Didn't know Robert de Niro was in it. That's the cherry on top. He's always fantastic.

I'll wait for the dvd. I'm in no rush to see it.

I love Heath Ledger and honestly if some of the stuff I read about joaquin Phoenix are true then he's not a nice person so I really want to say Heath was better but he wasn't. Heath played the joker better than anyone in the past but Joaquin played him so so well I doubt he could ever be surpassed he made him sympathetic, disturbed, kind, unpredictable, cruel all in one go

I need to know this also

Joaquin phoenix is such a talented actor. I think he was amazing on Joker. This is an Oscar worthy performance. But I also like Heath ledger and Jack Nicholson jokers

I’m intrigued, what have you read to make you think that? Just curious.

It's more to do with Casey Affleck and the claim seems to be legit with regards to him (I'm pretty sure his accuser actually quit without being paid because of his harassment) but Joaquin seems to have had some involvement in it too

I'm thinking of going to see this today but as a rule I'm not really a fan of superhero films and don't really know much about the Batman universe so not sure I'd be that into it? :think:

Go see it. You're going to love it!

I don't think you necessarily have to be into Superhero films to enjoy it or get it Matt, it's just a basic how the Joker became the Joker type story (I'm sure you have a vague idea about who he is anyway)

There's no actual superhero stuff in it either

Joaquin Phoenix performance is enough to go and see it.

Tbh I prefer the theory (that the directors have not denied) that the Joker in this is not actually THE Joker at all, and rather that the Joker who is batman's nemesis was just inspired by the aesthetic.

My reason for this is that the entire point of the Joker is that he is an "avatar of chaos". There is no how or why to him, there is no complex trauma behind him, he just IS, because he enjoys it, the violence and chaos, for no reason that anyone would understand.

It's the same reason that while I love Ledger's performance in Dark Knight Rises, he isn't my "best joker" in terms of the lore. But the Nolan films in general are really more interpretations of than representations of Batman lore (Batman is underskilled and underpowered, the tech / Batmobile etc is a more "realistic" take, etc.)

But yeah. I haven't seen Joker and it might be a great standalone film (I've read mixed reactions) BUT no matter what, I stand by my opinion that explaining the Joker ruins the Joker.

Saw this last night and i will give it 8/10. First half was good but a bit meh at times but the second half was great especially the last 30 minutes. Joaquin Phoenix‘s performance was fantastic however i prefer Heath.

I think theyre equally brilliant and Oscar worthy.

Of course for me The Joker will always be Jack Nicholson. :love:

I've not heard that theory but I suppose it could make sense although I thought you would have liked Heaths version since his was a very "no origin" take on it

I disagree that explaining the Joker ruins him though, it makes me more interested in him tbh

Yes, I don't think explaining the Joker ruins him. Quite the contrary. Because to me he's always been such a fascinating character.

It doesn't make for a bad alternative take on the Joker but it does fundamentally alter the character. If he is just a psychologically broken man twisted by trauma then he is simply -not- chaotic, his actions are a very explainable form of mental illness.

The classic Joker isn't broken in that way, his actions don't come from a place of pain or anger, his violence has always come from a totally random place of "Well why not?". His sheer unpredictability is vital to the character as a villain for Batman because Batman is "the great detective"... A genius who can see patterns in everything and solve these questions... But he can never predict The Joker.

Like I said I haven't seen the film and it may well be a fantastic version of a character with similar traits, but I can't accept it as an origin story for THE actual Joker (and the film makers have stated emphatically that it is not that and not intended to be that).

And I know Ledger's joker didn't have specific origin but he was played as a deeply angry and broken individual. He was fantastic and like I said, a great version of The Joker for Nolan's interpretation of Batman, but that trilogy was entirely intended to be a more grounded interpretation of the material. Bane wasn't huge and green, for example, and characters like Batman himself and Catwoman had much more "realistic" human abilities than most versions. In fact, a huge theme of Dark Knight Rises was Batman's realistic physical fragility.

One of the criticisms I've seen of this Joker is that he isn't intelligent and doesn't have a philosophy, so it is not credible that he will eventually end up as an adversary that can challenge Batman.

There might be a roundabout way of explaining that away but it is not that believable. Slight spoiler...



The film does want you to think it is part of the Batman mythology.

It does but they've been clear that he's not the Joker that will be part of the DCU / Patzman films. I don't know if they're keeping Leto or casting a new Joker but it's definitely not the Phoenix Joker.

Unclear though if Joker is just meant to be a standalone movie unrelated to the wider universe, or if (like I said) he's a sort of "proto-Joker" who inspired "Batman's Joker", especially as Joker is I think supposed to be set in the early 80's and "current era" Batman would only have been a child at the time... by the time he's full-blown Batman, this Joker would be drawing his pension. And while the Joker is usually depicted as older than Batman, it's more a guy in his 50's, not pushing 70!

Anyway... I think I did read a quote from one of the writers or maybe the director of Joker who even himself suggested that maybe this Joker inspired the eventual "Prince of Crime" Joker.

I really liked the style and feel of the movie. You can tell how much Todd likes Scorsese.

Saw this last night. Preeeeeeeeetty dark but great movie nonetheless :clap1:

This has already made over $300MILLION in one week - wow! Budget was “only” $55MILLION.

I want to see it again for Joaquin incredible performance :love:

I haven't stopped thinking about this film all week

100% agree. Phoenix was definitely better than Ledger. Phoenix had a much more difficult job and he pulled it off.




But it's really open to interpretation.

Here for it grossing a billion. :clap1:

My mate has just given me a free ticket for tomorrow. So I'm gonna go see it.

Popped into town earlier with my mate just for a look around and ended up sacking off the shops because of horrible weather and opted to see this instead on a whim.

Both of us absolutely loved it, it's really brilliant. I can definitely see all of the Scorcese influence in this, it's like King of Comedy (De Niro's character in this could easily have been modern-day Rupert Pupkin!) meets Taxi Driver meets some sort of more unsettling, psychological horror. Phenomenal performance by Phoenix (as usual). It was everything I hoped and MORE!

Probably the best comic book or "superhero movie" (I use that term extremely loosely for this) ever.

In the canon comics, the Joker's real name is never given; some elseworlds and movies call him Jack Napier though.

I don't think this is THE Joker because THE Joker started out as a criminal called Red Hood (One). He fell into a vat of chemicals which drove him insane, and bleached his skin and greened his hair. So it's not clown makeup he wears, the chemicals literally turned him into a 'clown'.

#DCFanboy

But then I've not seen Joker yet.

This Joker is it's own stand alone version of the character with no ties to the comics apart from obvioiusly Gotham and the Waynes and stuff so he could be this versions actual joker but I think I prefer the idea of him influencing the real one but hey that's the great thing about this movie is that it's always open for interception

I'm still haunted by his performance. It was so brilliant. Really something special. I hope he gets that Oscar.

I going to the 2.25 showing, hopefully there won't be many there at this time on a Monday, I love having the cinema to myself, can't stand a packed cinema.

Same. I prefer when they're aren't many people.

Very good, although not near one of the best films ever.

It was very Taxi Driver like. So it was apt to have Travis Bickle in it.

Enjoyed it, and will likely watch it again in the future.



8 1/2 out of 10

It's an excellent film that I'll never watch again. It's challenging, unpleasant, uncomfortable and incredibly well made and it reminded me a lot of 'We Need To Talk About Kevin' which I have similar feelings about.

It should really dominate the awards season but given the typical media treatment of DC properties (and it's particularly unjust disdain for this film) I don't think it will.

I don't know how much my tastes reflect general audiences, but I couldn't stand any of the DC movies apart from Wonder Woman and Shazam, and Aquaman was okay. For the shows I really like Arrow, I'm mehh about Titans, I like Watchmen, and I don't like Batwoman. (not yet seen whatever ones I've not mentioned)

I never really read reviews, so if that in any way correlates with the public, or especially awards-deciders Joker might be in luck :joker:

Watched this at the weekend.

Incredible.

As long as Joaquin wins his long overdue Oscar, I'll be satisfied.