I really liked this, very powerful, visceral and unapologetically miserablist. Fascinating character study, so timely. It followed through with its convictions. The unremittingly bleak tone will be trying for some. However, for me, there are just enough punctuations of twisted humour and manic elation to stop it becoming a slog. In fact, there more than a couple of really standout, bravura sequences, plus a healthy dose of weirdness..and all from a mainstream studio film that's cleaning up at the box office? Ironically, there is hope after all!

Most of us would've known Joaquin Phoenix had this performance in him. In my opinion. he has been the best actor of the past decade since his "return". My biggest surprise was, as someone else mentioned, who knew Todd Phillips had this in him? Other than his college documentary "Hated" I haven't been a fan of his work so I wasn't anticipating this at all, Phoenix's inclusion notwithstanding. He seems to have come full circle in a way from that aforementioned doc. I was proved wrong, well done, sir.

The score should also get special mention. Somewhere between haunting and ecstatic, depending on what images it was accompanying. See public bathroom scene.

My one big criticism was his imagined relationship with his neighbour because it was so obvious. I was waiting for it to be revealed as that since it would've made zero sense otherwise.

Not to pile on Dave's comment but I think the fact that Arthur isn't particularly smart, or charismatic or strong is part of the point. He's a symbol of the disenfranchised and disaffected, he has tapped into the raging pulse of the zeitgeist, he's the instigator...and that's all it takes. In times of stress and desperation, he is exactly the type of person people will turn to for answers or guidance. See POTUS I take your point about it seeming at odds with the traditional DC Joker but I can't speak to that as I'm not well versed on the lore. I do see a kinship between this Joker and Heath Ledger's though.

Also great to see Robert De Niro in a substantial role referencing King of Comedy. An often overlooked (but increasingly less so) Scorsese gem.  

I think Dave's point is not so much that people wouldn't follow him, more that Fleck is not capable of doing the things the Joker traditionally does. In all representations of him, he's always super smart and inventive, capable of creating advanced technology, bio chemical weapons and creating vast, complex plots.

But I don't think he's The Joker. He's just A Joker.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films but I feel that you're bringing in false expectations and judging the film based on what you wanted it to be, rather than what it is.

I think this is the main problem with most critisim.

Who says that in this NEW version of the story, THE Joker has to be super smart and inventive? Maybe he just has a huge following and is super chaotic. Maybe he'll die in the first encounter with Batman. Maybe he'll become some sort of a cultural icon. The rules you know about THE Joker don't have to apply here. This is a new universe, with its own story and rules.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films Each to their own, but I feel that you're bringing in false expectations and judging the film based on what you wanted it to be, rather than what it is. It's called Joker, not The Joker. Who says he's the actual Joker? And who says the actual Joker is even one person? Nobody knows "The Joker's" real name or his real origin, that's part of the fun. His most common name is Jack Napier, but he often says in the comics that he can't remember his own past and he prefers it to be multiple choice. He's been John Doe, Jack Napier and Melvin Reipan (Napier backwards), and now Arthur Fleck. In the comics it's frequently the real joker who kills the Waynes...it wasn't Fleck who did that in this movie. It was a random guy in a clown mask...was that the actual Joker? As Philips himself said: “Maybe Joaquin’s character inspired the Joker,” Phillips said. “You don’t really know.” I also think a lot of people are missing some essential things: 1. Whether any of the events even happened at all, or whether it was all a King of Comedy type delusion and he's been in a mental hospital the whole time. 2. The central point that everything is perspective. What's funny and what's not is entirely subjective. What some find offensive or even terrifying, to someone else can be hilarious. It's the same with the idea he descended further. From whose perspective? From, our 'normal' perspective he's gone insane, but from other people's perspective he's a hero. That was  the real genius of the story, for me. It was a very truthful appraisal of violence. Of its power to make impotence itself impotent. All you have to do to get respect is smash someone's head in....and if enough of you do it, you become the Kings and rulers and you get to impose your perspective on people. That is the joke.

And yet I still didn't like it for the reasons I stated.  Glad you did.

There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it.

I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant.

For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!

Quoted from Demento I think this is the main problem with most critisim. Who says that in this NEW version of the story, THE Joker has to be super smart and inventive? Maybe he just has a huge following and is super chaotic. Maybe he'll die in the first encounter with Batman. Maybe he'll become some sort of a cultural icon. The rules you know about THE Joker don't have to apply here. This is a new universe, with its own story and rules.

The main problem...???

Pretty much all criticism of film is basically rooted in what you wanted the film to be.  There's nothing invalid about an expectation that something marketed as the Joker's origin story would be the origin story of THE Joker rather than A Joker. That was my personal promise of the premise. I can't certainly understand if the expectation was different for others.  But bringing one's own expectations into play when reviewing any film is not a problem. It's inherent.

But let's put that aside - there are other reasons I didn't like the film despite a great performance - I simply didn't find a character arc of a man starting in madness descending further into madness all that compelling. I would have found it more compelling if it were a full descent from normalcy. Again - yes that is rooted in my expectations - but that doesn't make it any less valid.

I had a similar reaction to Judy - another film with a stellar performance by an actor that I thought missed. Too much of it focused on Judy in her last six weeks rather that the full arc of her story.  

Quoted from Andrew There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it. I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant. For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!

Interesting observation.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films I think Dave's point is not so much that people wouldn't follow him, more that Fleck is not capable of doing the things the Joker traditionally does. In all representations of him, he's always super smart and inventive, capable of creating advanced technology, bio chemical weapons and creating vast, complex plots. But I don't think he's The Joker. He's just A Joker.

That is a fair representation of my point.

Quoted from Andrew There’s something about this film that makes people oddly defensive of it. I wrote a throwaway comment not too dissimilar to what’s written here on a public Facebook thread, and a few guys inboxed me to query how I couldn’t see why it’s so brilliant. For me, that’s a more interesting question than any posed by the film!

I won't speak for those people who inboxed you, that's a bit much but I can certainly understand why people are so passionate about it, both lovers and haters of the film as it has proved extremely divisive.

The themes its exploring couldn't be more current, they're very controversial and people have strong opinions about them. Also, combine that it being supposedly, depending on your take, an origin story for probably the most iconic villain in comicdom and you are going to get a lot of emotionally driven reactions flying about.

I'm a fan of the film but I can see why others are not.  It seems to me primarily an ideological debate and that's fine, I won't be firing out any messages to strangers who disagree with my opinion. To me, the film would've failed in its ambitions if it were universally liked.

As for issues with the character arc starting at a low place and only descending. To most people, or at least the decent people among us, yes that is his trajectory but in Arthur's eyes, he doesn't descend, he ascends. He is finally heard, appreciated, people start to take notice of him. more than he ever could have imagined. He's gone beyond caring if its for the right reasons though.

Quoted from Colkurtz8 .... his trajectory but in Arthur eyes, he doesn't descend, he ascends. He is finally heard, appreciated, people start to take notice of him. more than he ever could have imagined. He's gone beyond caring if its for the right reasons though.

That is an interesting take. I didn't look at it from that perspective. Food for thought.

Quoted from eldave1 The main problem...??? Pretty much all criticism of film is basically rooted in what you wanted the film to be.  There's nothing invalid about an expectation that something marketed as the Joker's origin story would be the origin story of THE Joker rather than A Joker. That was my personal promise of the premise. I can't certainly understand if the expectation was different for others.  But bringing one's own expectations into play when reviewing any film is not a problem. It's inherent.

It is my opinion that you have to judge a movie on what it is. Not on what you wanted to be. Is the movie the best type of movie it tried to be, given the parameters it set out? This movie set up that it's set in its own universe, so criticism that it's not compatible with previous versions of the Joker are not valid, in my opinion. It's not trying to be that. They said it's conceived as a one off. stand alone, gritty drama, set in the 80s, that's not really connected with the DC universe movies. So, they were going for their own kinda thing. They set their creative license.

I think criticism here should be based on how you think they could have improved the movie to be the best movie given the constraints and themes they were going for.

Quoted from Demento It is my opinion that you have to judge a movie on what it is. Not on what you wanted to be. Is the movie the best type of movie it tried to be, given the parameters it set out? This movie set up that it's set in its own universe, so criticism that it's not compatible with previous versions of the Joker are not valid, in my opinion. It's not trying to be that. They said it's conceived as a one off. stand alone, gritty drama, set in the 80s, that's not really connected with the DC universe movies. So, they were going for their own kinda thing. They set their creative license. I think criticism here should be based on how you think they could have improved the movie to be the best movie given the constraints and themes they were going for.

I appreciate your opinion.  Just don't agree with it.

Quoted from eldave1 I appreciate your opinion.  Just don't agree with it.

Forums would have no point, if we all just agreed.  

Quoted from Demento Forums would have no point, if we all just agreed.

Indeed