A very notable artistic accomplishment by both Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix
Phoenix’s work is easier to tackle but I still feel like you could easily write 2000 words on it alone. The physical transformation (he shed 50+ lbs and shapes his body to accent his disorientation- he’s like a one man canted-angle), the manic laugh (when others don’t, and when they do, he doesn’t), the sympathy he earns, the timing (he is off a beat in every interaction)—it’s a very special performance. It matches Phillips vision- it’s big, bold, unsubtle and quite brilliant. His face is a canvas- large, long features– Edvard Munch’s “The Scream” painting in real life. De Niro is past his prime and Joaquin in the middle of his—but in their scenes together I found that it almost hurt the film how much Phoenix blows De Niro off the screen (and for the record I think De Niro is cinema’s greatest single actor of all-time). They are in two different films. I’m not ready to compare Phoenix’s work with Ledger’s but it’s a major achievement for Phoenix
a major achievement for Phoenix — manic, physical, intense
Phillips’ achievement is tougher to reckon with. First off, the film is absolutely beautiful in a shadowy, dystopian nightmare sort of way. It is an inarguable achievement in mise-en-scene and production design from Phillips and Mark Friedberg—Friedberg worked on Todd Haynes’ Far From Heaven (2002), Barry Jenkins’ If Beale Street Could Talk (2018), Wes Anderson’s Life Aquatic (2004), Darjeeling Limited (2007) and Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche, New York (2008)— really marvelous films in terms of production design and this film is on that level with its detail (the shot of Phoenix laying in the alley) with the graffiti garbage art visual motif. It’s designed.
an expressionistic mise-en-scene– garbage/graffiti art design
the film is absolutely beautiful in a shadowy, dystopian nightmare sort of way. It is an inarguable achievement in mise-en-scene and production design from Phillips and Mark Friedberg
Again – Phillips isn’t subtle—but art doesn’t have to be subtle and I’d love to ask any critic with that as a criteria (and uses that against this film) what they think of Kubrick or Scorsese- the two greatest American auteurs of all-time— and two big, bold, and definitely unsubtle filmmakers. Bong Joon Ho’s Parasite (there’s a fair amount in common here with Joker) isn’t subtle. Subtlety is a choice, often a description- not a critique. Phillips is not on this level- don’t mistake my point- but art does not have to be understated- this is intentionally expressionistic (matching the larger than life Phoenix performance and achievement in production design).
yes, a standpoint wall-art in a museum shot here- but also true to the expressionistic world of the film, graffiti and garbage on repeat
We get a lot of late 1970’s early 1980’s colors—Arkham asylum’s yellow interior may be the most easy example to isolate and praise (that yellow also the preferred color of Scorsese’s Taxi Driver– clearing a driving influence on the film)
repetition of that haunting dance, the bold use of colors— a great frame here at the 97 minute mark
I don’t see how you could write a review on this film without discussing Scorsese, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. De Niro here is clearly a connecting factor and a deliberate casting choice. There are a dozen actors that would have been more suited for his role (and better—how about like Michael Shannon, Gyllenhaal or maybe Alec Baldwin or James Franco?) but he’s a casting homage. The problem is, unlike say Robert Mitchum and Gregory Peck cast in Scorsese’s 1991 remake of Cape Fear– here- De Niro’s role is too large to cast in The Joker out of homage. Other Scorseseisms’ are those mean streets of New York. There’s the porno theater in the background in the heart of NYC like Taxi Driver, we get Phoenix pointing a finger at his temple like Travis Bickle.
It definitely feels unburdened with being part of a larger comic universe.
Strong, hard grindhouse score by Hildur Guðnadóttir — many great original scores in 2019 but it is deserving of the Oscar win– it drops, with those heavy strings, when he’s beaten in the alley with the big bold titles– stunning
I’m not sold on the climax and conclusion of the film. I felt that Phoenix’s monologue (too much telling, not enough showing here) and appearance with De Niro was too on the nose- that the writing is stating the thesis (the “nobody is civil anymore” speech) and it isn’t needed (or connected to the rest of the film).
There are a pair of shots connected—the 1). shot of the young Bruce Wayne with his parents struck down and 2). the shot of a beaten Phoenix in the alley towards the beginning. These are both in overhead slanted angle shots. It is visually making the connection between the two through framing and shot design- really well done
There are a pair of shots connected—the 1). shot of the young Bruce Wayne with his parents struck down and 2). the shot of a beaten Phoenix in the alley towards the beginning. These are both in overhead slanted angle shots. It is visually making the connection between the two through framing and shot design- really well done
Many shots of that detailed production design, the subways, alleys, the stairs… repetition and form
Many shots of that detailed production design, the subways, alleys, the stairs… repetition and form
The Phillips as Scorsese (he even uses the old Warners logo used from 1972 to 1984 so the red one you see was used in say Mean Streets) discussion with other artists and art is fascinating and worth discussion. Is Phillips aping his style? Or is it a well-done (I think that’s inarguable) discourse or discussion with other art and artists? I mean Scorsese himself isn’t free of influence by any means and even Taxi Driver takes massive chunks of its film from Ford’s The Searchers and other works (say the Bresson influence of screenwriter Paul Schrader). It’s worth noting that Phillips has done this before with Scorsese- most notably in War Dogs and The Hangover (think of the driving across the desert in the glasses from Casino and the reverse POV shot of Ed Helms hungover like the “Rubber Biscuit” scene in Mean Streets
The Phillips as Scorsese (he even uses the old Warners logo used from 1972 to 1984 so the red one you see was used in say Mean Streets) discussion with other artists and art is fascinating and worth discussion
from the beginning the tone is set as I said with the Warners emblem and the state of emergency, rats, epidemic on the radio
multiple moments of surrealism– the Murray show as a guest, and then the relationship with Zazie Beetz
Again, Phoenix carries the load– an artistically transcendent performance- when hunched over his bones are almost protruding, bruised, jittery, rib cage exposed- think of Christian Bale in The Machinist but in a stronger film— maybe closer to Michael Fassbender in Hunger (and not as strong a film in this case)
Again, Phoenix carries the load– an artistically transcendent performance- when hunched over his bones are almost protruding, bruised, jittery, rib cage exposed- think of Christian Bale in The Machinist but in a stronger film— maybe closer to Michael Fassbender in Hunger (and not as strong a film in this case)
he’s derailing, spiraling– in another alley shot he beats up a pile of trash, stairs repeated
he’s derailing, spiraling– in another alley shot he beats up a pile of trash, stairs repeated
I couldn’t find it here- but there is a jaw-dropper of a frame at the 82 minute mark after the murder of his mother– framed by the green curtains
I’m calling it a Highly Recommend film — top of the year quality film
@Malith – that’s fair, I think you’re spot on implying that the type of people who held up Joker are not the type to praise musicals.
I’m definitely with you on this being a strong film, just having a hard time figure out why I was hearing so much about this being a disaster when it was a quite good sequel.
I caught this yesterday, here are my spoiler free notes:
I can partly understand why this has poor reception so far, musical films are generally disliked and it’s ultimately an unnecessary sequel that dissects the first film in a courtroom setting. However, this film is less in the shadow of its influences and gets more room to be unique, something which is definitely taken advantage of by Phillips.
Phillips’ and the cinematographer really get to show off visually in some of the of the big, dreamlike musical numbers which already redeems that component for me. I’d definitely cut some of the singing and shorten the runtime but the big set piece moments are very worthwhile to look at.
The courtroom aspect I found to be pretty compelling, the film isn’t subtle with its messages on mental health and ‘society’ but the way it calls back to so much of the first film to explore these messages is at least interesting.
Phoenix lives up to the high acting bar he set in the first film, there’s a good clear distinction between Arthur on/off medication and he’s particularly engaging with one particular courtroom witness where he plays it more ‘charismatically’. Lady Gaga is fine in the role and the better singer of the two in the musical numbers. Every other performance feels incredibly real. Brenden Gleeson is a particular highlight as a guard who appears fond of the inmates but can flick into brutality as soon as they show a sign of disrespect to his ego. Leigh Gill’s peformance is pretty mindblowing too and the highlight of the acting/dialogue heavy courtroom sections.
The film starts off really strong with a creatively animated sequence that delivers the films thesis on Fleck’s psychology. This is followed by a gruelling tracking shot of Fleck starting his daily routine at Arkham Asylum. The film looks gorgeously lit and coloured as did the first one. It’s not hard to tell that the crew from the first film stuck around.
This is about as bleak as it gets. A message heavy film that looks stunning and has a great lead performance is a film I’ll happily take.
Highly recommended, maybe worth of being half a grade higher.
@Harry-I don’t think Musical films are disliked that much when Wonka was a big success and the recent Mary Poppins sequel did very well too. But the fanbase for this film is different from those and there is a clear clashing of tones
-Starts with a Sylvain Chomet animated sequence which foreshadows the events that will happen in the film
-Added to the cast are Lady Gaga, Catherine Keener, Brendan Gleeson and Steve Coogan. Others are fine but Gleeson seemed a bit miscast in this setting with his Irish accent. But he is not bad by any means.
-Repetition of the broadcasting scenes in smaller aspect ratio throughout the film
-Goes for the same colour grading like the first film. Bleak, dystopian future mainly set in the Arkham Asylum. But there is one odd overhead shot overlooking the city without colour grading I think which is odd.
-The attire of the prisoners match the colour of the prison doors outside
-Another film where Phoenix plays a pathetic loner/looser with mommy issues like the original and Beau is Afraid. Given this is what Phoenix seems to be strongest at right now it seems apt they go in this direction with this character rather than a film where Phoenix finds some allies/comrades and go around rampaging the city like shown in the final act of the original.
-Apparently they cut some of Gaga’s scenes out like she and Phoenix dancing at the top of stairs outside the courts which was heavily shown in the promotional material
-Incredibly bleak film. Purposefully devoid of the glorification of violence in the original. Which turned off many of the fanbase from the original(At under 50 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes) and looks destined to be a box office bomb
-Gaga’s Harleen Quinzel is the trigger for Arthur Fleck here. She resembles hope. And when she lefts him it’s devastating. But this scene should have been more powerful.
-The hope is mainly shown in surrealism musical sequences with Phoenix and Gaga. They are incredibly well shot. But not overly sure about the singing used during the middle of dialogue/scenes in the real world. It’s OK I guess
-The scene with the dwarf actor is a powerful scene
-These huge bulbous orange lamps hanging in the courtroom which are nice to look at.
-I thought the execution of the finale could have been done better. And it looked like it was not the guy they teased throughout the film that stabbed Phoenix. I could be wrong though.
-The bomb set piece and the aftermath of Phoenix wandering and then captured by his fans and then running & escaping is a great scene.
-Again like many modern films heavy use of shallow/rack focus. It comes off incredibly lazy. Objects you are staring at suddenly blurrs during the middle of the scene. Insulting.
-It’s another very strong and haunting performance from Phoenix with many closeups.
-I’m glad this film was made. It’s an excellent film overall.
@Anderson@Drake – I feel like the Rotten Tomatoes Score functions as a sort of litmus test for movies. It is not great for distinguishing between great movies but it seems rare for great film to have a RT score under 50 and certainly under 40 RT. It also seems rare that a terrible film will have a RT score above 80 and certainly above 90 although they do exist. None the less the 33 RT score is disappointing although I still am going to see it regardless
@James Trapp – This deserves a longer discussion. I’m certainly more excited for a film that has a 90 on metacritic than a 50 on metacritic or whatever— but Joker: Folie à Deux
has the same director, star, cinematographer, production designer, composer as the first film- the first film deserved a better score than the metacritic score it did get— and one of the major inspirations for Joker: Folie à Deux here is Coppola’s One From the Heart (1981) which deserves a much better score than it received as well. That’s my reason for optimism at least.
@Drake – agreed on those points. I should definitely rewatch One From the Heart (1981)
Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes comments. I actually wrote an article about this concept for a movie club I do with my family. I’ll post it here. Some of the comments are obvious but again my intended audience were family members with less understanding of certain concepts
The Limitations of Rotten Tomatoes
I think most people use a limited number of resources for assessing how good or bad a given movie is. Rotten Tomatoes, a critic aggregate, has an efficient system of collecting reviews from a growing number of movie critics, some far more famous than others. Rotten Tomatoes then shows the percent of positive or “Fresh” scores for each of the literally thousands of movies it has in their database. Using a binary system there are only two scores; “Fresh” which indicates a positive review or “Rotten” which indicates a negative review. If you select the page for any given movie, the top of the page will indicate the % of “Fresh” or positive scores. Thus, a movie with 20 “Fresh” reviews and 5 “Rotten” reviews will show an 80 % (20/25). When you go to the page for a particular movie there will be links to individual reviews and next to that review may be a separate score. For instance, a review may show a score of 4/5, this score would likely indicate a “Fresh” review. There’s no set standard for what score constitutes as a Fresh score and which ones constitute as a Rotten score. Although something like a 1/5 or 1/4 would surely be considered a “Rotten” score.
The concept of giving a movie a positive or negative score with nothing in between is not a completely novel idea. In fact, it is quite similar to what possibly the most famous movie critic of all time, the late Roger Ebert, would do with Richard Roeper and before that with Gene Siskel. Ebert and Siskel and later Ebert and Roeper would use a “Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down” system that functions the same as giving a movie a “Fresh” or “Rotten” score. Of course, you can always glean more insight into the movie by reading or listening to the full review rather than simply looking at the aggregate score. But there is certainly value in getting a straight up answer of whether or not each Critic recommends the movie. It makes for a fun way to rate movies but surely you can see the limitations of a system such as this. I do not have an issue with Rotten Tomatoes in general, but it is not always the most effective system for determining just how great a movie is. This is due to several factors; sample size for instance can be an issue. For example, Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) currently has 564 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes while South Korean director Kim Ki-young’s excellent movie The Housemaid (1960) has just 5 reviews. The number of reviews any given movie may have is influenced by several factors such as the year the movie was made, as well as the movies language, country, genre, director, and many other factors.
Then there are additional considerations to account for such as the fact that with some of the older movies, many of the reviews that are factored into the score are not contemporary reviews but rather reviews from when the movie was initially released. The critical consensus changes over time for many movies and thus older scores might not reflect today’s overall consensus accurately. Additionally, the subject matter of the movie can affect its score. Certain movies are more a product of their time because they portrayed an issue that was particularly relevant at the time. These types of movies generally do not hold up well over time. For instance, Robert Benton’s Kramer vs Kramer which focused on divorce and parents’ rights won best picture over Apocalypse Now in 1979. Today Kramer vs Kramer is considered a respectable but not spectacular movie while Apocalypse Now is considered to be one of the best movies of all time.
Movies with challenging subject matter can also result in it a lower score than the all-time critical consensus. For example, Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey is regularly considered one of the most phenomenal movies ever made but the difficult subject matter likely resulted in some negative reviews when it first came out. This is largely because some movies with high scores are “safe” movies meaning that they are movies that are good enough and accessible enough that most critics enjoy the movie and give it a “Fresh” score. However, some of these movies do not stand the test of time, as they do not improve with multiple watches or perhaps as stated above, they are movies that are more a product of their time and have limited artistic achievements. Contrarily, there are “challenging” movies that may push the boundaries of the artistic elements of film; some of these movies are not the most accessible or easy for people to enjoy, especially on their first watch. Again using the example of 2001 A Space Odyssey, it was such a brilliant and complex movie that most critics who have seen it multiple times over the years consider it one of the best ever. Yet some of these same critics may have given it a negative review when it first came out. And that’s an important point to consider as well; many of the reviews that are factored into the Rotten Tomatoes scores are from critics watching the movie for the first time. In fact, it’s fairly common that many of the greatest movies of all time took a while to be appreciated because of their depth and complexity. After all how great can a movie be if there is nothing to learn from additional viewings?
Overall, I think Rotten Tomatoes is an excellent website as it is convenient and gives a general overview of whether a particular movie is worth watching or not. At the same time, I do not believe that a movies’ Rotten Tomato score should be viewed as Gospel when it comes to assessing where that movie ranks on the all-time lists. None the less Rotten Tomatoes is generally a good starting point for gaining a basic idea of whether or not a movie is worth watching.
@Drake-I think the rotten tomatoes score of this was in the 60’s when I went to sleep(with like 50+ reviews) then it had crashed down to 30’s when I woke up.
I don’t know if I’m missing something or if its just personal preference (which I think is undervalued in film discussion; more people should be comfortable admitting an auteur’s style fails to land for them), but I’ve never really like Scorsese. I think his storytelling tends to be obvious and clumsy (though of course his cinematography and the performances he gets are great).
The problem you have with Joker’s final interview is a problem I have with the entirety of Goodfellas. That is a movie that entirely spells out its message from beginning to end doing everything possible to prevent the audience from having their own interpretation. And that is how I feel about most Scorsese films. Compared to Scorsese, I think Joker actually is more “subtle” or at least open to interpretation (the “truth” is said by a clearly unreliable character opening up more interpretations than a narrator simply telling the audience what to believe).
I know its an unpopular opinion, but I consider Joker better than any Scorsese film (admittedly I have not seen the most Scorsese films, only seeing Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street, Cape Fear, Shutter Island, and the beginning of Raging Bull and Hugo). Scorsese is one of the directors who I think is more focused on making “cinematic art” than on telling a good story (Kubrick being the other big one who makes me feel like this; I agree with Steven King’s criticism of how Kubrick approaches The Shining, for example).
Most of this difference is that I primarily engage with film as a storytelling medium, while I know you have said that you primarily view it as a largely visual art form. And as visual art, I think Scorsese is great (and so is Joker), but as far as storytelling I actually think Joker is superior to all of the Scorsese films I’ve seen.
I consider Joker a masterpiece for the way the lead performance, the emotional cinematography, and the occasionally disorienting editing compliment the blunt dialogue that is actually a bit more complex when you consider how (un)reliable the person saying it is to make a commentary on how some see the world and the danger of not addressing that perception.
Watching The Departed and Taxi Driver should change your opinion on him. Taxi Driver is a better version of Joker, and The Departed is one of his most entertaining movies. Wolf of Wall Street is overrated, Cape Fear isn’t that great, Raging Bull is boring. I’d recommend Casino as well, but it’s similar to Goodfellas, both are masterpieces.
Must see but not a masterpiece. The triumph here is the Phoenix performance and the incredible production design. Phillips is not a great writer/storyteller even with the jacking of the King of Comedy premise he struggles to really sink his teeth into the story the way Scorsese did with Travis Bickle. Joker to me after repeated viewing becomes a film with great moments but ultimately flat due to the directors limitations.
@Drake-I didn’t have much problems with the movie. But I would say the main flow I saw in this film especially given it has so much similarities with Taxi Driver is the lack of character development of the Cybill Shepherd character here played by Zazie Beetz. I mean surely you can do better than just being the caring mom of a daughter who you met in the elevator. When you compare it to Cybill’s role the difference is stark. Scorcese I feel like gave much more importance, meaning and screen time to this character. Actually maybe this character could have been cut out from the movie altogether. If they weren’t keen on giving much importance and screen time. Plus the interactions between Phoenix and Beetz felt a bit odd to me. Like they came out of nowhere. Sure at the end we learned most of them were surreal in Phoenix’s mind but still the character wasn’t that important or developed enough to make me care.
@Malith – I think that’s a fair critique/observation. I don’t think anyone is putting this on or near the level of Taxi Driver, right? And I never thought that Cybill’s character having that much development- but yeah- I agree that aspect (one of many) is certainly stronger in Scorsese’s masterpiece.
Watched twice this week, this is a strange one for me, I enjoyed tremendously but I am not entirely sure why ha. I read through a number of reviews both positive and negative and found myself agreeing with many of the critiques. While I do not care about the “controversial” aspects of the film since I thought # 1 they were severely overblown and # 2 that is not really the aspects of film I care much about even if I did find the arguments legit. But even the critiques regarding the fact that the film pushes the boundary of homage of Scorsese vs straight up stealing from without offering a unique take a la Tarantino. Also, Joker does seem to try to offer a sort of half baked philosophy on social issues including crime, poverty, and mental health but does not really make a cohesive statement. And to be clear I am not at all suggesting that films need to “make statements” but it seemed like Joker was and it was unconvincing. Even the criticism that it somewhat falls apart at the end is probably valid, basically everything after Joker kills Murray. And yet…
Like Joker’s boss says to him early in the movie (before firing him) “I like you Arthur, I don’t even really know why I like you.”
Well, perhaps I do know some reasons.
1. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible, even his laughing is amazing. Some people criticized it as
being repetitive but it is really not, he uses that maniacal laugh to express his emotions.
2. I was really impressed with Todd Phillips who creates a beautiful film and as noted on this
page some great expressionist work.
3. Even if Joker does shamelessly pilfer from Scorsese it does work at some level. I am not
suggesting this film is anything near Taxi Driver obviously (my # 17 all time) but it does work
in a way that I am having trouble explaining.
All in all a fascinating film even if I am not entirely sure why. Does anyone else feel this way?
This one’s a weird one for me. I rewatched it yesterday and, whilst one first watch I gave it a 9.5/10, this time I found it being more of an 8/10 (essentially HR – what you gave it). I think the biggest problem with the movie is the hyperbole that general audiences have spun it into. It’s an extremely good movie – don’t get me wrong, but I think it can be easy to get involved too much with the cultural impact + implications. Still, the performance is mesmerising – it might be Joaquin’s best work, and he gave one of the best performances in any movie ever made in The Master. I really enjoyed it and it’s easy to get caught up into its world – but, when I watched it, I feel like it is missing a certain je ne sais quoi that stops it from being on par with, say, The Irishman or 1917. Granted, I’d still put it on my Top 10 of the year.
EDIT: Also, I completely agree with your point on DeNiro – it’s not that he’s bad, it’s just that (outside of the first scene) his acting is tonally jarring in its composed and relaxed attitude when compared to Joaquin’s intense acting style, plus the intense music, plus the claustrophobic cinematography – it almost took me out of the famous “You Get What You Deserve” scene, if it were’t for Joaquin’s total command of the scene.
@Jeff— excellent work here. Thank you for sharing. It certainly sounds like we’re on the same page. I think I’ll get to it for a second time in the next month or so.
this film, the joker, is a masterpiece. i was surprised, i think a lot of people were. i was expecting (i am a fan of comics and comic movies) a cliche work of low art, not a high art film. i saw this as a tragedy that personally grew on me a lot in retrospect since seeing it. every second was entertaining. the script was good, and phillips was really good with the visuals. as for the critique that it copies too much taxi driver, i felt it went its own way, stealing from the best is more of an homage. every director does this, tarantino, scorsese himself (goodfellas is 1903’s great train robbery) etc.
ad astra, another masterpiece, is second best this year.
@M — thanks for the comment. I’m an admirer and defender of Joker as well. I’m very excited to see you praise this and Ad Astra. I’m starting to see the critics top 10 and some of the year-end awards and I’m not seeing enough of either movie.
@Drake- Of course we have a top 10 material maybe top 5 and of course it’s an excellent film (although I need to see Parasite, Marriage Story, The Lighthouse and others to say for sure) A little flawed but mind blowing at times. A very good year I think to end the decade.
@Cinephile– So true on the good year to end the decade. It is shaping up that way- I’m extremely pumped for Parasite, Marriage Story, The Lighthouse— Uncut Gems would be another, Pain and Glory, The Irishman– should be a really good few months and I already feel like i have a really strong 4-6 films from 2019
Yup, I agree. We thought this has nothing to do with the Batman Story but they throw it inside. As I said the film wants a devastating climax but keeps repeating itself to the point it hurts the film. Certainly not the best film of the year,maybe not top 5 either.
I will chip in as well. I agree with the posters above, I think the film never develops it’s own identity. The worst was the Wayne Murder (Batman Begins). After he kills in his home, the monologue with Murphy does not make sense.
I am not one who obsesses over Realism but it’s like the film exists in a parallel universe in the last 20 minutes (doesn’t help that he imagined the woman). It’s like they don’t want you to take anything seriously. Ends up hurting the film. Also, no performance matches up to Phoenix. When you build a one man show, you need a stronger narrative. The film lacks that.
@AP- thanks for the comment but I think we’re getting lost in the weeds here— nit-picking and looking for flaws. The film has brilliance in it. I can’t defend everything about it but we have a cinematic achievement in the world Phillips and the production design team creates visually (their Gotham is a character in the film bearing down on Phoenix’s character, every piece of trash and graffiti placed designed). You pair that with a tour-de-force from Phoenix and an engaging narrative– I don’t see how you have anything worse than one of the best 10 films of the year.
I need to see it again because the more I think of it the word masterpiece is not right. Maybe must-see or maybe you hit the point with the Highly Recommend. I agree with the guy saying that the homage to Taxi Driver, King of Comedy was too much. The big issue is the social commentary. The ending is a little cliche for me. The guy who revolutionizes against the cruel society and the people treat him like the big hero. We all are aware that we live in a crazy world, this has been said to movies from the start of cinema. In the end of Taxi Driver, Travis is treated like a hero, the same happens here. And again the movie wants to have a spectacular climax ( like Taxi Driver ) but it felt off. The movie tries to be important with the comment about society but it’s the weakest part. Click on yt the video Taxi Driver Joker-Style Trailer you actually see so many parts feel the same. When I walked out of the cinema i thought that we have a masterpiece ( not perfect, a 9+/10 ) but the more i think about it, a 8-/10 sticks more.
As for The Irishman ( because I witnessed the conversation you had with Antonio Antonino ) I saw it……… mind-blowing, the best Scorsese film since Goodfellas. Just don’t expect something like Goodfellas, this is a more mature take. It takes 1 hour to introduce you to the tone and atmosphere, then Pacino comes in and electrifies the film, from there the film builds tension. The Main Story ends and you now you have a masterpiece. But the cherry on top comes after. The last half hour….. my god, is like a short film separate from the other ( like the last half hour of Goodfellas ). It is top tier Scorsese. Of course the big three are Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver but The Irishman and Mean Streets come close at #4 and #5 for me.
@Cinephile — really exciting stuff on “The Irishman”- I cannot wait! If it’s Scorsese’s 5th best film of all-time and another masterpiece would be amazing
@cinephile– Thanks for visiting the site and the comment here. Much appreciated. So I saw it- these are my notes/ramblings/thoughts from the first viewing (above). I do plan to see it again — just not sure when. What did you think of the ending from the talk show with De Niro on? I loved the film but had some reservations on the end.
Antonio Antonino
October 13, 2019 at 5:44 am - Reply
Thank you for replying. My only concerns when it was announced was of course 1) the age of these guys, I mean how a 75 year old will move and act like a 30 year old. 2) The whole De-aging process and 3) the film being on Netflix. Other than that, we have the greatest living filmmaker return with a mob movie and three legends ( 4 with Scorsese, 5 with Keitel) in one epic film. Honestly this feels like a swan song.
@Antonio Antonio– yep- we’re on the same page except for the Netflix thing. Maybe when it was first announced I had a concern— but whatever Netflix concerns I had went away last year with Cuaron’s “Roma”- thanks again for visiting the site and commenting.
Antonio Antonino
October 12, 2019 at 9:10 pm - Reply
I think that you are absolutely right. The film is overrated from general audiences and underrated by some critics. The truth is somewhere in the middle for me. It’s not an OK movie but not a masterpiece either ( if you click some videos in yt, in the comments you will see many people saying things like BEST FILM OF THE DECADE which is a laughable statement). I think it’s a very good movie with a tour-de-force performance from Phoenix but the whole social commentary thing felt a little off and I think that the film payed so much homage to Taxi Driver to the point of copying. I agree with most of your choices and I want to congratulate you with the whole thing you’re doing with this incredible website! I have one question. What is your opinion about The Irishman, I now you didn’t see it yet but from all the things you’ve heard and see you think that the film has chances of being a Masterpiece?
Sorry for my bad English and again continue with what you’re doing with this fantastic site!
@Antonio Antonino– thank you very much for visiting the site and the comment here. Your English here is great- better than mine. Yep- “Joker” is much better than the 59/100 metacritic score and it’s certainly not the best film of the decade like some fans are declaring it.
As for “The Irishman”. I’m hesitant to project whether a film is going to be a masterpiece or not but certainly when you have a film with a perfect Rotten Tomatoes score and a metacritic score of 90+ from one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time… it absolutely has a chance of being a masterpiece- but i’m not setting my expectations that high- that would be unfair to any film.
I was skeptical when the project/film was announced. These guys are just so old and their best work is decades ago. But, again, the reviews are some of the best of their careers.
I feel like Joker: Folie à Deux works better as a part of the first film rather than a sequel to the first film. I’d like to see the combined cut.
@Drake-How do you think Joker: Folie a Deux compares with the Original? It felt more ambitious to me.
@Malith – that’s fair, I think you’re spot on implying that the type of people who held up Joker are not the type to praise musicals.
I’m definitely with you on this being a strong film, just having a hard time figure out why I was hearing so much about this being a disaster when it was a quite good sequel.
Another misunderstood film….
@Harry and @Anderson- thanks for sharing- very promising!
@Drake-What did you think of Joker: Folie a Deux?
@Anderson- I have not seen it yet
I caught this yesterday, here are my spoiler free notes:
I can partly understand why this has poor reception so far, musical films are generally disliked and it’s ultimately an unnecessary sequel that dissects the first film in a courtroom setting. However, this film is less in the shadow of its influences and gets more room to be unique, something which is definitely taken advantage of by Phillips.
Phillips’ and the cinematographer really get to show off visually in some of the of the big, dreamlike musical numbers which already redeems that component for me. I’d definitely cut some of the singing and shorten the runtime but the big set piece moments are very worthwhile to look at.
The courtroom aspect I found to be pretty compelling, the film isn’t subtle with its messages on mental health and ‘society’ but the way it calls back to so much of the first film to explore these messages is at least interesting.
Phoenix lives up to the high acting bar he set in the first film, there’s a good clear distinction between Arthur on/off medication and he’s particularly engaging with one particular courtroom witness where he plays it more ‘charismatically’. Lady Gaga is fine in the role and the better singer of the two in the musical numbers. Every other performance feels incredibly real. Brenden Gleeson is a particular highlight as a guard who appears fond of the inmates but can flick into brutality as soon as they show a sign of disrespect to his ego. Leigh Gill’s peformance is pretty mindblowing too and the highlight of the acting/dialogue heavy courtroom sections.
The film starts off really strong with a creatively animated sequence that delivers the films thesis on Fleck’s psychology. This is followed by a gruelling tracking shot of Fleck starting his daily routine at Arkham Asylum. The film looks gorgeously lit and coloured as did the first one. It’s not hard to tell that the crew from the first film stuck around.
This is about as bleak as it gets. A message heavy film that looks stunning and has a great lead performance is a film I’ll happily take.
Highly recommended, maybe worth of being half a grade higher.
@Harry-I don’t think Musical films are disliked that much when Wonka was a big success and the recent Mary Poppins sequel did very well too. But the fanbase for this film is different from those and there is a clear clashing of tones
Joker: Folie a Deux (2024)
-Starts with a Sylvain Chomet animated sequence which foreshadows the events that will happen in the film
-Added to the cast are Lady Gaga, Catherine Keener, Brendan Gleeson and Steve Coogan. Others are fine but Gleeson seemed a bit miscast in this setting with his Irish accent. But he is not bad by any means.
-Repetition of the broadcasting scenes in smaller aspect ratio throughout the film
-Goes for the same colour grading like the first film. Bleak, dystopian future mainly set in the Arkham Asylum. But there is one odd overhead shot overlooking the city without colour grading I think which is odd.
-The attire of the prisoners match the colour of the prison doors outside
-Another film where Phoenix plays a pathetic loner/looser with mommy issues like the original and Beau is Afraid. Given this is what Phoenix seems to be strongest at right now it seems apt they go in this direction with this character rather than a film where Phoenix finds some allies/comrades and go around rampaging the city like shown in the final act of the original.
-Apparently they cut some of Gaga’s scenes out like she and Phoenix dancing at the top of stairs outside the courts which was heavily shown in the promotional material
-Incredibly bleak film. Purposefully devoid of the glorification of violence in the original. Which turned off many of the fanbase from the original(At under 50 on both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes) and looks destined to be a box office bomb
-Gaga’s Harleen Quinzel is the trigger for Arthur Fleck here. She resembles hope. And when she lefts him it’s devastating. But this scene should have been more powerful.
-The hope is mainly shown in surrealism musical sequences with Phoenix and Gaga. They are incredibly well shot. But not overly sure about the singing used during the middle of dialogue/scenes in the real world. It’s OK I guess
-The scene with the dwarf actor is a powerful scene
-These huge bulbous orange lamps hanging in the courtroom which are nice to look at.
-I thought the execution of the finale could have been done better. And it looked like it was not the guy they teased throughout the film that stabbed Phoenix. I could be wrong though.
-The bomb set piece and the aftermath of Phoenix wandering and then captured by his fans and then running & escaping is a great scene.
-Again like many modern films heavy use of shallow/rack focus. It comes off incredibly lazy. Objects you are staring at suddenly blurrs during the middle of the scene. Insulting.
-It’s another very strong and haunting performance from Phoenix with many closeups.
-I’m glad this film was made. It’s an excellent film overall.
@Anderson@Drake – I feel like the Rotten Tomatoes Score functions as a sort of litmus test for movies. It is not great for distinguishing between great movies but it seems rare for great film to have a RT score under 50 and certainly under 40 RT. It also seems rare that a terrible film will have a RT score above 80 and certainly above 90 although they do exist. None the less the 33 RT score is disappointing although I still am going to see it regardless
@James Trapp – This deserves a longer discussion. I’m certainly more excited for a film that has a 90 on metacritic than a 50 on metacritic or whatever— but Joker: Folie à Deux
has the same director, star, cinematographer, production designer, composer as the first film- the first film deserved a better score than the metacritic score it did get— and one of the major inspirations for Joker: Folie à Deux here is Coppola’s One From the Heart (1981) which deserves a much better score than it received as well. That’s my reason for optimism at least.
@Drake – agreed on those points. I should definitely rewatch One From the Heart (1981)
Regarding the Rotten Tomatoes comments. I actually wrote an article about this concept for a movie club I do with my family. I’ll post it here. Some of the comments are obvious but again my intended audience were family members with less understanding of certain concepts
The Limitations of Rotten Tomatoes
I think most people use a limited number of resources for assessing how good or bad a given movie is. Rotten Tomatoes, a critic aggregate, has an efficient system of collecting reviews from a growing number of movie critics, some far more famous than others. Rotten Tomatoes then shows the percent of positive or “Fresh” scores for each of the literally thousands of movies it has in their database. Using a binary system there are only two scores; “Fresh” which indicates a positive review or “Rotten” which indicates a negative review. If you select the page for any given movie, the top of the page will indicate the % of “Fresh” or positive scores. Thus, a movie with 20 “Fresh” reviews and 5 “Rotten” reviews will show an 80 % (20/25). When you go to the page for a particular movie there will be links to individual reviews and next to that review may be a separate score. For instance, a review may show a score of 4/5, this score would likely indicate a “Fresh” review. There’s no set standard for what score constitutes as a Fresh score and which ones constitute as a Rotten score. Although something like a 1/5 or 1/4 would surely be considered a “Rotten” score.
The concept of giving a movie a positive or negative score with nothing in between is not a completely novel idea. In fact, it is quite similar to what possibly the most famous movie critic of all time, the late Roger Ebert, would do with Richard Roeper and before that with Gene Siskel. Ebert and Siskel and later Ebert and Roeper would use a “Thumbs Up” or “Thumbs Down” system that functions the same as giving a movie a “Fresh” or “Rotten” score. Of course, you can always glean more insight into the movie by reading or listening to the full review rather than simply looking at the aggregate score. But there is certainly value in getting a straight up answer of whether or not each Critic recommends the movie. It makes for a fun way to rate movies but surely you can see the limitations of a system such as this. I do not have an issue with Rotten Tomatoes in general, but it is not always the most effective system for determining just how great a movie is. This is due to several factors; sample size for instance can be an issue. For example, Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) currently has 564 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes while South Korean director Kim Ki-young’s excellent movie The Housemaid (1960) has just 5 reviews. The number of reviews any given movie may have is influenced by several factors such as the year the movie was made, as well as the movies language, country, genre, director, and many other factors.
Then there are additional considerations to account for such as the fact that with some of the older movies, many of the reviews that are factored into the score are not contemporary reviews but rather reviews from when the movie was initially released. The critical consensus changes over time for many movies and thus older scores might not reflect today’s overall consensus accurately. Additionally, the subject matter of the movie can affect its score. Certain movies are more a product of their time because they portrayed an issue that was particularly relevant at the time. These types of movies generally do not hold up well over time. For instance, Robert Benton’s Kramer vs Kramer which focused on divorce and parents’ rights won best picture over Apocalypse Now in 1979. Today Kramer vs Kramer is considered a respectable but not spectacular movie while Apocalypse Now is considered to be one of the best movies of all time.
Movies with challenging subject matter can also result in it a lower score than the all-time critical consensus. For example, Kubrick’s 2001 A Space Odyssey is regularly considered one of the most phenomenal movies ever made but the difficult subject matter likely resulted in some negative reviews when it first came out. This is largely because some movies with high scores are “safe” movies meaning that they are movies that are good enough and accessible enough that most critics enjoy the movie and give it a “Fresh” score. However, some of these movies do not stand the test of time, as they do not improve with multiple watches or perhaps as stated above, they are movies that are more a product of their time and have limited artistic achievements. Contrarily, there are “challenging” movies that may push the boundaries of the artistic elements of film; some of these movies are not the most accessible or easy for people to enjoy, especially on their first watch. Again using the example of 2001 A Space Odyssey, it was such a brilliant and complex movie that most critics who have seen it multiple times over the years consider it one of the best ever. Yet some of these same critics may have given it a negative review when it first came out. And that’s an important point to consider as well; many of the reviews that are factored into the Rotten Tomatoes scores are from critics watching the movie for the first time. In fact, it’s fairly common that many of the greatest movies of all time took a while to be appreciated because of their depth and complexity. After all how great can a movie be if there is nothing to learn from additional viewings?
Overall, I think Rotten Tomatoes is an excellent website as it is convenient and gives a general overview of whether a particular movie is worth watching or not. At the same time, I do not believe that a movies’ Rotten Tomato score should be viewed as Gospel when it comes to assessing where that movie ranks on the all-time lists. None the less Rotten Tomatoes is generally a good starting point for gaining a basic idea of whether or not a movie is worth watching.
Things are not looking good for Joker: Folie a Deux. It’s getting heavily panned.
@Anderson- I’m still optimistic- but that optimism has been getting harder and harder to keep up
@Drake-I think the rotten tomatoes score of this was in the 60’s when I went to sleep(with like 50+ reviews) then it had crashed down to 30’s when I woke up.
Looks good, hopefully Phillips can take the film up to the next level.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xy8aJw1vYHo&rco=1
@Harry – it does look solid- right?
I don’t know if I’m missing something or if its just personal preference (which I think is undervalued in film discussion; more people should be comfortable admitting an auteur’s style fails to land for them), but I’ve never really like Scorsese. I think his storytelling tends to be obvious and clumsy (though of course his cinematography and the performances he gets are great).
The problem you have with Joker’s final interview is a problem I have with the entirety of Goodfellas. That is a movie that entirely spells out its message from beginning to end doing everything possible to prevent the audience from having their own interpretation. And that is how I feel about most Scorsese films. Compared to Scorsese, I think Joker actually is more “subtle” or at least open to interpretation (the “truth” is said by a clearly unreliable character opening up more interpretations than a narrator simply telling the audience what to believe).
I know its an unpopular opinion, but I consider Joker better than any Scorsese film (admittedly I have not seen the most Scorsese films, only seeing Goodfellas, Wolf of Wall Street, Cape Fear, Shutter Island, and the beginning of Raging Bull and Hugo). Scorsese is one of the directors who I think is more focused on making “cinematic art” than on telling a good story (Kubrick being the other big one who makes me feel like this; I agree with Steven King’s criticism of how Kubrick approaches The Shining, for example).
Most of this difference is that I primarily engage with film as a storytelling medium, while I know you have said that you primarily view it as a largely visual art form. And as visual art, I think Scorsese is great (and so is Joker), but as far as storytelling I actually think Joker is superior to all of the Scorsese films I’ve seen.
I consider Joker a masterpiece for the way the lead performance, the emotional cinematography, and the occasionally disorienting editing compliment the blunt dialogue that is actually a bit more complex when you consider how (un)reliable the person saying it is to make a commentary on how some see the world and the danger of not addressing that perception.
Watching The Departed and Taxi Driver should change your opinion on him. Taxi Driver is a better version of Joker, and The Departed is one of his most entertaining movies. Wolf of Wall Street is overrated, Cape Fear isn’t that great, Raging Bull is boring. I’d recommend Casino as well, but it’s similar to Goodfellas, both are masterpieces.
Sounds promising
https://www.worldofreel.com/blog/2023/6/m2qf4q7r79zzh2564jmv5my5qsxegq
@Harry- I saw that this morning and almost commented – very cool – good share here
Must see but not a masterpiece. The triumph here is the Phoenix performance and the incredible production design. Phillips is not a great writer/storyteller even with the jacking of the King of Comedy premise he struggles to really sink his teeth into the story the way Scorsese did with Travis Bickle. Joker to me after repeated viewing becomes a film with great moments but ultimately flat due to the directors limitations.
@Drake-I didn’t have much problems with the movie. But I would say the main flow I saw in this film especially given it has so much similarities with Taxi Driver is the lack of character development of the Cybill Shepherd character here played by Zazie Beetz. I mean surely you can do better than just being the caring mom of a daughter who you met in the elevator. When you compare it to Cybill’s role the difference is stark. Scorcese I feel like gave much more importance, meaning and screen time to this character. Actually maybe this character could have been cut out from the movie altogether. If they weren’t keen on giving much importance and screen time. Plus the interactions between Phoenix and Beetz felt a bit odd to me. Like they came out of nowhere. Sure at the end we learned most of them were surreal in Phoenix’s mind but still the character wasn’t that important or developed enough to make me care.
@Malith – I think that’s a fair critique/observation. I don’t think anyone is putting this on or near the level of Taxi Driver, right? And I never thought that Cybill’s character having that much development- but yeah- I agree that aspect (one of many) is certainly stronger in Scorsese’s masterpiece.
Watched twice this week, this is a strange one for me, I enjoyed tremendously but I am not entirely sure why ha. I read through a number of reviews both positive and negative and found myself agreeing with many of the critiques. While I do not care about the “controversial” aspects of the film since I thought # 1 they were severely overblown and # 2 that is not really the aspects of film I care much about even if I did find the arguments legit. But even the critiques regarding the fact that the film pushes the boundary of homage of Scorsese vs straight up stealing from without offering a unique take a la Tarantino. Also, Joker does seem to try to offer a sort of half baked philosophy on social issues including crime, poverty, and mental health but does not really make a cohesive statement. And to be clear I am not at all suggesting that films need to “make statements” but it seemed like Joker was and it was unconvincing. Even the criticism that it somewhat falls apart at the end is probably valid, basically everything after Joker kills Murray. And yet…
Like Joker’s boss says to him early in the movie (before firing him) “I like you Arthur, I don’t even really know why I like you.”
Well, perhaps I do know some reasons.
1. Joaquin Phoenix is incredible, even his laughing is amazing. Some people criticized it as
being repetitive but it is really not, he uses that maniacal laugh to express his emotions.
2. I was really impressed with Todd Phillips who creates a beautiful film and as noted on this
page some great expressionist work.
3. Even if Joker does shamelessly pilfer from Scorsese it does work at some level. I am not
suggesting this film is anything near Taxi Driver obviously (my # 17 all time) but it does work
in a way that I am having trouble explaining.
All in all a fascinating film even if I am not entirely sure why. Does anyone else feel this way?
Hi Drake,,
This one’s a weird one for me. I rewatched it yesterday and, whilst one first watch I gave it a 9.5/10, this time I found it being more of an 8/10 (essentially HR – what you gave it). I think the biggest problem with the movie is the hyperbole that general audiences have spun it into. It’s an extremely good movie – don’t get me wrong, but I think it can be easy to get involved too much with the cultural impact + implications. Still, the performance is mesmerising – it might be Joaquin’s best work, and he gave one of the best performances in any movie ever made in The Master. I really enjoyed it and it’s easy to get caught up into its world – but, when I watched it, I feel like it is missing a certain je ne sais quoi that stops it from being on par with, say, The Irishman or 1917. Granted, I’d still put it on my Top 10 of the year.
EDIT: Also, I completely agree with your point on DeNiro – it’s not that he’s bad, it’s just that (outside of the first scene) his acting is tonally jarring in its composed and relaxed attitude when compared to Joaquin’s intense acting style, plus the intense music, plus the claustrophobic cinematography – it almost took me out of the famous “You Get What You Deserve” scene, if it were’t for Joaquin’s total command of the scene.
@Jeff— excellent work here. Thank you for sharing. It certainly sounds like we’re on the same page. I think I’ll get to it for a second time in the next month or so.
this film, the joker, is a masterpiece. i was surprised, i think a lot of people were. i was expecting (i am a fan of comics and comic movies) a cliche work of low art, not a high art film. i saw this as a tragedy that personally grew on me a lot in retrospect since seeing it. every second was entertaining. the script was good, and phillips was really good with the visuals. as for the critique that it copies too much taxi driver, i felt it went its own way, stealing from the best is more of an homage. every director does this, tarantino, scorsese himself (goodfellas is 1903’s great train robbery) etc.
ad astra, another masterpiece, is second best this year.
@M — thanks for the comment. I’m an admirer and defender of Joker as well. I’m very excited to see you praise this and Ad Astra. I’m starting to see the critics top 10 and some of the year-end awards and I’m not seeing enough of either movie.
@Drake- Of course we have a top 10 material maybe top 5 and of course it’s an excellent film (although I need to see Parasite, Marriage Story, The Lighthouse and others to say for sure) A little flawed but mind blowing at times. A very good year I think to end the decade.
@Cinephile– So true on the good year to end the decade. It is shaping up that way- I’m extremely pumped for Parasite, Marriage Story, The Lighthouse— Uncut Gems would be another, Pain and Glory, The Irishman– should be a really good few months and I already feel like i have a really strong 4-6 films from 2019
Yup, I agree. We thought this has nothing to do with the Batman Story but they throw it inside. As I said the film wants a devastating climax but keeps repeating itself to the point it hurts the film. Certainly not the best film of the year,maybe not top 5 either.
I will chip in as well. I agree with the posters above, I think the film never develops it’s own identity. The worst was the Wayne Murder (Batman Begins). After he kills in his home, the monologue with Murphy does not make sense.
I am not one who obsesses over Realism but it’s like the film exists in a parallel universe in the last 20 minutes (doesn’t help that he imagined the woman). It’s like they don’t want you to take anything seriously. Ends up hurting the film. Also, no performance matches up to Phoenix. When you build a one man show, you need a stronger narrative. The film lacks that.
@AP- thanks for the comment but I think we’re getting lost in the weeds here— nit-picking and looking for flaws. The film has brilliance in it. I can’t defend everything about it but we have a cinematic achievement in the world Phillips and the production design team creates visually (their Gotham is a character in the film bearing down on Phoenix’s character, every piece of trash and graffiti placed designed). You pair that with a tour-de-force from Phoenix and an engaging narrative– I don’t see how you have anything worse than one of the best 10 films of the year.
I need to see it again because the more I think of it the word masterpiece is not right. Maybe must-see or maybe you hit the point with the Highly Recommend. I agree with the guy saying that the homage to Taxi Driver, King of Comedy was too much. The big issue is the social commentary. The ending is a little cliche for me. The guy who revolutionizes against the cruel society and the people treat him like the big hero. We all are aware that we live in a crazy world, this has been said to movies from the start of cinema. In the end of Taxi Driver, Travis is treated like a hero, the same happens here. And again the movie wants to have a spectacular climax ( like Taxi Driver ) but it felt off. The movie tries to be important with the comment about society but it’s the weakest part. Click on yt the video Taxi Driver Joker-Style Trailer you actually see so many parts feel the same. When I walked out of the cinema i thought that we have a masterpiece ( not perfect, a 9+/10 ) but the more i think about it, a 8-/10 sticks more.
As for The Irishman ( because I witnessed the conversation you had with Antonio Antonino ) I saw it……… mind-blowing, the best Scorsese film since Goodfellas. Just don’t expect something like Goodfellas, this is a more mature take. It takes 1 hour to introduce you to the tone and atmosphere, then Pacino comes in and electrifies the film, from there the film builds tension. The Main Story ends and you now you have a masterpiece. But the cherry on top comes after. The last half hour….. my god, is like a short film separate from the other ( like the last half hour of Goodfellas ). It is top tier Scorsese. Of course the big three are Raging Bull, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver but The Irishman and Mean Streets come close at #4 and #5 for me.
@Cinephile — really exciting stuff on “The Irishman”- I cannot wait! If it’s Scorsese’s 5th best film of all-time and another masterpiece would be amazing
I saw the film…… masterpiece for me and I’m not a guy who throws this word so easy. When are you going to see it ? I can’t wait to hear your thoughts.
@cinephile– Thanks for visiting the site and the comment here. Much appreciated. So I saw it- these are my notes/ramblings/thoughts from the first viewing (above). I do plan to see it again — just not sure when. What did you think of the ending from the talk show with De Niro on? I loved the film but had some reservations on the end.
Thank you for replying. My only concerns when it was announced was of course 1) the age of these guys, I mean how a 75 year old will move and act like a 30 year old. 2) The whole De-aging process and 3) the film being on Netflix. Other than that, we have the greatest living filmmaker return with a mob movie and three legends ( 4 with Scorsese, 5 with Keitel) in one epic film. Honestly this feels like a swan song.
@Antonio Antonio– yep- we’re on the same page except for the Netflix thing. Maybe when it was first announced I had a concern— but whatever Netflix concerns I had went away last year with Cuaron’s “Roma”- thanks again for visiting the site and commenting.
I think that you are absolutely right. The film is overrated from general audiences and underrated by some critics. The truth is somewhere in the middle for me. It’s not an OK movie but not a masterpiece either ( if you click some videos in yt, in the comments you will see many people saying things like BEST FILM OF THE DECADE which is a laughable statement). I think it’s a very good movie with a tour-de-force performance from Phoenix but the whole social commentary thing felt a little off and I think that the film payed so much homage to Taxi Driver to the point of copying. I agree with most of your choices and I want to congratulate you with the whole thing you’re doing with this incredible website! I have one question. What is your opinion about The Irishman, I now you didn’t see it yet but from all the things you’ve heard and see you think that the film has chances of being a Masterpiece?
Sorry for my bad English and again continue with what you’re doing with this fantastic site!
@Antonio Antonino– thank you very much for visiting the site and the comment here. Your English here is great- better than mine. Yep- “Joker” is much better than the 59/100 metacritic score and it’s certainly not the best film of the decade like some fans are declaring it.
As for “The Irishman”. I’m hesitant to project whether a film is going to be a masterpiece or not but certainly when you have a film with a perfect Rotten Tomatoes score and a metacritic score of 90+ from one of the greatest filmmakers of all-time… it absolutely has a chance of being a masterpiece- but i’m not setting my expectations that high- that would be unfair to any film.
I was skeptical when the project/film was announced. These guys are just so old and their best work is decades ago. But, again, the reviews are some of the best of their careers.