YET ANOTHER TAKE FOR DC...

Rating: 6/10 (14 January 2020)

Just watched this last night, succumbing to all the incredible press that's been surrounding the film lately, and I have to say, I was a bit underwhelmed.
First off, does no one remember THE DARK KNIGHT (2008) and Heath Ledger's legendary turn as Joker? Did we really need yet another take on who Batman's arch nemesis is? Although he was quite amazing in an extreme and dedicated performance, I never really felt like I wasn't watching Joaquin Phoenix do some really good acting, vs. seeing the character of Joker emerge from the tortured individual of Arthur Fleck. Yes, his character changed and grew throughout the film, but it was always Joaquin Phoenix I felt like I was watching. Ledger's immersive performance made me forget the actor entirely, seeing only the insane character of Joker throughout. Personally, I feel like I would've responded better had this movie been something other than an origin story, where Phoenix's portrayal would've been able to expand upon Joker's character (perhaps w/flashbacks to his origin). In this way, the established standard presented by Ledger could have been built upon - and even morphed into further (and greater) complexity - rather than feeing like a different take on the same character. Which gets me to my second point...
In my view, one of the main problems with the DC universe that Marvel has overcome is the constant need to reinvent itself, rather than build upon an established world that continues to expand through character and story (yeah, I know they're trying - but it ain't workin'). Although a completely new take, with no ties to the existing DC cinematic universe and no intention of further exploration via sequels, JOKER feels like an attempt at making something remarkable that's kinda sorta part of the DC cinematic universe (no, really it's not), but kinda sorta misses the mark. The entire film has a look-at-how-incredible-and- different-I-am vibe that I just could not shake. And, yes, in some ways JOKER is incredible and different. But it's not currently tied to any other part of the DC cinematic universe, nor is it intended to be. So, as a standalone venture, the film becomes nothing more than a harsh, gritty, depressing throwback to other great films like TAXI DRIVER or THE KING OF COMEDY (which might explain why Robert De Niro finds himself in a throwaway role in this film).
Lastly... The depiction and use of excessive and gratuitous violence in this day and age, for me, demonstrates an inability to avoid old and tired tropes in favor of more unnerving approaches to filmmaking that isn't so much "in your face" with longer lasting effects. Let's be honest: societally, we're so aware of and numbed by the depiction of gun violence on the screen that it has absolutely no punch anymore for most people. Hence the feeling of gratuitousness it brings when seeing it, once again, depicted in all it's violent glory. Joker is a character who, at a minimum, is a master agent of chaos, and this film almost gets that - but not quite. Instead, the focus goes more toward the flashy extravagance of the violence, which screams so loudly at us from the screen that we only catch a glimpse of the character's deeper motives (and satisfaction at achieving them) by the end of the film.
Is JOKER a bad film that should be avoided at all cost? No - far from it. But this viewer honestly does not understand why it's garnered all the incredible buzz it's been receiving of late. JOKER is simply another decent film that could've been so much more than it is.