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 (4)
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)
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?
()
Todd Phillips is a director who has made a name for himself with comedies (The Hangover, Road Trip, War Dogs), Joker was his first challenge and he succeeded brilliantly, though I can't do without minor criticisms. DC has its first non-mainstream movie. Joker is first and foremost a dense psychological drama about the transformation of a man into an absolute lunatic who goes on a crime spree, and it's a bit of a shame that we'll have to wait for the sequel to see a proper Joker's rampage. Joaquin Phoenix is utterly disarming and stomps his way to an Oscar, more or less the film stands solely on his perfect performance. The atmosphere of Gotham is also great, but the city and the crime there don’t get as much attention as I would have liked. There's hardly any action and only one person gets killed in a downright brutal way (I expected a grittier and more brutal film in that respect). The finale is quite shocking, but also short. I wouldn't have minded more build-up. So all in all, a solid film that's worth seeing in the theater, but due to the slower pace, I'm not too keen on a second viewing. 80%
()
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.
()
I did not welcome this origin story with any enthusiasm when I first heard about it, because the fog of mystery surrounding The Joker has always fascinated me, a fog none of the theories about his origin can ever fully penetrate. That's why Todd Phillips's dream project is acceptable just the way it was originally intended: as a standalone story separate from conceivable sequels or spin-offs, a direction that the film itself denies by circling around Bruce Wayne. It is not the approach of delving so deeply into the antagonist's skin that I consider that groundbreaking, to the extent that it is impossible to sympathize with him at least to any significant degree in the specific episodes or timeframes, but instead it is Joaquin Phoenix's immersion in the character á la the Confessions of a Clown. It is extremely difficult to take your eyes off him, despite intentional physical discomforts (emaciation, laughter), which makes this an almost masochistic spectacle.
()
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.
()
Ads