Search
Walking with the Muses: A Memoir
Book
"Taking her reader through fifty years of fashion from the intersection of the Civil Rights...
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Targets (1968) in Movies
Jun 18, 2020
Targeting Frankenstein: A Horror Icon
Targets- is a very suspenseful film that stars a old boris Karloff. His performance in this film is different. Usually he is type-cast in a horror movie. Targets is not the cast, its a more serious role for Karloff and I liked it alot. He is dramatic in Targets. It was Karloff's last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
The plot: After unhinged Vietnam vet Bobby Thompson (Tim O'Kelly) kills his wife and mother, he goes on a brutal shooting spree. Starting at an oil refinery, he evades the police and continues his murderous outing at a drive-in movie theater, where Byron Orlock (Boris Karloff), a retiring horror film icon, is making a promotional appearance. Before long, Orlock, a symbol of fantastical old-fashioned scares, faces off against Thompson, a remorseless psychopath rooted in a harsh modern reality.
Even Karloff's charcter is a retired horror film actor, so he can never get away from the horror genre/type-casting.
In the film's finale at a drive-in theater, Orlok – the old-fashioned, traditional screen monster who always obeyed the rules – confronts the new, realistic, nihilistic late-1960s "monster" in the shape of a clean-cut, unassuming multiple murderer.
Bogdanovich got the chance to make Targets because Boris Karloff owed studio head Roger Corman two days' work. Corman told Bogdanovich he could make any film he liked provided he used Karloff and stayed under budget. In addition, Bogdanovich had to use clips from Corman's Napoleonic-era thriller The Terror in the movie. The clips from The Terror feature Jack Nicholson and Boris Karloff. A brief clip of Howard Hawks' 1931 film The Criminal Code featuring Karloff was also used.
American International Pictures offered to release, but Bogdanovich wanted to try to see if the film could get a deal with a major studio. It was seen by Robert Evans of Paramount who bought it for $150,000, giving Corman an instant profit on the movie before it was even released.
Although the film was written and production photography completed in late 1967, it was released after the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in early 1968 and thus had some topical relevance to then-current events. Nevertheless, it was not very successful at the box office.
Quentin Tarantino later called it "the most political movie Corman ever made since The Intruder. And forty years later it’s still one of the strongest cries for gun control in American cinema. The film isn’t a thriller with a social commentary buried inside of it (the normal Corman model), it’s a social commentary with a thriller buried inside of it... It was one of the most powerful films of 1968 and one of the greatest directorial debuts of all time. And I believe the best film ever produced by Roger Corman.
Its a excellent mystery suspenseful thrilling starring Boris Karloff, last appearance in a marjor american film, before he passed away in 1968. A great film to end your career on.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 10, 2019
Joaquin's Performance Elevates This Film
Give Joaquin Phoenix the Oscar right now. His bravura performance as the titular character in JOKER is one for the ages. He is on the screen in every scene of this film and captivates and repulses you at the same time. This performance raises this film to another level.
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The question is - what level was this film at, and where does this performance raise it to?
Set in Gotham City right around the time of the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, JOKER tells the origin story of...well...a character that calls himself JOKER. This sad sack, with the name of Arthur Fleck, is a part-time clown (standing outside of store closings with a spinning sign or going to Children's Hospital). We watch his origins as he rises (or perhaps...falls?) to the anarchic symbol that is JOKER. And that's the interesting thing about this film. You are watching the fall of a man and the rise of a symbol - does Fleck find comfort or madness in this journey - or, perhaps, maybe he finds comfort in madness?
Embodying this broken spirit that keeps getting up despite whatever beatings (sometimes physical, sometimes mental, always with the potential to finally break him) is the unique talent that is Joaquin Phoenix. You can tell from his portrayal of Arthur that there is something just "off" with him and you continually wait for the breaking point that will drive him down the road of JOKER. But it is not only his acting that is on display here, it the manipulation and movements of his body that is amazing and outstanding. Much like a professional dancer, Phoenix/Fleck waltzes through this film like there is a musical score that only he can hear - and that is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. There is a fine line that needs to be trod here, for if you don't, this character and performance can easily be one of total madness (a.k.a. Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in the SHINING) but Phoenix balances sanity/insanity very well and you are waiting for the final blow that will send him, inevitably, over the edge. It's like watching a ticking time bomb that you cannot see the clock counting down to zero - but count down to zero you are sure it will do.
Exchanging blows with Phoenix for about 1/3 of this film is Robert DeNiro as talk show host Murray Franklin (think a meaner version of Johnny Carson). DeNiro is VERY good in this role and it is good to see that he still can "bring it" as a serious actor when he wants to. Unfortunately, DeNiro's character isn't really in the first 2/3 of this film and that's too bad. Phoenix' Arthur Fleck is a force to be reckoned with and he really could have used another character just as strong to play against.
Unfortunately, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (THE HANGOVER films) doesn't really give Phoenix anyone strong to play against for the first 2/3 of this film though Frances Conroy (overbearing mother), Zazie Beetz (potential love interest) and Brett Cullen (billionaire Thomas Wayne, father of Bruce) come and go in all too brief appearances that never really are on screen long enough to stand their ground (though Conroy comes close). This makes the first part of this film very on-sided, dreary, depressing and dark. I get that Director/Writer Phillips was going for the "Decaying of Gotham" theme as seen through the eyes of Fleck, but it became a slog after awhile. I wanted to yell at the screen at about the 1 hour mark "All right, I get it!"
Now...to give Phillips credit, he creates an interesting version of this world that we all know well (through the Dark Knight and various other DC Universe films), so I give him points for originality. And...he really NAILS the ending (the last 1/3 of the film - the part WITH DeNiro). I thought it was effective and potent and left it's mark.
Which brings me back to my opening thought. Phoenix raises this film up with his performance - the question is "from where to where". I'd have to say (because of the slowness of the first 2/3 of this film) that Phoenix fearless performance raises this dark and dreary film from a "C" to a "B". So with that in mind, I give JOKER...
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Doctor Sleep (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Some nightmares you wake up from, wipe the sweat from your brow, and go back to wonderful slumber as though it never occurred. Others follow you in both your sleep and waking hours. For Dan Torrance (Ewan McGregor) the nightmare that began at the Overlook Hotel in Stephen King’s best-selling novel (and movie directed by Stanley Kubrick) The Shining continue to follow him through his childhood years. With the help of a friendly spirit (Carl Lumbly) Dan learns how to contain the malevolent spirits that followed him from his nightmarish experience, but at almost the cost of his sanity. Falling back on his fathers’ previous crutch, Dan drinks and fights his demons away every night, consumed by a different type of spirit to manage the pain and fear that he has been running from.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Dan is about to hit rock bottom when he encounters a man who has certainly suffered with his own demons in the past, who offers him a place to stay, a job, and an escape from the alcohol that held him in his own personal hell for several years. After eight years of sobriety he strikes up a psychic pen-pal friendship with a young girl named Abra Stone (Kyliegh Curran), who shares his powers. His wish to push his “shining” deep down inside him, and not let it come out is interrupted when Abra witnesses a murder of a young boy. Using her gift, she uncovers a group of beings so evil, that their desire for immortality requires them to snuff out the lives of those who share the same special gift as Dan and Abra. Dan and Abra must join forces, and let their lights shine, if they are to defeat this evil and save themselves and others like them in the process.
Doctor Sleep is the long-awaited sequel to The Shining released (on film at least) back in 1980. While the original film was lauded by most and reviled by some in the way that Stanley Kubrick brought the story to life, it serves as the backdrop to this sequel. Blending reshoots of the original film (using the current actors) as flash backs, it provides the necessary background to those who may have never had the opportunity to see the original, and visual reminders to those who have. While artistically the film doesn’t hold a shine to the original, it tells a far more consumable story, with less focus on the imagery and symbolism in each shot then Stanly Kubrick’s masterpiece.
The bond between Ewan McGregor and upcoming star Kyliegh Curran is not only believable but magical. The chemistry that the two share both in separate scenes and together show the tight bond they certainly must have felt on set. The movie is blessed with an entire cast of supporting characters, that bring the believability and professionalism to the big screen. Rebecca Ferguson, as our duos’ primary adversary Rose the Hat, provides an outstanding performance. Surrounded by her fellow shine-pires, Grandpa Flick (Carel Struycken), Snakebite Andi (Emily Alyn Lind) and Crow Daddy (Zahn McClarnon) to name just a few, the group reminds me of The Lost Boys in their cunning and hunger.
Doctor Sleep is not a scary movie, at least not when it’s put beside The Shining. While it has scary moments, this is a movie about putting aside your fear and challenging evil, regardless of the cost. Dan must put the past behind him and dig deep within himself to find his purpose and with this purpose will come a lot of loss, but acceptance at the same time. The movie begins a little slow and picks up midway through. While the battle against many of the shine-pires may feel a little hollow at first, it’s nothing to what will compare with the ultimate climax between good and evil.
Fans of the Stanley Kubrick film will see lots of familiar locations and costumes throughout the two-and-a-half-hour show. Even the re-created scenes share the same visual imagery and spectacle, just as if it was simply a re-master. I actually liked that they reshot the pivotal scenes and characters, while no one can perfectly mimic the master of Jack Nicholson, I felt that Henry Thomas did an amazing job in his portrayal of the young Jack Torrance. Alex Essoe portrayed an outstanding Wendy Torrance, a role that was masterfully played by Shelley Duvall back in the day.
With the magnitude of Stephen King movies (and series) being released in the recent years, it could easily feel as if we have all been teleported back to the 80’s. There have been some homeruns in recent years (and some foul balls), but Doctor Sleep easily ranks up there as one of the better of the Stephen King movies to be released in recent memory. While the movie is much more action-oriented and doesn’t deliver on the sheer terror of the original, it suits the story, and does a commendable way of bringing closure to some of Stephen King’s more notable characters. Both fans and non-fans of the original will find a lot to like, and for those looking for more story (and less artistry) will be extremely pleased with the way director Mike Flanagan (The Haunting of Hill House series / Hush) brings this rendition to the screen. So, let your light shine and go see Doctor Sleep.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 21, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Joker follows Arthur Fleck’s descent from a somewhat mentally troubled comedian to becoming the Joker, arch Batman villain and force for chaos.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Joker is not a superhero film, there are no super powers, no gimmick arrows, no trained fighters like Black Widow and, most defiantly NO batman. Arthur is a normal, if somewhat strange man who is slowly pushed to breaking point by the world around him. He doesn’t even fall into a vat of acid ala Jack Nicholson or Jared Leto’s characters. There is little to link this film to anything DC when it starts except the fact that it is set in Gotham as the film focus mainly on Arthur, the troubles he has working as a clown and the society around him. As the film continues we hear that Thomas Wayne (Bruce’s dad) is running for mayor and we do meet Bruce which helps the viewer know when the film is set although it does cause a slight problem in that the Joker would be around 60+ when he finally fights Batman (Something that doesn’t happen in this film) but the problem may be sorted depending on how you translate the final scene, but that’s something I’ll get to later.
The tone of Joker is dark, probably darker than the latest Batman/Superman films due to the fact that is a lot more ‘real’. As I said there is no ‘falling in acid’ or any other type of super villain/hero origin, just the tale of a man pushed over the edge. The film is, in style part ‘Falling Down’, part ‘Taxi Driver’ and part ‘V for Vendetta’ with a bit of DC (comics) law sprinkled on top and you can see why Jared Leto’s Joker was not used. I have nothing against the Jared Joker, I think It fit the feel ‘Suicide Squad’ but it was cartoony for this gritty version that was based more in reality, this Joker would have fit better as a villain in one of the earlier films like Batman v Superman.
There are Major Spoilers from this point on
There are a couple of odd things in this film, one is who is Arthur’s dad, the film could have worked without this storyline but I think it was added for two reasons; 1 to help tie the movie into the DC universe and 2 to keep a bit of mystery about the Jokers origin.
I have already mentioned that the Jokers age doesn’t seem to fit with the traditional Batman story but the film gives us two ways this could be handled. DC comics have (sometimes) said that there is more than one Joker, this is a way of the comics explaining the number of different origin stories, time lines and other contradiction caused by over 60 years of comics and this could also happen in this movies universe, many citizens of Gotham are seen in clown makeup so it’s would be easy for other people to take on the mantel.
The other solution ties into the last odd thing about the film. The last scene has the Joker in Arkham Hospital (probably Arkham Asylum in the comics), we don’t know how he got there and he is being interviewed by a nurse, he smiles and when asked what’s funny he replies ‘I just thought of a joke’. The nurse asks him tell her the joke and he replies ‘You wouldn’t get it’. I’ve read a lot of people say that this shows that the whole film is just happening in Arthur's imagination but I feel that it’s more likely to be him remembering what happened especially as it’s shown over the murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne. This means that the events of the film are what led up to the shooting in the ally (not by Arthur), so, if the film is just in Jokers imagination then the shooting wouldn’t have happened so there would be no Batman and we have to remember that this is a DC movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I had mixed emotions when I first saw the trailer for Pan. The story of Peter Pan was one of my all time favorites growing up. Then Steven Spielberg had to go and get Robin Williams and Dustin Hoffman together to bring us Hook, and it solidified the stories of Pan as the best thing since sliced bread for me. So here we have Joe Wright bringing the word put on paper by Jason Fuchs to real life. The story of how Peter came to Neverland; and just how did Captain James T. Hook become so fearful of crocodiles. I was worried, and so I shut it all out. I did not watch any more trailers, clips, or synopsis on the film. But, my curiosity got the best of me, and when we offered the press screening, I jumped at the opportunity to see it. And boy, I am glad I did.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Pan, in case you haven’t figured it out, tells the story of 12-year old orphan Peter (Levi Miller), who is abducted from his orphanage, along with many other little boy orphans, by pirates from Neverland. When they bring Peter to Neverland, he is forced to work in the mines, serving the evil pirate overlord, Black Beard (Hugh Jackman, no seriously. It totally doesn’t even look like him.). It’s not long before some very unusual things start happening to him, and he, along with James T. Hook (Garrett Hedlund), escape the mines to find the natives and Princess Tiger Lily (Rooney Mara), who helps Peter discover his destiny.
Loaded with stunning visuals and a great soundtrack (including some very recognizable songs in the form of pirate chants), Pan nails it in all the right ways. The visionaries who brought this world to life are amazing, and the creativity in every scene is astounding. It was especially charming that the people behind the film kept in mind that it is a family film. While there is some violence, it is an action movie after all, they applied some very interesting effects and theories to use in place of the gore and blood. I also enjoyed, as weird as this sounds, the brightness of the whole movie. They didn’t try to make the film a dark tale of gritty origins. The feel of the story has the same notes of brightness that I remember from the Disney film as a kid, to even Hook in my later years.
And the likenesses do not stop there. It was very fun, and a bit nostalgic, to catch the references and clues of what’s to come. You see things that influence the characters to become who we know and love. And true to the rumors/stories I heard of the background of the beloved Peter Pan tale, Captain Hook and Peter began their time together as friends. The film sets out to do what it was meant to do… tell the story of how Peter and Captain Hook became who they were. But, not all is revealed in this film. When the film is over, and you’ll wish it weren’t, our beloved hero and villain have a long way to go still. So look forward to more films to come.
The only gripe I had with this movie was the acting. And just one part in general. I felt most of the cast was excellent. Jackman portrayed a great, and zany by the standards of the Paniverse (hoping to coin a new term here people, #paniverse), pirate… czar?! I know I used overlord, but it’s hard to say what he is other than he is the captain of captains. Mara played Tiger Lily oh so very well, and Miller held his own right up there with the bigger names. But it was Hedlund I had issue with. His portrayal of James Hook was more reminiscent of Jack Nicholson with elongated words, and an almost creepy like vibe. It’s just not how I imagined him to act, and maybe that is just throwing my perception off. Though, my feeling and view of the portrayal was echoed by my guest at the screening, so there may be something to it. Luckily, my negative view of the acting was not enough to pull me out of the experience, and I was still able to enjoy the movie.
Bottom line. Go see this movie. Take your kids, your partners, your parents, your grandparents, your cousin’s, aunt’s son/daughter… oh wait. That’s you. The point is. It’s definitely worth seeing. The 3D effects were nothing ground breaking, but it would still be worth it to see it in 3D. And this will definitely be in my collection on day 1 of home release.
Curiosity Quills: Chronology
Richard Roberts, Tony Healey, Piers Anthony, J.R. Rain, Jordan Elizabeth Mierek, James Wymore, Stan Swanson, Darin Kennedy , Julie Frost , Andrew Buckley , J.P. Moynahan, B. C. Johnson, J. P. Sloan, Andrew J. Rausch, Katie Young , Scott Nicholson, Wilbert Stanton, Tara Tyler, Mark W. Woodring, J. E. Anckorn, Nathan L. Yocum, G. Miki Hayden, Matthew S. Cox and Matthew Graybosch
6.0
Rate It
Book
It's time... for time! Embark on a literary journey through the ages with Curiosity Quills Press in...
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Motherless Brooklyn (2019) in Movies
Oct 31, 2019
With all the recent big action blockbuster movie releases recently, there is a genre that has been overlooked for some time, a good detective story. Most movies that take place in the 50’s tend to focus more on mob related backdrops and ruthless hits to draw in audiences. Motherless Brooklyn written, directed and starring Edward Norton looks to tell a story that harkens back to the day where gumshoes spoke to key individuals and followed the clues to get to the bottom of the case. This is long before forensics was a thing, and there were no fancy computer databases or DNA matching to utilize to narrow down the suspect pool. This was when it took the skills and abilities of the individual themselves to follow the clues and piece them together like a puzzle to solve each and every case.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
Lionel Essrog (Edward Norton) is a private detective who works at a small P.I. firm trying to eek out a living in the streets of New York back in the late 50’s. Lionel along with his fellow gumshoes grew up in a Catholic orphanage that cemented the bond between them all as both friends and family. Lionel suffers from Tourette’s syndrome causing him to tick and burst out in unusual statements which only gets worse as he gets nervous or excited, however he also possesses a photographic memory, able to recall specific conversations and repeat them verbatim when asked.
On what begins as a seemingly routine job, things quickly turn deadly when Frank Minna (Bruce Willis) the lead private investigator (and owner) of the firm is gunned down in an alley. With very little information to go on and forced to confront each suspect while attempting to maintain his composure, Lionel must use his smarts and the help of his friends to piece together what Frank was involved in and unravel the mystery before anyone else gets hurt. His investigation will take him throughout the streets of New York at a time where racial tensions were bubbling over, and the lure of power and money was more than folks could ignore.
Edward Norton does an outstanding job with his portrayal of an average Joe who must overcome a debilitating mental condition to find those who killed his friend. He does such a believable job with his portrayal of Tourette’s that at times it’s hard to believe that he doesn’t suffer from it in his real life. Much the same way Jack Nicholson brought Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder into the public conscious in As Good as it Gets, Norton portrays his Tourette’s in a somewhat comical, but still respectable manner. In a way, his condition disappears into the background allowing his skills and smarts to come across first.
Norton is joined by a star-studded cast featuring Bruce Willis as his best friend Frank Minna, a seemingly well-intentioned man who has stood up and protected Lionel since child-hood. Alec Baldwin portrays a powerful and ruthless city official, looking to extend his power in the city while making a small fortune in the process. Willem DaFoe, fresh off of another Oscar worthy performance in The Lighthouse, once again brings his acting pedigree to the mix and last, but certainly not least Gugu Mbatha-Raw brings a smart and extremely strong female character with what should be an Oscar winning performance.
Motherless Brooklyn is a long movie (chalking in a bit over two and a half hours) and does take some time to gather its footing. This is a detective movie after all, and much of the action takes place speaking with suspects and researching in the library. It certainly brings an authentic feel to detective work in the 50’s and is a surprisingly refreshing detour from the onslaught of action and superhero movies which have dominated the screens in 2019. New York in the 50’s comes to life with the incredible costumes, vehicles and just overall feel of what the city must have been like back in the day. It’s a testament to how much wardrobe and attention to detail can take the viewers back in time. For those who lack the sort of patience that this movie will certainly require, it may seem a bit overwhelming to consider, however once the viewers settle in, they are in for a treat as they join Lionel in piecing the puzzle together, to sort out what led to the death of his friend.
Motherless Brooklyn was exactly the type of movie I was hoping for, a gritty detective movie that isn’t overly concerned with outrageous plots or frantic gun play. It’s a movie about gathering the clues, investigating the leads, and seeing where it takes you. The star-studded cast is outstanding, and I certainly cannot over emphasize the pivotal role that Norton brings to the screen. If old crime novels and private investigator stories are your cup of tea, you’ll find that Motherless Brooklyn checks off all the boxes. In a sea of superhero movies and high action thrillers, it’s refreshing to come across a film that brings some realism back to the cinema.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 7, 2019
An unapologetic masterpiece.
I wasn't sure what to expect going into this film. I'm a huge comic book fan, so the controversy and scepticism surrounding this movie, as well as the fact it's based within an established story world, had me doubting how it would work and how good the execution of it would be.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.
I certainly didn't expect the film I saw.
The basis for this movie is simple and effective: Arthur Fleck (played with a career-defining performance by Joaquin Phoenix) is a mentally unstable and depressed wannabe stand-up comedian working as a clown in a 1980's Gotham City. The movie is set against a backdrop of civil unrest, worker strikes and city-wide poverty, with each being exaggerated to highlight both the severity of each one for the purposes of the film, but also to shine a spotlight on how tough the real world was back then.
A potentially fatal encounter on a late-night subway acts as a catalyst for Fleck, who is shown throughout the first 20 minutes to be a man living on a knife's edge - balancing his own pitiful existence with the way society believes he should act. You get the sense that it would take nothing more than a gentle push to send him one way or the other. The subway was that push.
In a city that very much reflects the character's state of mind, this served to push more than just Arthur Fleck over the edge. Because he happened to be dressed as a clown at the time, and because the *cough* victims *cough* worked for Wayne Enterprises (ran by Thomas Wayne himself), it's seen by many as a vigilante act - someone standing up to the rich elite. This sparks outrage and rioting across the city. The idea of a man dressed as a clown standing up for the little guy becomes the poster child for a civil movement, much in the styling of "V For Vendetta (2005)".
The more Arthur Fleck struggles personally, the worse the streets of Gotham seem to get, as if society's increasing tension and unrest is somehow linked to his own state of mind. He finally realises what he has inadvertently created and begins to transform himself into the vigilante icon people already believe him to be.
Despite the slow pace of the movie, it never seems to drag. The story of Fleck's inevitable descent unfolds patiently, showing you exactly what it wants you to see, when it wants you to see it. It's a very bold and confident step for a movie which would've known how controversial it was going to be before it was even released.
The style of the film is extremely clever. The soundtrack is little more than a low-frequency hum, which plays almost constantly throughout. The camerawork is also exceptional. In every shot of Arthur Fleck, the camera centres on him before very slowly closing in on him. It's subtle, perhaps only a few millimetres per shot, but it's noticeable enough that you feel yourself being pulled in, being legitimately gripped by what you're watching. This contributes to what is, overall, a claustrophobic and sometimes unnerving experience.
There has been initial controversy about the film, with reports of people leaving the cinema during the screening for varying reasons. You see this from time to time, and the cynic in me thinks this is rarely more than clever marketing tactics. And then you see the comments from people who say they were disgusted or sickened or disturbed or whatever. I usually think it's a load of rubbish. That people are just saying that for attention. I don't honestly believe people who are that easily offended by a movie would choose to see something that is clearly going to show you all the things you don't like.
However, with "Joker (2019)", I can actually understand it. This is a truly disturbing film. Not for the violence, which has been the subject of much debate. There's actually very little violence in the movie, but when it's there, it's pretty graphic, admittedly. But honestly, it's not anywhere near as bad as a lot of things you see nowadays. No, it's disturbing because of how believable Arthur Fleck is. Seeing how unstable he is. Seeing how easy he can choose to do terrible things. It's... uncomfortable to watch at times, but only because it's so well done, so well written, you hate yourself for sympathising with him.
If I had to draw comparisons for this movie, I would have to say it's more subtle than "Watchmen (2009)", it's grittier and darker than "Taxi Driver (1976)" or "Fight Club (1999)" and much more uncompromising and unapologetic than "Natural Born Killers (1994)". It is truly a modern-day masterpiece. There are two major plot twists, both occurring in the second act, which really highlight the genius behind the screenplay. This movie is written perfectly, and executed the same way on-screen by Phoenix, who draws from both Jack Nicholson and Heath Ledger to create this unique take on the character which more than holds its own.
Now, before I summarise, we do need to address the whole... y'know... Batman thing. This is the Joker's origin story, after all.
So, first thing's first: this isn't a comic book movie. Not by a long way. This belongs in the same conversation as Goodfellas, not Guardians of the Galaxy. Director Todd Phillips has even stated that this is simply a stand-alone movie telling a story that needed to be told. Yes, it has references to the DC comic universe (which I will omit here for fear of venturing into spolier territory), but it's unlikely to ever cross over with DC's attempt to mimic the MCU.
The nods to the comics are infrequent but clever, touching on themes and events we already know, and in some cases, re-writing them entirely - which definitely will draw controversy with the hardcore comic fans. For example, I did question why they used the civil unrest subplot and backdrop to essentially try and make Wayne Enterprises the villain of the story, but like it or not, it was necessary and it worked like a charm.
I don't know if this was intentional or not, but there was one scene in particular towards the end of the movie where the Joker (as he is now) is riding in the back of a car with his head leaning against the window. The camera was on the wing mirror, focused on his face, and almost frame-for-frame it reminded me of the iconic scene in "The Dark Knight (2008)" where Heath Ledger's Joker is driving with his head out of the window. I'd like to think this was a gracious tribute to the performance of this character that will never be topped.
For a film that breaks the conventions of story-telling by having no real build-up or climactic ending, I have to say I can't remember a time when I was so blown away, so moved, and so affected by a movie. As close to perfect as you'll see this year.
10/10
A quick side note:
The show "13 Reasons Why" has a disclaimer at the beginning of each series from the cast that essentially warns viewers that, due to the sensitive nature of the content, it's inadvisable to watch it if you're struggling with depression or suicidal thoughts. I genuinely think this film should carry a similar notice. It's a dark, grim, unrelenting journey into one man's depressive life. While I won't ever believe listening to Marilyn Manson can make you want to shoot schoolchildren, I do think that if someone is struggling with suicidal thoughts or depression, this movie probably isn't for them. The story focuses on the media glorifying the terrible acts of someone who is mentally unstable. Yes, it's a movie. It's not real. But for someone in a very bad place themselves, this probably isn't the kind of thing you need to, or should, watch.