Joker (2019 Movie) (1 Viewer)

[Tino]

Dude ...chill.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

OK, on the theme of DeNiro being incapable of acting as a talk show host in a movie. Then, people espousing this must believe he is actually a psychotic, murderous gangster in real life, since he's so effective in that role.

It's called "acting". Talented actors can actually portray characters who are completely different from the actor. Radical concept, isn't it?

Who argued that you have to be a talk show host to play one?

No one other than Mr. Straw Man.

Some feel that De Niro's performance as a talk show host was unconvincing - especially if we're meant to buy him as essentially a Johnny Carson sort.

Yes, it's "acting", and some feel his acting wasn't great.

Radical concept, isn't it?

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Can we please move on on.

 

[JohnRice]

Like I said, I should have just kept my thought to myself. Not very long after, I came back to remove my comment, but Tony had already quoted it, so there was no point.

It seemed like an explanation was in order.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Joker is this week's Honest Trailer and I think they nailed it:

 

[Walter Kittel]

My reaction to that trailer.

Puerile criticism of one of the year's best films. Like Sam Rayburn once said. "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

- Walter,

 

[Tino]

My reaction to that trailer.

Puerile criticism of one of the year's best films. Like Sam Rayburn once said. "Any jackass can kick down a barn, but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

- Walter,

Isn’t that what they ( Honest Trailers) do to every film?

 

[Walter Kittel]

Pretty much, I suppose. Maybe it just rubbed me the wrong way.

I'm not a big fan of that sort of criticism as my quote of Sam Rayburn makes clear (I hope.)

- Walter.

 

[JohnRice]

I'm not a big fan of that sort of criticism as my quote of Sam Rayburn makes clear (I hope.)

- Walter.

I'm curious which quote that is, since the quote in your signature is from Nineteen Eighty Four.

Never mind. duh... now I see it.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think the Honest Trailer is hilarious. I would also note that they are not saying that it's a bad movie. They can and frequently do Honest Trailers for good movies, pointing out things that are funny about it without criticizing it in a negative way.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Yeah, I hate Honest Trailers and all of those other similar things. I understand it’s meant primarily as humor but the problem is that there’s a much wider audience that has come to see them as legitimate film criticism and the democratization of reviewing has led to an entire cottage industry where anything that happens in a movie that someone doesn’t like is incorrectly called out as a “plot hole” or some other nonsense. Even the title “honest trailer” rubs me the wrong way because of the built in suggestion that the film was dishonest.

 

[JohnRice]

Yeah, I hate Honest Trailers and all of those other similar things. I understand it’s meant primarily as humor but the problem is that there’s a much wider audience that has come to see them as legitimate film criticism and the democratization of reviewing has led to an entire cottage industry where anything that happens in a movie that someone doesn’t like is incorrectly called out as a “plot hole” or some other nonsense. Even the title “honest trailer” rubs me the wrong way because of the built in suggestion that the film was dishonest.

My problem is it's intended as sarcastic humor, but it's really not funny most of the time. It's a very difficult movie to make jokes about, and it tries to make jokes about some topics which simply aren't joke material. Humor is a prickly thing.

And Josh, I couldn't agree with you more about "the democratization of reviewing". If only more people put as much effort into developing their opinions as they put into defending them. I realize nobody is probably eager to earn my agreement at the moment... so... sorry about that.

 

[Josh Steinberg]

I love honest conversations about art even when they’re with people I disagree with on the topic. My wife doesn’t like my favorite movie but I love talking about why it doesn’t work for her and why it works for me. I don’t mind when art is polarizing. I mind when the argument is disingenuous, and I think that’s often the case with Honest Trailers with the ones I’ve seen. It feels like high level trolling.

 

[TonyD]

I think those Honest Trailers are super funny.
Don’t mind even a little bit that someone has made these to parody to regular trailers which we used to call previews.

Many previews are pretty awful and don’t provide a real idea of what he movie is.
I think that’s the joke calling these Honest Trialers.
It’s just movies Trailers they’re parodying not real world issues.
It’s not that serious.

 

[JohnRice]

I love honest conversations about art even when they’re with people I disagree with on the topic. My wife doesn’t like my favorite movie but I love talking about why it doesn’t work for her and why it works for me. I don’t mind when art is polarizing. I mind when the argument is disingenuous, and I think that’s often the case with Honest Trailers with the ones I’ve seen. It feels like high level trolling.

I think a lot of my difficulty comes from the fact I went through a creative arts program at an extremely demanding school, and that included hundreds of critiques that were like a blood sport. Which was the point of them. If anyone used explanations I often see these days, they would have been eaten alive. I have difficulty accepting this belief that all opinions have value simply for existing, and that all opinions on creativity are equally valid. I graduated in 1987, and I think I'm still a little scarred from those four years.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The Screen Junkies/Fandom Entertainment team who produce the Honest Trailers also do serious film criticism through reviews, commentary and the other shows that they produce. But I doubt they view the Honest Trailers as fulfilling that same function. It's a comedy series intended primarily to be funny, and to provoke discussion of the film in a funny way. They have made these for good movies and bad movies equally. They're not saying it's a bad movie by giving it a trailer. A lot of the time they'll even admit in the trailer that it's good (such as in The Winter Soldier where they said, it's "a really entertaining, well-directed movie. What? We have to be honest, it's good.") Whether it is funny or not is of course up to subjective interpretation. In the case of Joker, I think the trailer is accurate.

 

[Hollywoodaholic]

As someone who had never seen an Honest Trailer before, I thought it was pretty damn funny. When did everyone get so sensitive? But then I'm the guy who once blasphemously told a studio executive, "It's just a movie."

 

[Jake Lipson]

Here is the Honest Trailer Commentary, with the writers of the Honest Trailer actually having a detailed discussion about the movie and what inspired the trailer. Spoilers, obviously.

 

[WillG]

The part of the movie that sticks with me is the run-in he has with the Wall Street guys on the train. Those guys were bullies and it seems clear from the filmmaking choices that if Arthur wasn’t on the train, that they would have assaulted and raped that woman they were terrorizing. And when they set their sights on Arthur, they were fully prepared to beat him to death. Arthur would have been dead if he didn’t shoot the first guy, and probably still dead if he didn’t shoot the second guy. But he didn’t need to get off the train to follow the third guy, although it’s hard to feel that much sympathy for a guy who would have raped a woman and murdered a man if Arthur hadn’t fought back. I don’t know if any of that can be construed to have a deeper meaning or if we should even try to find one. But it’s interesting to me that what the film portrays as Arthur’s turning point is one of the fewer times that I’m not so sure he was wrong. Ok, he shouldn’t have had the gun in the first place, but what was he supposed to, let those guys beat him to death?

(edit: wrote this before reading John’s comment above)

I watched this last night and was thinking very much the same thing. I can’t say for sure if those guys would have raped that woman, but they certainly could have potentially killed Arthur so when he killed the first two guys it’s justifiable to the audience. And even though he technically murdered the third guy, one could certainly understand why he did that.

I also agree the person(s) who also compare this movie to American Psycho and Joker goes very much for an ambiguity of what is real and what isn’t. Especially in the third act things are portrayed that border on the fantastical. This is probably as big of an “unreliable narrator” movie as you can get. Has there been any good analysis of what was real and what wasn’t. Here are a few things I questioned. Spoilerized to be safe

Spoiler

Did Arthur really kill Murray? Because I question that he could have made it on stage with a gun on him, no security, even back then? Also assuming Murray’s show was supposed to have been a facsimile to Carson, it wouldn’t have been broadcast live, as was depicted. Was Arthur really on the show at all?

Did Arthur really kill his mother. I imagine it might have been hard for him to smother her while hooked up to vital monitoring equipment without anyone coming into the room

“Joker Bros” stealing and ambulance and ramming the right police car that Arthur was in

was Thomas Wayne really a dick? Because it contrasts with pretty much ever other characterization of Wayne. Aside from the scene where he and Martha were killed, did we ever see Wayne outside of Arthur’s perspective

 

[WillG]

I only saw the movie once so I could be misremembering this detail. But what I recall was that the shop owner had made it clear (maybe offscreen?) that Arthur had to bring back the sign or lose the job, and that the owner was not a nice/understanding employee. So if Arthur goes back emptyhanded right away and tells the truth, he’s still fired. And we’re led to believe the economy is so bad and Gotham is such a lousy place that people on the lower rungs are that desperate and feel like they have to go through something as dehumanizing as taking a beating to try to protect a piece of cardboard. What I got from that scene wasn’t that Arthur had an overdeveloped sense of right and wrong, but rather, that he was a guy with that little margin for error in his life.

Getting fired or docked for petty shit like that does happen.

There was a story recently that I read that an Amazon delivery employee that refused to complete delivery of wine to an 80 year old woman because she didn’t have her ID on her. Seems ridiculous, but the guy was absolutely right. They will fire you for not adhering to procedure. I actually heard, not sure if true, but companies like Amazon setup test deliveries to make sure that policy is being adhered to.

if you wait tables, in a lot of restaurants, if one of your tables “dine and dash” you’re on the hook for the bill