Tag Archives: Joaquin Phoenix

Joker (2019) Movie Review By The Moviie Couple

 

Joker

Director: Todd Phillips
Writers: Todd Phillips, Scott Silver
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz

Moviie Couple here!   Yes, we are back!  The Mrs. has returned and this weekend we went out to see Joker!  Despite her lack of enthusiasm for the gluttony of comic book films lately, she was excited to see this new iteration of the Joker.  Here is a quick reminder of our scoring system.  We’re here to tell you if we liked it.  Film experts we are not!  Just a quick reminder of our rating system.   We rate films on whether they are worth the cash spent on a night out.  we use a 1-6 Dollar Bill system.  1-2 Bills equal a waste of both our time and money!  3-4 Bills equal Meh to Pretty Good, money well spent!  5-6 Bills equal Wow!  Well worth the price of dinner, movie and sitter!  Please take our money again!

Joker tells the story of Arthur Fleck, a near invisible citizen of a Gotham City that looks eerily similar to 1970’s New York City. As Arthur trudges through his daily life in this cesspool of a city on the verge of destroying itself through poverty, crime and overall apathy, he attempts to make ends meet as a clown for rent and attempting to follow his dream of being a stand up comic, all the while taking care of a sick mother and dealing with his own mental health issues.  As one unfortunate event after another happen to Arthur and horrible truths begin to come to the surface about his family and his past, He begins a descent toward madness that will culminate in the creation of the killer known to the world as Joker!

Surprisingly, this film was directed by Todd Phillips, best known for the Hangover Trilogy and comedies like Old School and Due Date.  Starring as the title clown is Joaquin Phoenix in a masterful performance! Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy and Brett Cullen all co-star, but make no mistake this is nearly a one man show.  This entire film is carried by the virtuoso performance of Phoenix as he captures Arthur’s pain in each and every scene.

The Joker has been portrayed by a variety of actors over the years.  From Ceaser Romero to Jack Nicholson through the now legendary Heath Ledger version and even most recently by Jared Leto. The character is well known not only by film goers, but even more so by the millions of comic book fans that have read about the Clown Prince of Crime since his first appearance in 1940! Batman’s arch nemesis has gone through many different variations over the last eighty years or so.  Over that time frame he has never been given a definitive origin story.  Many hints and clues have been dropped, but never have the publishers of DC Comics ever settled on a one “true” tale of the creation of the Joker. Phillips and Warner Brothers Films have spoken on this subject prior to the films release. They add that this film stands outside of the comic book world and is only “their” version of the beginnings of Joker. Some interviews even have the filmmakers stating that this is not the comic book Joker at all.  This film is to be taken as its own unique film experience.

So how does it hold up? Is it a cinematic triumph? Will it be able to please film fans as well as comic book aficionados? Are there any connections to the Batman? Let’s not waste any time chattering teeth over this one and get right to the reviews! Put your face paint on, affix your red noses and lets get right to it!

Mr. Moviie Couple: As I’ve stated in previous reviews, I am a huge comic book guy!  So it goes without saying I was pretty excited to see a dark version of the Joker’s origin story.  This film was right in my wheelhouse! Right as the film begins you know you are not in a typical comic book film. This film is cinematically as far from the Marvel Cinema formula as you could possibly get. This movie exists in the world of Scorsese’s Mean Streets and Taxi Driver far from a world of Shield, Asgard or the Justice League. Phillips immediately immerses you into the crime and filthy urban setting of the 1970’s. Much like the Scorsese films mentioned earlier Arthur Fleck is a man lost in a world of crime, fear, trash (both physically and mentally) and hopelessness. Arthur has many fantasy visions throughout the film, where we are not sure what is real and what is not.  He comes across like a psychopathic Walter Mitty.

Phoenix’s performance as Fleck is a masterpiece of acting.  He completely throws himself into the role.  He physically transforms into this sad sack, loser with such abandon that it sucks you into his world.  Not only can you feel his struggle and pain in each and every scene you can feel his rage burning just underneath the surface waiting to escape. From his facial contortions to his gait (and how it changes as his feelings ebb and flow throughout the film) every detail about Arthur Fleck is captured by Phoenix, not a single detail is left out of this performance.  It is absolutely Academy Award winning level.  Joaquin Phoenix absolutely deserves every ounce of recognition that he is getting for his work here.

That being said, outside of an Oscar caliber performance, the story left me lacking.  The film makers went on record saying this is not a comic book version of Joker.  They were also on record saying that this was not a political film.  Somewhere the communications must have been mixed up because this film is absolutely rife with political undertones.  Not only that, but Warner seemed to want its cake and eat it to.  They want this film to be a Joker story, with no ties to comics or other versions, but (we never spoil here at Moviie Couple) there are multiple connections to Batman (Through Bruce Wayne and his family) throughout this film.  The connections the film does strain to make actually hurt the narrative, by seemingly forcing this connective tissue that will leave any comic book fans scratching their heads on how this can possibly all add up (alternate version of Joker/Batman dynamic or not).  The film would have been much better off not mentioning Bruce or the Wayne family in any way at all.  Making this a true stand alone Joker film (as advertised) would have made for a better experience overall.   In truth, this film could have been a great movie about a man driven mad by a city and a system that cares not at all for the downtrodden and never mentioned Joker at all.  It would have made the same impact upon its conclusion.  It almost feels like dressing this film up as Joker could be seen as a marketing ploy and nothing more.

A final issue I have with this film was one of the glorification of Joker’s killings.  Nearly all of the killings perpetrated by Joker in this film were revenge killings.  From Joker’s first murders, a Bernie Goetz type subway shooting, and all the others throughout the film, the viewer sees all the victims ( in one shape or another) as if they deserve what is coming to them.  They are either preying on others (as in the subway) or have hurt/humiliated Arthur himself.  This Joker is not an agent of chaos, that kills to show that all life is a joke.  He has much more in common with Travis Bickle the protagonist of Taxi Driver than with the arch villain of The Batman.  This film wants you to see Joker/Arthur as a revolutionary, an unexpected leader of a revolution against a system rigged by the rich and privileged to keep down the poor and unseen.  Surely there is a good story to be mined with that subject, but it is not a good Joker story.  Joker here, comes across as very sympathetic and maybe even justified through some lenses.  The film never takes him into the realm of a monster.  In one scene between Arthur and Zazie Beetz’s character, we are left to guess if he committed a monsterous hideous act, but we are never shown whether it occurs or not.  It felt to me less like a creative decision and more one left out only to continue his sympathetic arc.

In conclusion, Phoenix gives a performance that is no Joke (see what I did there?).  His acting is on a whole different level here, but the films other choices, a sympathetic Joker, holding back on the actual killing scenes (Joker should be far more brutal) Fox TV Gotham type of connections to Batman and a revolutionary arc left me feeling this film failed on all levels other than the acting.  Thanks to the acting and a very accurate film recreation of 1970s NYC I will give Joker 3.5 Bills, but the story stops it from being great.

Mrs.Movie Couple:   This was not what I was expecting to see in a Joker movie.  Thanks to my many years of marriage to Mr. Moviie Couple  I knew a little about the Joker and what makes him tick.  After watching the trailer for this movie I was preparing myself for a very scary and violent time at the theatre.

-Joaquin Phoenix was amazing!!!  I hardly recognized him from the other movies I had seen him in and he was very creepy in a stalkerish way.

-The movie looked great!  Grainy and old, it purposely looked like a film coming out in the 1970’s not just one taking place during that time.  A nice touch.

-I found it to be a slow burn and I was bored more times than I thought I would be.  While not nearly as boring as Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I did nearly doze off a few times.

-It told a good story about how the system set in place to help the mentally ill continues to fail those in need.  Unfortunately this is no better today than it was back in the 70’s.

-This Joker seemed to be more sad than scary.  He wasn’t the villain I had seen in movies outside of this one.  It seemed as if he could just get good treatment or keep his medication coming he would have just lived out a very sad life. Not a very terrifying Joker at all.
.
-Definitely not a kids film.  Please parents DO NOT let your young teens go see this thinking its a comic book movie.  It is not a comic movie.  It actually could give young people with depression or some other undiagnosed mental illness some bad ideas.  Be very careful.  This film is for a MATURE audience.

-The supporting cast was good, especially Zazie Beetz and Robert De Niro, but they were hardly given much to do.

-I give Joker 2.5 Bills!  It was a depressing, slow story that really did not give me any thrills.  I wasn’t scared, I wasn’t excited, I just felt sad for the main character.  I’m not sure I should feel sad for Joker, but that’s all I took from the film.  I would never watch it again and can only recommend it for those wanting to see a fantastic acting job by Mr. Phoenix.  Thanks to his performance Joker gets the extra .5 without that it would be a solid 1 or 2 and a huge waste of time and money.

On the way home, We talked about Joker (or at least I did, Mrs. just listened).  I spoke about Joker in comics and how violent he can be, how he is portrayed as a monster comparatively to Batman’s hero.  Mrs. Moviie Couple simply said, “Well that was not the character we just watched”.  We both raved about the acting and how we felt it could have been a better film without any references to Joker or Batman at all.   A good film was in there, but all the baggage that comes along with the names Joker, Wayne and Gotham alters the perspective completely. Both of us were disappointed for different reasons.  My 3.5 Bills combined with her 2.5 Bills gives Joker an average of a solid 3 Bills!  A big MEH.  The acting is out of this world, but the story never rises to the level of the great performances in it.

So until next time, Smile and wave at any and all clowns you see working, you never know the true story behind the face paint.  They may just need a hug and a smile to feel a little better!  See you next time and remember “That’s Life”  Be sure to check our facebook page for a clue to our next movie up for review!  Mr. & Mrs. Moviie Couple out!

Advertisements

The Sisters Brothers (2018) Movie Review By Justin Aylward

The Sisters Brothers Review, In 1850s Oregon, the infamous duo of assassins, Eli and Charlie Sisters, chase a gold prospector and his unexpected ally.

Director: Jacques Audiard
Writers: Jacques Audiard (screenplay by), Thomas Bidegain (screenplay by)
Stars: John C. Reilly, Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal

The western genre is largely a relic of a bygone era, but when we do see a new incarnation on our cinema screens there is much to admire. Recent films such as The Assassination of Jesse James…, 3:10 To Yuma, Bone Tomahawk, and Hell or High Water have shown how the dusty landscapes and fatalist attitudes of the Wild West are still ingredients for exceptional films.

The new film by Jacques Audiard (A Prophet, Rust and Bone) stars Joaquin Phoenix and John C. Reilly as Charlie and Eli Sisters, a ragtag gun-toting duo in 1850s Oregon. The pair, who are as much chalk and cheese as drunk and sober, are recruited by The Commodore, (Rutger Hauer) a brutish, wealthy landowner, to pursue and kill a gentle prospector named Hermann Kermit Warm (Riz Ahmed). Warm has allegedly stolen a special formula for uncovering gold and is set on keeping the riches for himself. Although Eli is unmoved by The Commodore’s sorry tale, Charlie is willing to take on the job, and the two bickering brothers set out on the trail.
Also on the trail of Hermann is a measured and erudite assassin called John Morris (Jake Gyllenhaal). Morris gets a head start over the Sisters Brothers, and keeps a diary along the way, leaving letters at each stop-off point to inform Charlie and Eli of his progress.

French director Audiard, has shown again how sometimes it is with a foreign eye that old American mores are best dissected. From Douglas Sirk with All That Heaven Allows in the 50s and Wim Wenders with his film Paris, Texas in the 80s, European directors have used their outsider prospective to parse out the diverse ways of living in America.

In The Sisters Brothers, four disparate people in conflicting pursuits – the hunter and the hunted, the gold seeker and the taskmaster – are thrown together in a tornado of incompatible desires. Despite the obvious route he takes, Charlie is emotionally adrift. He drinks to get drunk where he then empties bars and picks fights. He sleeps with as many women as he can pay for, and abuses his brother at every turn. Eli, on the other hand, knows exactly what he wants but the ties that bind him to his errant brother grow tighter around him. Charlie relishes the danger in the job, but Eli has had enough and wants to put away his gun and return home to their estranged mother.

John Morris, the dogged assassin, is locked down by his obligations. Despite all his thoughtfulness for the surroundings, he has never asked himself what he is really doing. The working life seems to be the only one he thinks exists. When he finally catches up with Hermann – who basically presents himself to Morris – he finds a young man who is thoughtful, idealistic, and bright. Hermann wants to set up a community in Texas, free from the toxicity of the broader American society. When Morris realises that Hermann is not the craven individual he was told about, he decides to accompany Hermann to San Francisco in search of gold.
Within the unfolding story are many well-crafted, cinematic elements. The cinematography by Benoit Debie captures the celestial skylines and mountainous peaks of the West Coast. Some of the scenes following Eli and Charlie on horseback as they ride through fields of hay and tall grass are exceptionally eye-catching. Audiard directs with a special confidence a foreign director in an alien genre has no right to have, but his command over the material is obvious in the multitoned moods of the film. Also, John C. Reilly stands out as a gifted and thoughtful character actor who can perform through many layers of complexity. Look at the scene where he solicits with a prostitute, although not for sex, but just to play out a harmless but heartfelt fantasy; a husband saying goodbye to a grief-stricken wife. Joaquin Phoenix proves yet again that he is perhaps the best American actor of his generation, or at least the bravest and most unpredictable. He has the great ability of the famous method actors; you never know what he will do next, but it promises to be emotional.

Throughout, the Sisters’ Brothers journey to San Francisco is fraught with turmoil and the travails of the dangerous territory. Between night-scrawling spiders, duplicitous bordello owners, and dying horses, they can’t catch a good break. Charlie is just about ready to puke his guts up once and for all, while Eli seems to be on the verge of a hopelessness he may never outlast. Eventually they cross paths with Morris and Hermann Warm, and the ties of the plot come undone in scenes that are equally tense and sad.

I will not spoil the final act of the film. But I will say that the Homerian journey ends with all the appropriate beats that the film has been orchestrating throughout its running time. In the end we have a Western as charming as Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, as melancholy as Unforgiven, and as unforgettable as The Good, The Bad and the Ugly. The Sisters Brothers is the best film of its type in many years and shows much promise for the director Audiard. Let’s hope he continues to make films away from home where it’s dusty, dangerous and the gun blasts ring long into the night.

You Were Never Really Here (2017) By Justin Aylward

You Were Never Really Here Review,

Director: Lynne Ramsay
Writers: Lynne Ramsay (screenplay by), Jonathan Ames (based on the book by)
Stars: Joaquin Phoenix, Judith Roberts, Ekaterina Samsonov

There have been many films in the past which depicted mental illness with the soft-handed tetchiness that some say it requires. But few films have showed the fractured mind, the bruised psyche, the stolid and often frightening countenance of genuine mental turmoil. LynneRamsey’s new film achieves this feat with an ease that almost betrays its’ subject matter. How can a movie project such a tortured life while almost making it look incidental?

The film shows Joe, (Joaquin Phoenix) a scarred and scraggly man who lives at home with his sick mother (Judith Roberts). Joe scrubs the bathroom floor after his mother uses the shower. He switches off the television when she falls asleep in front of it (watching Psycho, no less). They polish and organise the cutlery in the kitchen while singing old songs from the radio. It all seems quite charming and sweet, but when Joe is away on business, he can’t distract himself from the ugly past that lingers in his mind.

Joe travels around the country as a hired child rescuer, liaising with his handler, McCleary (John Doman). After completing yet another rough job, Joe is hired to recover the missing daughter of a New York senator. He sets about the task habitually, purchasing a new hammer, his trusted weapon of choice and skulking about dark avenues, hunched behind the wheel of a car, knowing just where to look and how to act. In one of his greatest performances, (and there are many to choose from) Phoenix plays Joe as a man possessed by the grim existence on which his life has played out. There are perfectly cut flashbacks to a soldier strewn landscape and the desolation of war. In other scenes we see a young Joe cowering in the closet of his bedroom, hiding from his father’s rage and fists.

Phoenix has the unique qualities of the great method actors such a Brando and James Dean. Watching his films is like stepping onto a rollercoaster while blindfolded; anything can happen but you know it will be emotional and thrilling. Joe is a man who through his work has just about found a place where he can live; that place is the brink of death with a only glimmer of salvation in sight. The children he rescues seem to save him as much as he saves them. He couldn’t salvage his own innocence and he must destroy those who seek to snatch it from other innocent children. His hammer-wielding skills are not shown to be graceful but instead rabid and explosive, the sparks from the broken fuses of his personality. The young girl, Nina is played by Ekaterina Samsonov who brings a doe-eyed innocence to a grimy and demanding role. Her short blond hair covers a face half-masked by shock and terror.

You Were Never Really Here was Lynne Ramsey’s first film since 2011 when she directed We Need To Talk About Kevin, which examines the nature/nurture components of sociopathy through the relationship of a mother and her callous son. Much like that film, Ramsey shows her adept visual skills and smart interpretations of diseased and isolated minds. Some of the scenes in this film are edited to reflect Joe’s temperamental personality and distant demeanour. In one particular scene where Joe wrestles with a crooked cop in a motel room, Ramsey creates a shattered affect with the miseen-scene, and allows the audience to see the world through Joe’s eyes albeit for a few brief moments. As frightening as this sounds, you can’t ask much more from a director. I was wincing in my chair during such scenes, wanting no part in the steady destruction that Joe wrecks on those who impart their will on his quest.

There are also moments of tenderness and quietude where Joe resigns himself to the depths his soul has withered to but despite this he decides to continue on his journey. I will not reveal the details of these scenes or the films tense and nightmarish climax. What is left, however, as the credits role is an incontrovertible diktat on violence. We see how a chaotic environment does not make an animal of man but rather awakens the sleeping beast that exists within all of us. Some are forced by circumstance to unleash that animal while others bear witness to the chaos that is left behind. As tortured as Joe’s existence is, we ought to be glad he has guided his animal on the path of goodness because it might just be a more dangerous animal in another person’s hands.