[ This is not a review. We are not here to review other creatives. But to create. ]

Here’s a phenomenal movie that split movie goers into two halves. Well, to correct that sentence above, the movie isn’t that phenomenal. But the character is. More precisely, the archetype of that character is etched in millions of minds, so to speak.

Ann Hornaday at the Washington Post said:

“From the hysterical levels of overpraise, concern-trolling and general hype that have greeted “Joker,” casual observers might assume that it’s either genius, right-wing propaganda or some diabolically potent combination thereof. The truth is, it’s just a movie — a fine movie, not a great movie, a movie that will please the specific subculture of fans it aims to service, while those who have survived this long without caring about comic-book movies can go on not caring. A grim, shallow, distractingly derivative homage to 1970s movies at their grittiest..

She ended her blast with this hammer: “Like the anti-hero at its center, it’s a movie trying so hard to be capital-b Big that it can’t help looking small.”

A O Scott at New York Times said:

“We are now at the phase of the argument cycle when actual ticket buyers have a chance to see what all the fuss is about, which means that it’s also time for me to say my piece. And what I have to say is: Are you kidding me? To be worth arguing about, a movie must first of all be interesting: it must have, if not a coherent point of view, at least a worked-out, thought-provoking set of themes, some kind of imaginative contact with the world as we know it. “Joker,” an empty, foggy exercise in second-hand style and second-rate philosophizing, has none of that. Besotted with the notion of its own audacity — as if willful unpleasantness were a form of artistic courage — the film turns out to be afraid of its own shadow, or at least of the faintest shadow of any actual relevance.”

And The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw called it the ‘most disappointing movie of the year’.
“There is no reason why Phoenix’s elaborately backstoried Joker shouldn’t be as powerful as Heath Ledger’s mysterious, motiveless, originless Joker in The Dark Knight. But at some stage the comic-book world of supervillaindom has to be entered, and Ledger was more powerful because he wasn’t weighed down with all this realist detail and overblown ironic noir grandeur, and he wasn’t forced to carry an entire story on his own. This Joker has just one act in him: the first act. The film somehow manages to be desperately serious and very shallow.”

And then just about when we were to dismiss the film The Verge calls it hypnotic 😀

“For much of its runtime, Joker is a consciously ugly film, visually and emotionally. Arthur starts with close to nothing, and loses it all incrementally, in ways designed to hurt empathetic viewers. Phillips and cinematographer Lawrence Sher (who also DP’d for all three of Phillips’ Hangover movies) give the film a sickeningly grungy, underlit, David Fincher-esque look, especially in Arthur’s squalid home. Everything about the storytelling — the ominous, booming score; the gritty darkness; the invasive sound design — is designed to be oppressive, and to push the audience toward Arthur’s point of view as the primary victim of all the oppression. It’s hypnotic just how horrifying Arthur’s existence is, just as Phoenix’s performance is hypnotic as he spirals from fragile hope into increasingly outsized and confident acts of destruction.”

And then ComicBook.Com says ‘Joker’ is loaded with mystery that it will leave a lot of questions in you 😀

“Joker is loaded with mystery on top of its numerous twists. By the time it ends, viewers will be left with several questions about the experience, some of which might be scarily directed at themselves. Phoenix’s Arthur laughs his way through terrible scenarios. For this, the actor demands an Oscar nomination it might not be the only nod this DC Comics movie earns. The cinematography, score, and direction create something unlike anything before it – -and it’s terrifying, thrilling, and moving.”

Confused enough? 😀

We at Bodhy Studios simply believe in this: Art is a subjective experience. No reviewer needs to come between you and your experience. An artist creates. An enthusiast enjoys or learns or expands or gets bored. But that is his right. His business.

Why on earth should anyone come between you and your understanding of art? We still haven’t got it yet. Mate, to us this review business has always looked like a joke. A poor one.

Hence the last laugh belongs to… the clown himself 😉