Joker (2019)

[Peelee]

Right now, when it comes to DC and their movies, I'm more interested in seeing Aquaman for the second time.

Spoiler: Aquaman

Show

In Aquaman, he beats up the bad guys. Like it should be in a comic book movie.

You're making the mistake of thinking this is a comic book movie. It's not. It's a character study. Frankly, I don't want to watch a guy punch another guy, because that's boring (unless it's Jackie Chan, and he works hard to make it not boring). This is a story about who this person is and how he changes. If you like watching people punch other people, there's nothing wrong with that, but don't expect this movie to be that and then dismiss it because it doesn't do that.

[Dienekes]

I'm also not a fan of the character at all. I've always thought that Joker is a pretty lame villain when you think about it. He's a psycho who kills people for no reason. Usually, those are called one-dimensional villains.

Those are reasons why he is the best villain. When you have to stop and think about it to rationalize why you shouldn't like something you're just getting in your own way. Really the only thing a character actually needs is to be interesting for the audience. A pretty easy way to make a character interesting is to flesh out their backstory and make it all sad and twistedly justified. But, honestly, some of the best most memorable villains have none of that and make it through by pure charisma or terror alone. Joker, Anton Chigurh, Sauron, Moriarty, Big Brother, Joffrey, Bill Cipher. These characters are very simple in their motivations. But they wrap the audience up in their exploits in wonderful ways, or feel so oppressive the audience becomes terrified by the name. And in a lot of cases developing them further actually weakens the character. Chancellor Susan from V for Vendetta is just a developed Big Brother and he is way less interesting because of it (though V is still a great book). Which is part of why this movie isn't the Joker for me, even if it is a good movie.

Mind you of course, when the character has no other dimensions and isn't interesting to watch then they're just a failure of a character. Onslaught comes to mind.

Though trying to give complex motivations and rationalizations without giving them an interesting personality can be just as bad. Malekith from Thor 2 comes to mind. He has legitimate reasons for what he does. He's just so dull.


Mind you, of course, if you aren't interested from watching the crazy clown do crazy clown things, I am by no means saying you have to like it. But Joker is in no way a lame villain.

[Dr.Samurai]

I'm mixed on this movie. I think it was very well done, but I thought some of the plot points could have used more development or were a little weak.

Spoiler: What I liked (Spoilers)

Show

Joaquin Phoenix was excellent as usual. He was able to bring out the cringey or tense scenes more for me. In particular, the performance on stage at the comedy club, when he's trying to stop laughing as the guys on the train are stalking toward him, and when he is trying to mimic the actor's introduction on the late night show... these scenes were particularly tense or unsettling for me and the actor nailed them.

I like the introduction of this chronic laughing condition. Added something new and interesting to play around with for the character.

I loved the Joker's look. I'm not sure how to describe it other than he looks very "cool" to me.

The movie itself also looked good with regards to direction and setting.

Spoiler: My issues with the movie (Spoilers)

Show

I know this is my own personal bias but, I don't like passive characters that are bullied and downtrodden. I just have a hard time getting into them. Arthur, for a good portion of the movie, is a very sympathetic character that gets ignored or abused by many people. That makes me feel bad for him, but it also makes me feel like he is someone to take care of, in one way or another, rather than a protagonist that has agency and is moving the story forward. Things just happen to Arthur mostly, until he is given a gun and forced to defend himself. I'm not a fan of the "one bad day" notion, so this movie was already working uphill to sell me on it. But I think tacking "one bad day" onto a character like Arthur Fleck makes it even harder to swallow. He is practically harmless to anyone but those that can't defend themselves (his mother) or those that simply don't see an attack coming (everyone else he harms). Even at the end, when he's got the gun and the plan to use it, he does so while crying and ranting about how bad everyone has been to him.

Arthur, even as "the Joker" in this scene, still seems like someone anyone can defeat. Hell, someone that approaches him nicely can probably get him to drop the gun and turn himself in. That's probably exactly what happened since police didn't kill him when they apprehended him.

But when we see him at the end, somehow he is able to kill the doctor while cuffed and escape the room. How? One bad day suddenly erases years and years of experience, mental illness, and social influence/conditioning? It's a nice idea I suppose.

One could argue that the meds were keeping him unable to function, but that seems counter to one of the supposed messages of this movie which is people need medicine for their mental illnesses.

I get that it's an origin story but Arthur Fleck is a social outcast with mental illness that doesn't understand people. That he gets fed up with everyone being mean to him doesn't change much of this. He'd be a violent man that gets put in prison, end of story. If this was Michael Douglas in Falling Down, okay, maybe he becomes the Joker. But Arthur Fleck is shown to be so pathetic that it makes it that much harder to believe he is going to be anything approximating a villain, let alone a super villain, let alone Batman's greatest nemesis.

It's just a weird sort of trope (and fantasy really I guess) that someone could be so wretched and victimized, and then become so self-actualized and powerful just because they "snapped out of it". It's like having your cake and eating it too, but I don't think it works. I don't think it helps that they made Arthur actually mentally ill as well (though this was good for this movie and maybe my overall impression is that it should have been a movie and not a "Joker" movie).

Back to the actual movie... the girlfriend delusion was strange and didn't work for me. Several of my friends said they knew right away that she was a delusion. I didn't. I thought "this was a poor choice for the writers/director to make, there is no reason for this woman to be interested in Arthur". So I mostly ignored that aspect, which wasn't hard because she barely did anything. But then the reveal happens and I thought "what was the point of that?" So now we don't know what's real? I think they should have either committed to that bit the whole movie or scrapped it. You can have mental illness without delusions. The fantasy about the late night host being a father figure is fine, because Arthur is pathetic and outcast and longs for acknowledgement and love/warmth. But that's different from a delusion. The girlfriend part seemed tacked on for no reason.

Similarly, I know the backdrop in Gotham worked for some people, but I thought the protests and clown theme seemed a little forced. Thomas Wayne calling everyone clowns was somewhat eye-rolling. But it's fine. Gotham has always existed with incredible wealth (the Waynes) and lots of crime (everyone Batman beats up). So it makes sense for this sort of unrest to exist. But people being inspired to riot by this fed-up murdering clown is also eye-rolling for me as well. I guess maybe I don't like frustrated people doing stuff out of frustration lol.

[Peelee]

I'm mixed on this movie. I think it was very well done, but I thought some of the plot points could have used more development or were a little weak.

Spoiler: What I liked (Spoilers)

Show

Joaquin Phoenix was excellent as usual. He was able to bring out the cringey or tense scenes more for me. In particular, the performance on stage at the comedy club, when he's trying to stop laughing as the guys on the train are stalking toward him, and when he is trying to mimic the actor's introduction on the late night show... these scenes were particularly tense or unsettling for me and the actor nailed them.

I like the introduction of this chronic laughing condition. Added something new and interesting to play around with for the character.

I loved the Joker's look. I'm not sure how to describe it other than he looks very "cool" to me.

The movie itself also looked good with regards to direction and setting.

Spoiler: My issues with the movie (Spoilers)

Show

I know this is my own personal bias but, I don't like passive characters that are bullied and downtrodden. I just have a hard time getting into them. Arthur, for a good portion of the movie, is a very sympathetic character that gets ignored or abused by many people. That makes me feel bad for him, but it also makes me feel like he is someone to take care of, in one way or another, rather than a protagonist that has agency and is moving the story forward. Things just happen to Arthur mostly, until he is given a gun and forced to defend himself. I'm not a fan of the "one bad day" notion, so this movie was already working uphill to sell me on it. But I think tacking "one bad day" onto a character like Arthur Fleck makes it even harder to swallow. He is practically harmless to anyone but those that can't defend themselves (his mother) or those that simply don't see an attack coming (everyone else he harms). Even at the end, when he's got the gun and the plan to use it, he does so while crying and ranting about how bad everyone has been to him.

Arthur, even as "the Joker" in this scene, still seems like someone anyone can defeat. Hell, someone that approaches him nicely can probably get him to drop the gun and turn himself in. That's probably exactly what happened since police didn't kill him when they apprehended him.

But when we see him at the end, somehow he is able to kill the doctor while cuffed and escape the room. How? One bad day suddenly erases years and years of experience, mental illness, and social influence/conditioning? It's a nice idea I suppose.

One could argue that the meds were keeping him unable to function, but that seems counter to one of the supposed messages of this movie which is people need medicine for their mental illnesses.

I get that it's an origin story but Arthur Fleck is a social outcast with mental illness that doesn't understand people. That he gets fed up with everyone being mean to him doesn't change much of this. He'd be a violent man that gets put in prison, end of story. If this was Michael Douglas in Falling Down, okay, maybe he becomes the Joker. But Arthur Fleck is shown to be so pathetic that it makes it that much harder to believe he is going to be anything approximating a villain, let alone a super villain, let alone Batman's greatest nemesis.

It's just a weird sort of trope (and fantasy really I guess) that someone could be so wretched and victimized, and then become so self-actualized and powerful just because they "snapped out of it". It's like having your cake and eating it too, but I don't think it works. I don't think it helps that they made Arthur actually mentally ill as well (though this was good for this movie and maybe my overall impression is that it should have been a movie and not a "Joker" movie).

Back to the actual movie... the girlfriend delusion was strange and didn't work for me. Several of my friends said they knew right away that she was a delusion. I didn't. I thought "this was a poor choice for the writers/director to make, there is no reason for this woman to be interested in Arthur". So I mostly ignored that aspect, which wasn't hard because she barely did anything. But then the reveal happens and I thought "what was the point of that?" So now we don't know what's real? I think they should have either committed to that bit the whole movie or scrapped it. You can have mental illness without delusions. The fantasy about the late night host being a father figure is fine, because Arthur is pathetic and outcast and longs for acknowledgement and love/warmth. But that's different from a delusion. The girlfriend part seemed tacked on for no reason.

Similarly, I know the backdrop in Gotham worked for some people, but I thought the protests and clown theme seemed a little forced. Thomas Wayne calling everyone clowns was somewhat eye-rolling. But it's fine. Gotham has always existed with incredible wealth (the Waynes) and lots of crime (everyone Batman beats up). So it makes sense for this sort of unrest to exist. But people being inspired to riot by this fed-up murdering clown is also eye-rolling for me as well. I guess maybe I don't like frustrated people doing stuff out of frustration lol.

Spoiler

Show

It's not just one bad day, though, is it? It's a culmination of bad days, coupled with severe mental issues. He's variously beaten, mocked, degraded, disrespected, and cast aside throughout the entire span of the movie, and we have no reason to think that it started there.

Similarly, the protests and unrest weren't started by his actions, they were already going on; he just gave them a focal point to center on, a clear, simple, and stark "them vs us" imagery to rally around. Even the full-scale riot didn't start until the gun went off in the subway car. Arthur is not responsible for the protests and riot in general, he's responsible for channeling and focusing them around a cult of personality.

A large part of this movie is based around the idea that the Joker wouldn't exist if people did just help him out, so him being a figure that needs help seems like a pretty big point they're trying to make.

[Dr.Samurai]

Spoiler

Show

It's not just one bad day, though, is it? It's a culmination of bad days, coupled with severe mental issues. He's variously beaten, mocked, degraded, disrespected, and cast aside throughout the entire span of the movie, and we have no reason to think that it started there.

Similarly, the protests and unrest weren't started by his actions, they were already going on; he just gave them a focal point to center on, a clear, simple, and stark "them vs us" imagery to rally around. Even the full-scale riot didn't start until the gun went off in the subway car. Arthur is not responsible for the protests and riot in general, he's responsible for channeling and focusing them around a cult of personality.

A large part of this movie is based around the idea that the Joker wouldn't exist if people did just help him out, so him being a figure that needs help seems like a pretty big point they're trying to make.

Spoiler

Show

I don't mind that he is someone that needs help. I mind the kind of help he needs. As I said, I think this movie would be better as a standalone *not-Joker* film. As is, Arthur has severe mental issues, as you put it, no known skill set of any kind except how to be a clown, no confidence as he's been beaten severely since he was a child, and seems to read at a child's level given what we saw of his notes and hand-writing. He also doesn't know what makes people tick, so to speak, as seen in his attempts to laugh at jokes or the fact that everyone is weirded out by him.

So when Arthur has one bad week, let's say, and decides to not care anymore, that only really fixes one of his great host of issues. Arthur was kind, even to people that were abusive towards him. When his coworker calls the boys that beat him up savages, Arthur says "they're just kids". He kisses the midget on the head and lets him go. But now, as the Joker, he won't take **** from anyone anymore and will mete out justice.

Great.

Except he is still mentally ill, not very bright, has no skills, and is off his meds and therapy. The chances that this type of person doesn't devolve into a lump of human misery, and instead becomes some genius criminal mastermind are basically non-zero.

So the movie seems to suggest that all we ever had to do was push Arthur Fleck hard enough and he would come out of his malaise and achieve his desires. But that wouldn't really be the case with the character we're presented. But the movie simply makes it happen.

[Cap'n Gravelock]

Just throwing it out there but, suppose something different happened. Suppose Thomas Wayne somehow became kind to Arthur. Would he have been a different person altogether?

[Khedrac]

I don't think so.

Spoiler: mild spoiler

Show

The film makes it clear that he is on heavy doses of multiple drugs connected with his regualr visits to a therapist. The removal of these means that he becomes a car-crash waiting to happen, the only question is how much damage he does when it happens.

I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.

Spoiler: rather more significant spoiler

Show

Take the scenes that show him establishing a relationship with his neighbour that turn out to be completely imaginary - no matter how well intentioned, someone whis delusional is not going to have a happy ending other than a "normal" life under constant medical evaluation and care.

[HandofShadows]

I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.

Have not seen the movie but I don't think that there is such a thing as "devolution of a psychopath". Everything I have seen on psychopathy points to it's development early in life and at least some sort of biological factor being involved. People don't turn into a psychopath late in life. People however CAN turn into monsters at nearly any time in their lives or suffer from sever mental illness.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't think so.

Spoiler: mild spoiler

Show

The film makes it clear that he is on heavy doses of multiple drugs connected with his regualr visits to a therapist. The removal of these means that he becomes a car-crash waiting to happen, the only question is how much damage he does when it happens.

I did think the films looked like a reasonable chronicle of the devolution of a psychopath, but then I have no professional knowledge of such things.

Spoiler: rather more significant spoiler

Show

Take the scenes that show him establishing a relationship with his neighbour that turn out to be completely imaginary - no matter how well intentioned, someone whis delusional is not going to have a happy ending other than a "normal" life under constant medical evaluation and care.

1st Spoiler

Spoiler

Show

That depends if Thomas is kind and financially aids Arthur, he can afford the drugs and become a better man.
Remember, with the drugs, he is just a sick kind man.
Without, he murders people as an easy way to avoid punishment.

[Khedrac]

1st Spoiler

Spoiler

Show

That depends if Thomas is kind and financially aids Arthur, he can afford the drugs and become a better man.
Remember, with the drugs, he is just a sick kind man.
Without, he murders people as an easy way to avoid punishment.

Yes - but that's not going to make him a 'hero', just a nice man - someone very unsuited to surviving in the dystopia that Gotham is portrayed as.

[uncool]

Yes - but that's not going to make him a 'hero', just a nice man - someone very unsuited to surviving in the dystopia that Gotham is portrayed as.

Agreed.

Spoiler

Show

The entire arc of the movie is centered around Arthur Fleck embracing a lesson that he knows from the beginning: that when no one gives a damn about him, why should anyone else?

Murray calls this out as a bunch of self-pity at the end. And he's entirely correct. He's just by far the wrong person to do so. Because he's another guy who didn't give a damn.

If you want to make Arthur a hero, you need the person that's nice to him to not be someone whom Arthur could blame. You need someone who gives a damn for no reason that Arthur can understand. A Bishop Myriel. Not someone Arthur reaches out to, but someone who reaches out to Arthur. In the characterization of the movie, this can't be Thomas Wayne. And then turn it around and give him a chance to care for someone he isn't expected to - maybe first because it will benefit him, but later because it's right.

You still probably get an antihero, not a hero. Someone who thinks society is utterly broken, and who will be more than willing to sidestep it rather than work through it. But antiheroes can be heroes, too.

[Mr Stereo1]

Spoiler

Show

A lot of people are saying Arthur is just too weak to become a supervillian and I have to agree, but in a lot of ways that makes him a better villian-protagonist and nemesis to Bruce Wayne the Reformer, if not to Batman the Superhero. Arthur had to be dysfunctional and struggling like he was to make his insanity seem like a genuine disability we'd sympathize with rather than just something tacked on to edgy sadism. That decision does leave him very badly equipped to credibly fight anyone, but that vulnerability and the public persona he has makes him an idealogical weapon.

There's a victim culture behind a lot of criminality, which I'm not trying to convince you is right or wrong whatever your beliefs are, and broken abused Arthur makes for a great champion for that mentality. When people start digging into his horror story of a life from being abandoned as a baby, horribly abused as a toddler, cut off from his meds and social worker by budget cuts, beaten up regularly, fired from his job etc it all builds to the sense he never had any hope at all so he may as well have lashed out to get noticed. (They did miss a trick not having camera footage of the Wayne-corp goons harassing the woman and attacking Arthur leak after Thomas made his statement though, that'd have been great class warfare fuel.)

I know they're saying it wasn't planned but I do think there's ammo for a sequel there. You'd have to be careful with building a plot that gives Arthur some agency without making him a super capable super villain but all the information is out there for Bruce to piece together this guy's life story and the cult of personality could make a breakout attempt or third party's attempt to use Joker as a figurehead credible. There's a good setup for another character study story where Bruce tries to get through to Joker, who may or may not be his half brother and indirectly got his parents killed. At least that's my two cents.

[Traab]

Heh, I just had a thought. The Joker is known as an agent of chaos and here we learn its not because he is lol random, but because he sucks at supervillany so his plots and activities make no logical sense. He has no idea what he is doing so he is throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks.

[Tvtyrant]

The Joker's real superpower is being immortal.

Spoiler

Show

He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time.

[Talakeal]

The Joker's real superpower is being immortal.

Spoiler

Show

He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time.

In the words of Calvin: Nah, they all can do that.

[weckar]

I just saw it, and I am a little mixed on this one as well.

I suppose this is where I start spoilertagging.

Spoiler

Show

I think the most unsettling thing about this movie is how close it hits to home. I found the Arthur character VERY identifiable, and realized that with a couple of setbacks that could well be me. I even have a similar condition to him, which made it even eerier (Once I start laughing out loud, it is difficult to stop. I sometimes have laughing fits that last half an hour or more).

The main thing I disliked about this movie is the lack of variety in the violence. It seems the director knows of only one way to non-lethally hurt someone: throw them to the floor and start gabbering. Some were doing it so rhythmically that it genuinely did look like the dance.

The subjective perspective of the film, I did like. Understanding that what may be real and what may not be is entirely up to the audience.

The Joker's real superpower is being immortal.

Spoiler

Show

He gets two beatings over the course of the movie and is in a car accident that knocks out or kills the drivers. His injuries are always superficial, and he recovers at an impossible rate.

I dropped a 1/4 lb iron bar on my arm in july and it took until the end of august to heal. He took kicks to the kidney that could kill someone twice in a week and is better within a few days each time.

I do believe a LOT more time passes in this film than you think...

[Tyndmyr]

Alright, so...watchd it. Excellent movie. No real desire to ever see it again.

It's not that there's plot holes or anything of that nature, really. The plot is quite consistent, well executed, etc. Sure, I can buy that some people would say this joker is a departure from other jokers, but that's...usually the case. Within the context of this one film, the progression largely makes sense.

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

[Tvtyrant]

Alright, so...watchd it. Excellent movie. No real desire to ever see it again.

It's not that there's plot holes or anything of that nature, really. The plot is quite consistent, well executed, etc. Sure, I can buy that some people would say this joker is a departure from other jokers, but that's...usually the case. Within the context of this one film, the progression largely makes sense.

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

I had the same feeling when I watched it, my brother and I compared it with There Will be Blood. I saw it once, I really don't need to watch a movie about the awful bleakness of the human condition twice.

[Peelee]

And here I am trying to find out when my friends plan to see it so I can go with them as an excuse to see it again. I also love the Scott's Tots episode.

[sktarq]

So I'll be honest and say it was good but not great.

Spoiler: Positives

Show

I really liked the unreliable narrator aspect.

Wonderfully shot, visually the story is better than the script.

I liked how they dealt with Thomas Wayne...including how he really set off the riots more than the Joker did (I would say his calling the masses "Clowns" in a very us-vs-them manner is what really set things off)

Music /Score...esp if you feel like using the strong variance in score as a delusion/reality clue

The mum...really good...and her diagnosis was called almost perfectly by the psych PhD i went to the movie with, well before it appeared in the film

his overall decent was handled well IMO

The attack on the gun supplier in his apartment was a great scene

.

Spoiler: Negatives

Show

It felt rather blunt. Especially early on the emotional beats feel more like emotional club hits

Showing the GF delusion as one felt a bit leading around by the nose...I thought it took away from the emotional impact of the moment

I felt the ending explaining himself speech was too Aesop-Fable-here-is-the-moral and thus didn't hit very hard for me.

it felt like it was try to say something more than show a window into a very extreme but very human case and letting you put the pieces together yourself.

The abuse and hit to head (which is actually a major driver of the RW laughing issue Arthur seem to have-but usually have a crying aspect as well) felt a bit like the moral dignity pants that Hannibal Lecter complained about in Silence of the Lambs.

I kind of wanted ... a bit more randomness I guess? Even if it was a side trait.

Many of the side/small characters felt almost harshly one dimensional...which may well be an active directorial choice...a side effect of seeing the world through Arthur's eyes..but it didn't really work for me. The cardboard cutout aspect of how many, but not all, of the side characters does bring out a very Joker talking to them as a tableau in his lair which kind of pulls on the idea this could have worked but didn't quite land for me.

Also Arthur was a very passive protagonist IMO. Most of the movie happened TOO him. If it was trying to make the darkness seem inevitable, it failed. But there was never that idea that Arthur turned into the darkness. It never felt like Arthur made key choices....to grab his mother's file maybe? But after a week that is the only one I can remember.

so overall just didn't land its emotional punches well for me.

[Starbuck_II]

It's more that there is really nobody in the entire film to like or root for. The fact that it works at all despite that is impressive, but it really hurts wanting to see it again.

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

Nah, I rooted for Arthur when he was attacked by the three dudes.
I rooted for the dwarf when he was scared in that apartment.

Those kids might be scarred for life. Great parenting.

[Peelee]

Nah, I rooted for Arthur when he was attacked by the three dudes.
I rooted for the dwarf when he was scared in that apartment.

I was about as scared for the dwarf as he was.

Those kids might be scarred for life. Great parenting.

Imean, I agree completely, but you'd be amazed at what some people take their kids to see.

[Tyndmyr]

The dwarf scene was darkly hilarious and I greatly enjoyed it, yeah. I don't think the kids did, though.

[Peelee]

The dwarf scene was darkly hilarious and I greatly enjoyed it, yeah. I don't think the kids did, though.

Definitely the hardest I ever laughed while being scared ****less.

[Psyren]

A family saw it at the same time I did. They brought all of their wee kids, I have to presume because they believed it was a comic book movie. The kids cried a lot. I don't think they enjoyed it much. Probably not a great choice for a family film.

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

[Peelee]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

Nothing to enforce; if someone under 17 has someone over 21 buy their tickets, they are free to watch the movie*. And trying to tell them it's a bad idea usually ends poorly for the worker.

*At least, in the US.

[Rodin]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

The key word there is "family". An R-rated film like Deadpool is perfectly legal for an adult to bring a minor to.

Either the movie theater staff told the family it's R-rated and were ignored, or the staff were tired of being yelled at for telling families it's R-rated and decided to let the problem sort itself out.

[JadedDM]

Yeah, Rated R doesn't mean kids can't see it, it just means they can't see it without a parent or guardian. If the parent/guardian brings their kids in, there's nothing the theater staff can do but politely suggest it's not a good idea.

[Bartmanhomer]

I watched families walk out of Deadpool in my theater. You'd think enforcing film ratings wouldn't be that complicated.

Well Deadpool is Rated R. They would realized that Deadpool is not even a family movie.

[Peelee]

Well Deadpool is Rated R. They would realized that Deadpool is not even a family movie.

I once had someone ask to buy a ticket for the sound system, because that was one of the posters in the front outdoor wall.
In his defense, he just thought the poster looked cool and he laughed it off.
No, they would not realize that Deadpool is not a family movie.