Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Joker


Dex

Recommended Posts

Dark, disturbing and brilliant. You won't walk away from this one feeling bright and cherry but man was it fuging great. Oscar nomination for Phoenix and he may be the favorite to take it home. Insane performance, I had to remind myself several times throughout the movie that this is just a movie and Phoenix is NOT actually this character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty good. Not as great as I hoped. Not as bad as I feared.

It was barely in the Batman universe. Where it actually succeeded was a being a great homage to 70s movies. Not only was it set very convincingly in the 1970s in dirty/angry New York (Gotham, I know) but very closely evoked the cinema of the time.

Joker was equal parts, and with the casting of Robert DeNiro, very intentionally Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, with Dog Day Afternoon and Death Wish sprinkled in.

 

I also got very strong overtones of You Were Never Really Here  with the creepy relationship with his mother to the point that I wonder if at some point, Joaquin Phoenix is going to get tired of slow dancing with old ladies.

 

Honestly if you haven't seen it, I'd actually suggest that You Were Never Really Here does a better job accomplishing what Joker set out to do. (I know, shocking that Lynne Ramsay is a better filmmaker than the guy who brought you three Hangover movies)

Phoenix did an outstanding job. But I never got an overwhelming feeling of menace from Joker, who should have been a much more terrifying villain. And after building up towards his appearance on the talk show for so long, I really was hoping for him to have a super violent "Joker" plot. Instead, he's just a guy who's butthurt over being mocked.

And it didn't have to be anything as comic booky as gassing the entire audience. But Lou Bloom from Nightcrawler is ten times scarier in a very realistic real-world setting with nothing more than a camera at his disposal.

So overall I liked it, but was very let down by the climax.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Captroop said:

Pretty good. Not as great as I hoped. Not as bad as I feared.

It was barely in the Batman universe. Where it actually succeeded was a being a great homage to 70s movies. Not only was it set very convincingly in the 1970s in dirty/angry New York (Gotham, I know) but very closely evoked the cinema of the time.

Joker was equal parts, and with the casting of Robert DeNiro, very intentionally Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, with Dog Day Afternoon and Death Wish sprinkled in.

 

I also got very strong overtones of You Were Never Really Here  with the creepy relationship with his mother to the point that I wonder if at some point, Joaquin Phoenix is going to get tired of slow dancing with old ladies.

 

Honestly if you haven't seen it, I'd actually suggest that You Were Never Really Here does a better job accomplishing what Joker set out to do. (I know, shocking that Lynne Ramsay is a better filmmaker than the guy who brought you three Hangover movies)

Phoenix did an outstanding job. But I never got an overwhelming feeling of menace from Joker, who should have been a much more terrifying villain. And after building up towards his appearance on the talk show for so long, I really was hoping for him to have a super violent "Joker" plot. Instead, he's just a guy who's butthurt over being mocked.

And it didn't have to be anything as comic booky as gassing the entire audience. But Lou Bloom from Nightcrawler is ten times scarier in a very realistic real-world setting with nothing more than a camera at his disposal.

So overall I liked it, but was very let down by the climax.

I saw you were never really here. It was incredible. But Joker was darker to me. These are two entirely different characters dealing with mental illness. And I honestly felt more for Arthur than I did for Joe. There was something really relatable with Joker, being a dreamer, wanting to do right by his old sickly mom, having a passion for something (standup comedian). But how he related to other people and how those dreams were delusional made me deeply uncomfortable. I was squirming in my chair for almost the entire movie.
 

The scene where he’s at the comedy club and he laughs in between the punchlines was extremely unsettling to me. It made me think about how we treat people who go against the grain socially. Obviously this was that on steroids. But it makes you think about outcasts and people who don’t fit in to “normal” society.

I liked what they did here. Ledger did the menacing joker, this was something entirely different. A different take on the character. And I don’t know if you just knew what was going to happen at the end based on comics? But that last scene when he becomes unhinged really affected me. I couldn’t stop thinking about the movie days after I saw it. Joaquin made it so you were almost rooting for him to do what he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Captroop said:

Pretty good. Not as great as I hoped. Not as bad as I feared.

It was barely in the Batman universe. Where it actually succeeded was a being a great homage to 70s movies. Not only was it set very convincingly in the 1970s in dirty/angry New York (Gotham, I know) but very closely evoked the cinema of the time.

Joker was equal parts, and with the casting of Robert DeNiro, very intentionally Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, with Dog Day Afternoon and Death Wish sprinkled in.

 

I also got very strong overtones of You Were Never Really Here  with the creepy relationship with his mother to the point that I wonder if at some point, Joaquin Phoenix is going to get tired of slow dancing with old ladies.

 

Honestly if you haven't seen it, I'd actually suggest that You Were Never Really Here does a better job accomplishing what Joker set out to do. (I know, shocking that Lynne Ramsay is a better filmmaker than the guy who brought you three Hangover movies)

Phoenix did an outstanding job. But I never got an overwhelming feeling of menace from Joker, who should have been a much more terrifying villain. And after building up towards his appearance on the talk show for so long, I really was hoping for him to have a super violent "Joker" plot. Instead, he's just a guy who's butthurt over being mocked.

And it didn't have to be anything as comic booky as gassing the entire audience. But Lou Bloom from Nightcrawler is ten times scarier in a very realistic real-world setting with nothing more than a camera at his disposal.

So overall I liked it, but was very let down by the climax.

Overall great points. I was personally expecting him to kill the entire audience in that scene like he does in TDKR. However I saw the film as character study. And to me it was about what would and could realistically drive a man to become such a character. 

For example I think Ledger's joker was a more threatening person. But I find with Phoenix his is more disturbing and you would not know what he is capable of

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheRumGone said:

I saw you were never really here. It was incredible. But Joker was darker to me. These are two entirely different characters dealing with mental illness. And I honestly felt more for Arthur than I did for Joe. There was something really relatable with Joker, being a dreamer, wanting to do right by his old sickly mom, having a passion for something (standup comedian). But how he related to other people and how those dreams were delusional made me deeply uncomfortable. I was squirming in my chair for almost the entire movie.
 

The scene where he’s at the comedy club and he laughs in between the punchlines was extremely unsettling to me. It made me think about how we treat people who go against the grain socially. Obviously this was that on steroids. But it makes you think about outcasts and people who don’t fit in to “normal” society.

I liked what they did here. Ledger did the menacing joker, this was something entirely different. A different take on the character. And I don’t know if you just knew what was going to happen at the end based on comics? But that last scene when he becomes unhinged really affected me. I couldn’t stop thinking about the movie days after I saw it. Joaquin made it so you were almost rooting for him to do what he did.

Absolutely. It reminded me of Requiem for a Dream in those moments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saw it opening night and loved it. Good points above that encapsulate a lot of my thoughts, but the movie made me "cheer" for the Joker almost and sympathize with him in a lot of ways which is a "cool" difference from the norm.  A lot of emotions fighting against each other watching it for me. 

Even though some points were meant to be obvious, finding out he laughs a lot of the time because he's sad or hurting or just can't control it (not just a sick twisted laugh), the all too real portrayal of mental health and lack of funding & being cast aside, the role of the media and TV turning the Joker into an almost demigod figure...awesome stuff.  Can agree the climax wasn't a huge thing and overall as a movie it's weaker because of it...but as a character study, social commentary, or whatever else, it was really good for me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Enjoyed the movie. I left feeling a little unsure about it. I texted a friend saying, “I kept waiting for the descent into madness but once it happened, I was a bit disappointed in how they portrayed it.” I don’t really know how to explain it, but I enjoyed the movie overall. 

One thing I was disappointed by was the missed opportunity to tie into the Michael Keeton-Jack Nicholson Batman movie when the Waynes were killed. How do you not have Arthur Fleck kill the Waynes and ask Bruce, “Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?” 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Hard to say--they are very unpredictable--this article came out last night---after our comments:  (ESPN)   How has the NFL approached NCAA players with gambling violations in the past? David Purdum, sports betting reporter: Quarterback Hunter Dekkers and wide receiver Kayshon Boutte were found to have committed gambling violations while playing college football, and both were allowed to pursue NFL careers. Dekkers was the projected starting quarterback at Iowa State but was ruled ineligible ahead of the 2023 season after an investigation found he had bet on at least one game involving the Cyclones (among other wagers that violated NCAA bylaws). The bet was just $15 on Iowa State to beat Oklahoma State in a 2021 game in which he did not play, but it led to the end of his Division I career. He played one season at Iowa Western Community College in 2024 before signing with the Saints as an undrafted free agent, and he spent last season on the practice squad. Boutte was arrested in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in January 2024 on charges of underage betting while at LSU. The arrest came roughly eight months after he had been drafted in Round 6 by the Patriots, and the charges were ultimately dropped. According to police, Boutte placed more than 8,900 wagers from April 2022 to May 2023, including betting on at least 17 college football games -- at least six of which involved LSU during that span. The NFL did not discipline Boutte.
    • He did himself more harm than good by engaging in this ridiculous legal battle. One it brought to light how much gambling he was actually doing and two it made him a very unlikable figure from a public perspective because he was challenging the perceived sanctity (lol) of college sports. Then to make things worse his lawyers convinced a very stupid and very gullible old boomer judge to agree with him. Now he’s a lightning rod entering the league and that’s not a good place to be. 
    • He went through the treatment program, fwiw if anything, and my focus is on his size, decision-making (on the field, not phone), and his arm strength.  But drafting a QB with an addiction that could get him Pete Rosed is not ideal.  I am not satisfied that the Panthers have (as Canales has stated to be important) addressed the QB spot with competition since Bryce has been here. Should Bryce not continue to improve or should he become injured, are we going with Pickett?  Pickett had 45 pass attempts with the Raiders last season and was sacked 8 times.  He has an NFL career where his interceptions are equal to his TDs.  He is not good.  H. King could emerge as the backup, if that tells you anything, but if we can pick a player with NFL starting potential (Sorsby would have been rated ahead of Ty Simpson (drafted #13 overall) in 2026 and he is rated #3 overall in the strong 2027 QB draft class, behind Manning and Moore--again, this would give Sorsby a first-round grade.  If I am Morgan, and I do not feel 100% confident that Bryce is the future, I might offer a second rounder for Sorsby.  I think he might go before that, frankly.   Some will say I am crazy, but to get a QB with Sorsby's talent in the 2027 draft, we may need to move up in round 1.  If Bryce steps up, you have a solid backup.  Regardless, I would sleep better.
×
×
  • Create New...