This clown is too simple for me ...

Rating: 5/10 (27 March 2020)

Everyone loves the joker. Batman's most famous opponent has thrilled fans since the early days and exploded into unimagined spheres with Heath Ledger's performance in "The Dark Knight". I love this character too but this enthusiasm has been faded since the disastrous "Suicide Squad" in which Jared Leto embarrassed himself with his portrayal of the clown. Nevertheless, I was excited to see this solo film, which Martin Scorsese was initially supposed to co-produce, but then he turned it down. The first trailer was phenomenal and certainly a reason for the high expectations everyone had before going to the cinema. But I held back, mainly because of Todd Phillips, the director who is best known for his "Hangover"-films. I'm not saying that a director can't reinvent himself, but his previous works never really entertained me that much... And unfortunately, "Joker" disappointed me too. Many people praise the film and the cringeworthy controversy surrounding the film probably pushed the Box-Office results a little bit more, but I had a lot of problems with "Joker" even when he has his moments.
Arthur Fleck is an outsider in Gotham City who works as a clown. He always experiences setbacks. He must take care of his sick mother and he loses his job, but it's his complicated connection to Thomas Wayne, the mayor of Gotham, that changes everything for Arthur...
First of all, the idea of making an independent joker film is a respectable act. The film has nothing to do with the other DC works, which I personally find great, because in my eyes the DCEU has been facing exodus for a long time. So, you can start completely fresh.
And then of course, I must mention Joaquin Phoenix: A terrific actor, if not one of the best that Hollywood has at the moment. He is the star here and the reason why the movie works. Without Phoenix this film would have hardly any substance in my eyes, so his Oscar is well deserved.
Furthermore, there are some good ideas, such as making the joker laugh as an illness (awesome!) Or the interesting involvement of the Wayne family. I also liked the final act of the film in many places, but that's about it ...
The biggest flaw of the movie is the story: It is too simple, too lazy and unfortunately serves many exhausted clichés. Phillips uses a lot of violence, both psychologically and physically, but it never really hit or shocked me. Unfortunately, many of the brutal moments in the film are very, very, very predictable and therefore come without any structure. Arthur's motivation for his actions are just too vague for me to sympathize with him. Simply humiliating the main character, over and over again, is not enough for me as a motif for a film about a sociopath. The film shows the transformation from Arthur to Joker technically and theoretically "right", but it is ultimately the presentation that I did not like. "Joker" lacks subtlety and above all good dialogues.
The film has a lot of parallels to "Taxi Driver" (Scorsese). Unfortunately, I haven't seen this film yet, but funnily enough Robert De Niro plays the main role there and can also be seen here. De Niro is ok, as is the rest of the cast, although I found the child actor really terrible. But the star is and remains Phoenix.
Visually, "Joker" has beautiful moments, such as the shot of the long stairs and the soundtrack, which can convince here and there, especially when it comes to capturing the feeling of the early 80s. Unfortunately, the score of Hildur Guðnadóttir was a bit too forced for me ...
Conclusion: "Joker" is a disappointment in my eyes. I am happy for everyone who has fun with the film, and I am certainly in the minority with this opinion, but apart from a wonderful leading actor and some good ideas, the film sadly has little substance and freshness to offer.