Directed by:
Todd PhillipsCinematography:
Lawrence SherComposer:
Hildur GuðnadóttirCast:
Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz, Frances Conroy, Brett Cullen, Shea Whigham, Bill Camp, Glenn Fleshler, Leigh Gill, Josh Pais, Marc Maron (more)VOD (5)
Plots(1)
Failed comedian Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) encounters violent thugs while wandering the streets of Gotham City dressed as a clown. Disregarded by society, Fleck begins a slow descent into madness as he transforms into the criminal mastermind known as Joker in director Todd Phillips’ thrilling origin story. (Warner Bros. Home Entertainment)
Videos (3)
Reviews (25)
Joker gave me goosebumps sometime in the first few minutes, and then repeated the phenomenon a few more times for me. It's possible that it was just a well-written character that any good actor would have excelled at portraying, but for me, something this well-acted is a minor miracle. Joaquin Phoenix blew me away with his performance and I don't think I'll ever forget his pained smile and laugh, it was etched deeply under my skin. 5 stars, one of the best of the past year. I can see myself rewatching it again very soon.
()
The autumn of film disappointments continues for me, unfortunately. If I were to take Joker as a comic book movie or even a DC movie, I would have to consider it exceptional. However, if I want to approach it as a more ambitious drama that takes the themes of madness, inability to fit into society, and human cruelty seriously, it's not so good already. Joaquin Phoenix is excellent in the lead role, especially in scenes where he can, shall we say, exhibit; when he's alone on the screen and he's just going nuts. But once he's supposed to be part of a larger story and plot, it turns out the film doesn't really have much to offer. All the twists and surprises are pretty banal and the whole descent into madness is actually terribly predictable. Joker looks great, has great music and a perfect lead actor, yet remains too ordinary and not very interesting at its core, as it just copies similar films and relies on similar techniques. Not to mention the fact that the Joker as a character is much more interesting to me as a nutter whose madness and the roots thereof cannot be defined. I find Alfred's "Some men just want to watch the world burn" from The Dark Knight more interesting as a probe into the mind of the Joker than this entire film.
()
I have been looking forward to this movie since I saw the trailer and found out that Joaquin Phoenix, a charismatic character actor who can infuse ambiguity and mystery into his characters, would play The Joker. The film's victory at the Venice Film Festival and the enthusiastic reviews only ignited my anticipation even more. However, the result is a cold shower and the feeling of the biggest film disappointment of the year. Spectacular action scenes, superheroes, and battles are nowhere to be found in Joker, and the film's inclusion in the comic book Batman universe is actually unnecessary and confusing. That's just a side note for those who prefer this type of experience because I didn't miss any of it. I wanted to witness the transformation of a human character, to see a man who gradually loses the ground under his feet, succumbs to darkness, and becomes a monster. Arthur was supposed to be a disturbing, unsettling, and dangerous character in my eyes. I was supposed to fear him. I have no problem with Phoenix's performance, as he gives his maximum, as expected, and greatly contributes to the film. My problem lies in the interpretation of the Joker character. Arthur reminds me of Theodore from the movie Her - that is, his "patheticness." Phoenix's Joker does not evoke dark premonition and fear, but rather sympathy. His laughter is not sinister; they are sounds of a fragile desperate person whom you would rather take by the hand and comfort (everything will be alright, little guy) - even when he commits murder. In reality, Arthur doesn't undergo any development. Although he commits several crimes during the film, they could have easily happened at the very beginning. From the first minute, he is a miserable man trapped in the web of mental illness, self-pity, and bitterness. Moreover, he is an utterly peculiar character. A man recently released from a mental institution, who works as a clown visiting sick children in the hospital, even though there is no more optimism in him than in someone dying of cancer and no more kindness than in a black plague epidemic. The director clearly modeled his antihero after Travis Bickle, the iconic character from the famous Scorsese film. He also transparently references this by casting film veteran Robert De Niro. However, Joker lacks the drive, energy, determination, and stubbornness of Taxi Driver. In the end, Joker fails as a movie that wants to entertain, as it clumsily treads water for the first two-thirds of its runtime, but also as a film that wants to be more than just a comic book spectacle. I sense an attempt at transcendence similar to the pretentiousness that emerges from Aronofsky's films, but as an existential psychological drama, Joker doesn't work - Todd Phillips is too predictable, shallow, and self-righteous for that. Giving Joker less than three stars wouldn't be fair, given Joaquin's phenomenal performance. Phillip's craftsmanship cannot be denied; he beautifully creates a Gotham environment reminiscent of neglected city centers in American metropolises from the 1970s. Hildur Guðnadóttir's music delivers precisely what it should in terms of emotional impact, and the cinematography and production design are just as grand as you would expect from a similar American blockbuster. However, we don't watch movies for their cinematography or music, but for the story and characters... Overall impression: 55%.
()
(less)
(more)
Yes, it's basically trivial and in surprisingly many ways less sophisticated than it looks (apart from idea with laughter and the final “relativization"). Yes, its quoting/following of Scorsese’s examples in the form of Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy is too obvious and consistent to be considered a plus. It's not surprising in terms of its course or outcome. At the same time, however, it is undeniable that what Sher can do with the camera, Guðnadóttir with the droning (non-)music and especially Arthur Fle ... Um, Joke ... Um, Phoenix, together make a film that is disturbing, gets under your skin and won´t fade away when movie is over. Even without an apologetic excuse “in the context of a comic-book movie". Which means a lot.
()
As a part of DC good, very good actually. As a human transition drama, rather average. The movie failed to excite me. I felt like I was always waiting for something while watching it, and in the end I didn't get it. It felt like there was something more to come, a climax, because for me the movie just didn't have a climax. What was the point of the movie? The transformation into the Joker? The situation in the city that helped in the transformation? Did it really help? The film just feels incomplete to me. Sure, Joaquin was good, he lost weight nicely for it, he did a great dance when he was alone on set and drinking it in, so it was fine. Once someone else was there, it almost felt like he was blending into the background. To me, a perfectly ordinary film that didn't really bring anything new to the table except that it wanted to show us how the Joker was born, but is that really necessary with this character? Do we need to "understand" him?
()
Ads