Joker Review Thread
 

- Hope this is okay, mods.

Reviews for "Joker", which was screened at the Venice Film festival are now hitting the web! I'll get us started, but feel free to share more!

The film is a hit!

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/joker/


https://www.standard.co.uk/go/london...-a4225396.html


https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/re...review-1235309


https://variety.com/2019/film/review...ps-1203317033/


http://collider.com/joker-review-vid...witter/#images


And here is a rather negative review:

https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/j...ie-review-2019

https://i.imgur.com/rVwNI8U.gif

So pumped for this and glad its being well received

IGN gave it a 10.

To think we have people calling the film a waste of time because it is not in the DCEU, or comparing Joaquins version of the character to SilentPool/BarakaPool.

This looks to be a game changer....

But be careful, I may have just read a mindblowing spoiler from a review linked to rotten tomatoes. I'll try and provide a link, but I'm a bit scared to go back and check if it's really a spoiler, tbh.

Yup. This film is going to make a lot of money.

We got 3 great live-action Jokers in our lifetimes.

Jack Nicholson as Joker '89, Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight in 2008, and now Joaquin Phoenix in 2019.

We don't talk about Jared Leto.

Interesting. I've only seen negative reviews thus far, albeit only a couple.

And as Andrew predicted, it is indeed an "Important Political Movie", right down to Joker's antics inspiring the common rabble to don clown masks and carry "Kill The Rich!" signs. :roll:

Looks like it's going to be tough to discuss this one while staying within the rules.

I think we should be fine if we try our best to step lightly around it. If we show the mods we can be civil and tempered, they may allow the necessary wiggle.room.

There are elements worth discussing without leaning heavily into politics anyway. I just read a ton of reviews that did it quite gracefully, if at all.

I've read couple of reviews and they are quite ridiculous.
Like Andrew said some people see it is as an "Important Political Movie", with mentions of "Incels" (what little group of freaks have done to become such important fixture for left?) and "morally bankrupt America" and *wink-wink "vigilante action" wink-wink*.

I am quite sad, that instead seeing this movie for, you know, the movie, those so called "reviewers" are desperately trying to connect it to modern politics.

After many, many months of people doubting this film... from ******** on the leaked screenplay (which we don't know for sure resembles the final film), to attacking Joker fans and memers... looks like everything is gonna turn out a-okay!

It's puzzling to me because Nolan just did that in "The Dark Knight Rises." Rich people getting yanked out of their beds and all.

I just don't understand why people see that as a positive thing. I mean, maybe I do, but I don't get it.

What the hell do Batman and Joker even have to do with incels lmao. :lol: Are these people crazy?

Well it stems from something to do with the leaked script, which I haven't read. But according to the creators, they veered heavily from the script and rewrote most of it.

So it wouldn't be surprising if it's just a case of people jumping to conclusions. Wouldn't be unusual in our time.

...I don't know much about Batman or Joker, but I don't see how incels could fit in such world. Unless they decide to turn Joker into an incel or something. Is that what this is about? If so, then wow :lol::lol::lol:

But yeah, hopefully just people jumping to conclusions.

You mean 4. Because of Cesar Romero. The original Joker.

It's because Joker is a psychopathic mass murderer and this movie will apparently make people sympathize with him and find his cause just. And since there's no Batman in the film to counter him, Joker is a protagonist in his own movie.

Joker is the most popular Batman villain but its because Batman is able to stop him at (almost) every turn. Nobody wants to watch a story about a mass murderer who kills people without any real reason and laughs about it. That's where the problem lies of people "We live in a society" type stuff.

Is there a reason given for this taking place in 1981? I assumed 2019,but what significance is that year to what they want to do with the 1940 created character?

The King of Comedy came out in 1981 and Robert De Niro is in the movie.

Everyone should see Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy before walking in to this. Clearly a ton of influence being taken. I actually hadn't seen The King of Comedy until this year, glad I did.

Assuming Joker doesn't die or something by the end of the movie, I'm going to headcanon this as a prequel and origin story to Heath Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. So that way we can see this Joker go up against Batman.

Yes I know it doesn't really fit, but who cares. :lol:

No, it makes me no sense, but whatever makes you feel better :). My mind does strange things to justify Terrance Howard turning into Don Cheadle in the MCU films.

Some people are being ridiculous with this film, I did read the left crazies talking about how the movie was glorifying incels so they were likely doing damage control and also likely censoring some scenes from the movie and now it's the right crazies saying that it's an "important" movie, jeeze, can someone make a movie nowadays without either of the crazies influencing the product into something it's not?



I'm sure if this movie is successful we'll either see a movie with the new Batman or even an entirely different Batman. Hell I'm sure we'll see Harley interact with this Joker as well. The DCEU is dead and WB is doing their animated strategy of convoluted continuity of yes but not strategy.

He wasn't a live action joker in my lifetime for what it's worth.

Also as far as Jared Leto, I agree he's a horrible Joker but at the very least I'll give him that he interpreted a very different Joker from Ledger which became the "defacto" Joker to people.

Agreed 100%

So... are any of these reviewers givng it these rave reviews actual comic fans... like have they ever picked up a comic book in their lives, or just kinda get a vague idea of the Joker's existence since he's kinda mainstream.

Just wondering.

I've heard the take that this movie implies that poor should violently rebel against the rich. And every time it was in very excited tone.

If the "incel take" is just retarded, than "rebel against rich" is dangerous.

Some are, some aren't. There are a lot of reviews out there.

What makes you wonder? What would the implication be?

For what it's worth, I've been reading Joker comics for 25 years. Love when he is written by Moore, Morrison, or Miller. I'm a diehard comic book fan, and I'll probably be raving right alongside those reviews by the time I see it.

Anything is possible, but all signs point to me loving it.

IDK, I just never saw Joker as a rob from the rich, give to the poor kinda guy.

This whole thing about getting people to wear clown masks and form a mob mentality, I at least hope when all is said and done, he thanks them all by unleashing the laughing gas on them.

So the idea is that the reviewers are able to appreciate the film because they aren't comic fans? Idk seems pretty flimsy to me, because I'm a fan of the comics and I think it looks fantastic.

It's clearly not what you want from a Joker movie, at least if you're going to come to a conclusion before seeing the film, but don't forget how flexible of a character this has always been. I don't think there's a correlation between positive reviews and lack of comic book fandom.

I'm sure Joker has never looked like a Party City version of himself.

Not following. The character has definitely looked like a "party city version of himself" lol. Ceaser Romero, for one.

But I was asking if the reviewers have to be comic book fans for their opinions to be valid, but I suppose it was rhetorical, because I know the answer is actually "no."

Sorry you dont like the makeup though. I think it looks great.

It's a cliche tactic that always works. And a lot of people eat it up. People who are educated and have aspirations and get to know successful people don't have this mindset - whether they are having money troubles or not.

It's just another way to embrace counter culture and it works - people who haven't grown up yet eat that **** up and then people who become culture dwellers doing nothing with their lives continue their subscription to this as a way to cope.

Most normally operating people know that it's just a trope and often that the "evil rich" messages aren't true.

I am not hyped for this movie at all, but I really liked this post. Perspective! -thumb's up-

On a side note for anyone here that subscribes to the "evil rich" thing - then you are a fool for seeing this movie if you do because you are being manipulated by a large group of extremely rich people who are taking your money to see their movie while they talk down to you. On that note, I am not rich basically at all.

On the other hand if you are seeing this movie and don't give a crap about the context, and are just seeing it for a few hours of popcorn and escapism, then that's cool too.

No one is actually seeing this for political reasons or out of some sort of devotion to an ideal.

It's just the radicals, on both sides, finding another thing to complain about. In this case, a movie they have not seen.

Naw, at the time Cesar Romero was pretty much the Joker brought to life. They didn't give him weird wacked-out make up or whatever that didn't match the comics.

IDK, it just feels weird taking a character that well-known and making him so different he's Joker in name only.

Leto was bad, but at least he was barely in the movie and the movie wasn't named after him.

I enjoyed the Crow and the Mask and while the Crow was 80% or so percent faithful to the comics, the Mask was not. But they both had the benefit of being unknown indie characters that didn't become mainstream until the movies came out.

The Joker doesn't have that benefit. You can't get away with making some weird-ass version of him and then 10 years later make some sort of 'did you know the Joker in the comics has permanent white skin?' unknown Joker facts video or whatever. He's just too well-known to mess with IMO.

And to top it off, people eat it up. I say those people that do have lost their 'not faithful to the comics' card the next time some other comic book movie comes out and bombs.

Double post

This film has a world-renowned actor, more creative freedom than any other comic book film out there, and is recieving Oscar Buzz, but you are upset about the makeup not being accurate. I'm just glad we have dissimilar taste.

So you don't like Heath Ledger's Joker either?
He also had normal skin & hair, unlike the comics.
He didn't have the comedian-related origin from the comics, which this new film does faithfully adhere to.
Also, if we are concerned with, arguably, trivial relations to the comic book character, Heath's Joker had scars, unlike Joaquin's version and the version from the comics. In many ways, the new version is more reverent to the comic books than Heath's. Not that it really matters. I love Heath's Joker, by the way.

I rather a story take creative liberty than be 100% devoted to someone else's comic book, if it means they reach the heights this film appears to reach. Being a complete slave to the material is so....rote.

And at the end of the day, why are you so sure it is unfaithful to the comics? There is the psychosis, the danger, the clown make-up, the charisma, the unpredictability. Any fan could tell you this is a Joker film, by the trailer, whether the films title is there or not.

So that combined with the fact that we havent even seen this film , just makes me puzzled by your strict apprehension to this film and devotion to the idea that it is unfaithful/unworthy. All due respect though.

Guys, we've already had this discussion and you all said it was impossible to discuss this without it getting political. :roll:

Against my better judgment, I'll let this go so long as people remain civil.

You mean... besides the fact that the people behind the film said it will have 'nothing to do with the comics'?

Ledger's Joker was a bit different. The Nolan trilogy tried so hard to somehow make Batman work in the real world. In fact The Dark Knight was more of a crime drama rather than a comic book movie and kept everything so grounded, the only cartoonish thing was the guy running around in the batsuit. They had to adapt Joker into that kind of movie, the comic book one would have been too cartoony in Nolan's world.

But that was a sequel, with rules established from a previous movie. This is a whole new thing. They could have done something more comic accurate but they went with the usual 'no, my version is better' mindset. It almost comes off as some sort of ' random guy in clown make-up goes crazy' type movie, they didn't have faith in their characer, so hey let's slap the Joker label on it and people will eat it up.

So far, it's working.

I mean, would people have cared is this was just called 'The Clown' or 'Look Who's Laughing Now' or whatever?

I would have cared to see this film under another name, sure - great cast, creative freedom, exciting critical reception. But I care more, because I can see elements of The Joker in it. It doesn't feel like too strong of a left turn to me...at all.
Like I said, all the elements that are essential to the Joker, in my mind, are loud and clear in the trailer.
I don't need him to take an acid bath in order to become The Joker anymore than I need a bat to physically crash through Bruce Wayne's window, as the catalyst to him taking on the theme of a bat. It's just not essential to the character, for me. People will differ on whatis essential to the character - even in the comics, Bob Kane's Joker is not Frank Miller's Joker is not Grant Morrison's joker - but it doesn't make it necessarily right or wrong.

I respect your reasons for excusing how different Heath's joker was, but they don't hold water for me. Heath's joker was different and fit the world they had envisioned, yes. The results were fantastic! If the same equation happens here, that's a wonderful thing, in my eyes.

If it makes you feel better, Todd Phillip's recently name dropped The Killing Joke when discussing his influences for the film. Other reviewers have said there are elements of the comic in there as well. I really think you could be jumping to conclusions. I mean, I can understand why, if that is the case, based on the press tour. They are being loud and clear that this film is "it's own thing", but they have also referenced the comics as an influence, and more importantly, you can see it in the trailers.

That's aside from the fact that we disagree on how faithful this film should be to the comics.

Thank you.

Seems like cooler heads are prevailing so far.

Joker won "Best Film" award at the Venice Film Festival.

http://collider.com/joker-wins-venic...val-top-award/

Often in the past, films that win this award go on to win Oscars as well.