Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
68 Minutes | Comedy, Drama | 1921-01-21
Cute and funny. It is difficult to say anything new from this movie or Charles Chaplin. He just delivers a complete story with a lot of different elements. Remarkable is also the performance of Jackie Coogan.
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
113 Minutes | Documentary | 2018-11-28
📥 Genesis 2.0 2018
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
165 Minutes | Drama, Western | 2012-12-25
📥 Django Unchained 2012
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
America, mid-nineteenth century, just prior to the Civil War. Winter. Two horsebacked slave-traders are leading half-a-dozen manacled negro slaves through a large, unspecified section of Texas. As they move one night through a wood, they cross paths with an affable, charming German fellow identified by the hokey model tooth affixed atop his carriage by a spring as a travelling dentist. He greets the traders cordially but he's struggling to be understood; not because English is his second language (although he deferentially concedes as much when instructed - more than once - to "Speak English!") but because his vocabulary is far wider than that of the simpler men here before him. It's not a chance passing, either; this German fellow, who identifies himself as Dr. King Schultz (played by Christoph Waltz with the same smiling, deadly menace that earned him an Oscar statue for his part as Col. Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds) is looking for these traders. More specifically, their inventory of negro slaves. Even more specifically, one of those slaves in particular. Django (Jamie Foxx, Collateral, Ray). Attempting to buy Django, Schultz is met with short, suspicious shrift and ordered at gunpoint to be on his way. Within a second, one trader lies dead and the other lies incapacitated underneath the bulk of his dead horse. Schultz unchains Django, instructs Django to take the dead fellow's horse and coat, and pays the remaining trader for all that he's taken. He then tosses the manacle key to the other slaves and posits two choices to them, as he sees it: Carry their injured master thirty-plus miles to the nearest town for medical assistance, or unchain themselves, blow the injured slave-trader's head off with the gun Shultz has left them, bury the corpses and use the Pole Star to run for the Northern states, where slavery had been abolished, and for more than fifty years in some areas. Funnily enough, they take up the latter option.
So begins Django Unchained, an oater set in the slave states of the Deep South and the latest rollercoaster by Gen-X movieland wunderkind Quentin Tarantino. Always clearly a man heavily informed by the grindhouse subgenre of the Spaghetti Western, he's finally made one himself, and if Quentin's your thing it's a blast, though I doubt it'll convert many Tarantino sceptics; in fact it'll almost certainly reinforce those things that people dislike about him, about which more later.
It transpires that Dr. Schultz ISN'T a dentist ("I haven't practised dentistry in five years," he confides to Django over a beer) but a bounty hunter, and a lethal one at that. He's chasing down the Brittles, a murderous gang of brothers currently plying their trades as plantation overseers. He doesn't know what they look like but he knows they were recently employed at the Carrucan plantation, which is why he was searching for Django - a slave recently sold by that very plantation - in the first place; Django can point them out for him. Schultz is no fan of the South's backwards-thinking propensity for slavery though, and he offers Django a deal: help Schultz find and kill the Brittle Brothers, Schultz will treat Django like a free man, pay him $75 (a decent little wedge in 1858) and rubber-stamp his freedom. Along the way, he'll also teach Django a thing or two about the art of gunfighting and about the macabre trade of bounty-hunting (both in which Django proves to be a natural). On the trail of the Brittles, Schultz wonders aloud as to Django's plans once this endeavour is over and he's free. Well, as it happens, Django is a married man and his intention, once free, is to find his wife and buy her freedom. They'd tried to run from the Carrucan plantation together but they'd been caught, branded (both Django and his wife - played with all of her nerves exposed by Kerry Washington - sport R-For-Runaway scars on their cheeks) and sold on, separately. So he doesn't know where she is but that's what he's going to try to do. Schultz, feeling responsible for Django as the man granting him his freedom, proposes a further deal: If this Brittle bounty goes well, he'll honour Django's freedom but if Django stays with him through the winter as partners, taking on bounties and earning money, he'll help Django locate his wife.
What we have here is a large sequence of set-pieces - some funny, some tense, some action-packed - stretched across very-nearly three hours (though, like most QT films, it moves like a bullet train and those three hours just fly) strung together by a fairly simple revenge/rescue tale set against a geographically sprawling backdrop; a reasonably similar template to many of Quentin's movies and an almost identical template to that of previous outing Inglourious Basterds, to which Django Unchained could almost be considered a companion piece despite the wildly different global and historical settings. Like Inglourious Basterds, Django Unchained is quite a bit longer than the story need be, and like Inglourious Basterds that is because each scene is treated by Tarantino as a mini movie, a contained set-piece all of its own. Every scene is fleshed out and deepened for either heightened comic or dramatic effect by lengthened sequences of characters going about the mundane or by characters delivering enormous monologues - rambling shaggy-dog stories, usually - to one another, for context. Not every scene is entirely necessary, either. I wouldn't call that a flaw though, I'd call it a trait typical of Quentin Tarantino; whether it's a flaw or an outright treat depends entirely on whether that's an element of Tarantino's writing that the viewer appreciates. Personally, I love Tarantino's writer's voice and I could watch these scenes for hours (indeed, I watched Django Unchained three times over the course of yesterday), but I can fully undersand what those lamenting the decent 90-minute film that's lost somewhere within the sojourns and speeches of Django Unchained are saying.
Performances throughout are utterly mesmerising, from stars Foxx and Waltz but also - in fact, maybe more so - from principle antagonists Leonardo DiCaprio as "Monsieur" Calvin Candie, the horrifying owner of the "Candyland" plantation currently holding the ownership deeds on Django's wife, and Samuel L. Jackson in an if-anything even more monstrous role as Stephen, Candie's elderly head house slave, a man who has utterly abndoned the culture and torment of his people in return for a few material trappings as the slave-in-chief. Playing to superb comedic effect is Don Johnson as Big Daddy, a strutting, peacock-like Tennessee dandy and owner of the plantation currently employing the Brittle Brothers, and delightful in cameo roles are (among many others) James Remar (The Warriors, Dexter), Jonah Hill (Superbad, The Watch), John Jarratt (Wolf Creek, Rogue) and Michael Parks (Red State, Kill Bill). Quentin himself makes a cameo as usual and, as usual, he's not as charming as he probably thinks he is, but he's also not as bad as many think he is, either. There's even a quick cameo (raising an involuntary cheer from me!) by Franco Nero, the original Django from the magnificent 1966 film of the same name by Sergio Corbucci (that's not the only nod back to the first Django movie; the opening credits to Django Unchained are presented in exactly the same way as the original, and the theme song to Quentin's film comes directly from the Corbucci film too).
Django Unchained is likely to come under fire on a couple of counts; possibly for it's incredible levels of bloodshed (one particular gunfight is the most blood-splattered scene I've seen in a movie since those elevator doors opened in The Shining), and much more probably for the liberal use of what guilty white folks like to refer to as "The 'N'-word", uttered literally hundreds of times from first scene to last. However, neither criticism is warranted in my humble opinion. The bloodshed is of the overexaggerated cartoon quality. Heads, arteries and extremities explode upon bullet impact like detonated watermelons to a gloopy, "BLAAAPP!" sound effect, the blood itself translucent, syrupy and intentionally unrealistic. And if a tale is set against the backdrop of slavery in the 19th century deep South, you're going to hear the word "Nigger" in that tale. Often. Be assured though that just as Inglourious Basterds was a revenge fantasy of the downtrodden Jewish war refugees over the stupidly evil Nazi Germans, this is a tale of empowerment of the enslaved black man over his sadistic, pig-ignorant white overseers.
If you like Tarantino, you'll probably like Django Unchained. If you like Westerns (and the blood-drenched Spaghetti Westerns of the late sixties in particular), you'll probably like Django Unchained. If, like me, you're an admirer of both Tarantino AND westerns, this is a no-brainer. Get and see it, it's a blast.
I'd like to have seen him pull a Gatling gun out of a coffin, though.
A highly entertaining yet disturbing film with superb cast and performances for an audience who would likely never consider watching a film fundamentally about slavery, where Tarantino is masterfully and emphatically navigating and exposing the complex layers of the violent and dehumanizing system of slavery.
**ENTERTAINING from start to finish !!**
Given I am a big fan of **Quentin's** works i knew this movie would be a treat to watch.But what i didn't know was violence can be so **COOL**... The movie is a treat to watch(including the blood and gore) from starting to end.The acting is superb.And the cinematography is just too good! The whole cast played their parts to perfection...Especially **Samuel L. Jackson** and **Jamie Foxx**..**Leo and Christopher Waltz** were superb too..And as Christopher said in the movie - "It was hard to RESIST".A must watch for everyone who likes QUALITY cinema..Even the ones who cant stand BOOMs and BANGs, you wouldn't regret spending about 3 hours watching this well written, well directed and well acted GREAT movie !!
This is one of the best movies I have watched in a long time. It is a pure Tarantino blast. The somewhat unexpected and quite hilarious start of the movie catches your attention from the start and from then on it is 3 hours (almost) of pure enjoyment.
The main actors are playing their roles very well. The Dr. King Schultz character (Christop Walz) is incredibly funny without being ridiculous, Jamie Foxx is excellent as Django and Leonardo DiCaprio is doing his role well as a plantation owner and slave trader. None of the rest of the crew stood out as particularly bad. Well with the possible exception of Tarantino himself then when he made his usual in-movie appearance a’ la Hitchcock. Not that he was particularly bad but he is no actor either.
The movie starts of by Dr. Schulz liberating Django and proceeding to a small town showing Django what he is in the business of doing. Those first minutes of the movie are somewhat unexpected and very funny to watch. After that the movie gets more serious as Django gets to learn to be a bounty hunter and finally gets on with his quest to rescue his “Damsel in distress”. It still has quite a bit of “Tarantino humour” sprinkled around in it though.
During the movie we are treated to a long series of stereotypical people with, let us say, an “attitude” towards African people. It is tempting to say “nigger haters” but that would not be true since a lot of these people did not exactly hate them. They just did not consider African people to be people but more than live stock for them to use as they wished. Unlike a lot of movies portraying these events this one never comes across as boringly finger pointing or overly morally lecturing. Nor does it in any way support or glorify the way things were at this time. It is a movie made to entertain set in a period where bad shit happened and using it for the story. Nothing more and nothing less.
As usual with a Tarantino movie there are some violent parts, some more violent parts and some bloody violent parts in it. The ending fights are a glorious show of destruction and blood splatter. I am sure some people are complaining about the “unnecessary violence”. I am not one of those people. Without these parts it would not be a real Tarantino movie. As always it is made with the usual exaggeration that Tarantino is so good and which reminds you that it is “only a movie”.
This is one of the few movies that I have given 10 out of 10 stars in a very long time. I enjoyed it immensely.
When Django is unchained (pronounced JANG-oh, not Duh-JANG-oh)
Released in 2012 and directed & written by Quentin Tarantino, "Django Unchained" stars Christoph Waltz as an ex-dentist who befriends an ex-slave, Django (Jamie Foxx) in West Texas a couple of years before the Civil War; they team-up as bounty hunters once they realize how good they jell. The second half focuses on their attempt to infiltrate a Mississippi plantation owned by pompous Southerner "Monsieur" Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) in order to rescue Django's wife (Kerry Washington). Samuel L. Jackson plays Candie's overly loyal house slave.
This is an excellent American Western with Spaghetti Western elements featuring Tarantino's typical artistic flourishes. It takes place in the West AND in the South, which is reminiscent of the underrated "Nevada Smith" (1966), one of my favorite Westerns. Waltz is magnetic as the nonchalant protagonist and he & Foxx have good chemistry. There's a nice mix of interesting dialogues, amusing moments and over-the-top action. Unfortunately, but to be expected, Tarantino goes overboard with the 'n' word and the blood-letting, the latter to the point of cartoonish-ness.
Nevertheless, this is an original Western that is vibrant with creativity, including stunning locations, cinematography and a great amalgamated soundtrack/score, which includes cuts by Ennio Morricone, like the excellent "Hornets' Nest," the imaginative "The Braying Mule" and the moving "Ancora Qui." It's all-around superior to "The Hateful Eight" (2015) because it's not limited by a one-room whodunit plot (although "Hateful" has its unique points of interest).
The movie runs 165 minutes and was shot in Jackson Hole, Wyoming; Evergreen Plantation & New Orleans, Louisiana; and several locations in California (Lone Pine, Alabama Hills, Semi Valley, Melody Ranch, Santa Clarita, Independence & Los Angeles). The cast includes numerous peripheral notables, e.g. Ato Essandohs, Don Stroud, James Remar, Bruce Dern, Ato Essandoh, Franco Nero, Don Johnson, Amber Tamblyn and several others.
GRADE: A
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
| Horror, Thriller | 2021-10-15
📥 Halloween Kills 2021
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
123 Minutes | Adventure, Comedy, Fantasy | 2019-12-04
📥 Jumanji: The Next Level 2019
📥 DOWNLOAD HERE
The film is punchy, landing some great jokes that will make you laugh out loud, with an entertaining, slightly predictable story. It wasn’t as good as the first 'Jumanji', but it is a great quality sequel and is full of family fun!
- Lily Meek
Read Lily's full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-jumanji-the-next-level-adventure-sequel-is-serious-family-fun
The Movie Was So Cool! I Want To Watch The Again And Again!
Fun and exciting. Highly recommended!
When it comes to constructing a successful sequel, sometimes it’s best not to mess with a proven formula. Such is the case with “Jumanji: The Next Level,” an energetic, rollicking, ridiculously amusing part two to the much-loved 2017 reboot (and surprise hit), “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle.” The storyline is nearly identical, but with a few twists thrown in for added amusement.
Now in college, buddies Spencer (Alex Wolff), Martha (Morgan Turner), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), and Bethany (Madison Iseman) are home for the holidays and can’t wait to see each other again. Spencer has been feeling a little depressed lately and, longing to feel that unbridled bravery again, decides to jump back into the game. It quickly becomes a rescue mission and the others must follow to get him out. But this time, the game has changed. Not only are the levels more challenging, the gang has unexpectedly picked up a couple of extra players — Spencer’s Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his longtime friend Milo (Danny Glover).
The film was made for fans of the reboot, and it’s nearly impossible to be disappointed this second time around. It’s a fun reunion with likeable characters that you love spending time with. There are appropriate and enjoyable callback references to previous movie and, something that is rarely true of sequels, the quality stands up to it as well.
When the story adds a fun twist that mixes things up a bit, it allows the actors to really chew the scenery. All of the characters are out of whack, with only Martha going back into the game as her original character, the dance-fighting man-killer known as Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). Fridge is now the overweight cartographer Professor Shelly Oberon (Jack Black), and Grandpa Eddie has taken over as the hunky and fearless Dr. Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson). Zoologist Mouse Finbar (Kevin Hart) is now Milo, while Spencer re-enters the story as a brand new character (and one of the film’s best surprises).
It’s a given that Black will bring guaranteed laughs, but Hart and Johnson have very funny comedic timing and they play off each other so well. Their banter is consistently hilarious, especially when they are channeling their elderly avatar inhabitants. DeVito and his cantankerous shtick is a huge upgrade, as he delivers some of the biggest chortles in his all-too-brief supporting role.
There are plenty of exciting action sequences that complement the fast-paced fantasy adventure. The sense of real peril serves the film well, because it ramps up the emotional factor. So does the idea that friendship can foster a family, and by the end, this one will tug on your heartstrings.
The film gets right to the good stuff without a long or boring setup, and the story is roughly the same as its predecessor. There’s not much new plot-wise, but who cares when a movie is this much of a wild, entertaining ride?
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
122 Minutes | Drama | 1976-11-01
**The Primal Forces of Network**
According to the Writers Guild of America the greatest screenplay of all time belongs to _Casablanca_. A sentimental favourite, no doubt, worthy for a handful of catchy one-liners capped off with a convincing dump-the-dame speech. While Bogie plays himself, Bergman, who may have been the most beautiful woman of all time, didn't have much to say. The best moments in Casablanca were, in fact, the silent ones, and without Bogie and Bergie's chemistry, it probably wouldn't have made the top 10.
Best screenplay suggests best story, best plot, best characters and dialogue; best combination of drama, comedy, intrigue, emotional engagement, suspense, social and political relevance; one peppered with casual everydayisms, baited with humour and simmering with intelligence, threatening to release an experiential payload of euphoric proportions; a work that can transcend genre and demographics, build up simultaneously on various levels, plumbed by the weight of it's essential voice, sending out intuitive signals, rippling with perplexing channels and insightful glimpses that are symbolically blended into plain words on paper; all with a properly superb balance of sex, wit, desire, comfort, fear, anger and wisdom in an accelerated narrative leading us to a magnificent crescendo and--fade out--leaving us to wonder. Furthermore, great screenplays serve the motion-picture medium's incomparable ability to effortlessly jump time and space. _Casablanca_ is static and contained, framed and nailed to the wall: a pretty photograph.
Despite the WGA's endorsement, there can only be one candidate good enough to qualify for the all-time best screenplay, and fittingly it goes to the all-time best screenplay writer. Paddy Chayefsy's _Network_ has dazzled us for four decades and counting. The scene where a mob of murderous bank-robbing terrorists who have their own reality TV show bicker over the wording of their contract alone demonstrates we are dealing with a higher grade of pertinent genius. The corporate cosmology of Arthur Jensen, a pivotal lesson in global economics, tops it off, leaving all Network's competitors in the dust, burying any climactic speech written before or since, Bogie's famous brush-off farewell included, thus slamming the lid down on anything _Casablanca_ can play. As for ill-fated romances, the doomed alliance between old-school journalism (Holden) seduced and corrupted into severing his ties with his compassionate spouse to hastily shack up with the opportunistic post-modern media wench (Dunaway) is fraught with more complications than anything _Casablanca_ can muster, and it's only one of the sub-plots.
Of course _Network_ is most famous for the "I'm mad as hell" rant, which swells from a nuanced and complex story arc demonstrating the rise and fall of an iconic media star. Hell-raising public mischief aside, Howard Beale's profound narrative leads off with a suicidally desperate, washed-up newsman who impulsively hits a nerve, rockets to stardom as a modern-day prophet, then is shaped and sensationalized as an overcooked parody by the media, stigmatized by maniacal Fox-news-like delusions that overtake him until he gets too big for his britches and needs a walloping corporate scolding, causing his starry streak to fizzle out, before getting gunned down by the greedy TV execs who made him, leaving hapless undiscriminating audiences to grasp for the next new thing.
_Network_ is inspired writing that doesn't require heart-throbbing movie stars to pull it off. It could have been directed by my illiterate grandmother, shot on VHS in a dingy church basement, performed by eager boy scouts and girl guides, and it would still be the greatest screenplay of all time, one not just for the spectacle of projecting on a giant screen, but for doubling as a giant mirror with just enough sugar-coated satire to swallow the shitty truth about ourselves. Though calling _Network _a satire is like calling Hamlet a murder mystery. Satire is either spineless and passive-aggressive, or specific and short-lived. Chayefsky's bombastic pronouncements become more exceptional and relevant each passing year.
Network broadcasts its televisional corruption through satirical poetry that beckons democratic madness. “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it anymore”, screams Howard Beale from the confinement of his studio desk. Exerting his ornate insanity upon the entranced viewers who innocently stare at their cubic televisions, watching the news broadcast fuelled by media misrepresentation and propaganda. “Go to your nearest window and scream”, acting as the voice of the working class, benign to the American corporate fundamentals that masquerade the politics of democracy. In an age where leading actors can represent constituencies or states, and businessmen can be presidential candidates for a nation (and successfully winning...), Lumet’s timeless satire on conceptualised democracy is one that grows more appropriate with each passing decade.
A statement on the American financial system, where colossal stock markets rule the supposed freedom of the people. Broadcasting networks more focussed on combating against each other for monetary viewership, leading to exaggerated fabrications, rather than reporting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Exploiting the frail mentality of humanity to feed the greed and lust of “humanoid” managers, capitalising on the naivety of man.
Network depicts the modern evolution of communicating false truths. As technology evolves, we grow more and more susceptible to the “truth” that is conveyed to us. We, much like sponges, absorb the information demonstrated through the porous pixels that we subject our eyes to. Televisions. And through hyperbolised satire, including planning an assassination attempt and coercing suicidal tendencies, Lumet offers a cutthroat insight into broadcasting institutions and the meticulous methods in which networks function. Motivated by stock shares and rating dominance. Pioneering the consumption of propagandist material. Lumet exploits the audacious power of televisions and its communicative abilities, turning an often comedic satire into a transcendental horror feature.
Powered by sterling performances all-round, including the elusively commanding Dunaway, the maddening lunacy of Finch and the smoothly suave Holden, the poetic dialogue immediately captures the attention of its audience. Concisely elaborate with a hint of existential analysis, an ornate lexicon that refrains viewers from tuning out. Lumet’s long sumptuous takes, allowing the performances to ironically hypnotise, further extend the reach of its material. Superlative direction that, whilst suddenly throws you into the immediate chaos of Beale’s mentality, eases the hectic pace with its scathing power.
The offscreen affair between Dunaway and Holden was the only underdeveloped sub-plot, reinforcing her workaholic agenda that likened her to a corporate machine than to a human with emotive capabilities.
Aside from that, Network absolutely deserves its near-perfect acclaim. A considerably profound illustration of the American system that tantalisingly exposes the fraudulence of promised conceptualised democracy, whilst also enforcing the relinquishment of humanity through television sets. Harrowing times we live in...
Watch Movies Online|Full Movie Download|Movies Online Free Websites|Movies Online Stream|Online Full HD Movies. Watch and streaming your favorite full movies online on solarmovie.com and in the app!
122 Minutes | Crime, Thriller, Drama | 2019-10-02
If you enjoy reading my Spoiler-Free reviews, please follow my blog :)
Obviously, Joker is one of my most anticipated movies of 2019. I mean, how couldn't it be?! Besides belonging to the superhero genre, DC has been on a streak of great films within its universe, so an isolated installment definitely excites me, especially about one of the evilest villains ever. It's by far one of the less comic-book-y flicks of the century. It doesn't follow the generic origin story formula, it avoids any cliches associated with the genre, and it's the type of movie that's becoming more and more rare nowadays. It's a character study like we haven't seen in a long time.
I'll simply begin with the person that elevates the entire thing: Joaquin Phoenix. Now, if there's something I'm not going to do is compare his performance with Heath Ledger's. That's the number one mistake people are going to keep making forever. First of all, The Dark Knight and Joker couldn't be more distinct films, even if they belong to the same genre (despite Joker being unique, it's still about a famous comic-book villain). Then, despite Phoenix and Ledger portraying the same "version" of the clown (crazy, sadistic psychopath), the former is 90% Arthur Fleck while the latter is 100% Joker, throughout each of their movies. Finally, Phoenix is the sole protagonist of this feature, while Ledger had the best live-action Batman sharing the spotlight.
In conclusion, it's both unfair, and a bit unreasonable to compare both interpretations since their roles have a different impact on the narrative, as well as each film being entirely different. In the end, both are impressive. However, let's switch to Phoenix since he's the star of this show … He has 2019's best performance, by far! With a strong marketing campaign, I'm sure he'll get that Oscar. I hope so! It's so well-deserved. Todd Phillips and Scott Silver developed a brilliant screenplay, but Phoenix elevates it to a whole other level.
Throughout the entire runtime, I felt weird. Perturbed. Even uncomfortable with what I was watching and consequently feeling. It's a dark, brutal, violent, emotionally powerful origin of a villain who I feel disturbingly empathetic towards. Phoenix makes the story work due to its remarkably captivating display of someone who's mentally ill. Arthur Fleck slowly becoming crazier is due to how society behaves and not due to some chemical pool that transforms his skin white and hair green (nothing wrong with this, but I know which origin story I prefer). "The world is getting crazier out there", and it becomes excruciatingly painful to deal with it, especially when so much is going on with Arthur’s personal life, and most of it he doesn't even realize because he tries to hide everything behind a smile.
It's a screenplay filled with narrative twists that not only pack a punch of surprise but leave you feeling extremely upset. The last act is one of the best in the last few years. If the second act is an enormous build-up, the last one is a terrific payoff. I can't remember the last movie I saw where I loved 100% every single narrative decision. I wouldn't do any of the big moments differently. There are so many excellent references hidden in plain sight that comic-book fans (and fans of the TDK trilogy as well) will love just like I did. In the ending, there's one pivotal moment in particular that serves as the absolute climax … I got chills all over my body. They couldn't have done that scene more perfect. I only have one tiny nitpick with the way some scenes feel repetitive since they neither move the plot forward or give us anything new. Some of these still help to create tension, some feel like they're just… there.
A Best Picture and Best Actor nominations seem to be on its way, but these are not the only achievements that deserve to be recognized. The original score by Hildur Guðnadóttir is incredibly addictive, so much that I'm listening to it while writing this review. It definitely helps to generate tremendous build-up, and it elevates the sinister environment of Gotham City. Lawrence Sher's cinematography is utterly stunning. The underexposure of some scenes is glorious. Sher paints the screen with so many gorgeous shots, especially with his close-ups on Phoenix, where the latter is able to shine. Jeff Groth is also impeccable in the editing room. There are several long takes with Phoenix just giving his all and letting all his emotions out (or keeping them all contained), which is always something I deeply appreciate since it helps with the flow of the narrative.
Regarding the film's controversy surrounding its messages and the incentive to violence, I really don't know what to say. It's ridiculous. I remember those times when going into the movie theater was a surreal experience. It was the number one place for people to forget about their lives, jobs, everything. Joker is a fictional story! It's the origin of one of the worst psychopaths in the history of comic-books and cinema. If people expected to leave the theater "happy" or "joyful", then at least one of the film's message is right: society really is getting crazier. Have people forgotten who Joker is? What could you possibly expect from his origin story?!
Nowadays, no one knows how to behave (social media is the primary source for spreading hate). No one respects the fellow citizen or even the world itself. More and more people only look at their own bellies. Political agendas are everywhere. New extreme movements are created every other year. Social hypersensibility is exponentially growing. The same way some people will hate this movie for not being able (or simply not wanting) to accept that they feel empathy towards a murderer, people all around the world behave like their actions don't reflect on another person's life and on their own planet. If people get ruthlessly violent because they watched Joker, how can someone complain that the film's message is bad when it's eventually true?
All in all, Joker is one of the best movies of the year, and it's definitely on my Top3 at the date of this review. Joaquin Phoenix delivers my favorite male performance of 2019, by elevating a script about the origin of one of the evilest villains ever. The way he gradually becomes more insane is worthy of study, but it's how he's able to make the audience create empathy towards a psychopath that leaves me disturbingly captivated. Todd Phillips produces a character-study filled with an astonishingly tense build-up and one of the most chill-inducing payoffs of the last few years. With every single narrative decision nailed perfectly, Hildur Guðnadóttir's score and Lawrence Sher's cinematography stand out. The lack of restraint in showing the unmerciful violence (physical and mental) that society inflicts on one another is what makes us feel unsettled. Because we know it's mostly true, and we refuse to accept it. It's not a film about the Joker. It's a very realistic portrayal of someone (anyone!) who can become someone like him. And it's disturbingly brilliant!
PS: Robert DeNiro (Murray Franklin) and Zazie Beetz (Sophie Dumond) are also great. Phoenix's performance is so mesmerizing that I almost forgot there were other actors in the movie.
Rating: A
Joker. The character that has existed since 1940, has become so heavy with so many different portrayals, different origins, that it feels impossible for any mortal man alive to impersonate the scattered personalities. It is an insurmountable task for any director to digest it all and still produce one more.
Todd Phillips had a crazy challenge. He brought in one of the best actors alive to lift it with him, Joaquin Phoenix. Together, they have built a mass-market masterpiece which is just above the crop. It is appropriately crazy and completely focussed on the central character. The narrator goes close to the shores of that craziness, wets his feet but remains dry to tell this story. It is like those news reporters which go closer to the burning amazon, but it is impossible to step in the fumes. In no way, Joker is telling his story. Instead, his story is told to us and there are pillars of sanity (like the detectives, asylum clerk etc.) which remain steadfast to give a strong anchor to the audience. This dilutes the effect of the film.
With the copious amount of material on Joker already, I wished to consider this film as a standalone character study vaguely inspired by the batman universe. But this is not entirely possible. I was forced to think about it on two levels. With Batman and Without Batman.
With Batman, The Joker is on the home turf. There have been many renditions of Joker, and Heath Ledger's portrayal is still vivid in my mind. I knew that Arthur here will go on to become someone who is going to say, “Introduce a little anarchy. Upset the established order, and everything becomes chaos. I'm an agent of chaos...”. When I was thinking Joker in the context of Batman, I could not keep Ledger's joker too far away. I was searching for a path for Arthur to go from the mentally unstable to the calculating anarchist. I was left searching for that path when the movie ended. To remain as the crown prince of crime, and to justify the title of the greatest adversary of Batman, just mental instability isn't good enough. He needs to be much more intelligent, much more cunning. These traits are often visible early, In the case of Arthur, I could not find that complete foundation upon which the later psyche can stand. This reminded me of Cameron Monaghan's Jerome Valeska. The joker of my understanding is somewhere between the cruelty of Jerome and pitiable delusions of Arthur. Also, the iconic Batman moment was not needed in this. I kept feeling that Joker is trying to stand with the support of Batman's tale as a clutch. A safety net enforced by the producers.
On the other hand, if I consider this movie as a standalone tale, then it was a bit more satisfying. There are tearjerker movies where nothing good ever happens with the protagonist. A series of bad lucks, or difficulties keep blocking a normal life. He is most definitely poor, has a sub-optimal family background, has a medical affliction which is unique and provides a foundation of the pity I felt. This is not very far from Rani Mukharjee's Hichki if you only consider the medical condition. Rani's Naina had Tourette syndrome while Joaquin's Arthur suffers from pseudobulbar affect. The setting and genre make the two films vastly different. More often than not, I have noticed these disorders lift a lot of burden from the narrative. In the case of Joker, couple his disorder with usually being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you have a travesty of human life. Add to that, an unstable parent, amplify it with the volatile societal conditions, you have a perfect decoction of what Joker is made of. As a tale of its own, it works. The delivery is great thanks to the spectacular performance. It also helps to increase the awareness of mental health. But when you strip off all the Batman context, it remains a well-acted and averagely written tale.
Unfortunately, this is a single film, and I felt it is torn between these two polarising treatments. It wants to find its ground, which it finds. But that ground is far from being sensational. It remains somewhat indecisive. It can not be well soaked in Batman lore like James Gordon's tale, Gotham is. I am considering Gotham because both Gotham and Joker do not feature Batman, but they both have Bruce. Gotham understands its lore and fully embraces it but Joker does not want to. At the same time, as a tale of the psychologically troubled protagonist, Joker tries to play safe with the aim to please audience en-mass. I kept thinking about American Psycho and The Machinist. (Coincidently, both star ex-Batman Christian Bale). Those two take you in the psyche of the protagonist. Those take you inside the burning Amazon and not stand at a safe distance. Joker does not aim to do so.
I am not at all qualified to talk about the acting performances. Joaquin Phoenix is in every frame and the way he waltzes between emotions is terrifyingly amazing. The Tai Chi to calm himself down, the menacing stare when finally becomes the Joker, those are chilling. He lives the character to the best of his abilities. Regrettably, he does not have the same level of writing support which Heath Ledger had and so due to no fault of his own, Joaquin could not topple Heath Ledger's portrayal of the crown prince of crime.
If I consider Todd Philips's entire resume, this was a genre shift for him. He knew very well that the biggest trump card is Joaquin Phoenix, so he takes no risk. He keeps him in focus, almost always all the setting and cinematography works for him. The only exception being Robert De Niro. Robert is allowed to carry his scenes quite independently. I think Todd Philips relied on both these giants to carry their parts. Sadly, I had gone to a theatre which had a bad print or screen so I think I will have to watch it again sometimes to enjoy the cinematography.
I realised, I kept writing a lot and this is already over a thousand words. If you are here and reading still, I must say thank you. To summarise, The Joker worked for me and I enjoyed it, but I would not consider it the best depication of the iconic villain from comic books. The best may yet come.
The Joker is similar to the DC Joker character but is not a criminal genius. The movie was a great depiction of how a person who has been mistreated, lied to, and ignored, totally lacking access to human compassion, can snap. The acting is top notch, and it puts a spotlight on the importance of mental health in modern times.
Okay, this film has already been so widely debated that I’m not sure what I can really add to the conversation. So, I’ll just give my thoughts.
“Joker” is a fairly basic character study of Arthur Fleck, a mentally ill man who feels increasingly marginalized by an uncaring and brutal society in Gotham City. To start, the characters, except for Arthur himself, are pretty flat. They seem to have little purpose other than to further Arthur’s story. This includes Thomas Wayne, who in other media is portrayed as a man of many dimensions, wealthy but caring, and instilling these values in his son Bruce. Here, he is portrayed as much more uncaring and elitist. Which gives much less of an impact in the inevitable alley scene we see in everything remotely related to Batman. More on this in a minute. It’s important to the point.
Arthur suffers a condition that makes him burst into laughter at inappropriate times. He also has other unspecified mental illnesses. We’re never given the specifics. This is actually a little troubling because of the general depiction of mental illness. It almost seems like they are saying that if someone is mentally ill then they are a ticking time bomb and it’s only a matter of time before they go off. This is not a good look.
After a series of events, Arthur begins spiraling downward, but at the same time realizes how much influence he can have over other people, an aspect of the Joker that isn’t often explored. And this is where the characters other than Arthur being rather flat comes into play.
There’s more than one indication that we are actually witnessing these events through Arthur’s eyes. And this creates a brilliant depiction of a narcissistic personality. The only character that gets fully fleshed out is Arthur himself, but he can’t or won’t connect with other people to see their depth. As such, we get to see narcissism from the inside, no connection to others and in fact seeing them as pawns in his own schemes. It’s subtle and definitely not in your face, but if you look carefully, the hints are there.
Those who fear that "Joker" would glorify incel violence or otherwise can rest a little easier, but as I mentioned, the film isn't without its troubling portrayals. It does vilify the mentally ill, which creates a whole host of other issues. The movie swings wildly between "excellent" and just "okay," and sometimes even "meh." As such, it gets a recommendation, but only a mild one.
*A Masterpiece*.
The movie shows the escalating events that made Arthur become the Joker. Initially an inoffensive poor and sick man, Arthur suffered a tide of unfortunate events that pushed him closer and closer to the edge.
Ignored and despised by everyone, sick and alone in the world, and neglected by the State, Arthur becomes progressively more violent until he breaks.
Much more than one more Super-hero movie, *Joker* uses well-known characters to promote the reflection on the "ignored" ones. At least, ignored until they become a Joker.
***Not fun, but absorbing, artistic and tragic***
A mentally troubled middle-aged clown (Joaquin Phoenix) who lives with his mother (Frances Conroy) in Gotham City goes from not good to worse when he finally realizes his true identity. Robert DeNiro plays a talk show host and Zazie Beetz the friendly girl down the hall. Brett Cullen is on hand as Thomas Wayne, Bruce’s rich father.
"Joker" (2019) is an arty, slow-burn character study of the popular DC Comics’ villain, but it’s more of a psychological crime drama/thriller and tragedy than a superhero flick (or, in this case, supervillain). The movie’s captivating from the get-go and practically everything works for a broodingly superb cinematic experience.
There are several amusing bits, but this ain’t a fun flick. It’s heavy and tragic. But what’s the message? Simply that this is how a quirky man who wanted to make people laugh became The Joker. He’s a little reminiscent of the clown in Steve Gerber’s “Night of the Laughing Dead” in Man-Thing #5 (1974).
The movie runs 2 hours, 2 minutes, and was shot in New York City (Bronx, Harlem, Manhattan) and nearby New Jersey (Jersey City & Newark).
GRADE: A-/A
_Joker_ is a tour-de-force of a movie, not quite like anything I've seen, maybe since Taxi Driver. At its core it's a movie about the breaking point of a broken man, wrapped under the banner of a comic book movie that, take out the Waynes, works on its own.
Joaquin Phoenix truly gives a transformative performance (not unlike Heath Ledger) and will say is deserving of an Academy Award. The supporting cast all did well, though, and it is a small role, Zazie Beetz was great and De Niro had his moments, particularly at the end.
Got to hand it to Todd Phillips, between this and the good, albeit flawed, War Dogs, has proven to be more than those Hangover movies.
No, this isn't a feel-good movie and while it does sit at the top of my 2019 list, not entirely sure when I'd revisit. **4.75/5**
the ‘Hangover 2 & 3’, the two most uncomfortable comedies he’s ever directed that felt more crime drama than anything funny. There’s also some dark humor in ‘Joker’ that involves a door chain. It’s silly, yet absolutely terrifying with the given context. A complete departure from his other work and that’s why I think it’s one of his best. I honestly think he made something so unique and meaningful. Seriously, I do.
The score by Hildur Guðnadóttir helped set the tone tremendously. A melancholy tone with a chaotic twist. A representation of Arthur slowly drowning in his own misery and pain. A little fun fact: The score for the film were written based on the script even before the actual filming of the movie started, which I think is the best way to do it, if you ask me. Someone to imagine movie by songs and incorporate their interpretation through music.
The cinematography was gorgeous and there’s a handful of shots that has imprinted into my memory. Lawrence Sher does an excellent job off showing the decaying Gotham city and the sewer waste look of the city. Bright neon lights with striking colors that manage to make the most run down of places look pretty.
I like how they actually gave Thomas Wayne a character rather than “guy gets shot in alleyway”. He’s portrayed as a ruthless man with blunt ways of saving Gotham City. However he loves his wife and son, so his unforgiving attitude was all for the shake of keeping his loved ones safe. He’s also a massive movie buff where he often goes to watch the classics on the big screen. So it’s an interesting take on the character viewed in somebody’s else perspective.
There’s a scene where Arthur goes to watch a comedy standup show to take notes on a comedians act. Every time a joke is told and everyone laughs, his face is frozen in place with an unsure grin while his eyes look around the room wondering why everyone’s laughing, but when the laughter dies down he jumps to live with a delayed laugh. It’s moments like that are simple, yet says a lot about him. Basically showing how disconnected he is with humor and everyone else.
Now lets talk about the controversy that's been surrounding this movie:
This is one of the most ludicrous controversy in recent memory. The movie will not cause or inspire violence, but shows why violence happens. I mean, there probably has been incidents when somebody committed a horrendous crime because their were influenced by a movie or a game. However, it’s he/she that should be brought into question, not the creators. Maybe this movie could inspire people to think twice about how they treat others. Why not think about the positives? If “Joker” is going to be responsible for violence and mass shootings, then so is every other movie with any form of violence ever. If people really care about how violence is portrayed in movies, then Rob Zombies ‘3 From Hell’ should also receive the same attention. Just imagine ‘Natural Born Killers’ times 100, but I guess it’s not mainstream enough for any of that. And sure, there’s some brutal and raw approach to violence in ‘Joker’, but we all have seen worst. ‘Deadpool’ is more graphic than this. It's not the directors duty to teach morals to the viewer. People will never learn to stop pointing fingers at things to blame and actually do something about it! People often understandment how much power their got.
Anywhere, sorry about that folks, just had to get that off my chest. Go and check it out.
Overall rating: “Send in the clowns” ⇠ you’ve gotta sing that like Frank Sinatra.
It is intersting to analyze this movie in a context of global increase of violent social movements against the Establishment. Joker succeed in making me accept a violent reactions without really explicit political fundation.
This is going to be one of those posts where I go against the mainstream but my reaction when I watched this movie was: You got to be f… kidding me?
The only resemblance to the REAL joker in this movie is the name. As far as I am concerned this movie is an insult to the fans of Batman and the REAL Joker.
The “Joker” in this move is a unintelligent deranged nutcase. There is a sob story in the background about how he became that way which is totally uninteresting.
The REAL joker is a intelligent criminal mastermind. I was waiting for this nutcase to actually become that for the entire movie. Spoiler alert, it never happened! This guy starts as a useless sobbing nutcase and he ends the movie as the same useless sobbing nutcase.
The movie has NOTHING to do with the real Joker. It is a blatant attempt to garner support for a unrelated psychopathic thriller by using the Joker name. If it would have been advertised as such I probably would have, if not liked it, so at least appreciated it for it’s qualities. It is indeed a well done movie technically and the main character is indeed excellently performed.
However, even if I try to distance myself from the deceitful Joker label, I find it overall boring, too long and really a movie about a psychopath probably made by someone with mental issues himself. But then that’s Hollywood today.
That the politically biased and elitist so called “critics” on sites like Rotten Tomatoes like it is not really surprising but I have to confess that I am somewhat surprised at the rave ratings by real viewers on some other sites.
Honestly, I was expecting to be disappointing by this movie. Then I am always cautious about movies getting rave reviews, especially from the previously mentioned totally useless and crappy “review” site. I did not expect this level of disappointment though. Epic fail as far as I am concerned.