Two of the movies at the Toronto Film Festival really aren’t about what they’re touted to be. Marielle Heller’s “A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood” is about Matthew Rhys’s character’s relationship with his father, played brilliantly by Chris Cooper (who must be nominated for an Oscar, my friends). Tom Hanks’s Mister Rogers, also headed to awards citations, is really bystander to the main action no matter how nice or important he is.

Similarly, in James Mangold’s racing adventure, “Ford v. Ferrari,” neither Henry Ford II nor Enzo Ferrari are the main characters. In fact, Ferrari barely speaks, while Ford– played by Tracey Letts– is sort of there for bombastic explosions. The movie is about the friendship between car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) and race car driver Ken Miles (Christian Bale). Miles’s life is very fleshed out, but we learn little about Shelby except that he knows cars.

It’s a funny juxtaposition for two films that are clearly headed for the Oscar season. Of the two I prefer Heller’s film, which is very idiosyncratic, just like her “Can You Ever Forgive Me” from last season. Mister Rogers was already given a biopic with the documentary “Would You Be My Neighbor?” so it wasn’t necessary to do that again. Instead, Heller bases her story on journalist Tom Junod’s Esquire piece about Mister Rogers. At the time he was writing it, Junod’s estranged father was dying. Mister Rogers helped bring them together. “Beautiful Day” is a nice take, then, on something that could be have been redundant. And Hanks embodies Rogers in the way Renee Zellweger does Judy Garland– it’s not an imitation. It’s a little bit of genius.

“Ford v. Ferrari” really makes it on the racing. The recreations of Le Mans and Daytona are so exciting they should bring out all the fans everywhere. Plus, Christian Bale- as usual– makes the little known Ken Miles (known to racing fans only)– one of his great character portraits. Bale is a master at these people. You can’t stop watching him. Matt Damon is also great, but his character is underwritten. While he keeps the cars moving, and Miles employed, we don;t know anything about him. I was disappointed. My whole life people have talked about the Shelby Mustang. Did he not want his story told? Maybe his kids want their own movie. It’s a head scratcher.

It’s not easy out there if you’re a filmmaker. Audiences may love your work, and then the critics come after you with long knives.

In the case of Rian Johnson’s very clever “Knives Out,” this wasn’t the cast. Its Toronto screenings have produced raves. The hilarious Agatha Christie type murder mystery has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Everyone who’s seen it, loves it. Craig sporting a Southern accent is a hoot, and the whole cast, most especially Ana de Armas, shines.

But elsewhere, movies shown at the Toronto Film Festival have had schizophrenic responses. They’re cheered and given standing ovations, then shredded by the reviewers.

Right now, Todd Phillips’s excellent “Joker” is getting a lot of pushback. The RT score is 77. I expected at least a 90. But as press files in, they are not happy with the violence expressed by Arthur Fleck, aka The Joker. He’s coming as off as one of the crazy, lone gunmen from real life who’ve killed huge groups of people in real life. The reviewers are not responding to it as fiction. It’s very wrong to compare Joker, a comic book character, to the Dylan Root’s and so on of this world. But then again, there is no hero counterbalance in the film. And that may be an issue.

“Jojo Rabbit” is also scoring around 73. Taika Waititi’s Hitler satire is extremely divisive. Some people seem to love it. I am among those who didn’t. Fox Searchlight is much better served by their Armando Iannucci movie, “The Personal History of David Copperfield,” which is so entertaining and hilarious it’s like a balm after “Jojo,” which also had a stamding ovation– unaccountably– at its premiere.

Not fairing well either are two “literary” movies– the adaptation of “The Goldfinch,” which is set to bomb this weekend with a 26 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, and terrible reviews from Toronto; and Steven Soderbergh’s Netflix film, “The Laundromat,” starring Meryl Streep. The latter is a rare disaster for both director and star. Charitably, it has a 54 on RT. But truly, this is one better served by the Netflix platform and not viewed in a theater, where there are exits.

Edgy quirky and clever, Marc Meyer’s directed “Human Capital” is a dramatic, twisty, intriguing movie ride.

Starring Liev Schreiber, Marisa Tomei, Peter Sarsgaard, Maya Hawke, and Alex Wolff, the film is based on Meyer’s adaptation of Stephen Amidon’s 2004 novel, which was first made by Italian filmmaker Paolo Virzi in 2013. Oren Moverman wrote the terrific multi layered script.

The super-rich, the wannabe rich, the compromises we all make in work and marriage, all bound together by a hardworking waiter being hit on his bike, and thrown in a ditch while the car drives away on a dark road.  Then the film flashes back to an earlier time and splits into three different parts, each following a different character in their own respective drama and all beginning from the same moment.

Schreiber plays Drew Hagel, an insecure real estate agent who has gambling issues.  His daughter, Shannon, played wonderfully by Maya Hawke, is dating Quint Manning’s (Sarsgaard) son Jamie (Fred Hechinger.)  Oh yes, the family happens to be worth billions.  Drew invests money he doesn’t have with Quint which goes south quickly.  Marisa Tomei wonderfully plays Quint’s wife Carrie, an embittered former actress who lives a life of luxury but is completely unhappy.  So, she buys and renovates an old theater in their chic suburban neighborhood, hires her board of directors including a professor, played by Paul Sparks, who is a fan boy of hers.

Looming all along like a cloud hovering, is the hit and run accident. Meanwhile Shannon falls for the more rough and tough Ian (Alex Wolff) fueling a melodramatic romance there.  And the drama continues.  What makes this film so alluring, besides the social commentary, i.e.: the rich and their rules vs the non-rich, is that it all weaves together making “Human Capital” a provocative, compelling and totally enjoyable film. Audiences will eat it up!

(WARNING MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS)

Joaquin Phoenix received cheers and a standing ovation tonight in Toronto for his starring performance as the “Joker.” Todd Phillips’ origin story of Batman’s villain is super violent but also a magnificent comic book opera. The movie’s look and feel are extraordinary and the acting from all the players is top notch. The story owes its life to two Scorsese movies, “King of Comedy,” and “Taxi Driver.”

Arthur Fleck (the Joker’s real name) is part Rupert Pupkin and part Travis Bickle. Ironically, Robert De Niro is here, too, playing a Jerry Langford type talk show host, the character Jerry Lewis so famously portrayed in “King of Comedy.”

The Scorsese samples aside, director Phillips’s film on its own is the story of a misfit, a loner, in the early 1970s. Fleck is clearly saddled with mental problems and a rich inner of imaginary success and a girlfriend (the very very good Zazie Beetz). But he’s plagued with taking care of his ailing mother, the sweet Penny (also excellent Frances Conroy) who– we learn in a bit of Batman revisionist history– once worked for millionaire Thomas Wayne.

And that’s where the non Scorsese plot kicks in: Penny believes that she and Wayne had a relationship that produced Arthur. Is it true? Or is it a fantasy? Whichever is the case, Arthur’s lack of a father and his hatred for the world he cannot access– successful, happy people– is what fuels his psychosis and his unrepentant violence.

The violence is extreme. That’s a warning to those who will need to shade  their eyes a couple of times when Arthur just snaps. Phoenix’s Joker is not Cesar Romero’s or Jack Nicholson’s or even Heath Ledger’s. He is deranged. He commits the worst crimes imaginable without thinking twice. He is cracking jokes, but ones only he thinks are funny. That’s important to know, going in. He’s not trading quips with Adam West.

Still, the physical production of the film is so full of art and wit, the violence can be put aside. Phillips has lots of little gracenotes that the audience will love, be on the lookout for them. (There’s one that we can talk about after the movie opens.) Phillips has made an origins story movie but it’s also a standalone, so “Joker” functions on many levels.

As for Phoenix, he is the odd duck of his generation, but he’s also kind of a genius. He’s uniquely gifted. I’d say this is his best work, but he’s had so much of it. You will be shocked by his weight loss in this movie. Arthur is emaciated to the point  where Phoenix contorts his body, much as he did in “The Master,” so that his mental pain is expressed in the physical.

But this is acting. Don’t mistake Phoenix, who’s back to normal weight now and very funny in real life, for Arthur Fleck. His ability to breathe life into these strange cinematic creatures can’t be underestimated. They reside in a stratosphere of originality.

And oh yes, Best Actor (because that’s all anyone’s interested in these days)? He’ll be there, leading a list that so far includes Michael B. Jordan, Leonardo DiCaprio, Adam Driver, and possibly Christian Bale, plus names to come. But Phoenix is at the top. The standing ovations are real.

Now we know why Constance Wu wanted to get off the boat last spring.

Remember in May when ABC renewed “Fresh off the Boat” and Wu, the female lead, Tweeted her disappointment that she was stuck on board for another season?

We thought it was because of her hit, “Crazy Rich Asians.” But now we know that Wu is a movie star thanks to Jennifer Lopez’s “Hustlers,” which debuted to raves on Saturday night in Toronto. JLo is great, and she’s the draw but Wu anchors the movie and does the real heavy lifting. She’s fun to watch, and can make a nice career on the big screen. Her “boat” character may go overboard sooner than later!

“Hustlers” comes from STX Entertainment, which has struggled to make its name. But now STX can breathe a sigh of relief. “Hustlers” is the movie every studio wants– a big, broad hit that’s also well made and smart. For STX “Hustlers” follows last winter’s “The Upside,” which took in $100 million and proved its naysayers wrong.

Lorene Scafaria has made the first movie about strippers that isn’t just an exploitative vision quest for guys. That’s not to say there aren’t beautiful women here, enough to bring in the male audience. But based on a magazine story, “Hustlers” actually conveys these women as shrewd business people who take control of their lives at the expense of the men who’ve used them for so long.

Scafaria uses a voice over narration and some editing that will remind you of Scorsese in “GoodFellas” but it’s not an imitation, but more an influence. In that sense “Hustlers” could be the sex workers’ version of “Wolf of Wall Street.” But the film also owes a lot to “9 to 5” and “Oceans 8,” among other all-female ensembles.

Lopez and Wu lead their group of former strippers on an adventure to make money by all means necessary. In the movie version, it’s pretty much sexless, with the ladies drugging Wall Street guys, and stealing from their credit card limits. Did they not have sex with them in real life I don’t know. But in Scafaria’s Hollywood dream, the women never get to the bedroom stage. They just take the money and run.

Lopez does the best work of her career, certainly miles beyond her many cheesy prior roles. She’s also part of an ensemble and isn’t required to carry the film. This helps enormously. She’s surrounded by a strong cast that includes Oscar and Tony winner Mercedes Ruehl and the excellent Julia Stiles as the journalist who writes the women’s story and lends gravitas to the proceedings.

Don’t worry– this isn’t a business lesson. There’s lots of pole work, with an especially good teaching scene given by Lopez’s Ramona. Maybe there’s a body double and very good editing, but JLo at 50 is pretty hot, and hats off to her. However Scafaria filmed those scenes, Lopez deserves kudos.

Awards? The Golden Globes should welcome “Hustlers” with open arms. But for now, watch the box office do its own lap dance when this movie gets to audiences.

Since the screening last night of Taika Waititi’s “Jojo Rabbit” at TIFF, I’ve seen some unusual responses to it on Twitter. For some reason, internet fans really wanted this Hitler satire to work. It doesn’t. “Jojo Rabbit” is actually borderline anti-Semitic, offensive on many levels, and not even funny.

The parallel here is not “Life is Beautiful,” the 1998 movie about a clown who entertained his child while they were in a concentration camp. That movie took the Holocaust seriously, and made no case for Hitler and his atrocities. It was clearly an indictment.

No, Waititi, who is half Jewish and comes from New Zealand, seems like he was aiming for “Springtime for Hitler” redux, a long riff on Mel Brooks’s centerpiece from “The Producers.” But “The Producers”– which was hilarious– didn’t denigrate Jews to make its point. Hitler and Nazis were always the target.

“Jojo Rabbit” is set in Germany during the late 40s. Jojo Rabbit, a 10 year old boy played very nicely by Roman Griffin Davis, is being raised by his mother (Scarlett Johansson) under Nazi rule. The kid is presented as a virulent Nazi wannabe, trying to emulate the soldiers in town. He talks incessant slurs against Jews to the point of distraction.

When we see the actual screenplay, this will be even more obvious. It’s not comical. It’s not funny, or humorous. Little Jojo hates Jews. Meantime he’s engaged with Nazis in a kids’ training camp led by Sam Rockwell, and again, it’s not funny. I know it’s supposed to be, but it ain’t. I don’t need an hour of Nazis making fun of Jews constantly. It’s overkill. And just seeing a Nazi office break a rabbit’s neck for fun doesn’t mitigate what’s going on.

Listen, the audience in the Princess of Wales theater laughed a lot during this section. I don’t know why. This was not a send up of Hitler, even though the director plays Hitler as Jojo’s imaginary friend. Waititi’s Hitler is sort of like the the one from the Broadway musical “Producers”– foppish, funny, self-involved. He really reminded me of the late Gary Beach, plucked from the proper context and plopped into the wrong one.  And even that makes no sense since Jojo idolizes Hitler, yet his imaginary friend is a comic send up.

Anyway, all of this changes when Jojo, home alone, discovers an Ann Frank-like Jewish girl hiding in his mother’s house. This girl, a teen named Ilsa (talented Thomasin McKenzie), who resembles Anne Frank and is meant to change Jojo’s feelings about Jews, you know, make him realize they’re not so bad. After all, his mother’s been hiding her in a secret cupboard all these years without telling him.

At this point, Johansson exits the movie, leaving the kids on their own to survive the American bombing and rescue of their town. By now, the anti-Jewish rhetoric has calmed down because Jojo is “in love” with Ilsa. But the damage has been done, and not just to the village but to our sensibilities. We’ve endured a lesson for hate mongers. Waititi seems to not know he’s played with hot potatoes.

Not many people will see “Jojo Rabbit” in theaters, I don’t think. The moviegoing audience should and will feel incredibly uncomfortable sitting through an hour of explanations of why Jews are monsters and animals and so on. I worry more about cable and streaming, where content spews forward without context.

Let’s say Waititi really felt he was satirizing Hitler and Nazis, that he’s not anti-Semitic. But this is what he’s disseminating. He’s handing ideas and language out uncritically to a new generation of kids, who will laugh like the people in the Toronto audience and applaud new ways of expressing hate.

So, yes, the acting is great, the kids are talented, and the last half hour of the movie gets sentimental. Jojo’s imaginary Hitler is conquered, and the two kids face a brave new post-Nazi world together like nothing ever happened. I don’t get it. I’m sure the Twitterverse I’ve read today will think I’m out of it. But I say, wait til this movie gets into theaters. Let the audience decide.