably narrator it isnt because he is a geniune mental liar. Neither of those description indicate any form of mental illness which is such a huge theme it is beaten over your head over and over. If anything it's flaws come from being so overbearing of the issue.

 

 

[James Skywalker 528]

I watched the Russian version of Joker from a cam version I downloaded off iptorrents and the video was different. The card Arthur gives to the black woman on the train was in a different language. The book of jokes was also written as an idiom that was peculiar to me. The signs that were held in the protest I couldn't read because it was in Russian. The note his mother had that Arthur read about Thomas Wayne being his father was also undistinguishable to me. 

Just something I noticed watching it a second time was that when Arthur is running from the detectives and gets hit by a car, wouldn't he lose his gun? I mean if he lost it so easily just dancing around in the hospital with the children shouldn't being hit by a vehicle undoubtedly cause him to drop his weapon?

 

Surprised that there weren't more torrents already on the website because it's been out a while anyway. I'd rather have an English version than the USSR's. 

[jehurey 3,227]

15 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

 

  Hide contents

It isn't vital to the journey at all though because all that matters is the reality that Arthur sees in his mind. 

 

The night at the comedy club he bomb in 'reality' but in his delusional mind he was hilarious and a giant success.

His relationship to his neighbour was non existent in reality but in his mind it was a flourishing, close, intimate relationship.

Same with the uprising in the town, after he kills the 3 ppl he reads some headlines and sees some effect but in his mind he makes it out that he is the hero (portrayed in the scene when he is walking with his gf that doesn't exist and they see the newspaper articles and she says something along the lines of 'guy who did it is a hero in my eyes', which we know is his own mind creating the reality).

It's definitely vital to the end scene but even then by that time Gotham is the Gotham we know from comics and other sources.

The point is that this isn't a story about the city, it is purely about Arthur. The only scene that feels so disjointed is the scene of the Wayne murders. 

 

There is a very specific scene where the psychologist tells him 'why do you think you were in the hospital before' and he basically brushes it off and I can't remember the exact words but he doesn't even remember the exact reason. There is no interpretation needed, the movie tells you that is why he is on 9 different meds and seeing a psych (Because he was discharged from the mental ward). We then later find out about the physical abuse as a child which caused his neurological issues and he suffers from delusionals (portrayed very clearly in the movie) just like his adoptive mother. He has all those things you are critical about, you just missed them. 

 

Even when he asks about what it's like to be in such a place at Arkham Hospital after he is told the reasons he says something along the lines of 'I know what that's like' and the guy gives him that strange look. 

 

Both interpretations what you wanted are wrong:

'Either make him a truly small and tragic man who falls deeper and deeper into desperation until he acts out wildly OR make him a completely unreliable narrator (i.e. a genuine mental liar) which implies that he's more sinister than he lets on.'

 

He's neither of those things. His story is tragic but he himself isn't a small and tragic man and while he is a very unreliably narrator it isnt because he is a geniune mental liar. Neither of those description indicate any form of mental illness which is such a huge theme it is beaten over your head over and over. If anything it's flaws come from being so overbearing of the issue.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

'why do you think you were in the hospital before'

 

You got all of that from that line?  Of course he's been in the hospital before......how else does somebody have 7 different medications without having done so?

 

There is no way we can derive so much from such a vague line. The more important plot detail is WHY is he sitting with a social worker/psychiatrist in the first place? The fact that the sessions end because of funding immediately makes me think "well, it can't be court-mandated". The sessions appear to be completely voluntary.
 

Quote

 

'I know what that's like'

 

That's his response to the clerk answering his question about why he believes these people go crazy, his response is something along the lines of "these people feel a certain way that lead to them acting out"

 

And he says "yeah I know what that feels like". That's a relatively tame exchange.

 

If that's a hint.........that's just not good conveyance of information.

 

To say "oh its because he's an unreliable narrator" over so many things in the movie makes it seem like a crutch.

 

 

Edited October 9, 2019 by jehurey

[madmaltese★ 2,550]

You're arguing against things that are a given in the movie, not open ended. Read any review or anyone's synopsis of the movie. I mean I don't know what you tell you but you're turning a fact of the story into a possibility when it isn't.

The line at the Hospital isn't a tame exchange because by that point we already know he was previously in a mental ward. It's just a further scene to hint at and solidify his delusions and repressed memories a few minutes before the full blown out reveal that happens shortly after. 

 

Him having repressed memories is flat out revealed to you, same as his neurological issues stemming from abuse as a child.

Him being delusional (and as such being an unreliable narrator for a majority of the film) also has a full blown reveal with a montage scene of delusions to reality.

[jehurey 3,227]

19 minutes ago, madmaltese said:

You're arguing against things that are a given in the movie, not open ended. Read any review or anyone's synopsis of the movie. I mean I don't know what you tell you but you're turning a fact of the story into a possibility when it isn't.

The line at the Hospital isn't a tame exchange because by that point we already know he was previously in a mental ward. It's just a further scene to hint at and solidify his delusions and repressed memories a few minutes before the full blown out reveal that happens shortly after. 

 

Him having repressed memories is flat out revealed to you, same as his neurological issues stemming from abuse as a child.

Him being delusional (and as such being an unreliable narrator for a majority of the film) also has a full blown reveal with a montage scene of delusions to reality.

And that "reveal montage" is..........lame.

 

Because that "reveal" isn't remotely clever. This actually HURTS the movie's attempts at using "unreliable narrator" multiple times because that instance is SO OBVIOUS, you immediately see it when they begin attempting it.

 

He get's a ring at the doorbell, and she immediately calls him "Arthur" when you know she doesn't know his name at that point, and any possible EXPLANATION for why she would know his name would be lame.

 

They immediately give it away. I easily know that was a delusion.

 

The exchange with the clerk at Arkham Hospital is un-explainable in making it seem "heavy." He's pulling the file out for him already, which means he must've told him that he is Penny Fleck's son.......and he clearly must've believed it.

 

So after that short discussion about why people go crazy, and the clerk gives him this super serious face, he goes and looks into the file and he gets even more serious and asks "so..........you said you're her son?"

 

And he says "yeah". And all of a sudden the clerk gets scared. The only rational thing to think at that moment is "he must think Arthur is lying because he saw something in the file that indicates she has no son."

 

But that's debunked just a few minutes later when Arthur steals the file, look in it, and we see the adoption papers.

 

What the fuck was the clerk spooked about when he looked in the file? He thought he wanted to spare Arthur of his OWN childhood history? Because of..............reasons?

 

The movie makes multiple sloppy mistakes like this in order to make it seem so melodramatic.

[Vini 430]

12 hours ago, Hot Sauce said:

Are they? Most reviews I've seen criticize the film for being derivative and heavy handed.

Most critics of the film are triggered wokes

 

The director pointed this out. And he was right.