Once again, the guys at The Hard Times hit the nail on the head. Review: 'Joker' is a Dangerous Film That Will Incite Lonely White Men to Try Stand-Up Comedy
I think I did indicate in your quoting me that I was speaking for myself in trying to suss which of Fleck's behavior was driven by delusion from being off meds vs just plain revenge against society for his having a crappy life. It wasn't as clear for me as it was for you.
tried to watch this with an open mind and have to say it's quite bad. todd phillips demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of what made his influences so great as well as a totally delusional idea of what comic books/super heroes are all about. i guess there's nothing i can really say that probably hasn't been said better by someone else, but i found this "film" to be an utter waste of time.
It's not about a super hero and Joker was never a super hero. It's a film about a mentally damaged individual. Abused by his parents and the people around him and society who pushed him out of the needed help that was once provided in America to people like him..
If you went into this looking for a comic book or super hero movie I can understand why you disliked it. This was never marketed as such so that impression you went in with did not come from Todd Phillips.
I knew what I was getting into, I just expected it to be better based on all the hoopla. I honestly expected to like it. I appreciate the performance from Joaquin, but thought the whole thing was one long, ugly note. Taxi Driver + King of Comedy - everything that made those films interesting to watch. This was just an excercise in sickness. It reminded me of "Natural Born Killers", in a way. If there's some sort of social commentary about the government letting the mentally ill down in the early 80s they didnt do a very good job of informing the viewer. This is just how I feel. Sorry.
Arthur’s Therapist tells him that this will be his last treatment becase the government has cut funding to any therapy for people like him. Seems like a clue to me
I heard her say that, and understood, but I didn't say to myself, "oh, the government has let this man down. If only there was funding he'd probably make a positive contribution to our society". Even when he was getting the funding he was still seemingly crazy and dangerous. I didnt stop and consider it was the loss of talking to his therapist etc. that finally derailed him. Although I'm sure it did. But the film doesn't really make me feel this the way it should. I didn't sympathize with Fleck enough to make me care about him. Even hearing about his childhood didn't move me in any particular way, and it probably should have. I was just sort of numb to the film after an hour or so of it. I didn't like anybody. They were all monsters of some sort. I needed someone to root for, I guess. Look, I know this film is getting standing ovations and awards and stuff, so I accept that my view on it might be the wrong one, but it's the truth. I think this is an overrated ugly mess of a thing.
i didn't say that. but, uh, the joker is a comic book character. and one that didn't need a back story that plays out as if it was written by a 9th grader who's just seen taxi driver but also finds the mental illness of mr. robot to be the bees knees.
So instead of discussing the movie you’ve jumped right to insulting the director. Nice chatting with you. Bye.
That's pretty much my opinion. It's a very, very downbeat, bleak, depressing film. not a movie I need to see again, but I thought it was good. Though I liked the TV talkshow scene. Howard Stern had Jimmy Kimmel on a few weeks ago and asked him about the film, and Kimmel said he liked it except for one scene. I think I know which one he meant.
Man, I loved it. It was a real mother****er! But see I can respect differing views fromm respectable forum members like @GentleSenator and @Vidiot. I mean it I didn't see anything in the Joker's character but pure friggin' froot-loops. No excuses. No hero to the unwashed nor the washed. It was well-filmed, well-framed if you want to enter the mouth of madness. Otherwise don't look for extra motivation to like or dislike it. We come in with preconceived notions, anyway, making our optic prefocused. It's okay. Personally, I like that dark and depressing stuff. It grounds my usual cheery disposition.
I never bought it for a second. She was simply too attractive and he was too disturbing and unattractive to ever be anything but a fantasy or delusion on his part. I liked the movie a lot, even though it has drawn comparisons to Taxi Driver, a film I've never really liked, mainly for the whole child hooker thing. I loved the look of Joker. NYC (Gotham) during that period was a character in itself in films like Taxi Driver and The French Connection and the director did a great job of re-creating that. Phoenix was incredible as well.
Um, it is about a comic book character. If this movie was about a mentally ill man who wasn't the Joker, it would have audiences commensurate with TAXI DRIVER and KING OF COMEDY.
Give me a break. They did call the movie JOKER, and trailers presented it as the origin story of a popular comic book character.
After watching countless feel-good movies with happy endings, I thought it was downright refreshing to watch a movie that did not try to make the audience feel good.
Never did. Wasn't Mickey Rourke essentially playing Bukowski? Would Bukowski have had a shot at Faye Dunaway in real life? I dunno. Romantic pairings can sometimes be mystifying. Just saying there was never any doubt in my mind that the relationship in Joker was a fantasy.
