I saw the new Joker Movie today, and it was a solid film. I thought Joaquin Phoenix delivered a terrific performance as Arthur Fleck.
I liked the film’s dark tone and don’t have a problem with the film’s violence.
I recommend everyone to see this film and judge for yourself.
I give it a grade of an A-.
ENJOY!
I hate to admit I didnt like it. I wanted too but it was really slow and crazy. It was two hours of being in the mind of a crazy guy. Maybe I’ll appreciate it more a second time.
A dry thriller? Now I want to see it in theaters.
Can anyone say original?
How many jokers in how many years is that now? Let’s see…Jared Leto, Heath Ledger, and now this joker(Joker Phoenix).
Hollywood(aka Liberal lackies, mainly controlled by Democrat Politicians), constantly are redoing movies, making the same ones over and over again, or copying off other ones.
It just sucks they don’t really have that much originality any more.
Wait a minute! Democrat Politicians aren’t usually original either. So I guess that makes a lot of sense actually. 
What does this have to do with politics?
It’s Carpe. Everything is political.
The movie is designed to inspire angry anarchist to live out their dreams of revenge by role playing the Joker in real life as nemeses of the right wing and law and order.
You can expect to see copycat insanity play out on a street near you in the near future.
OK then
I enjoyed the film quite a bit - particularly Joaquin Phoenix’s acting (undeniably one of the best living actors), but I felt the plot was predictable, and almost just a Scorsese-tribute mash-up of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy, with DC comics trappings.
You forgot Jack Nicholson, carpe. lol
Unfortunately that’s what people want to see. When Hollywood has original movies like Jupiter Ascending, they often flop hard. There still are a decent bit of original small budget movies. But if you really want an original story, read a book.
Along those lines, CNN op-ed writer Jeff Wang posits that this particular incarnation of Joker is an archetype of white male resentment - a man who is pushed to the boundaries of social power and responds by lashing out with psychotic rage:
“Joker,” at its core, is the story of the “forgotten man,” the metaphoric displaced and disenfranchised white man whose goodwill has been abused and whose status has been reduced. A man who has been crushed underfoot by the elite, dragged down by equality-demanding feminists and climbed over by upstart nonwhite and immigrant masses.
The question then becomes, if “liberal elite Hollywood” is in cahoots with the Deep State, does this Joker represent an unattractive answer to white male troubles, or is he an antihero they might see as a source of inspiration - a marginalized man with nothing left to lose, taking on a system that cast him out? I haven’t seen the movie so I can’t make that call yet.
Saw it last night. Not a huge comic book fan, but we did see all the past Batman films and liked them. Also saw Gotham, which I thought was interesting in the first season, but we lost interest after that. This was better than Gotham, probably because it was more concentrated. I hadn’t heard anything about the specifics of the film, so a few things surprised me. I guess it’s been talked about as a possible Oscar winner and I can see why. If you are a Batman fan you’ll certainly see it. If you like psychological dramas, though, this one is a good one.
Nothing. And it’s really stretching to make this movie into politics. It’s not. It is about how the system affects one man, but every movie does that.
