Joker
Direction: Discount Scorsese. The greasy look of Gotham is directly comparable to 70's New York. We don't think they even tried to hide this fact. We really liked the colours and character designs but the overall visual look of the film leaves something to be desired. There are certain moments where we feel the direction kinda works, like when Arthur is at his neigbour's flat and realizes he has imagined their whole relationship or when he is dancing alone in the deserted bathroom. Otherwise, though, this film leaves all the work to the actor. The film suffers from the modern movie syndrome of stating the obvious (note: stating, not showing) and a lot of the lines could fit into a superhero film. Which this movie is (more about that in the story part). It does not bode well when the actor seems to know more about film-making than the director of the film (we've seen the interviews, that's clearly the case here). This is not a badly directed film by any means, but it is quite un-noteworthy, like most movies nowadays.
Performance: Phoenix single-handedly holds this movie together. His performance deserves better than this film. The movie and the actor are at odds with each other. Phoenix overshadows everything else in this film. That should not happen if one wants to make a truly great film.
Story: Joker was clearly to liberal movie critics what Mad Max: Fury Road was to meninists. They clutched their pearls quite effectively, some without even seeing this movie and basing all their moral panic on trailers. We saw this as your basic superhero movie, just about the villain this time. It does try to peek into an alienated mind and alienation from society in general but we feel that's a bit undone when it turns into an anti-hero origin story in the end. We appreciate the depiction of billionaire Thomas Wayne as completely removed from reality, but ultimately the disdain the film has for billionaires is undermined by the sympathetic story of the poor little billionaire boy Brucie whose parents are killed because of the villain. That said, we do not understand the outrage about this movie. We wouldn't be surprised if the whole "generating outrage" turned out to be a marketing ploy. All in all, the story is pretty nihilistic and doesn't really stand for anything - which one could argue, is exactly the kind of film that fits a Joker type character. At least Joker admitted that we live in a society.
Ad Astra
Direction: Unsurprisingly, we loved it. The references it gave to other science-fiction films while retaining its own distinct visual look is something we've always appreciated in this director. The colours were amazing, set designs, lighting, sound design, etc. James Gray is a fucking master of show, don't tell. The only quibble we really have with the direction is the music, which directly ties into the visuals. You had Max Richter as your composer (mostly) and your score ends up being 90 % purely sounds. There are no themes or even A theme in this movie and that's something we really miss in modern films. And James Gray has used music before in his films, so this isn't about his lack of understanding concerning film music. We think it was a conscious choice of not having music, but we believe the film would have greatly benefited from some Richter vibes. This film isn't Silence, it needed a score. Generally, we are not fond of narration on film, but much like in Fight Club, the movie presents an unreliable narrator, which we do like, since that often means leaving things to the viewer's interpretation. We could gush about James Gray endlessly but let's try to keep it brief. The film was well worth the wait.
Performance: It has been a while since we've seen Brad Pitt do some serious dramatic acting in a lead role capacity. We actually forgot that he's more than capable. Pitt, unlike Phoenix, did not have to do the work of the director. The performance is part of the film, not above it. Pitt's and Jones' performances complement each other perfectly.
Story: The movie handles the relationship between father and son, like many other Gray's films. The theme of connection actually pays off at the end of the film, when the father is revealed to be a much more tragic and isolated character and the protagonist realizing that he does not want to be like his father. This is actually happier than most Gray's films. The story doesn't have women as characters because the story is only about the father and son. Historically, that is a problem, but picking out a film that's specifically intent on exploring masculinity and sometimes even deconstructing it (which all Gray's films do) feels a tad disingenuous and criticism made in bad faith. Also, the visuals in this movie make the women people who live outside of the main character's world, not extensions of the man. We absolutely loved the ending, where the film shows its true humanist colours - empathy, understanding and mercy are the way to connection. The loss of someone you cared about gives the movie a pinch of melancholy that stays with you even after the film is over.
