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)

Trailer 1

Reviews (23)

Lima 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Zíza 

all reviews of this user

English 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

novoten 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

gudaulin 

all reviews of this user

English 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)

POMO 

all reviews of this user

English It is precisely for this dark dimension and fateful depth that I generally like DC characters more than the brightly colored Marvel ones. Todd PhillipsJoker 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. ()

Gallery (84)