JOKER: THE MOVIE produced by Martin Scorsese (TBD) 1 1

[Bosco685]

 

[Bosco685]

It's looking like certain critics waited to carpetbomb a FRESH review because now there are a bunch of ROTTEN reviews being posted. Ouch!

Edited October 2, 2019 by Bosco685

[Callaway29]

Interesting interview:

 

[paperheart]

74 RT, 64 Metacritic- just OK; "stock" now estimating $230-245MM US.

[Bosco685]

52 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

Interesting interview:

Pulling a video when the actor is deep into a troubling role and trying to portray such emotions? That will go well.

Or not. 

[Callaway29]

23 minutes ago, Bosco685 said:

Pulling a video when the actor is deep into a troubling role and trying to portray such emotions? That will go well.

Or not. 

Yea I felt it was in poor taste, but considering phoenix’s seemingly introverted personality, I thought he handled it well... The real violation of trust is the person who released it to Kimmel.

Edited October 2, 2019 by Callaway29

[Bosco685]

12 minutes ago, Callaway29 said:

Yea I felt it was in poor taste, but considering phoenix’s seemingly introverted personality, I thought he handled it well... The real violation of trust is the person who released it to Kimmel.

AND, the person that leaked the -script early on as well. Like that was the cool thing to do with any film.

[Xenosmilus]

3 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

Yea I felt it was in poor taste, but considering phoenix’s seemingly introverted personality, I thought he handled it well... The real violation of trust is the person who released it to Kimmel.

Just watched the clip.  I don't understand what the issue is. I thought it was part of the movie. Maybe I missed something though.

[Callaway29]

1 minute ago, Xenosmilus said:

Just watched the clip.  I don't understand what the issue is. I thought it was part of the movie. Maybe I missed something though.

Those weren't lines...that was on the set, but Phoenix's words to the cinematographer...

[Jaydogrules]

On 9/30/2019 at 7:11 PM, paperheart said:

‘Joker’ Atom Tickets Pre-Sales Besting ‘Venom’ & ‘It Chapter Two’; Batman Villain Pic Still Eyeing $80M+ October Record Debut

https://deadline.com/2019/09/joker-opening-weekend-box-office-projection-atom-tickets-presales-1202748724/

does Atom have a DC bias? asking for an ant sized friend.

In an August Atom Tickets poll among 1,0000 millennials, (sic)  How many non-millennials does this equate to?

Took me a while but I finally found the article that explained how Venom was able to get to that $80MM in a traditionally dead month, despite opening against another oscar buzzy wide release that nearly broke the October opening in it's own right - A star is born.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4444&p=.htm

So venom actually skewed younger, younger than Homecoming even.  Obviously due to it sell-out PG 13 rating.  But that was a very big part of the reason. Joker cannot and will not skew young, due its R rating lack of "whizz bang pow", and hardcore adult skewing content.  

So again, I still ask for someone, anyone, to point out this film's demographic path to "blockbuster" status ( before ) it actually does of course, because armchair quarterbacking gets you know brownie points around here ).

-J.

[paperheart]

27 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Took me a while but I finally found the article that explained how Venom was able to get to that $80MM in a traditionally dead month, despite opening against another oscar buzzy wide release that nearly broke the October opening in it's own right - A star is born.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4444&p=.htm

So venom actually skewed younger, younger than Homecoming even.  Obviously due to it sell-out PG 13 rating.  But that was a very big part of the reason. Joker cannot and will not skew young, due its R rating lack of "whizz bang pow", and hardcore adult skewing content.  

So again, I still ask for someone, anyone, to point out this film's demographic path to "blockbuster" status ( before ) it actually does of course, because armchair quarterbacking gets you know brownie points around here ).

-J.

https://ew.com/movies/2019/10/02/joker-parents-warning/

Theater chain bluntly warns parents their kids won’t like Joker

still will be some brain surgeons dragging their 4 year olds because they couldn't be bothered to get a sitter

[Jaydogrules]

4 minutes ago, paperheart said:

https://ew.com/movies/2019/10/02/joker-parents-warning/

Theater chain bluntly warns parents their kids won’t like Joker

still will be some brain surgeons dragging their 4 year olds because they couldn't be bothered to get a sitter

Lol Now that was funny.  

-J.

[Xenosmilus]

2 hours ago, Callaway29 said:

Those weren't lines...that was on the set, but Phoenix's words to the cinematographer...

awww, I see it now.  I thought it was showing Joker was becoming a schizophrenic .

[Buzzetta]

10 hours ago, Bosco685 said:

Have posted a few negatives. Including the critic that is a big Batman fan, and she felt that was the thing missing for her in this film versus just a character focus on Joker. But she loved Phoenix's performance.

As comic fans we have a different perspective of Batman than the general public. Comic fans have the ability to quote and reference eighty years of Batman publications with recent fans viewing Batman as a character of multiple layers and a character that is merely a few bad decisions away from being a character like the Joker.  General moviegoers unfamiliar with the comics break it down with far more simplicity.

Batman = good.  Joker = bad. 

Once the public breaks that down, you can't have Batman without a villain.  You also cannot have the Joker without a hero to stop him.  That's how the general public is going to find themselves outside of their comfort zone. 

I want to stay clear of political nonsense so I am treading lightly here.  With MANY topical issues today such as homelessness and violence, the question of mental health is brought into the forefront of the discussion.  In the comic book world, the Joker is the poster boy for mental health issues.   Without Batman, the sole focus is going to be on the Joker and his demons that drive him.  

This is why I said that the movie will have two reviews.  There are the reviews that will come out now when you have a public that is struggling to find ways to address real world mental health issues. There are reviews that will come out in a few years or even decades from now when the public has fully digested what goes on in the world and has a different perspective. 

And again, I am speculating here.  I could be wrong about this... right now though... ?

[paperheart]

RT 73, w/ top critic score of 53; Metacritic at 62.  This may have been the most overhyped thing to come out of Venice since the gondola.

[Bosco685]

4 hours ago, paperheart said:

RT 73, w/ top critic score of 53; Metacritic at 62.  This may have been the most overhyped thing to come out of Venice since the gondola.

Fortunately, it is easy to see the number of reviewers taking a stance on violence potrayed:

1) Stating this was made for incels (and misusing the term)

2) Misquoting tragic 2012 history Joker inspired killings

3) Noting this film will encourage violence all by itself

But that's logical points to your 'I'm negative winning'. 

[Bosco685]

6 hours ago, Buzzetta said:

As comic fans we have a different perspective of Batman than the general public. Comic fans have the ability to quote and reference eighty years of Batman publications with recent fans viewing Batman as a character of multiple layers and a character that is merely a few bad decisions away from being a character like the Joker.  General moviegoers unfamiliar with the comics break it down with far more simplicity.

Batman = good.  Joker = bad. 

Once the public breaks that down, you can't have Batman without a villain.  You also cannot have the Joker without a hero to stop him.  That's how the general public is going to find themselves outside of their comfort zone. 

I want to stay clear of political nonsense so I am treading lightly here.  With MANY topical issues today such as homelessness and violence, the question of mental health is brought into the forefront of the discussion.  In the comic book world, the Joker is the poster boy for mental health issues.   Without Batman, the sole focus is going to be on the Joker and his demons that drive him.  

This is why I said that the movie will have two reviews.  There are the reviews that will come out now when you have a public that is struggling to find ways to address real world mental health issues. There are reviews that will come out in a few years or even decades from now when the public has fully digested what goes on in the world and has a different perspective. 

And again, I am speculating here.  I could be wrong about this... right now though... ?

But unfortunately the critics that used the 2012 Aurura shooting as their shining example 'Joker in films is REALLY BAD' leading to the victims' families even making a statement about this is not taking a stand on should comic book films include excessive violence. It's purposefully misrepresenting history to encourage not to see a film. Not so innocent as 'I need my hero in a villain film'. There is a difference with that strong stance to wave of movie-goers from a film.

And the social justice warrior message is quite strong in many of these rotten reviews.

FLICKFILOSOPHER: Joker movie review: sad clown, bad clown, not at all a rad clown

Quote

Another white man who has not been handed fame and fortune and respect and sexy willing babes in return for having done absolutely f*@%ing nothing with his life is angry. Cry us a river, pal.

Edited October 3, 2019 by Bosco685

[Bosco685]

 

Quote

Todd Phillips’ “Joker,” which I saw at the TIFF earlier in September, is a fascinating, dark and despairing arthouse movie that also happens to have been made by a big studio. And yet, the negative media attention on the film is a more problematic issue than the film itself. The backlash from not just news outlets, but critics as well, is trying to sell the idea that Joker is a dangerous film: a rallying cry for Incels and angry white males who might relate to the film’s murderous lead character. Indiewire’s David Ehrlich claimed in his review that the film spoke: “to the people in our world who are predisposed to think of Arthur as a role model: lonely, creatively impotent white men who are drawn to hateful ideologies because of the angry communities that ferment around them.”

 

Why are critics complaining that this could spark violence by way of “incels”? Because they can’t handle the truth. What is the truth? That “Joker” is a film mirroring our own society, and it dares us to look at ourselves in the mirror. The parallels to today’s world are there — societal alienation has never felt more current than it does today. Joker, AKA Arthur Fleck’s situation could attest to 21st-century anxieties; his descent into madness is immaculately horrifying because it feels all too relevant and anchored up by present-day realities and tensions. The film comes out at a time when the country feels at a crossroads between civility and chaos. Many critics are calling the film dangerous in its, supposed, call to arms and revolution, but the fact that this movie is actually sparking panic in people must mean that it has hit a societal nerve, which renders it an indelible statement of current-day socio-political anxieties.

 

I think we should take the time to acknowledge the elitism going on right now with many journalists. They believe that, given the higher intellect God has bestowed upon them, they know exactly how the masses will think. In their world, the mainstream drones they speak down to may, oh gosh, get the wrong message, might draw the wrong conclusions – and we simply can’t take that risk. The film is a danger to society, they say! I mean, how arrogant must you be to think this way?! This liberal groupthink is actually a detriment to a political belief that should actually pride itself on freedoms of speech and the right to express oneself through art. Rather, the far-left has turned exactly into the kind of right-wing groupthink which blamed videogames for gun violence back in the Clinton and Bush years.

 

This attempt to censor “Joker” won’t work. Audiences can see through the aforementioned elitism, they can think for themselves, come to their own conclusions as to whether or not the film is worthy. The film is set to open to worldwide box-office this coming weekend that will near the $155 million mark, only confirming the scathingly dwindling relevance of mass media journalism.

[Bosco685]

SYFY Channel's Ryan Britt was upset because there was no post-credit scene. Seems like someone has been trained what to expect.

Does ‘Joker’ Have a Post-Credits Scene? Here’s the Deal (NO BATMAN)

Quote

This weekend, a movie you may have heard of called Joker will hit theaters. On paper, the movie is an origin story for the character known as the Joker, most famous for making Bruce Wayne’s life difficult in various incarnations of Batman films, comics, and TV shows. Now, Joaquin Phoenix is playing that character in a controversial film that is either the best movie of the year or the worst, depending on how you look at it. But, if you do go see Joker, you might be wondering: Will this movie tease connections to other superhero movies? In other words, is there a post-credits scene for Joker or what?

 

Without spoiling the movie, we’re going to save you some time. There is not a post-credits scene for Joker. Yes, this movie is technically playing with the Batman mythos, but there’s no huge scene at the end in which Robert Pattinson’s new Batman steps out from the shadows or anything. This movie stands apart in a huge way. It’s not your average superhero movie, and it’s certainly not employing the most common trend of superhero movies with a post-credits scene.

[Bosco685]

The soundtrack will be released on a purple vinyl (Australia has it out already) as a limited print.