I don't undestand the 9/10 and 10/10 reviews, in my opinion this movie is way overhyped. I will give, that the actors performance is amazing, but then it's only famous people. My main problem with the movie is, that nothing interesting happens, its basically like every other tragedy released over the last decade - just with DC's IP behind it. There are entire segments in which literally nothing happens in the first 60m minutes which were a snoozefest, the character is walking somewhere and its followed by another scene in which, you guessed it: also nothing happens. I only enjoyed the last 20 minutes, although they didn't hold a single unforseen twist either...

Astonishing performance. It’s a really good movie and worth watching if you are both a fan and a movie lover.

If you follow Batman mythology (Frank Miller's version, in particular), none of this movie will surprise you. The cinematography and location choices conveyed what new York felt like in the 80s. Mr. Phoenix did a great job of capturing chaos, just not as great as Heath Ledger. The big issue I have with the movie is... The point of it all? It was devoid of emotion, so I found myself watching but not caring much. The movie conveyed too much, yet gave nothing at all. Maybe that was the point? Wait for cable, if you haven't seen it.

Well, I'll never listen to That's Life by Frank Sinatra in the same way again, that's for sure. Before I start, there are two groups of people who need to be addressed: - Regarding the people who are saying that it's too violent, and a movie based on comics shouldn't be like that: please, go back to watching _Dora: The Explorer_. - Regarding the people who are calling it a Taxi Driver or King of Comedy rip-off: Is _Mr. Robot_ a _Fight Club_ rip-off? You have to see the difference between ripping something off and taking inspiration + adding your own ideas to it. Also, _Taxi Driver_ is a vigilante story, something which this isn't. So, most of the praise you heard about this movie I can absolutely get behind. The cinematography and score are without a doubt Oscar worthy. Joaquin Phoenix is front and center, and he absolutely shines. It is a full on character study, and the movie shows everything from the Joker's point of view. It keeps the movie focussed, but it has to be said that there are no other interesting characters to get invested into, something that other character studies don't forget. The pacing is also very well done. It doesn't feel like a slow movie, and the final 20 minutes are something special. To me, however, the first 90 minutes are a lot more interesting. I love the fact that we get to see an in-depth exploration of the causes of social exclusion and what leads to Arthur's downward spiral. Phillips very wisely points to a variety of causes at very different levels of society (elites, government, punks), while not forgetting that some blame also falls into the hands of Arthur himself (e.g. his megalomania). This is a very strong and nuanced message. And then there's the film's other message. When it comes to a film like this (a protagonist with a downwards spiral), the movie often starts with making you feel sympathetic towards the character. _The Wolf of Wallstreet_ does that. _Breaking Bad_ does that. And _Joker_ also does that. But then there's a point where the character crosses the line, a moment which you can almost pinpoint in this movie, namely [spoiler] the scene where he kills his mom [/spoiler]. From that point on, a movie should clearly condemn what he's doing in order to not give out an immoral or wrong message. In _The Wolf of Wallstreet_, Di Caprio starts to lose everything. In _Breaking Bad_, Walter White starts to lose everything. Phillips, however, goes out of his way of condemning what his character does. Instead, he plays swelling and upbeat music during the film's darkest moments. Moreover, Joker gets [spoiler] a happy ending [/spoiler], and no other characters have a sincere conversation about the atrocities of what he's doing. In other words, the movie gives off the impression of still being on his side, thereby presenting violence as the answer to this man's problems, and I can totally agree with some of the critics who have a moral problem with that. I understand that they wanted to stay with Arthur's perspective through the end, but this comes at the cost of one of the biggest mistakes a film like this can make. At the same time, one major flaw doesn't make a film bad. I mean, _Gone With The Wind_ is immoral in the sense that it is racist, but is it a bad film? Absolutely not. 7.5/10

Incredibly overrated. I don't mind dark movies that deal with depressing subject matter. But this is not intriguing. The character doesn't have enough depth. Not an engrossing movie.