I would've loved to see a Clockwork Orange-esque Joker backstory that shows him as being completely evil and twisted right from the get go. I don't so much care how he got that way, but I've always been fascinated as to how he would've spent his time prior to meeting Batman.
I said the exact same thing, when the trailer came out I thought it was going to be a clock work orange balls to the wall movie. But of course they played it safe and made a very simplistic movie.
You're exactly right. it seems that some people think it's sensible to just throw that concept around aimlessly even though Arthur Fleck is not an incel.
But incels have similar alienation as joker and relate to him. The movie Joker is based on Taxi Driver is about an MGTOW/incel type individual sick with society.
@@supreme1572 I can see a lot of people able to relate to Arthur.He represents the ultimate disfranchised person in this Gotham,but the reasons for his downfall in this movie has so little to do with incel that I bet most actual real life incels who were hyped up with all those "incel anthems" would end up feeling confused and disappointed after watching the movie.This movie has inspired a lot of things ever since it came out,but incel has not been one of them,as far as I know
@@supreme1572 Travis Bickle is also not an incel. Honestly, do some people who watch these film just not understand their blatant message? Travis in Taxi Driver also does not harm his love interest, Betsy, he gets angry at her at the beginning but he's out to get the people who are ruining society because he is mentally ill, and not an incel.
I remember really liking this movie when i saw it in the theater. But a few months later, i saw Parasite, also in the theater, and it became really hard for me to look at Joker the same way. To me, it always seemed like Parasite tackles the problem of social classes a million times better than Joker. The Park family, despite being kind of eccentric and ignorant (like when they called the rain a "blessing"), was still portrayed as a normal family. It's a much more down to earth movie.
Agreed. I think Parasite, while not necessarily a subtle movie, is a far more focused and less pretentious movie than Joker. I don't feel like Parasite has to rely on directly galvanizing the audience the way Joker did. That's not to say I dislike Joker, but I think fans of Joker get caught up on the sheer quantity of shallow commentary Joker makes on contemporary issues rather than the quality of that commentary. They project their own struggles onto the miserable state of Arthur Fleck and think it's genius that Arthur Fleck vaguely symbolizes their own internal struggles. I think a well-written character has their own very specific conflicts which the audience abstractly relates to on an post-conventional level (which is how Parasite's characters are written), but Joker has the audience relate to his misfortunes on a superficial level. They see him physically suffer, so they believe he is emotionally and ideologically righteous. Any hacky screenwriter can create a miserable character who garners audience sympathy, just as any hacky screenwriter can show a dog dying on screen to make the audience cry. I can understand that both Arthur Fleck and Geun-sae need bad stuff to happen to them because it consequently serves as motivations for their later evil actions, but so much of the bad stuff that happens to Arthur Fleck is redundant. Parasite doesn't shove misery in your face for the sake of it. Joker does, and it takes pride in itself for it.
I personally liked it, I respect your opinion (you can't be wrong for not liking it) but it does seem you entered the film already with your mind made up to not like it, like from the opening credits! Like you said you don't think they should make a stand alone joker film and it already rubs you up the wrong way. You think its full of ego. And there is no way joaquin did this to showcase his skills to get an award. Think you are being a tad cynical there. P. S on reflection I know I have done this before to a film where I was dead set on hating something and it definitely tainted my view (in my case unfairly)
I think one of the mistakes modern films make is not actually playfully exploring a theme and establishing images, characters and story arch that create unexpected relationships. The reason joker is boring is because it’s basically 1+1 =2 kind of a formula. Even someone like Spielberg whose film are neatly packaged ideas still have areas of mystery uncertainty and questions.
The main critique I got from this review is that Joker is not as good as the movie taxi driver. The rest of your dissatisfaction you don't explain any of it. Also why are you so hesitant on praising Joacquin's performance? Calling the movie an anthem for incels is actually quite a shallow take of the movie. Russel Brand's review is so well compared to yours mainly because he explains his points very well. I do not have problem with you disliking the movie, but you should explain your points.
I dont think she means Joker isnt "as good" or whatever. She uses Taxi Driver as a way to give examples why the film didnt work for her. Also, I thought she explained all her points quite well
@@MarcEtMichele The fact that she only referenced Taxi Driver discredits her whole review because Joker takes themes from a series of films including King of Comedy and Dog Day Afternoon etc. She didn't do as much research and wasn't as prepared to give a review of this movie as she thinks. So she should revise her review and be prepared with better information.
@@SB-to5lx She doesn't have to reference every single film Joker takes influence from in order to review it. That makes no sense. She talked about the themes outside of her reference to Taxi Driver as well.
@@MarcEtMichele It makes perfect sense because the whole movie isn't just Taxi Driver. Why make a mediocre review with misinformation and lack of knowledge?
@@SB-to5lx Did she talk for 15 minutes about Taxi driver? If you call leaving out influences as misinformation then every single review of any film ever is misinformed. There is no way you can point out every influencer and go in depth analysing all of them.
When I hear your criticisms of the film, I totally understand and agree with you to a certain extent. Especially with the Taxi Driver complaint, it definitely hinders the experience a little. But when I watched it (twice now), I didn't respond to it the same way as you. When I look at it as a film, I see flaws with it that normally would bother me, but for some reason I just really liked it. I was emotionally invested. It did it's job of making me feel disturbed by this guy, and I left the theatre with a feeling of dread and I couldn't stop thinking about it. It was a surprisingly visceral experience.
You criticize the controversy and oscar buzz, because you've been told there's controversy and oscar buzz. You compare it to Taxi Driver because you've been told it's like or influenced by Taxi Driver. They are definitely two different movies and weren't meant to be as similar as people have indicated. You are too externally influenced.
Absolutely agree, thought I am the only one. This film is absolutely bleached, badly made, looks like an Instagram filtered nonsense. Great review, I enjoy the way you presented your arguments.
It is based on a comic book so I wouldnt be too suprised of it feeling like carricature. Like you said, the Joker is more of symbol than an actual person. The rest is up to the fantasy, that is why it is a near impossible task to make the Joker the centre of a movie and I think why many people are so suprised now is because they didnt think that someone could get so close to giving the Joker an actual acceptable origin story. It had to be on the nose, it had to be over the top and they did a great job at it. Just think of any other Actor trying to create that other than Joaquin Phoenix.. the movie would have flopped and would be a laughing stock indeed. The movie is great imo, and if it is just for seeing Joaquin Phoenix play than so be it.
WOW! finally someone who's not riding the bandwagon and giving an honest, thoughtful review on this overrated movie...this movie is all she said it is , there is nothing interesting about Arthur Fleck, this reviewer has incredible insight
Very valid points about Travis Bickle as a character vs. Arthur Fleck and why "Taxi Driver" is a better movie than "Joker". Travis' arc doesn't have alienation from the beginning. His profession actually brings him in close contact with the "night life" of the town & he feels he is a social person. This is why the screw-up with Betsy was so impactful,because Travis doesn't really get it. However,Arthur is shown to be alienated from the start. He doesn't really try to fit in & we are already told that he's mentally ill. Much of the promise of "Joker" was showing us why Arthur became Joker. I think the movie is also making some points about mental health & how hard it is to live a normal life when you have such a condition. Something else that makes the movie interesting is the partly random edits. There is a scene where Arthur shuts himself in the fridge,the very next scene he is on his bed. So what happened really? Thus it is possible that we are seeing things only from Arthur's perspective & much of it was false. But kudos to you for eloquently stating your disappointment(s) with the movie. Valuable & good stuff!
I loved the movie thought it was a masterpiece i think it was a great character study. Sorry you didnt like it but i respect your opinion. Good to watch your reviews again
The Joker is one of those movies where people can’t say I didn’t like it…because “everyone” says it’s great…good job providing your opinion..it reminds me when my brother-in-law said to me..I don’t like the Beatles..ha ha..at first I was like wtf ..but then later I thought 💭 ok 👌 he doesn’t like them..
1. I totally agree with the notion that the director/writer isn't really shining a light on the interesting parts and nuances with these themes, but that doesn't mean that there can be accidents where scenes can become interesting. What I mean is that a director/writer could stumble upon something interesting without them even knowing it, or people can interpret something that is not the writers intention. There are themes here that are touched upon, but overlooked i think due to the fact that they were probably unintentional. Especially the ripping of the late night talk show who is seemingly a left leaning person, and makes jokes about the system (or individuals within the system), but are themselves a part of the system, and therefore will never cross the line where they throw the system under the bus, or give radical solutions. 2. When it comes to this comparison to Taxi Driver i find it very strange because yeah the first act is similar, but the movies stray into very different directions (even though the over arching story has similarities, as do tons of movies). The second act of Joker he traces his family history, he discovers a secret about himself that might explain alot, that might give comfort, but this takes a turn, and the hopelessness comes back. Because most of us aren't special in the same way that Joker is not special, but he does something special. In Taxi Driver Travis makes the "right" choice, he does not assassinate his target, but instead helps out, and kills "the bad people". Joker does not do this, he does the total opposite. Obviously Taxi Driver is a much better movie, but the comparison is at best weak because you could compare this sort of journey to alot of films. I've seen nobody talk about the fact that First Reformed is heavily influenced and is almost at the point of remake of Winter Light. Anyways Joker is an ok movie which sadly today makes it a great movie just because it has a story. Watching this in a real cinema reminded me that movies with bigger budgets can have a story, can be decent if not good. But if you rip that context away I would totally agree with you, compare this to almost any type of indie film, or just a movie made by someone with a vision and a story far surpasses Joker.
Also, it's very cool and a major accomplishment that Todd Phillips and all the actors were able to make a modern throwback to great 70's and 80's films like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy etc. It's truly a successful blend of those films with great nods to that era of films. Why would anybody be so smug as to say that's a bad thing? It shows passion on the part of the director and actors. Robert De Niro signed on, he starred in both movies prior, and he would know better than anyone if this movie was worth starring in as well, so clearly he saw redeeming qualities in this film. Even Martin Scorsese almost produced it. For people to bash this movie for silly, nitpicky nonsense is ridiculous. Look at the glass as half full, not half empty. This film is a successful throwback to a great era of character study films which incorporates and blends the formula that made those movies great and it works very well. Everyone involved put so much passion and effort into it, there's no need to be negative about a great film. Moreover, Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese aren't so protective of their movies to say that no one can imitate their style because imitation is the best form of flattery. For people to be so defensive about movies with which both the actor and director involved allowed to be imitated is pathetic and looks like sucking up. Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix paid respect and did justice to De Niro's and Scorsese's work. Why be defensive about their films? it's their material, not yours, and they felt Joker was a good homage to their movies, plain and simple. Taxi Driver and King of Comedy belong to Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese and they allowed their films to be imitated by Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix because they saw redeeming qualities in the script and style and because they can do what they want with their material. If De Niro and Scorsese didn't like this movie it wouldn't have had much support. Therefore, the fact that De Niro and Scorsese supported this movie speaks volumes and matters more in the grand scheme of things in the film industry than what random, average people think after having seen the movie. It also won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, so it's clearly a great film.
Just watched her The Last Jedi review and now understand the Joker review. She is a Disney girl. Deepfocuslens had always planned to give this movie a negative review no matter what. It was obvious with the constant eye rolling and use of the word incel throughout the entire Joker review. The biggest insult was saying paperboy was the best actor in the movie. Joaquin Phoenix performance was fascinating to watch, quite amazing. But she refuses to acknowledge his portray of the Joker. But do you know who she give credit for great acting? Many of the characters in The Last Jedi. She also ranked The Last Jedi second among all Star Wars movies. Her The Last Jedi review is very telling. In the review she wanted the movie to take its time more narrating the story and developing the characters, saying it was moving to fast. Deepfocuslens also said she likes it when things start quiet and small and get bigger and bigger as the movie goes on, because then it feels more earned. Stating they don't make movies like that anymore. Deepfocuslens got the movie she wanted in Joker and rejected the request. There was zero chance Joker would get a positive review from her. That's why the review was vague and off track.
@NeanderthalRetardo Speak for yourself. You should at the very least be able to appreciate that movie if youre a fan of films. I just dont know about this chick sometimes.
I don’t think so, and I rooted for this film and really thought I would love it. I watched it last night and have to agree with everything Maggie was saying. Arthur literally had zero pathos and I had no sympathy for him the entire time. It truly just seemed so pretentious for the entire film. He was just being weird for weird’s sake! He didn’t even seem realistically mentally ill...just over the top movie psychotic.
I was wrong to think that the Joker and Batman we're close in age; all the previous films showed the two foes in a similar light. Bruce Wayne looked like a preteen , while Arthur was a thirty something year old man. I am really curious to see a future movie that ties this film with the upcoming Batman reboot in 2021/2022.
I would disagree that its hollow, but this is one of those films that I can completely understand if you love it or if you hate it. And it's fine if you didn't like it. Personally I loved it, but that's the great thing about art. Fun fact- Scorcese actually brought the idea for this film to Warner bros with todd Philips. He was supposed to be a producer. This certainly took inspiration from taxi driver but I think they are very different. Travis's story is more of an unravelling while Arthur's story is more about self actualization. One thing that's interesting about this film is that many of the events are meant to be ambiguous, and you're left wondering if any of them actually happened, as arthur is an unreliable narrator, and the joker is delusional and lives in his own fantasy world. The movie becomes a different thing when you look at it from the lense of being anything but literal, and look at all of the subtlety that's in the film. I'd give this a second watch unless you really hated it. Thanks for your thoughts!
Best Joker review. I didn’t buy into JP here. The Master I did. I realize that I watch your videos before I even look it up on rotten tomatoes. Keep reviewing movies and never buy a new bookshelf!
Again...The Swimmer 1968 plz...I'm dying to hear what you have to say...These psycho-analytical films you have done lately beg for The Swimmer... at least for me
it's a flawed movie and there are lots of reasonable critiques one could have, but nothing you said is among them. I don't understand this review at all.
Joker is one of those movies that the average person will go and see and think it's a work of art. Good movie? yeah. Fantastic movie? Not quite. It's frustrating though, there are a fair amount of people that are so convinced its perfect and deep and layered that trying to discuss the flaws of the movie is considered a sin to them. Honestly it seems to me there are two types of crowds when it comes to this movie. Those that are sparking the controversy and calling it overly violent, etc. And those that think everything it does portrays a tortured soul in society and that people that don't praise it don't get it. Then there are through and through movie goer's and reviewers who look at a movie based on personal film judgment, separate from the positive and negative hype surrounding it. Doesn't mean the film is bad, it does have flaws and shortcomings though. You've proven your thoughtfulness and your movie articulation in previous reviews and you've done so again,Great review!
RT. It’s a Taxi Driver rip off minus the heart and soul. Joker is an ancillary character that doesn’t deserve an origin movie, movie studio execs are just using the legacy of Heath Ledger to milk these casual movie goers and public.
yeah right? It's like a poor man's version of an intelligent film , which people love of course because it gives the impression of being smart while being about as challenging or layered as any generic studio movie
I appreciate your review. I enjoyed the film. Your discomfort with the film may be why I enjoyed it. It depicts a society in decline, much like ours. I grew up in the 80’s it “depicts”. The nuanced mental health depiction. How media shaped class struggle as an individuals problem not societal. Also how someone falls thru the cracks. Loved how it wove the bruce wayne story into the mix and how the joker was born out of societal malaise. Arthur wasn’t the cause if the demise, he became the spoke person. Arthur was the victim in this film and society was the villain. That makes people uncomfortable.
@@Serocco Maggie is another big phony, a feminist pseudo-intellectual blowhard. She claims she is very "real" but what is reflected in her videos is pretention and haughtiness, repetition and avoidance of core motivation in film. And I suspect she has a lot of personal issues. Plus if any flick truly depicts men as legitimate victims of purposeful societal neglect and demonization , it's "not her problem" to that effect. This figures considering her personal and political stance. Why anyone would spend a digital ten cents towards her for making vids is laughable. People got suckered in. Waste of time.
Thank you Maggie, I always love your reviews! Could you please make a video about your favorite movies? I would love to hear your take and try to watch something different since I am not too knowledgeable about films. I'll definitely check taxi driver as a reference too
Oh sh*t, I'd overlooked how much this was like King of Comedy (which I adore), even as the comparison to Taxi Driver was so obvious. But now that you mention it, it really is an almost perfect hybrid/redux of them both. And now I have to go watch King of Comedy again. :)
Hey Maggie ... huge fan of your reviews, you are always so spot on to my way of thinking, however I can't help thinking maybe you went into this one with some pre-conceived ideas, in view of what you spoke about at the end ? Looking forward to seeing the film this week, and watching your review again afterwards. Maybe I'll agree with you ?
I thought it was a bad movie, wannabe arthouse. Bad date is a good analogy. It’s very modern in the sense it cherry picks moments stylistically from it’s reference points with no heart or understanding of what it is truly exploring.
It's good to see another review from you! Welcome back! I respect your opinion but I wish you elaborated on your points a bit more as opposed to just saying this movie is a copy of taxi driver and other movies. :( Oh well.
The character growth is definitely there for Arthur (in my opinion ofc). He starts as someone just struggling to get by and by the end, he has snapped and given in to his carnal desires. All the while as an audience, we're praying for him not to snap. So the argument of him staying the same in terms of his arc and there not being any growth is another aspect I disagree with.
HRMM interesting review. Like most in the comments I disagree but appreciate your insight. Also stopping by since your review is the biggest link to mine according to analytics. Happy reviewing, friend! -Dj
I didn't dislike it quite as much as you, but I agree completely with your reasons for disliking it. It doesn't explore its themes deeply enough, the writing - not the performance, but the writing - doesn't make Arthur Fleck's descent into madness convincing or meaningful, it doesn't have enough nuance in its direction, and its aesthetic tone, while occasionally intriguing, is mostly drab and monotonous. It rides on a miraculous performance by Joaquin Phoenix, but even a miraculous performance can't save a half-baked script.
I hate the film too. It’s a blending of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy with a really overrated performance. I didn’t feel sorry for him and I wasn’t rooting for him. Halfway through the movie I wanted it to end because of the two movies I mentioned above.
Just stumbled on your channel. Great review! I saw an interview with Phillips. He said he had a lot of personal views and philosophies about life and society in general and wanted to make a movie exploring those views... He though no one would care so he used joker as nothing more than a vehicle....
although i did like the murray franklin scene, the part where joaquin says "there is no punchline, it's not a joke" that line was powerful to me, and yeah i agree with you, i would've loved if there had been more of a relationship between him and the black girl to show the vulnerability, the lack of that kinda made the movie fall on it's face,
Joker is such a different person from Bickle; with such a different manifestation of presence in the world. For you to not see that, simply amazes me. To put it crudely, you seem to imply via default, that crazy is crazy; which is REALLY crazy.
People have hyped this movie up so much that I don't want to watch it, because I'm worried that I'll be unfair to it. I've had it spoiled anyway, which really doesn't help. And yes when I've heard people talking about it I have legitimately thought they were talking about either Taxi Driver and/or The King Of Comedy.
On rewatch 9 months later I couldn't agree ore with your review. Its ultimately a banal film which pulls its punches and neglects to explore the interesting avenues that it hints at.
She seems to miss the point of the movie, a beaten down man turning bad and getting a self-esteem soul when he flings away his inhibitions. She already knew her review before she saw it. She's one of the people that the movie's against: upper society people who he wants to take away control from. She doesn't even like Joaquin's performance! People love him because he really does a perfect person with nothing to lose after being beaten down. She hated the Joker before even seeing it. Why is she reviewing it?
@@RyansChannel0203 Um, yes i have dumbass. Where exactly do you get off telling other people who you don't even know on the Internet what movies they have and haven't seen?
@@RyansChannel0203 "he didn't like the film so he must not have seen it !" Yeahhh....sure, because anyone ever who watches the movie must automatically like it even when they don't.... I'm guessing you also think that Maggie in this video is just playing an early april fools joke then by saying she doesn't like this film very much?
I really enjoy watching your movie reviews. May I suggest that you do a movie review of the movie Rope from Hitchcock. This is my favorite Hitchcock movie, even though Hitchcock considered it as a "experiment that did not work". It seems to become a polarizing movie as some people love while others hate, I am curious to hear your opinion about it.
absolutely contrived, agenda driven review. The performances were great, the shots were beautiful, and well directed. This is just a review out of spite, and quite frankly your hate just spews from your pores. You can try and dress it up with all your BS excuses. Again, any review that tries to tell YOU , the viewer, how to take things is a BS review. It has an agenda. Joker was and will always be Oscar worthy, and is a great, great film. Alot deeper than this person, that's for sure.
I watched Taxi Driver for the first time after watching Joker, and I really felt like Taxi Driver is overhyped. Travis feels overplayed, the themes feel like they are forcing themselves down your throat, the writing doesn’t hold up. I think the Joker was a decent attempt to take that story and create it for a modern audience.
You gotta be kidding me.... if anything Joker beats its themes over the audience head WAY more. Joker even has 5 minute monologue on Bobby Ds talk show explaining the whole theme of the movie and how people look down on others with mental illness. It’s so obvert and tacky.
Even when I disagree with you, I still love hearing your thoughts on a film because of how you articulate your opinion, and have valid reasons to back them up.
I completely understand and respect your opinion and you verbalized it in a very well spoken way but I do disagree with you because I think even if the movie wasn’t too subtle it was still impactful to my emotions.
It’s not a perfect film but compared to the excuse for movies that come out these days this movie is fantastic. It can’t be a 100% accurate telling of mental breakdown, it’s a movie so has to concentrAte on specific issues. I Can’t believe you saw nothing positive in this movie, for a comic movie I thought it was a great description of how a comic baddy is created, he’s not supposed to be liked or sympathetic. I Must say I was surprised and loved the movie and I’ve actually watched about 5 or 6 times. Yes it’s not perfect and clumsy in places but I thought it was a great central performance, I thought it brought some reality and something a normal to an extreme character. However I did hate the singing of send in the clowns, that was ridiculous, I’ll give you that. Knowing how my brain works I’ll hate this movie by next week and have to delete this comment
Hey, just want to say. New fan, came across a video looking into the idea of whether we can divorce a bad author from a good piece of fiction or art. I agree in the most part that the movie was rather sloppy, but given the idea that the whole story is supposed to be questionably into his head it's just the unreliable narrator taken to nth degree. It's interesting but it for sure stymies the story when stacked against the movies it's riffing from who don't make as much pains to divorce the character from his surroundings at every given instance in their cinematic ordeals (you get an idea of the real world surrounding them so it gives more of harrowing message about their delerium when things start to go askew). As for the "incel anthem" thing, I think that was part of the controversy around it, however I think you much like the media misinterpreted it as a propaganda piece when it isn't. It's about a mentally ill guy thrust into a social movement he isn't fully aware of what it represents. About how people misinterpret reality around them to suit an agenda. His agenda was to find love in some way and he found it with a braying mob due to his criminally insane antics. their agenda was mount a social movement on the back of a crazy person they don't really understand. unfortunately I'm with you, beyond the broader subtext above the film was almost a parody gritty crime and psychological dramas (scorse's in particular). With a better story (which may arguably be impossible given the nature of the character as you mentioned in the end) it may have had something to fall back on other that Joaquin Phoenix's stellar performance as the joker. Still loving the content though. Still a fan!
Todd Phillips hates people. I doubt any of us know him personally, but ………. he hates us. He's very resolute in his hatred. I found a respect for aspects of the story that clearly weren't the main focus, based largely on personal experience and what's happened to those close to me. (There are platforms tailor-made to properly discuss mental illness and suicide. UA-cam is not one of them.) I found a deep discomfort that Phoenix delivered; yes he did; the film's editors helped. I found a melancholy that would maybe work if melancholy wasn't "in vogue" with Hollywood directors. After typing this comment, what I'm going to do is look up your Lovely Bones review from '09. I remember The Lovely Bones having a tone, color palate (at least in among-the-living scenes), and ambition to apply dark, sensitive subjects to pure fiction that overlaps with what "Joker" is trying to do this whole decade later.
One of the reasons why the leftist media had their knives out for this film, I think, from when I saw it, is that it depicted the central white character, as being stranded alone, in an atomised way, in a multiracial society. The scenes in the city, on the bus, in his apartment, is a white man who is alienated, alone. I’m not saying this was the central theme, but a theme that the director either consciously or unconsciously sneaked into the film. And I think the critics had a knee jerk reaction to this.
Alienated, lonely white men have been a staple of cinema classics, whether it's The Apartment, The Godfather or There Will Be Blood, all of them adored by critics
@@stivklif those films may be about the alienation of single white men, who are atomised in society- not pertaining to race. I’m saying the alienation in this film was a white man feeling a sense of alienation in a multi cultural backdrop, where his culture is being eroded. My point still stands.
@@hisalexness8478 well, your point is a little clearer at least. For you the theme of Joker is the loss of white supremacy and whether violence is the best way to respond to living alongside people from other cultural backgrounds? If not, what do you mean when you say Arthur's culture is being eroded?
@@stivklif I didn’t make any of those points. I originally said that part of the alienation of the character, seemingly on a subliminal level…is that he (a white guy) is always depicted as a white minority in the landscapes that he moves through. I wondered wether this was a conscious or unconscious depiction by the director. I said this may have been an equally subconscious reason why critics took against the film.
It's an homage to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, but not comparable. I actually liked the film, though I agree that it was a bit pretentious. However, I don't like that you invoke the "incel" angle, because it's hackneyed and not applicable at all. I think you were a bit predisposed to not like it, because you feel a backstory to a character like his is wholly unnecessary. Yeah, it's a bit on the nose, but still has tension and style and a slow build that works to deliver a satisfying end. To me, anyway.
I think you don't get what makes the topic of incels so tragic and sad. Most of those young men never even tried to ask someone out. And Joker is spot on in portraying some of those lonely people if you ask me.
@@christopherrobin361 Yes, many otherwise empathetic women are incapable of feeling compassion for shy lonely men. For many woman, these men are simply creeps. Perhaps there is even an evolutionary-biological reason behind this attitude. Most woman seems to prefer self-confident men. But yes, fortunately, not all women feel this way.
Disagree but still appreciate the review. I don't think it would have worked if it had followed the direction of "Taxi Driver" too much even though it was clearly a homage. I do NOT want a sequel btw.
I think WB made this movie the way it is cus everybody makes fun of their movies so they said “here fans we’ll give you what you want but here’s a big fuck u in the end if it does well enough we might continue the story if not oh well here you go enjoy"
I don’t dislike this film, but otherwise I agree. Kind of meh. Good cinematography, production design and score, but the script and direction aren’t there.
So cool to get your take on the movie. For me, Joker is a simple gothic tone poem; but one crafted with deep conviction. It is the barest of psychological dramas. And though it lacks the complexities of other denser works (i.e. ‘Parasite’), it still manages to strike a very primal chord. The painful saga of solitude on display is universal. Most people might react similarly to the sight of a newborn puppy getting kicked in the street; the movie is not subtle. But not every work of art needs to be. Aretha Franklin’s voice wasn’t subtle either, yet ‘Respect’ is no less sublime because of it... The sound of crashing cymbals can hit the sweet spot just as much as a feather brushing against one’s cheek. During my first (and only) viewing of the film, I simply let it wash over me, not feeling the urge to critique it so much. And I was content to just lose myself in the gritty spectacle of it all. Only afterwards did I notice how its plot totally stacks the deck, setting up the audience to empathize so completely with Arthur (until we don’t). However, one thing is sure: Joaquin’s ‘performance cannot be denied. It’s a riveting performance which hooked me from beginning to end. So while the film’s detractors seem determined to point out its flaws, I am less inclined to do so. It is what it is. ‘Parasite’ is my fave film of the year and I suppose achieves everything ‘Joker’ does not. But I still found ‘Joker’ plenty absorbing and affecting. In the end, the film is like staring at a small, injured insect struggling to crawl its way out of a broken whiskey bottle. And that is fine by me.
Hmm. You say that the Joker's on-screen physical beat-downs aren't metaphorical, but aren't they metaphors for the incessant cultural and spiritual beat-downs and dehumanizing ridicule of so-called "incels"? Aren't they a physical way of illustrating the effects of the very concept of "incel," i.e. the contemptuous social terming and exclusionary branding of certain "types" for whom ridicule has been approved even by those who are supposed to be enlightened and "woke"? Genuinely curious if the film could be shaming the shamers in this way and if that kind of table-turning might be emotionally unwelcome and unsettling. Haven't seen it yet, I'm just comparing the reviews like Rorschach tests at this point, and I know you're one of the more intelligent and insightful film critics. Thanks. The film is certainly striking a nerve...
I respect your opinion but I believe this film is a fucking masterpiece that resembles our current political and economic situation. It’s a shame we had to wait at the end of the decade for a film that would cause audiences to react. In an era of mediocre superhero films. When the audience resonates with the villain than with the hero, then you see something is up.
Unfortunately I'd have to agree, this film feels very hollow.
I would've loved to see a Clockwork Orange-esque Joker backstory that shows him as being completely evil and twisted right from the get go. I don't so much care how he got that way, but I've always been fascinated as to how he would've spent his time prior to meeting Batman.
I said the exact same thing, when the trailer came out I thought it was going to be a clock work orange balls to the wall movie. But of course they played it safe and made a very simplistic movie.
At this point Im actually a bit annoyed that people keel calling referring to this movie as an "incel anthem".It has nothing to do with incel.
You're exactly right. it seems that some people think it's sensible to just throw that concept around aimlessly even though Arthur Fleck is not an incel.
Exactly lol
But incels have similar alienation as joker and relate to him. The movie Joker is based on Taxi Driver is about an MGTOW/incel type individual sick with society.
@@supreme1572 I can see a lot of people able to relate to Arthur.He represents the ultimate disfranchised person in this Gotham,but the reasons for his downfall in this movie has so little to do with incel that I bet most actual real life incels who were hyped up with all those "incel anthems" would end up feeling confused and disappointed after watching the movie.This movie has inspired a lot of things ever since it came out,but incel has not been one of them,as far as I know
@@supreme1572 Travis Bickle is also not an incel. Honestly, do some people who watch these film just not understand their blatant message? Travis in Taxi Driver also does not harm his love interest, Betsy, he gets angry at her at the beginning but he's out to get the people who are ruining society because he is mentally ill, and not an incel.
I disagree with you completely on this movie but I love your reviews Maggie
Jay from red letter media called it baby's first Taxi Driver
A tip: watch movies on Flixzone. Been using them for watching all kinds of movies during the lockdown.
@Colin Ellis definitely, been watching on flixzone for since november myself :)
@Colin Ellis definitely, have been watching on Flixzone for years myself :)
I actually think she'd like Jay from redlettermedia. Both like italian horror and are huge cinephiles.
While I do agree that it does borrow too much from Martin Scorsese's films, that's about all that's actually wrong with it honestly lol.
I remember really liking this movie when i saw it in the theater. But a few months later, i saw Parasite, also in the theater, and it became really hard for me to look at Joker the same way. To me, it always seemed like Parasite tackles the problem of social classes a million times better than Joker. The Park family, despite being kind of eccentric and ignorant (like when they called the rain a "blessing"), was still portrayed as a normal family. It's a much more down to earth movie.
Agreed. I think Parasite, while not necessarily a subtle movie, is a far more focused and less pretentious movie than Joker. I don't feel like Parasite has to rely on directly galvanizing the audience the way Joker did.
That's not to say I dislike Joker, but I think fans of Joker get caught up on the sheer quantity of shallow commentary Joker makes on contemporary issues rather than the quality of that commentary. They project their own struggles onto the miserable state of Arthur Fleck and think it's genius that Arthur Fleck vaguely symbolizes their own internal struggles.
I think a well-written character has their own very specific conflicts which the audience abstractly relates to on an post-conventional level (which is how Parasite's characters are written), but Joker has the audience relate to his misfortunes on a superficial level. They see him physically suffer, so they believe he is emotionally and ideologically righteous.
Any hacky screenwriter can create a miserable character who garners audience sympathy, just as any hacky screenwriter can show a dog dying on screen to make the audience cry.
I can understand that both Arthur Fleck and Geun-sae need bad stuff to happen to them because it consequently serves as motivations for their later evil actions, but so much of the bad stuff that happens to Arthur Fleck is redundant. Parasite doesn't shove misery in your face for the sake of it. Joker does, and it takes pride in itself for it.
I personally liked it, I respect your opinion (you can't be wrong for not liking it) but it does seem you entered the film already with your mind made up to not like it, like from the opening credits! Like you said you don't think they should make a stand alone joker film and it already rubs you up the wrong way. You think its full of ego. And there is no way joaquin did this to showcase his skills to get an award. Think you are being a tad cynical there. P. S on reflection I know I have done this before to a film where I was dead set on hating something and it definitely tainted my view (in my case unfairly)
Subbed even though I disagree, you've been doing this for years so at least you are genuinely into movies.
I think one of the mistakes modern films make is not actually playfully exploring a theme and establishing images, characters and story arch that create unexpected relationships. The reason joker is boring is because it’s basically 1+1 =2 kind of a formula. Even someone like Spielberg whose film are neatly packaged ideas still have areas of mystery uncertainty and questions.
The main critique I got from this review is that Joker is not as good as the movie taxi driver. The rest of your dissatisfaction you don't explain any of it. Also why are you so hesitant on praising Joacquin's performance? Calling the movie an anthem for incels is actually quite a shallow take of the movie. Russel Brand's review is so well compared to yours mainly because he explains his points very well. I do not have problem with you disliking the movie, but you should explain your points.
I dont think she means Joker isnt "as good" or whatever. She uses Taxi Driver as a way to give examples why the film didnt work for her. Also, I thought she explained all her points quite well
@@MarcEtMichele The fact that she only referenced Taxi Driver discredits her whole review because Joker takes themes from a series of films including King of Comedy and Dog Day Afternoon etc. She didn't do as much research and wasn't as prepared to give a review of this movie as she thinks. So she should revise her review and be prepared with better information.
@@SB-to5lx She doesn't have to reference every single film Joker takes influence from in order to review it. That makes no sense. She talked about the themes outside of her reference to Taxi Driver as well.
@@MarcEtMichele It makes perfect sense because the whole movie isn't just Taxi Driver. Why make a mediocre review with misinformation and lack of knowledge?
@@SB-to5lx Did she talk for 15 minutes about Taxi driver?
If you call leaving out influences as misinformation then every single review of any film ever is misinformed. There is no way you can point out every influencer and go in depth analysing all of them.
When I hear your criticisms of the film, I totally understand and agree with you to a certain extent. Especially with the Taxi Driver complaint, it definitely hinders the experience a little. But when I watched it (twice now), I didn't respond to it the same way as you. When I look at it as a film, I see flaws with it that normally would bother me, but for some reason I just really liked it. I was emotionally invested. It did it's job of making me feel disturbed by this guy, and I left the theatre with a feeling of dread and I couldn't stop thinking about it. It was a surprisingly visceral experience.
It also rips off king of comedy on a disgusting level
You criticize the controversy and oscar buzz, because you've been told there's controversy and oscar buzz. You compare it to Taxi Driver because you've been told it's like or influenced by Taxi Driver. They are definitely two different movies and weren't meant to be as similar as people have indicated. You are too externally influenced.
Hmm, seems like the oscar buzz was real
The similarities between the two films were blatant. How could you not see it?
Absolutely agree, thought I am the only one. This film is absolutely bleached, badly made, looks like an Instagram filtered nonsense. Great review, I enjoy the way you presented your arguments.
It is based on a comic book so I wouldnt be too suprised of it feeling like carricature. Like you said, the Joker is more of symbol than an actual person. The rest is up to the fantasy, that is why it is a near impossible task to make the Joker the centre of a movie and I think why many people are so suprised now is because they didnt think that someone could get so close to giving the Joker an actual acceptable origin story. It had to be on the nose, it had to be over the top and they did a great job at it. Just think of any other Actor trying to create that other than Joaquin Phoenix.. the movie would have flopped and would be a laughing stock indeed. The movie is great imo, and if it is just for seeing Joaquin Phoenix play than so be it.
WOW! finally someone who's not riding the bandwagon and giving an honest, thoughtful review on this overrated movie...this movie is all she said it is , there is nothing interesting about Arthur Fleck, this reviewer has incredible insight
Do you find anything interesting about Theodore Twombly from the film "Her"? don't be a snob be open-minded about a character study.
This is why Arthur did what he did.
It's people like you who drive a person to kill.
I find your takes to be very, very uninteresting.
Very valid points about Travis Bickle as a character vs. Arthur Fleck and why "Taxi Driver" is a better movie than "Joker". Travis' arc doesn't have alienation from the beginning. His profession actually brings him in close contact with the "night life" of the town & he feels he is a social person. This is why the screw-up with Betsy was so impactful,because Travis doesn't really get it. However,Arthur is shown to be alienated from the start. He doesn't really try to fit in & we are already told that he's mentally ill. Much of the promise of "Joker" was showing us why Arthur became Joker. I think the movie is also making some points about mental health & how hard it is to live a normal life when you have such a condition. Something else that makes the movie interesting is the partly random edits. There is a scene where Arthur shuts himself in the fridge,the very next scene he is on his bed. So what happened really? Thus it is possible that we are seeing things only from Arthur's perspective & much of it was false.
But kudos to you for eloquently stating your disappointment(s) with the movie. Valuable & good stuff!
I loved the movie thought it was a masterpiece i think it was a great character study. Sorry you didnt like it but i respect your opinion. Good to watch your reviews again
mos def _not_ a "masterpiece"
A character study of the most inconsistent "character" I've seen in a while
@@diesenutss that's the whole point, Joker is not a reliable narrator.
Then why make a film about him a character study when you literally can't study his character?
@@juicybutterriblydrab they DID studied his character unreliable narrative is just apart of him.
Insightful as always, Maggie. Joker is one of those love it or don’t films…
The Joker is one of those movies where people can’t say I didn’t like it…because “everyone” says it’s great…good job providing your opinion..it reminds me when my brother-in-law said to me..I don’t like the Beatles..ha ha..at first I was like wtf ..but then later I thought 💭 ok 👌 he doesn’t like them..
1. I totally agree with the notion that the director/writer isn't really shining a light on the interesting parts and nuances with these themes, but that doesn't mean that there can be accidents where scenes can become interesting. What I mean is that a director/writer could stumble upon something interesting without them even knowing it, or people can interpret something that is not the writers intention. There are themes here that are touched upon, but overlooked i think due to the fact that they were probably unintentional. Especially the ripping of the late night talk show who is seemingly a left leaning person, and makes jokes about the system (or individuals within the system), but are themselves a part of the system, and therefore will never cross the line where they throw the system under the bus, or give radical solutions. 2. When it comes to this comparison to Taxi Driver i find it very strange because yeah the first act is similar, but the movies stray into very different directions (even though the over arching story has similarities, as do tons of movies). The second act of Joker he traces his family history, he discovers a secret about himself that might explain alot, that might give comfort, but this takes a turn, and the hopelessness comes back. Because most of us aren't special in the same way that Joker is not special, but he does something special. In Taxi Driver Travis makes the "right" choice, he does not assassinate his target, but instead helps out, and kills "the bad people". Joker does not do this, he does the total opposite. Obviously Taxi Driver is a much better movie, but the comparison is at best weak because you could compare this sort of journey to alot of films. I've seen nobody talk about the fact that First Reformed is heavily influenced and is almost at the point of remake of Winter Light. Anyways Joker is an ok movie which sadly today makes it a great movie just because it has a story. Watching this in a real cinema reminded me that movies with bigger budgets can have a story, can be decent if not good. But if you rip that context away I would totally agree with you, compare this to almost any type of indie film, or just a movie made by someone with a vision and a story far surpasses Joker.
Also, it's very cool and a major accomplishment that Todd Phillips and all the actors were able to make a modern throwback to great 70's and 80's films like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy etc. It's truly a successful blend of those films with great nods to that era of films. Why would anybody be so smug as to say that's a bad thing? It shows passion on the part of the director and actors. Robert De Niro signed on, he starred in both movies prior, and he would know better than anyone if this movie was worth starring in as well, so clearly he saw redeeming qualities in this film. Even Martin Scorsese almost produced it. For people to bash this movie for silly, nitpicky nonsense is ridiculous. Look at the glass as half full, not half empty.
This film is a successful throwback to a great era of character study films which incorporates and blends the formula that made those movies great and it works very well. Everyone involved put so much passion and effort into it, there's no need to be negative about a great film. Moreover, Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese aren't so protective of their movies to say that no one can imitate their style because imitation is the best form of flattery. For people to be so defensive about movies with which both the actor and director involved allowed to be imitated is pathetic and looks like sucking up. Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix paid respect and did justice to De Niro's and Scorsese's work. Why be defensive about their films? it's their material, not yours, and they felt Joker was a good homage to their movies, plain and simple.
Taxi Driver and King of Comedy belong to Robert De Niro and Martin Scorsese and they allowed their films to be imitated by Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix because they saw redeeming qualities in the script and style and because they can do what they want with their material. If De Niro and Scorsese didn't like this movie it wouldn't have had much support. Therefore, the fact that De Niro and Scorsese supported this movie speaks volumes and matters more in the grand scheme of things in the film industry than what random, average people think after having seen the movie. It also won the Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, so it's clearly a great film.
Just watched her The Last Jedi review and now understand the Joker review. She is a Disney girl. Deepfocuslens had always planned to give this movie a negative review no matter what. It was obvious with the constant eye rolling and use of the word incel throughout the entire Joker review. The biggest insult was saying paperboy was the best actor in the movie. Joaquin Phoenix performance was fascinating to watch, quite amazing. But she refuses to acknowledge his portray of the Joker. But do you know who she give credit for great acting? Many of the characters in The Last Jedi. She also ranked The Last Jedi second among all Star Wars movies. Her The Last Jedi review is very telling. In the review she wanted the movie to take its time more narrating the story and developing the characters, saying it was moving to fast. Deepfocuslens also said she likes it when things start quiet and small and get bigger and bigger as the movie goes on, because then it feels more earned. Stating they don't make movies like that anymore. Deepfocuslens got the movie she wanted in Joker and rejected the request. There was zero chance Joker would get a positive review from her. That's why the review was vague and off track.
This is strike 2 for her. One more and Im not wayching her anymore. She doesnt even like Shawshank Redemption. That was strike one lol.
@NeanderthalRetardo Speak for yourself. You should at the very least be able to appreciate that movie if youre a fan of films. I just dont know about this chick sometimes.
I don’t think so, and I rooted for this film and really thought I would love it. I watched it last night and have to agree with everything Maggie was saying. Arthur literally had zero pathos and I had no sympathy for him the entire time. It truly just seemed so pretentious for the entire film. He was just being weird for weird’s sake! He didn’t even seem realistically mentally ill...just over the top movie psychotic.
@@titod.7012 please leave without the third strike, you embarassing tool
@@kostajovanovic3711 no you.
I loved the joker its a character analysis film but your not the only one to have your kind of opinion
I just can't get over that the plot hinged on open mic video going viral.
I was wrong to think that the Joker and Batman we're close in age; all the previous films showed the two foes in a similar light. Bruce Wayne looked like a preteen , while Arthur was a thirty something year old man. I am really curious to see a future movie that ties this film with the upcoming Batman reboot in 2021/2022.
I'm glad I'm not the only one that felt this way about it.
One of your few reviews that I completely disagree with.
I would disagree that its hollow, but this is one of those films that I can completely understand if you love it or if you hate it. And it's fine if you didn't like it. Personally I loved it, but that's the great thing about art. Fun fact- Scorcese actually brought the idea for this film to Warner bros with todd Philips. He was supposed to be a producer. This certainly took inspiration from taxi driver but I think they are very different. Travis's story is more of an unravelling while Arthur's story is more about self actualization. One thing that's interesting about this film is that many of the events are meant to be ambiguous, and you're left wondering if any of them actually happened, as arthur is an unreliable narrator, and the joker is delusional and lives in his own fantasy world. The movie becomes a different thing when you look at it from the lense of being anything but literal, and look at all of the subtlety that's in the film. I'd give this a second watch unless you really hated it. Thanks for your thoughts!
Best Joker review. I didn’t buy into JP here. The Master I did.
I realize that I watch your videos before I even look it up on rotten tomatoes.
Keep reviewing movies and never buy a new bookshelf!
The message become more obvious and throat shoving by the scene with de niro.
Again...The Swimmer 1968 plz...I'm dying to hear what you have to say...These psycho-analytical films you have done lately beg for The Swimmer... at least for me
All you said was spot on.
it's a flawed movie and there are lots of reasonable critiques one could have, but nothing you said is among them. I don't understand this review at all.
I barely noticed any real flaws honestly.
Omg ok
Michael Stanley agreed
a flawed movie? what the fuck?!
She didn’t bring up a single coherent criticism
Joker is one of those movies that the average person will go and see and think it's a work of art. Good movie? yeah. Fantastic movie? Not quite. It's frustrating though, there are a fair amount of people that are so convinced its perfect and deep and layered that trying to discuss the flaws of the movie is considered a sin to them.
Honestly it seems to me there are two types of crowds when it comes to this movie. Those that are sparking the controversy and calling it overly violent, etc. And those that think everything it does portrays a tortured soul in society and that people that don't praise it don't get it. Then there are through and through movie goer's and reviewers who look at a movie based on personal film judgment, separate from the positive and negative hype surrounding it. Doesn't mean the film is bad, it does have flaws and shortcomings though. You've proven your thoughtfulness and your movie articulation in previous reviews and you've done so again,Great review!
what are the flaws and shortcomings?
RT. It’s a Taxi Driver rip off minus the heart and soul.
Joker is an ancillary character that doesn’t deserve an origin movie, movie studio execs are just using the legacy of Heath Ledger to milk these casual movie goers and public.
yeah right? It's like a poor man's version of an intelligent film , which people love of course because it gives the impression of being smart while being about as challenging or layered as any generic studio movie
I appreciate your review.
I enjoyed the film. Your discomfort with the film may be why I enjoyed it.
It depicts a society in decline, much like ours. I grew up in the 80’s it “depicts”. The nuanced mental health depiction. How media shaped class struggle as an individuals problem not societal. Also how someone falls thru the cracks.
Loved how it wove the bruce wayne story into the mix and how the joker was born out of societal malaise.
Arthur wasn’t the cause if the demise, he became the spoke person. Arthur was the victim in this film and society was the villain. That makes people uncomfortable.
Years later, she really comes across like she doesn't want reality to be reflected in movies.
@@Serocco Maggie is another big phony, a feminist pseudo-intellectual blowhard. She claims she is very "real" but what is reflected in her videos is pretention and haughtiness, repetition and avoidance of core motivation in film. And I suspect she has a lot of personal issues. Plus if any flick truly depicts men as legitimate victims of purposeful societal neglect and demonization , it's "not her problem" to that effect. This figures considering her personal and political stance. Why anyone would spend a digital ten cents towards her for making vids is laughable. People got suckered in.
Waste of time.
Thank you Maggie, I always love your reviews! Could you please make a video about your favorite movies? I would love to hear your take and try to watch something different since I am not too knowledgeable about films. I'll definitely check taxi driver as a reference too
Seems this one tried to have its cake and eat it too.
No plans on doing *Ad Astra?*
Ad Astra is awful
@@leob4403 only to the low iq
Oh sh*t, I'd overlooked how much this was like King of Comedy (which I adore), even as the comparison to Taxi Driver was so obvious. But now that you mention it, it really is an almost perfect hybrid/redux of them both. And now I have to go watch King of Comedy again. :)
this review is a MASTERWORK. Chapeau.
at least one thing I gave credit to this film this that it makes some people knew about Taxi Driver(in cluding me), one of my fav of all time now.
Hey Maggie ... huge fan of your reviews, you are always so spot on to my way of thinking, however I can't help thinking maybe you went into this one with some pre-conceived ideas, in view of what you spoke about at the end ? Looking forward to seeing the film this week, and watching your review again afterwards. Maybe I'll agree with you ?
thank you for vocalising what i couldnt put into my own words but have been thinking the entire time
I thought it was a bad movie, wannabe arthouse. Bad date is a good analogy. It’s very modern in the sense it cherry picks moments stylistically from it’s reference points with no heart or understanding of what it is truly exploring.
It's good to see another review from you! Welcome back! I respect your opinion but I wish you elaborated on your points a bit more as opposed to just saying this movie is a copy of taxi driver and other movies.
:( Oh well.
The character growth is definitely there for Arthur (in my opinion ofc). He starts as someone just struggling to get by and by the end, he has snapped and given in to his carnal desires. All the while as an audience, we're praying for him not to snap. So the argument of him staying the same in terms of his arc and there not being any growth is another aspect I disagree with.
HRMM interesting review. Like most in the comments I disagree but appreciate your insight.
Also stopping by since your review is the biggest link to mine according to analytics.
Happy reviewing, friend!
-Dj
I didn't dislike it quite as much as you, but I agree completely with your reasons for disliking it. It doesn't explore its themes deeply enough, the writing - not the performance, but the writing - doesn't make Arthur Fleck's descent into madness convincing or meaningful, it doesn't have enough nuance in its direction, and its aesthetic tone, while occasionally intriguing, is mostly drab and monotonous. It rides on a miraculous performance by Joaquin Phoenix, but even a miraculous performance can't save a half-baked script.
I do not care what anyone says. I love this film.
I hated this film
The dialogue was weak
And you’re exactly right
It was very pretentious
I hate the film too.
It’s a blending of Taxi Driver and King of Comedy with a really overrated performance.
I didn’t feel sorry for him and I wasn’t rooting for him.
Halfway through the movie I wanted it to end because of the two movies I mentioned above.
Obviously hated the movie without specifics.
Would love to see you make a video about all of those books beside you.
I'm sorry, Maggie, but I honestly think you've completely missed the entire point of this film.
Explain Ryan if u can please hahahahaha
i agree, good old maggie is a bit snooty at times haha
I have second hand embarrassment from watching this “review.”
@@jello4479 and i from reading this comments buy the likes of you
@@kostajovanovic3711 by*
Just stumbled on your channel. Great review!
I saw an interview with Phillips. He said he had a lot of personal views and philosophies about life and society in general and wanted to make a movie exploring those views...
He though no one would care so he used joker as nothing more than a vehicle....
although i did like the murray franklin scene, the part where joaquin says "there is no punchline, it's not a joke" that line was powerful to me, and yeah i agree with you, i would've loved if there had been more of a relationship between him and the black girl to show the vulnerability, the lack of that kinda made the movie fall on it's face,
Glad to see you’re back! Even though I disagree with you on this one, always love watching your reviews.
Joker is such a different person from Bickle; with such a different manifestation of presence in the world. For you to not see that, simply amazes me. To put it crudely, you seem to imply via default, that crazy is crazy; which is REALLY crazy.
When I watched I was also glad it was over 🙂
People have hyped this movie up so much that I don't want to watch it, because I'm worried that I'll be unfair to it. I've had it spoiled anyway, which really doesn't help.
And yes when I've heard people talking about it I have legitimately thought they were talking about either Taxi Driver and/or The King Of Comedy.
On rewatch 9 months later I couldn't agree ore with your review. Its ultimately a banal film which pulls its punches and neglects to explore the interesting avenues that it hints at.
She seems to miss the point of the movie, a beaten down man turning bad and getting a self-esteem soul when he flings away his inhibitions. She already knew her review before she saw it. She's one of the people that the movie's against: upper society people who he wants to take away control from. She doesn't even like Joaquin's performance! People love him because he really does a perfect person with nothing to lose after being beaten down. She hated the Joker before even seeing it. Why is she reviewing it?
indeed.
society
Definitely giving this video a big fat LIKE. I really find this film being wayyy overrated by other critics.
Obviously you've never seen the film before.
@@RyansChannel0203 Um, yes i have dumbass. Where exactly do you get off telling other people who you don't even know on the Internet what movies they have and haven't seen?
@@RyansChannel0203 "he didn't like the film so he must not have seen it !" Yeahhh....sure, because anyone ever who watches the movie must automatically like it even when they don't.... I'm guessing you also think that Maggie in this video is just playing an early april fools joke then by saying she doesn't like this film very much?
@@LoverOfManyArts Sure you have. Lol, btw I'm sure Maggie saw the film, even though I felt like she completely misunderstood it.
really? i think it's underrated
In 2024 I just come here to see you in different tops x
I really enjoy watching your movie reviews. May I suggest that you do a movie review of the movie Rope from Hitchcock. This is my favorite Hitchcock movie, even though Hitchcock considered it as a "experiment that did not work". It seems to become a polarizing movie as some people love while others hate, I am curious to hear your opinion about it.
absolutely contrived, agenda driven review. The performances were great, the shots were beautiful, and well directed. This is just a review out of spite, and quite frankly your hate just spews from your pores. You can try and dress it up with all your BS excuses. Again, any review that tries to tell YOU , the viewer, how to take things is a BS review. It has an agenda. Joker was and will always be Oscar worthy, and is a great, great film. Alot deeper than this person, that's for sure.
I watched Taxi Driver for the first time after watching Joker, and I really felt like Taxi Driver is overhyped. Travis feels overplayed, the themes feel like they are forcing themselves down your throat, the writing doesn’t hold up. I think the Joker was a decent attempt to take that story and create it for a modern audience.
You gotta be kidding me.... if anything Joker beats its themes over the audience head WAY more. Joker even has 5 minute monologue on Bobby Ds talk show explaining the whole theme of the movie and how people look down on others with mental illness. It’s so obvert and tacky.
You’re wrong on this one
what? you're actually delusional.
Great review, I had similar feelings. Was surprised it was getting lauded.
Would you review "The Day of the Locust" (1975)?
100% agree, the first scene was like: ok, this is obvious and totally silly.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.
Oh my god! Thank you so much!
Even when I disagree with you, I still love hearing your thoughts on a film because of how you articulate your opinion, and have valid reasons to back them up.
I completely understand and respect your opinion and you verbalized it in a very well spoken way but I do disagree with you because I think even if the movie wasn’t too subtle it was still impactful to my emotions.
You didn't understand the movie
It’s not a perfect film but compared to the excuse for movies that come out these days this movie is fantastic. It can’t be a 100% accurate telling of mental breakdown, it’s a movie so has to concentrAte on specific issues. I Can’t believe you saw nothing positive in this movie, for a comic movie I thought it was a great description of how a comic baddy is created, he’s not supposed to be liked or sympathetic. I Must say I was surprised and loved the movie and I’ve actually watched about 5 or 6 times. Yes it’s not perfect and clumsy in places but I thought it was a great central performance, I thought it brought some reality and something a normal to an extreme character. However I did hate the singing of send in the clowns, that was ridiculous, I’ll give you that. Knowing how my brain works I’ll hate this movie by next week and have to delete this comment
By the way.. Yes.. Taxi driver is a great movie. Haven't seen it in a few years now.. I'm fairly certain I haven't changed my mind about it.
Hey, just want to say. New fan, came across a video looking into the idea of whether we can divorce a bad author from a good piece of fiction or art. I agree in the most part that the movie was rather sloppy, but given the idea that the whole story is supposed to be questionably into his head it's just the unreliable narrator taken to nth degree. It's interesting but it for sure stymies the story when stacked against the movies it's riffing from who don't make as much pains to divorce the character from his surroundings at every given instance in their cinematic ordeals (you get an idea of the real world surrounding them so it gives more of harrowing message about their delerium when things start to go askew).
As for the "incel anthem" thing, I think that was part of the controversy around it, however I think you much like the media misinterpreted it as a propaganda piece when it isn't. It's about a mentally ill guy thrust into a social movement he isn't fully aware of what it represents.
About how people misinterpret reality around them to suit an agenda.
His agenda was to find love in some way and he found it with a braying mob due to his criminally insane antics. their agenda was mount a social movement on the back of a crazy person they don't really understand.
unfortunately I'm with you, beyond the broader subtext above the film was almost a parody gritty crime and psychological dramas (scorse's in particular). With a better story (which may arguably be impossible given the nature of the character as you mentioned in the end) it may have had something to fall back on other that Joaquin Phoenix's stellar performance as the joker.
Still loving the content though. Still a fan!
Todd Phillips hates people. I doubt any of us know him personally, but ………. he hates us. He's very resolute in his hatred.
I found a respect for aspects of the story that clearly weren't the main focus, based largely on personal experience and what's happened to those close to me. (There are platforms tailor-made to properly discuss mental illness and suicide. UA-cam is not one of them.) I found a deep discomfort that Phoenix delivered; yes he did; the film's editors helped. I found a melancholy that would maybe work if melancholy wasn't "in vogue" with Hollywood directors.
After typing this comment, what I'm going to do is look up your Lovely Bones review from '09. I remember The Lovely Bones having a tone, color palate (at least in among-the-living scenes), and ambition to apply dark, sensitive subjects to pure fiction that overlaps with what "Joker" is trying to do this whole decade later.
I wasn't a fan either
You read my mind on this review...the majority of your opinions usually are, I value your input, even when disagreeable...thanks for the review~
One of the reasons why the leftist media had their knives out for this film, I think, from when I saw it, is that it depicted the central white character, as being stranded alone, in an atomised way, in a multiracial society. The scenes in the city, on the bus, in his apartment, is a white man who is alienated, alone. I’m not saying this was the central theme, but a theme that the director either consciously or unconsciously sneaked into the film. And I think the critics had a knee jerk reaction to this.
Alienated, lonely white men have been a staple of cinema classics, whether it's The Apartment, The Godfather or There Will Be Blood, all of them adored by critics
@@stivklif those films may be about the alienation of single white men, who are atomised in society- not pertaining to race. I’m saying the alienation in this film was a white man feeling a sense of alienation in a multi cultural backdrop, where his culture is being eroded. My point still stands.
@@hisalexness8478 well, your point is a little clearer at least. For you the theme of Joker is the loss of white supremacy and whether violence is the best way to respond to living alongside people from other cultural backgrounds? If not, what do you mean when you say Arthur's culture is being eroded?
@@stivklif I didn’t make any of those points. I originally said that part of the alienation of the character, seemingly on a subliminal level…is that he (a white guy) is always depicted as a white minority in the landscapes that he moves through. I wondered wether this was a conscious or unconscious depiction by the director. I said this may have been an equally subconscious reason why critics took against the film.
@@stivklif my original point was very clear - you chose to wilfully misunderstand it, probably due to your personal politics.
Great to see you again, Maggie!
this movie was hilarious in a good way
It's an homage to Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, but not comparable. I actually liked the film, though I agree that it was a bit pretentious. However, I don't like that you invoke the "incel" angle, because it's hackneyed and not applicable at all. I think you were a bit predisposed to not like it, because you feel a backstory to a character like his is wholly unnecessary. Yeah, it's a bit on the nose, but still has tension and style and a slow build that works to deliver a satisfying end. To me, anyway.
I think you don't get what makes the topic of incels so tragic and sad. Most of those young men never even tried to ask someone out. And Joker is spot on in portraying some of those lonely people if you ask me.
@@christopherrobin361 Yes, many otherwise empathetic women are incapable of feeling compassion for shy lonely men. For many woman, these men are simply creeps. Perhaps there is even an evolutionary-biological reason behind this attitude. Most woman seems to prefer self-confident men. But yes, fortunately, not all women feel this way.
Good, honest review - thanks.
>it's a taxi driver rip off, so it isn't good, but Arthur doesn't follow the same character arc as Travis Bickle, so it isn't good
Did you even see the first whole chunk of the video
She says Joker just doesn't even HAVE a character arc. Keep up.
Attractive middle class woman doesn’t understand the joker. Woah, shocker!
Disagree but still appreciate the review. I don't think it would have worked if it had followed the direction of "Taxi Driver" too much even though it was clearly a homage. I do NOT want a sequel btw.
YES! It was a waste of time!
Please do a review of "Parasite" by Bong Joon Ho
I think WB made this movie the way it is cus everybody makes fun of their movies so they said “here fans we’ll give you what you want but here’s a big fuck u in the end if it does well enough we might continue the story if not oh well here you go enjoy"
I respect your review because movies are subjective but if you ask me.... to quote Arthur ...all I have are negative thoughts.lol
I don’t dislike this film, but otherwise I agree. Kind of meh. Good cinematography, production design and score, but the script and direction aren’t there.
So cool to get your take on the movie.
For me, Joker is a simple gothic tone poem; but one crafted with deep conviction.
It is the barest of psychological dramas. And though it lacks the complexities of other denser works (i.e. ‘Parasite’), it still manages to strike a very primal chord.
The painful saga of solitude on display is universal. Most people might react similarly to the sight of a newborn puppy getting kicked in the street; the movie is not subtle.
But not every work of art needs to be. Aretha Franklin’s voice wasn’t subtle either, yet ‘Respect’ is no less sublime because of it... The sound of crashing cymbals can hit the sweet spot just as much as a feather brushing against one’s cheek.
During my first (and only) viewing of the film, I simply let it wash over me, not feeling the urge to critique it so much. And I was content to just lose myself in the gritty spectacle of it all. Only afterwards did I notice how its plot totally stacks the deck, setting up the audience to empathize so completely with Arthur (until we don’t).
However, one thing is sure: Joaquin’s ‘performance cannot be denied. It’s a riveting performance which hooked me from beginning to end.
So while the film’s detractors seem determined to point out its flaws, I am less inclined to do so. It is what it is.
‘Parasite’ is my fave film of the year and I suppose achieves everything ‘Joker’ does not.
But I still found ‘Joker’ plenty absorbing and affecting.
In the end, the film is like staring at a small, injured insect struggling to crawl its way out of a broken whiskey bottle.
And that is fine by me.
Hmm. You say that the Joker's on-screen physical beat-downs aren't metaphorical, but aren't they metaphors for the incessant cultural and spiritual beat-downs and dehumanizing ridicule of so-called "incels"? Aren't they a physical way of illustrating the effects of the very concept of "incel," i.e. the contemptuous social terming and exclusionary branding of certain "types" for whom ridicule has been approved even by those who are supposed to be enlightened and "woke"? Genuinely curious if the film could be shaming the shamers in this way and if that kind of table-turning might be emotionally unwelcome and unsettling. Haven't seen it yet, I'm just comparing the reviews like Rorschach tests at this point, and I know you're one of the more intelligent and insightful film critics. Thanks. The film is certainly striking a nerve...
Actual Incels do that to others and deserve to be mocked.
In the words of the Joker:You just don´t get it!
2035 = The Jester
I've seen comparisons with Fight Club (1999) saying that Fight Club is what Joker couldn't be, what say you?
@NeanderthalRetardo *themes* not the actual plot of the movie, I would hope you would be able to figure that out, if you've seen both movies.
@NeanderthalRetardo interesting take on it
I respect your opinion but I believe this film is a fucking masterpiece that resembles our current political and economic situation. It’s a shame we had to wait at the end of the decade for a film that would cause audiences to react. In an era of mediocre superhero films. When the audience resonates with the villain than with the hero, then you see something is up.