Joker (2019)

(SPOILER WARNING!!)



One thing to make clear before I begin this review; I will not be discussing my opinion on the "controversy" surrounding this film. I may do so at a later date, but just like my review on Captain Marvel, the purpose of this blog is not to discuss any real political repercussions this film may or may not have on our society; I am here to review a movie, pointing out my own pros and cons as well as any other details I will need to bring up in relation to my opinion. If you have any thoughts on the "controversy", please discuss them somewhere else or until I do bring my own thoughts on it to the table. For now, I will only say this; Todd Phillips, people didn't like your comedies because they, objectively, were not funny; it wasn't because "woke culture ruined comedy" or any such bullshit. Learn to take some constructive criticism and grow the fuck up.

With all that said, plot synopsis:

In 1981 Gotham City, failed stand-up Arthur Fleck is simply having the worst time possible; he's emotionally and mentally unwell, has to act as a carer for his ill mother, is regularly beaten by random thugs, and has a condition where he laughs uncontrollably without meaning to do so (based on a real thing, incidentally; the Pseudo-Bulbar Affect. Check here for specifics). As the days go by and the world around him continues to beat him into the ground in both a figurative and literal sense, he slowly loses his grip on reality and begins to find humour in the darkest places possible, eventually culminating in his transformation into the most notorious criminal that Gotham will come to know; the Joker.

Right off the bat (pun not intended), the goal of the film is to make the viewer as uncomfortable as possible. This is not a film that's trying to get a giggle out of the audience or draw them in with big, loud action scenes; it's a film that's ugly, cynical, harsh, gritty and lacking any form of subtlety with it's themes. And frankly, I find that kind of refreshing. While films like Avengers: Endgame or Shazam can give me a good, fun time with entertaining characters, I think it's great that this film is going to break the mould with comic book films and draw attention to the emotions of the characters rather than their roles in the story.

That said, there are times where the lack of a focused narrative can be a detriment; namely, there is not much in terms of character development or interaction beyond what we get with the title character and his struggles. This can be somewhat justified, as 95% percent of the film is shown from his own perspective; very rarely does it divert away from him and his interactions with the other characters. However, because of that, it makes it hard to really get a grasp on the personalities of most of the cast, leaving them as little more than mouth pieces who exist to get Arthur from scene to scene. Was it intentional as part of making the audience uncertain, or was it an accident from a lack of attention on the story? Who can tell with this film, really?

As expected, Joaquin Phoenix does a great job in this film, but he goes the extra mile to give a version of the Joker with arguably the most layers to him. On top of losing a substantial amount of weight and researching the Pseudo-Bulbar Affect for the role, there are things that he does with the physicality of the character of both Arthur Fleck and the Joker. The more he goes through the film and starts to lose his grips on reality, he starts to gain more confidence and straightens his posture more as he embraces the "funny side" of the real world. He embodies everything funny about the Joker, but also everything tragic about Arthur. I wouldn't say that I fully sympathise with the character due to the actions he takes later on in the film, but I can say that I understand his motivations.

If I were to nitpick anything, it would have to do with the involvement of the Wayne family in the narrative. Initially, the film had us believe that Arthur had a closer and more personal connection to the Wayne's because of revelations found in a letter to Thomas Wayne from Arthur's mother. This lead to an interesting interaction that Arthur has a young Bruce Wayne and Alfred, as well as the inevitable confrontation with the Wayne patriarch. What relevance does this have on the plot?



This is not hyperbolic. Beyond yet ANOTHER recreation of the Wayne's getting shot in the alleyway, there is little reason for them to be in this film. It's not even a major revelation when we, as the audience, learn the truth; it's a by product of the actual reveal regarding Arthur's upbringing. The Wayne's could've been replaced by a different rich family and nothing would've changed in regards to the narrative.

It really hard to pin down a solid opinion on this film, hence why this review is short. From a technical standpoint, it is really good; with solid acting, directing and production values. However, I can definitely see the storytelling and characterisation turning people off. I recognise that the film's main goal is to make the audience as uncomfortable as possible, and it does touch upon mental health issues in a unique way. But some of the twists and turns aren't likely going to sit well with people after their viewing of the film. Even as I write this review, I'm unsure of what I really think of this film. I suppose the best I can say about is that it does succeed with what it wants to do; it made me uncomfortable watching it.

Overall rating: Unsure.

If you liked what you've read, please leave a comment letting me know what you think of this bizarre movie. You wanna support the reviews or know more of my thoughts, please follow me on Twitter @Media_Man18. And if you want more content on a weekly basis, you can check out my YouTube channel here. Leave a like, subscribe and comment if you so desire.

But until next time; this is Callum Lewis, the Media Hood, signing off!

IT: Chapter 2 (2019)

(SPOILER WARNING!!)



I think that it's fair to say that, after the critical and box office success of the Bill Skarsgard version of "IT" in 2017, people audiences were clambering for the second part to come out. And admittedly, I was kind of in the same boat. While I wasn't the biggest fan of the cinematic re-imagining of the Stephen King novel, I will say that the cast was very strong and Skarsgard stole the show as an entirely new version of Pennywise the Dancing Clown. However, these were also my thoughts on the Tim Curry mini-series from the 90's, with the film only improving with the pacing of the stuff with the kids.

With all that said, how exactly does the sequel, "IT: Chapter 2", fare both as a standalone film and in comparison to it's predecessor? Let's find out.

While the first film adapted the portion of the book focusing on the children, this film sees them 27 years later. Bill (played by James McAvoy) is now a best-selling author, though his endings tend to suck (this is a running joke, incidentally); Mike (Isaiah Mustafa) has stayed in Derry as a librarian; Ben (Jay Ryan) has lost all of the weight from his youth and is now a highly paid architect; Richie (Bill Hader) is a stand-up comedian who has all of his material written for him; Eddie (James Ransone) is a risk analyst married to a woman just like his mother (bit of an Oedipus complex, really); Beverly (Jessica Chastain) is a fashion designer with an abusive husband; and Stanley (Andy Bean) is... well, read the book and you'll see how important he is.

They're all (minus Stanley) reunited in the modern day (or rather, 2016) when Mike calls everyone back to Derry as "It" had awakened once again as Pennywise and is seeking revenge on the ones who survived his wrath during their childhoods. However, Mike believes he has a solution to deal with the killer clown from outer space; the Ritual of Chud, which can be used to put the monster down for good. From there, the gang goes through the same things they did as kids to retrieve what they needed for the ritual.

There; only took me at least 2 minutes to write that out; why does it take almost 3 fucking hours for them to get to the point?

That's probably the biggest issue that I have with this film; there is no reason for it to be almost 3 hours long, as much of the story could easily be told 2 or 2 and half hours. There are several scenes and characters that could've easily been cut out of the film entirely and the pacing would've been all the better for it. The gay bashing scene at the beginning of the film which incites Mike calling everyone back? Could've been cut and replaced with the scene of the girl being eaten by Pennywise at the baseball game. Most of the flashbacks to the time when the Losers Club was split up after facing Pennywise in the house? They could've been shortened or cut out entirely and nothing would've been lost as nothing new was learned about these characters.

Heck, there is a kid that the Losers Club encounter sporadically throughout the film who gets eaten by Pennywise at the local amusement park in front of Bill. What does this add to the story or character development?



It's not like this scene was really used to hammer in Bill's guilt over losing Georgie as a kid; he had already gotten over that by the end of the first film. And even if for the sake of argument Pennywise used this to guilt trip Bill, he redoes the stuff with Georgie again by having Bill confront his younger self, only for him to instantly realise he wasn't to blame for Georgie being killed by the clown. Therefore, the addition of this kid getting killed by Pennywise in front of Bill? It's completely pointless and makes the kid a superfluous waste of time.

And you can't tell me that the gay bashing scene and the flashbacks were kept for "book accuracy"; they left out the kid orgy when making the first film, as well as other Pennywise encounters from the book that aren't in the film. Essentially, those scenes were worthless additions that only exist to extend the running time to almost 3 hours long, when they only really had enough story to fill in at least 2 hours and 15 minutes.

Most of the scares I also felt were pretty weak in comparison to the first film, and this is coming from someone who wasn't all that scared by the first film to begin with. Most of the scares in this film relies on the music being far too loud and Pennywise just jumping out at the characters to try and freak them out. Him jumping out once or twice is fine, but he does it at least 6 times by the end of the film, and it got old fast for me. Jumpscare horror for me is one of the laziest ways to scare somebody. It's the equivalent of waiting around the corner for someone and then jumping out yelling "boo"! It's not scary; it's fucking annoying.

And of course, the ending was stupid. Really, really, REALLY stupid. It's where they shove out the most exposition and has the characters being over the top scared by otherwise mundane things. This one thing I never understood about the story; I understand them being scared of this thing as kids, but why are they scared as adults? While some phobias might stick with you as you get older (arachnophobia or claustrophobia, for instance), I don't understand why they'd be afraid of Pennywise given that his main form is a silly looking clown. I know that people act scared of clowns as a joke, but I personally never though that clowns were scary, which only emphasises how silly this finale is when they face off against a giant Pennywise spider hybrid with his Deadlights exposed.

With all that said, is there anything I enjoyed? Actually, yes. The cast I felt did a great job with the roles that they were given, especially Bill Hader as an older version of Richie. I had no problem believing that this is the same kid all grown up and making snarky asshole remarks. Richie was my favourite character from the first film, so it's nice to see that remain true in the sequel. Although, I do think that James McAvoy as Bill really needs to work on his American accent. Nothing against his acting, but accents really aren't his strong suit.

Also, loved the cameo from Stephen King. I'm surprised he didn't have one in the first film (or the mini-series for that matter), but nice to see him nonetheless.

I also thought that the grown up version of psycho bully Henry (Teach Grant) was a creepy performance as well. The character has very little screen time or actual interaction with the characters, but the way that the actor carries himself leaves a very disturbing presence. This is all true for the first film and it was nice to have it carry over to this one. I only wish the effects on his dead friend was better handled and that we saw more of his escape from the asylum, or even how he found the Losers Club without being noticed by anyone.

One thing I'll definitely in regards to the tone of this film; the scares may be over the top and gory as Hell, but I'll be damned if I didn't have fun the entire time watching it. A lot of the story can get so dumb and insanely bizarre that it all starts to become really funny to me. I couldn't stop myself from laughing whenever I saw Pennywise showed off his sharp teeth or a special moment when Richie is caught in the Deadlights:



Tell me you can look at that moment when Richie's eyes roll back and somehow resist laughing.

By the end of the day, IT: Chapter 2 has plenty of good things going for it. The cast all do a great job with their roles, the music is good when it doesn't overstay its welcome, and there are some really good camera tricks with how some scares are revealed. But I hate having to go through so many needless jumpscares and a story that goes on for far longer than it had any right to be. This film is one of those instances where more stuff could've been cut and we would missing nothing as a result. I still recommend that you go watch it, but only if you have the patience to sit through several lengthy scenes to get to the juicy parts.

Overall rating 6/10 (it's fine).

And that's all I've gotta say about IT: Chapter 2. If you like what you've read, please do me a solid and share this on social media and comment below what you thought of the movie. If you want to see more of this content, I'd greatly appreciate it if you follow me on Twitter @Media_Man18, along with subscribing to my YouTube channel which you can view here. I try to post a new vid every week, so keep an eye out.

But until next time; this is Callum Lewis, the Media Hood, and remember:

You'll float. You'll ALL FLOAT!