Sometimes I wonder if the director's name is disclosed, would people's opinion on the movie change? That would definitely remove the bias comments of today's media. I'm pretty sure if you had put Nolan's name as the director, everyone here would be calling it a masterpiece.
It's worse than bad, it's boring. Utterly devoid of an identity, hollow in intent, and no clue whatsoever what it's trying to be. Nothing more than a kid driving dad's car, and for a movie as purposefully incendiary as this that's borderline irresponsible. Philips' direction is the showiest I've seen since The Revenant, although his range as a filmmaker is genuinely impressive. It is both a hyper-literal portrait of mental illness and a heightened comic book movie, and the two clashed for me in ugly ways.
The most dangerous thing about it is its lack of point of view.
Pretty pictures, though, and Phoenix really commits. This is a movie about a sick man doing sick things, and he becomes that character. A nomination is likely appropriate.
-Vader
I couldn't agree more. I watched it yesterday and I didn't enjoy it at all, to be honest... if you don't think of it as a DC comic book movie set in the Batman universe, then it's a really obvious film about this guy who is constantly shat upon by - yeah - society, then he goes on a killing rampage, then... that's it, I guess? Other than the very, very obvious "message" of "a corrupt city breaking the lives of the weakest", I'm really not sure what I was supposed to feel. Like, when
he shoots De Niro... I honestly lost it there. It was such a hollow, empty, almost cringe-worthy moment for me.
It feels like the movie was constantly trying to shove its ideas down my throat: "look, our society doesn't care for this guy! Look how we don't care for him", and I'm like... yeah, I know. Also, the movie is tirelessly pointing it out to us that this guy is "crazy" and "insane", and that's my other problem: we start from a point where this character is almost "ready", he's really problematic from the get go, so in a way we don't really "solve" this problem that is called Joker. A Joker origin story which isn't really an origin story at all, to me at least. But that's my other problem.
I think the film makes even less sense if you realize it is set in the DC universe. I just don't get how this guy becomes the arch-nemesis of Batman, it's really obvious that he just cannot. He's a completely different thing, which is fine. Maybe he just
inspires other Jokers in the future, but what was the point of this whole thing then?
I get the ambition, I get the amazing performance, but to me, as Vader put it, it was quite hollow and without any identity. I honestly didn't enjoy it, I don't know where it wanted to go, I don't know why I should've cared for anything that was portrayed in the film. I don't know... weird. It was weird.
It's worse than bad, it's boring. Utterly devoid of an identity, hollow in intent, and no clue whatsoever what it's trying to be. Nothing more than a kid driving dad's car, and for a movie as purposefully incendiary as this that's borderline irresponsible. Philips' direction is the showiest I've seen since The Revenant, although his range as a filmmaker is genuinely impressive. It is both a hyper-literal portrait of mental illness and a heightened comic book movie, and the two clashed for me in ugly ways.
The most dangerous thing about it is its lack of point of view.
Pretty pictures, though, and Phoenix really commits. This is a movie about a sick man doing sick things, and he becomes that character. A nomination is likely appropriate.
-Vader
I couldn't agree more. I watched it yesterday and I didn't enjoy it at all, to be honest... if you don't think of it as a DC comic book movie set in the Batman universe, then it's a really obvious film about this guy who is constantly shat upon by - yeah - society, then he goes on a killing rampage, then... that's it, I guess? Other than the very, very obvious "message" of "a corrupt city breaking the lives of the weakest", I'm really not sure what I was supposed to feel. Like, when
he shoots De Niro... I honestly lost it there. It was such a hollow, empty, almost cringe-worthy moment for me.
It feels like the movie was constantly trying to shove its ideas down my throat: "look, our society doesn't care for this guy! Look how we don't care for him", and I'm like... yeah, I know. Also, the movie is tirelessly pointing it out to us that this guy is "crazy" and "insane", and that's my other problem: we start from a point where this character is almost "ready", he's really problematic from the get go, so in a way we don't really "solve" this problem that is called Joker. A Joker origin story which isn't really an origin story at all, to me at least. But that's my other problem.
I think the film makes even less sense if you realize it is set in the DC universe. I just don't get how this guy becomes the arch-nemesis of Batman, it's really obvious that he just cannot. He's a completely different thing, which is fine. Maybe he just
inspires other Jokers in the future, but what was the point of this whole thing then?
I get the ambition, I get the amazing performance, but to me, as Vader put it, it was quite hollow and without any identity. I honestly didn't enjoy it, I don't know where it wanted to go, I don't know why I should've cared for anything that was portrayed in the film. I don't know... weird. It was weird.
All of this is a good reason why the "one bad day" or I guess in this movie "multiple bad days" thing doesn't really work or sit right with me. Yes it's fine in Killing Joke because it's a one off and was never meant to be an official origin story, but even with Killing Joke there are holes to fill.
Sometimes I wonder if the director's name is disclosed, would people's opinion on the movie change? That would definitely remove the bias comments of today's media. I'm pretty sure if you had put Nolan's name as the director, everyone here would be calling it a masterpiece.
Are you telling me if those shitty teen Netflix movies I've been watching told me that Nolan directed it I would love them?
All of this is a good reason why the "one bad day" or I guess in this movie "multiple bad days" thing doesn't really work or sit right with me. Yes it's fine in Killing Joke because it's a one off and was never meant to be an official origin story, but even with Killing Joke there are holes to fill.
But The Killing Joke clearly implies that the Joker is trying to avoid responsibility by saying it was 'one bad day', when the flashbacks (or what we're supposed to think are flashbacks) to his past clearly show a desperate guy who is under a lot of pressure to succeed for his wife and his unborn child. We don't know how long that guy has been that way. The Joker just blames it all on one day because that was the day when multiple bad incidents happened to him one after the other. But the guy who would eventually become the Joker in that story always seemed very much on the brink of a breakdown already. The implication being, of course, that it's a terrible life, or maybe even he himself who is the cause of his madness because Batman clearly says in that comic 'maybe it was just you all along' and the Joker refuses to accept this by shouting 'NO' so he has a strong need to avoid any and all responsibility.
This film just gives you more insight into what this guy's life is like and it provides some elements within him as a person that showcase what kind of individual he'll end up becoming long before he snaps, even without anyone being around to push him in that direction. It also shows us that events and interpersonal relations in his life are a source of misery for him but then he also has some clear mental problems right from the start. People always ask whether it's nature or nurture with mass murderers and it is clear that the movie tries to say it's most likely a bit of both because he is clearly responsible for the way he reacts to his terrible, pathetic life, even though he cannot control how people think of him and his strange behaviour and hence interact with him as a result.
I think Mark Kermode said it best: he is pitiful, not sympathetic and there is a difference. Whether you find this guy interesting enough to carry a whole movie is another question entirely. I agree with Mark Kermode that, contrary to what I've seen from a bunch of critics, this film has more to say than they would like to admit. I also don't think that it has to pick one specific issue and focus on that when its goal seems to be to depict the kind of society that might produce an individual like the Joker.
Last edited by Batfan175 on October 7th, 2019, 8:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
All of this is a good reason why the "one bad day" or I guess in this movie "multiple bad days" thing doesn't really work or sit right with me. Yes it's fine in Killing Joke because it's a one off and was never meant to be an official origin story, but even with Killing Joke there are holes to fill.
But The Killing Joke clearly implies that the Joker is trying to avoid responsibility by saying it was 'one bad day', when the flashbacks (or what we're supposed to think are flashbacks) to his past clearly show a desperate guy who is under a lot of pressure to succeed for his wife and his unborn child. We don't know how long that guy has been that way. The Joker just blames it all on one day because that was the day when multiple bad incidents happened to him one after the other. But the guy who would eventually become the Joker in that story always seemed very much on the brink of a breakdown already. The implication being, of course, that it's a terrible life, or maybe even he himself who is the cause of his madness because Batman clearly says in that comic 'maybe it was just you all along' and the Joker refuses to accept this by shouting 'NO' so he has a strong need to avoid any and all responsibility.
This film just gives you more insight into what this guy's life is like and it provides some elements within him as a person that showcase what kind of individual he'll end up becoming long before he snaps, even without anyone being around to push him in that direction. It also shows us that events and interpersonal relations in his life are a source of misery for him but then he also has some clear mental problems right from the start. People always ask whether it's nature or nurture with mass murderers and it is clear that the movie tries to say it's most likely a bit of both because he is clearly responsible for the way he reacts to his terrible, pathetic life, even though he cannot control how people think of him and his strange behaviour and hence interact with him as a result.
I think Mark Kermode said it best he is pitiful, not sympathetic and there is a difference. Whether you find this guy interesting enough to carry a whole movie is another question entirely.
Yeah you're right. Those are very good points! It's been a while since I read Killing Joke. Might have to dust off my copy.
