Monster Zero x SciFi Japan - Archive Only

This looks great! Not a huge JP fan as a person, but enjoy his acting. I’ve actually liked all incarnations of the film Joker for different reasons. Even SS Joker though under used.

This version strikes me as a Romero/Ledger/Nicholson hybrid just from the look. Not wrapped in the various comics and cartoons.

To me:
Romero, comedic/cartooney villain with a hint of true evil...
Nicholson, more anger masked by humor
Ledger, complete lack of empathy for humanity, his look juxtaposed his intent
Leto, The psycho gangster who took true pleasure in others pain.

Never thought Aquaman & Joker would have the same first name name

I just don’t know. I’m not a big fan of knowing the Joker’s origins. I kinda prefer how the Nolan trilogy handled it (“Nothing. No matches on prints, DNA, dental. Clothing is custom, no labels. Nothing in his pockets but knives and lint. No name, no other alias.”).

And (as we touched upon when discussing Thanos in Infinity War) I’m not a big fan of making the most heinous and evil super villains into sympathetic characters. I don’t want the Joker to become the Joker because he was mistreated and abused by society who just didn’t coddle him enough. I dislike the idea of the filmmakers trying to get us to feel sorry for him.

Nope! Not for me.

It's intriguing. Moreso than I thought it would be.

Psycho with a dash of Taxi Driver applied to the Joker. Could be interesting.

Movie might be good, but more excited about prospect of out-of-continuity one-offs.

^They could do something like a Batman movie set in the '40s or an All-Star Superman or New Frontier movie!

The movie looks interesting because it actually looks like an indi movie without too much studio oversight. Lets hope it stays that way.

You know, for as much Batman media as I've consumed, this one seems to be a bit different. I mean I know there has been several different plausible origins for the Joker. I've always been partial to The Red Hood/vat of Toxic Chemicals, because it was the first attempt. But at least in some versions, they gave him the first name "Jack" , while "Jack Napier" was a contrivance of the Tim Burton film, also used in Batman TAS, It just seems like *Arthur* comes out of nowhere... Jack seems like a more generic name for a guy who really would want to have a *variable* memory of his own life.

I've heard a lot of fans saying that *Society* in general, and his extreme abuse are the new Toxicity of his makeup (as opposed to actual toxic chemicals). I'm not going to say they are wrong, it definitely is a different take. I probably wont see this film in theaters, not so much because it looks bad or anything, but to be quite honest, I'm one of those few who really does prefer heroes to villains.

Having watched the trailer a couple more times and mulled it over, I'm starting to feel more optimistic about how this could turn out. I have a suspicion about the key event that will push him over the edge:

This looks so dumb.

Whoops, forgot this movie had its own thread. Thanks.

‘Joker’ Makes Record $13.3 Million at Thursday Box Office
https://www.thewrap.com/joker-thursday-box-office/

Great movie. A statement of mental health and it's treatment really in the 70's and 80's. It will leave you a little unsettled.

What makes a Joker? While some (myself included) would probably argue that one of the things that makes the Joker great is actually his lack of a backstory, it’s no less interesting a question to contemplate. Is it nature? Is it nurture? Is it timing? Is it fate? Is it choice? Todd Phillips’ Joker is one of the few movies I’ve seen that attempts to wrestle with this, while providing the answer that it’s all of those things, that actually seems to do a mostly really good job of SHOWING that it’s all of those things and not undercutting one or another in favor of leaning more towards a certain direction. The Joker isn’t born of pure happenstance, nor is he just a homicidal lunatic that should have been locked up as a child. He's not entirely in control of himself, but he's definitely to blame for that and freely chooses to abandon the laws of morality as we understand them. He’s the perfect storm.

While it misses the mark on being a “perfect” movie, some of that is because it’s not a perfect JOKER movie…it’s not a perfect COMIC BOOK movie, and that’s something that needs to be wrestled with on kind of each person’s individual level. This isn’t THE Joker, this is A Joker. It’s not the birth of the version of the Joker we all know, it’s just a possible background for how a person like the Joker can come into existence. The extent to which that bothers you will color your opinion of most of the movie, I think. For me, that holds it back from being a perfect 5/5, but its many strengths more than make up for that shortcoming, and its other faults border on nitpicks. As a character piece about a man becoming a monster, a transformation from a person into a creature (just not with the special effects associate with a thing like The Fly or something), Joker is spectacular.
4.5/5


PS: I guess you can't really review or talk about Joker without addressing the "glorification of violence" supposedly found therein....it's plainly and simply bullshit. Is the movie dark? Yes. Disturbing? Absolutely? Uncomfortable? You know it. Is Arthur a grimy sleezy protagonist? Yep. Does the movie have our protagonist ultimately become a sinister monster, a complete sociopath and a villain? SURE DOES. Does it condone, or even worse, applaud that violence, that sleeze, that darkness, and that sociopathic villain? What the hell movie were people watching? While some of Arthur's early moments seem at least somewhat justified by the circumstances in which he finds himself, by the end, when he's fully formed as The Joker, there's no reasoning or rationale behind his actions. He tells horrible jokes that only he thinks are funny. He tells non-jokes about death and violence that he finds hilarious and everyone else finds sick. He murders with a casual flare that only a true monster could possess and he doesn't even see why it's a big deal. To argue that the movie is extolling any kind of virtue behind this behavior is to misunderstand it completely. I could see taking issue with making the Joker somewhat sympathetic, but I don't get any sort of applauding and inciting violence. He's the VILLAIN. This is the villain's origin. As for the Joker being sympathetic, I think he's made more pitiful...which again, might not be everyone's cup of tea when it comes to The Joker, but I think there's a difference between "You should empathize with this person and their plight," and "Look at this piece of sh**. It's a real piece of sh**, isn't it? You should feel bad that it exists."

In some ways it reminded me of "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer" - only with a tasteless outfit and clown makeup.