There is good in this film, I don't disagree there. It's certainly an ambitious film, and whenever a director decides to take a new route, I commend them. Todd Phillips decided to do something that most films aren't doing, but he didn't do it on his own. No, on the contrary, he stole from Martin Scorsese.
"Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" references reign so much screen time in this film that it renders the plot completely predictable, and unoriginal. Phillips had an interesting idea, which was to detail how The Clown Prince of Crime was created. I'm a comics fan, and I'm not mad that they decided to do this. If only it could have been done better, instead of hiding behind the mask of homage, expertly disguising itself from the title of thief. In the end, it's a disguise. "Joker" does not pay homage, but steals. The cinematography is beautiful and haunting, and Joaquin Phoenix delivers a powerhouse performance destined to connect and resonate with many people for a long time. I won't comment on the claims of the film being irresponsible with it's messages of violence, because The Joker is a violent character. I didn't expect to go to a Joker film, rated R nonetheless, and see him "BOP!" people on the head with a rubber hammer.
What the film is irresponsible with though, is its plot. The script suffers due to an overabundance of ambiguity, and the inclusion of too many questions without ever getting sufficient answers. It raises several thought-provoking questions about mental health, corrupt politicians, and humanity, but only ever answers one, which is the concept of humanity. Treating others with kindness. That's a great message, and would have carried the film. But since there are so many messages stuffed in with that single message that don't ever get brought up again, it makes the impact of the humanity message falter.
I can forgive faulty messages though, and if that was the only fault, this film would get a 7. The biggest problem though is simply this: Phillips over utilizes ambiguity to make the film seem more intelligent. Without the ambiguous elements, the film's script would just be cliche, but still quality. It would have one takeaway, which would be to treat others nicely. Here's the issue with overusing ambiguity.
Phillips allows the narrative to be affected by Arthur's mental illness. I won't give any spoilers, but since Arthur is narrating the story, Phillips thinks that opening the doors to ambiguity, and allowing the audience to decide what is real or not will constitute an intelligent film. It doesn't. Instead, giving the option that everything wasn't real renders the film pointless. I think ambiguity in a few moments, at the end of a film mainly, is great. When it holds up the entire point of the film existing, and engulfs the legitimacy of the plot, that's a major issue. If the audience can decide if the entire film happened or not, you haven't made a worthwhile film.
If the director doesn't have the skill to write a point into their screenplay, but instead throws in questions that would make good points, and leaves the options open like a choose your own adventure book, that does not make a good film. Films should not be made if the director has nothing to say. It's technically the click-bait of film. Saying that you're going to say something important, but instead telling the audience to decide, and lazily throwing ideas at them.
Like I said, ambiguity is good in doses, and I'm not against it being used as the main method in telling a story, but it has to be done well, or else it threatens the necessity of the film, which should not lie in the audience's hands.
Phillips steals from better films to utilize for his plot, shots, scenes, his characters, and their motivations, rendering the film predictable. He brings up questions and themes which would give rise to interesting discussion and answers, but he never engages these topics enough, or at all, to ever make an attempt at a deep dive. Instead of answering or discussing, he throws it all into the cavern of ambiguity, rendering the fate of importance to the audience, which makes the film feel unimportant, and desperate to be awarded praise. Phoenix does a masterful job, and the cinematography is gorgeous, but the unsubtle dialogue, and overall needlessness of the film doesn't fully allow me to be invested into the world.
"Joker" wants you to think that it has something to say. But it never says anything in the end, instead, it only raises the questions, mistakenly drenching the film in ambiguity, so the audience would give it the depth it tries to convince the audience that it has. It succeeds in some moments, but in most, it reminds me of a chocolate bunny. It looks tasty, clean, and well made on the outside, but upon biting it, you find that it's hollow.
"Taxi Driver" and "The King of Comedy" references reign so much screen time in this film that it renders the plot completely predictable, and unoriginal. Phillips had an interesting idea, which was to detail how The Clown Prince of Crime was created. I'm a comics fan, and I'm not mad that they decided to do this. If only it could have been done better, instead of hiding behind the mask of homage, expertly disguising itself from the title of thief. In the end, it's a disguise. "Joker" does not pay homage, but steals. The cinematography is beautiful and haunting, and Joaquin Phoenix delivers a powerhouse performance destined to connect and resonate with many people for a long time. I won't comment on the claims of the film being irresponsible with it's messages of violence, because The Joker is a violent character. I didn't expect to go to a Joker film, rated R nonetheless, and see him "BOP!" people on the head with a rubber hammer.
What the film is irresponsible with though, is its plot. The script suffers due to an overabundance of ambiguity, and the inclusion of too many questions without ever getting sufficient answers. It raises several thought-provoking questions about mental health, corrupt politicians, and humanity, but only ever answers one, which is the concept of humanity. Treating others with kindness. That's a great message, and would have carried the film. But since there are so many messages stuffed in with that single message that don't ever get brought up again, it makes the impact of the humanity message falter.
I can forgive faulty messages though, and if that was the only fault, this film would get a 7. The biggest problem though is simply this: Phillips over utilizes ambiguity to make the film seem more intelligent. Without the ambiguous elements, the film's script would just be cliche, but still quality. It would have one takeaway, which would be to treat others nicely. Here's the issue with overusing ambiguity.
Phillips allows the narrative to be affected by Arthur's mental illness. I won't give any spoilers, but since Arthur is narrating the story, Phillips thinks that opening the doors to ambiguity, and allowing the audience to decide what is real or not will constitute an intelligent film. It doesn't. Instead, giving the option that everything wasn't real renders the film pointless. I think ambiguity in a few moments, at the end of a film mainly, is great. When it holds up the entire point of the film existing, and engulfs the legitimacy of the plot, that's a major issue. If the audience can decide if the entire film happened or not, you haven't made a worthwhile film.
If the director doesn't have the skill to write a point into their screenplay, but instead throws in questions that would make good points, and leaves the options open like a choose your own adventure book, that does not make a good film. Films should not be made if the director has nothing to say. It's technically the click-bait of film. Saying that you're going to say something important, but instead telling the audience to decide, and lazily throwing ideas at them.
Like I said, ambiguity is good in doses, and I'm not against it being used as the main method in telling a story, but it has to be done well, or else it threatens the necessity of the film, which should not lie in the audience's hands.
Phillips steals from better films to utilize for his plot, shots, scenes, his characters, and their motivations, rendering the film predictable. He brings up questions and themes which would give rise to interesting discussion and answers, but he never engages these topics enough, or at all, to ever make an attempt at a deep dive. Instead of answering or discussing, he throws it all into the cavern of ambiguity, rendering the fate of importance to the audience, which makes the film feel unimportant, and desperate to be awarded praise. Phoenix does a masterful job, and the cinematography is gorgeous, but the unsubtle dialogue, and overall needlessness of the film doesn't fully allow me to be invested into the world.
"Joker" wants you to think that it has something to say. But it never says anything in the end, instead, it only raises the questions, mistakenly drenching the film in ambiguity, so the audience would give it the depth it tries to convince the audience that it has. It succeeds in some moments, but in most, it reminds me of a chocolate bunny. It looks tasty, clean, and well made on the outside, but upon biting it, you find that it's hollow.