Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This film is one the most mind-boggling billion-dollar box office smashes ever. Why was this such a big hit??? It was dark, dour, dirge-like and joyless. It was not fun, funny, family-friendly, or inspirational. It was just a boring "psychological drama" about a psychopath getting a clicjed justification for his being a psychopath ("poor dude, everyone laughs at him boohoo”).
This film is one the most mind-boggling billion-dollar box office smashes ever. Why was this such a big hit??? It was dark, dour, dirge-like and joyless. It was not fun, funny, family-friendly, or inspirational. It was just a boring "psychological drama" about a psychopath getting a clicjed justification for his being a psychopath ("poor dude, everyone laughs at him boohoo”).
Spot on! And my exact feeling after watching Joker. It was drab, dreary, and depressing. It was far too much like contemporary society wherein mentally deranged/challenged people go on rampages from being bullied or from bouts of anger.
Location: Lakewood NJ/Murrells Inlet SC/ N. Naples FL/Swainton NJ
4,027 posts, read 6,545,870 times
Reputation: 3531
Just watched on HBO. Another WTF does it mean production. My biggest question is about the end. Obviously he is in a mental institution. Is this before or after the killing spray? What's with the bloody footprints? Did he kill the women psychiatrist??
Just watched on HBO. Another WTF does it mean production. My biggest question is about the end. Obviously he is in a mental institution. Is this before or after the killing spray? What's with the bloody footprints? Did he kill the women psychiatrist??
The ending is supposed to make the events of the film questionable. We already know Arthur is an unreliable narrator since the whole relationship with the neighbor was in his head. Was he in the asylum the whole time, telling a story he created to the psychiatrist? Or is he in the asylum because everything in the movie really happened?
I didn't care for the movie, but did like the ending hinting at it all being imagined in Authur's mind. I was disappointed when they announced a sequel, as it would seem like the sequel would say for certain if the first movie was real or not. I like not knowing.
The ending is supposed to make the events of the film questionable. We already know Arthur is an unreliable narrator since the whole relationship with the neighbor was in his head. Was he in the asylum the whole time, telling a story he created to the psychiatrist? Or is he in the asylum because everything in the movie really happened?
I didn't care for the movie, but did like the ending hinting at it all being imagined in Authur's mind. I was disappointed when they announced a sequel, as it would seem like the sequel would say for certain if the first movie was real or not. I like not knowing.
Yes. You obviously read the online commentary as well.
When I watched it the first time, I knew that there were some scenes in his imagination that didn't actually happen (the imaginary girlfriend/neighbor scenes, some of the scenes with DeNiro's character), but I didn't think about the fact that the whole movie was just his imagination.
Reading the reviews online that kept saying Author is an unreliable narrator, and then watching it a second time, I definitely think the director is leaving it up in the air whether or not the whole story was his imagination. They keep cutting to his medication throughout the movie and talking about how delusional his mother is (and hinting how she made things up in her mind- the Thomas Wayne part- although there is still some uncertainty whether or not that was true).
Then at the end how they directly cut away to him in the mental asylum after he is being cheered by all the vigilantes, makes it seem like that was just his imagination.
Overall, it was just a decent movie IMO, and not great. Like others said, it was very dark and much of what was going to happen was predictable. Before reading anything, I knew he was going to end up on the show with DeNiro's character, and at the end, they heavily foreshadowed that he was going to shoot DeNiro's character. Overall, it was just not a very exciting movie for me.
Although, it did have good repeat value, especially after reading the online comedy that the whole movie may have taken place in the Joker's imagination. Watching it the second time, I picked up on little clues that made it have good repeat value.
I was not overly impressed though.
Also, it's hard to see how this would fit into the DC Universe. Assuming Author Bleck is the real Joker, he was in his 30s/40s in 1981, so that would make him in his 70s/80s now if the DC Universe is set in modern time.
Of course they could confirm that the whole movie was just an imagined story that he was inspired by, although that would negate the whole movie (which would not be good).
That's why DC movies have been more successful just sticking to individual films and not trying to create a Universe like Marvel. Marvel succeeded because they were original and the first to develop a Universe, and they planned it from the start, so with a few exceptions, everything fits together nicely, and Avengers Infinity War and Endgame was a masterpiece ending for the largest and longest comic book/superhero universe in movie history. That can never be duplicated because Marvel was the original to do it and the last battle in Endgame was magic that can never be replicated.
So DC shouldn't even try to go that route. Keep making individual movies. If they do end up making the Joker sequel, just keep it independent and they won't run into the difficulties and confusion of how they can connect it to the rest of the DC universe.
I didn't have any expectations when I decided to watch this film and I was pleasantly surprised.
For me this was actually a psychology film about a certain mental disorder and the way it can develop in the particular environment. It was wonderfully acted by Joaquin Phoenix and he managed to invoke many opposite feelings for the character - sympathy, empathy, disgust, fear, anger...
I can understand why this film can be boring and dark for people who are not interested in mental disorders and their possible developments...
I finally saw it a few days ago. While I thought Phoenix did an excellent job, I thought the movie was a bit overworked. And not nearly as violent as the reviews made it out to be. John Wick 3 was WAY more violent and graphic than Joker. But I thought it was a good movie.
I didn't have any expectations when I decided to watch this film and I was pleasantly surprised.
For me this was actually a psychology film about a certain mental disorder and the way it can develop in the particular environment. It was wonderfully acted by Joaquin Phoenix and he managed to invoke many opposite feelings for the character - sympathy, empathy, disgust, fear, anger...
I can understand why this film can be boring and dark for people who are not interested in mental disorders and their possible developments...
I really liked the movie and I didn't expect to.
It was extremely grim; but yes - the portrayal of his mental disorder was well done.
I was thinking it was going to be about Batman but it was really about psychology.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
