Joker
POSTED BY: SHINYGOODGUY
UPDATED: Monday, March 30, 2026 18:33
VIEWED: 23054
PAGE 4 of 21
Second, you say you've seen the Joker film. Forget your feud with Six (Jack).
We're here to discuss. What did YOU think of the film?
Otherwise, you're just being obtuse.
sgg
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes, I can see that...the comparisons as to perception. But Joker has elements that are similar to other films, which critics have taken Phillips to task.
I don't agree with the critics as far as comparing it to Taxi Driver and so forth. Granted it's regarding "loners" - but that, to me, is too simplistic.
Some have said that it was Scorceses' influence, that may be so, but is that so bad? The film may be flavored with the essence of other 'loner' flicks, but Joker has it's own style and substance that those others don't. And still others say that the film was all Joaquin's performance and not much else.
Yeah, the critics picked this film apart. I'm not sure exactly why, but audiences have been going in droves to the tune of 93% score on Rotten Tomatoes; as compared to a 69% critical score. Does monetary gains for this film outdo the critical acclaim? No matter the accolades, Joker has reached
an audience that critics have had no effect on. That's why I say go see and judge for yourself. I highly recommend it.
sgg
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Not having seen it who am I to say, still. The hype is reminding me of the shining. Certain things in scenes would be different to show when Nicholson's character was in and out of reality. Like the kids three wheeler changing color. Lights switches being on the wall in one scene and not in another.
???
T
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Second, I'm guessing by your post that YOU didn't like the film.
And I emphasize the word "guess" because nary a word from you of what YOU thought of the film.
The critics, for their "reasons" hated the film. But audiences love it to the tune of 93% RT score. So what does that mean? Are the critics right? Or is the audience?
No matter. Art is not always appreciated in it's time.
sgg
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You might not believe it, but when I go into a movie, everything I know about the characters influences how I view the movie. I can suspend disbelief, but I can not erase what I know about imaginary characters.
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Hey Second, I'm guessing by your post that YOU didn't like the film.
And I emphasize the word "guess" because nary a word from you of what YOU thought of the film.
The critics, for their "reasons" hated the film. But audiences love it to the tune of 93% RT score. So what does that mean? Are the critics right? Or is the audience?
No matter. Art is not always appreciated in it's time.
sgg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspension_of_disbelief
There was a movie I saw this year, Alita Battle Angel, that the critics were not impressed with, but I liked it while watching. I knew nothing about the character called Alita, other than the trailer. Everything about Alita was new and thrilling. But reading what the critics said about the movie, all the shortcomings they noticed were obviously there. I didn't see those flaws until they were pointed out to me. Those flaws should have been fixed when it was only a script.
www.metacritic.com/movie/alita-battle-angel/critic-reviews
The critics were not impressed by Joker, just like they were not by Alita. The difference for me was that I knew a great deal about the character of Joker versus nothing about the character called Alita. Joker is a mass murdering monster, so I am already primed to dislike his origin story. The flaws in the Joker movie which the more self-aware critics pointed to are actual flaws that should have been fixed while the movie was still a script.
In Alita, I didn't see the flaws but I had NO prejudice against the Alita character. On the other hand, I already hated the Joker character so it was easy to see the flaws in his movie. For me the movie was nothing but flaws. As one critic said about Joker: "The downside to the performance is the downside to the movie: It’s one note played louder and louder."
www.metacritic.com/movie/joker/critic-reviews
By the way, I was not kidding when I compared Joker to someone running amok. If you have actually seen somebody go berserk in real life, it will cast a shadow on the Joker and his mental problems. Similarly, you will never again look at the gunfights in movies the same after you have actually been in a real shootout and have to deal with the dead and injured afterwards.
"How the Mind Works" -- the chapter on Hotheads: https://bit.ly/32IqISS
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Rappy, you're starting to scare me (kidding, of course).
But you're spot on. What is real and what is in the mind of the Joker is exactly the point. We don't know where Arthur ends and the Joker begins, or did Arthur ever end? He tells us, then shows us what exactly? It is brilliant.
We get a glimpse into the unstable mind of a psychopath, a mentally unbalanced
person. Did he ever leave the insane asylum? Did he imagine it all? Did he really kill his mother? Did he have a mother?
Was he ever a clown? Did he get a gun from a co-worker? Everything has to be questioned because of the absolutely brilliant way the script was written.
And within the film many more questions and statements without being preachy.
Arthur getting a gun for instance. Bottom line; he shouldn't.
sgg
My biggest takeaway was something that my brother and dad didn't notice, and in fact, they argued me on until I convinced them otherwise.
There is no reason to believe it's not at least a 50/50 chance that Joker and Batman are brothers in this universe.
(Oh, sorry. Spoiler alert, Second)
I've intentionally not seen any reviews of the movie, even after the fact, so this might be something that people are talking about now.
I didn't even think about it until you triggered that memory that you can't just believe that any of that was real. Was the entire movie both in 1st and 3rd person, or just the scenes with his "girlfriend" that we "know" weren't real?
Did he actually date the girl at some point, and what we saw late in the movie that made everyone think those times were a figment of his imagination the part that wasn't real? That could be... He had certainly been off his meds for quite a while at that point.
When I brought up the idea that Arthur and Bruce were brothers to my Dad, he said they couldn't be because of the medical records and his mom was a loon.
I said, "says who? Some medical records from Arkham Asylum which has a long dubious history, about some random, not-important woman who used to work for the man who has more money than God? What if he was screwing around on his wife with the help, she turned out to be somewhat unpredictable and professed her love to him and that she wanted the baby and a family? Knowing that he had everything to lose... his reputation, his status, his marriage, his family, and knowing that he wasn't in love with her, he opened up his vault of money and just pulled some strings with the director of AA and had the problem "taken care of".
"So what that you saw the scene of her talking to the shrink in the Asylum? Yeah... it was a powerful scene, seeing her battered and bruised across that table, spouting (what appeared to be) nonsense. But... That was the visions of a crazy person slipping further into insanity reading a document that you can't give more than 50% of your belief in its credibility."
Any points that somebody could make to contradict this idea based off of how the movie played out could and would be met with just as plausible points to refute them.
I think there's a very good chance the boys are brothers. It's at least 50/50.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Yes, I can see that...the comparisons as to perception. But Joker has elements that are similar to other films, which critics have taken Phillips to task.
I don't agree with the critics as far as comparing it to Taxi Driver and so forth. Granted it's regarding "loners" - but that, to me, is too simplistic.
Some have said that it was Scorceses' influence, that may be so, but is that so bad? The film may be flavored with the essence of other 'loner' flicks, but Joker has it's own style and substance that those others don't. And still others say that the film was all Joaquin's performance and not much else.
Yeah, the critics picked this film apart. I'm not sure exactly why, but audiences have been going in droves to the tune of 93% score on Rotten Tomatoes; as compared to a 69% critical score. Does monetary gains for this film outdo the critical acclaim? No matter the accolades, Joker has reached
an audience that critics have had no effect on. That's why I say go see and judge for yourself. I highly recommend it.
sgg
Quote:
Originally posted by THG:
Not having seen it who am I to say, still. The hype is reminding me of the shining. Certain things in scenes would be different to show when Nicholson's character was in and out of reality. Like the kids three wheeler changing color. Lights switches being on the wall in one scene and not in another.
???
T
Initially, the critics score on Rotten Tomatoes was in the 20's and 30's. Sanity at least stepped in at some point to give it the current 69% that it has, but if you look at only "Top Critics" that even goes down to a 45%. That's the part that's a bit surprising to me. Usually the SJW woke elitist critics are among those not considered the "Top Critics" and when you remove them the number for a flick that gets positive audience scores actually increases when removing the chaff. (I'd love for somebody to investigate why it's different this time around).
When it was shown in Venice, it was met with a standing ovation. They LOVED it. It won the award that I've learned is the bellweather for the Oscars. Not that I give a shit about the Oscars and their popularity contest here in the states, but if Joker and Phoenix and Phillips don't win for Joker, it will be politically motivated.
What you're experiencing right now is a schism from the narrative. I know you don't want to hear that or even believe that it is true, but that's what it is. I'm not saying that Joker is going to make you not a 2019 Democrat. It was a powerful film, but they still haven't come up with a film that powerful. What I'm saying is that this time you happen to be on the other side of things and see the shit the media pulls from a perspective that a lot of us encounter on a near daily basis.
Second, who I have no doubt has still not watched the flick, did not budge. At this point, he's backed himself into a corner. Even if he does see the movie he will not admit to anybody that it was good. He's going to go into it with such a closed mind that he won't even admit it to himself.
Look at what he has to say about the movie right now. Whether he saw it or not, all he's doing is parroting talking points from critics.
That video I posted by the Cinema Snob parodies perfectly Second and any critic that wrote the stuff he's repeating. Cinema Snob himself is very borderline SJW, so that surprised me. I think he's hilarious, but I have to generally stay away from any movies he reviews with political messages, and I rarely ever watch the stuff he does with his friends when he's out of character.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ryan Reynolds
@VancityReynolds
R-Rated box office congratulatory posts aren’t like the ones you’re used to...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:6ix, do you ever stop calling people you don't like liars? That is an obnoxious habit that Republicans have. The pirated copy I watched is Joker.2019.720p.CAM.H264.AC3.ADS.CUT.BLURRED.Will1869.mp4
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Second, who I have no doubt has still not watched the flick, did not budge. At this point, he's backed himself into a corner. Even if he does see the movie he will not admit to anybody that it was good. He's going to go into it with such a closed mind that he won't even admit it to himself.
Look at what he has to say about the movie right now. Whether he saw it or not, all he's doing is parroting talking points from critics.
Maybe I would like Joker, the movie, better if the copy was better? No, I would not. Maybe I should watch it again? No. Maybe Batman should kill the Joker? Yes. The Joker's lawyer is very successful using the insanity plea. And Joker is very successful at escaping Arkham Asylum. When will Batman stop this cycle of Joker escaping, followed by Joker committing mass murder, followed by Batman capturing Joker, followed by another vacation in Arkham for Joker until the next escape?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Did Joker already become the highest grossing R-Rated flick, or was that just a pre-emptive Fuck You?
I'd heard only yesterday that it was very likely to happen.
EDIT: Oh.... lol
https://ew.com/movies/2019/10/25/joker-highest-grossing-r-rated-film-e
ver/
I can't imagine what it must be like for Second to be wrong about everything all of the time.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by second:Quote:6ix, do you ever stop calling people you don't like liars? That is an obnoxious habit that Republicans have. The pirated copy I watched is Joker.2019.720p.CAM.H264.AC3.ADS.CUT.BLURRED.Will1869.mp4
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Second, who I have no doubt has still not watched the flick, did not budge. At this point, he's backed himself into a corner. Even if he does see the movie he will not admit to anybody that it was good. He's going to go into it with such a closed mind that he won't even admit it to himself.
Look at what he has to say about the movie right now. Whether he saw it or not, all he's doing is parroting talking points from critics.
Maybe I would like Joker, the movie, better if the copy was better? No, I would not. Maybe I should watch it again? No. Maybe Batman should kill the Joker? Yes. The Joker's lawyer is very successful using the insanity plea. And Joker is very successful at escaping Arkham Asylum. When will Batman stop this cycle of Joker escaping, followed by Joker committing mass murder, followed by Batman capturing Joker, followed by another vacation in Arkham for Joker until the next escape?
The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly
No. You didn't see it.
I don't believe I've called anybody but you a liar, liar.
All you do every day is lie about how awesome you are and blow yourself. Nobody believes you're a successful business tycoon when all you seem to have time to do in your day is bitch about Trump to an audience of less than a dozen in the RWED.
Glad you finally got a copy of Joker that you didn't pay for with the millions of tax dollars that Trump saved you.
Now why don't you go watch it and prove me wrong that you're not a completely static character and come back and admit it was a good movie.
If not, then fuck right off out of this thread. I'll give you your spankings in the RWED.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME