Thanks, Roy. This is not a movie I ever plan to see unless it eventually lands on Netflix, and then only for Phoenix’s performance. Aside from the consensus the film caters to the aggrieved white male incel demographic, like you I lived in NYC in the ‘70s and I have a pet peeve about films that turn it into Dystopian Hellhole, USA. That is, unless you’re Tim Burton and really lean into the surreal Gotham angle. Otherwise, if I wanted to watch Death Wish, I’d, you know, watch Death Wish. Spoiler: I don’t want to watch Death Wish.
I totally agree with you about comic book movies. They're cinematic chewing gum, amazingly forgettable, no matter how much CGI nonsense they lay on. I still think comic books were at their best when the only people who cared about them were me and a bunch of other boys under twelve years old, namely the early '60's. Stan Lee was a hack and a fraud who ripped off Jack Kirby, Ditko, and a lot of others. Oh, and Cesar Romero was the best Joker ever.
I admire Joaquin Phoenix's acting though I've always found the guy a bit eccentric and many of his films pessimistic and defeatist. Also, his twitchy/awkward/silent schtick on Letterman whilst supposedly promoting his "I'm still here'' 'documentary' was almost a rehearsal for his Joker date with Di Nero.
So, I'm not going to see Joker because I've seen enough craziness in real life without having it portrayed bizarre, grotesque and up close and intense on screen.
Regarding Watchmen: I saw 2.5 episodes of that show, waiting for something interesting to happen and then decided to do something more mentally stimulating: I fired up my PS4. These grim-dark comic book adaptations completely baffle me. Comic books are already abstractions of other art, drama and comedy. What's the purpose of de-abstracting them, other than to make a bajillion dollars? What's next? Are we gonna see The Flintstones re-imagined as a live-action Honeymooners without the jokes?
Up-voted for the rarely used but very appropriate "bathetic". I haven't seen "The Joker" and probably won't since I'm kind of tired of the Batman franchise except for the old TV series, which was very camp and quite funny.
I don't know how much more you care to actually think about this, but I do recommend Film Crit Hulk's (very long) essay on the movie. I haven't watched the thing myself, but FCH is one of my favorite film writers. Especially since he stopped publishing in all caps. https://www.patreon.com/posts/joker-and-of-33213577
I haven't seen Joker, and the only reason I was intrigued was because of the discourse surrounding it prior to release; that it was a right-wing film that would inspire incels to mass shootings. With the exception of Clint Eastwood movies, maybe (and I haven't seen any of his since El Camino), I'm not aware of any large-release films since Trump that have been both "artful" and promoting an explicitly right-wing worldview. (But I'm no cinephile.) Alas, it appears that Joker couldn't even rise to being that kind of dreck, and it seems like it's a completely hollow movie, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything from the dipshit who directed the Hangover films.
Glad someone endured this film and wrote a reasonable response. I have been sitting mystified and annoyed, not understanding what this nonsense was all about, why anyone would watch, let alone make this film. I find comic book movies ridiculous; graphic novels themselves get all kinds of hype, not unlike a lot of fundamentally juvenile fiction and genres, from folks who want to elevate their own psychological stagnation to profundity. I do watch all kinds of things because as greater thinkers than I pointed out many times, there is nothing too silly for silly beings. The path to great insights both personal and public also often works through silliness. But it is an error I seldom make to mistake my own fascination with my psychology and response to creative works with something more important for all humans. Entertainment and indulgence of one's fantasies are different from recognition of masterworks. A lot of people confuse their personal responses with something greater. Joker and Batman seem to me another example of this mistake.
I really feel like an outsider amongs these comments, where a bunch of people seem to have joined on just to slag comic books and movies based on comic books. (I read Roy as just saying "not my thing", which is fine, there's plenty of things that are not my thing. But he's not saying "this is shit because it comes from a comic book which are shit", he's saying I'm not that big a comic book fan and I thought some comic book movies were at best okay but I don't see why this thing even exists. I'd say "I used to read a lot of comic books and I've enjoyed a bunch of comic book movies to varying degrees and found many embarassingly bad and this one looked so much like a self-conscious combo knockoff of "King of Comedy" and "Taxi Driver" that borrowed a brand name label from comic books that I couldn't think of any reason why I'd want to see it, and I haven't.
My understanding of the value of The Joker as a character - as he's developed over decades in the comics - is both in his being fun to watch, gleefully evil, really enjoying his deadly jokes - and in his standing as a complete offset to Batman, brightly-colored while Batman is in grays and blacks, having a wonderful time while Batman is grim and tortured, attractively bad while Batman is ascetically good and suffers for it. [There's a later-developed theme that each became what they did in response to "one bad day"; Batman wants to redeem the Joker to prove that people are inherently good and can come back from circumstances and the Joker wants to get the Batman to kill somebody, possibly including him, to show that his own complete turn into a psychotic killer wasn't because of his previous inherent weakness, and that has played out in interesting ways in the comics although I'm sure it wasn't Kane/Finger's original intent when they introduced him full-blown without an origin story.] I don't see the point in The Joker without Batman; that just nihilism, and making the movie (or at least the trailers) look like '70s Scorcese movies is just borrowing credibility.
All that said, folks, comic books are a medium, a vessel, and can hold trivial works and serious ones, ambitious work and hack work, emotionally resonant work and flat work. Superhero movies can be well or badly done. This is not unlike any movie.
Romero's Joker remains the best. He played the character so perfectly that you didn't really care what his backstory might have been.
Next up from the comic book to movie sausage machine: Edward Furlong in “The Penguin: From Antarctica to Anarchy.”
Thanks, Roy. This is not a movie I ever plan to see unless it eventually lands on Netflix, and then only for Phoenix’s performance. Aside from the consensus the film caters to the aggrieved white male incel demographic, like you I lived in NYC in the ‘70s and I have a pet peeve about films that turn it into Dystopian Hellhole, USA. That is, unless you’re Tim Burton and really lean into the surreal Gotham angle. Otherwise, if I wanted to watch Death Wish, I’d, you know, watch Death Wish. Spoiler: I don’t want to watch Death Wish.
I totally agree with you about comic book movies. They're cinematic chewing gum, amazingly forgettable, no matter how much CGI nonsense they lay on. I still think comic books were at their best when the only people who cared about them were me and a bunch of other boys under twelve years old, namely the early '60's. Stan Lee was a hack and a fraud who ripped off Jack Kirby, Ditko, and a lot of others. Oh, and Cesar Romero was the best Joker ever.
I loved Batman but now I have Bernie. When you have hope, beating criminals to a bloody pulp isn't as much of a priority.
I admire Joaquin Phoenix's acting though I've always found the guy a bit eccentric and many of his films pessimistic and defeatist. Also, his twitchy/awkward/silent schtick on Letterman whilst supposedly promoting his "I'm still here'' 'documentary' was almost a rehearsal for his Joker date with Di Nero.
So, I'm not going to see Joker because I've seen enough craziness in real life without having it portrayed bizarre, grotesque and up close and intense on screen.
Anyway, Heath Ledger was the best Joker.
Regarding Watchmen: I saw 2.5 episodes of that show, waiting for something interesting to happen and then decided to do something more mentally stimulating: I fired up my PS4. These grim-dark comic book adaptations completely baffle me. Comic books are already abstractions of other art, drama and comedy. What's the purpose of de-abstracting them, other than to make a bajillion dollars? What's next? Are we gonna see The Flintstones re-imagined as a live-action Honeymooners without the jokes?
Up-voted for the rarely used but very appropriate "bathetic". I haven't seen "The Joker" and probably won't since I'm kind of tired of the Batman franchise except for the old TV series, which was very camp and quite funny.
Haven't seen this movie and don't plan to, but I have to say this: Mark Hamill from Batman: The Animated Series is the best Joker.
Really great review. Thanks for that. A movie needs a reason to exist! It's like "duh" once you said it, but was obscure prior.
I don't know how much more you care to actually think about this, but I do recommend Film Crit Hulk's (very long) essay on the movie. I haven't watched the thing myself, but FCH is one of my favorite film writers. Especially since he stopped publishing in all caps. https://www.patreon.com/posts/joker-and-of-33213577
I haven't seen Joker, and the only reason I was intrigued was because of the discourse surrounding it prior to release; that it was a right-wing film that would inspire incels to mass shootings. With the exception of Clint Eastwood movies, maybe (and I haven't seen any of his since El Camino), I'm not aware of any large-release films since Trump that have been both "artful" and promoting an explicitly right-wing worldview. (But I'm no cinephile.) Alas, it appears that Joker couldn't even rise to being that kind of dreck, and it seems like it's a completely hollow movie, but I guess I shouldn't have expected anything from the dipshit who directed the Hangover films.
Glad someone endured this film and wrote a reasonable response. I have been sitting mystified and annoyed, not understanding what this nonsense was all about, why anyone would watch, let alone make this film. I find comic book movies ridiculous; graphic novels themselves get all kinds of hype, not unlike a lot of fundamentally juvenile fiction and genres, from folks who want to elevate their own psychological stagnation to profundity. I do watch all kinds of things because as greater thinkers than I pointed out many times, there is nothing too silly for silly beings. The path to great insights both personal and public also often works through silliness. But it is an error I seldom make to mistake my own fascination with my psychology and response to creative works with something more important for all humans. Entertainment and indulgence of one's fantasies are different from recognition of masterworks. A lot of people confuse their personal responses with something greater. Joker and Batman seem to me another example of this mistake.
I really feel like an outsider amongs these comments, where a bunch of people seem to have joined on just to slag comic books and movies based on comic books. (I read Roy as just saying "not my thing", which is fine, there's plenty of things that are not my thing. But he's not saying "this is shit because it comes from a comic book which are shit", he's saying I'm not that big a comic book fan and I thought some comic book movies were at best okay but I don't see why this thing even exists. I'd say "I used to read a lot of comic books and I've enjoyed a bunch of comic book movies to varying degrees and found many embarassingly bad and this one looked so much like a self-conscious combo knockoff of "King of Comedy" and "Taxi Driver" that borrowed a brand name label from comic books that I couldn't think of any reason why I'd want to see it, and I haven't.
My understanding of the value of The Joker as a character - as he's developed over decades in the comics - is both in his being fun to watch, gleefully evil, really enjoying his deadly jokes - and in his standing as a complete offset to Batman, brightly-colored while Batman is in grays and blacks, having a wonderful time while Batman is grim and tortured, attractively bad while Batman is ascetically good and suffers for it. [There's a later-developed theme that each became what they did in response to "one bad day"; Batman wants to redeem the Joker to prove that people are inherently good and can come back from circumstances and the Joker wants to get the Batman to kill somebody, possibly including him, to show that his own complete turn into a psychotic killer wasn't because of his previous inherent weakness, and that has played out in interesting ways in the comics although I'm sure it wasn't Kane/Finger's original intent when they introduced him full-blown without an origin story.] I don't see the point in The Joker without Batman; that just nihilism, and making the movie (or at least the trailers) look like '70s Scorcese movies is just borrowing credibility.
All that said, folks, comic books are a medium, a vessel, and can hold trivial works and serious ones, ambitious work and hack work, emotionally resonant work and flat work. Superhero movies can be well or badly done. This is not unlike any movie.