Travis Bickle only killed "bad" dudes, is he a great guy?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
JOKER |OT| Viviamo in una società |SPOILERS|
- Thread starter Cpt-GargameL
- Start date
Travis Bickle only killed "bad" dudes, is he a great guy?
I thought this scene was really well done and shows that the Joker we see in this movie is actually complex and interesting. The juxtaposition between how he acts behind the curtain (internal) versus how he acts in front of it (external) is really well done.
It shows that he's become a great manipulator and is starting to really turn into the character.
It shows that he's become a great manipulator and is starting to really turn into the character.
Last edited:
Jack Napier was from the Burton film, named for Jack Nicholson and Alan Napier (Alfred in the 60's Batman). It was used in the animated series as one of many names the Joker used but wasn't his official name outside of the Burtonverse.
I mean that's his schtick. He's been doing that since the old place.
Murray too? Sure the guy used banter to further his career but his moral compass was in the right place when he was disgusted towards the end.
She was delusional I thought, she didn't seem to have a grip on reality.
Lol, I totally forgot he does a lil' jig after killing Murray. I went into the movie thinking he was going to kill Murray 'cus I came across a meme that sorta hinted at something like that but even with that knowledge, that scene was insanely intense. It honestly got my adrenaline going, which is not something that happens a lot with movies.
Oh, okay, I've only read some Batman one-off / limited series comics... not really versed in the lore.
I read somewhere that this is exactly the case. Todd Phillips wanted to make a movie that tackles the themes of the movie, WB wanted a Joker movie, and ta-da—JOKER is born.
She was hardcore gaslighting him and putting him down on the sly throughout on top of enabling his childhood abuse.
Just got back from seeing it a couple of hours ago. Really wasn't a fan. The performances are good, but they're sort of wasted on a boring, joyless, un-entertaining film. The movie felt like it lost all momentum in the 2nd act. Only when I was deep into the movie did I realize that this was not a story that I needed to see.
If others liked it, that's cool, but it wasn't for me.
If others liked it, that's cool, but it wasn't for me.
He was monstrous at the end though. Sweaty, disheveled, and covered in blood. Dancing on top of the cop car while a riot is going on around him, then drawing a smile on his face with blood.
It's implied he killed the therapist at the end, his mate who he has a row with was also murdered for simply having some disagreement with him. This is his awakening remember, his transformation, I wouldn't expect him to randomly kill everything, just on principle, he's a loner, and with that limited opportunity to exercise his sociopathic tendencies. His Endgame was to kill himself, until he changed course.
Disagree, the movie hinges on a lot from Joker as a villian, i mean his haunting laugh is central to the tone of the story, a miserable existence that he's been drilled to "smile" about, its a unsympathetic look into a deranged, iconic individual, and that is a fascinating perspective imo, even more so when it's not burdened by mythos.
Last edited:
actually watching the movie makes all the media hysteria look even more ridiculous
I get the sensitivity due to recent events, but it really feels like some people projected something onto this movie that simply isn't there. it is not even close to being incel bait
I get the sensitivity due to recent events, but it really feels like some people projected something onto this movie that simply isn't there. it is not even close to being incel bait
I truly feel that is a piece of cinematic history that will stand the test of time. I know there are a legion of people out there currently stewing in their own frustration regarding this movie but that particular talkshow scene is already LEGEND.
That's not accurate. He kills his mom and possibly his neighbor and her kid, and he kills or injures the psychologist at the end.
His mom subjected him to physical abuse and basically ruined his life. She sucked.
He def didn't kill the neighbor or the kid
I don't think his mom is a good person. In fact, she is culpable for turning him into what he becomes.
I still believe there's no way he killed the neighbor. There's literally no evidence to support this. The scene is meant to be tense, but he leaves her room and goes back to his own. When he finally commits a violent act in the apartment building he leaves for good and heads to the talk show.
If you're a prime murder suspect you can't just kill your neighbor and keep sleeping at your home.
In the plot's broad sketches, I think there's something there to the hysteria.
It reads a lot like a manifesto of a shooter.
A downtrodden, undersexed, mentally ill, ignored adult who lives at home gets abused and in retaliation commits acts of media-sensationalized violence that causes people to rise up in imitative violence.
I don't think the movie should be banned or anything absurd, but I do get why people are/were in a tizzy.
I wasn't crazy about this flick...
Phoenix's performance was amazing... he deserves Oscar consideration. How they tied Joker's origin to Batman's origin was also really cool. Aside from that, I found this movie very disturbing. It touched on issues that hit a little too close to home.
What made Heath's Joker so compelling was that we did not understand his insanity one bit. The dude was nuts and villainous and nobody could predict him. In this movie, the Joker is villainous because he's obviously mentally ill, he was abused as a child, and he's been dealt a bad hand throughout his life. Bad things happened to him, he was already mentally unstable, and he cracked.
It's more interesting to not empathize with the Joker, imo.
Phoenix's performance was amazing... he deserves Oscar consideration. How they tied Joker's origin to Batman's origin was also really cool. Aside from that, I found this movie very disturbing. It touched on issues that hit a little too close to home.
What made Heath's Joker so compelling was that we did not understand his insanity one bit. The dude was nuts and villainous and nobody could predict him. In this movie, the Joker is villainous because he's obviously mentally ill, he was abused as a child, and he's been dealt a bad hand throughout his life. Bad things happened to him, he was already mentally unstable, and he cracked.
It's more interesting to not empathize with the Joker, imo.
She was clearly not mentally "all there" though, and she was always nice to him. Their relationship was genuinely pretty good.
It's hard to say "Oh but they never showed him doing anything truly monstrous!" On the Western moral scale, murdering your own defenseless mother ranks you pretty close to monstrous. It's hard to imagine many people viewing that killing as a kind of karma or street justice. Maybe as a kind of twisted euthanasia or something.
this is why Heath will never be topped. I think the ambiguous background of Heath's Joker is what makes his Joker more interesting than Phoenix's. when he's on screen you feel like anything could happen
His actions. He makes bad decisions when he is warned not to do it. He keeps doing the worst possible thing and leans more and more into it. It's not out of stupidity, it's just out of sheer risk. He so badly wants to hit it big despite the obstacles and he doesn't learn when he fails.
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree. Phoenix is terrific, but the script gives his Joker so many explanations for his behavior that he still comes off as recognizably human... by the end, it's still pretty hard to see the character as a supervillain/mastermind.
nah by the end I totally bought him as a psychotic force to be reckoned with
he just isn't the larger than life, completely unpredictable figure Heath's Joker is
It wasn't gonna be topped regardless as far as this movie goes when we got so little time with Fleck in his Joker persona to begin with. :(
Nah, I feel the opposite. This Joker is truly terrifying yet tragic. Heath's Joker is a very good comic book movie villain.
Yeah, it's just a very different take on the character and, well, a very different take on the world. Arthur feels like a real life guy, who is completely terrifying by the same he completely becomes the Joker but his acts feel very grounded and human. He kills some people with a gun, he doesn't have some insane Rube Goldberg machine-esque plan or anything. Hell, he just acts out of fear and anger, you understand why he does what he does.
Health's Joker feels like a force nature, like this guy isn't human. He seems like a genius who can do anything at any time, always ten steps ahead of Batman.
Both takes work perfectly within their world and their story, both movies would be lesser if you switched their respected Jokers.
That's not a response. You're dismissing the film for points that could be levied at a number of other great films, including the ones it's taken a large inspiration from. Why is it fine for Taxi Driver but wrong for JOKER?
Why does it matter that he only killed "assholes?" How does that justify his actions? Why does it make the film bad?
This is actually something I was talking to my buddy about, we agreed he'd get immediately washed by any Batman. Dude is maybe 100 pounds and also not a particularly smart or clever person since he mostly survives through luck or other people's intervention
A potential Batman with this Joker will probably be like 20 years later so he'd be much more experienced in harnessing the chaos he creates
Yeah they spent too much with Arthur Fleck and not the Joker. Once he is in the make up, the movie does pick up but it is too little too late. The best part of the movie is the footchase with the police.
The movie would be better if it steered more into the comicbook stuff or had no affiliation with it. The halfstep is not satisfying.
After some time to think on it, I still hate this movie. I wish it had been more edgy and and actually fucked up. As it stands, its just very surface level and uninteresting.
The movie also feels like it has a lot of dead air like an early edit.
The movie would be better if it steered more into the comicbook stuff or had no affiliation with it. The halfstep is not satisfying.
After some time to think on it, I still hate this movie. I wish it had been more edgy and and actually fucked up. As it stands, its just very surface level and uninteresting.
The movie also feels like it has a lot of dead air like an early edit.
I don't know why people keep saying this itt. Just over the span of the movie we see Arthur go from having difficulty fitting in with those around him to being able to go on a live talk show and spark a citywide riot. His skills at using other's misfortune to his advantage are clear, and he has a mob of people willing do do his bidding by the end of the movie.
Then we give him 20 more years to become even more engrossed in depravity and criminal activity? I mean, I don't get it...was Heath's Joker an expert martial artist? We didn't see him fight once and yet he's heralded as some untouchable movie version of the character. TDK Joker's greatest strength was his unpredictability and willingness to be absolutely evil. When push comes to shove he's just as emotional as Arthur as is clearly seen when he decides to blow up the ferry himself.
They literally went out of their way to reveal a bunch of horrible stuff his mother did or allowed to happen to him right before they kill her off.
They went out of her way to make her less sympathetic right before she died.
This movie does that repeatedly. It's actually a pretty cowardly film in that regard. Unlike say Henry: Portrait of Serial Killer.
Ambiguity is key in this film, too. Is Arthur the illegitimate child of TW, adopted, abandoned or abused, any or none of the above?
Less sympathetic if you buy into his stuff. He has no reason to kill Randall or Murray. The wall street guys can be considered self-defense (except the last one). His mom was never really a sympathetic character. She didn't really care for him as she even laws down lowkey jabs constantly, the most notable one being he cannot be a comedian because he isn't funny. It's obvious in her delusional old life that she only cared for Thomas. She even brings up family and all this, but that's the narcissism for her to be in Thomas' life. She's using Arthur as a pawn to guilt Thomas, which is pretty much confirmed during the scene where she is being interrogated.
? There is literally two choices here, A; Thomas Wayne's son and B; adopted, abandoned and abused.
Arthur was never using anyone's misfortune to his own advantage. The seeds of discord were already sown before he became joker. Getting propped up was happenstance, not something of his own doing. There wasnt a single thing he accomplished in this movie that didn't happen by pure coincidence and flat out luck.
I'm not talking about fighting. Joker, historically, isn't someone that can go toe to toe with batman. I'm talking plotting, planning, and generally being someone on par with one of the greatest intellectuals intellectuals in the DC universe. And this version of the joker isn't someone that I would even consider competent, let alone intelligent. Ledger joker was incredibly smart, unbelievably so but at least they portrayed him as having the intellect to be able to push batman and the city as a whole. Arthur on the other hand had everything happen to him, never made any smart decisions on his own, and happened to be doing this during a time the people of gotham were in turmoil. He didn't plan anything, he just lucked out with everything. Batman would kick his ass immediately.
100%. Its literally taxi driver just with joker. (and not anywhere near as good either)
We're weirdly close to slasher-movie logic here though, whereby nearly moral transgression somehow merits murder. "Ahhh, those horny teens shouldn't have been out there banging in the forest in the first place."
Are some bad things revealed about his mother? I mean, yeah they kinda have to give him some reason or plausible motivation to kill her. At the end of the day he still murdered an elderly woman as she slept, which most people will interpret as pretty vicious.
What struck me as kinda lazy or cowardly is that she's never really given the opportunity to explain or defend herself. The writers just put her in a coma so she can be quietly extinguished without much incident.