Videos been up about a half hour and I've been offered about ten different phonetic spellings of the lead actor's name in this comment section. Still can't get my head around it so I'm gonna stick with Obi Wah-keenobi Phoenix ... or Whackin' Phoenix. Important response to those who think I'm attacking the film. I state very clearly in this vid that Joker is better than most modern movies, is worth the watch and that I would watch it again. I even explain that I might change my opinion of it on a second viewing. Not believing the film to be a masterpiece doesn't amount to me hating the film. Go see my reviews on Blade Runner 2049 if you wanna see me really rip into a movie. Compared to that piece of trash Joker is a masterpiece ;)
A movie with no cgi, no super powers, no magic mcguffin makes almost a billion dollars. That doesn't make it a great movie but at least it shows what can be done without all the fluff and sparkles. Investors in movies have taken note.
They did have CG background extensions, Todd Phillips stated that in a video where he did a breakdown of the opening scene, but apart from that, no, there weren't any big CG effects in it.
@@Drew-vn8rx Honestly, I would have been more interested in seeing it if it wasn't associated with a superhero. Only problem is I likely wouldn't have heard about it since there would be no recognisable name to attach to it.
you wanna know why i LOVE your videos? cause i dont want to be spoon-fed the popular opinion or be in an echo chamber for what i might think myself. you bring up great points and you have a soothing voice to boot. thanks for this and all your other videos!!
@@wet-read In the end I found myself in the same place as you. I wanted it to be more than it was and it skewed my interpretation of some of the key plot points throughout. Joaquin was still awesome
Joker never had a clear origin and the story of the movie revolves around that. By the end of the movie, we are not clear who his parents are, what his real name is since he is adopted, etc. It makes sense if you view this movie with that prespective, it manages to tell you a story that you can't completely trust, just like Joker narrating his own life. Here is a detail I noticed on my 2nd viewing: In the finale when he shoots Murray and we get to see all those TV monitors showing the event, you can see that some new stations are censoring the f word (you get what you f***ing deserve), but not the killing. It fits with the american culture as they have a bigger acceptance of violence than bad language or sex, especially the media.
Rob, there were a few things you may have missed in regards to the Dark Knight Joker and why he has followers. In the beginning, the bank robbers were all hired hands who were assigned to kill eachother. They basically robbed the mob, since it was a mob bank. After that, Joker made his presence known to all the mafia heads, calling them cowards because they're all afraid of Batman. He explains that they need to kill the Batman. Only after he kills one of the heads does he show how he recruits more henchmen other than paying them (he has the mob's money, remember?) He offers other mobsters henchmen the opportunity to work with him, or die. He has 2 of them fight to the death with a broken pool cue, and the survivor gets to be a henchman. So, it's not really that they're following the Joker's ideology, they want to either be paid, or survive, or both.
kronos6948 He also preys upon those with damaged minds. Look at Schiff when he was being interrogated by Dent. Batman listed off his mental issues and explained that Joker uses men like him to do his work. It kinda sets up what happens to Dent later on in the film. Dent, who’s mind is damaged from the warehouse explosion and the loss of Rachel, is essentially twisted by Joker into “Two Face”.
Sorry for the response after 2 years- I didn't read the opening as they were all hired hands who were assigned to kill each other.. (I mean, they were hired hands!) I read it as, The Joker planted the seed in their minds that "the fewer people left at the end, the greater the cut for you". Showing how great he is as a manipulator of people.
Actually, you never see any mobster as Joker's subordinate, only double-crossed and killed. Rob was probably refering to guys like that paranoid schizophrenic Harvey caught, or the fat guy in prison ("the kind of people the Joker attracts", like Batman says). So yeah, I'd say he's sort of right.
Versus Phoenix's Joker who can't help recruiting thousands of followers just because they believe in him and want to annihilate society (both in the fiction and real world)
The talk show host represented his resentment for his father and society as a whole. Killing his father would have been a singular isolated act but killing the host echoes through the world and was a release greater than the killing of his completely absent father ever would have been.
That's a decent scene. I wasn't saying remove that, but having a much more personal and angry atack on the Father abuser I think would have made his story more powerful.
@@collativelearning IMHO, it would have made it a complete hack-job. Instead of a solid mox of a little conservative and a little progressive story-telling.
It may be just me, but I watched Falling Down recently and felt totally unmoved by it. I saw it first back in the day and enjoyed it, but now I just want D Fens to shut up and accept he chose the life he had. The reaction the man has, sure, that's controversial, but a white man whinging about how hard his life is, despite being smart enough to choose otherwise, is very now!
@@roadkillz78 lol says the fella sitting, no doubt, warm at home with his PC! I should have said white, middle class man, which is exactly what D fens is. You think it's ok that he whinges about the state he has gotten himself into?! REally?
@@roadkillz78 I wish I was, then I could discount your idiocy as being a mere invention of my mind. Sadly though, twats like yourself exist! Lovely talking to you!
The references to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and Network for that matter, didn't bother me as much I thought they might. I think it's because they really don't make films like them anymore. That is, medium budget studio pictures with enough clear entertainment value and substance to court a wide audience, as well as pleasing (some) critics and having a chance at awards. Invoking these influences makes it clear that this film's lineage is the character study film, even more so than comics and certainly more so than superhero movies. This was an interesting and appropriate choice for a film focusing exclusively on a villain, which is an unprecedented venture at this scale (excepting maybe Fu Manchu and Hannibal Lecter). It was certainly much better for me the second time though, going in with different expectations. On both occasions the people I saw the film with did not see the Sophie reveal coming and appreciated the clarification, so I softened to that aspect too and took the flashbacks to be Arthur's as he realises she isn't really his girlfriend, thus keeping that scene from his point of view. As for his intelligence, my nitpick with the Dark Knight was that the Joker was too much of a master strategist to be truly insane, whereas here Arthur Fleck's insanity and accidental inspiration to the downtrodden in a broken society seemed a lot more plausible, all things considered. Also, the fact that he is coming off 6 or 7 psychotropic medications may play a part in his perceived intelligence in this film, just imagine the side effects! In any case, it is a vastly different take, shaped by the actor playing him just like all the previous Joker incarnations. Bravo to the filmmakers for taking risks, proving that the medium budget model can work spectacularly and that audiences will respond to a better class of criminal. Superb film.
THAT'S WHAT WAS BOTHERING ME! I'm more cynical and critical with Hollywood, but I kept thinking, "I know I've seen this before!" Right on. I don't think this is necessarily an homage. Just more proof of a general lack of originality. Overall, 6/10, for a "super hero" genre...
@@JunkyardHounds I guess it true to say that if someone doesn't like a "homage" then, to them, it's just a "ripoff". I don't know why Quentin Tarantino gets a free pass whilst Todd Phillips is looked down on for the Hangover series and yet held to a higher standard of originality when he actually branches out and does something good. Joker makes its references particularly overt with the period setting and filming location being so close to said films and with the casting of De Niro. I'd argue that it is tasteful way to tell a comic book tale outside the prevalent and lucrative action/comedy genre with some kind of cinematic point of reference. 1970s American cinema wasn't entirely original either. Many films of that period were heavily influenced by world cinema but beyond aficionados there was little talk of the influence of Bresson on Taxi Driver or Kurosawa on Star Wars, especially once those US films reached much wider audiences. I became interested in those influences after hearing the filmmakers talk about them and it was never a problem and actually a gateway into interesting and, in some cases, better films. Similarly, whilst knowing the all references in Joker is not necessary to enjoying it, younger audiences not acquainted with Scorsese's early film might take an interest in them if they hear out about their influence. I think Joker brings enough originality to the table to stand the test of time, but we'll see.
I'm actually surprised that you didnt take more away from it. Its an extremly layered film. After my initial watch I discussed it with many people and pretty much everyone noticed different little details and you catch something new with every rewatch. The use of tv screeens and mirrors alone is video worthy, not to mention the rats, the movie references hidden everywhere, the subtle changes that show that blurry line between delusions and reality, and the emphasis on father figures. Sure it'll improve for you with a rewatch.
Warning - Long comment incoming with Spoilers! Hi Rob. Good review. Glad you liked the film at least to a certain extent. Just wanted to offer my opinion and why I disagree a bit. I love this film. Been to see it 3 times now in the cinema. Unlike you, I am a Batman fan and have read a lot of the comics. That being said, I definitely thought after watching it that someone could see this film without knowing anything about the lore and enjoy it at least on some level. So I'm definitely happy that you enjoyed it OK (6 or 7/10 isn't bad at all). I thought Phoenix was unbelievable in the film. He WAS Arthur/The Joker to me. I didn't see Joaquin Phoenix on the screen at all. Also, I'm a Scorsese fan too and the gun to the head thing and other references to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy made me smile tbh. Didn't bother me personally. Could see why you found it lazy though especially since you're much more into film-making than I am. Me personally though? Didn't mind. I didn't think they made him out to be a dunce at all. Mentally ill/depressed and losing his grip on reality definitely but a dunce? No. He's actually very quick on his feet. Look at the whole train section towards the end where he starts a riot/brawl without having to do much of anything in order to get away from the detectives. Sure he does stuff like trying to walk through the exit only door at the hospital but consider the stress he's under at that point in the film with what happened to his Mum and the state of mind that he's in. I suffer from depression myself and I become clumsy too when it's particularly bad and especially in times of stress/heartache. As for the whole hunting down his abuser thing, I wouldn't have liked to see that at all. Firstly, it's unnecessary and would add too much to the run time. The run time in the finished film is 122 minutes which to me is perfect. Adding a sequence with him getting revenge on his abuser would be the whole "Trip to Hong Kong" section of The Dark Knight all over again. It'd be a detour that ultimately wouldn't add much to the story. Arthur in the film is searching for warmth from a Father figure (Murray, Thomas Wayne etc.) and hunting down a man who he can barely even remember wouldn't make much of a difference to him especially with everybody else who treats him like shit. Incidentally, it's not uncommon at all for the abused to suppress memories of childhood trauma (not to mention the issues that a child that young would have as far as remembering things anyway). So I don't really see that as an issue. I wasn't bored/un-engaged at all during the first half hour. It actually contains some of my favourite bits on repeat viewings. The whole part of him imagining himself in the audience on Murray's show, the subway murders, the scene in the children's hospital etc. . I expected a slow build and got just that. For what it's worth, my Mother who's 55 now isn't a fan of Taxi Driver because she found it too slow and boring and yet she loved Joker. I don't agree with her on Taxi Driver as that's also a film that I love, just felt like I should mention that. Finally and most importantly, I'm surprised that you didn't talk at all about some of the subliminal aspects of the movie. Particularly the ending of the film and it's implications. It kind of leads me to believe that you may have missed the whole point of the ending. He's locked up in Arkham and his therapist asks him what's so funny as he laughs to himself. He says "I was thinking of a Joke". When the therapist asks him if he'd like to tell it to her he replies "You wouldn't get it" as it flashes to a brief shot of Bruce Wayne and his dead parents. Basically, the ending implies that the entire movie was made up in Joker's head! Think about it, whenever he's happy in the film, it's usually because he's experiencing a delusion about something (Murray embracing him, the imaginary girlfriend, Randall *supposedly* giving him the gun) and it's often hard to determine what's real and what isn't. Now think back to The Dark Knight and Joker's stories about his scars. He gives a different version of events every time. Why? Because he's an unreliable narrator. He likes to fuck with people. He likes his backstory to be multiple choice. With the implied twist at the end of Joker not only is he fucking with Batman's head by suggesting that in some way he's responsible for his parent's deaths, he's messing with the heads of the entire audience by giving them a false recollection of events designed to make them sympathise with him. I thought it was sheer genius and it made me reconsider the rest of the film. More proof of this? In his first therapy session, it jumps for a few brief seconds to him being locked up in Arkham and banging his head on the door. The therapist implies that he's been in there before but if you play close attention to the scene, you'll notice that the clock on the wall of the asylum is the exact same time on the clock in the therapist's office! Not just that, later on when he goes to get his mum's file, he asks the guy at the desk "How does someone end up in here?". Implying that he in fact hasn't been sectioned before! Joker is the ultimate unreliable narrator. I know you said you're not into the Batman comics and I'm not sure how much you're into the comic book medium in general, but I URGE you to read The Killing Joke. It's a very short story so it won't take up too much of your time but it gives probably the most famous example of Joker's unreliable narrator tendencies. It tells you a backstory that at the end is implied was made up in Joker's head and asks you to discard it as just one of many possible origins. It's an essential read. One last thing, I do totally agree with you however on the whole controversy surrounding this flick. To me it's a mix of the media having an agenda and then the marketing behind the film playing off of that whole thing in order to attract more people to the movie. Is Joker a violent film? Yeah. Definitely. Is it the most violent, controversial movie ever made? Not at all. It's hype/marketing/media bullshit. That being said, I love the film. 10/10 from me personally and I do think it's a film that will be looked back on fondly years to come. That being said, good review. You were very fair as always and I'm glad you enjoyed your time with the movie. Definitely encourage you to give it some more watches though if only to notice some of the things that you didn't see the first time. I know that every time I've watched it, I pick up new things each time. Cheers
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Thanks! Put a lot of effort into it lol I'm pretty passionate about this movie. Some parts of it made me tear up actually like when he's breaking down on the mic at the comedy club and laughing/crying about how he hated school as a kid? Gosh it gets me every time because I can relate to that so much (both hating school and his laughter/getting emotional). I don't think it went over his head completely. Just don't think he saw in it what those of us who love the movie see in it. But hey, maybe he will on subsequent viewings :)
That's a bit much. Assuming the clock thing is deliberately thought out, 1: not only it's lazy, it's also not how ambiguity works, it doesn't add value to the movie itself, it only adds something with a sequel (wich of course there will be) explaining things ad hoc; 2: the epilogue in that hypotesis is just Joker lying to the woman and laughing - because it's a joke to him -, the plot is just a man telling one untrue story, it has no context, it doesn't hold itself as a narrative. I'll give you what I mean with an example. In the movie Hero, Jet Li plays some kind of a mercenary who dueled and killed some dangerous swordsmen and then goes to the emperor to explain what happened and get his reward. He tells the story about how he found and killed the guys, but he's an unreliable narrator, the emperor doubts the story and tells what he thinks actually happened. When the emperor finishes, the guy has no choice but to tell what actually happened (according to him), and so on - he planned to cheat and kill the swordsmen so that he would meet and kill the emperor, avenging the death of his family or something like that -. Almost the whole movie is in the carachters' heads, but it has context, it gives you several versions of a story for you to discern what the hell whappened and judge the carachters. A good script would do something along these lines, not just a wide shot with a clock in a corner for some seconds. Other thing that doesn't necessarily bother me but could be easily handled is: Arthur should care about who beat him as a child! He should at least ask Penny who the man was - she wouldn't answer and Arthur would kill her right away - problem solved for the plot. I agree with the rest of what you said, but you're overthinking and overating the movie.
We did continue to see things as he sees it throughout the film. When he figures out for himself what was real we see him remember it properly. His arc is from helpless and ignorant to curious and confused to impactful and self assured. From one kind of crazy to a worse kind.
but thats but even how you perceive memory its just how you show it in a movie. if you can communicate that she doesnt actually know him and him realizing then theres no need for more flashbacks.
14:01 From what the film presented, Arthur suffered from severe brain trauma as a result of the abuse, so that could be the main reason he doesn't remember any of it. There is always the possibility of him subconsciously repressing some of those memories too.
yeah, i think the file says he had blunt force trauma to the skull, that caused permanent brain damage and memory loss... but it's a subtlety that i didn't pick up entirely on the first viewing.
I enjoyed the movie but I strongly agree on one major criticism you made which is how obvious it made his delusions and his fake memories. It was obvious the moment the neighbour walked into her apartment, we didn't need to literally see (Fight Club style) the actual memories as they were. I felt that was a moment that was in there to pander to audience members who don't respond to subtlety. I hate that for a couple of reasons. 1. The audience isn't half a stupid as film-makers and producers seem to sometimes think and 2. Why is it a bad thing that the audience might sometimes get it wrong? I wish more movies would be bold and leave some things ambiguous and risk giving the wrong impression. In the end, the vast majority will find out from friends that they got it wrong anyway so there's no harm in that. Another scene that I felt was out of place was the murder of the Wayne's. It felt like it was out of a different movie and edited in because someone realised 'We can't have a Joker movie with child Bruce Wayne in it and NOT show that scene for the umpteenth time?!'. Overall though i really liked the movie, I think I gave it a 7.5/8. It's an intelligent movie for the most part and I was thoroughly engrossed throughout.
The rant that Arthur has before murdering Murray Franklin was like a cliff notes version of the Howard Beale dialogue in Network not to mention Joker featured a near carbon copy of the ending scene of Network that featured a panel of monitors in a TV studio control room showing various news broadcasts and commercials.
Expectations often ruin the experience. Expect nothing, and you get everything. Expect everything, and you get.. well.. less. lol. I guess we can blame all hype for your high expectations, so you end up being bored when the movie is gearing up for the good stuff. Ah well, so it goes!
People don't seem to understand that this isn't the over elaborate, flamboyant, whimsical and over the top joker character that you get in the comic book version of the character, it's more grounded and realistic. That's what I liked. He's a mentally disturbed loner with hints of sexual or physical trauma. This version of the joker character felt reminiscent of the Travis Bickle character in Taxi Driver and shows how being lonely can affect your mental well-being. Di Nero gave an excellent performance as well. It could have been an interesting twist to have the revelation that Bruce Wayne is his half brother. It's a beautifully shot movie You could make the argument that the events in the film only took place in his head and he's a joker/ comic book fan boy. The humour wasn't great but the performance's for the most part were terrific. Die hard comic book fans won't like this depiction of Joker. It's a character study of a mentally disturbed guy and shows his rise and fall and it was a big risk eliminating Jokers nemesis Batman but I think it worked.
De Niro* And I think I'm a bit of "a die hard comic book fan" but I loved the film! Because even in the comics there are times that writers want to re do characters on the way they think they might work. For example the Elseworld's series. So anything it's permitted. If it's good, why not give it a try.
Your thoughts reflect my own. I really only enjoyed the second half, but that half was still only "good" not "great". The film is elevated by Joaquin Phoenix performance, which I enjoyed immensely, despite the scripts limitations. Still, I'd like to see more small, intimate portraits of heroes and villian's like this film and "Logan", instead of the usual Saving-The-Planet-From-Destruction fare, so I'm hoping its box-office success sets of that trend.
I thought it was interesting when you had these parts in the movie like with the lady down the hall - is it in his head? It’s kind of like an unreliable narrator. They ruined it by spelling it out, there was no need.
But then the rest WASN’T spelled out. Did he kill her? Was Thomas Wayne his real father? Were the riots real? Was it all just in his mind w/ Arthur in the mental institution all that time?
David Smith I thought the photo of his mother with a note signed by TW that he happens across was proof that there was some kind of interaction between them. But then, why no investigation after he kills his mum?
Very interesting and nuanced take. Thank you for being nuanced. I really loved Joker and many of the things you found lacking were either things I specifically preferred in it or didn't care about, but I can understand your priorities and tastes. I'm really glad this film happened. Psychological realism and character study were kicked back into fashion by early seasons GoT, and I want them to stay in fashion.
The whole point of the film is that it’s left totally ambiguous where the line between what actually happened in the film and what didn’t happen. Showing moments that were explicitly not real was the films way of showing how unreliable the narrator is
@@dougcrane8031 I mean these displays of what was not real are not the only clues that there's more of the film that was part of Arthurs delusions, other clues more subtle are every clock displaying the same time, less bullet wounds appearing on the wayne employees than there were gunshots, Arthur getting away with killing his mother and stealing the documents in arkham, etc.
A note about a "dunce": keep in mind that he's on medication, so he's nowhere near his full potential and they show bits and pieces of him being gifted: artistically, physically and maybe even mentally. In that interpretation of the character, but also, pretty much in all of them his key talent is improvising something that looks very much like it was planned.
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Well, there are numerous scenes of Arthur with medication and a few times throughout the movie it is confirmed that his prescriptions depend on that program which is being closed. It's not even something hard to miss in the movie.
@@PictureProductStudio Exactly! I'm seeing a lot of comments explaining very basic things to mister Ager, so he either went into the movie with aversion so he didn't pay attention on purpose, or he just really missed all of these things and that's even worse...
fwiw, btw... an LA comedian observed that Ledger’s Joker seems to be modeled on Tom Waits’ persona, especially imo his LPs between 76-87. The monologues and imagery on Swordfish Trombones really lend credence to this theory
@@stefanosprokopis3917 I don't care if you liked it because it is your opinion and opinions are subjective, they are not facts. It is a fact that Joker is a unoriginal film that copies many themes and nuances from movies such as Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, Fight Club, you name it. There isn't anything cinematically brilliant about the movie and Joaquin Phoenix's performance is arguably the only reason to watch it.
@@LordMalice6d9 it borrowed tiny segments from the movies you mentioned. In the KOC Rupert was genuinely obsessed with Langford and being on his show going out of his way to meet him and doing a demo tape. All's the joker did was fantasize about being deniro's show. Who hasn't fantasized about being a celebrity and going on a talk show? I have but I'm not going to go and kidnap a talk show host. In fight club they used the scene where it showed the viewers that Edward Norton was imagining everything. Big deal. The Joker world is similar to the the world Travis Buckles lived in. So. Fact is every movie copies something from other movies and less than one % of movies are realistic. From Rambo to the God Father. No movie is flawless in What it tries to achieve but if a person can go and escape for 90 minutes and enjoy what they see than that's all that counts.
When/If you re-watch it, pay attention to how often scenes play with the idea that what you're seeing may not be actually happening. One of the main things about the joker is that he tells multiple origin stories, so I found it interesting that "storyteller's perspective" is the main experience of this film that even leaves the ending ambiguous. There are a lot of clues that what you're seeing may be his hallucination. The reveals later are his experience of realizing it, as they only reveal a single element of his hallucinations. Even the credibility about the file he finds is in question. It's not about the information we're learning from the file, its about the idea that you can't even trust that. As you said, he doesn't remember that. If you think about it, a seemingly official document's augmentation by those in power falls in line with the idea that they misrepresent themselves. As we saw earlier when Thomas Wayne was being interviewed by the very same talk show host that is so influential throughout the film, after Mr. Wayne talks about how Wayne enterprises cares about ALL it's employees the camera pans to reveal the "former employee".
That was great but, I've noticed a pattern where Hollywood is literally taking innovative ideas and concepts (if not stealing entire storylines) and passing them off as "original"... I don't buy this "paying homage" explanation. I am of the personal opinion that Hollywood is COMPLETELY out of ideas...
It was "setting up the usual stuff": He was bullied as a kid... As an adult he was assaulted by degenerate youths smashing his face with a sign, I wouldn't call the things that happen to Arthur "bullied as a kid”. Arthur as a kid was tied to a radiator and was beaten by a grown man to the point of causing brain damage... 'Bit of an understatement there Rob. Your description of this film's premise implies that it starts with Arthur in a playground fight. He has no father figure... what a cliche? Not just that, but his mother is a narcissistic woman who manipulates him and has played a role in the abuse. I am not sure why this is a flaw with the film. Joker wanting to hunt down this abusive man could be in the sequel... I am no expert on memory, but if you beat a child's head hard enough to knock him out, would that not cause memory loss? How was that implausible? A lot of the best bits from Joker seem to be lifted from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy... This isn't the first time I've heard this. What is Your evidence?: Arthur points a real gun at his head... alone in an apartment while imagining a laugh track. In Taxi Driver's classic scene, a wounded Travis points his finger at his head while being watched by cops after killing 3 pimps. That seems to be what you are referencing. There is a less dramatically emphasized scene in Taxi Driver where Travis tries to shoot himself but is out of bullets. It is only vaguely similar to the scene in Joker. I am pretty sure that the details of why these events happen in these two films are very different. I don't know that the tense scene in Joker where Arthur points a gun at his head was done "better" in TD. Both scenes were memorable, but the goals were different. I do not agree that Joker failed to come up with original stuff. I am willing to hear more reasons why. "Taxi and King of Comedy were better scripted." Maybe, I actually would have liked to see Scorsese himself direct Joker as he could have brought a LOT more tension in many scenes, but I don't think that proves that Joker is a "poorly scripted" film by contrast. Arthur in Joker (2019) could not become an intelligent, self controlled mastermind as he is in "later stories."??? I agree, but that is a flaw with adaptation, not with internal quality. Certainly most versions of the Joker in the comics AND in the films and tv shows portray him as a funny, crazy, yet intelligent criminal mastermind, differing from Arthur Fleck's average intelligence. (I am not aware of any origin of the Joker that involves him being a "stand up comedian") But that doesn't make this film bad, if it is evaluated as a stand alone story. It is NOT a measurable problem with the script. I wasn't really going into this film expecting a crime or heist film. This film's universe has NO overt connection to the Christopher Nolan OR Tim Burton OR Zack Snyder films. Him being a "dunce" is only in the 1st half of the film, the 2nd half involves him getting off his meds, killing the co-worker who framed him and escaping the cops successfully when he doesn't want to get caught. Arthur has SOME intelligence but just lacks confidence. Joker isn't nearly as controversial or as violent as the press has made it out. I agree. All that negative press is "probably" marketing? ... Interesting theory, the film DID make over a billion dollars. I don't know about that the people writing negative reviews about the film were just "marketing" the film as they say some things that were meant to ward off people.
Indeeed I WAS SO WEIRDED OUT WHEN HE SAID "ohh he got bullied as a kiiidd" Me: UHM WHAT BULLIED AS A KID? DO YOU MEAN ABUSED BY HIS MOMS BF AND HIS MOM WHO DIDNT EVEN NOTICE AND DID NOTHING TO STOP AND AND LIKELY CAUSED HIS CONDITION???? DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE MOVIE???
Actually the graphic novel, The Killing Joke, is probably the most famous story for the origin of the joker, and he really was a stand up comedian, living in a shitty apartment. Now that said none of it is really "canon", but it is the closest comics got to giving the clown a backstory, and I'd assume that story is what they pulled from most in terms of the "Joker" from the comics
Brad Wibbels Oh, I didn’t know that. Is the Killing Joke even that good? I haven’t been impressed with what little of Alan Moore’s books that I’ve read.
@@NihilisticIdealist it's about the 2007 joker- where everyone is just an NPC ready to die so Joker wins. School your nerd ass up on film before you argue about it, Joker 2019 fanboy
@@imcallingjapan2178 I'm not saying the Dark Knight and video games make people homicidal. I'm saying thg joke's minions were npcs act more like robots than people in a crime organization
Can you compare the Joker to Kubrick's films becuase the scene where he shoots the bad guys reminded me of A Clockowrk Orange beginning where Alex and his Droogs save the girl out.
I agree with Rob 1000%. It is important to make a good movie hero/anti-hero a sympathetic character. Phoenix's character, however, was simply pathetic! I tried to like the film, and really put forth effort to hone in and be as observant as possible. What a chore that turned out to be. "The Joker" was the opposite of interesting. (I don't think the word "uninteresting" expresses my feeling towards the movie enough.)
i love the movie. in general film uses "unreliable narrator" not just as a device for the narrative.. but as a major theme of the film. as instead of giving the story definitive true to hold yourself on.. the movie keep showing you a world fill with people who are unreliable narrators. -thomas wayen -penny fleck - arkham asylum - the news media - murray franklin - arthur himself - the activists - the policemen - the everyday folks -arthur's co workers and boss all of them are either telling stuff that may not be true.. or are just seeing what they Want to see.. when they interpret the things that are happening..instead indulge in different point of view.
@@dougcrane8031 i get what you are saying. but i think in this case it was a deliberated choice and part of the design of what the film wanted to make. and it fits with multiple interpretation of the joker in the comics . the movie is deliberately opening itself for multiple interpretations with giving the viewers bait path that the movie deliberately is placing there. what i mean is that i don't think the script is unfocused by accident but because they are attempting to using that as part of the design of the film.. that doesn't necessary makes it good choice but i wouldn't call it an "excuse" in this case.
@@dougcrane8031 I'll admit that the scenes that the film take directly from taxi driver did bother me after getting sometime to reflect on the film.. its not as original as my initial reaction of the film was. ( i had seen taxi driver before, but my memories of the film were not that fresh ) as for the multiple interpretations. a simple example would be that we don't know if penny fleck was lying or if it was Thomas Wayne.. the whole thing alludes the "me too" movement but it doesn't give clear answer on who is really the victim and who is lying. like i mention in my first post. i think the movie is criticizing how easy we are lean to favor one narrative over others in general. being more willing to have or actions and live choices been driven by a perceptual fantasy than reality itself.. just because it validates our own vision of how the world works. (im aware that taxi driver touch on that same themes and execute them in a more subtle and graceful way ) both Arthur and Murray have really valid criticisms of each other . but they are more worried and focus on proving the other wrong than to ask themselves if they are just seeing 2 sides of the same coin and if so, gaining a larger and more complex understanding of reality. by doing so the movie is validating joker's vision of the world in which society truly is insane .. but the way the film ends, leaves open the possibility that the whole film is just joker lying to himself.. maybe none of the event of the film were real and we are just seeing the vision of madman that is justifying to himself his own actions. the film leaves the audience confused of what they just seen. forcing them to talk to each other and compare note to try to figure out the message.. ask themselves if the movie is good or not. i got to say.. i'm may be a bit bias here cause i do think the world in general need to be better at not doing this and be more aware that they are doing it in the first place. the film speaks to me cause, i see this kind of behavior all the time in the internet and in Mexico (my country ). (sorry if my grammar is awful by the way. i do try to avoid making spelling or syntax mistakes but sadly a lot of the times i still stumble in the process. )
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in an earlier scene you see a clock on the wall with a specific time when he's with his therapist and at the end of the movie the same clock and time is on the wall with his other therapist whom are both black, so it makes me wonder that maybe a lot of the events are told through his unreliable narration and the lines are in reality blurred to what actually happened as a way of the Joker to invoke some sort of pity of the psychopathic mastermind that lurks behind the mask. Like the movie is a sort of joke on the viewer.
@@titod.7012 Yeah, and Maybe like a reflection as well. I dunno, it was just a thought and maybe Rob could go into that in a future video if he thinks it's worthy.
@@dakiniblitz He should, I dont like when he gives reactionary reviews or thoughts. This movie should be viewed multiple times before doing a review. He dismissed the Witch and it follows aswell which are also movies he can analyze.
@@titod.7012 I agree, it's a film that deserves multiple viewings, although people want to know his initial thoughts I suppose. Maybe his thoughts will change on a second viewing, just he has changed my views on a movie seeing it a second time
The entire movie is in his head. The old Warner bros logo comes up at the start because it is Joker imagining how the film of his story would look like The movie is a film within a film in other words. It might explain the often clunky use of references. Surely Phillips isn't so dim he would put jarring references into his film, so jarring you leave the film a moment and recall the movie reference. The references are clunky because Arthur chooses them. I may be giving Phillips way too much credit though!!
Wakeen, as below. The j is pronounced the Spanish way, like Juan. He has quite a trippy background. He was named Leaf, and changed it to Joaquin. His brother was River Phoenix. You probably already know ...His parents were kind of hippies, and the whole family were members of Children of God, a cult ... check it out. I loved Joker.
I felt the exact same way about the amount of violence. Press coverage pretty much made it out to be so violent it's borderline inappropriate to show. When I walked out I was like: Meh, good movie but the press bamboozled me...again. Great video as always, love your content!
I feel like you're being too harsh on this film, maybe you had your expections incorrectly set by the crazy media outrage (I did too thinking it was going to be ultra violent but its actually a very slow paced film) and I actually enjoyed viewing it a second time more because I knew what to expect. There was a point in the film where he pics a picture up that says love you forever to his mother or something signed by thomas wayne on the back but it only shown quickly. Joker is clearly inspired by those other movies but it is not a copy. They said he had a head injury as a child which might have impacted his memory. This is also a standalone film that doesn't fit in with the rest of the universe so he didnt need to be the super intelligent villain for batman to battle. You'd probably benifit from a rewatch.
@@megaultradamn It's because it's an alternate telling of the joker character set in a different universe, the movie is about Joker not batman. Maybe if they continue with films in this universe the batman will be weaker than his usual portrayals.
Jorgon The Anachronist Agreed. People just don’t get this basic point, because of the fanboy love of the Joker character. He is pointless without Batman. And an ”alternate take” doesn’t justify changing that dynamic. More of an Incorrect take.
I feel like the medications suppressed his potential in showing his intelligence. As he stopped taking his meds he changed which showed that he seemed to be more like himself yk?
Agreed. In addition, *SPOILER ALERT* I thought the midget that couldn't reach the doorknob scene says it all about the movie's lack of direction... what was suppose to be an intense scene turned into a weird joke, but not joker style joke, just a midget that couldn't reach the doorknob going for cheap-laughs weirdness, and their faces said it all, too much indifference on screen to have anything of substance
Great point. Somewhere along the way I could imagine there being a lot of grief between the director and editor over the context of that scene. Taxi Driver did it 1000 times better in my opinion. Not sure why or how Todd Phillips thought to add humor to that scene but the bad taste it left in my mouth almost felt like i was sipping on battery acid
That was not a joke, and not supposed to be funny. That people laughed shows more about them than the movie. That he couldn't reach it was terrifying. Imagine being in his position and unable to get out, not knowing if you're going to be hacked to death by a scissor wielding maniac...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood The fact that anyone laughs at that scene tells me there was some intended humor there. Whether someone that laughs at that scene is morally bankrupt or someone that doesn't laugh is lacking a sense of humor isn't really my concern as a viewer. Typically when a mixed emotion is conveyed to the audience that tells me that the framing and context of the scene was unbalanced by the film makers. I found the scene to be an almost tongue in cheek attempt at making the audience relate to Arthur and his penchant for obnoxious inappropriate laughter
@@LucLeFou What expressions do you refer to? I saw nothing but fear in the little guy's face. Nobody made funny goofy faces, neither was there goofy music to suggest this scene was supposed to be funny.
I gotta stop you at the end...the controversy around The Joker was not calculated. There are tons of websites dedicated to outrage culture. The article writers have shitty opinions and the people in charge of hiring article writers look exactly for that to drum up outrage over outrage. The more rediculous an opinion the more people click the article, and the more the website gets ad revenue. They basically profit off of faux outrage.
Collative Learning Quite the opposite Rob. I am a Batman fan and I hated this movie, along with The Dark Knight. Both movies don’t understand the characters or do them Justice. But fanboys don’t care about character or respect for sourcematerial, they just want a logo or a recognizable brand name. Not one of the Batman films have really nailed it so I don’t blame you or regular moviegoers to have the wrong image of Batman and his world.
"Arthur got bullied as a kid" dude did you even understand what was going on?? He got abused by his mums bf and his mum did nothing to stop it and didn't care and this cause major trauma and ptsd + likely the laughing condition he has because of the brain damage. You made it sound like he got pushed around at school or something.
@@chetmanly4620 Every vowel is supposed to be sounded out. The exception is "qui." In Spanish (and this is a Spanish name), qui sounds like kee and que sounds like keh so the "u" is silent in both cases. So, Joaquin becomes Ho-ah-keen. If you're not used to hearing Spanish, the Ho-ah part sounds like "Wah" because the mouth position for the "o" sound in Ho-ah is similar to the mouth position for the W sound. You have to be used to Spanish to spot the difference.
You do need to see it again if you missed how Wayne is not his biological father. I watched this review before I even knew anything about this movie, then I eventually saw it and came back to see this opinion video, I’m quite surprised at how you interpreted the film. I do wonder, however, how the Oscars will respond to it, most likely at the very least an award for cinematography.
@@collativelearning Rob I love and respect your stuff but remember the last Mad Max when you came from the theaters you thought it was great and then you did I think two other videos where you'downgraded it keep doing what your doing
Mr Ager, I really respect your opinions, video analysis, reviews..pretty much anything you do. You managed to put to words my exact problems with this movie. Thank you for your content and I really hope you keep doing it!
I agree with many points, BUT despite any flaws, it was a film I really enjoyed in the cinema. Somehow it caught my imagination more than any other recent film. I think when I revisit it, it will be interesting to see if it gets better with age.
Its a decent movie about mental illness but its not about the Joker we all know from the Batman comics. The character of the Joker is successful and the character in Joker is a total loser.
Here's the thing. When Phoenix won the Oscar, he had a real opportunity to discuss the way the USA looks at mental illness and abuse, both physical and mental. What does he do? He rambles on nearly incoherently about how celebrities need to stop flying on private planes and leaving a large, carbon footprint. WTF? The film is about mental illness & abuse. We have record homelessness, with people who are mentally ill from drugs and a history of abuse, among other things. Deranged people going on shooting sprees, from rock concerts to schools. What a missed opportunity. He could have challenged the Hollywood elite to dig deep and instead of demonizing guns and our 2nd amendment rights, use their money, privilege, and celebrity to address mental illness on a national level. But no. Hollywood has failed again. Guns are not the problem. Mental illness and abuse is the underlying issues. Resolve these issues, gun violence will be drastically reduced.
Your view of the fact that this joker was sort of an akward dumby is the most glaring mistake in my eyes as well. He seems to become the joker by accident. Jokers character is a genius who makes incredibly complex plans.
It isn't the Joker. Just a guy who read Batman comics as a child, and the film is his fantasy, where the comics blur up a reality for Him to escape to. Feel free to disagree with me, this film has many possible ways to Interpret it.
@@SmartDave60 Like Todd Phillips said many many times, this is own version of Joker. Not a dude who read Joker's comics (like someone said). Since he created his own origin story of Joker, we can imagine his future tranformation into a criminal in a different way. Don't forget that Arthur looked different when he stopped taking medications. I am replying to you but i am trying to reply to other comments i read here too.
Hi Rob, I love your channel and your reviews and interpretations on movies like 2001 Space Odyssey and Alien, so I was thrilled to see you had posted a video on Joker. I was surprised to find that I did not agree with many points you made however. For example, when you said it was left open ended as to whether Bruce Wayne was Arthur Fleck's father, I felt that the adoption papers in the file confirmed that he was not. Also, I was very surprised you didn't mention how the ending suggests how the entire movie itself was the, "Joke", that the Joker concocted inside his head while sitting in front of the counselor, to which he replied when asked, "you wouldn't get it". If we take this interpretation, then I think we have a good explanation for most of the issues you brought up with the Joker not being intelligent enough etc. and makes a lot more sense. Also, Fleck looks to be in his mid 40s while Bruce Wayne is only 9. If they are to become arch enemies when Batman is about 30, then the Joker would be pushing 70, which seems like such an obvious error by the script that it couldn't possibly have been made by accident. I think that is some good evidence that the film is actually the Joker imagining his own origin story for fun and then laughing about it in the end. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
Gosh Darnit Rob Ager! Thank you for giving voice to every doubt and tittle I had about this movie when I was seeing it and in the time since I saw it. Good. Movie. Not great
Glad you brought up the line of inquiry on why anyone would follow the Joker. Although I find Ledger's Joker somewhat dubious as a team leader, you can still tell that he is more than capable of making a plan and executing it, while presumably rewarding those around him that he doesn't kill. Although I am still skeptical of his Joker as a leader, I also see the qualities that would make him attractive to others (he does after all pull off a bank heist, fools the mobsters, and escapes from jail, as well as other shenanigans). On the other hand while I understand the appeal of Wah-keen (Joaquin) Phoenix's Joker, I also am really disappointed by the fact that the movie makers never actually attempt to draw a line in the sand with his relationship to the 'angry mob'. The whole point of the movie seemed to me that while men like the Joker are somewhat justified in their rage and anger towards society, at some point they break away from what is acceptable, and then at another point their actions become unjustifiable. It would have been far more compelling to see him actually alienate those who make him their hero - a breaking point for the angry mob that also makes him realize he isn't this hero of the masses, that he can go too far.
Phoenix is about the best thing in it. It really is a thin statement on today's society and a visual mash of other films from the last 30 or 40 years but all Art is derivative I guess. You're spot on with the marketing comment tho.
Dashoost I love the movie to death but... Yeah, I can't really argue that. I think this movie works best if you haven't seen Taxi Driver or King of Comedy.
it isn't a great review at all tho, 18mins yet never really goes into detail about mental health awareness or real issues.. only that it's controversial, big deal. the movie is hitting almost 900mil box office, think about it. it's not usual for this type of film to dominate the market. at the time of taxi driver and king of comedy, neither had immediate great social impact.. it took years to make a mark.
@@thedocak7532 I feel like the mental health awareness is just a checkmark in today's culture. Like in no way is it groundbreaking or really even that interesting of a concept anymore.
@@WilldaBeast999909 i couldn't name many films in the last decade that bluntly address this and made that much impact socially. small movies yes but not big productions. and it's false to suggest mental health awareness is dull and needs no more discussion. tbh, good will hunting was not all that great at addressing mental health. highly socially significant but didn't do as well as phoenix to single handedly carry the film's purpose. I only watch that movie for robin williams anyway.
8:00 I was surprised you couldn't remember the music, to me it was intrusive in it's intensity! It's been a few weeks since my viewing, but (with the exception of a few songs) I believe it was just orchestral? I found it descended in a ham-fisted way on various scenes, LOUDLY. Came off as compensating for something rather than complimenting the story.
I didn't feel it added much. But I did appreciate that it's almost never there: most of the runtime has no music, which is bold and hard to get past the execs, I imagine.
Regarding Reality vs. Psychosis depictions Rob, I know from listening to you that didn't like/watch Bates Motel but they handled the Norman/mother confusion about what is reality and what is psychosis really well... especially as the seasons went on and the line got more blurred. You would actually like the visual devices used. Color, camera angles, body language and performance. It is only ever spelled out when it would make sense for it to be, like a character being confused about what is going on with Norman. It was never explicitly spoken any other time and it is even a plot device using confusion about reality to build cliffhangers. I know this wasn't Joker specific but I wanted to speak to your specific point regarding the ham handed handling of the flashbacks.
I don't think I have seen anybody really mention the John Wayne Gacy influence in Joker. The makeup he wears looks like it was heavily inspired by the makeup design Gacy wore when he dressed as a clown for parties. Also, the comedy club Arthur goes to is called Pogo's. Pogo was the name of Gacy's clown persona.
12:35 That gave me an idea, yeah...that "tormentor" could've been a monster of darkness and that would have tied nicely to the batman mythos and their rivalry. (edit) I still love the movie but I can understand why you don't consider it a classic; thanks for your thoughts on it tho
That "tormentor", in the way The Butter TOOL describes it, sounds like the demon-Batman the Joker saw from "Arkham Origins". But that would've turned it into more of a horror movie instead. Might work as an idea for a miniseries, but... I ain't goin' that far.
They follow Heath Ledger's Joker because they're afrad of him. Marone lays it out to Batman, "They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him to you." In this movie, the Joker doesn't even have an ideology...
Why abused? We are seeing that to much, in every movie and every series, and it started to be boring. Its like people who are not abused cant be deviant, evil, messed, damaged. I met damaged people from normal family too. Putting Joker in that template/pattern/cliche is unforgivable!! This could be an epic movie with H(x)oaˈkin if they didn't decide to exploit abuse. I will rather stick to my own Joker vision, that he was a normal guy who grew up in normal family. He didn't kill animals when he was 7 or being abused by anyone! He was just a normal guy, to smart to tolerate stupidity in his society and he just got overflowed/fed up with everything. So he went that way.
The film could have focused more on the terrible side effects of a lot of mental health medication, but as you said that would have been too edgy for a big studio.
Basically, the movie wasn't about the creation of Joker; it was an explanation for why the Joker had devout minions carrying out his terrorist ambitions.
I liked it. It’s worth a watch. But I won’t be rewatching. Just not as interesting as the producers thought it was. A rehash of some fine films though. Cheers everyone!!!
It was better at paying homage to Scorsese than it was at telling its own story. 'The King of Comedy' blurred reality in a better way. 'Taxi Driver' and 'Raging Bull' both showcased a tortured soul in a better way. Top notch visuals and acting, no doubt... But it just never became more than the sum of its parts.
Jack Torrance But how many 20 somethings know about Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy? Ripping off great cinema and engaging young audiences w/ it is a win to me.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +2
David Smith you do have a point. But I’m old, I know all the films they steal from. It’s my duty to point these things out. By doing so, maybe some kid will watch the originals and see real art. Cheers brother.
5 ปีที่แล้ว +2
MK-Ultra Mags .... never became more than the sum of its parts. That’s exactly what I was thinking. Just couldn’t so eloquently state it like you. Cheers.
You haven't understood this movie at all. For example, he was laughing not to lighten himself up, then he was in pain or sadness. That laugh was a psychological condition, it was his version of cry or panic. Even laughter itself was painful. And he became Joker not because of childhood trauma... Abuse was couse or one of couse of his mental illness. That's all impact of childhood abuse in Arthur's life. And the point is that scene in Asylum, there he stole those files, was to show that indeed Thomas Wayne wasn't his biological father, trauma itself wasn't the focus and there was no need for that, because focus was his transformation from Arthur Fleck to Joker,. Sure, adding some scenes from his childhood would have been nice touch, but not neccessery. BTW, media hated the movie before it's release. Violance and possible effects of this was shown as big negative in the movie, critics were bashing it. I mean, we have John Wick, yet they told Joker might provoke mass shootings. You didn't find violance as much as you expected couse aspect of violance was just tool for media to make this film undesirable for viewers. Todd Philips never intended to create Joker as film, full of violance. And as for real vs not real: all film, except very last scene, may have been hallucination. Plus, were there no intentions to make this character anything similar to other versions. All that chaos doesn't represent Joker's views. He killed just because he was tired from society in general. In the very begining of the film he was beaten by some teenagers, who doesn't seem to be rich. Almost opposite, actually. Joker was simply happy at the end, couse finally someone recognized him and appreaciated him. Movie doesn't even try to answer who would be in Ledger's Joker "movement".
Joker is daring for this generation, whereas it probably would have been a rather average film had it come out in the 70's or 80's. Which only explains why a good percentage of this generation can't watch films from that period, without their heads exploding.
Tragic and horrifying. Being a fly on the wall to a lonely and messed up person is not an easy watch, a slice of life movie turned into a nightmare. Seeing so much isolation and pain is heartbreaking and the violent acts gut wrenchingly real. No flashy explosions or extreme blood-it chooses to show the affect of violence rather then focusing on the brutality. I don't really think it's that violent or controversial-but I appreciate the style. A movie that truly shows who the Joker is-but also stands alone as a great psychological drama. Showing how people with mental illnesses are often judged and thrown away by society due to funding being cut for social services-which to me was the saddest aspect because it’s just so damn real. People who are harmless (NOT like Joker BTW) but people who need true help are again, thrown away and put into horrible places because the people in charge don’t care enough to help them or give money to psychologists or whatever the case maybe. My only issues were having Bruce Wayne in the movie to much-I felt he was unnecessary. I honestly would have just left him right at the end of the movie and not the other scene. The stuff with his dad was great-but Arthur seeing Bruce as a kid at the mansion didn’t add much to the plot in my opinion. I would have had no mention of him, then at the end have the big reveal of ‘oh crap, that’s Bruce Wayne as a kid with his parents dead!” But really had I been the screenwriter, I wouldn’t have had Bruce in the the movie at all. I would have preferred a more stand alone experience. Had I been the screenwriter I wouldn’t have mentioned Bruce Wayne-I’d only mention his father like they did. Showing the death of Bruce’s parents was just kinda…meh. I wasn’t interested in that aspect at all. Again though, this is a very good movie, I totally will want to own this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a really, really well done character study.
Videos been up about a half hour and I've been offered about ten different phonetic spellings of the lead actor's name in this comment section. Still can't get my head around it so I'm gonna stick with Obi Wah-keenobi Phoenix ... or Whackin' Phoenix.
Important response to those who think I'm attacking the film. I state very clearly in this vid that Joker is better than most modern movies, is worth the watch and that I would watch it again. I even explain that I might change my opinion of it on a second viewing. Not believing the film to be a masterpiece doesn't amount to me hating the film.
Go see my reviews on Blade Runner 2049 if you wanna see me really rip into a movie. Compared to that piece of trash Joker is a masterpiece ;)
*This is not the pronunciation you are looking for...
Irishman is surely on your to do list Rob
I think it's funny when Brits try to say Spanish names. You definitely don't want to see an American try to say Llanfairpwllgwyngyll😆
Okay, Roger.
You got to be Joaquin.
A movie with no cgi, no super powers, no magic mcguffin makes almost a billion dollars. That doesn't make it a great movie but at least it shows what can be done without all the fluff and sparkles. Investors in movies have taken note.
Yes that's a positive
Now imagine if it wasn't related to Batman or any superhero at all. You know, like a real person.
They did have CG background extensions, Todd Phillips stated that in a video where he did a breakdown of the opening scene, but apart from that, no, there weren't any big CG effects in it.
Marketing
@@Drew-vn8rx Honestly, I would have been more interested in seeing it if it wasn't associated with a superhero. Only problem is I likely wouldn't have heard about it since there would be no recognisable name to attach to it.
What I really want to know is your thoughts on 'The Lighthouse'
Yes need a film analysis from rob
Seriously
Holy shit YES
Yes please
I still need to see it! Where can I watch it?
you wanna know why i LOVE your videos? cause i dont want to be spoon-fed the popular opinion or be in an echo chamber for what i might think myself. you bring up great points and you have a soothing voice to boot. thanks for this and all your other videos!!
I analyzed the hell out of this film myself, since I found it so lacking and disappointing. I saw numerous problems.
@@wet-read In the end I found myself in the same place as you. I wanted it to be more than it was and it skewed my interpretation of some of the key plot points throughout. Joaquin was still awesome
Joaquin = Wah-keen
Tattoo-ween
Hollo-ween
@@jonbush2755 Keen-wah
Wah-keen is the actor. Joe-kim is the saint (Mary's father.)
Actually it's pronounced "Hoo-wah-keen"
8:35
"1/3 of this page is positives and the other half is negatives "
Learn maths with Rob Ager
Quick maffs
A camel is a horse written by a committee∵
The remaining 16.66% ... was neutral comments or evil ones depending on your pov ;)
@@collativelearning "911 comments"
@@criticalmass527 2 + 2 = 5 - 1 dats 3 quik maff
Joker never had a clear origin and the story of the movie revolves around that.
By the end of the movie, we are not clear who his parents are, what his real name is since he is adopted, etc.
It makes sense if you view this movie with that prespective, it manages to tell you a story that you can't completely trust, just like Joker narrating his own life.
Here is a detail I noticed on my 2nd viewing:
In the finale when he shoots Murray and we get to see all those TV monitors showing the event,
you can see that some new stations are censoring the f word (you get what you f***ing deserve), but not the killing.
It fits with the american culture as they have a bigger acceptance of violence than bad language or sex, especially the media.
@G Money Really? The Killing Joke provided an origin of sorts. Which other stories are you referring to that provide an origin?
@G Money It hardly gives a *clear origin* story, and is what Alan Moore based his Joker on in the killing joke.
this isn't about the joker.
Rob, there were a few things you may have missed in regards to the Dark Knight Joker and why he has followers. In the beginning, the bank robbers were all hired hands who were assigned to kill eachother. They basically robbed the mob, since it was a mob bank. After that, Joker made his presence known to all the mafia heads, calling them cowards because they're all afraid of Batman. He explains that they need to kill the Batman. Only after he kills one of the heads does he show how he recruits more henchmen other than paying them (he has the mob's money, remember?) He offers other mobsters henchmen the opportunity to work with him, or die. He has 2 of them fight to the death with a broken pool cue, and the survivor gets to be a henchman. So, it's not really that they're following the Joker's ideology, they want to either be paid, or survive, or both.
kronos6948 He also preys upon those with damaged minds. Look at Schiff when he was being interrogated by Dent. Batman listed off his mental issues and explained that Joker uses men like him to do his work. It kinda sets up what happens to Dent later on in the film. Dent, who’s mind is damaged from the warehouse explosion and the loss of Rachel, is essentially twisted by Joker into “Two Face”.
Sorry for the response after 2 years-
I didn't read the opening as they were all hired hands who were assigned to kill each other.. (I mean, they were hired hands!)
I read it as, The Joker planted the seed in their minds that "the fewer people left at the end, the greater the cut for you". Showing how great he is as a manipulator of people.
Actually, you never see any mobster as Joker's subordinate, only double-crossed and killed. Rob was probably refering to guys like that paranoid schizophrenic Harvey caught, or the fat guy in prison ("the kind of people the Joker attracts", like Batman says). So yeah, I'd say he's sort of right.
Versus Phoenix's Joker who can't help recruiting thousands of followers just because they believe in him and want to annihilate society (both in the fiction and real world)
The talk show host represented his resentment for his father and society as a whole. Killing his father would have been a singular isolated act but killing the host echoes through the world and was a release greater than the killing of his completely absent father ever would have been.
That's a decent scene. I wasn't saying remove that, but having a much more personal and angry atack on the Father abuser I think would have made his story more powerful.
@@collativelearning IMHO, it would have made it a complete hack-job. Instead of a solid mox of a little conservative and a little progressive story-telling.
@@collativelearning The mother was the real abuser, something society today is unable to comprehend, no wonder this movie is so hated by the media.
Joaquin's name is pronounced like quinoa but with the syllables reversed, if that helps.
This movie also reminded me of Falling Down, how society and the "system" could push an already unstable person over the edge.
It may be just me, but I watched Falling Down recently and felt totally unmoved by it. I saw it first back in the day and enjoyed it, but now I just want D Fens to shut up and accept he chose the life he had. The reaction the man has, sure, that's controversial, but a white man whinging about how hard his life is, despite being smart enough to choose otherwise, is very now!
@@davidlean1060 Spoken like a true person of privilege.
@@roadkillz78 lol says the fella sitting, no doubt, warm at home with his PC! I should have said white, middle class man, which is exactly what D fens is. You think it's ok that he whinges about the state he has gotten himself into?! REally?
@@davidlean1060 You are literally insane.
@@roadkillz78 I wish I was, then I could discount your idiocy as being a mere invention of my mind. Sadly though, twats like yourself exist! Lovely talking to you!
The most controversial thing about the move Joker is that its pretending to be an origin story of a beloved character.
The references to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and Network for that matter, didn't bother me as much I thought they might. I think it's because they really don't make films like them anymore. That is, medium budget studio pictures with enough clear entertainment value and substance to court a wide audience, as well as pleasing (some) critics and having a chance at awards. Invoking these influences makes it clear that this film's lineage is the character study film, even more so than comics and certainly more so than superhero movies. This was an interesting and appropriate choice for a film focusing exclusively on a villain, which is an unprecedented venture at this scale (excepting maybe Fu Manchu and Hannibal Lecter).
It was certainly much better for me the second time though, going in with different expectations. On both occasions the people I saw the film with did not see the Sophie reveal coming and appreciated the clarification, so I softened to that aspect too and took the flashbacks to be Arthur's as he realises she isn't really his girlfriend, thus keeping that scene from his point of view. As for his intelligence, my nitpick with the Dark Knight was that the Joker was too much of a master strategist to be truly insane, whereas here Arthur Fleck's insanity and accidental inspiration to the downtrodden in a broken society seemed a lot more plausible, all things considered. Also, the fact that he is coming off 6 or 7 psychotropic medications may play a part in his perceived intelligence in this film, just imagine the side effects! In any case, it is a vastly different take, shaped by the actor playing him just like all the previous Joker incarnations. Bravo to the filmmakers for taking risks, proving that the medium budget model can work spectacularly and that audiences will respond to a better class of criminal. Superb film.
THAT'S WHAT WAS BOTHERING ME! I'm more cynical and critical with Hollywood, but I kept thinking, "I know I've seen this before!"
Right on. I don't think this is necessarily an homage. Just more proof of a general lack of originality. Overall, 6/10, for a "super hero" genre...
A camel is a horse written by a committee∵
This film is a better homage to Scorsese than 'The Irishman'.
Plagiarism ain't 'references'.
@@JunkyardHounds I guess it true to say that if someone doesn't like a "homage" then, to them, it's just a "ripoff". I don't know why Quentin Tarantino gets a free pass whilst Todd Phillips is looked down on for the Hangover series and yet held to a higher standard of originality when he actually branches out and does something good. Joker makes its references particularly overt with the period setting and filming location being so close to said films and with the casting of De Niro. I'd argue that it is tasteful way to tell a comic book tale outside the prevalent and lucrative action/comedy genre with some kind of cinematic point of reference. 1970s American cinema wasn't entirely original either. Many films of that period were heavily influenced by world cinema but beyond aficionados there was little talk of the influence of Bresson on Taxi Driver or Kurosawa on Star Wars, especially once those US films reached much wider audiences. I became interested in those influences after hearing the filmmakers talk about them and it was never a problem and actually a gateway into interesting and, in some cases, better films. Similarly, whilst knowing the all references in Joker is not necessary to enjoying it, younger audiences not acquainted with Scorsese's early film might take an interest in them if they hear out about their influence. I think Joker brings enough originality to the table to stand the test of time, but we'll see.
Jesus man the music wasnt memorable? Its like i dont know u anymore lol
I'm actually surprised that you didnt take more away from it. Its an extremly layered film. After my initial watch I discussed it with many people and pretty much everyone noticed different little details and you catch something new with every rewatch. The use of tv screeens and mirrors alone is video worthy, not to mention the rats, the movie references hidden everywhere, the subtle changes that show that blurry line between delusions and reality, and the emphasis on father figures. Sure it'll improve for you with a rewatch.
Did you notice the clocks?
@@Valiumtino71 I didnt I'll have to pay attention to those next time.
"Subtle" yeah sure...
It really wasn't that layered
layered...no
Warning - Long comment incoming with Spoilers!
Hi Rob. Good review. Glad you liked the film at least to a certain extent. Just wanted to offer my opinion and why I disagree a bit.
I love this film. Been to see it 3 times now in the cinema. Unlike you, I am a Batman fan and have read a lot of the comics. That being said, I definitely thought after watching it that someone could see this film without knowing anything about the lore and enjoy it at least on some level. So I'm definitely happy that you enjoyed it OK (6 or 7/10 isn't bad at all). I thought Phoenix was unbelievable in the film. He WAS Arthur/The Joker to me. I didn't see Joaquin Phoenix on the screen at all. Also, I'm a Scorsese fan too and the gun to the head thing and other references to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy made me smile tbh. Didn't bother me personally. Could see why you found it lazy though especially since you're much more into film-making than I am. Me personally though? Didn't mind.
I didn't think they made him out to be a dunce at all. Mentally ill/depressed and losing his grip on reality definitely but a dunce? No. He's actually very quick on his feet. Look at the whole train section towards the end where he starts a riot/brawl without having to do much of anything in order to get away from the detectives. Sure he does stuff like trying to walk through the exit only door at the hospital but consider the stress he's under at that point in the film with what happened to his Mum and the state of mind that he's in. I suffer from depression myself and I become clumsy too when it's particularly bad and especially in times of stress/heartache.
As for the whole hunting down his abuser thing, I wouldn't have liked to see that at all. Firstly, it's unnecessary and would add too much to the run time. The run time in the finished film is 122 minutes which to me is perfect. Adding a sequence with him getting revenge on his abuser would be the whole "Trip to Hong Kong" section of The Dark Knight all over again. It'd be a detour that ultimately wouldn't add much to the story. Arthur in the film is searching for warmth from a Father figure (Murray, Thomas Wayne etc.) and hunting down a man who he can barely even remember wouldn't make much of a difference to him especially with everybody else who treats him like shit. Incidentally, it's not uncommon at all for the abused to suppress memories of childhood trauma (not to mention the issues that a child that young would have as far as remembering things anyway). So I don't really see that as an issue.
I wasn't bored/un-engaged at all during the first half hour. It actually contains some of my favourite bits on repeat viewings. The whole part of him imagining himself in the audience on Murray's show, the subway murders, the scene in the children's hospital etc. . I expected a slow build and got just that. For what it's worth, my Mother who's 55 now isn't a fan of Taxi Driver because she found it too slow and boring and yet she loved Joker. I don't agree with her on Taxi Driver as that's also a film that I love, just felt like I should mention that.
Finally and most importantly, I'm surprised that you didn't talk at all about some of the subliminal aspects of the movie. Particularly the ending of the film and it's implications. It kind of leads me to believe that you may have missed the whole point of the ending. He's locked up in Arkham and his therapist asks him what's so funny as he laughs to himself. He says "I was thinking of a Joke". When the therapist asks him if he'd like to tell it to her he replies "You wouldn't get it" as it flashes to a brief shot of Bruce Wayne and his dead parents. Basically, the ending implies that the entire movie was made up in Joker's head!
Think about it, whenever he's happy in the film, it's usually because he's experiencing a delusion about something (Murray embracing him, the imaginary girlfriend, Randall *supposedly* giving him the gun) and it's often hard to determine what's real and what isn't. Now think back to The Dark Knight and Joker's stories about his scars. He gives a different version of events every time. Why? Because he's an unreliable narrator. He likes to fuck with people. He likes his backstory to be multiple choice. With the implied twist at the end of Joker not only is he fucking with Batman's head by suggesting that in some way he's responsible for his parent's deaths, he's messing with the heads of the entire audience by giving them a false recollection of events designed to make them sympathise with him. I thought it was sheer genius and it made me reconsider the rest of the film.
More proof of this? In his first therapy session, it jumps for a few brief seconds to him being locked up in Arkham and banging his head on the door. The therapist implies that he's been in there before but if you play close attention to the scene, you'll notice that the clock on the wall of the asylum is the exact same time on the clock in the therapist's office! Not just that, later on when he goes to get his mum's file, he asks the guy at the desk "How does someone end up in here?". Implying that he in fact hasn't been sectioned before! Joker is the ultimate unreliable narrator. I know you said you're not into the Batman comics and I'm not sure how much you're into the comic book medium in general, but I URGE you to read The Killing Joke. It's a very short story so it won't take up too much of your time but it gives probably the most famous example of Joker's unreliable narrator tendencies. It tells you a backstory that at the end is implied was made up in Joker's head and asks you to discard it as just one of many possible origins. It's an essential read.
One last thing, I do totally agree with you however on the whole controversy surrounding this flick. To me it's a mix of the media having an agenda and then the marketing behind the film playing off of that whole thing in order to attract more people to the movie. Is Joker a violent film? Yeah. Definitely. Is it the most violent, controversial movie ever made? Not at all. It's hype/marketing/media bullshit.
That being said, I love the film. 10/10 from me personally and I do think it's a film that will be looked back on fondly years to come. That being said, good review. You were very fair as always and I'm glad you enjoyed your time with the movie. Definitely encourage you to give it some more watches though if only to notice some of the things that you didn't see the first time. I know that every time I've watched it, I pick up new things each time.
Cheers
Exellently written. I see a lot of people having to explain the movie to Ager. It went totally over his head.
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Thanks! Put a lot of effort into it lol I'm pretty passionate about this movie. Some parts of it made me tear up actually like when he's breaking down on the mic at the comedy club and laughing/crying about how he hated school as a kid? Gosh it gets me every time because I can relate to that so much (both hating school and his laughter/getting emotional).
I don't think it went over his head completely. Just don't think he saw in it what those of us who love the movie see in it. But hey, maybe he will on subsequent viewings :)
That's a bit much. Assuming the clock thing is deliberately thought out, 1: not only it's lazy, it's also not how ambiguity works, it doesn't add value to the movie itself, it only adds something with a sequel (wich of course there will be) explaining things ad hoc; 2: the epilogue in that hypotesis is just Joker lying to the woman and laughing - because it's a joke to him -, the plot is just a man telling one untrue story, it has no context, it doesn't hold itself as a narrative. I'll give you what I mean with an example.
In the movie Hero, Jet Li plays some kind of a mercenary who dueled and killed some dangerous swordsmen and then goes to the emperor to explain what happened and get his reward. He tells the story about how he found and killed the guys, but he's an unreliable narrator, the emperor doubts the story and tells what he thinks actually happened. When the emperor finishes, the guy has no choice but to tell what actually happened (according to him), and so on - he planned to cheat and kill the swordsmen so that he would meet and kill the emperor, avenging the death of his family or something like that -. Almost the whole movie is in the carachters' heads, but it has context, it gives you several versions of a story for you to discern what the hell whappened and judge the carachters. A good script would do something along these lines, not just a wide shot with a clock in a corner for some seconds.
Other thing that doesn't necessarily bother me but could be easily handled is: Arthur should care about who beat him as a child! He should at least ask Penny who the man was - she wouldn't answer and Arthur would kill her right away - problem solved for the plot.
I agree with the rest of what you said, but you're overthinking and overating the movie.
I agree with you Joker was ok and it looked like it could be a DC elseworld universe.
neonspec i agree w you TOTALLY my friend! For me as well Joker is 10/10 !!!
We did continue to see things as he sees it throughout the film. When he figures out for himself what was real we see him remember it properly.
His arc is from helpless and ignorant to curious and confused to impactful and self assured. From one kind of crazy to a worse kind.
but thats but even how you perceive memory its just how you show it in a movie. if you can communicate that she doesnt actually know him and him realizing then theres no need for more flashbacks.
14:01 From what the film presented, Arthur suffered from severe brain trauma as a result of the abuse, so that could be the main reason he doesn't remember any of it. There is always the possibility of him subconsciously repressing some of those memories too.
yeah, i think the file says he had blunt force trauma to the skull, that caused permanent brain damage and memory loss... but it's a subtlety that i didn't pick up entirely on the first viewing.
I enjoyed the movie but I strongly agree on one major criticism you made which is how obvious it made his delusions and his fake memories. It was obvious the moment the neighbour walked into her apartment, we didn't need to literally see (Fight Club style) the actual memories as they were. I felt that was a moment that was in there to pander to audience members who don't respond to subtlety. I hate that for a couple of reasons.
1. The audience isn't half a stupid as film-makers and producers seem to sometimes think and 2. Why is it a bad thing that the audience might sometimes get it wrong? I wish more movies would be bold and leave some things ambiguous and risk giving the wrong impression. In the end, the vast majority will find out from friends that they got it wrong anyway so there's no harm in that.
Another scene that I felt was out of place was the murder of the Wayne's. It felt like it was out of a different movie and edited in because someone realised 'We can't have a Joker movie with child Bruce Wayne in it and NOT show that scene for the umpteenth time?!'.
Overall though i really liked the movie, I think I gave it a 7.5/8. It's an intelligent movie for the most part and I was thoroughly engrossed throughout.
The Joker also takes a lot from Network, especially in the last act. It even pays homage to it after Arthur shoots Franklin on TV.
Network was brilliant
The rant that Arthur has before murdering Murray Franklin was like a cliff notes version of the Howard Beale dialogue in Network not to mention Joker featured a near carbon copy of the ending scene of Network that featured a panel of monitors in a TV studio control room showing various news broadcasts and commercials.
@@collativelearning Indeed. Very relevant for today as well.
Network is outstanding, in 1976 it was satire, now it's just the norm.
The entire modern film and TV industry (in the US) is predicated on reference culture.
Expectations often ruin the experience. Expect nothing, and you get everything. Expect everything, and you get.. well.. less. lol. I guess we can blame all hype for your high expectations, so you end up being bored when the movie is gearing up for the good stuff. Ah well, so it goes!
People don't seem to understand that this isn't the over elaborate, flamboyant, whimsical and over the top joker character that you get in the comic book version of the character, it's more grounded and realistic.
That's what I liked. He's a mentally disturbed loner with hints of sexual or physical trauma.
This version of the joker character felt reminiscent of the Travis Bickle character in Taxi Driver and shows how being lonely can affect your mental well-being.
Di Nero gave an excellent performance as well. It could have been an interesting twist to have the revelation that Bruce Wayne is his half brother.
It's a beautifully shot movie
You could make the argument that the events in the film only took place in his head and he's a joker/ comic book fan boy.
The humour wasn't great but the performance's for the most part were terrific.
Die hard comic book fans won't like this depiction of Joker.
It's a character study of a mentally disturbed guy and shows his rise and fall and it was a big risk eliminating Jokers nemesis Batman but I think it worked.
De Niro*
And I think I'm a bit of "a die hard comic book fan" but I loved the film! Because even in the comics there are times that writers want to re do characters on the way they think they might work. For example the Elseworld's series. So anything it's permitted. If it's good, why not give it a try.
Good analysis.
Your thoughts reflect my own. I really only enjoyed the second half, but that half was still only "good" not "great". The film is elevated by Joaquin Phoenix performance, which I enjoyed immensely, despite the scripts limitations. Still, I'd like to see more small, intimate portraits of heroes and villian's like this film and "Logan", instead of the usual Saving-The-Planet-From-Destruction fare, so I'm hoping its box-office success sets of that trend.
I thought it was interesting when you had these parts in the movie like with the lady down the hall - is it in his head? It’s kind of like an unreliable narrator. They ruined it by spelling it out, there was no need.
Casual movie goers don't know about The Killing Joke. I can only get so angry about something like that.
But then the rest WASN’T spelled out.
Did he kill her?
Was Thomas Wayne his real father?
Were the riots real?
Was it all just in his mind w/ Arthur in the mental institution all that time?
I think it was needed as a breaking point before he could flip out.
David Smith I thought the photo of his mother with a note signed by TW that he happens across was proof that there was some kind of interaction between them. But then, why no investigation after he kills his mum?
K84 a photo isn’t proof that that’s his daddy.
Very interesting and nuanced take. Thank you for being nuanced. I really loved Joker and many of the things you found lacking were either things I specifically preferred in it or didn't care about, but I can understand your priorities and tastes.
I'm really glad this film happened. Psychological realism and character study were kicked back into fashion by early seasons GoT, and I want them to stay in fashion.
The whole point of the film is that it’s left totally ambiguous where the line between what actually happened in the film and what didn’t happen. Showing moments that were explicitly not real was the films way of showing how unreliable the narrator is
You don't say ;)
@@dougcrane8031 I mean these displays of what was not real are not the only clues that there's more of the film that was part of Arthurs delusions, other clues more subtle are every clock displaying the same time, less bullet wounds appearing on the wayne employees than there were gunshots, Arthur getting away with killing his mother and stealing the documents in arkham, etc.
@@MsTJ10 “Less bullet wounds than gunshots”... You should rethink your logic there. The other way around is not possible...
A note about a "dunce": keep in mind that he's on medication, so he's nowhere near his full potential and they show bits and pieces of him being gifted: artistically, physically and maybe even mentally. In that interpretation of the character, but also, pretty much in all of them his key talent is improvising something that looks very much like it was planned.
Tried to tell these exact things to mister Ager, and he replied that I was "lame" for suggesting this...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood Well, there are numerous scenes of Arthur with medication and a few times throughout the movie it is confirmed that his prescriptions depend on that program which is being closed. It's not even something hard to miss in the movie.
@@PictureProductStudio Exactly! I'm seeing a lot of comments explaining very basic things to mister Ager, so he either went into the movie with aversion so he didn't pay attention on purpose, or he just really missed all of these things and that's even worse...
Because "it's all part of the plan"
This is something I didn’t notice either. Would you be so kind as to elaborate on how any of his actions seemed planned?
Rob, what are your thoughts on Joker?
Joseph, what do you really think?
he prob thought it sucked, because it did
fwiw, btw... an LA comedian observed that Ledger’s Joker seems to be modeled on Tom Waits’ persona, especially imo his LPs between 76-87. The monologues and imagery on Swordfish Trombones really lend credence to this theory
I think Ledger confirmed this.
"Rob ager's review of Rob ager's thoughts of joker based on a previous thought by Rob ager." By Rob ager.
Would you review the new Tarantino film?
I absolutely loved the Joker but good for you for giving us your honest review.
You don't sound very smart either. There is nothing original or intriguing about the movie.
@@LordMalice6d9 I liked it and that's all that matters.
@@stefanosprokopis3917 I don't care if you liked it because it is your opinion and opinions are subjective, they are not facts. It is a fact that Joker is a unoriginal film that copies many themes and nuances from movies such as Taxi Driver, King of Comedy, Fight Club, you name it. There isn't anything cinematically brilliant about the movie and Joaquin Phoenix's performance is arguably the only reason to watch it.
@@LordMalice6d9 it borrowed tiny segments from the movies you mentioned. In the KOC Rupert was genuinely obsessed with Langford and being on his show going out of his way to meet him and doing a demo tape. All's the joker did was fantasize about being deniro's show. Who hasn't fantasized about being a celebrity and going on a talk show? I have but I'm not going to go and kidnap a talk show host. In fight club they used the scene where it showed the viewers that Edward Norton was imagining everything. Big deal. The Joker world is similar to the the world Travis Buckles lived in. So. Fact is every movie copies something from other movies and less than one % of movies are realistic. From Rambo to the God Father. No movie is flawless in What it tries to achieve but if a person can go and escape for 90 minutes and enjoy what they see than that's all that counts.
@@stefanosprokopis3917
You won.
When/If you re-watch it, pay attention to how often scenes play with the idea that what you're seeing may not be actually happening. One of the main things about the joker is that he tells multiple origin stories, so I found it interesting that "storyteller's perspective" is the main experience of this film that even leaves the ending ambiguous. There are a lot of clues that what you're seeing may be his hallucination. The reveals later are his experience of realizing it, as they only reveal a single element of his hallucinations. Even the credibility about the file he finds is in question. It's not about the information we're learning from the file, its about the idea that you can't even trust that. As you said, he doesn't remember that. If you think about it, a seemingly official document's augmentation by those in power falls in line with the idea that they misrepresent themselves. As we saw earlier when Thomas Wayne was being interviewed by the very same talk show host that is so influential throughout the film, after Mr. Wayne talks about how Wayne enterprises cares about ALL it's employees the camera pans to reveal the "former employee".
Taxi Driver for babies
👏🏻 👏🏻 👏🏻
You mean King of Comedy for babies
I love you so much for making the points you did. I remember the craziness around this movie that is so basic. Thank you for speaking the truth!
When I first saw your photo on the video I could instantly hear your voice saying "I thought it was fooking terrible..."
@18:02 So what you're saying it the film needed a scene of DeNiro telling Phoenix, "It's not your fault," and it could've been more well rounded?
Haha, no it needed his mother to say that ;)
@@collativelearning He's an anti-hero. No one should've told him that.
@@GARY84ROCKS I was being facetious.
It hooked me at the Requiem for a Dream tv show fantasy by Arthur.
That was great but, I've noticed a pattern where Hollywood is literally taking innovative ideas and concepts (if not stealing entire storylines) and passing them off as "original"...
I don't buy this "paying homage" explanation. I am of the personal opinion that Hollywood is COMPLETELY out of ideas...
I loved it, 10 out of 10, Phoenix's best performance to date, and my favorite movie of the year so far.
10/10. ?? You need to watch more films son.
Jon Jon I’ve seen MANY many films, Joker is a 10, just because you don’t think so doesn’t mean the majority does
@@JonJonJonJonJonJonJonJon 11 nominations 😃😃😃 he who laughs last laughs best
@@rengokuwon1999 The Oscars ?? Yes because they are the artistic appreciation barometer
@@JonJonJonJonJonJonJonJon afi bfi one of the best Venice winner
Rob's a tough critic, but I respect his thoughts all the same
It was "setting up the usual stuff":
He was bullied as a kid... As an adult he was assaulted by degenerate youths smashing his face with a sign, I wouldn't call the things that happen to Arthur "bullied as a kid”. Arthur as a kid was tied to a radiator and was beaten by a grown man to the point of causing brain damage... 'Bit of an understatement there Rob. Your description of this film's premise implies that it starts with Arthur in a playground fight.
He has no father figure... what a cliche? Not just that, but his mother is a narcissistic woman who manipulates him and has played a role in the abuse. I am not sure why this is a flaw with the film. Joker wanting to hunt down this abusive man could be in the sequel... I am no expert on memory, but if you beat a child's head hard enough to knock him out, would that not cause memory loss? How was that implausible?
A lot of the best bits from Joker seem to be lifted from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy... This isn't the first time I've heard this.
What is Your evidence?:
Arthur points a real gun at his head... alone in an apartment while imagining a laugh track. In Taxi Driver's classic scene, a wounded Travis points his finger at his head while being watched by cops after killing 3 pimps. That seems to be what you are referencing. There is a less dramatically emphasized scene in Taxi Driver where Travis tries to shoot himself but is out of bullets. It is only vaguely similar to the scene in Joker. I am pretty sure that the details of why these events happen in these two films are very different. I don't know that the tense scene in Joker where Arthur points a gun at his head was done "better" in TD. Both scenes were memorable, but the goals were different.
I do not agree that Joker failed to come up with original stuff. I am willing to hear more reasons why. "Taxi and King of Comedy were better scripted." Maybe, I actually would have liked to see Scorsese himself direct Joker as he could have brought a LOT more tension in many scenes, but I don't think that proves that Joker is a "poorly scripted" film by contrast.
Arthur in Joker (2019) could not become an intelligent, self controlled mastermind as he is in "later stories."???
I agree, but that is a flaw with adaptation, not with internal quality. Certainly most versions of the Joker in the comics AND in the films and tv shows portray him as a funny, crazy, yet intelligent criminal mastermind, differing from Arthur Fleck's average intelligence. (I am not aware of any origin of the Joker that involves him being a "stand up comedian") But that doesn't make this film bad, if it is evaluated as a stand alone story. It is NOT a measurable problem with the script. I wasn't really going into this film expecting a crime or heist film. This film's universe has NO overt connection to the Christopher Nolan OR Tim Burton OR Zack Snyder films. Him being a "dunce" is only in the 1st half of the film, the 2nd half involves him getting off his meds, killing the co-worker who framed him and escaping the cops successfully when he doesn't want to get caught. Arthur has SOME intelligence but just lacks confidence.
Joker isn't nearly as controversial or as violent as the press has made it out.
I agree.
All that negative press is "probably" marketing?
... Interesting theory, the film DID make over a billion dollars. I don't know about that the people writing negative reviews about the film were just "marketing" the film as they say some things that were meant to ward off people.
Indeeed I WAS SO WEIRDED OUT WHEN HE SAID "ohh he got bullied as a kiiidd"
Me: UHM WHAT BULLIED AS A KID? DO YOU MEAN ABUSED BY HIS MOMS BF AND HIS MOM WHO DIDNT EVEN NOTICE AND DID NOTHING TO STOP AND AND LIKELY CAUSED HIS CONDITION????
DID YOU EVEN WATCH THE MOVIE???
Actually the graphic novel, The Killing Joke, is probably the most famous story for the origin of the joker, and he really was a stand up comedian, living in a shitty apartment. Now that said none of it is really "canon", but it is the closest comics got to giving the clown a backstory, and I'd assume that story is what they pulled from most in terms of the "Joker" from the comics
Brad Wibbels
Oh, I didn’t know that. Is the Killing Joke even that good? I haven’t been impressed with what little of Alan Moore’s books that I’ve read.
"Why is everybody following this Joker guy?"
Because it is made for a generation raised on video games
This is a peak Boomer answer.
@@NihilisticIdealist it's about the 2007 joker- where everyone is just an NPC ready to die so Joker wins. School your nerd ass up on film before you argue about it, Joker 2019 fanboy
@@imcallingjapan2178 I'm not saying the Dark Knight and video games make people homicidal. I'm saying thg joke's minions were npcs act more like robots than people in a crime organization
Can you compare the Joker to Kubrick's films becuase the scene where he shoots the bad guys reminded me of A Clockowrk Orange beginning where Alex and his Droogs save the girl out.
I agree with Rob 1000%. It is important to make a good movie hero/anti-hero a sympathetic character. Phoenix's character, however, was simply pathetic! I tried to like the film, and really put forth effort to hone in and be as observant as possible. What a chore that turned out to be. "The Joker" was the opposite of interesting. (I don't think the word "uninteresting" expresses my feeling towards the movie enough.)
I 100% agree with your thoughts. Was expecting much more.
Btw huge fan of your videos, especially the Kubrick stuff.
i love the movie. in general film uses "unreliable narrator" not just as a device for the narrative.. but as a major theme of the film. as instead of giving the story definitive true to hold yourself on.. the movie keep showing you a world fill with people who are unreliable narrators.
-thomas wayen
-penny fleck
- arkham asylum
- the news media
- murray franklin
- arthur himself
- the activists
- the policemen
- the everyday folks
-arthur's co workers and boss
all of them are either telling stuff that may not be true.. or are just seeing what they Want to see.. when they interpret the things that are happening..instead indulge in different point of view.
@@dougcrane8031 i get what you are saying. but i think in this case it was a deliberated choice and part of the design of what the film wanted to make. and it fits with multiple interpretation of the joker in the comics .
the movie is deliberately opening itself for multiple interpretations with giving the viewers bait path that the movie deliberately is placing there. what i mean is that i don't think the script is unfocused by accident but because they are attempting to using that as part of the design of the film.. that doesn't necessary makes it good choice but i wouldn't call it an "excuse" in this case.
@@dougcrane8031 I'll admit that the scenes that the film take directly from taxi driver did bother me after getting sometime to reflect on the film.. its not as original as my initial reaction of the film was. ( i had seen taxi driver before, but my memories of the film were not that fresh )
as for the multiple interpretations. a simple example would be that we don't know if penny fleck was lying or if it was Thomas Wayne.. the whole thing alludes the "me too" movement but it doesn't give clear answer on who is really the victim and who is lying.
like i mention in my first post. i think the movie is criticizing how easy we are lean to favor one narrative over others in general. being more willing to have or actions and live choices been driven by a perceptual fantasy than reality itself.. just because it validates our own vision of how the world works.
(im aware that taxi driver touch on that same themes and execute them in a more subtle and graceful way )
both Arthur and Murray have really valid criticisms of each other . but they are more worried and focus on proving the other wrong than to ask themselves if they are just seeing 2 sides of the same coin and if so, gaining a larger and more complex understanding of reality.
by doing so the movie is validating joker's vision of the world in which society truly is insane .. but the way the film ends, leaves open the possibility that the whole film is just joker lying to himself.. maybe none of the event of the film were real and we are just seeing the vision of madman that is justifying to himself his own actions.
the film leaves the audience confused of what they just seen. forcing them to talk to each other and compare note to try to figure out the message.. ask themselves if the movie is good or not.
i got to say.. i'm may be a bit bias here cause i do think the world in general need to be better at not doing this and be more aware that they are doing it in the first place. the film speaks to me cause, i see this kind of behavior all the time in the internet and in Mexico (my country ).
(sorry if my grammar is awful by the way. i do try to avoid making spelling or syntax mistakes but sadly a lot of the times i still stumble in the process. )
For me it has also a bit of Network in its referencing
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in an earlier scene you see a clock on the wall with a specific time when he's with his therapist and at the end of the movie the same clock and time is on the wall with his other therapist whom are both black, so it makes me wonder that maybe a lot of the events are told through his unreliable narration and the lines are in reality blurred to what actually happened as a way of the Joker to invoke some sort of pity of the psychopathic mastermind that lurks behind the mask. Like the movie is a sort of joke on the viewer.
11:11 its synchronicity
@@titod.7012 Yeah, and Maybe like a reflection as well. I dunno, it was just a thought and maybe Rob could go into that in a future video if he thinks it's worthy.
@@dakiniblitz He should, I dont like when he gives reactionary reviews or thoughts. This movie should be viewed multiple times before doing a review. He dismissed the Witch and it follows aswell which are also movies he can analyze.
@@titod.7012 I agree, it's a film that deserves multiple viewings, although people want to know his initial thoughts I suppose. Maybe his thoughts will change on a second viewing, just he has changed my views on a movie seeing it a second time
The entire movie is in his head. The old Warner bros logo comes up at the start because it is Joker imagining how the film of his story would look like The movie is a film within a film in other words. It might explain the often clunky use of references. Surely Phillips isn't so dim he would put jarring references into his film, so jarring you leave the film a moment and recall the movie reference. The references are clunky because Arthur chooses them. I may be giving Phillips way too much credit though!!
Wakeen, as below. The j is pronounced the Spanish way, like Juan. He has quite a trippy background. He was named Leaf, and changed it to Joaquin. His brother was River Phoenix. You probably already know ...His parents were kind of hippies, and the whole family were members of Children of God, a cult ... check it out.
I loved Joker.
I felt the exact same way about the amount of violence. Press coverage pretty much made it out to be so violent it's borderline inappropriate to show. When I walked out I was like: Meh, good movie but the press bamboozled me...again. Great video as always, love your content!
Fantastic film, you should watch and review Parasite as well
I feel like you're being too harsh on this film, maybe you had your expections incorrectly set by the crazy media outrage (I did too thinking it was going to be ultra violent but its actually a very slow paced film) and I actually enjoyed viewing it a second time more because I knew what to expect. There was a point in the film where he pics a picture up that says love you forever to his mother or something signed by thomas wayne on the back but it only shown quickly. Joker is clearly inspired by those other movies but it is not a copy. They said he had a head injury as a child which might have impacted his memory. This is also a standalone film that doesn't fit in with the rest of the universe so he didnt need to be the super intelligent villain for batman to battle. You'd probably benifit from a rewatch.
If he wasn't supposed to be an adversary for Batman, what was the point of making him the joker?
@@megaultradamn It's because it's an alternate telling of the joker character set in a different universe, the movie is about Joker not batman. Maybe if they continue with films in this universe the batman will be weaker than his usual portrayals.
Jorgon The Anachronist Agreed. People just don’t get this basic point, because of the fanboy love of the Joker character. He is pointless without Batman. And an ”alternate take” doesn’t justify changing that dynamic. More of an Incorrect take.
I feel like the medications suppressed his potential in showing his intelligence. As he stopped taking his meds he changed which showed that he seemed to be more like himself yk?
Thoughts on The Lighthouse?
Agreed. In addition, *SPOILER ALERT* I thought the midget that couldn't reach the doorknob scene says it all about the movie's lack of direction... what was suppose to be an intense scene turned into a weird joke, but not joker style joke, just a midget that couldn't reach the doorknob going for cheap-laughs weirdness, and their faces said it all, too much indifference on screen to have anything of substance
Great point. Somewhere along the way I could imagine there being a lot of grief between the director and editor over the context of that scene. Taxi Driver did it 1000 times better in my opinion. Not sure why or how Todd Phillips thought to add humor to that scene but the bad taste it left in my mouth almost felt like i was sipping on battery acid
That was not a joke, and not supposed to be funny. That people laughed shows more about them than the movie. That he couldn't reach it was terrifying. Imagine being in his position and unable to get out, not knowing if you're going to be hacked to death by a scissor wielding maniac...
@@SilviaVanThreepwood The fact that anyone laughs at that scene tells me there was some intended humor there. Whether someone that laughs at that scene is morally bankrupt or someone that doesn't laugh is lacking a sense of humor isn't really my concern as a viewer. Typically when a mixed emotion is conveyed to the audience that tells me that the framing and context of the scene was unbalanced by the film makers. I found the scene to be an almost tongue in cheek attempt at making the audience relate to Arthur and his penchant for obnoxious inappropriate laughter
@@SilviaVanThreepwood nah man, the expression on the actors faces shows the intention of it being a laughable moment
@@LucLeFou What expressions do you refer to? I saw nothing but fear in the little guy's face. Nobody made funny goofy faces, neither was there goofy music to suggest this scene was supposed to be funny.
I gotta stop you at the end...the controversy around The Joker was not calculated. There are tons of websites dedicated to outrage culture. The article writers have shitty opinions and the people in charge of hiring article writers look exactly for that to drum up outrage over outrage. The more rediculous an opinion the more people click the article, and the more the website gets ad revenue. They basically profit off of faux outrage.
Oooft, you've triggered the fanboys with this one, Rob!
Probably wearing their Batman get ups while typing in anger ;)
@@collativelearning Hilariouz imagery!
Collative Learning Quite the opposite Rob. I am a Batman fan and I hated this movie, along with The Dark Knight. Both movies don’t understand the characters or do them Justice. But fanboys don’t care about character or respect for sourcematerial, they just want a logo or a recognizable brand name. Not one of the Batman films have really nailed it so I don’t blame you or regular moviegoers to have the wrong image of Batman and his world.
What did you think of Last Blood?
Much like Force Awakens, it was a nicely shot remake of previously great films.
Jesse Yules Film the force awakens is a joke and so are you
@@anypish2 rude
how big is that screen? really nice
"Arthur got bullied as a kid"
dude did you even understand what was going on?? He got abused by his mums bf and his mum did nothing to stop it and didn't care and this cause major trauma and ptsd + likely the laughing condition he has because of the brain damage.
You made it sound like he got pushed around at school or something.
It's comforting to know that I can always come here and get solid analysis. Thank you Rob.
Wah-Keen
That's how Pheonix's first name is pronounced.
Still sounds like a Star Wars character.
It's really Ho-ah-keen but Wah-keen seems to be an accepted mispronunciation. 🤷
But it seems pronouncing it in 3 syllables would sound wrong. But yeah, there's definitely an emphasis on the "h" sound that I left out
@@chetmanly4620 Every vowel is supposed to be sounded out. The exception is "qui." In Spanish (and this is a Spanish name), qui sounds like kee and que sounds like keh so the "u" is silent in both cases. So, Joaquin becomes Ho-ah-keen. If you're not used to hearing Spanish, the Ho-ah part sounds like "Wah" because the mouth position for the "o" sound in Ho-ah is similar to the mouth position for the W sound. You have to be used to Spanish to spot the difference.
@@collativelearning en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joaqu%C3%ADn
Rob have you seen Todd Hayne's Carol and Far From Heaven ? if so what's your thoughts?
Finally a proper review on it. I'd also give it a 6 or 7.
You do need to see it again if you missed how Wayne is not his biological father. I watched this review before I even knew anything about this movie, then I eventually saw it and came back to see this opinion video, I’m quite surprised at how you interpreted the film. I do wonder, however, how the Oscars will respond to it, most likely at the very least an award for cinematography.
Rob Ager = really good film analysis
Can you watch Joker again and give your thoughts?
I will if the 2nd viewing alters my experience of it.
@@collativelearning Rob I love and respect your stuff but remember the last Mad Max when you came from the theaters you thought it was great and then you did I think two other videos where you'downgraded it
keep doing what your doing
Mr Ager, I really respect your opinions, video analysis, reviews..pretty much anything you do. You managed to put to words my exact problems with this movie. Thank you for your content and I really hope you keep doing it!
I agree with many points, BUT despite any flaws, it was a film I really enjoyed in the cinema. Somehow it caught my imagination more than any other recent film. I think when I revisit it, it will be interesting to see if it gets better with age.
00:10:56 Maybe Arthur won’t become the Dark Knight version of Joker?
Its a decent movie about mental illness but its not about the Joker we all know from the Batman comics. The character of the Joker is successful and the character in Joker is a total loser.
Hey rob you think about doing a halloween sale on some of your in depth horror movies?
mods, ban Jordie for being cheap and trying to get things at a discount.
@@HunterVex. mawds!!
Here's the thing. When Phoenix won the Oscar, he had a real opportunity to discuss the way the USA looks at mental illness and abuse, both physical and mental. What does he do? He rambles on nearly incoherently about how celebrities need to stop flying on private planes and leaving a large, carbon footprint. WTF? The film is about mental illness & abuse. We have record homelessness, with people who are mentally ill from drugs and a history of abuse, among other things. Deranged people going on shooting sprees, from rock concerts to schools. What a missed opportunity. He could have challenged the Hollywood elite to dig deep and instead of demonizing guns and our 2nd amendment rights, use their money, privilege, and celebrity to address mental illness on a national level. But no. Hollywood has failed again. Guns are not the problem. Mental illness and abuse is the underlying issues. Resolve these issues, gun violence will be drastically reduced.
Your view of the fact that this joker was sort of an akward dumby is the most glaring mistake in my eyes as well. He seems to become the joker by accident. Jokers character is a genius who makes incredibly complex plans.
It isn't the Joker. Just a guy who read Batman comics as a child, and the film is his fantasy, where the comics blur up a reality for Him to escape to.
Feel free to disagree with me, this film has many possible ways to Interpret it.
@@horseradishpower9947 but you need something to back up your interpretations. Theres no indication that Arthur reads comics.
This is a very grounded version of the character.
I don’t think Arthur is supposed to evolve into some criminal mastermind.
@@SmartDave60 i agree
@@SmartDave60 Like Todd Phillips said many many times, this is own version of Joker. Not a dude who read Joker's comics (like someone said). Since he created his own origin story of Joker, we can imagine his future tranformation into a criminal in a different way. Don't forget that Arthur looked different when he stopped taking medications. I am replying to you but i am trying to reply to other comments i read here too.
Are you ever going to bring Art Attack back?
😂
This Joker isn't the classic mastermind joker. They just appropriated the character in to their own story. An elseworlds style of Joker origin.
Hi Rob, I love your channel and your reviews and interpretations on movies like 2001 Space Odyssey and Alien, so I was thrilled to see you had posted a video on Joker. I was surprised to find that I did not agree with many points you made however. For example, when you said it was left open ended as to whether Bruce Wayne was Arthur Fleck's father, I felt that the adoption papers in the file confirmed that he was not. Also, I was very surprised you didn't mention how the ending suggests how the entire movie itself was the, "Joke", that the Joker concocted inside his head while sitting in front of the counselor, to which he replied when asked, "you wouldn't get it". If we take this interpretation, then I think we have a good explanation for most of the issues you brought up with the Joker not being intelligent enough etc. and makes a lot more sense. Also, Fleck looks to be in his mid 40s while Bruce Wayne is only 9. If they are to become arch enemies when Batman is about 30, then the Joker would be pushing 70, which seems like such an obvious error by the script that it couldn't possibly have been made by accident. I think that is some good evidence that the film is actually the Joker imagining his own origin story for fun and then laughing about it in the end. Would love to hear your thoughts :)
Gosh Darnit Rob Ager! Thank you for giving voice to every doubt and tittle I had about this movie when I was seeing it and in the time since I saw it.
Good. Movie. Not great
No, it’s a great movie.
@@ajwithnoname5527 watch more films kid
Glad you brought up the line of inquiry on why anyone would follow the Joker. Although I find Ledger's Joker somewhat dubious as a team leader, you can still tell that he is more than capable of making a plan and executing it, while presumably rewarding those around him that he doesn't kill. Although I am still skeptical of his Joker as a leader, I also see the qualities that would make him attractive to others (he does after all pull off a bank heist, fools the mobsters, and escapes from jail, as well as other shenanigans). On the other hand while I understand the appeal of Wah-keen (Joaquin) Phoenix's Joker, I also am really disappointed by the fact that the movie makers never actually attempt to draw a line in the sand with his relationship to the 'angry mob'. The whole point of the movie seemed to me that while men like the Joker are somewhat justified in their rage and anger towards society, at some point they break away from what is acceptable, and then at another point their actions become unjustifiable. It would have been far more compelling to see him actually alienate those who make him their hero - a breaking point for the angry mob that also makes him realize he isn't this hero of the masses, that he can go too far.
Phoenix is about the best thing in it. It really is a thin statement on today's society and a visual mash of other films from the last 30 or 40 years but all Art is derivative I guess. You're spot on with the marketing comment tho.
What did you think of the movie Seven by David Fincher?
10:05 - 10:16 Rob sums up perfectly, how I feel about this movie in just 11 seconds. Thank you Rob Ager
Dashoost I love the movie to death but... Yeah, I can't really argue that. I think this movie works best if you haven't seen Taxi Driver or King of Comedy.
Any chance of getting around to a review of Parasite?
18 min video comes out “3 minutes ago”
Already has a dislike... ok then
it isn't a great review at all tho, 18mins yet never really goes into detail about mental health awareness or real issues.. only that it's controversial, big deal.
the movie is hitting almost 900mil box office, think about it. it's not usual for this type of film to dominate the market. at the time of taxi driver and king of comedy, neither had immediate great social impact.. it took years to make a mark.
@@thedocak7532 I feel like the mental health awareness is just a checkmark in today's culture. Like in no way is it groundbreaking or really even that interesting of a concept anymore.
@@WilldaBeast999909 i couldn't name many films in the last decade that bluntly address this and made that much impact socially. small movies yes but not big productions. and it's false to suggest mental health awareness is dull and needs no more discussion. tbh, good will hunting was not all that great at addressing mental health. highly socially significant but didn't do as well as phoenix to single handedly carry the film's purpose. I only watch that movie for robin williams anyway.
1:53 no he wasn't bullied he was abused by his supposedly fake mother's abusive boyfriend
8:00 I was surprised you couldn't remember the music, to me it was intrusive in it's intensity! It's been a few weeks since my viewing, but (with the exception of a few songs) I believe it was just orchestral? I found it descended in a ham-fisted way on various scenes, LOUDLY. Came off as compensating for something rather than complimenting the story.
I didn't feel it added much. But I did appreciate that it's almost never there: most of the runtime has no music, which is bold and hard to get past the execs, I imagine.
Regarding Reality vs. Psychosis depictions
Rob, I know from listening to you that didn't like/watch Bates Motel but they handled the
Norman/mother confusion about what is reality and what is psychosis really well... especially as the seasons went on and the line got more blurred. You would actually like the visual devices used. Color, camera angles, body language and performance. It is only ever spelled out when it would make sense for it to be, like a character being confused about what is going on with Norman. It was never explicitly spoken any other time and it is even a plot device using confusion about reality to build cliffhangers.
I know this wasn't Joker specific but I wanted to speak to your specific point regarding the ham handed handling of the flashbacks.
The film is very overhyped but it's still a good film and it in no way deserves any of the controversy.
The hype ans controversy was all marketing, they got the media to drum. It up on purpose
I don't think I have seen anybody really mention the John Wayne Gacy influence in Joker. The makeup he wears looks like it was heavily inspired by the makeup design Gacy wore when he dressed as a clown for parties. Also, the comedy club Arthur goes to is called Pogo's. Pogo was the name of Gacy's clown persona.
Creepy
12:35 That gave me an idea, yeah...that "tormentor" could've been a monster of darkness and that would have tied nicely to the batman mythos and their rivalry.
(edit) I still love the movie but I can understand why you don't consider it a classic; thanks for your thoughts on it tho
That "tormentor", in the way The Butter TOOL describes it, sounds like the demon-Batman the Joker saw from "Arkham Origins". But that would've turned it into more of a horror movie instead. Might work as an idea for a miniseries, but... I ain't goin' that far.
By defination alone, it cannot be a classic.
They follow Heath Ledger's Joker because they're afrad of him. Marone lays it out to Batman, "They're wise to your act. You got rules. The Joker, he's got no rules. No one's gonna cross him to you."
In this movie, the Joker doesn't even have an ideology...
Me: I loved joker one of my fav movies of all time.
Rob: 6/10
Well, rob is wrong.
I think the first 40 minutes of the film could of been shortened to 20 minutes, it did drag a lot, making you feel bad for joker and all.
Why abused?
We are seeing that to much, in every movie and every series, and it started to be boring.
Its like people who are not abused cant be deviant, evil, messed, damaged.
I met damaged people from normal family too.
Putting Joker in that template/pattern/cliche is unforgivable!!
This could be an epic movie with H(x)oaˈkin
if they didn't decide to exploit abuse.
I will rather stick to my own Joker vision, that he was a normal guy who grew up in normal family.
He didn't kill animals when he was 7 or being abused by anyone!
He was just a normal guy, to smart to tolerate stupidity in his society and he just got overflowed/fed up with everything.
So he went that way.
The film could have focused more on the terrible side effects of a lot of mental health medication, but as you said that would have been too edgy for a big studio.
TheSuperQuail but this film was about mental illness, deal with it
@@XDarkBrotherhoodHD Didn't read this stupid comment at the time. Mental health medication relates to mental health...you complete moron.
Basically, the movie wasn't about the creation of Joker; it was an explanation for why the Joker had devout minions carrying out his terrorist ambitions.
Nice
I liked it. It’s worth a watch. But I won’t be rewatching. Just not as interesting as the producers thought it was. A rehash of some fine films though. Cheers everyone!!!
It was better at paying homage to Scorsese than it was at telling its own story. 'The King of Comedy' blurred reality in a better way. 'Taxi Driver' and 'Raging Bull' both showcased a tortured soul in a better way. Top notch visuals and acting, no doubt... But it just never became more than the sum of its parts.
Jack Torrance But how many 20 somethings know about Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy?
Ripping off great cinema and engaging young audiences w/ it is a win to me.
David Smith you do have a point. But I’m old, I know all the films they steal from. It’s my duty to point these things out. By doing so, maybe some kid will watch the originals and see real art. Cheers brother.
MK-Ultra Mags .... never became more than the sum of its parts. That’s exactly what I was thinking. Just couldn’t so eloquently state it like you. Cheers.
@@SmartDave60 "Ripping off great cinema...is a win to me" So you are ok with being ripped off? There's a word for that...Sucker
You haven't understood this movie at all. For example, he was laughing not to lighten himself up, then he was in pain or sadness. That laugh was a psychological condition, it was his version of cry or panic. Even laughter itself was painful. And he became Joker not because of childhood trauma... Abuse was couse or one of couse of his mental illness. That's all impact of childhood abuse in Arthur's life. And the point is that scene in Asylum, there he stole those files, was to show that indeed Thomas Wayne wasn't his biological father, trauma itself wasn't the focus and there was no need for that, because focus was his transformation from Arthur Fleck to Joker,. Sure, adding some scenes from his childhood would have been nice touch, but not neccessery. BTW, media hated the movie before it's release. Violance and possible effects of this was shown as big negative in the movie, critics were bashing it. I mean, we have John Wick, yet they told Joker might provoke mass shootings. You didn't find violance as much as you expected couse aspect of violance was just tool for media to make this film undesirable for viewers. Todd Philips never intended to create Joker as film, full of violance. And as for real vs not real: all film, except very last scene, may have been hallucination. Plus, were there no intentions to make this character anything similar to other versions. All that chaos doesn't represent Joker's views. He killed just because he was tired from society in general. In the very begining of the film he was beaten by some teenagers, who doesn't seem to be rich. Almost opposite, actually. Joker was simply happy at the end, couse finally someone recognized him and appreaciated him. Movie doesn't even try to answer who would be in Ledger's Joker "movement".
Joker is daring for this generation, whereas it probably would have been a rather average film had it come out in the 70's or 80's.
Which only explains why a good percentage of this generation can't watch films from that period, without their heads exploding.
Tragic and horrifying. Being a fly on the wall to a lonely and messed up person is not an easy watch, a slice of life movie turned into a nightmare.
Seeing so much isolation and pain is heartbreaking and the violent acts gut wrenchingly real. No flashy explosions or extreme blood-it chooses to show the affect of violence rather then focusing on the brutality. I don't really think it's that violent or controversial-but I appreciate the style.
A movie that truly shows who the Joker is-but also stands alone as a great psychological drama. Showing how people with mental illnesses are often judged and thrown away by society due to funding being cut for social services-which to me was the saddest aspect because it’s just so damn real. People who are harmless (NOT like Joker BTW) but people who need true help are again, thrown away and put into horrible places because the people in charge don’t care enough to help them or give money to psychologists or whatever the case maybe.
My only issues were having Bruce Wayne in the movie to much-I felt he was unnecessary. I honestly would have just left him right at the end of the movie and not the other scene. The stuff with his dad was great-but Arthur seeing Bruce as a kid at the mansion didn’t add much to the plot in my opinion.
I would have had no mention of him, then at the end have the big reveal of ‘oh crap, that’s Bruce Wayne as a kid with his parents dead!” But really had I been the screenwriter, I wouldn’t have had Bruce in the the movie at all. I would have preferred a more stand alone experience.
Had I been the screenwriter I wouldn’t have mentioned Bruce Wayne-I’d only mention his father like they did. Showing the death of Bruce’s parents was just kinda…meh. I wasn’t interested in that aspect at all.
Again though, this is a very good movie, I totally will want to own this. It’s not perfect, but it’s a really, really well done character study.