Joker (2019) - Reviews

[Sorcerer 10,559]

Probably my favorite film of the year so far. Can't stop thinking about it. It's a harrowing and gruesome exploration of mental illness, social inequality, and descent to insanity without actually being unnecessarily gory. It was so unsettling, I was floored. The opening scene. The subway scene. The bathroom dance. The stand-up comedy act at the bar. And that ending. What do you expect in a Joker film? That he will be kind and live happily ever after?

Those who find this boring, anticlimactic, or filled with unecessary scenes don't watch arthouse slow cinema at all.

I don't care about the criticisms on the Taxi Driver and King of Comedy "derivativeness" unless Martin Scorsese dislikes the film himself. And the controversies are so overblown since it's not even as violent as other action films. Stop blaming artworks for violent behavior.

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

6 hours ago, ReginaGeorge said:

Than everyone in your cinema missed the point of this movie. In my cinema the situation was totally different. I usually see people on their phone in cinema but this time everyone was watching and enjoying the movie. The point of the movie is kinda everyone (but Joker himself) being dull. I honestly feel like you’re totally missing the point of this movie. Also what is this talk about not getting to know what’s in his head? The whole movie is about what’s in his head and you literally feel like you’re in his head the whole movie.. You feel like you’re going through his world and his mind the whole movie. I don’t understand where this negative comments come from. 

It’s totally ok if you had a different reaction to the film. My comments shouldn’t be interpreted as negative, just my honest reaction. People are allowed to have different reactions.

To me the characters all seem so one dimensional. Like I felt like I was looking at actors reading from a script the entire time. There was not a shred of humanity, or realism, in any of the characters. And so there was no element of surprise in the way the story unfolded, either. 

The kids at the start of the movie who steal his sign: they’re nameless and faceless. They’re “bad guys”. The three Wall Street guys on the train who attack Joker: nameless and emotionless. More “bad guys”. Everyone in the film was basically unimportant except as a prop to tell the story of how Arthur became Joker.

Basically the film is asking the audience to believe that Joker was simply just a strange but misunderstood guy who was made into a psycho because everyone around him treated him bad. “The world is to blame”. From both a literary AND a diagnostic point of view, that is a simplistic and naive (at best) and cliched and dangerous (at worst) way of viewing psychology. . 

The whole point of movies is to see what happens when people take their masks off. But in this film, nobody ever does. We the audience are treated like outsiders the entire 2 hours. The characters are impenetrable, which created disassociation with the audience.

It would have been more revealing- and human - to see Arthur try and stay normal, to try and fight the urge to be evil. 

[Regina George 59,387]

6 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

It’s totally ok if you had a different reaction to the film. My comments shouldn’t be interpreted as negative, just my honest reaction. People are allowed to have different reactions.

To me the characters all seem so one dimensional. Like I felt like I was looking at actors reading from a script the entire time. There was not a shred of humanity, or realism, in any of the characters. And so there was no element of surprise in the way the story unfolded, either. 

The kids at the start of the movie who steal his sign: they’re nameless and faceless. They’re “bad guys”. The three Wall Street guys on the train who attack Joker: nameless and emotionless. More “bad guys”. Everyone in the film was basically unimportant except as a prop to tell the story of how Arthur became Joker.

Basically the film is asking the audience to believe that Joker was simply just a strange but misunderstood guy who was made into a psycho because everyone around him treated him bad. “The world is to blame”. From both a literary AND a diagnostic point of view, that is a simplistic and naive (at best) and cliched and dangerous (at worst) way of viewing psychology. 

It would have been more revealing- and human - to see Arthur try and stay normal, to try and fight the urge to be evil. 

The whole point of movies is to see what happens when people take their masks off. But in this film, nobody ever does. We the audience are treated like outsiders the entire 2 hours. The characters are impenetrable, which created disassociation with the audience.

 

But they are kinda supposed to be just bad guys. We see the world through his eyes and he never met them, he doesn’t know anything about them except that they were extremely bad to him. Everyone is just bad because that’s how they behaved towards him. It’s the point. I think you’re missing the point of the movie and the point of them being one dimensional. They are one dimensional because they as individuals didn’t show other sides of them. 

[doppelganger 3,741]

13 hours ago, ReginaGeorge said:

Literally how is that trash of a movie superior to this masterpiece? I’m sorry but this statement is just too... Also how the hell doesn’t it “unpack the character and his motivation”? Did we watch the same movie? 

Either you have no comprehension skills or you're just cherrypicking my comment. I said "the film doesn't really unpack the character and his motivation in a complex way"

Look it's my opinion. I love films, and I watch a lot of films. I really liked the film, but a masterpiece it is not. 

The film is very singular in explaining why Joker became violent. Society treated him very poorly + childhood trauma. And ... that's it.  

My other issue with the film is that it tries very hard to make you want the root for Joker, at the expense of character development. We all know he turns into this murderous super villain, but DC doesn't want you to see Joker killing any "innocent people". 

Where's the moral dilemma? Why build up our empathy for this character, and then just end the film with nothing interesting to think about?  In that regard The Dark Knight is much more philosophical as a film, challenging our ideas about moral ideals. 

[Lord Temptation 11,209]

3 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

But they are kinda supposed to be just bad guys. We see the world through his eyes and he never met them, he doesn’t know anything about them except that they were extremely bad to him. Everyone is just bad because that’s how they behaved towards him. It’s the point. I think you’re missing the point of the movie and the point of them being one dimensional. They are one dimensional because they as individuals didn’t show other sides of them. 

They were only one dimensional because the writers and director didn’t think they were worthy of anything more. They made the Joker the star of the movie and nobody else mattered, which is a great shame.

[gstring 1,775]

i can feel how broken and ****ed up he is inside, living in a bubble for the entire time.. when reality struck him and set his sense back, that's when all the things broke down 💔 

[doppelganger 3,741]

27 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

It’s totally ok if you had a different reaction to the film. My comments shouldn’t be interpreted as negative, just my honest reaction. People are allowed to have different reactions.

To me the characters all seem so one dimensional. Like I felt like I was looking at actors reading from a script the entire time. There was not a shred of humanity, or realism, in any of the characters. And so there was no element of surprise in the way the story unfolded, either. 

The kids at the start of the movie who steal his sign: they’re nameless and faceless. They’re “bad guys”. The three Wall Street guys on the train who attack Joker: nameless and emotionless. More “bad guys”. Everyone in the film was basically unimportant except as a prop to tell the story of how Arthur became Joker.

Basically the film is asking the audience to believe that Joker was simply just a strange but misunderstood guy who was made into a psycho because everyone around him treated him bad. “The world is to blame”. From both a literary AND a diagnostic point of view, that is a simplistic and naive (at best) and cliched and dangerous (at worst) way of viewing psychology. . 

The whole point of movies is to see what happens when people take their masks off. But in this film, nobody ever does. We the audience are treated like outsiders the entire 2 hours. The characters are impenetrable, which created disassociation with the audience.

It would have been more revealing- and human - to see Arthur try and stay normal, to try and fight the urge to be evil. 

I don't have a problem with the film focusing on just one character. I just didn't think that was done amazingly well, either. I felt the story needed to transition into Joker The Batman Villain, instead of a just person killing in a fit of emotional rage. Three out the four murders are interchangeable with no emotional payoff for the viewer. 

[Regina George 59,387]

26 minutes ago, doppelganger said:

Either you have no comprehension skills or you're just cherrypicking my comment. I said "the film doesn't really unpack the character and his motivation in a complex way"

Look it's my opinion. I love films, and I watch a lot of films. I really liked the film, but a masterpiece it is not. 

The film is very singular in explaining why Joker became violent. Society treated him very poorly + childhood trauma. And ... that's it.  

My other issue with the film is that it tries very hard to make you want the root for Joker, at the expense of character development. We all know he turns into this murderous super villain, but DC doesn't want you to see Joker killing any "innocent people". 

Where's the moral dilemma? Why build up our empathy for this character, and then just end the film with nothing interesting to think about?  In that regard The Dark Knight is much more philosophical as a film, challenging our ideas about moral ideals. 

First of all you can’t tell me you have your opinion and I should respect that after you told me that I don’t have comprehension skills. That’s rude. Also this is nit your opinion, this is something you said that is factually not true. I also think you missed the whole point of the movie. You not liking it is not my concern, you not understanding it and me trying to tell you that is what I’m doing. 

[Reality 65,747]

8 hours ago, Lord Temptation said:

The acting is superb. The film is let down by the story and dialogue. None of it is believable, and that is why myself and many in the packed cinema I was in, were yawning and checking their phone to see the time. The film sucks you in with the hope you may get to witness what goes on in Jokers head, but every time you just get laughed at. The film itself is manipulative. The director sabotaged himself by purposely trying to make a character study piece like the masterpieces Taxi Driver (1976) or Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer (1986). Mission...not accomplished. Actually, even as an imitation the film fails. It and everyone in it was just so dull. 

People were yawning and checking their phones because they were walking into a movie expecting giant action sequences and set pieces. They aren't yawning cause it's "unbelievable". 

As for it being "unbelievable" though, I'd argue that it's not unbelievable at all. Here's the thing...I feel like when people say "Oh, that would never happen in real life" whenever they talk about a movie or tv show, they're often talking about it from their own point of view. Maybe you haven't experienced anything like Arthur has experienced, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

People are unforunately beat up, mugged, and ridiculed everyday. And like Arthur says in the end, "If it were me lying on the street you'd all walk right over me!". That's the point the movie's making. These things do  happen and often times we turn a blind eye to it because we don't want to "deal with it" when the reality is that people like Arthur have to deal with it everyday. 

I'd also say that the movie does let you witness what's going on in Arthur's head. That's literally the entire movie...

[Reality 65,747]

58 minutes ago, Lord Temptation said:

They were only one dimensional because the writers and director didn’t think they were worthy of anything more. They made the Joker the star of the movie and nobody else mattered, which is a great shame.

But that's the point of the movie. Look, like I said in my first post, I'm not going to try and berate you and say "you're wrong" or "you're stupid" for having a different opinion. That's the beauty of art. People can have different opinions on things. That being said, like @ReginaGeorgesaid, I think you're missing the point of the film.

Everyone else in the film is second to Arthur/Joker. You say that's a bad thing, but that's literally the point of the film. Arthur is the center piece; Arthur is the character you follow. We don't need a backstory for the Wall Street guys, or the kids that beat him up in the beginning of the movie. We don't need half an hour spending time on his manager at Ha Ha's. Those would all be superfluous things to add.

I don't remember exactly if it was Todd Phillips or Joaquin Phoenix who said this, but I do remember them saying that the point of having characters like the kids and the Wall Street guys is to show people that these are just everyday things that happen to Arthur. If anything, that should make it more  impactful. 

Arthur gets beat by society on a daily. Him being made fun of, ridiculed, etc. is the same as you or me walking down the street to buy some groceries. Do we need to know how the groceries were made? Do we need to know why 'x' street we walk down is called 'x'? No, because that's information that we just don't need. 

The fact that stuff like this is so regular to him shows you just how much people "got what they ****ing deserved" in his eyes. 

[Regina George 59,387]

3 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

But that's the point of the movie. Look, like I said in my first post, I'm not going to try and berate you and say "you're wrong" or "you're stupid" for having a different opinion. That's the beauty of art. People can have different opinions on things. That being said, like @ReginaGeorgesaid, I think you're missing the point of the film.

Everyone else in the film is second to Arthur/Joker. You say that's a bad thing, but that's literally the point of the film. Arthur is the center piece; Arthur is the character you follow. We don't need a backstory for the Wall Street guys, or the kids that beat him up in the beginning of the movie. We don't need half an hour spending time on his manager at Ha Ha's. Those would all be superfluous things to add.

I don't remember exactly if it was Todd Phillips or Joaquin Phoenix who said this, but I do remember them saying that the point of having characters like the kids and the Wall Street guys is to show people that these are just everyday things that happen to Arthur. If anything, that should make it more  impactful. 

Arthur gets beat by society on a daily. Him being made fun of, ridiculed, etc. is the same as you or me walking down the street to buy some groceries. Do we need to know how the groceries were made? Do we need to know why 'x' street we walk down is called 'x'? No, because that's information that we just don't need. 

The fact that stuff like this is so regular to him shows you just how much people "got what they ****ing deserved" in his eyes. 

Literally all of this is spot on. 

[doppelganger 3,741]

46 minutes ago, ReginaGeorge said:

First of all you can’t tell me you have your opinion and I should respect that after you told me that I don’t have comprehension skills. That’s rude. Also this is nit your opinion, this is something you said that is factually not true. I also think you missed the whole point of the movie. You not liking it is not my concern, you not understanding it and me trying to tell you that is what I’m doing. 

And you're  cherrypicking my words again  At least I tried to explain why have issues with the film. Never did I ever say I did not like the film. If you read what I wrote, I said it's a good movie. 

A good movie can still be critiqued. 

[Guest]

Hands down the best movie ive seen. Im still thinking bout it one day later, one of my new fav DC movie honestly. I just have no criticism about it, everything flowed perfectly, everything made sense and it was very chilling in some scenes to slowly witness the Joker being born 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, M Monstre said:

They made the Joker the star of the movie and nobody else mattered, which is a great shame.

It's called Joker, not Joker & co 

[peto flex 2,641]

I saw it yesterday and it's a boring movie