Of course it is. Perfect movie for these times.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
Printable View
Of course it is. Perfect movie for these times.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
Also, this is a Joker that I can easily see being obsessed with Batman in a jealous type of way later on. While I can't really see him ever being a gang leader, I can always see him getting in the way of Batman trying to do his duty in saving others in what is likely a very crime-ridden Gotham City.
It's been hyped up for months on gamer and comic sites. Every nerd or nerd adjacent person in the world is going to see it. I don't think film people (as in people that see 30+ new movies a year, most of them not even IP movies) get that there's still people that will only see like 10 movies a year (if that) and only certain IP. Smart move by WB to release this in October and treat it like a blockbuster horror movie too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skitch
Reminder that "Suicide Squad" and "Batman v Superman" had bigger openings. (And before anyone mentions it, I'm not convinced MPAA ratings matter outside box office reporting.)
What exhausts and depresses me is that nobody will care about "Joker" a month from now, unless the convo around Phoenix's Oscar chances pick up, and then they'll only care about it in that context.
Well, they also had triple, if not quadruple the budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
Batman V Superman - $250 million
Suicide Squad - $175 mill
Joker - $55 million
Have you seen it? Why would it depress you that nobody will talk about it? Not like anyone is really talking about the other two movies.
Not sure how the budget effects the opening?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ezee E
All 3 movies opened in a comparable number of theaters (4,200-4,300 nationwide).
I haven't and I go back and forth whether I will.Quote:
Have you seen it? Why would it depress you that nobody will talk about it? Not like anyone is really talking about the other two movies.
The other was a bit of late night melancholy. I was thinking about how small the distribution window is now, 3 months and done, and how that includes most conversations about any movie. I've seen headlines about "Joker" that called it "controversial" or "contentious," but is it really? (Maybe, but only if one lives and dies by twitter.) So there's a perceived urgency around it, and I think that includes the conversations about it.
At the end of the day it's still a studio film and corporate product and once its run is done, nobody will give a shit about it because they've already long since moved on to The Next Big Thing and The Inevitable Thing After That. It won't cross anyone's mind and it won't influence any semblance of wider culture. It'll sit on an Amazon or Netflix server and collect virtual dust.
There's something about that entire lifecycle now that depresses the fuck out of me.
I can get onboard with that. One thing that Joker does do, which I think I mentioned earlier, is that it does give a different feeling than the MCU movies does. It's very uneasy... Similar to how people probably felt the first time they saw the movies it's trying to emulate. Taxi Driver, Clockwork Orange.... I think the same people bashing this movie would have bashed that upon release because it features a person with no morals. Upon retrospect, they can simply cast Joker off because it's in that realm, but I'm not really sure what the naysayers are critiquing when they say it's a dangerous movie. Perhaps they should've just seen Abominable.
My thoughts are similar to Weems's from earlier in the thread. The film is deeply derivative of The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, which I suppose isn't a negative in itself, but I'm not sure there was any point to it besides being able to market itself as a "really serious movie." I thought Phoenix's portrayal, while fine, didn't hit the levels of nuance that Ledger's performance did. Maybe not fair, but it's an inevitable comparison. The brilliance of Ledger's performance was that he didn't just present a credible loon; he presented a credible crime lord as well. Phoenix gets the first part, but misses on the second. I thought one of the most brilliant things that Ledger did with the Joker was to portray him as athletic and nimble. This is a stark contrast to Phoenix's feeble and melancholic take. In the end, it's hard to believe this pensive loner becomes a legitimate foil to Batman.
From a general entertainment standpoint, it's a pretty unpleasant movie to sit through. My tolerance for this type of thing is high if it appears that the film has something interesting to say, but that wasn't the impression I got. Putting the Joker in a 70s Scorsese movie seemed to be the end in itself, and I'm not sure why that is so compelling, at least not compelling enough to forgive a film that is not otherwise very entertaining.
This definitely isn't a Joker that's going to become a crimelord.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
Derivativeness is always a negative in itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
I suppose this is true, but I've been more forgiving of it in other contexts. Boogie Nights (Goodfellas) and Magnolia (Short Cuts), for example, where I felt PTA brought something to those projects that rose above pure mimicry and made the films unique in spite of vast superficial similarities. The Joker, on the other hand, feels very much like the character was dropped into a literal mash-up of the two Scorsese films (with some obvious bits of Batman fan service sprinkled in).Quote:
Originally Posted by baby doll
I don't know. Being derivative is part of the DNA of Brian De Palma and Tarantino [cue baby doll trashin' both of them]. I think there's a moviemovie quality to derivative pastiche if it's done well. Under the Silver Lake from this year is another example. Simultaneously derivative of dozens of different movies, in yet contextualized in a unique way (mainly because it gets millennial ennui).Quote:
Originally Posted by baby doll
What I like about both of those filmmakers (and Paul Thomas Anderson) at their best is how they revise inherited schemas rather than merely replicating them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pop Trash
If you wanted to rob me of any lingering desire I might've had to see this film, you've succeeded beyond your wildest dreams.Quote:
Under the Silver Lake from this year is another example. Simultaneously derivative of dozens of different movies, in yet contextualized in a unique way (mainly because it gets millennial ennui).
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idioteque Stalker
Not sure what to think about Joaquin’s “prank” outburst on the set.
Feel like everyone scrambled to make up a cover story to save face.
The prank that was shown on Kimmel? Didn't seem like one.
They sure as hell matter to (most) parents and goin' to the movies still acts as a glorified babysitter or "something to do" on the weekends with your kids. Look at the b/o for Disney movies over the last ten years or so for further proof.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irish
I don't think his outburst on set was a prank. I assumed that's real. But the Kimmel bit was a Kaufman-esque prank.
StillQuote:
Originally Posted by Skitch
Going to easily outgross Justice League.
I tried to preorder from 3 different theaters this weekend. All had main seats sold out (sorry I'm not sitting in first 2 rows).
C is for clever, SNL.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqpak5lFxvs
I thought the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidSeven
Well, this is a great film and I hope it becomes the blueprint for the future of comic book adaptations, not in the sense that I want more movies similar to this one in particular (and I sure as hell don't want a sequel), but in that it frees itself from the burdens of an "extended universe" continuity/franchise to present a story that stands on its own, chooses the genre it wants to play in instead of just flirting with it and uses the comic book characters for its own ends without worrying about future installments. The complaint that this Joker wouldn't become a good crime lord is irrelevant - this is an origin story for the character. Where he'll go from here is left to our imaginations.
The movie clearly and knowingly uses Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy as inspirations and the aforementioned comparisons with the way De Palma and PTA used Hitchcock, Scorsese or Altman are apt - Phillips uses our knowledge and familiarity with those films to his advantage and builds something different. And it's just a masterful work. I know people hold the Nolan films in high regard as if they stand on a higher echelon than the more commercial MCU films... I think that's bullshit, they're just as dumb and shallow if not a lot worse, but Joker is the real deal, a movie set in a superhero universe that's truly affecting and inspiring as a work of art. Joaquin Phoenix's performance, the atmosphere (this is the best Gotham City in a live action film since Burton's) and a story that's both heartbreaking, darkly funny and thought provoking make it so. The scene where Joker kills his colleague in front of the midget is just a genius double punch of suspense and comedy. The stand up scene is also a highlight.
As for the concerns with violence or the character's moral compass (God forbid a movie lead us to empathize with someone different than what we wish to become) there will always be unintelligent people who don't get art and catharsis or, worse, use them to justify their selfish, dangerous behavior. There will always be censorship cloaked in good intentions. Those same "concerned citizens" already existed when Taxi Driver was released as well as the nutjob who tried to kill Reagan to impress Jodie Foster. It's part of humanity.
EDIT: I disliked only two things about it. The Fight Club montage where they show us the neighbouring girl wasn't always there was unsubtle and jarred badly with the rest of the film's language. And the Arkham epilogue after the cop car scene was redundant, it would have been better to end the movie with the same song on its highest dramatic point. Another, very minor, nitpick is that there's no way a guy with a film camera would be found shooting a stand up routine in a darkened nightclub in the 1970s.