I agree. This movie did nothing for me. It was a poor copy of Taxi Driver.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I think the Joker movies were great. But I do agree that they kinda diluted the character by making a million movies about him and each story gives the guy a vastly different background. So now he didn't get a white face and green hair because he fell in chemical water, but because he was a mentally ill clown and used makeup after going crazy? If someone would ask me to explain the joker, I'd have to ask "which Joker?". And that just seems weird.

by ProfessionalTry5573 2 days ago

Not at popular view, but not unpopular. I agree, it was obvious to me this wasn't designed as a Joker movie. There was a story the director wanted to tell, and just put in some very light Batman lore just to sell it to WB.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

You could build a really decent argument as to why the Dark Knight trilogy is a terrible adaptation of the Batman comic, as well as Heath Ledgers Joker, but it doesn't mean it's not amazing for what it is. Same goes here - it's just a different interpretation, and maybe it's not perfect but it's definitely decent and well made.

by Anonymous 2 days ago

I disagree the joker is a character who just wants chaos for chaos sake. Alfred in the dark knight sums up his character at his core so perfectly "some men just want to watch the world burn" JPs Joker was a random mentally ill guy crashing out because he can't make it in normal society and he gets cut off from medication. He's not inherently evil or sinister. The joker isn't dumb nor has he ever been. He's insane but he's also brilliant. The real joker could have probably thrived in society but he chooses to be a menace because at his core he's a bad guy. JPs joker is actually medically semi retarded and I'm not saying that to discriminate just being honest.

by Anonymous 2 days ago