I really wanted to like this movie. The trailers weren't that great, which I know in general aren't a definitive indicator of how good or bad a movie will end up being, but in my case, I'm usually good at predicting how much I will enjoy a movie based on its trailers.
First things first, Joaquin Phoenix does a wonderful job in the lead role, and he deserved the Best Actor Oscar he was awarded for it. That being said, the story surrounding him and the other characters in the film just aren't that interesting, and much of the plot is extremely derivative of earlier Scorsese films. One of the things that made Heath Ledger's Joker such an engrossing character was the mystery behind his motivations. We knew nothing about his past, and what he did reveal about himself to other characters would be contradicted by something else he would tell another character later in the film.
The sequence of events that lead to the Joker in this film becoming famous are completely contrived. If the movie was set in the modern day, the idea of a standup comedian bombing on open mic night being filmed and going viral and leading to an appearance on a popular late night talk show would be believable, but given the movie's early 1980's setting, I didn't buy it.
The fact that they also decided to shoehorn in the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents had me rolling my eyes. Just how often do they think moviegoers need to see the crux of Batman's origin?
I even gave this movie a second chance a little more than a year after originally seeing it, and I ended up liking the film even less. I would give it 2.5/5. I'll be generous and round it up here to 3/5 for Phoenix's performance, as well as for the film introducing me to the Jackson C. Frank song "My Name Is Carnival."
A unique alternative origin for the iconic villain, "Joker" is by and large a success. With a delightfully dreary palette and an Oscar-worthy performance from Joaquin Phoenix, it is a fine film and well worth seeing. Though it does occasionally suffer from a predictable narrative and underwritten secondary roles, when it works... it works darned well. And it easily earns a very good 4 out of 5.
Fantastic movie. This is a good turn for DC, and I hope they learn the right lessons from this and keep making films that are of this quality.
There's not much I can really say about the film, but it's acted well, written well, and executed great. Following the origin story, or one possible origin story, of the Joker. Or what I actually believe is the person who inspires the real Joker.
Borrowing heavily from films from the 70's, like King of Comedy and Taxi Driver, this movie sets a dark tone that DC seems to love. However it doesn't drown itself in the darkness, and does it a good balance for this character. It also has that freedom of not being tied to or trying to connect to multi movie stories or a universe. It's self contained and it's own thing, which is where DC movies like the animated ones tend to really thrive with. I hope this inspires DC to make more live action stand alone tales like this and stop trying to play cheep catch up to Marvel, which they will never get to at this point. (looking at you Justice League)
This a great movie, and I would give it 4 1/2 stars if the ratings would let me. I did have a couple of issues with the movie, but nothing to make it bad or not worth at least 4 stars.
Mistake Status: Didn't really catch any in the theaters. I do love comic book hero movies (or in this case, villain movies) and will for sure get my hands on this and comb through it more in the future.
9.9/10. A perfect DC movie. I enjoyed it thoroughly as it explored the themes of mental illness, liberal run cities, personal tragedies, etc. Joaquin Phoenix masterfully plays Joker like a violinist does the violin. It deserved all the praise, box office success, and the awards it won. I recommend it highly and saw it as one of the best movies of 2019.
Factual error: Based on the films being shown at the theater, the movie appears to be set in 1981. One of the TV commercials shows the Energizer Bunny, which didn't make its first appearance until 1988.
Trivia: The font used for Live With Murray Franklin is identical to the Batman animated series titles. The name of the font is "Plaza," for those that might be curious.
Answer:In a nutshell, it's because the film's protagonist is a mentally disturbed killer, and certain groups in America thought the film's violence would lead to copycat behavior.
I agree with you on that, but unfortunately, there's so many people, at least in the United States, that have no sense of nuance and are prone to knee-jerk reactions. They would rather condemn and blame different kinds of media for society's ills, rather than stop and look at the message something is trying to tell.
Answer:Because the left thought it would encourage violence and mocked liberal run cities.The right thought the same on violence, it seemingly justified a mentally ill guy's actions, that it made white businessmen bad guys. Both sides in general only complained about Joker for attention.
Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Answer: In a nutshell, it's because the film's protagonist is a mentally disturbed killer, and certain groups in America thought the film's violence would lead to copycat behavior.
Phaneron ★
I never got this aspect of the controversy, if anything, it goes to show what can happen when mental illness goes untreated.
ctown28 ★
I agree with you on that, but unfortunately, there's so many people, at least in the United States, that have no sense of nuance and are prone to knee-jerk reactions. They would rather condemn and blame different kinds of media for society's ills, rather than stop and look at the message something is trying to tell.
Phaneron ★
I read about the concern over possible copycat behavior in an on-line article; Phaneron's answer is correct.
KeyZOid