More and more critic scores are coming in for Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker film and the Rotten Tomatoes critic score has significantly declined.

The Rotten Tomatoes critic score was a solid 89% back at the beginning of September with 33 Fresh reviews and 4 Rotten reviews. The film’s average score was 9.08 out of 10. (Related: Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic Scores for Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker Revealed)

However, that score has significantly dropped. As of this writing, the Rotten Tomatoes Score is now at 77% from 84 reviews. There are 65 Fresh reviews and 19 Rotten reviews with an average score of 7.87 out of 10.

Joker Rotten Critic Reviews

If you take a look at the new rotten reviews, there is definitely a trend on why they dislike the movie. But I’ll let you judge for yourself.

Here’s what the critics giving the film rotten reviews are saying:

Ella Kemp at Culture Whisper gives the movie a 2/5. She writes, “In Joker there’s no finesse, no nuance between the delusion of one narcissist and the hypnosis of an infected society ready to burn itself to the ground in the name of power.”

Nate Adams at The Only Critic gives the film a C+. He writes, “There’s a more audacious film lurking in “Joker,” yet there’s no denying how the discourse that’ll soak up the airwaves is exactly the type of conversation the iconic villain would want us to have. Whether we like it or not, the joke’s on us.”

David Edelstein at Vulture gives the film a B-. He writes, “As Hannah Arendt saw banality in the supposed evil of the Nazi Adolf Eichmann, I see in Joker an attempt to elevate nerdy revenge to the plane of myth. That’s scary on a lot of different levels.”

Mara Reinstein at Us Weekly writes, “This predictable brand of cold-hearted cynicism is not worth your time. Seriously.” (Related: Box Office Projections Show Joaquin Phoenix’s Joker is on Track for a Huge Triple-Digit Opening Weekend)

Leah Greenblatt at Entertainment Weekly writes, “A movie with the message this one hammers home again and again… feels too volatile, and frankly too scary, to separate from the very real violence committed by young men like Joaquin Phoenix’s Arthur Fleck in America almost every day.”

Emma Stefansky at Thrillist writes, “The movie isn’t badly made or even ugly to look at, but there’s a mean, smug little heart at the center of it that, at best, irresponsibly frames a familiar male power fantasy as a revolutionary act.”

Sarah Kurchak at Consequence of Sounds gives the film a C. She writes, “There’s probably a lot of fanfiction out there that’s far more innovative, provocative, profane, incisive, and effective than Joker.”

Joe Lipsett at Bloody Disgusting gives the film a 3/5. He writes, “It hardly matters if the audience is aware of the Joker’s origin story or not because there is only one way that this tale can end. This, unfortunately, robs the film of most of its tension and rising action.”

Norman Wilner at NOW Toronto gives the film a 2/5. He writes, “Despite Joaquin Phoenix’s performance, this super-serious stand-alone origin story is very expensive and utterly hollow.”

Alissa Wilkinson at Vox gives the film a 2.5/5. She writes, “Joker is a tightly directed mood piece with an unforgettable performance at its center, but it’s not much more than a mask, with nothing but banality behind.”

Keith Uhlich at Slant Magazine gives the film a 1.5/4. He writes, ‘The film is one that might have been dreamed up by one of the cynical bros from the Hangover during a blacked-out stupor.”

Mike Ryan at Uproxx gives the film a 4/10. He writes, “Joker is the perfect movie for 2019. Joker is our comeuppance.”

Rubin Safaya at Cinemalogue writes, “JOKER-a middlebrow impression of highbrow-has a moral compass, and it’s pointed in the wrong direction.”

Danielle Solzman writes, “Joker isn’t the traditional comic book movie and presents villains sympathetically in a cringe-worthy way.”

Nicholar Barber at BBC gives the film a 3/5. He writes, “Well, OK. Phillips and Silver are entitled to imagine any version of the Joker they like. But their film is way too superficial to take seriously as a study of class conflict and mental illness.”

Critics Blurring the Lines

It definitely looks like a lot of these reviewers aren’t actually reviewing the film based on its merit as a film, but are instead reviewing it based on their woke ideology and how it fits into that. (Related: Entertainment Critic Richard Rushfield Blasts Access Media)

This is a rather new phenomenon as entertainment critic Richard Rushfield points out:

“We’ve come to this bizarre place where the boundaries between the roles of critic, political activist, fanboy, and box-office reporter have completely dissolved. Everything has to play a role in some larger greater good narrative, which is fine if critics want to see the world that way and offer criticism through the lens of “How does this help the movement.”  It’s harder to justify if you’re supposedly covering box office for the film industry and filtering your business analysis through that lens.  Or that lens watered down via general media hoopla.”

This blurring of the lines between reviewer, political activist, and fan boy has fundamentally broken the trust audiences have in Rotten Tomatoes and their critics. In fact, most people might actually look at the critic score and believe if it’s crazy high, then the movie more than likely sucks. The reverse is true. If the film has a low critic score, it’s more than likely pretty good. (Related: SyFy Wire’s Dany Roth Admits to Creating Positive Reviews in Order to Maintain Access While Discussing Captain Marvel’s Rotten Tomatoes Controversy)

This phenomenon was plain as day when the reviews for Dave Chappelle’s recent Netflix special were revealed. The special currently has a 31% Critic Score. The Audience Score sits at 99%. The difference is clear as day.

The Last Jedi showed the opposite was true. The Critic Score sits at 91%. The Audience Score is a meager 44%.

If the woke review crowd sniffs any hint of politics in a film, they will make sure their reviews will reflect that. In fact, we’ve seen this play out with video games.

“Journalist” Chris Scullion threatened to give the upcoming revival of Earthworm Jim a bad review because he personally disagrees with creator Doug TenNapel’s views on transgender individuals. (Related: “Journalist” Chris Scullion Doesn’t Want Doug TenNapel Involved in Upcoming Earthworm Jim Game)

Scullion stated, “It may be trickier for me to review this one if Doug is involved. I don’t mean any hard felings man and wish you every success with the Amico in general.”

That’s right. He threatened to give the game a bad review because the creator of Earthworm Jim, Doug TenNapel, might be involved in the upcoming video game.

These are the types of “critics” that are featured on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s why no one trusts them anymore and why they are polling users regarding user trust.

(Visited 6,303 times, 46 visits today)

About The Author

John F. Trent

John is the Editor here at Bounding Into Comics. He is a massive Washington Capitals fan, lover of history, and likes to dabble in economics and philosophy.

Related Posts