I wasn’t going to bother with this movie, just because I didn’t think a sequel was merited and it felt a little cash-grab-y. But I do like the actors and after reading this, I think I’ll give it a chance when it’s free to watch
I think that calling this a "categorically bad film" is absurd; it's about the references (watch "Funny Games" and "Umbrellas" first maybe) and it's about the ANTI anti-hero myth.
What shocks me in our own very politically correct times is that North American/Western audiences seem to care LESS about Arthur Fleck than his creators do. Author wants to be something else in this movie and we, as audiences, deprive him of autonomy because we want to fix him in as a villain. I think it's a fascinating film - NOT perfect! - but punk rock as hell.
Not that is an interesting thought, of the audience caring less for Arthur than the creators. I get the sense that they are trying to expand his character or start fresh and cast him in a new light, but people just enjoy that destructive chaotic version of joker too much — which is a whole other conversation lol
Precisely. They are genuinely trying to build. People misread the first film. They want it bloodthirsty. If you watch "Folie a Deux" with an open mind, you will see moments where it LOOKS like Arthur is about to sing, and that he does, in fact, dance A LOT, and that he is weak and that OF COURSE he would be brutalized and get the "Joker" beaten out of him . . . I think the film expanded by empathy for his character immensely.
Like Philips and Phoenix, it seems, I found "Part I" far too "on the nose." This depends it significantly.
It plays out like an acid fever dream, designed to provoke . . . I just wish Warner Bros. would have ran with the BAFFLED reviews out of the Venice premiere. ("Critics say 'Joker II' pushes the limits of audience expectations and pushes the boundaries of arthouse (vs. commercial) at an unprecedented scale!"). It's bolder, but I think that'd get some more bums in seats.
NOTE: I don't "love" the film, but I did really like it. Friends and I here talked about it for days even though we were mixed on it. First viewing may be jarring, but I hope my review helps to prepare you.
Thanks Alex! I'll look forward to your thoughts and a discussion, perhaps! What a fascinating event in the arts. We might get this once a generation - a film so misunderstood in its time that even its supporters have to qualify statements - but that's exciting!
I wasn’t going to bother with this movie, just because I didn’t think a sequel was merited and it felt a little cash-grab-y. But I do like the actors and after reading this, I think I’ll give it a chance when it’s free to watch
It's very interesting, Keith . . .
I think that calling this a "categorically bad film" is absurd; it's about the references (watch "Funny Games" and "Umbrellas" first maybe) and it's about the ANTI anti-hero myth.
What shocks me in our own very politically correct times is that North American/Western audiences seem to care LESS about Arthur Fleck than his creators do. Author wants to be something else in this movie and we, as audiences, deprive him of autonomy because we want to fix him in as a villain. I think it's a fascinating film - NOT perfect! - but punk rock as hell.
Not that is an interesting thought, of the audience caring less for Arthur than the creators. I get the sense that they are trying to expand his character or start fresh and cast him in a new light, but people just enjoy that destructive chaotic version of joker too much — which is a whole other conversation lol
Precisely. They are genuinely trying to build. People misread the first film. They want it bloodthirsty. If you watch "Folie a Deux" with an open mind, you will see moments where it LOOKS like Arthur is about to sing, and that he does, in fact, dance A LOT, and that he is weak and that OF COURSE he would be brutalized and get the "Joker" beaten out of him . . . I think the film expanded by empathy for his character immensely.
Like Philips and Phoenix, it seems, I found "Part I" far too "on the nose." This depends it significantly.
It plays out like an acid fever dream, designed to provoke . . . I just wish Warner Bros. would have ran with the BAFFLED reviews out of the Venice premiere. ("Critics say 'Joker II' pushes the limits of audience expectations and pushes the boundaries of arthouse (vs. commercial) at an unprecedented scale!"). It's bolder, but I think that'd get some more bums in seats.
NOTE: I don't "love" the film, but I did really like it. Friends and I here talked about it for days even though we were mixed on it. First viewing may be jarring, but I hope my review helps to prepare you.
Interesting take. I’m still willing to give this film a shot.
Thanks Alex! I'll look forward to your thoughts and a discussion, perhaps! What a fascinating event in the arts. We might get this once a generation - a film so misunderstood in its time that even its supporters have to qualify statements - but that's exciting!