The first Joker reviews are in, with critics divided on the film’s message and meaning but unanimous in their praise of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance.
Even if you have little experience with comic books and even less interest in its characters, there’s a high likelihood that you at least know who the Joker is.
The Clown Prince of Crime is not only Batman’s most popular villain, he’s probably one of the most popular villains of all time.
Which means that as many times as Batman has been adapted for the big and small screen, Joker has come alongside with him. To date, there have been five talented actors who have brought the Joker to life in both film and TV — including an Oscar-winning turn by Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight. In the animated universe, Mark Hamill’s depiction of the Joker in Batman: The Animated Series has long been hailed as one of the best, with his iconic maniacal laugh haunting so many of our childhood nightmares.
Given both his popularity and his unapologetic, unsympathetic cruelty and depravity, one of the questions that has long plagued a solo Joker film has been: Is this film necessary?
That question has a couple of different meanings. One is: Do we need a Joker origin story, when part of the Joker mythos is that his origin is a mystery? Another is: Should we have a movie that may lead us to sympathize with the Joker, an unapologetic villain and mass-murderer?
The critics who watched the world premiere of Joker at the Venice Film Festival were somewhat divided as to the answer to the necessity of the film. There were plenty who felt that Joker as a film helped us understand Arthur Fleck’s descent into being the Joker without condoning or romanticizing his violence. However, there were a fair amount of critics, too, who felt that the script was ambiguous at best as to what we were meant to feel — and whether it asked us to sympathize too much with the cruelty of the man who would go on to become the Joker.
However, an aspect of the film that critics were more or less united on was that Joker is unlike any other comic book movie that’s come before it. Some critics even went so far as to say that it was ‘a true masterpiece’ and that it ‘reimagines the comic book movie.’
The one thing critics weren’t divided on at all? The powerful performance of Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck. Even those who were less enamored with the film lauded the intensity and dedication of Joaquin Phoenix in the role, with many going as far to naming him a shoe-in for a best actor win at the Oscars.
‘Joker’ reviews
Here are some passages from a variety of Joker reviews. Hypable will have its own review for the film when it releases for wider audiences in October.
Regardless of what critics thought of the message or meaning of Joker, there was unanimous praise for Joaquin Phoenix’s performance.
io9‘s Germain Lussier, though less convinced by the film as a whole, said:
Undoubtedly, the highlight of the film is Phoenix’s performance, which includes one of the best physical and mental transformations he’s done in his illustrious career.
The Playlist‘s Jessica Kiang agreed, saying:
But if the unwavering unwholesomeness of the mood is set a little too steadily, that’s only to give a baseline for Phoenix’s extraordinarily unsettling performance, which changes and jerks and heaves and zags when all laws of psychology and physics suggest it should zig. Perhaps that’s the reason he’s just “joker” without a definite article — there is nothing defined about him.
As did Vital Thrill‘s Jenna Busch, who spoke of Joaquin Phoenix’s performance with awe:
There was a moment while watching Joker when the screen went black and a breathless “wow” came out of my mouth before I realized it. Joaquin Phoenix is astounding as Arthur Fleck/Joker. Yes, that’s a big word, but it’s the first thing that came to mind after my inadvertent exclamation.
Critics likewise praised director Todd Phillip’s (known for his comedic work with Old School and the Hangover films) deft hand and clear influences from Martin Scorsese.
The Guardian’s Xan Brooks:
[Joker’s] real inspirations are ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘The King of Comedy’, Martin Scorsese’s conjoined masterpieces, each spotlighting the tawdry underside of American celebrity. Having brazenly plundered the films of Scorsese, Phillips fashions stolen ingredients into something new, so that what began as a gleeful cosplay session turns progressively more dangerous – and somehow more relevant, too.
The Hollywood Reporter‘s David Rooney:
Phillips is a long way from the Hangover trilogy, working confidently in a more ambitious vein akin to what he did as a producer with Bradley Cooper (who’s also on board here) to reimagine A Star is Born for contemporary audiences. With editor Jeff Groth, he keeps the pacing steady and satisfying over two hours, fueling the suspense and modulating the peaks and climactic builds with assurance.
However, not everyone was convinced by the merits of the film.
TIME’s Stephanie Zacherek was less than impressed by the film, saying:
Joker — which was written by Phillips and Scott Silver — doesn’t have a plot; it’s more like a bunch of reaction GIFs strung together. When Arthur gets fired from his clown job, he struts by the time-clock, deadpans, “Oh no, I forgot to punch out” and then, wait for it, socks it so hard it dangles from the wall. Make a note of the moment, because you’ll be seeing it a lot in your Twitter and Facebook feeds.
Vanity Fair‘s Richard Lawson left the film unsure of the ideas it put forth, saying:
…it also may be irresponsible propaganda for the very men it pathologizes. Is Joker celebratory or horrified? Or is there simply no difference, the way there wasn’t in Natural Born Killers or myriad other “America, man” movies about the freeing allure of depravity?
There was no such uncertainty from IndieWire‘s David Ehrlich, who said:
Todd Phillips’ ‘Joker’ is unquestionably the boldest reinvention of “superhero” cinema since ‘The Dark Knight’; a true original that’s sure to be remembered as one of the most transgressive studio blockbusters of the 21st Century. It’s also a toxic rallying cry for self-pitying incels, and a hyper-familiar origin story so indebted to “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy” that Martin Scorsese probably deserves an executive producer credit.
Or from Robert Ebert.com critic Glenn Kenny, who says that as a movie, Joker’s priorities are:
less in entertainment than in generating self-importance. As social commentary, “Joker” is pernicious garbage.
However, other critics had more favorable reactions to the message of the film, such as IGN’s Jim Vejvoda (who gave the film a 10/10) who said:
‘Joker’ the film may ask viewers to empathize with its central protagonist but it doesn’t ask us to forgive him for his increasingly evil choices. As many real-world parallels and inspirations can be uncomfortably drawn from Arthur’s descent into violent madness, the film still knows he’s deranged and not to be romanticized – merely understood.
His feelings are echoed by Empire’s Terri White, who says:
[Joker] could, particularly in the current climate, be viewed as a lament for outsiders and the ignored. That’s too simple and ‘Joker’ does anything but deliver you easy answers. It’s a sad, chaotic, slow-burn study of someone who isn’t visible; who doesn’t even exist to the world around them. But your empathy, sympathy even, isn’t guaranteed, and it begins to dissolve as Arthur somehow moves even further to the edges.
Variety‘s Owen Gleiberman praised Joker for being a different kind of comic book movie:
Many have asked, and with good reason: Do we need another Joker movie? Yet what we do need — badly — are comic-book films that have a verité gravitas, that unfold in the real world, so that there’s something more dramatic at stake than whether the film in question is going to rack up a billion-and-a-half dollars worldwide. “Joker” manages the nimble feat of telling the Joker’s origin story as if it were unprecedented.
As did the LA Times’ Justin Chang, who called it:
A dark realist thriller in comic-book drag — or to put it another way, a Hollywood entertainment willing to take its time as it builds tension and brims with ideas
Forbes writer Mark Hughes likewise described it as:
An awesome accomplishment sure to please fans of the character and of the superhero genre, as well as average viewers just looking for a terrific film for adult audiences.
and
…One of the true masterpieces of the superhero cinema, and one of 2019’s greatest achievements.
