I know nerds on IMDb have a tendency to 10/10 any comic book movie when it’s first released, but is this movie actually worth the hype? Rotten Tomatoes suggests it’s pretty good, but not amazing or groundbreaking like the 9.2 rating on IMDb would suggest. Or is it just a bunch of nerds blindly upvoting anything from a comic book?
shareMy hot take in 10 words: Expertly crafted, but not the film I was looking for.
The main problem, in my view, is the lack of action. Yes, I know that it was going to be a more grounded, character-focused piece, but I still thought that at some point in the movie we'd get around to seeing the Joker do some real Joker shit and the film just never gets there.
With that said though, for what the film is, it is very well-made. It's exquisitely directed and acted and has some visuals that are pure eye candy.
You called it a "comic book movie" and it's not that. It actually could've used more comic book movie.
> but I still thought that at some point in the movie we'd get around to seeing the Joker do some real Joker shit and the film just never gets there
but that would have cost actual money to make ;-)
That's a good point about the money, but hey, it had a $55 million budget. By comparison, John Wick 1 only had a $20 million budget and John Wick 2 only cost $40 million. So you can do action without having Marvel money.
shareThat is interesting. I wonder if the movie makers figured out they could just pocket most of the budget for themselves, and cash in that way? :-)
shareI'm sure Phoenix got paid a lot. De Niro probably didn't work for peanuts either, even though he's only in the movie for a handful of scenes. I doubt that Phillips made all that much in comparison because directors rarely do.
It would be interesting to know exactly where all the money went for sure. With $55 million they definitely could've done SOMETHING to give us a big finale, but it doesn't seem like anyone involved was even interested in that.
De Niro was probably paid A LOT, because he was actually good in this. It is known that he has no shame in just taking any money and get away with it without putting even an ounce of effort (e.g., Dirty Granpa, etc.)
shareYou know, I actually noticed that De Niro seemed to really be making an effort this time around. As you say, he was pretty good.
Speaking of just taking any money that's offered to him, one example I can offer up is the the film Heist from a few years ago. That's a truly terrible film. Gina Carano co-stars, and while she has never been a great actress, good directors have been able to get a competent performance out of her. Not so in this case though. She delivered one of the worst performances I've ever seen in all my years of watching movies. The fact that De Niro got wrapped up in that mess shows that he really doesn't give a fuck anymore, as long as a paycheck's involved.
It deserves higher than 69 that the critics are giving it, but lower than the 90+ that fanboys are giving it. It's like a tug-o-war between two equally strong retarded kids.
Some things about the movie are amazing. Mainly, that it treads into territory that I never thought a comic book movie would cover. And I loved the score and the acting. It is MUCH more of a movie in the vein of Taxi Driver than it is a movie in the superhero genre. But it is also pretty flawed, especially the writing
And before any of you nerds lecture me on how Rotten Tomatoes REALLY works, I know. But it works well-enough as a shorthand for the quality of the film if you want to be lazy about it