In just over a decade there have been three different versions of the Joker on screen. Considering that rate, we’re due for several more in the 2020s. Yay?
The most recent film featuring the Clown Prince of Crime stars Joaquin Phoenix in the lead role. However, he doesn’t start out as the Joker. Instead, the movie opens with Phoenix playing Arthur Fleck, a troubled man working as an entertainment clown who aspires to be a stand-up comedian.
On top of being a mentally ill person who lives in a community comfortable with slashing health services, Arthur is also responsible for caring for his sick mother. One of the only bits of happiness in his life comes from watching a show featuring comedian Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). Unfortunately, pressure Arthur experiences daily begins to crack him, setting him on a violent path.
Directed and co-written by Todd Phillips, “Joker” is a commendable effort to flip the comic book movie idea on its head. Not that there haven’t been previous examples that go off the beaten path. Not every adaptation has centered on super hero tales. However, this is one that goes in a really different route, trading adventure for a character study.
At a bird’s eye view, “Joker” is a fairly compelling movie about a person on a downward spiral, who’s going to eventually crash. Witnessing a grounded, realistic origin story for one of the more famous villains from comic panels makes for a watch that’s mostly interesting.
However, at the same time, the movie often feels shallow when it’s trying to hit major health and socioeconomic topics. Mental health treatment and income inequality are both themes at play, but as the movie goes on, it feels like “Joker” doesn’t have much to say about it.
Obviously, it has a message of how these factors can harm vulnerable people in society, but it’s such a simplistic take without much depth. There’s also somewhat of an inconsistency in how the film is using modern political speech and ideas, while seeming to take place in the 1970s.
As a period piece, a film can touch on issues that were happening at that time and how those troubles can still exist today. But it seemed like “Joker” wasn’t trying to bridge that gap. Instead, it felt like the only reason Phillips and company set “Joker” in the 1970s was to share the look of Martin Scorsese’s “Taxi Driver.”
Of course they’re not entirely the same movie, but the similarities are striking. To be fair, the movie does attempt to do its own things and bring new concepts to the table. Unfortunately, they’re not all great, and the movie seems to run out of steam as it goes on, rather than building toward something.
All it really does is build to a climax that, all things considered, is too spelled out and even pretentious. It’s not just in the finale, though.
Another issue with “Joker” is it’s odd relationship with its source material. The movie in some points stands as its own thing. The city could easily be renamed New York in some parts. However, there are other times where it really wants to be associated with Batman, so much so that it’s like the filmmakers are nudging you with their elbow. It’s as if it couldn’t pick a lane. It’s especially a problem since an entire sub-plot is devoted to a Batman-related subject.
Of course the picture as a whole is given a massive boost by the always reliable Phoenix who throws everything he has into this flick. Phoenix is terrific as the troubled character. Whether it’s his tone of voice or his mannerisms, Phoenix portrays the Joker in immensely convincing fashion.
“Joker” is also a very well put together movie technically. The film is quite beautifully shot, and it captures the grit and grime associated with Gotham. One just wishes the film had toned down some of the other stylistic choices, such as slow motion sequences of the main character dancing.
In a way, “Joker” reminds me of Phillips’ 2016 film “War Dogs.” It was a film with a very nice aesthetic, good acting and an interesting concept, but lacked depth in delivering its social commentary. The same is very true for “Joker.”
As a villain origin story, this one is above average. It can hold a person’s attention with its thrills and because the character study lends enough interest, plus Phoenix is great. However, it doesn’t dig as deep as one would hope. 3 out of 5.
Matthew Liedke on Film 
One thought on “REVIEW: While ‘Joker’ is an entertaining, it’s not insightful”