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 (25)

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? ()

EvilPhoEniX 

all reviews of this user

English 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% ()

Ads

MrHlad 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

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. ()

DaViD´82 

all reviews of this user

English 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. ()

Gallery (92)