Movies you hate that everyone else likes

[Ron]

While I enjoyed Joker, that was one of my two big issues with it. There's just no way this Joker is formidable enough to take on Batman. Ledger's Joker was MUCH better in that regard. My other issue is he never felt evil to me as much as a sweet guy who got shat on his whole life and finally snapped. I liked the rest of it: direction, acting, music, cinematography. I could've done without the cutout magazine nudity but I guess you gotta ensure you get that R rating.

I think Phoenix's Joker works if you're willing to regard him as a different interpretation of the super villain Joker we know. But then again if you have to do that, maybe it doesn't work.

 

[Cephus]

I think Phoenix's Joker works if you're willing to regard him as a different interpretation of the super villain Joker we know. But then again if you have to do that, maybe it doesn't work.

I think that's the biggest problem. This isn't the Joker that we know and it can't ever become the Joker that we know. You could rename the movie, take out all of the clown makeup and still have a good story. It just wouldn't have anything to do with the Joker. And honestly, this movie has nothing at all to do with the Joker that we all know.

 

[Solo4114]

While I enjoyed Joker, that was one of my two big issues with it. There's just no way this Joker is formidable enough to take on Batman. Ledger's Joker was MUCH better in that regard. My other issue is he never felt evil to me as much as a sweet guy who got shat on his whole life and finally snapped. I liked the rest of it: direction, acting, music, cinematography. I could've done without the cutout magazine nudity but I guess you gotta ensure you get that R rating.

I think Phoenix's Joker works if you're willing to regard him as a different interpretation of the super villain Joker we know. But then again if you have to do that, maybe it doesn't work.

I liked Joker better when it was called Taxi Driver. Which, Cephus, you'll recall had no super powers or comic book stuff. (And which was way better than Joker, I'd say.)

But yeah, Phoenix's Joker was...just some dude who snapped and got propped up as a symbol. As a genius supervillain? Nah. Not happening.

 

[PumpkinKing]

Joker didn't really do much for me either. It presented a good case of someone mentally disturbed and all that, but at the end of the day - that guy is not batman's ongoing nemesis. Batman would eat that joker for lunch. I didn't get any high end intelligence or calculation there at all. just a guy who got bullied and lost it.

Which is why I understand when people say it isn’t technically a comic book movie, because it is just a take on the joker character, completely removed from something like Heath Ledgers or Jack Nicholson’s joker. Same character, vastly different interpretations.

 

[Cephus]

Which is why I understand when people say it isn’t technically a comic book movie, because it is just a take on the joker character, completely removed from something like Heath Ledgers or Jack Nicholson’s joker. Same character, vastly different interpretations.

It's not even the same character. It's some shlub with face paint that got crapped on. That's it. If you entirely took away the face paint and called the movie something else and renamed a couple of side characters, you'd never know what it was supposed to be.

 

[Zombie_61]

I did think Joaquin Phoenix' performance in Joker was interesting, which is unusual for me to say because I usually don't care for him. But Arthur Fleck as The Joker in Bruce Wayne's universe? Not even close. As has already been stated, the Batman we know would chew him up and spit him out without even working up a sweat. That being the case, Joker was pretty much a pointless effort.

Veering back towards the main topic, I finally saw V for Vendetta. I didn't hate it, but I didn't see what all of the fuss has been about and thought it was rather pointless as well.

 

[Monkey67]

Which Batman would chew him up? I know a lot of Batman’s. This took place when old Batsy is a kid. The joker was tad older than bruce always it seemed. At the end of the film Arthur is finally free..no ****** job, no crazy mother to take care of, found out Mr. Wayne was an ******, took out the 2 that were messing with ( clown guy and work & talk show host). Stood up and removed prep boy bullies. He rallied the city into a riot cause no cares about the little guy. Which of course they broke him out of the cop car. He straight up became a God in the city. It was to be his death that gave his life a meaning. Now he has a meaning among those that look up to him. So yes, he could gain power and get crazier to a point Batman would have to be on his toes.

V for vendetta is good btw.

 

[Bigdaddy]

Ironically last week I watched V for vendetta and Joker back to back.
V is still a great flick and surprisingly relevant today.
Joker was an interesting character study and good film making but the Wayne connection seemed forced. I enjoyed it as a film but admittedly I never found the Joker to be and interesting character on screen until TDK.
Joker is what Taxi Driver should have been. That film lives on the back of nostalgia as far as I can tell.

 

[Strikerkc]

... finally saw V for Vendetta. I didn't hate it, but I didn't see what all of the fuss has been about and thought it was rather pointless as well.

I feel like that movie is held up high because it "should" be deep and meaningful, but it's just surface level story telling. Which is fine; I love James Bond movies, so I've got no need for a film to be deep to be enjoyable. It's just a different story than a lot of people seem to pretend it is.

Maybe the comics were "better" and people apply some of their quality to the film?

That said, it's always fun to watch Hugo Weaving chew the scenery.

 

[Psab keel]

I enjoyed V for Vendetta when it came out but I haven't seen it again since so I couldn't say for sure how it holds up but the Wachowskis are not really known for great movies in my book barring a few exceptions like the first Matrix. Which they stole anyway.

 

[Cephus]

I enjoyed V for Vendetta when it came out but I haven't seen it again since so I couldn't say for sure how it holds up but the Wachowskis are not really known for great movies in my book barring a few exceptions like the first Matrix. Which they stole anyway.

And even the Matrix doesn't really hold up well. We watched it last night because there's nothing on TV and yes, it's still a good movie, but I think people ruined it by over-analyzing it and pretending it meant more than it did.

 

[el toro]

I agree with you. I liked SNL’s parody better:

For me, it’s Joker.

Nothing new.
Nothing groundbreaking.
Every part of the film was predictable.

I liked it a little more—the first time I saw it—when it was called The King of Comedy. Or, the second time, when it was called Taxi Driver.

I don’t get it. The Dark Knight got the character and story right.

 

[Psab keel]

Oh that was hysterical! I really needed that.

 

[HanSolo2187]

At the end of the film Arthur is finally free..no ****** job, no crazy mother to take care of, found out Mr. Wayne was an ******, took out the 2 that were messing with ( clown guy and work & talk show host). Stood up and removed prep boy bullies. He rallied the city into a riot cause no cares about the little guy. Which of course they broke him out of the cop car. He straight up became a God in the city. It was to be his death that gave his life a meaning. Now he has a meaning among those that look up to him. So yes, he could gain power and get crazier to a point Batman would have to be on his toes.

I'm with you. I do feel, though, that Todd Phillips and Joaquin missed two opportunities that would have put this Joker on the path to "go toe to toe with Batman"...

1. When Randall and Gary come to visit Arthur at his apartment, they ask how he's doing. Arthur says he's off his meds and he "feels gooood". They could have added one line in there to make it evident that the medicine was actually suppressing his mental capacity and fogging his mind. I thought it would have been cool if Arthur pulled out a book on pyrotechnics or something like that in that moment...

2. Right after Arthur shoots Murray, he has a nervous laugh. To me, that isn't where I wanted him to be at that time. If he truly had made the shift to being the Joker, there shouldn't have been any indecision/nervousness in his thought. It felt like he took a step back to being Arthur in that moment.

 

[Psab keel]

I finally saw Joker. I was initially against the idea of an origin film but when I heard Joaquin was cast it piqued my interest and then the trailers looked really really good. So I was optimistic.

I gotta say it was alright. I didn't hate it but it wasn't as good as I'd hoped for. It's an interesting character piece and beautifully shot. Aside from a few anachronistic elements it was pretty faithful to the time period. Arthur having a VCR was pretty silly considering they weren't in wide use until the 1980s and considering his life in poverty I doubt he could afford one. Plus seeing the Energizer bunny commercials threw me off during a shot of a bunch of television monitors, also an ad campaign from the 1980's.

As for his performance I think he won the Oscar as a means for the Academy trying to make up for his loss for Walk the Line. Joaquin is a fine actor and I think he did a good job with this but it wasn't as memorable as his other work. Walk the Line. Gladiator. Those were great performances.

It really felt far removed from Batman and while I understand the sentiment of the movie as a psychological /character study of the Joker, perhaps as others here have said, his relationship to Batman is so intrinsically tied to the mythos that I'm not sure it has the same impact because their uncompromising views on the world creates their drama we all know and love. Arthur has problems and we empathize with him to a point but he's certainly not the criminal mastermind that fascinated fans for decades.

I enjoyed it but I don't think I'll ever feel the need to revisit it. I haven't seen Taxi Driver or The King of Comedy so I couldn't make any comparisons.

 

[cboath]

The mythos of this movie only works in a world without batman. It's impossible to work with him Batman would destroy this give in 10 second and never give him a second thought. He's not a genius, not even terribly smart. He's not a criminal mastermind, just a guy who had mental issues and cracked.

The portrait of arthur was good and well done, but this guy flat out is not 'THE Joke'. He's just a guy who put on a clown outfit and shot a few people. No more.

 

[Cephus]

The mythos of this movie only works in a world without batman. It's impossible to work with him Batman would destroy this give in 10 second and never give him a second thought. He's not a genius, not even terribly smart. He's not a criminal mastermind, just a guy who had mental issues and cracked.

The portrait of arthur was good and well done, but this guy flat out is not 'THE Joke'. He's just a guy who put on a clown outfit and shot a few people. No more.

Then the entire movie is a lie and this is not Joker. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Strikerkc]

Then the entire movie is a lie and this is not Joker. You can't have one without the other.

One of the benefits of using established characters and places is the ability to not have to fill in a lot of the gaps. It's exactly what they advertised; a potential origin story for a Joker character, that focuses on being a character piece of him. Do you have to like the movie, or think it's good quality? no. but saying a movie is a "lie" is childish. it's wanting a movie to be something it's not, and trying to come up with a reason to disregard it beyond just "wasn't my thing".

No movie is a lie. They are what they are. Like it or dislike it is up to you. the rest isn't. lol

 

[cboath]

Then the entire movie is a lie and this is not Joker. You can't have one without the other.

They seemed to use the name to guarantee an audience. If the movie was name Arthur, and there was no Wayne/Gotham reference, would anyone have connected this with the actual Joker? No.

The Batman Joker is a criminal mastermind that can go toe to toe with batman over and over. That flat out is not Arthur. To remotely connect the two, you'd need to see an Arthur that is a formidable threat to even the police. That's not there. You can't watch that and say the police can't take that guy down. Maybe he can rise to that level after 3 more flicks, but they're not going to do that.

If they want to say that's the origin story it only works as a portion of the origin of the Joker we actually have known for decades. I don't think you learn mastermind abilities in your mid/late 30's, (or even older) as Arthur is. Nothing shown indicates he has the intelligence to get there.

That's the big flaw. To my knowledge this was supposedly an origin, but it wasn't going to be an extended production, just a one off. And maybe they'd do others. 89 Batman gave a much more believable origin story of the Joker (chemical bath aside)....Gangster/crook high up in an organization who didn't like the head honcho, snapped, and took over the whole thing and made everyone scared to death of him.

Do you see Arthur running a large organization? Getting people to follow him? plotting Machiavellian schemes? I don't anyone watching that and making those assumptions? Arthur isn't really that smart, a criminal or thug, he's just a mental patient who has snapped. I just don't see any connection to the character and criminal mastermind of the Joker we know. I couldn't even fathom how he gets there.

 

[Egon Spengler]

I had a bit of interest in Joker, and I'm sure it's good movie in a lot of ways, but I don't really think I'll ever bother to see it. No point in having a Joker story without Batman in my opinion.