Film Someone Get the Clown Off the Stage!
"Are we going to be entertained or what?!" Joker is a bland, unfunny, film built around the perspective of a mentally ill man that can't fit into society. It tries to be connected to a lot of subjects, but as a result, isn't so much pulled in any direction so much as things must come straight to the main character resulting in the plot happening. Characters either vary between acting like sheep or being too idiotic to realize what is going to happen to them. The world may be against Arthur, however, situations in the film seem to work out for him quite a lot.
"What's the joke?!" This film doesn't have a punchline. It borrows a lot from The King of Comedy, but to that film's credit, it has funny jokes. The King of Comedy talks a lot about show business and the desire to be noticed, which starts off innocently and becomes progressively more grotesque as the film continues. I laughed and then I cringed that I laughed. In contrast, Joker is never funny. It chains one dark, depressing scene off another, and even when it tried to fake me out, I saw the twist a mile away because the film made it too obvious that Arthur is too inept at doing anything involving social interactions. The punchline, or should I say the moral of the film also falls flat because the story is just several events that sum up into an "eat the rich" scenario, even though there is no tangible target to express this anger against.
"Your material stinks!" This film is a DC film even though it wants to be a standalone in many ways from DC canon, which just leads to bizarre plot directions that happen throughout the film. There's a scene in which Arthur meets Bruce, but there is no meaning to it. Similarly, the plot later tries to link Arthur to Thomas Wayne, but that goes plot thread is a red herring, so it just suddenly ends. This wastes valuable time that the film could have used to build a rapport between Arthur and the suddenly large group of people that want to follow his example and his lust for vengeance and rebellion. Two plots happen at the same time between Arthur trying to find himself and crowds of people being angry at the system. But the second plot is neglected and forced to follow the whims of the first, often so the story can spend more time making Batman references rather than be its own film. Invisible Man was originally supposed to be part of the Dark Universe, but the writers figured it was better to prioritize writing a good film over turning it into an expositional springboard to talk about the film's universe.
"This guy's choking on stage!" Arthur is the Villain Protagonist of the film, but he isn't funny or charismatic the way previous incarnations of the Joker have been. I was often bored watching him and I had a hard time believing that so many people would be inspired by him. The key trait of Arthur is that he is a tragic character with a troubled past and bleak present. Unfortunately, I tend to find tragic protagonists work best when the audience makes them feel something other than how sorry they feel for them. In The King of Comedy, I believed that Rupert had the determination and drive that he could have been somebody, but he lacked the means and connections to do. Rather than give Arthur some aspect that could connect him to comedy, they completely disconnect him to the point where it’s completely alien, which just makes his obsession feel forced. Instead, the film tries to connect him to clowns by making him do traditional clown poses. This results in jarring scenes that pad out the film and do nothing other than make Arthur look weird. The climax is the only time Arthur truly feels like he is an active rather than reactive protagonist, unfortunately, he makes so many utterly stupid decisions during the climax that the only reason he succeeds in doing anything because everyone else is too stupid to understand what is likely going to happen when he goes on stage.
"Hit the road, you hack!" If you want to see a psychological thriller that addresses classism, I'd recommend Parasite, which talks more about rich culture in contrast to poor culture in more complex terms than rich people live in fancy houses and poor people suffer. It puts a lot more effort into expressing its themes than this film does. Portraying how a person could change into a supervillain is a bold idea in our superhero-dominated cinema world, but Joker puts too little effort into making this grandiose transformation believable. It’s a bloated performance with awkward transitions and strained connections that puts most of its weight on the final act, even though it’s by far the worst aspect of the film. I wish there were more Jokers in the film, if only so they could heckle Joaquin Phoenix’s crying laughter out of the spotlight.
Film Way too bleak but still ok
To date this film is by far the most realistic one of all the movies based on the Batman comicbooks.
Hypersensitive claims that this film would incite copycats inspired by the Villain Protagonist's actions were ridiculous even before the film premiered. The movie itself does nothing to inspire anyone into antisocial behavior.
Technically speaking, the film is quite good: Photography and acting are both perfect and the segment running from the infamous stairs dance, through the police chase and up to the start of the riot in the subway is grandiose. The decision to set this in 1981 is also a plus.
The story itself is sad and has tinges of a slow, cringe inducing Humiliation Conga on the protagonist. It can get overbearing to watch the hopeless, monotone bleakness throughout the whole film. The Ambiguous Ending feels disappointing although not surprising considering the cerebral nature of the movie.
It should also be noticed that fans of the Batman franchise hoping to see much familiarity in this version of the character might be somewhat disappointed. Although parts of the film are obviously based on some of the more famous comic storylines, Todd Phillips' version of the character is the least conventional of the Jokers to have been filmed as of this writing.
Overall a good film; much better than the official DCEU movies thus far (Of which Joker is not part btw). Still, it has some flaws and its absurd hype is overrated.
Film Best Interpretation
I love this movie. Admittedly I was skeptical of Joaquin Phoenix portraying one of the most iconic villains in fictional history but after the showing was over I applauded his performance. He truly captured in my opinion the best possible interpretation of the Joker yet. He broke out of the “normal man who with one bad day was driven insane in a mad unforgiving world,” his Joker was a man already mad in an even madder world, sliding down the already slippery slope even faster. It was amazing.
Film An unorthodox comic book movie that isn't for everyone
The Joker's origin movie is one of those superhero movies that doesn't feel much like a superhero movie. This isn't always a bad thing, as Logan shows, but I have much more mixed feelings about this movie.
The story is basically about how Arthur Fleck, an aspiring comedian with a history of mental illness, became the supervillain known as The Joker. The entire concept in and of itself can be a deal-breaker for many people, since The Joker's ambiguous origins are often a key part of his character(although there are exceptions, like Batman (1989)).
The film is oppressively dark and gritty. Very little good happens, which arguably detracts from the sense of tragedy; good tragedies build up hope before crushing it and beginning the downward spiral to the Downer Ending. The number of likable characters can be counted on one hand; again, tragedies work best when the characters are sympathetic enough that you feel bad for them, even if their flaws bring about their downfall.
The setting is largely grounded, and doesn't include any of the costumed members of Batman's rogue's gallery. Instead, it deals with real-world problems like sanitation strikes, mental health professionals who can't do much for their patients, and those who enjoy picking on the vulnerable members of society. It adds to the realism, but it's still a bit hard to swallow how Arthur manages to kickstart social unrest just by killing three people on the spur of the moment.
The narrative is shrouded in ambiguity, since many characters lie or make statements of dubious veracity, and Arthur's grasp on reality is tenuous at best. It allows viewers to come up with their own interpretations of events, but just as often comes off as confusing.
That said, the cast members give some good performances, especially Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur and Robert De Niro as Murray.
All in all, Joker is not a movie I'd wholeheartedly recommend to Batman enthusiasts, but it might be enjoyable for those who like dark and gritty movies about decent people who gradually become villains.