How can anyone who has seen at least 5 psychological thrillers in their life find this unique?

Rating: 6/10 (28 April 2020)

Joker is a shallow, pretentious piece of work masquerading as "art" and "social commentary." Completely unoriginal.
The film just isn't as deep, substantial and ground-breaking as the internet wants you to believe. I've actually heard people claiming that this film changed their life. I'm sorry, but how? There is a copious amount of style but not enough substance. The entire film, save for the last 20 minutes, is exposition. And the send-off, while impactful, doesn't quite align with the rest of the film.
Everyone involved in the production has emotionally manipulated the viewers into believing that this picture is profound and influential. And it seems that they've succeeded in doing so, given this film's box office intake, accolades and mass appeal. I mean... all this controversy and publicity for what? There will be several Joker copycats in years to come: solo comic-book character based films ingrained in reality, with little action. Whether that is a good or bad thing is anybody's guess, but I personally think Joker probably (hopefully) will not pass the test of time. I can't imagine it being considered a seminal release. It just isn't as opaque and gritty as the herd wants you to believe.
The expectations were high going into the film, I had been anticipating it for months and descended into the typical emotional trap of the hype. After completing it, the only words I could say to myself were... "that's it?"
Indeed, it is entertaining and has magnificent aesthetics. Spot on portrayal of the dreadful ambiance of Gotham City. I'm a fan of Joker's new look as well. This is by no means a bad film (unoriginal, yes) but it's also not exactly the formative, manum-opus it's being marketed as. It's akin to James Cameron's Avatar in the sense that it's basically a rehash of previously successful movies and repacked with new characters and a new setting plus tons of pretty visuals to galore at. And most of the general public will fall for it EVERY SINGLE TIME. As for the influence of successful films from the past: some will call it inspiration, others will call it plagiarism. But at least Avatar was a ground-breaking technical achievement in cinema history. The real saving graces of Joker are the performances of Mr. Phoenix and Mr. De Niro (who appears sporadically), the cinematography and the score.
I have nothing but excellent things to say about Joaquin Phoenix's acting performance. The man truly submits to the role and has once again proven his method-acting skills. The Academy Award was well deserved. Such an exquisite acting job. He works with what he's given and triumphs in doing so... except there isn't exactly that much to work with.
Some scenes truly are heavy and thought-provoking, but in the end you walk away feeling hollow and one-dimensional due to the absence of clear take-away messages. Sure, that means it's "ambiguous" and every viewer will get to interpret the film for themselves. But that almost means the writers failed to give us an adequate narrative.
Joker examines the destructive impact of mental illness and transcendence into violence from a very surface level perspective. I expected a much more well-layered, intricate psychological analysis on the the mind of a deranged mass-murderer that makes the viewer comprehend why he did what he did, and even spread some awareness on mental health and the importance of professional help for suffering individuals. I typically do not watch movies expecting lobbying or advocacy of any kind, but it just would've felt appropriate in this context. The character study element just seems rushed and isn't deep-rooted or showcased well enough to make the viewers care. Under-stuffed and undercooked. Many of Arthur's decisions feel arbitrary or redundant, some just for the sake of unnecessary violence. I'm not prone to violence at all, but for a film that takes itself THIS seriously, it better be justified or serve a purpose. Yes, the social structure is evil. But society cannot be blamed for the root cause of every single evil. Some negative desires and ideologies are pre-conditioned in one's psyche. The film has Joker conveniently blame society for all its wrongdoings against him, playing the victim card, without having him acknowledge his corrupt cognitive drive even once. Some folks are evil and have an ambition to kill because they're just designed that way. Mental illness and prejudice doesn't mean one will guaranteed go around shooting people up, those things aren't mutually exclusive and I wish the film explored this.
Todd Phillips' Joker seems to have an identity crises from its inception. Maybe I just don't "get it" but there doesn't seem to be any discernible theme, motif or cerebral reasoning. A crazy man with existential dread becomes crazier. The on-screen performance would've been intolerable to witness if it weren't for Joaquin Phoenix.
As others have stated, this iteration of Joker doesn't appear to be intelligent or ingenious enough to become the notorious, sharp-witted Joker we all love to hate or hate to love or just love. It's hard to believe he'll be able to conquer Gotham City into his dominion and be able to form a cult of dedicated followers with at-best only average IQ.
Getting a little nit-picky here but, if Gotham City is afflicted with such social/political unrest and diverging class boundaries, how have there not been several "jokers" before Arthur Fleck?Seems like such a depressing place to be a part of the lower socioeconomic category and a seemingly exemplary city to have a mental breakdown in and decide to become a serial killer overnight. It's hard to believe that Arthur Fleck has been the town's trailblazer, inadvertently setting off a domino effect of protests and rebellion.
It's not entirely important but the film tells us there are many fallacies in Gotham City's social hierarchy system but doesn't show how or what they even are. All the viewers are informed of is the separation between rich and poor. Also, for a film that's supposedly a stand-alone feature, the inclusion of the Wayne household felt especially superfluous and out of place.
The film is quite intentionally ambiguous, which some might claim is an artistic choice, but I theorize it's just lazy writing and directing on Todd Phillips' part. It's wanting to taste success but only being willing to commit to the bare minimum. It's ambiguous to the point that the audience does not even know exactly which form of mental illness(es) Arthur's suffering from and which experiences are delusions and which are reality. It's one thing knowing whether everything was a delusion or if nothing was a delusion. But here, you sort of have to put the pieces of the puzzle together for yourself and there's still no definitive answer. This is a filmmaking technique that definitely can work and intrigue the viewers, serving for a deeply visceral experience. But in the case of Joker it takes away from a meaningful viewing experience.
This film's direct plot isn't unnecessarily convoluted (it's quite frankly a little too simple) but there's several macguffins driving the story forward in a way that feels inorganic and contrived. There are plot points and character decisions the viewers witness which they think might serve real significance later on, but are quickly discarded and not brought up again.
I enjoyed the ending, especially THAT SCENE and that mini monologue Arthur gave. It was satisfying, thought-provoking and humbling but the buildup throughout the film didn't feel potent or well-crafted enough.
Let's just be honest for a second... this film's script would've ended up discarded in some production studio's CEO's trash-bin if it wasn't about an already popular comic book villain with cult status, and if the script wasn't pitched to WarnerBros by Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix. And especially if the studio wasn't already looking to venture into more stand-alone DC films after the success of 2017's Wonder Woman. It also wouldn't have made 25% as much financially. Why? The plot and writing isn't distinctive or meta enough, and it isn't anything that hasn't been done before in the many decades of great filmmaking. I'm genuinely confused by those claiming this film is innovative and explores uncharted territory. You all must not have a lot of cinema experience.
Look, I HATE TO BE THAT PERSON, trust me, but Joker has been ridiculously overrated by fanboys and teenagers. Even critics aren't too crazy about it, given its polarizing reception. There is nothing wrong with loving this movie. We love what we love and shouldn't feel guilty about it as long as it's not unhealthy or illegal. But please do not claim this film is a "masterpiece" or "one of the greatest films ever made" without at least having quality, competent cinema to compare it to. I don't walk into every film expecting it to be a masterpiece. Not every film needs to have a deep meaning. Most don't. Not every film has to be good either. I have a bunch of sh***y movies that I love and can watch anytime because of how mindlessly entertaining they are. But the difference is that I acknowledge that these are sh***y films and wouldn't argue against it. The problem with Joker is that is has already become something that it's not, and most of the masses have fallen right down the unscrupulous rabbit hole. These are just my two cents. In my opinion, this isn't what I'd call a masterwork of filmmaking. So many other psychological thrillers have done this way before and way better than Joker.