You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
4

[–] Thisismyvoatusername 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

The weirdest review I have read so far was Joe Morgenstern's review in the Wall Street Journal. He begins with:

Think of “Joker” as both dental drill and Novocain. This origin story of the famously depraved smiler deals in pain from start to finish—pain that the hero, Arthur Fleck, first suffers, then inflicts—and Joaquin Phoenix plays the title role with piercing intensity. Yet the film, directed by Todd Phillips, leaves you numb. And glum. Days after the screening I was still under its stultifying spell.

How can that be? Why should such a remarkable performance, so many spectacular images (the cinematographer was Lawrence Sher ) and such vaulting pretensions to social commentary (the writers were Mr. Phillips and Scott Silver ) amount to not much? [emphasis added]

You may not like a film for a multitude of reasons, but any movie you are still thinking about days later is not one that amounts to not much.