Did anybody see it? I did. Here is some stuff:

Spoiler

I really wish this movie had been made exactly the same way that it was, but without the words "Wayne" or "Joker" mentioned anywhere in it.

It was a really good story, but I don't like what it does to the Joker's character. The Joker isn't supposed to have a reason. He isn't supposed to have a backstory. The Joker isn't Arthur Fleck. He isn't Jack Napier. He's the goddamn Joker.

Why does he kill people? Because he's fucking crazy. Because it's funny. Because something something anti-Batman. Not because his mommy watched as some asshole abused him. Not because he has a brain injury.

So what did you guys think?

 

Surprised no on began this thread earlier.

Spoiler

I liked this Joker the best, his madness felt more raw and convincing. Showing a Joker with an origin was a negative, but it was countered well by the unreliable PoV. I liked how they positioned the most humorous scene next to that brutal scissor stabbing; it brought out his unstable nature wonderfully. The plot felt a bit lacklustre at times. Poverty and squalor was brought out pretty well. Second half of the movie was such a stark contrast to the first though. It was great but disturbing.

 

Spoiler

Pretty much that exactly. Would have removed some of my biggest issues with the film entirely.

Spoiler

The stuff with the Waynes felt incredibly laboured. I won't say I immediately caught on to the bastard son angle, but I saw it coming long before it was actually mentioned on-screen, and boy did my eyes roll. Even more so when we got yet another Wayne murder, complete with iconic but so fucking over-used pearls. It didn't help that they quite drastically change Thomas Wayne from his usual presentation of kind-hearted philanthropist to kind of a jerk at best (and, depending on your interpretation, massively corrupt sexual predator at worst); I know it's not the first time such a take has been used, but it's still jarring.

More generally, the complete lack of subtlety - Gotham almost literally drowning in trash and rats, basically everyone in the film being awful - undercut the genuine points the film had, like cuts to public services, corrupt and unsympathetic elite, mental health stigmas, and

Spoiler

I often get frustrated with stories that present the possibility that half of what we've seen wasn't real; it can be done well, but it grated here a bit

All that said, I do think there's a lot to like about it. Phoenix, obviously, is great. The look of the film is impressive, and I liked that a Joker origin story doesn't actually offer a cast iron, definitive origin for him, given the open to interpretation nature of a lot of it. It's decently written, the acting as a whole is good. The film as a whole isn't bad; I think it's getting over-hyped due to the quality of Phoenix's performance and the fact that it's a 'serious, intelligent' comic book film. I don't think it's going to stand the test of time, but I'd still recommend it to most.

 

I really liked the movie. To me it was mostly about rejecting political narratives ,for example the story part about social services. Arthur Fleck goes to them weekly "I think" but when the end he basicly just said that she isn't even listening to him and that she is just doing the minimal requirement of her job. I thought that the did a great job a taking a lot of political narratives from the left and the right in one scene and recjeting them in a next (for example the gun storyline).