I personally believe that fan films shouldn't always be held to canon for the fandoms they are a part of. If you disagree, than this film may not be for you.When you consider how many theories and previous story lines have been dedicated to the "Origin" of the Joker in comics, movies, TV, video games and now fan films, I prefer to let the Clown Prince of Crime speak for himself: "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another ... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" The best part of this film is how much it delivers on a $3000 budget. It allows the story be the star. Rather than depending on refined audio, soundtrack, special effects and/or CGI to carry a weak premise (as so many fan films seem to do), instead we are treated to a rather well acted, well written premise.I found the name changes and tweaks to characters to be a subtle nod to the source material while still allowing the writer/director to make their own film.Finally, lest we forget Christopher Nolan omitted any actual backstory for Joker in his brilliant trilogy, completely revamped "Robin" as merely a "wink homage", ignored Bane's entire venom enhancement and invented a sexual tension between Harvey Dent and Bruce Wayne for Rachel which in turn is the catalyst for him becoming TwoFace. Those films were a fantastic version of events in the Batman fandom as well as being great films. But, liberties were taken....This film was obviously written and directed by someone who loves the world of Batman and wrote and directed an interesting idea for a backstory for the Joker. If that sounds intriguing, you will most likely enjoy this film. If you are looking for strict canon, zero deviations from Comic Book lore or another retread of the same story, this is not the film for you.

Frist off, I seriously can't understand how some people are giving this 10 stars, even for a fan made film.They got pretty much every character wrong from Killer Croc (who is apparently Rodriguez, not Waylon Jones) to Oswald Cobblepot/The Penguin (who looks pretty much looks like Andrew Lincoln/Rick from The Walking Dead), The Riddler, or as he's known in this, "Riddles", who is the exact opposite of The Riddler. The only thing "Riddles" and The Riddler have in common is they're both men. "Riddles" doesn't even say a single Riddle throughout the entire film or even hint towards his obsession with them in any way other than wearing a necklace with a green question mark hanging on the end of it. Harley Quinn is now a prostitute who works for "Riddles" and meets the Joker/Cyrus by standing on a street corner. In every origin story for her, she is a psychologist working for Arkham who is assigned to The Joker to study him and ends up falling in love with him over time as she slowly goes insane as she falls in love with him.Now for the acting. Other than basically every character being portrayed completely wrong, the acting was also pretty bad most of the time. They would constantly change how loud they were talking for no reason which at times, made it near impossible to hear what they were saying without having to turn my volume up. The movies was filled with clichés and scenes that made no sense at all. They were constantly telling Cyrus/Joker to "smile" or "why so serious", and all sorts of lines that they took from The Dark Knight series, using them to the point where it got annoying. I really don't understand why they felt the need to change basically every Batman villain that appeared in this. I really can't see why they couldn't just use random people as characters in this rather than having all sorts of famous villains in it, just for them to all get killed off in the end. In my opinion, it would have made more sense, and worked better, if everyone Joker/Cyrus met throughout the story that got killed at some point were just random thugs or mob bosses rather than ruin well established villains just for plot. Especially for Harley Quinn. If they had just changed her to be some random girl that he fell in love with, it would have worked a lot better, and they wouldn't have even had to change any of the script for her character.

This is apparently a fan made film. If you enjoy fan made films, you might enjoy it. However, its overall production values, sound quality, and acting level make it clear that this is not a professional production. If this were a studio or professional film, I would have given it one star. However, I don't want to completely discourage the film makers, who more than likely worked hard creating it. I did not care for it. A previous reviewer suggested that the film might be compared to Tarantino's work. The film is similar in that Tarantino is preoccupied with crime in his films. However, this film feels more like the repetitious, uninspired imitations of Tarantino's work that took the most superficial trappings of his movies but lacked the goofy, twisted imagination that has caused him to play with the film form rather than slavishly copy one film or another. I am not really a Tarantino fan, but I have appreciated some of his movies as having a unique voice, sense of humor, and awareness of how they can confound viewer expectations. This film does none of that. The Joker as a character is all about a sense of humor, sick as it may be. There is none of that either.

When i stumbled on this i wasn't expecting much, but as far as fan films go this is one of the best around if not the best (imo at least). Some great lines and solid acting(for the most part anyway)combined with a very Tarantino-esque soundtrack and over all gritty feel make this a must watch for joker fans. There are loads of brilliant references to the dark knight which put a smile on my face(see what i did there haha...okay i'll get my coat) It was really well shot and filmed my only problem was palm trees showing up in the background in some early scenes which kind of broke the atmosphere slightly but other than that it was great. For $3000 it's unbelievable what this production has achieved do yourself a favor and give it a watch. i eagerly await the sequels.