And so all good things come to an end. For three years in a row, Peter Jackson has banished our winter blues with the individual instalments of his Tolkien trilogy, effectively shifting the focus of our cinematic excitement from the summer months to the end of the year. But now that his epic has been unveiled in its entirety, what will be the lasting effects of his achievement?
Well, grand-scale fantasy filmmaking is back on the menu, laying down the gauntlet to George Lucas and Star Wars Episode III. Jackson has also proved that notions of risk and ambition needn't be confined to the low-budget, indie end of the spectrum; nor does California have an exclusive stranglehold on groundbreaking special effects.
And then there's the DVD factor. Just as The Lord Of The Rings was upping the stakes in theatres, so too was its DVD release pattern defining what can (and should) be done on disc for major movies.
In particular, the four-disc extended editions seem to have affected the director's thinking as to what he can get away with in his theatrical final cut. Hence the public grumbles from Christopher Lee about the non-appearance of Saruman in this final instalment. While it might have been fair to grant Lee a curtain call, Jackson quite rightly realises that it is Sauron, not Saruman, whose fiery eye encompasses all the narrative strands of the climax.
The Return Of The King marks the first time in the series when Jackson's roots as a horror filmmaker creep through. As the orcs catapult severed Gondorian heads beyond the walls of Minas Tirith, flesh-rotted ghosts draw swords alongside Aragorn and giant spider Shelob stalks Frodo through dark, web-shrouded tunnels, the film pushes the boundaries of its 12A certificate.
And so it should, because the look and tone must necessarily grow darker as the Hobbits near Mount Doom and Mordor's evil hand grips Middle-earth ever tighter.
Character nuances have been crafted over an unprecedented ten hours-plus of cinematic storytelling: from Strider lurking in the shadowy corner to Aragorn rallying the troops; from Merry and Pippin as bumbling fools to stout-hearted, pint-sized warriors. Only Legolas and Gimli seem to have regressed (in screen time at least) to set-piece archer and comedy sidekick respectively. At least Andy Serkis is rewarded for his Gollum voice work with an early flashback that gets his face on screen, as well as warning us that, under the ring's power, Smeagol can be as murderous as Gollum.
Jackson has kept the momentum of the series rolling on and on though the traditionally 'difficult' middle part and 'weak' finale, delivering a climax to the story that's neater and more affecting than what Tolkien managed on the printed page. Some viewers might feel that the director sprinkles some cheese on his extended coda, adding at least one false ending too many (even if he does ignore the book's Scouring of The Shire).
But those who have walked beside these heroes every step of the way on such a long journey deserve the emotional pay-off as well as the action peaks, and they will be genuinely touched as the final credits roll. Yes, the Ring is dead. Long live King Kong.
Verdict - The resounding climax to a landmark in cinema history. But the King has now returned, the story is over and the ships are leaving Middle-earth. Ladies and gentlemen, Elvish has left the building.
5/5
- Alan Morrison, Empire Magazine

So now that the picture houses across the UK are beginning to reopen, this is the third film I've settled down to watch in front of a huge big screen - and it's a belter. You can only wonder at the sheer imagination of JRR Tolkien and of Peter Jackson, Fran Walsh & Philippa Boyens as they adeptly adapt this epic tale of power for a new generation. Certainly, it over-hams the accents - maybe just a few too many "rrrs" in "Arrragorrrrn" but otherwise it's a feast for senses. When the hairy-footed Hobbit "Bilbo" (Sir Ian Holm) gets to eleventy-one he sets off to write his life-story with the elves. He leaves his possessions - including a mysterious ring - to Frodo (Elijah Wood). When visiting wizard "Gandalf" (Sir Ian McKellen) identifies it as the epitome of wickedness that puts all of their lives are in danger, "Frodo" and his lifelong friend "Sam" (Sean Astin) must flee their bucolic happiness. This first instalment of the trilogy tracks the journey of the hobbits as they meet "Stryder" (Viggo Mortensen) and together try to evade the pursuing wraith attempting to get to "Elrond" the Elvish king in "Rivendell" and decide what is best to do with this evil, seemingly indestructible talisman. Their only solution proves to be returning the ring to the lava-filled cavern of "Mount Doom" where it was forged: only there can it's corruption be defeated. The brave hobbits, together with two men, an elf and a dwarf set out to accomplish this all but impossible task fighting the weather, evil orcs, malevolent magic and the harsh terrain on their treacherous way. It's the ultimate fantasy adventure; that sticks to the spirit, if not to every word, of the original work. The effects both in make-up and from the computer are expertly applied creating a real sense of tension and peril that compliments, rather than subsumes, the actual action and beautiful cinematography of the New Zealand scenery through which our intrepid gang must travel. This is probably the weakest of the three episodes as it takes a good hour to get going; but once it does and the "Fellowship" takes firmer form with a superb John Howard-Davies; a handsome Orlando Bloom and even the usually wooden Sean Bean raises his game to give us as a truly cracking, at times quite scary adventure that is magnificently scored by the inspired Howard Shore. This is not really a film that works on the telly - however large the screen may be. To do justice to the creativity of all concerned it just has to be given the respect it deserves and be seen in the cinema. If you get a chance, you should go see it (again!).

This film may be perfect.
Based on the fantasy world written by Tolkien, we see the halfling hobbits, the most unlikely of heroes, a breed of human type beings who indulge in pleasures, games, and fun, and do little evil.
In the same world are more powerful beings, some good, like the elves and wizards, some evil, like the orcs, trolls, and dragons, and some in between, like the dwarves and men.
And one evil super being, Sauron, the second in command to the "devil" of this world called Middle Earth, and that devil called Melkor is now in chains and powerless, so Sauron rules all evil.
That said, we get a very faithful version to the book, only improved. This is the first of three segments called "The Lord of the Rings". The parts left out are parts best left out. Tom Bombadil, for example, along with his wife, represents a very Hitler like Aryan ideology of supremacy that Tolkien often engaged in.
The film begins with a narrative and action sequence that is awesome, and then goes into the "status quo" setting of the "shire" of hobbits, much like the status quo setting of films like "Women of Dolwyn".
From there, we get an amazing story of four hobbits who embark on a journey of utmost importance, joined by a wizard, an elf, a dwarf, and two men.
The direction is stunning. The motivation even better explained than in the Tolkien books. This is a masterpiece.

Magnificent! A great start to the franchise.
'The Lord of the Rings' is yet another film series that I am incredibly late to viewing, at least I've finally got around to it... albeit almost twenty years on from this film's release.
'The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring' is delightful. I never know what to expect from a film that goes on for nearly three hours, the pacing has to be near perfection for it to work - and boy does it here. The run time flew by, which is always a terrific sign.
I love a load of things about this, the one that actually sticks out most is the outstanding score. Music can play a huge part in how much I enjoy a film, so I'm delighted to say that the score is here is fantastic. That is by no means the only positive, obviously.
The cast are excellent. Elijah Wood gives a strong performance in the lead role. I've seen Wood in others things down the years and have actually found him a bit hit-and-miss, but here he is very good. Elsewhere, I really enjoyed watching Viggo Mortensen's character.
Away from those two, there are a whole host of noteworthy cast members. Orlando Bloom, or Will Turner to me, is involved, as are the likes of Ian McKellen and Sean Bean. I also liked Liv Tyler in her role.
The look of the film is spectacular, and has aged extremely well even to this day. Everything from the cinematography to the costumes is brilliant, those two things really make the film come alive - helped by the aforementioned score, of course.
Very eager to check out the sequels, prequels and, eventually, the upcoming television series.

Well, I wouldn’t read this review if you are a true fan of fantasy adventure epics, because I am not. Don’t get me wrong, I like this movie and have watched it a few times over the years, but I have watched (or read, for that matter) very little else in the fantasy genre. I didn’t get too far into the Game of Thrones as the violent rapes got old for me fast.
So I watched this first entry of the Lord of the Rings trilogy as just a viewer, not a fan, and I liked it just fine. The complex plot held together well and the scenery was gorgeous. There was violence, but not gore, and for those who don’t like war movies, there wasn’t as much of it here as there is in the other two films of the trilogy.
I gather the elfin roles for women were enlarged and brought to the fore, and why not; women were mostly good for setting mead and large pieces of rare meat down on tables in front of their warrior men.
I must confess, I found it jarring that the warriors like Strider were so invincible, walking into a horde of sixty orcs and scattering them like toy soldiers with his sword. I know they are epic heroes, but if I’m an orc, I stand back and throw something or whatever, but it is similar to the old legends with semi-gods like Achilles, back when Hector was a pup.
I am not going to compare the film to the book — I read it decades ago when I was in high school. It is worth watching and though real fans will take this with a large grain of salt, I think it is possibly the definitive adaptation of the book. (I need to watch the other two entries in the series before I say the same about those.) if you are among the 12% percent of movie goers who haven’t seen it, give it a try.

Lost count how many times I've seen the "The Fellowship of the Ring" but still fantastic after all these years, epic on every level and just all around entertaining, the 3.5 running time just flies by. Will be watching "The Two Towers" either tonight or tomorrow followed by "The Return of the King". **4.75/5**

Overall, I give this four stars. Not five, because some of the changes really bug me, as a long-time Tolkien fan, but a solid four.
The casting, to start, was brilliant. Sean Astin was the absolute perfect choice for Sam, and did a remarkable job bringing that character to life for us. He really WAS Sam, in this role, in a very deep way. I always liked his acting, but here, he showed how talented he actually is. Just amazing. Elijah Wood gives a great performance of Frodo, and those expressive eyes of his really add a lot of depth to the emotions the character goes through, which are such an important part of the story. Billy Boyd and Dominic Monaghan both did great work, for our other two main hobbits. Their smiles, their singing; just every aspect of these characters was so real. Viggo Mortensen, of course, was excellent. He's always good, and though I never would have pictures him as Aragorn, he delivered everything we could hope for. Great choice for that role! John Rhys-Davies, as expected, gave us the Gimli we wanted. Phenomenal actor, and I can't imagine anyone doing that role better. Orlando Bloom plays a convincing Legolas, and handles the nuances of being an elf quite well. Sean Bean as Boromir was outstanding, bringing the strength of that character to life, and making us love him. Then we have Ian McKellen, as Gandalf. I could never have chosen someone for that role, but the casting folks hit a home run with this one. Everything about his character was just right. Literally everything. I can't read the books without seeing these people in these roles now. The rest of the cast ws good as well.
Then we have the setting. New Zealand has to have some of the most utterly gorgeous scenery on the planet. Seeing it in these movies was great, and convincingly Middle Earth, and seeing more since, in other videos, just WOW! Thanks, to the people of New Zealand, for allowing this to be filmed there!
The sets were just fantastic. Everything looked as good as I'd always hoped it would look, with all the charm, mystery, and wonder Tolkien fan could hope for. From Bag end to Rivendell to the vastness of
Middle Earth, everything we saw was just right.
The only issues I had were some of the changes. Yes, I know things don't always work in movies as they do in books, but when whole sections are just omitted, that bothers me. It's not like the movies weren't long already! That omitted section, with which Tolkien fans will be quite familiar, was a very important part of the plot! I also didn't care for some of the other changes, and the way Arwen was used, the scene at the river being one example.
All in all, though, this was a well done movie, and even though some things bug me, this film, and the rest of the series, will be viewed many times. Classics, worth collecting and treasuring.

Tolkien’s adventure/fantasy LOOKS and SOUNDS fabulous, but is not without flaws.
RELEASED 2001 and directed by Peter Jackson, “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” adapts the first part of JRR Tolkien’s popular fantasy trilogy about adventures on Middle-Earth. The story starts in the homeland of the Hobbits (innocent, diminutive humanoids) where Frodo (Elijah Wood) is instructed by the noble wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to quickly leave the Shire with the powerful One Ring in his possession. Gandalf and Frodo are later accompanied by seven others, the titular ‘Fellowship of the Ring,’ to take the ring to the only place it can be destroyed, the fires of Mount Doom in Mordor.
The rest of the main cast include Sean Astin (Sam), Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn), Sean Bean (Boromir), Christopher Lee (Saruman), Orlando Bloom (Legolas), John Rhys-Davies (Gimli) and Hugo Weaving (Elrond).
This three-hour fantasy features a diverse cast of colorful characters, quaint beings and settings, moments of genuine wonder, dark ee-vil creatures, high adventure, thrilling brutal action, a superb score, magnificent locations (forests, mountains, rivers, etc.), and wondrous CGI sets. The film LOOKS and SOUNDS so great that it’d be sinful to give it a lower rating.
There are problems, however, at least for those who aren’t uber-fans of Tolkien. For one, the opening is hindered by prologue that is overlong and convoluted, not to mention unnecessary. The bulk of it could’ve been conveyed later via flashback, which they do a little bit anyway. Secondly, the story takes forever to build any drive. Thirdly, except for maybe Frodo and Gandalf, the characters are shallow and I didn’t care much what happened to them. Fourthly, main protagonists getting seriously wounded and everyone else expressing their melodramatic concern gets redundant.
Fifthly, there are only two females in the main cast (Liv Tyler as Arwen, a half-Elf princess, and Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, a royal Elf); unfortunately, their parts aren’t much more than glorified cameos. “Mythica: A Quest for Heroes” (2014) cost LESS THAN $100,000 to make, which is a mere fraction of the $93 million it cost to make this blockbuster and the filmmakers knew enough to include a couple of prominent babes as key protagonists in the story.
Despite these negatives, “The Fellowship of the Ring” is the best of the trilogy and is a must for fantasy/adventure aficionados, especially Tolkien fans.
THE MOVIE RUNS 2 hours 58 minutes and was shot in New Zealand.
GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

An epic movie if I ever saw one. Captivating and just plain fun to watch. This movie is, indeed, art.

Brooking no argument, history should quickly regard Peter Jackson’s The Fellowship Of The Ring as the first instalment of the best fantasy epic in motion picture history. This statement is worthy of investigation for several reasons.
Fellowship is indeed merely an opening salvo, and even after three hours in the dark you will likely exit the cinema ravenous with anticipation for the further two parts of the trilogy. Fellowship is also unabashedly rooted in the fantasy genre. Not to be confused with the techno-cool of good science fiction, nor even the cutesy charm of family fare like Harry Potter, the territory of Tolkien is clearly marked by goo and goblins and gobbledegook. Persons with an aversion to lines such as, “To the bridge of Khazad-dûm!” are as well to stay within the Shire-like comforts of home (their loss).
With those caveats in place, it bears repeating: fantasy does not come finer. There are electrifying moments — notably the computer-assisted swooping camera through Isengard as it transforms into a factory for evil — when Jackson’s flight of fancy approaches the sublime as the romantic poets would understand it: inspiring awe.
Leaving aside the thorny issue of Tolkien die-hards and their inevitable gripes — “What no Tom Bombadil?” — Jackson’s screenplay (written in collaboration with Fran Walsh and Phillipa Boyens) is both bolder and more judicious than Steven Kloves’ surprisingly timid retread of Harry Potter. In particular, rescuing the romance of Arwen and Aragorn from the footnotes and the elevation of Saruman to all-action bad guy actually has a corrective influence on Tolkien’s often oblique and female-sparse source material.
There are problems, though. The three-hour running time is high on incident and low on discernible form. After successive detours to Elf habitats Rivendell (the watery home of Elrond) and Lothlórien (the forest home of the Lady Galadriel), the uninitiated might well ask why these crazy Elf kids can’t just live together and spare us all this attenuated dramatic structure.
More importantly, the action clearly climaxes in the desperate flight from the Mines Of Moria, where the largely seamless SFX is showcased in the best possible light — total darkness — but the narrative demands a different, downbeat ending. Indeed, but for some fine emotional playing from Bean, Mortensen, Astin and Wood, the final fight might feel like a particularly brutal game of paintball in Bluebell Wood. But then, the real battles are yet to come...
Verdict - Putting formula blockbusters to shame, Fellowship is impeccably cast and constructed with both care and passion: this is a labour of love that never feels laboured. Emotional range and character depth ultimately take us beyond genre limitations, and it deserves to play as wide as a certain Mr. Potter.
5/5
- Colin Kennedy, Empire Magazine

This film is the perfect example of silly idea, immaculate execution. When you think about it, the film is really just a story about a woman who can't get over an intimate and sad experience with a homeless guy on a boat, but the way it's executed with the incredible performances by DiCaprio and Winslett really made it a legendary film. Reminds me of **_The Princess Bride_**, this film may be "dumb" but it's definitely a movie that will be and has been praised for many years.

Titanic (1997), directed by James Cameron, is one of those films that never loses its impact, no matter how many times you watch it. Some might call it overrated, but it’s hard to deny the emotional weight and the sheer craftsmanship that went into making it. Rewatching it reminded me why it’s stood the test of time, it’s a great mix of story, performances, and technical execution.
Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet deliver standout performances as Jack and Rose. Their chemistry is natural and believable, and it’s what drives the story forward. The drawing scene is iconic for many reasons, both on and off the screen. Interestingly, it wasn’t DiCaprio sketching Rose, it was actually James Cameron himself. Cameron, who’s also an artist, added a personal touch to the scene by creating the famous drawing. Behind the scenes, Winslet knew the scene could be awkward since it involved nudity and was one of their first together, so she flashed DiCaprio to help him relax. Even with that, he was nervous and flubbed his line, saying, “Lie on that bed… uh, couch” instead of just “couch.” The mistake stayed in the film, and it adds a little authenticity to the moment.
Visually, Titanic is impressive on every level. The production design is meticulous. From the luxurious first-class interiors to the gritty third-class quarters, every set looks authentic and lived-in. The cinematography captures both the intimacy of Jack and Rose’s relationship and the overwhelming scale of the disaster. The sinking sequence is still one of the most intense and well-executed moments in film. Cameron used a mix of practical effects, real sets, and CGI to recreate the chaos, and it all blends seamlessly. The result is a scene that’s visually stunning and emotionally gripping.
The final act ties everything together perfectly. Rose’s memories, paired with James Horner’s haunting score, deliver an emotional gut punch. That last shot is unforgettable and leaves you thinking long after the credits roll.
Titanic isn’t just about a historical tragedy or a love story, it’s a film about human connection and the choices we make when everything’s on the line. Cameron’s attention to detail, paired with strong performances and excellent storytelling, makes this one of the most impactful films ever made. Overrated? Maybe. But it’s a benchmark in filmmaking for a reason.

Titanic was enjoyable initially, but the constant TV reruns got old fast. I don't even own a TV anymore, and I'm in no hurry to watch it again. Still, it's a good movie, deserving of a 7/10 rating.

Titanic is simply a masterpiece. This movie has it all. A tremendous score, deep emotion emphasized by fantastic performances, and incredibly gripping and high-stakes action. There is really something for everyone here.
Before I continue my praise of the film, I think it has one glaring weakness: the present-day plot. For me, this just did not work all that well. I understand that it was implemented for the main story to have a more emotional impact, but it was not needed. It added almost thirty minutes to the runtime, which could have been used for more character development in the story or to have a more streamlined plot. Not to mention, the acting in this section was lackluster. That might be a hot take, but it was something that I noticed during my watch.
Back to the positives. The score is magnificent here. The minute I finished the film, I had an urge to put on this score to be transported back to the Titanic. That does not happen very often to me.
The performances are great all around. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet's chemistry was perfect. They played off each other so well and really sold this emphatic and rapid love the two shared. The movie spends a lot of time building their relationship and the payoff at the end is worth every second. Billy Zane was an over-the-top asshole, and even though it was cheesy at times, it worked for me. The other ancillary cast members did well, including Kathy Bates, Frances Fisher and Bill Paxton.
This film is really two movies put into one and both of them work excellently. The first half is a charming and cute love story that spends a lot of time on character development, laying the background for motivations and personalities. While this half may have been my favorite, it is slightly outdone by the second half, which is a gripping and suspenseful survival action story. This section is brutal, showing large scale panic and hysteria while also having some incredibly horrific deaths. The chaos was infectious and very scary to watch. Both halves create a great sense of emotion in the audience and complement each other very well.
Overall, this movie had twenty-five years of hype and critical acclaim to live up to, and I am happy to say it passed expectations. Since leaving the theater, I cannot stop thinking about it.
Score: 96% |
Verdict: Masterpiece
On a side note: I did see this movie in 3D during the twenty-five-anniversary re-release. While it was great to see it remastered in 4K, I do think the 3D was poor and unneeded. This did not affect my grade however, since it was not originally designed as a 3D experience, and they 3D did not really take away for my enjoyment.

Awesome

Set around the ill-fated maiden voyage of the RMS "Titanic", this is essentially a film in two parts. The first, weaker, element features a young "Dawson" (Leonardo DiCaprio) who wins a third class ticket to New York on the soon to depart liner. Meantime, the wealthy but unhappy "Rose" (Kate Winslet) is up in the posh cabins with her cold and unfeeling fiancée "Hockley" (Billy Zane) and her equally unpleasant, venally ambitious mother "Ruth" (Frances Fisher). Desperately unhappy, "Rose" considers jumping off the prow of the boat, but luckily the charming young "Dawson" is on hand to talk her down, and so begins their friendship that causes much chagrin amongst her socially elite companions. That friendship culminates in him making a rather provocative drawing of her, the final straw for her boyfriend and his enforcer "Lovejoy" (David Warner). It all looks ominous for both until - part two begins. The ship, speeding along nicely under the command of Bernard Hill's Captain Smith clips the underwater part of an iceberg and now history takes over. James Cameron offers us a purely speculative account of what might have happened as the initially incredulous crew start to realise that maybe it is not just Molly Brown (an excellent Kathy Bates) that's unsinkable! What now ensues are a series of well staged scenarios depicting panic, fear, a fair degree of selfishness and some proper stiff upper lips as the ship has be evacuated and the segregation of the passengers and competencies of the crew start to become life threatening. The visual effects have dated, the smoke from the ship's funnels blows in an strangely symmetrical fashion and the later scenes struggle to convince - but this is really a rather tragic love story with a strong chemistry between the engaging two characters at the top of the bill, and an effective performance from the older "Rose" (Gloria Stewart) who takes on the role of narrator 80 years after the disaster. I still find it uncomfortable to watch the actuality of the wreck, which features occasionally throughout the film - I feel like I am quite literally walking through someone's grave; but it does lend a potent hook upon which this lengthy, but well thought out and constructed drama is presented. Criticisms have been made of it's factual inaccuracies, and it may well play a bit fast and loose with some of the real characterisations - but it's a drama, and to be enjoyed has to be appreciated in that sphere. Big screen is a must, it really does lose a great deal on a television.

Beautiful Romance - Tragedy Unbound.
It has kind of become the popular thing to kick Titanic, the film and its achievements. It's like the love it garnered on release and the colossal waves it made in the history of cinema, never happened, or as some want you to believe, doesn't matter. I can tell you now that many of my macho fuelled friends will privately, under the influence of liquid refreshments, admit to having affection for the film, but socially in a circle environment? Not a bit of it! I have no such problems admitting my love for the film, I love it as much now as I approach 50, as I did when I sat there in awe at the cinema in 1997.
You jump - I jump.
Titanic is far from flawless, where even now with the advancements in technology the effects over 15 years later look a touch creaky. While it's true as well that away from Rose and Jack the characterisations are thin on the ground. But this is Rose and Jack's story, fully fleshed out for an hour and half and then framed by the terrible tragedy that unfolds for the next hour and half. The tie-in to the present day is superbly constructed by James Cameron - the search for the diamond - the real life filming of the Titanic wreckage - and the flashback telling of the story by a delightful Gloria Stuart as old Rose, and the sinking of the ship and its aftermath is stunning and heart breaking in equal measure.
Never let go.
So may scenes and dialogue exchanges stay in the memory for ever. The band playing on, the captain awaiting his fate, the mother ushering her children to sleep before the sea comes to take them, the old boy drinking his brandy as the water rushes in, or just Jack and Rose, polar opposites in society's class structure, making love, making art or just professing that neither will ever let go. It's what makes Titanic the wonderful piece of cinema it is, where beauty and tragedy merge to create something forever memorable. A film that deserved all the accolades and cash till ringing that it once did have. 9/10

Joker, portrait of a psychopath but beloved by a nation
In the science fiction genre of Hollywood cinema, especially the superhero genre, many movies have been made that include different dimensions of humans. Courage and effort for the survival of the family are among these dimensions.
In 2019, on the silver screen of Hollywood, we see a masterpiece that indescribably takes us back to our childhood.
That's right, Joker
After Nolan's masterpiece, which we mainly remember as the Joker with Heath Ledger's fantastic role, we haven't seen a significant work on this DC character.
Considering the unique and brilliant history of Phoenix in the cinema, we can be sure that he can handle this role and he is right.
In the first scene of the movie, we see Arthur being rejected by society. He has experienced all the behavior that a citizen can imagine in his life.
He is treated by a government consultant, but the consultant never tells him the root cause of these illnesses and depressions.
Perhaps the most important reason for Arthur's illness or the hundreds of unknown patients in the sunken city of Gotham is the failure to properly attend to human needs. In this city, everyone thinks about himself. Even the mayor, who is at the head of this great responsibility of meeting the needs of the citizens. Is.
In the scene where Arthur kills his mother, it is clear that Arthur is ready to destroy the dearest person in his life. We do not want to say here whether Arthur is guilty or not. Because as it is clear from the course of the film, Arthur's mother has given him a hard blow in the past.
Nothing matters to Arthur anymore. He leads the people of Gotham in a great uprising.
It can also be mentioned here that every single person in Gotham is an Arthur who all listen to the order of their leader Arthur and prepare for a big fight.
Arthur’s maniacal laughter is a sign of Phoenix’s strength in this role. The story takes the audience with it from the very beginning, and in this 2-hour journey, the audience cannot even blink.
Analysis: Mehdi Ebrahimzadeh

The scenario told in this film depicts a situation in which we frequently disregard the feelings and situations of others around us, people who may not have the same advantages as us. We can sense the psychological upheaval that Joker is experiencing from his point of view. All disappointment and rage build up and eventually explode. The people of Gotham rebelled as a result of their dissatisfaction and indignation at the injustice they faced.
The Joker is also seen dancing on a car in the midst of the rioting, surrounded by people shouting his name. Making them an embodiment of "Hero" in order for them to share their ideas.
Read more for Indonesian review in
http://www.alunauwie.com/2020/07/joker-all-i-have-are-negative-thoughts.html

Really crazy dramatized movie. Slowly watching him go crazy. Pretty shocking ending and I wasn't expecting it.

It's not an incel movie, despite what people are saying. And it's no a White Supremacy film either. It's not even a pro T-word president film. In fact, it addresses some pretty heavy left wing issues. Or at least issues that were traditionally on the left before things went...weird and all topsy turvy.
However, it is also NOT a Marvel Film, so of you are walking in expecting a Marvel style movie you will walk out hating it. So don't go in expecting an MCU film.
Instead you get a dramatic, slow moving, intensely building movie that develops it's characters.
And it really develops them, when you start watching the film the Joker was sympathetic... and by the time you walked out you really hated him.
And that is all I feel comfortable saying without spoiling things.

I knew it was gonna be super hard for me to like a Joker after Heath Ledger... Cameron in Gotham did awesome, Leto was really insane as Mr. J. But, I wanted a Joker stand alone... And this is what they gave me...
Brilliant. From start to finish i just was on the edge of my seat. This movie pulled at my heart. I saw myself in this character and understand every reason why a series of bad days could make a person ... Snap. Well done.

It was exactly what it wanted to be, and it pulled it off perfectly. The "slow" parts add a lot to the atmosphere and it all culminates in a dramatic and unforgettable ending.

Carried by a terrific Phoenix, ‘Joker’ leaves an emotional impact as we see a bullied clown slowly transform into someone who enjoys creating chaos. Too bad we don't get to enjoy Phoenix as Joker more, though, because pretty soon after the turning point, the movie ends.
10/10

Each to their own, as always, but for me: Incredible!
I was fully aware of 'Joker' ever since its release, impossible not to be given the extraordinary hype that surrounded it, but it still absolutely surpassed my expectations - a sensational film. I adored every second of this; and I'm not even a Joker/DC Comics etc. 'fan'.
Joaquin Phoenix gives an astonishingly outstanding performance as the titular character, undoubtedly one of the greatest showings that I've ever seen from an actor. I'm not one that takes notice of awards, but he is fully deserving of anything of that ilk that he won due to this. Quality!
Everything else about the film is fantastic. Great score, great cinematography, great pacing... it's all just utterly superb and makes for a spectacular watch. I love that they avoided just going wall-to-wall crazy with this, don't get me wrong things get mad but there's more to it than just violence et al.
I had presumed that I was going to enjoy this, but it honestly smashed any predictions I had about it before seeing it. Even after just one viewing, I can already state it's one of my favourite films. Excellent!

Joker made me laugh , cry , and made me feel scared . This movie isn't your run of the mill superhero flick this is a gritty homage to that of films made by the great Martin Scorsese . Some scenes will have you in shock and awe without breaking away from what Arthur sees and feels as he lives in an 80's era Gotham living with paper help and his mom and a mental disorder (Pseudobulbar affect if I'm not mistaken ) , the film also adds the unreliable narrator aspect ( where the camera can show you something that either isn't real or isn't happening), besides that the acting is phenomenal, Joaquin Phoenix really brings his A game, showing Arthur fleck as a loving, kind individual that just wants to make you laugh but is beaten down by an ever changing society that both beat him down and in the end breaks him. This movie also adds the idea of the "one bad day" theme from the killing joke comic where in the comic joker says and i quote '' all it takes is one bad day to bring the sanest man to lunacy " and it takes that idea and brings it to the forefront. In conclusion I think joker was beyond amazing, between the acting, music score and set pieces it was a wild (and scary) ride . Symbolism also sneaks into the movie with slight things you wouldn't notice upon first watching . This movie leaves you confused on what was real and what wasn't . In the end between you and your spouse , friend , or family member will have reasons on what was real and what wasn't and that's what made the movie even better for me , how it left me talking days after and like dark knight and iron man before this i believe that joker will change the superhero movie genre forever... send in the clowns 10/10 would see again

This is going to be one of those posts where I go against the mainstream but my reaction when I watched this movie was: You got to be f… kidding me?
The only resemblance to the REAL joker in this movie is the name. As far as I am concerned this movie is an insult to the fans of Batman and the REAL Joker.
The “Joker” in this move is a unintelligent deranged nutcase. There is a sob story in the background about how he became that way which is totally uninteresting.
The REAL joker is a intelligent criminal mastermind. I was waiting for this nutcase to actually become that for the entire movie. Spoiler alert, it never happened! This guy starts as a useless sobbing nutcase and he ends the movie as the same useless sobbing nutcase.
The movie has NOTHING to do with the real Joker. It is a blatant attempt to garner support for a unrelated psychopathic thriller by using the Joker name. If it would have been advertised as such I probably would have, if not liked it, so at least appreciated it for it’s qualities. It is indeed a well done movie technically and the main character is indeed excellently performed.
However, even if I try to distance myself from the deceitful Joker label, I find it overall boring, too long and really a movie about a psychopath probably made by someone with mental issues himself. But then that’s Hollywood today.
That the politically biased and elitist so called “critics” on sites like Rotten Tomatoes like it is not really surprising but I have to confess that I am somewhat surprised at the rave ratings by real viewers on some other sites.
Honestly, I was expecting to be disappointing by this movie. Then I am always cautious about movies getting rave reviews, especially from the previously mentioned totally useless and crappy “review” site. I did not expect this level of disappointment though. Epic fail as far as I am concerned.

It is intersting to analyze this movie in a context of global increase of violent social movements against the Establishment. Joker succeed in making me accept a violent reactions without really explicit political fundation.

the ‘Hangover 2 & 3’, the two most uncomfortable comedies he’s ever directed that felt more crime drama than anything funny. There’s also some dark humor in ‘Joker’ that involves a door chain. It’s silly, yet absolutely terrifying with the given context. A complete departure from his other work and that’s why I think it’s one of his best. I honestly think he made something so unique and meaningful. Seriously, I do.
The score by Hildur Guðnadóttir helped set the tone tremendously. A melancholy tone with a chaotic twist. A representation of Arthur slowly drowning in his own misery and pain. A little fun fact: The score for the film were written based on the script even before the actual filming of the movie started, which I think is the best way to do it, if you ask me. Someone to imagine movie by songs and incorporate their interpretation through music.
The cinematography was gorgeous and there’s a handful of shots that has imprinted into my memory. Lawrence Sher does an excellent job off showing the decaying Gotham city and the sewer waste look of the city. Bright neon lights with striking colors that manage to make the most run down of places look pretty.
I like how they actually gave Thomas Wayne a character rather than “guy gets shot in alleyway”. He’s portrayed as a ruthless man with blunt ways of saving Gotham City. However he loves his wife and son, so his unforgiving attitude was all for the shake of keeping his loved ones safe. He’s also a massive movie buff where he often goes to watch the classics on the big screen. So it’s an interesting take on the character viewed in somebody’s else perspective.
There’s a scene where Arthur goes to watch a comedy standup show to take notes on a comedians act. Every time a joke is told and everyone laughs, his face is frozen in place with an unsure grin while his eyes look around the room wondering why everyone’s laughing, but when the laughter dies down he jumps to live with a delayed laugh. It’s moments like that are simple, yet says a lot about him. Basically showing how disconnected he is with humor and everyone else.
Now lets talk about the controversy that's been surrounding this movie:
This is one of the most ludicrous controversy in recent memory. The movie will not cause or inspire violence, but shows why violence happens. I mean, there probably has been incidents when somebody committed a horrendous crime because their were influenced by a movie or a game. However, it’s he/she that should be brought into question, not the creators. Maybe this movie could inspire people to think twice about how they treat others. Why not think about the positives? If “Joker” is going to be responsible for violence and mass shootings, then so is every other movie with any form of violence ever. If people really care about how violence is portrayed in movies, then Rob Zombies ‘3 From Hell’ should also receive the same attention. Just imagine ‘Natural Born Killers’ times 100, but I guess it’s not mainstream enough for any of that. And sure, there’s some brutal and raw approach to violence in ‘Joker’, but we all have seen worst. ‘Deadpool’ is more graphic than this. It's not the directors duty to teach morals to the viewer. People will never learn to stop pointing fingers at things to blame and actually do something about it! People often understandment how much power their got.
Anywhere, sorry about that folks, just had to get that off my chest. Go and check it out.
Overall rating: “Send in the clowns” ⇠ you’ve gotta sing that like Frank Sinatra.

_Joker_ is a tour-de-force of a movie, not quite like anything I've seen, maybe since Taxi Driver. At its core it's a movie about the breaking point of a broken man, wrapped under the banner of a comic book movie that, take out the Waynes, works on its own.
Joaquin Phoenix truly gives a transformative performance (not unlike Heath Ledger) and will say is deserving of an Academy Award. The supporting cast all did well, though, and it is a small role, Zazie Beetz was great and De Niro had his moments, particularly at the end.
Got to hand it to Todd Phillips, between this and the good, albeit flawed, War Dogs, has proven to be more than those Hangover movies.
No, this isn't a feel-good movie and while it does sit at the top of my 2019 list, not entirely sure when I'd revisit. **4.75/5**