Mesmerizing and Powerful Lead, Beautiful Aesthetic & An Imperfect Script

Rating: 10/10 (17 October 2019)

"Joker" is kind of a tough case in today's cinema world and is going to raise a lot of discussions for years to come. I'd like to say that opinions will divide, but, not counting the critics, the response seems pretty clear - most people call it a masterpiece. I was 90% sure I'm going to be able to call it that as well, but that appeared not to be the case.
Before trying to explain the mix of feelings in me after the "Joker" experience, I want to say that I think it's an amazing movie. In my eyes it's technically flawless, aesthetically excellent, with a fitting and moody original score (it makes so much sense now that I know it's the same composer who did Chernobyl TV series), well chosen soundtrack & my god, Joaquins performance was raw, gripping and no laughing matter. Oscar nomination should be rhetorical. I suppose a popular question for many years to come will be "Heath Ledgers Joker or Joaquin Phoenixes Joker?" Well, can I just take them both? Obviously, the differences are endless, one is a developed Joker, the other's a Joker in development. One is a pg-13 Joker, one is an R Joker, one is a central role, the other - a supporting role. As I said, endless differences, so sleep on it before you judge it with the use of comparisons. Personally, I really like them both & I refuse to choose just one, because why should I.
I did like how much Joker was the one and only central character, in most movies there's more than just one character of similar importance, but in "Joker" everybody felt at least half less significant than our central villain himself. Villain, not anti-hero & definitely not a hero. Maybe a martyr of sorts. This is where some of my concerns start manifesting themselves. Before being able to watch the movie itself, I had seen and heard things, opinions and ratings of a magnitude way too big for my own good, though I was sure and trusty only of my own predictions. Point being, after actually seeing the movie some of those opinions make sense. Everybody who knows me knows I love dark, messed up and evil movies, but I have to say, in full honesty, that the general publics overwhelmingly positive response to "Joker" is a bit worrysome.
Before I try to elaborate on that, I want to call out another frequent kind of comment among the viewers - "people who haven't experienced trauma/depression/'real problems' won't get and/or like this movie". Who am I to state opinions on wether you or someone else has experienced enough, who am I to surely say that I have. I do humbly think two things: 1) Life's always been more or less messed up, and somehow I wound up sad, miserable, scared and visiting a therapist; 2) The aforementioned popular statement among the viewers is, in my opinion, completely and utterly false & is to be translated as gate-keeping the movie.
"Joker" is a psychological character study and it's also more than just mean spirited, it's quite evil. However, there are good takeaways (should be the only takeaways) - everyone should find his/her place in this world, no one should live mentally isolated. The subtexts are there & they're buried deep. The thing that worries me (and this is not a critic of the movie as much as it's a personal opinion on the society's response to it) - is the seemingly huge possibility that a lot of people have taken and will take perhaps the wrong things from "Joker". I'm sure "Joker" probably woke up one or two nihilists/narcissists in some people. As one critic said: "For the better or worse, this is the kind of movie Joker would want". I think that's well put. What I haven't talked about yet is the script - a very important part. I can't help but feel that everything but the performances were slightly pushed, constantly dramatic with some jumping-out sensationalist script moves. It's an awfully convenient screenplay. Someone said to me that this is the single best character study in cinema ever - I can only firmly disagree with that, it's absolutely great, but the best? The dramatics>naturality script antics is reason enough for not putting it on the throne. It still feels like a comic book movie, a tad bit unrealistic despite being rooted in a grounded and raw fictional reality. Last but not least, sadly, I predicted the f out of "Joker", I mean almost every next or the next after next step. At the same time, I think that story-wise they gave us the best possible joker origin story, exactly the kind we want - perhaps to a fault.
Before the movie me and my friend told each other - you know, this really could be this years best movie. Well, it's close, but not quite there. I wanted to come out of it overwhelmed, I came out impressed massively by Joaquin & both vaguely satisfied and mildly frustrated by the other non-aesthetical components of the movie. It's my two cents that a lot of people who say the "film" is a masterpiece actually think the character/performance is a masterpiece, because I can I agree a whole lot more with that. "Joker" was carried almost solely on the shoulders of Joaquin Phoenix.
To sum it up, it's an effective, masterfully made albeit not flawless and morally complicated cinema with a mesmerizing lead. Here's to hoping they do an R-rated Riddler origin story, that'd be the next best thing after this. I give "Joker" a 10 as I've given to a 100 other excellent movies. Do I think it's worthy of a 8.9 IMDb rating? No.