Finally watched Joker - Runaway for Phoenix Oscar

quote:

---

Juaquin Phoenix

---

I bet you any amount of money this guy won't win an Oscar.

quote:

---

but wouldn’t it have been cool to seen this Joaquin Joker go up against Bale’s Batman in a Nolan film??

---

Batman would have smoked him 1 on 1 more so than with heath.

quote:

---

wouldn’t it have been cool to seen this Joaquin Joker go up against Bale’s Batman in a Nolan film?

---

The movie would be about 5 minutes long.

This particular incarnation of joker is nothing more than a socially inept loser, who's more likely to clean out a Walmart with a machine gun and then kill himself, than he is to do anything else.

So we're to buy into the idea that the same things that create a garden variety, workplace spree killer are the same things that created an iconic criminal mastermind? Sell that shite to someone else.

This joker is neither intelligent, charming or charismatic. And to top it all off, how ironic is it that he has a shitty sense of humor? Even after he "self actualized", he wasn't frickin' funny. Shouldn't the joker be just a little entertaining?

This aspergery, socially inept dipshit with mommie issues would never, under any circumstances challenge any version of the bat. Who would follow him? Even other crazy people would point and laugh.

This movie was nothing more than the same old story of a guy going postal, set to the back drop of a comic book villain.

There was nothing original or groundbreaking in this. In many ways it's a cheap amalgam of better movies. taxi driver, falling down and in alot of ways psycho. There are more but those sorta cover it.

As an unoriginal study in mental illness, where a schmuck just sorta falls apart, this is ok. As an origin piece for an iconic, world class criminal mastermind, this is garbage and it did nothing more than cheapen the character.

There is nothing about this joker that could ever push any version of the bat to the wall.

We only see “the Joker” in the last few minutes. In this world he has 15-20 years to develop into the mastermind we expect

I mean do you think it's possible that in a different take on the Joker character that his story doesn't have to completely meld into all previous adaptations?

I found the movie to be well-acted, compelling, and interesting. I never got the impression that the Joker was unintelligent. He was certainly socially awkward and mentally ill. But once he snapped, stopped taking his medications, and began to hide behind his clown outfit he gained more confidence and bravado. His comments on the late show were poignant and profound.

What's to say he doesn't grow further from there into a substantial and dangerous foe?

quote:

---

What's to say he doesn't grow further from there into a substantial and dangerous foe?

---

Because he's about 45 years old in this, that's why he doesn't.

No one "grows" into anything at that age or beyond. I mean I'm willing to suspend disbelief with lots of movies but this is asking alot. This waste of space Arthur Fleck, in his mid forties becomes a criminal mastermind? Nope, that's asking too much of me.

I get your point though, I really do but for Arthur to become a joker worthy of the bat, then we should have seen a diabolical child or teenage Arthur. Not this weirdo middle aged, Norman Bates like loser with mommy issues.

For me that's reaching really far.

quote:

---

Because he's about 45 years old in this, that's why he doesn't.

---

In the script for the movie, Arthur Fleck is described as being in his 30s. Not 45. Sure...Joaquin Phoenix is in his mid-40s, but the character he is portraying is supposed to be in his 30s.

His mother worked for Thomas Wayne some 30 years prior to the events of the film and then left the company after she had Arthur. So that puts Arthur Fleck's true age somewhere around 30-32.

I agree with you. This was not the Heath Joker. This was not a guy who’d seriously fight Batman on any level. And I think keeping Batman out of this movie was necessary bc of this.

There was some sense of realism here though. That you compare this to Taxi Driver makes sense in that regard. A guy losing his shite would look more like this. I guess this movie demonstrates how absurd the reality of a Joker really is bc remaining grounded in realism creates a laughable Joker.

quote:

---

So that puts Arthur Fleck's true age somewhere around 30-32.

---

Then Pheonix was wrong for the role. Nobody would buy Arthur Fleck as a guy who just left his twenties.

Anyway, this article says the director won't reveal Arthur's age.


LINK /

quote:

---

This was not a guy who’d seriously fight Batman on any level. 

---

Then why put paint on his face and call him joker? Because who is joker if he's not the bat's nemesis? He's no one, that's who.

This movie could've been exactly the same had his face not been painted and his character actually called Arthur. But who would see that movie? They needed to attach joker to this to sell it.

Without the joker persona, it still could've began the exact same way and ended the exact same way, with Murray getting his head blown off.

In fact, Arthur could've remained a circus clown throughout the entire movie and the masses still riot with the masks and shite. Nothing at all needed to change but if you don't call this character joker, then to the audience he's no one of any consequence at all.

I think the character of joker was attached to this so people would in some way be enthralled with it. Because without calling him joker, this is norman bates, travis bickle and william foster. Those were all much better versions of this character and they didn't have to be transformed into an inept version of a comic book icon to become watchable.

Don't get me wrong, I get the point of this movie. For me though, it's a swing and a miss.