It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
There are pros and cons to everything. Movies are no exception. Most certainly not JOKER.
Why don't we begin with the pros? First, the writers and director of the movie spare no effort in bringing the Joker's world to life. Considering the times and circumstances, society has indeed (mostly) run out of reasons for humor. The writers do not talk down to us, the audience, about the thriving vices of indifference towards mental health, as well as classism, ableism, sexism, and any other "-ism's" of which you can think. Second, throughout the decades, there have been many interpretations of Batman's most well-known, most mysterious, most despicable nemesis, the Joker. That said, this particular interpretation was careful not to stray too far from everything that the 1989 BATMAN movie, and the 1990s animated series had established. In the form of the relationship between our depraved "Everyman" and this young woman who lives down the hall, and in the plot portion that brings our Everyman and Thomas Wayne together, the movie started in a direction that would have taken us too far from established grounds. Fortunately, they ultimately make a U-turn, and keep things as they are and have been. Third, well, such is not easy to say, but Joaquin Phoenix manages to be honest in his performance as the Joker. He knows he cannot hold a candle to Jack Nicholson or Mark Hamill (the voice of Joker in the Batman animated series), but he does all he can. His efforts show themselves, especially in the area of the Joker's laugh.
Now, for the cons. The latter-mentioned pro of not straying away from established grounds begins (within itself) as a con. Why? I mean, what were the writers thinking, making the man who would become the Joker Bruce Wayne's half-brother in the first place? Not to mention, the Joker eventually gets Harley Quinn as a partner in crime. So, you cannot help but ask, "WHO IS THIS?" The second con brings up the fact that the Joker's origin has always been a mystery. Even with the Joker's story about a rocky relationship with his father (as told to a Doctor Harleen Quinzell), we could not, cannot, be sure that was where the Joker's depravity and spiral into madness began. Here, the possibility of that, or some other familial tragedy is made an absolution. Finally, the third con compels me, for one, to ask, "How does the most brilliant, most maniacal, criminal mastermind become some pathetic loser with a hard-knock life?" You can literally see the back bone on that guy! He's a starving artist! Just another pseudo-Bohemian nobody! Furthermore, did they REALLY need another comedian? With the Joker running the show? I DON'T THINK SO! [Guffaws] I don't think so. It would be funny though...if it weren't so pathetic,
I do not call JOKER the best film, and I do not call it the worst either. Like THE DARK KNIGHT before it, I call it nothing at all. But I can't tell you fellow moviegoers what to do. You are free to see it and judge for yourselves.