Don’t trust my review of Joker
Why three stars out of five is good (and two is usually still good enough)
I keep a list of books I’ve read and films I’ve watched and attach star ratings to each. Heck, I do the same thing with recipes. I pay attention to how Google users have rated the new restaurant down the street. I discuss with friends and loved ones what each of these stars really means. And, when these discussions blow up into arguments in front of three-star-rated Phở Bánh Cuốn 14, I invoke the criticism philosophy of Roger Ebert.
When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you’re not asking if it’s any good compared to Mystic River, you’re asking if it’s any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two.
In fact, I’ve invoked this philosophy so regularly and for so long that it has taken its own shape in my head. I forgot until after I dug it out that Ebert uses comic book movies to illustrate his point. Still, it nagged at me as I watched Joker that I was having trouble applying the philosophy.
Is it any good?
And compared to what?
If The Dark Knight is five stars, Joker is four. But if Taxi Driver is five stars, Joker is more like two.
The former is what I awarded the film in my notes app. The latter is what Glenn Kenny awarded it (out of a possible four stars) on RogerEbert.com. And, while I think it’s fair to judge Joker against films like Taxi Driver and King of Comedy (especially because that’s what filmmaker Todd Phillips seems to want you to do), I think I’d rather watch it and judge it as a comic book movie.
So, you can trust me when I say Joker is a great movie. Unless you’re expecting my opinion to be comparable to that of, say, Roger Ebert. In which case you can’t trust me at all.
