MovieChat Forums > Joker (2019) Discussion > Not impressed after watching it for the ...

Not impressed after watching it for the 2nd time...

posted 5 years ago by CinemaDemon989 (1286)
42 replies | jump to latest

I know this may be an extremely unpopular opinion. But after watching Joker for the second time, I must say...I wasn't impressed. Now, there have been a ton of movies that I watched for the first time, and didn't like; but then after a second viewing, I ended up enjoying. But in this case, it was the exact opposite. The first time I watched this movie, I thought it was great. I was ranting and raving about how epic it was. But now...not so much. And here's why:

First off, let me just say that Joaquin Phoenix's performance was most certainly not the problem in this film. He delivered an excellent performance. No doubt about that. In my opinion, this film suffered from bad and lazy writing. Simple as that.

There were so many subplots that I felt were unnecessary. For example; Arthur's dad being Thomas Wayne. Arthur having a past of his mom abusing him. Arthur living with his mom. Arthur's relationship being all in his head. These elements within the story weren't appealing. In fact, they were just downright boring, and made the story drag on into a pointless and bland direction. I really hated the whole Thomas Wayne aspect of the story. Seriously, that didn't do anything for me.

And overall, after 20 minutes or so, I just felt so bored with the film. Which is shame really. Yet again, this goes back to the writing. The poor writing is what made this film boring. This film suffered from many dull moments.

And one thing that really, really bothered the living hell out of me...was Arthur's constant laughter. Now I know some people might attribute Arthur's laughing condition to the whole Joker persona. But after a while, I just found it downright annoying. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few manic laughs here and there would've been okay. But I actually feel like some moments of laughter were used in the film as a dialogue filler. Like the writers couldn't think of anything else. It just annoyed me.

And lastly, the dialogue. Yet again, this goes back to the writing. I felt like some of the dialogue in this film was so weak and unimaginative. Improved and more in-depth dialogue would've helped.

The first upside to this film was the cinematography. I mean, seriously, the cinematography was great. But still, great cinematography simply isn't enough to save a film from bad writing. Yet again, Joaquin's performance was great. The score was really good. And there were definitely a few memorable scenes. But overall, I think this film didn't live up to it's full potential. It was a missed opportunity. It could've been so much better.

[–] abigolcwock (517) 5 years ago

Although I haven't rewatched it, I agree and think it's a movie that probably gets worse and worse on subsequent rewatches

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I watched it for the second time the other day and loved it even more. I had no problem with any of the subplots or the dialogue.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Exactly the same thing for me. Even better the second time. Felt like it went by faster also. I don't re-watch movies very often.. and I'm thinking about re-watching this one for a third time. I can't really put my finger on the "why" but I think it's the kind of movie you can watch a couple of times and have a different impression of it each time.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) 5 years ago

Oh well, as Arthur/Joker would say...."You wouldn't get it".

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

lol

Damn...I can't even argue with that.

[–] Poopsey1 (946) 5 years ago

Do you really need o write "lol"???? why do you do it?

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Cause I wanted to.

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2250) 5 years ago

Brilliant!

[–] looper007 (1158) 5 years ago

Listen you are entitled to you're opinion, I don't agree with it. One thing that's surprised me about Joker is how successful it became, cause it's really a downbeat art house film with a comic book character. The film is awesome, with a great central performance to make over 1 billion at the box office is crazy.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

and rated R

[–] looper007 (1158) 5 years ago

That too, totally forgot that. it was 15 over here, so I could imagine a lot of kids asking parents and older siblings to bring them to see it.

[–] dmac8 (5050) 5 years ago

but it wasn't a Deadpool, potty mouth R. It was the kind of movie an adult wouldn't recommend for young kids. to make a 1 billion without kids flooding the mall theater is difficult.

[–] chubacheeba (59) 5 years ago

Joker is most certanly not arthouse. What is arthouse about it? Its a poor mans intellectual super hero block buster.
Why the need to seem intellectual?

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chubacheeba (59) 5 years ago

Art house is; "a cinema which specializes in showing films that are artistic or experimental rather than merely entertaining."
Could you please enlighten me whats art house about a blockbuster hollywood super hero movie? Joker is in no way artistic. It is a homage to the styles of the new wave in hollywood in the late 60s early 70s. Its most certainly not experimental.
Just because it is slow, and copies the artistic camera use of Daren Aronofsky's photographer and the set design of Taxi Dricer and Kings of Comedy. Dosnt make it art house.

If you really want to watch art house, watch art house. If that is your thing. Just dont do it if you just want to feel smart. That would be as superficial as the Joker movie is.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

[deleted]

[–] chubacheeba (59) 5 years ago

In a world saturated by instagram and superficiality Joker gave a lot of shallow people a chance to feel deep, I guess? Define art house as you want.

[–] illnagas (457) 5 years ago

How is it an homage to 60s/70s? That just sounds like something stupid people say to try and sound smart.

[–] chubacheeba (59) 5 years ago

how is it a homage? It replicates many scenes from taxi driver and king of comedy. Todd Phillips even stated so.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"Arthur's dad being Thomas Wayne."
He WASN'T, that's the point. He'd been led to believe that by his mother, who wasn't even his real mother.

"Arthur having a past of his mom abusing him. Arthur living with his mom."
She WASN'T his mother, that's the point. He was adopted, and he didn't even know it until he read the dossier at the hospital. That'd be enough to warp ANYONE, to be honest.

"These elements within the story weren't appealing. In fact, they were just downright boring, and made the story drag on into a pointless and bland direction. I really hated the whole Thomas Wayne aspect of the story. Seriously, that didn't do anything for me."
If you thought your father was a rich man, and it turned out that he wasn't, that you were adopted, were poor, and your mother had lied to you all your life and had her boyfriend abuse you, then I think you'd turn out warped, too. The hospital dossier on Arthur's "mother" is what drove him over the edge.

"And one thing that really, really bothered the living hell out of me...was Arthur's constant laughter. Now I know some people might attribute Arthur's laughing condition to the whole Joker persona. But after a while, I just found it downright annoying. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few manic laughs here and there would've been okay. But I actually feel like some moments of laughter were used in the film as a dialogue filler. Like the writers couldn't think of anything else. It just annoyed me."
The Joker, in all his forms, has always had that sinister laugh. Why should this be any different?

"And lastly, the dialogue. Yet again, this goes back to the writing. I felt like some of the dialogue in this film was so weak and unimaginative. Improved and more in-depth dialogue would've helped."
An example of "weak" and "unimaginative" would help. Please provide something.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Responding to your first remarks, regarding Thomas Wayne and Arthur's mother. Okay, so maybe I didn't follow along with the story completely. Maybe I misunderstood some things. But that's the point. I found those portions of the story-line so dull and boring, that I didn't even care to follow along and understand. Those subplots complicated everything, and sent the story into an unnecessary direction...in my opinion.

And yeah, the laugh seriously bothered me. Arthur was constantly laughing. Sure, it was consistent with his character. But it was annoying, and didn't add any depth to his character at all. At some point, I was just like..."Okay, I get it. Arthur has a laughing condition."

I expected the dialogue to have a more philosophical and in depth tone to it. The dialogue is what should've added to the Joker's personality. For example, Heather Ledger's Joker character in The Dark Knight had some epic and unforgettable lines of dialogue. Like, "Upset the established order and everything becomes chaos." The dialogue in that film is what turned Ledger's simple character as a super villain, into an iconic representation of chaos and disorder. It added more depth and meaning into the Joker's character. I'm not even a fan of The Dark Knight film. But I can't deny that Ledger's performance as the Joker was unforgettable. He was so convincing.

There was a line of dialogue at the end of this 2019 Joker film, when he was on the Murray Franklin show, that went something along the lines of, "They think we're just gonna sit there and take it like good little boys." I just thought that line of dialogue was so weak and cringe worthy to be honest. Now, don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the tone and build up of that scene. But the weak dialogue disappointed me. I expected Arthur / Joker's character to let out some sort of epic climatic villainous speech. But no...that didn't happen. It was ultimately unsatisfying.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I thought Arthur's speech on the Murray Franklin Show was perfect, he was venting his frustrations about how society had treated him and others, how close he was to tipping over the edge, how even his "hero", Murray, had betrayed him by mocking him with his own video of the stand-up routine, and that the loaded gun he carried in his pocket, at that moment of pure anger, is what led him to do what he did and release that anger so that his insane joy could thrive, and he could bask in the adulation of his new followers when they freed him from captivity later.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"The first upside to this film was the cinematography. I mean, seriously, the cinematography was great. But still, great cinematography simply isn't enough to save a film from bad writing. Yet again, Joaquin's performance was great. The score was really good. And there were definitely a few memorable scenes. But overall, I think this film didn't live up to it's full potential. It was a missed opportunity. It could've been so much better."
Why don't you tell us HOW it could've been "better"? I thought it was BRILLIANT as it was, to be honest.

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

it was over rated

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2250) 5 years ago

Why because there wasn’t a flying guy, a green monster, or a zillion explosions in the movie?

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 5 years ago

No , because it was over rated , why do you assume explosions and green monsters make a good movie ?

[–] TalkinPikchorBox (2250) 5 years ago

This film strayed away from the typical comic book movie. So if this isn't to your liking then the other style has to be. If not then you're in the wrong genre.

[–] QueenFanUSA (3379) 5 years ago

@furiousstyles...he's wanting you to elaborate on just WHY you think it's overrated.

[–] exithereplease (3553) 5 years ago

I have no idea...

But the Spectrum previews are exhausting.

[–] CinemaDemon989 (1286) 5 years ago

Yes, indeed they were.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

For me, it's a message movie.

It's about mental health and society. It's not a film with a big plot. There were no "Oh Snaps" or "hell yeah" it was about how a nice person goes crazy in an evil joke of a world.

I may watch it with a friend or 20 years from now, but it's not a movie I will end up watching more than once.

[–] ramcha (62) 5 years ago

i don't see any message in it at all.
mental health maybe but society definitely not. all we see is bunch of people bullying him. that's not society. and him getting bullied in the train is not realistic at all for it to be commentary about our society. and almost all of the movie, we only follow him and he interacts with very few people.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I don't think it's a "message movie" as TheAdlerian sees it, but I think it has stuff to say.

It's biggest theme is mental health, of course. It comments on what it's like to live that way, on and off drugs. It's pessimistic, showing the downside to on and off. It also goes after the callousness of the system, the lack of funding, the lack of care for the left-behinds...

Speaking of... The movie's other major theme is the war and the gap between the classes. The mob of the downtrodden getting sick of the whole game being rigged, the wealthy elite ignoring or ignorant. I saw it as taking shots at the modern left and right wings - the former being a mob of psychotic sheep and the latter being sneering, hording bullies. Politically I found it also cynical, but maybe accurate. It's crying out for us to find a better way before we eat each other alive. Ironically, given the paradox of the pre-release backlash about how it was going to be an "incel movie", I thought it was pretty even-handed in its political commentary. It certainly didn't glorify incel behaviour.

The film has stuff to say about heroes and villains, icons and iconoclasts. It wants to show that there's another side to the story.

It also is a major character study of what happens when you push a person too far (or a Society, a population, etc.)

It hits the media and their relationship with sensational violence.

I think it has a lot to say. Personally, I believe it said these things effectively, if nihilistically. But the ultimate message is a cry for empathy, justice, and compassion in society and in our personal lives. That's my takeaway from the film. For me, it was a powerful movie with a lot of great commentary and a superlative lead performance. If you didn't get that out of the film, if it wasn't your cup of tea: cool. But I think it was trying to say some stuff about society as well as the individuals, and it had a lot to say.

[–] ramcha (62) 5 years ago

it should have focused more on mental health instead of trying to go all over the place and reaching nowhere.

i don't see anything you say in the movie. movie barely interacts with ten people and we don't even see their story or struggles. so saying this movie has something to show about society doesn't make any sense.

contrary to that, joker's little social experiment with two boats in "the dark knight" raises question what would someone do in similar situation and the movie shows it from the perspective of people who have to make that choice and their reasoning behind the choice. that scene alone shows about different people in society than the whole joker movie. outcome may not be realistic but it manages to show difference between people.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

I'm not sure how, in The Dark Knight, a few minutes with the two boats to recreate a well-known philosophical thought experiment is giving you more insight into society than a handful of scenes in the Joker which depict a the growing threat of the mob as the social anarchy thermometer heads towards "sweltering"... But, again: if you didn't get anything out this movie, that's fair.

All I'm saying: I did. I saw all of that stuff in the movie. I actually thought it was handled subtly and well with a lot of "show don't tell", having it all happening and weaving with Arthur's story nicely.

[–] ramcha (62) 5 years ago

in that little scene, you can see different reactions from different people and different aspects of society. fear, leadership, hate, cowardice(wanting someone else to do the dirty work), indecisiveness, awareness(the guy who figures out criminals have decided not to blow other boat), morals, democracy, bureaucracy, tribal mentality(us vs them) etc. it's basically short version of 12 angry men.

[–] Ace_Spade (9544) 5 years ago

The Dark Knight scene is a fine scene at showing what Nolan wanted to get at. I found it a bit on-the-nose, and the notion that somebody wouldn't push that button in that situation required a little suspension of disbelief, but it worked.

I was wondering how you could see/get the messaging in that one scene but miss the political statements made throughout Joker.

[–] TheAdlerian (2092) 5 years ago

You are probably a sheltered person.

I live in Philly and people have been BEATEN TO DEATH for not being an Eagles fan at a game, kicked to death.

A female friend of mine was on a plane and she had a mask on because she was worried about the virus situation. The people on the plane started screaming at her and getting nasty yelling "Get out!" because they thought she had the virus.

Those are just two things off the top of my head.

Imagine getting kicked to death because you like a football team.

You need to experience life more.

I had a friend of mine who grew up in a biker gang. They used to fuck her as a kid, shoot her up with heroin, then later use her as a child prostitute, which she was totally cool with at the time because she didn't know better. Now, she's a fairly vicious and fucked up adult.

[–] YomoMagashi (3) 5 years ago

Do you have a personal story to back up everything you say on these boards? Because you seem to argue a lot and always have a fucked up example of someone you knew or something you went through in your life to back up your statements. Also, you seem like you have had plenty different careers. I'm not calling bullshit on what you say, I just think it's a bit inconsistent at times.

[–] YomoMagashi (3) 5 years ago

While I agree with you guys about the fact that Joker has many things to say and seem to make many criticism about society, and I find it kind of odd that Ramcha didn't see any messages there but, however, have seen the message in that one The Dark Knight scene... We can't say that he is wrong because everyone sees movies from a personal lense. Here where I live, there is a good saying (it's in French because I'm living in a French speaking area): ''L'oeuvre n'appartient plus à l'auteur à partir du moment où il l'a rend accessible au public'' (or something in that order, I don't remember the exact phrasing). Which literally translates to: ''An artwork stops belonging to the author from the moment he makes it available to the public (or rather, publishes-release it)''. All that means is that even the vision that the author had while writing it isn't so relevant anymore because everyone will makes his own interpretation.

I've seen movies which talked a lot to me, while most people I know who have seen them are like ''what the hell? stop seeing what's not there''; vice versa, there are movies that seem to speak a lot to most people, while they really don't have much significance to me.

A good personal example is Cannibal Holocaust. Most people seem to only see it as a gore-fest (not saying it isn't because it is) which only only rely on shock value by showing disturbing and disgusting sequences, which are getting worse and worse throughout the movie. Yes, there is that. However, I see a message behind all this: it's a criticism of the modern society, more precisely, the modern man. The way it depicted the film crew clearly showed that these people really thought that they are the center of the universe and that only they mattered. It's a lot like humankind (especially civilized people) tend to be, thinking that he is on the top of the world. I can't blame people for not seeing it, because the ''savages'' are not exactly sweet neither.

[–] YomoMagashi (3) 5 years ago

As for an opposite example, for me the prime example is the movie Trainspotting. I don't like the movie and yeah, I know, this is a quite unpopular opinion. Most people I know tell me that they see a great exploration of themes like redemption, success, social prejudices, lack of social support for drug addicts, etc. Yeah, I'm not blind neither, it is there... on some form. Nevertheless, the message really doesn't reach me because:

1) I didn't feel any compassion for the heroin-addicts, I actually simply felt like they were all a waste of oxygene, so, I didn't root for them. In that respect, Requiem for a Dream did a well better job because the dramatic (I'd even say tragic tone) of the movie made a real effect on me at the end and I felt sorry for some characters (not all). Maybe the more comic approach in Trainspotting ruined it for me.

2) I know it is a satire and a dark comedy. Don't get me wrong, I love less conventional comedies which deal with more serious subject matter. I just didn't feel that it was the appropriate tone for THIS movie.

3) I personally thought it was kind of ''bad taste''. I don't think that drug addiction is a laughing matter, but that's just me.

Bottom line, the interpration of a book, movie, stage-play or lyrics from a song lays in the eyes of the beholder. And by the way, I personally prefer The Dark Knight over Joker... even though I think that Joker is, objectively, a way better crafted, more experimental and, overall, stronger movie than The Dark Knight. Considering all this, I don't blame people who really didn't see that much in Joker, I just know that I absolutely loved it. It had been a long time (when I went to see it in theater) that I didn't leave the movie theater being like ''WOW! that was awesome''. It's dark, depressing, without comic relief and it really took a new approach to the Batman universe.