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)
Reviews (24)
Joker is a solidly made piece of the DC universe that impresses mainly thanks to the breathtaking performance of Joaquin Phoenix (#andtheoscargoesto) and its darkly fierce visuals, which go hand in hand with a gloomy soundtrack that makes Gotham an even more dirty and wicked place. A big upside for a film about the genesis of Batman's greatest nemesis was just keeping the "Batman" to a minimum. The film offers a raw look at a mentally ill man who grows tired of being a punching bag for others and decides to rise up, sparking a criminal revolution. I loved the casting of Robert De Niro and Frances Conroy in supporting roles. It's already clear that Joker will surely attack the Academy Awards next year, and I personally wish it a statuette in at least the Best Actor and Best Music categories.
()
It is precisely for this dark dimension and fateful depth that I generally like DC characters more than the brightly colored Marvel ones. Todd Phillips’ Joker is a stylish, psychologically well-conceived drama with a great acting performance by Phoenix that satisfactorily explains the birth of an important comic book character in the Batman universe, as it reveals the causes of the character’s deepening anxiety, leading to his total rejection of belief in anything good, and his logical self-realization in his revolutionary leadership of the disgruntled resistance against higher society. The film is a pop-culture vision of Scorsese’s Taxi Driver and is well connected to the origin of Batman both in its screenplay and atmosphere, with the typical Batman-like darkness. I won’t give this the full five stars because the film’s climax was neither surprising nor extraordinary – I was expecting, but I had hoped it wouldn’t be the “biggest” thing that the film would bring.
()
The comic book backdrop is just a lame crutch (thank goodness), this is a totally realistic, wholesome drama about one unfortunate guy's mental breakdown, a kind of Taxi Driver for the 21st century. And believe me, reading here how fantastic Joaquin Phoenix was and then seeing it in a movie with my own eyes is a whole other level. The last time I saw such total immersion in a role was Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood 12 years ago. Every slightest body movement, every wrinkle, the play of his eyes and that over-the-top laugh, it was a great school of acting and just confirms to me why Joaquin, this great, passionate animal rights activist, this noncomforting, unclassifiable shy creature, has been my favorite actor for over a decade. His 'method acting' (of which Daniel Day-Lewis was a devotee), which involves taking on the behaviour and mindset of your character and immersing yourself in it throughout the production of the film, is probably unmatched by any other actor today.
()
An excellent film argument for Barnevernet.
()
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.
()
A return to The Dark Knight in full glory. I haven't seen such a brutally depressing film in a really long time. Gotham is a city where no one would want to live, with the possible exception ofsome extras someone would pay to do so. At the same time, however, it is perfectly emulating what is probably supposed to be the1970s and is based on the equally beautifully gloomy New York. It’s giving off an incredibly powerful old-school feel, which is why, together with the practically perfect performance of Joaquin Phoenix and no less great music, it creates an absolutely epic atmosphere that has not been seen in similar films for a really long time. I like the way the character Joker is portrayed so that he is neither good nor bad. He has his issues and bad traits but also positive traits and an effort to create a better world… until he loses his marbles. Joaquin Phoenix was given free rein here, and this time I liked his performance immensely. It’s true that he plays one weirdo after another, but Joker is a phenomenon who has both a light and a dark side. So even though I wasn’t exactly rooting for him the entire film, my eyes were glued to the screen in every scene. Some scenes expressing human madness, evil or anarchy belong among the best I’ve ever seen. I won’t hesitate to say that it’s the highest level of filmmaking craft and an experience I will be processing for a long time. Who are we as people? Hasn’t Joker been born out of all the grief and evil we keep inside and try to not let it out so we don’t go crazy?
()
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.
()
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%
()
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.
()
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.
()
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?
()
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)
Todd Phillips is the man (who would have guessed). He masterfully works with the viewer's sympathy for the title character. Joker is almost unpleasant to watch in places. I’m surprised it’s so popular. The duplicity of the movie trips it up slightly. It’s too comic-bookish for a social drama and too indie for a comic-book adaptation, but maybe I’m just old-fashioned and this is the right way to reach today’s audience. And part of the message is just that. Popularization of serious topics for the masses in practice. Phoenix’s performance is incredible, as he literally embodies his role. The vast majority of the movie’s unpleasantness stems from his acting performance. The supporting characters (King of Comedy) only underpin his brilliance. The somber music interspersed with regular happy songs add to the picturesque image of a city in decay. I’m sorry that it didn’t end with the jig on the car; the epilogue is a little redundant. And now a question for you: did you pity him, did you despise him, or did you want to go and join him?
()
There's really no need for DC to just give up its Black Label. This version of their storytelling is simply the best. And if you don't mind building everything over and over again on that one scene in which little Bruce loses his parents... then it’s no big deal. Joaquin Phoenix hasn't missed a step in the last 20 years. As such, he continues to reign.
()
A message to the world on a similar level to Stallone's John Rambo in 2008. The only difference is that whereas Stallone wasn't afraid to dive into the dirt of war in the middle of the Burmese jungle, Phillips plunges into the urban jungle, with similar determination, self-confidence and drive, but a little more "neatly" I'd say. After all, Sly’s hero is also about action and muscle, but the Joker is a straight-up freaky good guy who everyone turns their backs on, and it is only the ultimate evil of pure anarchy and rage against the people – primarily the elites – that gives him the proper fuel for his rampage. A very topical film about contemporary socio-political issues, wrapped in a cool retro 1970's look with some iconic scenes where the origins of two great DC stories casually intersect.
()
Is this a comic book? Is it not a comic book? It doesn't matter. Just hope that you have as few teenagers, or at least desensitized teenagers, sitting in the theater with you who are going to see a fun gimmicky spectacle, because this isn't a fun gimmicky spectacle, it's a latter-day Taxi Driver. A great tour de force by the amazing Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro's best role in years, a strong story and an impeccable performance. A rough joke with a great punchline.
()
Weak. A shallow pursuit of style and thoughtful social critique that only borrows from other films, without getting under the skin as deep as the director believes it does. The effect of society on the “development” of a mentally unstable individual is truncated to a minimum, represented by media satirical manipulation, while the script haphazardly throws at the viewer motifs around an uprising of the poor masses, an Oedipal complex and the Batman universe, which can hardly fit together (especially when a disproportionally long part of the runtime is taken by scenes that are about nothing). The core rebirth of an individual under the weight of a depressive and insidious environment is almost invisible and the much-praised performance of Joaquin Phoenix relies only on embodying an asshole who’s skinny and laughs like a madman when he shouldn’t. There are a couple of moments that have brilliant, black-humour twists, and I also appreciate the great music and the attempt at being distinctive, but they are clumsy. Phillips should go back to The Hangover, where he belongs. 50%
()
I am pleased that finally, an adult comic-book movie has turned up, and is more financially successful with audiences than other comic-book movies (although Logan did prove this as a winning formula some years ago). And I kind of hope that this will change the tendencies of comic-book movies in the future, which are simply regurgitating the same old ideas and are mostly all the same today. In any case, it must be said that even Joker doesn't really come up with anything new but presents a somewhat shallow story in a pleasingly stylish way. I am annoyed by the attitude of the creators, who on the one hand say, "here's a comic-book movie for adults," but at the same time tend to lead the audience by the hand - like when a scene in which the Joker discovers he had imagined a number of his happy memories (which is clear from the first scene) but for some reason still had to be presented as an almost Shyamalan twist and explained away by retrospective scenes where the Joker talks to an imaginary character, and then it's later shown that he is actually alone all the time, so that even the dumbest audiences understand it to the letter. It's a very cheap thing that does somewhat insult the audience's intelligence for an otherwise serious movie, and which undermines the whole principle of feeling that the creators are playing fair. Otherwise, of course, Phoenix and De Niro are great in their roles, there's the stylish design, cool music and soundtrack, and so on. It's just not the flashing lightning bolt from heaven for me as it seems to be for others.
()
Todd Phillips brings the grittiest version of Gotham City we've ever seen on screen – even Thomas Wayne is a total jerk in this take. This Gotham feels so real and authentic, it makes Nolan’s Gotham from The Dark Knight trilogy seem almost sanitized. If Nolan's Batman was the hero Gotham deserved, then this Joker is definitely the villain it earned – a city that’s been sowing chaos finally reaping its whirlwind. While The Dark Knight succeeded as a PG-13 film, Joker absolutely needed its R rating. The film's uncompromising vision and authenticity would have been lost if it had been toned down for a wider audience. We witness Joker’s slow descent into madness and despair, elements that have plagued him since childhood. His eventual awakening is a monstrous transformation that feels both inevitable and horrifying. Joaquin Phoenix proves once again he's the best method actor of his generation, delivering a mesmerizing performance. His Joker is at once entertaining and terrifying. You’ll find yourself sympathizing with him, then despising him, and despite everything, rooting for him till the bitter end. That’s the magic of Phoenix’s portrayal. DC gave Phillips free rein, and it paid off. This film could steer DC in a new direction, proving that comic book movies don’t have to follow the same formula and can still be artistically significant. If nothing else, Joker stands as a masterpiece. As a Batman fan, it’s been painful to watch my favorite hero and his nemesis get watered down in recent years. They've been overshadowed by Marvel's successful formula, which is great in its own right. But DC has the potential to carve out its own niche – one that’s darker and more unique.
()
A decent psychological drama about an incurable reprobate or the excellent comic origin story of an elusive and provocative bad guy. The latter contains everything that is most essential to revitalizing a classic comic book character – revision and updating. Daring to make the Wayne Family the most negative element we can without any major frills may seem to pander to current commercial demands reflecting contemporary class friction, but it's still a terribly radical step, because that’s the position Batman, as a pure symbol of the guardian elites who decide good and evil from a position of inherited position and wealth (thanks largely to Nolan's visions of a chaotic enemy coming from below), has maintained thus far. If, in the end, Joker does indeed launch a new Gotham universe, it'll be fun to watch the Batman get tossed to filmmakers who have more sympathy for radical incels than those who want to make decisions about them and stop their actions.
()
Ads