Romero?
Printable View
To hell with Romero. What about Mark Hamill? FFS!
Was just counting live action Jokers, but alright. Ledger’s still tops, but Hamill perhaps gives Phoenix a run for his money though. I’d have to give the movie and the performance more time to sink in before I could confidently say with that one. :p
Day > all
I can’t recall specific details, but it was quite an epic and would have had a very large budget. It had full casts of characters both above and below ground, with separate (but ultimately connected) story lines.
The sheer scope of it never could have been made, what with it being a horror film and all. But it was ambitious as all heck.
It nears the top of my “movies I wish had happened” list.
This is pretty close to being a horror film.
For an origin of a villain, I found it interesting to see that while the movie never sympathizes our villain, it's certainly shows how he's a product of the environment. The Gotham that's created certainly feels like an area that's going to topple over, already well in need of saving, and it simply takes a figurehead for it all to crumble.
This was good. For a superhero movie, it certainly doesn't follow the tropes that we've been arguing about in the MCU movies. The violence is never fun. Certain moments are very cringe-inducing because we simply don't know what direction will be taken.
And in the end... how much of it is true? I'm sure there'll be plenty of video essays digging apart shot by shot.
Well done.
I'm all for the Death of the Author and power of interpretation and all that, but Phillips is too literal a writer/director that from his perspective if it's not real or true we would have been shown that. I mean, []
E, how was the audience?
Small audience. More of the comic book crowd, so not much to speak about.
There was a cop standing at the entrance for the entire time I was there.
I went to the Alamo "Big Show," which they claim to be the best in their screens and sound. Boy are they right about the sound. The screen is also huge. This theater just opened, so I don't think it's quite discovered yet, but I'll def drive an extra 10-15 mins to get to this.
[]
https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/4/2...-comics-batman
Tasha Robinson of The Verge (of all places) has nicely put into words exactly how I felt about this movie. It's spoilery, of course.
Sent from my Mi A1 using Tapatalk
I thought this was a good character study in a solid movie that thinks it’s great. The first two-thirds are one bleak moment after another, and the film’s thesis statement could’ve been emphasized better throughout in scenes that break up the constant dourness rather than an expository generalization of its points for the audience in the climax. And I absolutely loathed a particular red herring that felt way too convenient and was ultimately unnecessary.
And yet, the aesthetic choices here are absolutely stellar. The film works best in its lyrical, intimate moments thanks to Joaquin Phoenix’s riveting performance, as mentioned previously, Hildur Guðnadóttir’s incredible score that elevates the story to a grand tragedy, and great cinematography that’s comic book-y in its own way thanks to a creative use of color and wide shots that leave room for imaginary thought boxes, leaving us to wonder in horror over what Arthur’s thinking at that very moment. I also appreciated its character study of The Joker as a man who just wants to be happy and make people happy in return. Good stuff overall.
And yeah, it is one of the better scores of the year.
Ohhh right, somehow I didn't think of that when TGM alluded to it earlier, maybe because I file that one mentally into "The King of Comedy" daydreams (as in, thinking of it belonging to another film entirely) instead of "Joker" daydreams like the Zazie Beetz ones, because the latter functions as a twist to its own story rather than a very direct homage. Still, even Scorsese does it, it's to contrast the very blatant unrealness for maximum black comedy, and reserving ambiguity only to the final scene (thus the one instance of ambiguity becoming much more powerful). The way Phillips uses it is as clearly blunt here too, so both homage and un-homage daydreams signify themselves so much that I'm still not convinced the film intends any ambiguity through its filmmaking. (And to TGM's last point, because it's not so much introducing as the concept being part of "The King of Comedy" homage that Phillips peppers throughout the film, right up to even using Robert De Niro in that role?)
Holy crap is this flick banking.
And audiences seem to be genuinely loving it, too.