I don't go to the pictures very often, but from what I've heard and read, this looks like a seriously good film. I think I will make the effort to go and see it.
Best film I've seen for YEARS. A cross between Taxi Driver and King of Comedy.
Very 1970's visually and very Scorcese-esque. A slow burner but a stunning portrayal of a descent into madness.
If you're looking for Batman style action and special effects, this isn't the film for you.
Can't wait to see it again...
Given the reaction everywhere I look, I might actually especially make some time to see this in the cinema before I'm able to go there to watch Star Wars Ep IX. ::)
I've got to be honest I found this very... meh.
It's a decent enough film, but it was too predictable. Also no need for the Wayne subplot.
I think what I found myself thinking is Arthur has too much of a jump to make from where the film ends to becoming The Joker we all know.
My mrs did make an interesting comment though that she sees him not as the actual Joker, but someone who inspires the Heath Ledger Joker as Arthur would be nearly 60 when he first confronts Batman.
Can't believe we haven't had a review of this film from our resident Barry Norman yet? C'mon Reg, we're waiting 😉.
I'm hardly a Barry Norman. I don't really do reviews - I just know whether I like something or not. Sometimes deeper meanings and nuances go over my head!
I caught this yesterday, followed by Terminator : Dark Fate - I'm trying to catch up a bit as I've been absent from the cinema for a week or so with a nasty cold).
It is indeed a slow pot-boiler, but the pay-off in the later stages is worth it. Particularly what I would call the 'money shot' of Arthur on the roof of the car at the end. I won't spoil it by describing it, but it is (in my head), sheer genius, and I would love to know who came up with the idea.
I was worried about the violence - but in reality, there isn't that much. There is one scene which is pretty brutal, but I guess it is necessary to portray Arthur's state of mind at the time. Yes, it is shocking, but it isn't gratuitous and you know it is coming, so you can look away if you want.
I didn't see this film as a 'decent into madness' as some have described, but rather as someone coming to embrace what they already are. Arthur's problems have been with him since childhood, but the recent chain of events and the ongoing decay of Gotham, his discoveries about his background (no spoilers here), all lead him to ditch his medication and embrace and release his inner demon rather than try to supress it and conform to society's expectations.
Does this film excuse those who in reality do things like this, or end up this way? No, it does not.
Is it a good film? Yes, and Joaquin Phoenix's performance is really astonishing, and difficult to watch at some points. Parts of it are a very physical performance too - you will see what I mean. I don't mean action man type physical. Definitely Oscar nomination worthy. The film is directed by Todd Philips - he of The Hangover fame, and it is handled beautifully and with a sure, steady hand. The look of the film is very gritty / down to earth, and the Gotham portrayed - well you can see it becoming the bed of crime that it does in time.
An interesting point perhaps that Richard's Mrs says that maybe Arthur isn't THE Joker due to the age gap. I'm not sure though, I remember Jack Nicholson was in his early 50's when he played The Joker in Tim Burton's Batman (1989).
Anyhoo - this is a great film. Highly recommended.
Good review, Reg.
With the stars finally aligning In my favour, I managed to fulfil my pledge to myself to see this so caught a late showing last night with the (Showcase Lux) auditorium completely to myself.
I'm falling somewhere between the "meh" and "stunning" camps, while inclining slightly toward the latter.
Reg as ever has given a very fair and eloquent take on things so I needn't go into much plot detail here.
While overall it's undoubtedly an impactful film, with a fair number of memorable moments - big and small - it didn't quite meet the high expectations I had of it; of course, that at least partly will be down to me.
It's clearly a dense film, with seemingly layers of allegory regarding, amongst other things, the culture wars of modern times - on that, incidentally, I take Richard's point about the apparently jarring and rapid transition of the character to "iconic" status, but is this not nowadays a fairly common phenomenon (for good or ill) in the age of YouTube and social media?
Anyway, I have a nagging feeling that this is one of those films that might well be more revealing with repeat viewings, so I'll re-visit this when the opportunity arises.
Quote from: Matt2112 on November 30, 2019, 16:03:05 pmAnyway, I have a nagging feeling that this is one of those films that might well be more revealing with repeat viewings, so I'll re-visit this when the opportunity arises.
I fully defy anyone to say that they "get" and fully understand a film on one showing mate.
Quote from: zoony on November 30, 2019, 22:19:08 pmI fully defy anyone to say that they "get" and fully understand a film on one showing mate.
I think there's some truth in that, Rob. Though I think the worse the film, the less it applies. Some movies are just plain sh!te aren't they and don't need any more evaluation than that! :)