Phoenix knocks it out of the park! [+78%]

Rating: 8/10 (2 October 2019)

What happens when the guy who made The Hangover series decides to cast an Oscar-nominated actor to play one of the most iconic comic-book villains of all-time? You just might not have expected something as dark and zany as 'Joker' to be the outcome. Here's an R-rated (supposedly) supervillain origin movie that screams DCEU but holds its own when it comes to storytelling and character development.
Joker is led by an explosive performance from its leading man Joaquin Phoenix. While no comparisons need be made to the versions of the character brought to life by Ledger or Nicholson, Phoenix, without a doubt, has clearly taken the character to even greater (and more notorious) heights. The first hour of Joker is an intense slow-burn. Arthur Fleck is a struggling clown-for-rent-turned-aspiring-standup-comedian who is often rag-dolled around by twerps (for being physically weak) and despised by (rich) commoners for his unusual demeanour characterized by unwarranted stretches of laughter.
The screenplay by Phillips and Scott Silver takes its own sweet time to showcase Arthur's gradual breakdown and eventual embracement of anarchy. The only bits of comforting normalcy are (apparently) offered by his mother, his next-door neighbor, and a talk-show host on TV. However, there's more to each of these characters than what meets the eye. The disturbing themes and elements in Joker indeed require a separate study of their own. That being said, the reasons attributed to Arthur crumbling under societal pressures are well-fleshed out and coupled with a haunting score by Hildur GuÃ°nadÃ³ttir, ravishing cinematography by Lawrence Sher, and the vintage Scorcese-like sets, the psychotic transformation (into Joker) is cent per cent believable.
Phoenix owns every scene that he's in, demanding your attention right from the opening scene where he pulls his mouth apart to form a fake smile. If the sole purpose of this character study, as the actor remarked in one of his interviews, was to shed light on (in addition to lending some credibility to) the uneasy life of Joker before he turned into the vicious version that Nolan gifted us a decade and a half ago, the film is a pertinent win. It is Gotham city (before Batman) indeed, and what's Gotham without the Wayne family? The Waynes' presence in the film will also surprise you in more ways than one.
What stood out to me were two (brilliantly written & directed) scenes: the first taking place in a moving subway where Arthur encounters three 'rich pricks' that sets the ball rolling for his 'transformation' and the second, during the climax stretch when all hell breaks loose in Gotham and a broken-down Arthur goes about his unruly antics amid a riotous mob. I felt the film did not require the 'extended climax' either, because the scene right before subtly told the viewer that the transformation was complete.
But when you look at the version of Gotham that Nolan built up versus the one Phillips does, one feels that the cynicism and hostility of its residents have been intentionally amped up for greater cinematic effect. Barely anyone in Phillips' Gotham (except for a handful) seemed cheery or comforting. Probably, that's what the makers were going for. Ignore the indistinct political commentary and you have a disturbingly dark piece of cinema in your hands! No heroes-in-capes are coming to your rescue here!