Joker (2019 Movie) (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Adkins]

I'm thinking it'll have a strong opening, then drop sharply next weekend once word of mouth circulates that this is a "gritty character study" rather than a comic book action movie.

That's similar to what people said about Venom last year if you substitute "gritty character study" with "terrible movie".

 

[steve jaros]

Saw Joker this afternoon in IMAX (thanks A-List!).

I guess my reaction is the opposite of many. Most reviews I've seen say it is a decent movie with an extraordinary performance by J. Phoenix. My take is that it is an exceptional movie with a good but nothing special performance by J. Phoenix. Heck for me, De Niro almost stole the show as the talk show host.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Phoenix's Joker just fine, but what was really exceptional to me about the movie were the filmmaking aspects - the portentuous score that made every simple gesture by the Joker seem freighted with meaning, the directing and cinematography and set designs and clothing that drew me in and made me think I was watching a movie that was actually filmed in 1970s New York/Gotham, not one that was filmed last year and set there.

 

[Edwin-S]

Some of the reactions to this from people on Twitter are priceless. How is anyone surprised that a 75 (or so) year old man who loves old movies doesn't like these CG-filled comic book movies? I'm a huge fan of the new Star Wars movies but I bet Marty doesn't like them and I wouldn't be mad or surprised if he says that.

The issue isn't that he doesn't like Marvel movies. The issue is that he proclaims they are not cinema because they are not the kind of movies he likes to make.

It's nonsense. They are still cinema. I don't like "The Godfather" but I wouldn't claim it isn't cinema because I don't like the subject matter and the tedious nature of the storytelling.

 

[Sam Favate]

I wonder if Scorsese would say his friend George Lucas’ Star Wars films are not cinema? Because they have more in common with the Marvel films than any of his. I’m not disparaging Scorsese, who might just be our greatest living filmmaker, but I am taking issue with his claim of film being something narrow. I think film is and should be wide enough to include many different types of movies. And James Gunn is right: no one should critique a film they haven’t seen

 

[Jake Lipson]

Just like the rest of us, Scorsese is entitled to like or dislike like any movie he wants. Like all art, taste in movies is subjective. The fact that we can all respond differently and engage in discussion about it is one of the things that makes cinema great. I don't have any problem with him for not liking the Marvel films because his personal taste in film doesn't really concern me. However, there's a way to say "Those movies are not for me" without belittling the work that goes into them. Scorsese has worked in cinema for decades. He knows how difficult it is to make a big movie and how much work it is for everyone involved in that process. He also knows that his opinion carries weight in the film community because of who he is and what he has accomplished. So, whether he likes them or not, I think it was a little harsh to compare them to theme parks and say they are not cinema. The way he said it seems inherently dismissive of the efforts being made by the people who work on Marvel films, and from a filmmaker of his stature, that's surprising.

It's also worth noting that he has worked with several actors who have also worked on big-budget superhero and action films. Just in his most recently released film, Silence, Andrew Garfield is a former Spider-Man; Adam Driver is Kylo Ren; and Liam Nesson was in Batman Begins and The Phantom Menace, among others. Chloë Grace Moretz, who worked with Scorsese on Hugo, appeared in two Kick-Ass movies. Asa Butterfield, who played Hugo, was in the mix for the role of Spider-Man in the MCU and, according to the Hollywood trades, came very close to getting it before they went with Tom Holland. You could probably also find other examples of actors and crew members who worked with Scorsese who also worked in superhero films if you went down his filmography. So, whatever he thinks of them in private, it's bizarre to me that he would decide to make such a blatant public statement categorizing work of his peers as "not cinema." A much more diplomatic way of saying it would be, "Those movies do not interest me" and leaving it at that. There is no real benefit to anyone from his going further, but he felt like he needed to for some reason. I'm not sure why.

I don't really care that Scorsese has a different opinion of the Marvel movies than I do, and it doesn't make me think any less of him as a filmmaker. But I think that, as a filmmaker, he could have been more careful in wording his comments in a way that was less aggressive and didn't come off as disrespectful to work his colleagues have done.

 

[TravisR]

The issue isn't that he doesn't like Marvel movies. The issue is that he proclaims they are not cinema because they are not the kind of movies he likes to make.

That's the issue to sane people but what I'm referring to are the lunatics who are basically demanding that he like them or saying that he and his movies suck because he said he doesn't like the same movies that they do.

 

[Sam Posten]

Joker was terrific acting and some of the most beautifully shot scenes ever. I’m not sure what they want us to take from it other than ‘support the mentally ill before they turn violent” which is the exact opposite message from what every mental health organization promotes...

 

[Sam Posten]

About tine to take the Scorsese discussion to its own thread. This isn’t even a Marvel film

 

[TJPC]

In tone only, (I know the stories are wildly different), how does this movie compare to “Logan”? I found “Logan” to be one of the most depressing and unsatisfying films of the super hero genre. When I see previews of “Joker”, I get a very strong “Logan” vibe. I’d like to avoid having the same experience again.

 

[Jake Lipson]

no one should critique a film they haven’t seen

This is 100% why I have decided I need to see Joker. I wrote earlier in the thread when the trailer came out that nothing in it looks interesting to me, and that's still true. But I love discussing cinema, both here and otherwise, and Joker is provoking such passionate discussion that I want to know what it's about and have an informed opinion on it. I can't do that if I don't see it. So I'm going to go this weekend after all, even though I wasn't initially planning to do so.

I admittedly have not read the whole thread yet because I want to avoid knowing a lot of the story in advance -- I'll come back and catch up with posts I skipped over on Sunday after I see the movie -- but I do want to put this question out there for anyone who has already seen it or will see it before me (I can't fit it in before Sunday.) As I've mentioned in other threads before, I have a very severe startle reflex and sudden loud noises make me jump badly, which is why I generally avoid horror movies. Although I'm not saying that I expect Joker to be a horror movie, I have of course heard about its extreme violence and allegedly disturbing nature. This makes me wonder whether or not there are out of nowhere sudden loud noises/jump scares in it. If so, I'd like to be aware going in that they are a part of this. And if yes, how frequent are there? If there are a few (as is occasionally the case in Marvel films or Star Wars, etc.), I'm probably fine with that, but if there are a whole bunch of them throughout the entire running time, I might want to rethink seeing it in theaters. I saw Get Out on Blu-ray with volume control after being cued by a friend when to lower the volume and liked it, but I wouldn't have dared to go anywhere near something like that in the theater. Any opinions on whether I have anything to worry about in this regard with Joker would be much appreciated.

That's similar to what people said about Venom last year if you substitute "gritty character study" with "terrible movie".

Yes, except that gritty character studies are often hard sells at the box office when they're not connected to a comic book character as this one is. If people go in expecting a more traditional comic book movie and don't get it, I could absolutely see the box office being impacted in future weeks. It all depends on how people respond to the movie.

Just off the top of my head, serious character study films from the last few years that aren't connected to a franchise:

Nightcrawler - $10 million opening, $32 million total gross
Nocturnal Animals - $10.6 million total gross
You Were Never Really Here (also starring Joaquin Phoenix) - $2.5 million total gross
Ad Astra - $39 million gross in two weeks and counting
Molly's Game - $28 million total gross
All the Money in the World - $25 million total gross
Steve Jobs - $7 million in its wide opening weekend, $17.7 million total gross

I'm pretty sure all the movies I just listed lost money, even though the ones I saw I quite liked (I missed You Were Never Really Here because it was only here for a couple of weeks and I just couldn't make it.) And those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are more.

Joker will exceed the final totals of the movies on this list by the end of the weekend, and that's largely because they are using the Joker name to get people in the door. Do you think this movie would be getting this much interest and coverage if it was just about somebody dealing with mental illness who wasn't the Joker? I'm guessing probably not. If people like the movie, the box office won't be negatively impacted by its status as a character study, but if people don't like the movie or feel like they were promised something in the marketing that the movie didn't deliver, then all bets are off in terms of its staying power. I didn't see it so I can't comment on its quality, but Venom appears to have been well-liked by many people who did see it last year, which resulted in its successful run beyond opening weekend. We'll see over the course of its run which way Joker pans out.

There actually is a lot of the storytelling and human connection in the Marvel movies, the kind that Scorsese feels is absent.

Right, but he wouldn't know that if he doesn't see them. Just off the top of my head, the "cheeseburgers" moment in Endgame is one of the most beautiful moments of human connection I've seen in any movie all year, and as well-acted by its participants as anything else I've seen in a "serious" movie that would get Scorsese's approval.

 

[AcesHighStudios]

Saw Joker this afternoon in IMAX (thanks A-List!).

I guess my reaction is the opposite of many. Most reviews I've seen say it is a decent movie with an extraordinary performance by J. Phoenix. My take is that it is an exceptional movie with a good but nothing special performance by J. Phoenix. Heck for me, De Niro almost stole the show as the talk show host.

That's really interesting, because I thought Joaquin Phoenix was INCREDIBLE, and I thought Robert DeNiro thought he was on an opening sketch of Saturday Night Live reading his unrehearsed lines from a cue card.

 

[AcesHighStudios]

In tone only, (I know the stories are wildly different), how does this movie compare to “Logan”? I found “Logan” to be one of the most depressing and unsatisfying films of the super hero genre. When I see previews of “Joker”, I get a very strong “Logan” vibe. I’d like to avoid having the same experience again.

If you didn't know Joker was a super villain in comic books and didn't know the names Thomas Wayne or Bruce Wayne, you would never know that "Joker" was a "comic book movie" at all. In fact, it still isn't.

But it's hard to say I "enjoyed" it, although I marveled at Joaquin Phoenix's performance and the cinematography was exceptional. It's just a very dark, bleak film. But I thought it was brilliant.

 

[AcesHighStudios]

Joker was terrific acting and some of the most beautifully shot scenes ever. I’m not sure what they want us to take from it other than ‘support the mentally ill before they turn violent” which is the exact opposite message from what every mental health organization promotes...

Although it's definitely a character study, I don't think the movie had an actual message at all, nor did it need to have one. It was one team's stab at an origin story for the Joker, done very realistically and timely, and I think that's all it was every meant to be.

 

[Tino]

no one should critique a film they haven’t seen

Agreed. And yet it happens here all the time unfortunately.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

As I've mentioned in other threads before, I have a very severe startle reflex and sudden loud noises make me jump badly, which is why I generally avoid horror movies. Although I'm not saying that I expect Joker to be a horror movie, I have of course heard about its extreme violence and allegedly disturbing nature. This makes me wonder whether or not there are out of nowhere sudden loud noises/jump scares in it. If so, I'd like to be aware going in that they are a part of this. And if yes, how frequent are there? If there are a few (as is occasionally the case in Marvel films or Star Wars, etc.), I'm probably fine with that, but if there are a whole bunch of them throughout the entire running time, I might want to rethink seeing it in theaters. I saw Get Out on Blu-ray with volume control after being cued by a friend when to lower the volume and liked it, but I wouldn't have dared to go anywhere near something like that in the theater. Any opinions on whether I have anything to worry about in this regard with Joker would be much appreciated.

I don't recall any jump scares. I think there was actually one in the trailer for 1917 that ran before my showing, but I don't remember any in Joker.

Yes, except that gritty character studies are often hard sells at the box office when they're not connected to a comic book character as this one is. If people go in expecting a more traditional comic book movie and don't get it, I could absolutely see the box office being impacted in future weeks. It all depends on how people respond to the movie.

True, but I'm starting to think most people know what this film is, based on the marketing campaign and news reports about people being concerned for safety at the theaters. I'm pretty terrible at predicting box office lately, so it's very possible that it will crash and burn after opening week.

Joker will exceed the final totals of the movies on this list by the end of the weekend, and that's largely because they are using the Joker name to get people in the door. Do you think this movie would be getting this much interest and coverage if it was just about somebody dealing with mental illness who wasn't the Joker? I'm guessing probably not.

Not a chance. It would be the darling of the arthouse crowd, but it certainly wouldn't have much mainstream interest without the Batman tie-in.

If people like the movie, the box office won't be negatively impacted by its status as a character study, but if people don't like the movie or feel like they were promised something in the marketing that the movie didn't deliver, then all bets are off in terms of its staying power. I didn't see it so I can't comment on its quality, but Venom appears to have been well-liked by many people who did see it last year, which resulted in its successful run beyond opening weekend. We'll see over the course of its run which way Joker pans out.

That's actually a good point. Venom was probably a poor example because of the huge disparity between the audience and critics scores.

Right, but he wouldn't know that if he doesn't see them. Just off the top of my head, the "cheeseburgers" moment in Endgame is one of the most beautiful moments of human connection I've seen in any movie all year, and as well-acted by its participants as anything else I've seen in a "serious" movie that would get Scorsese's approval.

Also, we don't know which MCU film he watched. Endgame is one of the best sci-fi films in decades, but it wouldn't be as effective for people who didn't follow the series.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Well, my best friend highly recommended this movie to me so I'll probably see it in the coming days as he usually craps over most current movies.

 

[joshEH]

Spotted at a theater in L.A.:

 

[Colin Jacobson]

It is going to be scary time for cinema when audiences finally grow tired of comic book movies, and Hollywood has to stand on its own without them.

I'll bet someone in 1959 said the same thing about Hollywood's prospects when Westerns would grow passe.

Superhero movies do big business, but Hollywood did fine before they became the toppermost of the poppermost, and Hollywood will do fine if/when audiences shy away from them...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Spotted at a theater in L.A.:

That's cute, but what does it mean in execution? Only Homecoming Kings get admitted?

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Probably more like, if you’re waiting in line talking to yourself and smell slightly funny, maybe you should go home.

I had a very unnerving experience at an unrelated film early this year where the theater let in a clearly disturbed patron, and during the course of the film he kept escalating his verbal threats of violence towards me. The theater declined to remove that patron. (Apparently AMC Theaters has a policy of “sure, go ahead and threaten to kill the guy next to you, just as long as you bought a $10 popcorn, it’s fine”.) So I’m glad to see that theaters aren’t being so dumb, even if they’re making stupid jokes to express their precaution attempts.