Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hangover (2009) in Movies
Aug 9, 2019
The road trip gone awry has been a staple of Hollywood comedies for years. Bing Crosby and Bob Hope provided tons of laughs with their “Road To” films which have continued with films ranging from “Road Trip” to the Chevy Chase “Vacation” film series. In the new movie “The Hangover”, Director Todd Phillips follows upon his many successes which include “Old School”, and “Starsky and Hutch” to create one of the funniest films in recent memory.
When Doug (Justin Bartha) is about to be married, his friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) decide to give Doug a bachelor party. With his eccentric future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifinakis) in tow, the guys hit the town for a night to remember. Or maybe not.
After a rooftop toast overlooking the scenic Las Vegas strip, Stu, Phil, and Alan awaken to find their lavish suite at Ceasar’s Palace destroyed and everything from a tiger to a chicken sharing their room. Henpecked Stu panics, having told his girlfriend they were going to wine country and is at a loss to explain the state of the room as well as his missing tooth. With all three men nursing a severe hangover and Doug nowhere to be found, things take a turn for the worse when a baby is discovered in the closet of their suite. Desperate to get to the bottom of the previous night and locate Doug, the guys try to piece together their lost night.
As the plot unfolds, the guys go from a wedding chapel to a hospital and police station, and trying to stay ahead of new threats and complications that arise. With Doug’s wedding looming in a few hours, the group takes extreme measures to find their friend and get him to the alter on time.
What follows is a hysterical and highly enjoyable comedy that rarely lets up long enough for you to stop laughing before unleashing even more comedy. The ensemble cast is strong and have great camaraderie and chemistry. The film loses some momentum in the final act but rebounds nicely with the final segments. Make sure you stay for the credits for some hysterical stuff and some great celebrity cameos. While some may find the humor crude and sophomoric, if you are not easily offended, you will laugh loud and often at this comedic delight.
When Doug (Justin Bartha) is about to be married, his friends Stu (Ed Helms) and Phil (Bradley Cooper) decide to give Doug a bachelor party. With his eccentric future brother-in-law Alan (Zach Galifinakis) in tow, the guys hit the town for a night to remember. Or maybe not.
After a rooftop toast overlooking the scenic Las Vegas strip, Stu, Phil, and Alan awaken to find their lavish suite at Ceasar’s Palace destroyed and everything from a tiger to a chicken sharing their room. Henpecked Stu panics, having told his girlfriend they were going to wine country and is at a loss to explain the state of the room as well as his missing tooth. With all three men nursing a severe hangover and Doug nowhere to be found, things take a turn for the worse when a baby is discovered in the closet of their suite. Desperate to get to the bottom of the previous night and locate Doug, the guys try to piece together their lost night.
As the plot unfolds, the guys go from a wedding chapel to a hospital and police station, and trying to stay ahead of new threats and complications that arise. With Doug’s wedding looming in a few hours, the group takes extreme measures to find their friend and get him to the alter on time.
What follows is a hysterical and highly enjoyable comedy that rarely lets up long enough for you to stop laughing before unleashing even more comedy. The ensemble cast is strong and have great camaraderie and chemistry. The film loses some momentum in the final act but rebounds nicely with the final segments. Make sure you stay for the credits for some hysterical stuff and some great celebrity cameos. While some may find the humor crude and sophomoric, if you are not easily offended, you will laugh loud and often at this comedic delight.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
I’ve never left the cinema more unnerved than I did after watching Todd Phillips’ first foray in the superhero genre. Joker is a frequently violent, often grotesque and regularly intense portrayal of the iconic character that’s already receiving praise and backlash in equal measure from those in the critic community.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
With development originally beginning way back in 2016, Joaquin Phoenix walking out of interviews and the press junket being cancelled altogether, it’s safe to say that the path to release has not been easy, but what’s the finished product like?
Forever alone in a crowd, failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Phoenix) seeks connection as he walks the streets of Gotham City. Arthur wears two masks, the one he paints for his day job as a clown, and the guise he projects in a futile attempt to feel like he’s part of the world around him. Isolated, bullied and disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as the Joker.
Director of The Hangover trilogy, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Phillips is an odd choice to helm a picture like this, but his darkly comedic roots shine through in Joker and add a much-needed lightness of touch over the course of the running time. Without these pockets of humour, Joker would just be far too murky, more so than it already is.
Phoenix is absolutely astounding and his physical transformation defies words. Alongside Heath Ledger, these two very different portrayals of this iconic character are fully deserving of as much recognition as possible. Arguably however, Phoenix delivers the best iteration yet and one that perhaps needed even more commitment – this is a two-hour film dedicated to the character, whereas the Joker has always been a supporting part of previous films.
From the frame devoid of any muscle, dark circles under his eyes and wrinkles etched on his face, Phoenix’s dedication to this role is on another level to anything we have seen before. As his transformation from troubled Arthur Fleck to criminal mastermind gets underway, this only serves to highlight the acting prowess of this incredible performer. Elsewhere, supporting cast members like Robert De Niro, Frances Conroy and Zazie Beets are also wonderful in their roles of varying screen-time, but as Joker is a film about the singular character, they stay in the background, and rightly so.
The script too is exceptionally written. Phillips and co-writer Scott Silver, who also wrote 8 Mile, deliver a tightly wound screenplay that is at times just too tense for its own good. This is never a film you can sit back and relax to, it feels like you’re on the edge of your seat for the full two hours. The comedic notes that I alluded to earlier nicely round off some of the sharp edges however, but make no mistake, this is a brutal and unforgiving film.
The comedic notes… nicely round off some of the sharp edges
Criticism has been levelled already about the significance this film may have on those who already actively promote the character’s actions, and it’s easy to see why people are concerned. However, as an art form, Joker doesn’t need to be processed in such a way. Yes, it’s brutal, yes, it’s bloody and yes it sometimes hits too close to home about the issues we face in the real world, but cinema is escapism and that’s what it offers.
To look at it’s clear that the very modest of budget of $55million has been put to good use. The city of Gotham feels dirty, grimy and about to erupt and this is exactly how we as the audience want it to be. The uprising is coming and with each grimace from Phoenix’s face, we get closer and closer to that critical moment.
For me that critical moment occurs a little too late into the film and with not a lot of time left after this point, Joker tries to wrap up its loose ends too quickly, but this is a miniscule criticism in a deeply impressive and immersive cinema experience.
The score too is excellent. Icelandic composer Hildur Ingveldardóttir Guðnadóttir has worked on films like The Revenant and Sicario 2 and that gritty realism she brought to those films has been replicated here. It’s a soaring orchestral score populated with some sharp string solos that work perfectly with the character.
Overall, Joker is a masterpiece. Phoenix’s performance is one of the best I’ve ever had the pleasure of witnessing in the cinema and to go alongside that commitment the audience is treated to an engrossing script and beautiful score. Where DC has failed in the past is in forgetting to carve their own niche. Marvel has the 12A game all sewn up and there’s no point in competing there. Joker is the direction that should have been taken from the very beginning and it’s one of the best films I’ve seen in years.
Brutal? Yes. Beautiful? Absolutely.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Due Date (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
Last year, Todd Phillips brought us The Hangover. Along with its massive success, it helped turn its three lead actors into even bigger stars. Included in that line up was Zach Galifianakis, stand-up comedian turned actor who now seems to be Phillips go to guy. So how could Galifianakis possibly top being in the highest grossing R-rated comedy of all time? He teams up with the man who became known for his portrayal of Tony Stark in Iron Man and Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr, for the most outrageous comedy of 2010.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Seeing Robert Downey Jr in a film like this after his career exploded from doing Iron Man seems more outstanding than it really is. Or maybe it's just the mere thought of seeing the lead actor from some of the past few years biggest blockbusters in an R-rated comedy that features his character get high and be extremely ill tempered throughout its duration is entertaining in itself and strangely liberating. There isn't source material to follow that if strayed too far away from could cause fans to go into an uproar. Due Date is an original film and it just seems like doing comedy after two superhero films and a film based on the world's most infamous fictional detective would be creative freedom of sorts.
There was some concern that Zach Galifianakis' character in Due Date would be too similar to his character in The Hangover to really deliver a lot of laughs or be distinguishable in comparison. Truth be told, both characters are extremely similar but it works so well. Galifianakis is so funny, it hurts. Ethan Tremblay's ignorance is really what makes the film so incredibly ridiculous, over the top, and just downright hysterical. The blossoming friendship between Peter and Ethan is where the heart of the film truly lies though. The chemistry between both RDJ and Galifianakis is what makes so many scenes in the film so great. Watching Peter be in agony over having to deal with Ethan and his eccentric ways is pure comedy gold.
An interesting note about the film is that nearly every scene from the trailer is in the film. With all the alternate takes and deleted scenes that get shuffled around these days before a film gets released in theaters, that's saying a lot. It does make you wonder what sort of extras will be on the DVD and BD versions of the film though. One scene comes to mind that wasn't in the film, but that's it. Everything else that you've probably memorized ("You better check yourself before you wreck yourself.") is in there.
A few scenes to be on the lookout for, Peter has a certain way of dealing with the kids of a local drug dealer named Heidi (played by Juliette Lewis) that is sure to get an outstanding reaction from a packed theater. Also, the film puts an awkward yet priceless spin on the simple act of masturbating . There are so many gloriously preposterous things that transpire in the film that it should give you plenty of material to talk about with friends for days.
It's safe to consider Due Date as this year's The Hangover and that should definitely be taken as a compliment. It's the same director and one third of the main cast, but Due Date manages to set the bar for ludicrous acts achieved in film. Zach Galifianakis will provide most of the laughs, but it's the chemistry between both him and Robert Downey Jr that makes the comedy feel a bit more genuine than other comedies out there.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Hangover Part III (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
When “The Hangover” came out in 2009 it did so with modest expectations. Few critics expected it to become a box office smash much less the highest grossing R rated comedy of its time. Naturally a sequel followed and despite mixed reviews, “The Hangover 2” reaped in millions and vaulted over the original in terms of earnings. So, it was no surprise when “The Hangover 3” was announced and that the cast and writer/director Todd Phillips would be back again for the further adventures of The Wolfpack.
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/
The films starts with dysfunctional Alan (Zach Galifianakis), creating a spectacular mess and being his usual spoiled and oblivious self though the consequences which have tragic ramifications. His friends Stu (Ed Helms), Phil (Bradley Cooper), and Doug (Justin Bartha), decide that an intervention is needed and convince a reluctant Alan to get some help from a clinic in Arizona.
En route, the group is run off the road which results in Doug being held hostage by a criminal (John Goodman) who wants to use the group to bring in insane criminal Leslie Chow (ken Jeong). The group is told they have three days to find Chow and save Doug. It turns out Alan is the only one to have any contact with Chow since he was incarcerated. The guys soon find themselves in Tijuana hatching a desperate attempt to capture and return the demented Chow.
Naturally things do not go as planned and despite their best intentions the group only makes matters worse and sets a chain of events into action which bring them full circle in a race against time to save Doug.
This time out the film has ramped down the gross out humor of the first films aside for one epic scene following the credits. The film has some chuckles along the way but lacks the jaw dropping shock humor that defined the previous films. I spent the majority of the film enjoying the cast but waiting for the big comedic payoff to arrive which sadly did not come until the after-credits scene.
The cast works well with the material but it does seem like they have run out of ideas and are going through the motions. The addition of Melissa McCarthy does add some nice moments to the film and does leave open some ideas should they decide to continue the series despite promising that this is the conclusion. In the end it is a nice enough diversion but for me was neither as enjoyable nor memorable as the previous efforts.
http://sknr.net/2013/05/24/the-hangover-iii/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Oct 8, 2019 (Updated Oct 23, 2019)
Believe the hype
Contains spoilers, click to show
Full disclaimer - I have not been a massive fan of any movies DC related since the Dark Knight trilogy. There have been highlights here and there, but it's a been a rough few years to say the least.
I went to see Joker under a pretty neutral assumption - I had heard the good reviews, the bad reviews, and seen the incredibly well put together trailers - but I was still worried that I wouldn't like it.
What I was presented with was quite possibly the film of the year (I can't realistically see anything beating it at this point)
Make no mistake - Joker is a character driven think piece, light on action, and at times difficult to watch.
Jaoquin Phoenix is absolutely phenomenal as Arthur Fleck, and as we watch his descent into madness (or mental freedom depending on which way you look at it), it's hard not to sympathise with him - I felt myself welling up on more than one occasion.
Frances Conroy deserves a round of applause as well, carving out a fading and sad character failing to realise just how low Arthur is spiralling.
The film itself is bleak, painting a realistic Gotham City, on the brink of anarchy, not too dissimilar to how our world is IRL. All it takes is someone ballsy enough to pull the trigger to set it all off.
The film is draped with tense scene after tense scene as the plot builds up to its climax.
The films depiction of mental health issues rings louder than ever, showing us an all too real world that dismisses and laughs at those who suffer with such issues. It's haunting.
The final act is breathtaking - watching Arthur/Joker on Murray Franklin's talk show - when he's underneath the make up, he's a completely different person, threatening, but with a point that makes sense, and that what makes him so sinister.
The much discussed violence is seldom, but impactful, and most importantly, has a purpose as it builds character growth. Everything just seems so wonderfully crafted - hats off to Todd Phillips.
The score is pretty much flawless, hitting all the right notes, as is the cinematography, showcasing fantastic shots continuously throughout.
Joker feels like a true stand-alone, and is concrete evidence why DC should maybe concentrate on one off efforts rather than building an underwhelming connected universe...
It's a fantastic film through and through, and Phoenix deserves an Oscar, at the very least a nomination.
I went to see Joker under a pretty neutral assumption - I had heard the good reviews, the bad reviews, and seen the incredibly well put together trailers - but I was still worried that I wouldn't like it.
What I was presented with was quite possibly the film of the year (I can't realistically see anything beating it at this point)
Make no mistake - Joker is a character driven think piece, light on action, and at times difficult to watch.
Jaoquin Phoenix is absolutely phenomenal as Arthur Fleck, and as we watch his descent into madness (or mental freedom depending on which way you look at it), it's hard not to sympathise with him - I felt myself welling up on more than one occasion.
Frances Conroy deserves a round of applause as well, carving out a fading and sad character failing to realise just how low Arthur is spiralling.
The film itself is bleak, painting a realistic Gotham City, on the brink of anarchy, not too dissimilar to how our world is IRL. All it takes is someone ballsy enough to pull the trigger to set it all off.
The film is draped with tense scene after tense scene as the plot builds up to its climax.
The films depiction of mental health issues rings louder than ever, showing us an all too real world that dismisses and laughs at those who suffer with such issues. It's haunting.
The final act is breathtaking - watching Arthur/Joker on Murray Franklin's talk show - when he's underneath the make up, he's a completely different person, threatening, but with a point that makes sense, and that what makes him so sinister.
The much discussed violence is seldom, but impactful, and most importantly, has a purpose as it builds character growth. Everything just seems so wonderfully crafted - hats off to Todd Phillips.
The score is pretty much flawless, hitting all the right notes, as is the cinematography, showcasing fantastic shots continuously throughout.
Joker feels like a true stand-alone, and is concrete evidence why DC should maybe concentrate on one off efforts rather than building an underwhelming connected universe...
It's a fantastic film through and through, and Phoenix deserves an Oscar, at the very least a nomination.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
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.