![]() ![]() There’s something about the rich getting richer and the downtrodden getting screwed, but no one ever really puts the pieces together, least of all Joker himself. So it is confusing that the first 30 minutes are just one long cringe-fest as Arthur is routinely beaten up for little to no reason, while the next hour is a highly transparent guessing game of “what is real and what is delusion.” Throughout, the film references Scorsese so thoroughly, one wonders if the producers were giving the filmmaker residuals.īut the worst part comes at the end, when the film reveals how truly confused it is. Zazie Beetz and Frances Conroy are both painfully underused in the two female roles, but are great in what little screentime they’re given. Robert De Niro graces the celluloid with his presence as a Johnny Carson/Jay Leno character named Murray Franklin. Phoenix’s performance as Arthur, the proto-Joker, is, as usual, of the highest caliber. “Joker” is extraordinarily frustrating because in one sense, it’s a wasted opportunity. (Phillips himself boasted in interviews that he sold the movie to star Phoenix by telling him they were making a “real movie” under the guise of a comic book framework.) If only it had something worth getting away with on screen. But don’t tell that to “Joker.” This is a film that is convinced of its own subversiveness, practically crowing that it is getting away with something. ![]() Sony did it with “Venom” this time last year, mining the Spider-verse for stories that did not include the titular webslinger - for contractual reasons. Nor is it revolutionary to tell the villain’s side of the story. Considering the landscape of the cinematic world is currently rife with comic book movies, it makes sense that directors are searching for new perspectives. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |