Movie Review: “Joker” doesn’t quite live up to the hype

Movie Review: “Joker” (R)

“Joker” won the coveted Golden Lion Award at the Venice Film Festival in September — no small feat for a comic-book movie. But in the days since winning that honor, word has been decidedly mixed with many viewers suggesting this would be one controversial movie, a love-it-or-hate-it kind of an experience. Interestingly enough, after having seen it, I fall somewhere in between. “Joker” is certainly to be admired for thinking outside the box, but there’s no doubt that this movie doesn’t always come up aces. But no matter my thoughts on the topic, “Joker” is making bank at the box office!

This take on one of the most iconic comic book villains of all time serves as an origin story of sorts and follows Arthur Fleck (played by a magnetic Joaquin Phoenix), a down-on-his-luck, socially awkward loaner of a clown-for-hire who can’t seem to catch a break in life. He suffers from a condition that causes him to laugh uncontrollably at the most inopportune times, and this, among other things, only aids in making him a target of ridicule in the eyes of many a Gotham resident. The only time Arthur is truly happy is when he’s on stage doing stand up. But even there, he becomes the butt of the joke at the hands of popular talk show host Murray Franklin (played by the legendary Robert DeNiro). Eventually, Arthur hits a breaking point, and quicker than you can say “Travis Bickle,” this man’s fragile state of mind causes him to snap.

There’s a scene in Albert Brooks’s wonderful afterlife comedy, “Defending Your Life,” in which a stand up comic attempts to take on a heckler (played by Brooks himself). Ultimately, the comic is stopped dead in his tracks. After being asked how he died, Brooks playfully turns the tables and one-ups the comedian by replying, “On stage, like you.” I couldn’t help but think of that scene as Fleck flounders on stage while performing to a less-than-enthusiastic crowd at a comedy club. Unlike the comedian in “Defending Your Life,” however, Fleck has a much harder time dealing with the rejection. That’s because, sadly, this is Arthur’s life: A life filled with heckling, insensitivity, incessant bullying, and being lied to. Therefore, it’s no surprise that because of the hand Arthur has been dealt, he would go on to become one of the most legendary villains of all time. Or does he? It all sort of depends on how you interpret this movie.

Suffice it to say that this new film from writer and director Todd Phillips (“The Hangover” franchise) isn’t your grandparents’ Joker. No, this is an entirely new interpretation of the character, one steeped in current hot-topic issues, and while mental health and the social and economic divide are at the very forefront of this picture, “Joker” also provocatively suggests that there’s a very fine line that separates villainy and heroism.

Yes, there’s a lot to chew on here, but one might be surprised to find that while “Joker” often appears to have a lot to say, it actually says very little. What’s even more worth noting is that “Joker” owes just as much, if not more, to the ’70s and ’80s works of Martin Scorsese, Sidney Lumet, and William Friedkin as it does the various famed incarnations of the DC comics that inspired it. Often, the comic-book influence — most notably the way this movie turns the “Batman” mythos on its ear — works like a charm, but as far as the aforementioned ’70s and ’80s filmmaker influences go, “Joker” tends to be a bit much despite the overall stellar look of the picture. Case in point: The “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy” influences are a little too on the nose.

All of that said, there are still a handful of attributes that make this movie worth seeing, and Phoenix is certainly at the top of that list. This committed actor is absolutely fantastic. Is this a career-defining performance? I wouldn’t go that far. Given Phoenix’s stellar work in “Walk the Line,” “The Master,” and the similarly themed (and superior) meditative-killer-for-hire character-driven drama “You Were Never Really Here,” his much-talked about work in this “Joker” had a lot to live up to. Still, there’s no denying that he carries this movie on his shoulders. His Fleck is a shockingly emaciated, emotionally and mentally unstable individual, and Phoenix’s improvisational approach to the character is fitting. In fact, there are a handful of occasions in this picture when Phoenix is downright chilling. Look no further than a “Joker” highlight in which Fleck has quite an intense exchange with two ex-coworkers in his apartment. This scene is both terrifying and darkly hilarious. Beyond that, Phoenix’s physicality is also worth noting, not just his emaciated frame but the way he carries himself, most notably his captivating little dance moves. As usual, this one-time child star (always loved him as Diane Wiest’s awkward and confused son in Ron Howard’s “Parenthood”) throws himself into a role with absolute abandon.

Complementing Phoenix’s work are Mark Friedberg’s positively stunning production design, Lawrence Sher’s wonderful cinematography, and Hildur Guonadottir’s mesmerizing score. All make for what is an undeniably gorgeous production.

In the end, though, it all comes down to story, and while Phillips and crew are to be commended for attempting to give us a Joker for the times we’re living in, this movie isn’t quite as profound as it aspires to be. While it touches on important issues, I never felt like it truly explored these issues. And while a healthy dose of ambiguity can often be a good thing, there are times when it appears that Phillips wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He’s made a film that purports to be an origin story, but the truth is that “Joker” often plays with our perception of what is real and what is part of Fleck’s delusion.

Ultimately, “Joker” almost seems confused in terms of what it actually wants to be. One moment, the film asks us to feel for Fleck because of the way he’s been treated. During other more glorifying moments, though, it feels as if the movie almost expects us to condone Fleck’s behavior when he’s committing monstrous acts. It’s a tricky balancing act, and Phillips isn’t always up to the challenge: See Fleck’s wildly over-the-top meeting with Murray in the film’s final act. This may even be more evident by way of the much-talked-about ending of the picture. True to typical Joker form, this film is designed to always have us question what’s real and what’s not, but the final moments of the movie almost undermine what’s come before it. And that’s a shame, because the way this film plays with our perception of both this unpredictable villain and that of Joker’s most worthy adversary, Batman, is actually interesting and most unexpected.

Ultimately, “Joker” was a bit of a mixed bag for me. There’s a lot I loved about it, and there are a handful of things in there that leave a bit to be desired. The craft is certainly there, but the story doesn’t always hit. Too often, “Joker” feels more bleak and empty than profound and enlightening. And despite what you may have heard in some circles, this movie really isn’t entirely dangerous. “Reckless” is probably a better word, particularly when it’s playing the blame game. Yes, Arthur, has had a rough life, and yes, he isn’t altogether well. But at the end of the day, people have to be held accountable for their actions, and “Joker” spends a little too much time blaming other people (overly callous people) for Fleck’s heinous acts. Props to this film and its makers for shedding a light on mental illness and suggesting that we need a little more empathy in this world, but “Joker” works better when it’s simply subverting our expectations of what a comic movie has the potential to be.

Articles related to “Movie Review: ‘Joker’ doesn’t quite live up to the hype”

Movie Review: “Rambo: Last Blood” worst of franchise

Red Rock Film Festival announces official selections

Red Rock Film Festival brings more films to St. George