I didn't the like the first why would I watch this? at least the first was mildly interesting and only watched it because everybody said it was great. definitely not watching this film.
I think for the "eu" sound, the only advise I would give is to pronounce it "uh" rather than "ooh", like "deux" would more "duh" than "doo", but yeah, it's hard to describe
I saw Joker2 twice. The first time it is not what I wanted. The second time I got it, Todd was trolling us. The first 20min of the film Arthur is Joaquin and Todd being dragged around doing media and put on show for people’s entertainment. Lady Gaga is us the fans, people should not be loving nor idolizing the Joker like she does. The court case and musical numbers are there trolling us and the part “Let’s give the people what they want” was violence and over the top. Which wasn’t what the first movie was about. Then near the end it turned into fight club the whole idea of people blindly following a mentally ill guy.
When I was younger I would get lost in certain songs and create fantasy’s out of them. Sometimes I would forget who I am and imagine myself as a rockstar or some great musician while listening to those songs. The musical scenes in the movie reminded me a lot of that. I felt like I was in Arthur’s head watching him dissolve into that type of fantasy over and over again.
Quoting Alan: “I will say, there was an inspired bit of casting the young actor who plays Harvey Dent, has and I mean this with all the love in my heart, the most punchable face I’ve ever seen!” 😂😂😂 Pure gold! 🥰 Tho wouldn’t expect any less from this duo 💜
If you are going into this movie expecting the iconic DC Joker you were hoodwinked. Todd Phillips had no interest in making that film. Since the first movie it was evident he sprinkled just enough to hint at it but the execution especially in this movie clearly indicates Phillips is doing his own version of all his favorite Scorsese movies. I think he co-opted the brand to get more eyes and money on his films. I’m actually surprised DC and WB let Phillips use the IP in this way based on the backlash I’m seeing. However, I love the aesthetic in both films as I too am a fan of old gritty films from the 70’s and 80’s. Also, I enjoyed both films in part because I can appreciate them without the expectation of seeing a DC Joker movie. It was an interesting and intriguing character study. So yes there is an audience out there for this film, a minority but we exist. I would see it again actually. I love the song choices and the raw non-performative presentation of them. As another commenter said in the thread, it was a device used to indicate the dissociative behavior of the character. It made sense to me. The shared madness was in the singing. That’s my interpretation anyway.
My teenager & I both like this movie as well. We also enjoy musicals , I appreciate the artistic choices/manner of this film. I see we r in the minority tho:)
@@IndigoBellyDance I enjoyed it for what it was. I think ppl are extremely disappointed they didn’t get the movie they expected. Not entirely their fault as the marketing somewhat ‘hid’ the movie in the trailer.
I don’t know how anyone WOULD have gone into this expecting that - I mean I get it, but it’s always been clear this is not what these movies are. I found it a fascinating and tragic character study and social commentary. It was uncomfortable and had some editing issues, I think - but I loved it.
Yes, execution wise... I couldn't understand what they were singing, but in the Context of the last movie the singing was an excellent device to express the shared delusion and the way lee Manipulated him the same way his mother did.
Exactly. The music is not the polished things you see in other musicals, but that fits because everything in this universe is rough and broken. I also enjoyed that Arthur ended up trying not to be the Joker. I know a lot of the audience didn't like that, but choosing health is rebelling against the status quo.
Joker: Folie a Deux fan here! You asked for what you guys might be missing, so here goes! Apologies in advance for the length! SPOILERS AHEAD!!! If you were to ask me who this movie is for, I would say: People who weren’t big fans of the original! I respected the first Joker movie and enjoyed parts of it but generally agreed with the view that it was ultimately very derivative of other better films and said nothing I found particularly interesting about mental health or societal iniquity. I think Folie a Deux works better for me because it asks more unusual questions. Jono touched on the idea of parasocial relationships as they relate between Arthur and Lee. But I think the “folie a deux” - the shared madness of the title - is between the persona of the Joker and the entire world that consumes that persona, and the film is about how that leaves Arthur in the dust. Looking back on it, I believe that’s what the opening cartoon is about - this “shadow self” that presents itself as Arthur that balloons out of control and eventually gets him killed. No one in this movie ever sees Arthur for who he is - not even Arthur himself. They only see the Joker persona and what they want it to mean to them. And I think this movie did a good job of showing that many of these musical numbers are dissociative coping mechanisms for him - even as he’s dying, he retreats into the Joker persona because that’s the only place he’s ever been able to process his feelings. I think it’s an even bleaker tragedy than the original - even when he takes full accountability for his actions, his ultimate reward is a brutal death (a death many could argue is exactly “what he deserved.”) It’s a ending that makes me sad and that I don’t necessarily agree with, but I don’t think it’s untrue to the spirit of either movie. Again, it’s by no means a perfect film. I think you both are correct in noting that the first film was very focused while this one meanders. But personally, I found the choices it made and the ideas it wrestles with much more interesting than what the original had to offer. I’m excited to see this again and further develop my thoughts! Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for everything you do across all your channels! I’ve had some significant challenges to my mental health this year and your channel has been a great resource of practical advice and compassionate insight. Thanks for sharing your light! (Huge Makoto Shinkai fan, can’t wait for y’all to do a video on Weathering with You!)
My best friend saw this movie today and LOVED it. I was shocked then to see all the negative opinions online. Glad to see another person who really enjoyed it! The way she described the movie through her eyes sounded great!
Well said esp liked your observation about the musical numbers being Arthur’s way of coping with his despair. I saw it that way too. I enjoyed this film on an aesthetic level. I appreciated the reference to Umbrellas of Cherbourg and loved the raw realistic singing the way Les Miz movie did a few years ago. The acting performances were great. That scene with Gary Puddle was esp poignant. I also loved the song choices. I went and searched for the soundtrack after I saw the movie. Most of the hate this movie is getting (not all) are from DC Joker fans expecting to get the iconic character the first film alluded to. I never saw this Joker as that DC Joker character. I think Todd Phillips co-opted that brand to bring more eyes (and money) to his film about a sad broken man who just wanted to be loved. And yes that Looney Tunes cartoon told the audience at the beginning of the movie what this movie was about. Was the execution perfect? No but it was intriguing and engaging enough for me.
First movie 9/10 This one 7/10 As a two pack 8/10 The cartoon The sex The end Are all important parts that people are forgetting but over time like the prequels… they will come back to and actually pay attention.
Arthur wasn't supposed to be a great singer. Joaquin Phoenix has said in an interview that Arthur singing is like an 8yr old who's singing their heart out and you know it means a lot to them but you can tell they're off key. The singing would happen when he would disassociate. Something stressful was going on when it would happen. It's just how he coped. A lot of people don't care for the movie but I thought it was so tragic but well done. I understand some will not jive with it and everyones entitled to that, but I feel like it got more hate than it deserved. I think some people who can't understand trauma from that level wouldn't really be able to connect and thats understandable. It's not supposed to be a feel good movie. The point was to sorta discourage idolizing people in the media because you don't exactly know whats really going on with them. There's so many layers to it but I personally loved it. Not something I'd watch again for awhile because it's so sad but I definitely see what Todd Phillips was trying to accomplish and to me I think he nailed it.
From what I've heard this seems to be a movie that Todd Phillips made to deliberately crap on the people who liked the first one, and that just boggles my mind that someone would spend years of their life working on a follow up to one of their greatest achievements, and deliberately spit in the face of the original. Subverting expectations and reexamining a past work can make for interesting and thought provoking cinema, but it's a shame to hear that instead of interesting and challenging, it's arduous, exhausting, and intensely boring in a way that alienates pretty much everyone who might be interested. If you disliked Joker 1, you won't like this one. If you did like Joker 1, you REALLY won't like this one. Such a shame with the amount of wasted talent here.
If that's the case it's an even greater waste as from some rumblings I've heard it seem as though Joaquin Pheonix may be retiring from acting. If this ends up being his last role that would be really unfortunate.
I liked both movies actually. And let’s be real Todd Phillips never intended to make a DC Joker film. He co-opted that brand to get people to watch his homage to Scorsese’s greatest hits.
I really seem to be in the minority here, but I find appreciation in this film. My initial thought weren’t positive, but the more I though of it, the more I could motivate its existence. What this film does is to really explore the fame and status Arthur got in the end of the first one. He is longing for love, acceptance and appreciation. Now he gets it, but it’s not him they warship, it’s the joker. In the first film “Joker” was the persona that he found confidence in and the thing that helped him cope, but now he finds the pressure in leading the army of followers that want to stick it to that authority’s, while he just wanted to make people happy. Harley uses his need for attention and makes him go against his own wants. He struggles to fill the shoes, that he never wanted to wear. And when he finally is true to himself, he looses everyone he had gained. Nobody likes Arthur his all alone, the world has turned his back on him, he’s suffered so much pain and there is no exit but pain. And he has to live with that.
Damn that's dark. I can see why some people who want to make Joker into a hero/protagonist would be so put off. I hope over time people lean into the raw truth of it.
Literally what you describe just sounds like a massive F U to the message of the first movie. And It doesn’t help that the movie just drags on wastes so much time on completely pointless musical numbers to get its shitty message across.
Thank for for validating my feeling that this movie is not for me without my spending time to see it. I don’t have as much kindness as Jono so I can’t afford to have any sucked out.
haven't watched this mess, is there a point to it? like does gaga-quin find out by the end he really is a bad person? iirc she was in an abusive relationship so that's why maybe she liked this role?
@@HisameArtworkshe finds out he isn't evil enough. She finds out he isn't evil but just a loner that flipped out once but doesn't have the evilness to embrace it
@@seePyou Yeah, her character is literally "I can make him worse." @HisameArtwork The point of the movie is that the people who came out of the first film thinking that "Arthur/Joker was right" are deluding themselves.
I wonder, who are these mythical people who idolize Joker? Joker is someone you can only feel sorry for or despise and that's it. There's nothing to idolize. In fact there's noone to idolize in that movie but plenty of characters to hate.
From what I'm hearing, I might actually like this. I liked the first film but not for the charged origin story that it was, for the deliciously painful tragedy of the whole thing. This seems like it's continuing that arc, with some hard reality-bites; a full circle tragedy and disappointment in expectations that I'm really interested to see. Sometimes, the story was nothing but a tragedy. There was that fan speculation that went around when the first film came out that Arthur was just the inspiration for the real Joker of that universe. I wonder if that theory takes on a new meaning after seeing this film... UPDATE: I have now seen the film! Pleased to say I actually really liked it. Here’s a few short (spoiler-free) thoughts: This was another beautifully twisted and gleefully symphonic twist of the knife. Joker is spread around across screens, faces and dancefloors like a contagious ‘joie de vivre’. In the first film, Joker is born; in this one, he becomes immortal. I really like what they did here. I honestly think this film will have its redemption once all the shock and post-hype has died down. This feels like the inevitable sequel for the setting they created in the first - with an ending that makes the Joker all the more sinister. This ain’t going to be a film you’ll forget anytime soon.
I'd love for you to update your comment if you end up watching it! Art is subjective and I think it's awesome how just about any film out there could be someone's favorite/something they genuinely enjoy even though other people don't see it's merit.
Damn, if the guy who turned me onto Xanadu didn't even enjoy the musical numbers in this movie, then this movie really is fucked 🤣. Love the honesty from both of you! It's refreshing to hear someone bash a movie in a fun and lighthearted way, rather than taking it as a full-on personal attack.
Ah, good old Bluey. Maybe Bluey is TV therapy for whoever just watched a terrible or disturbing movie, and needs something wholesome and uplifting? #BlueyTherapy
Breaking news!!! Jono’s been defeated! I repeat, Jono’s been defeated!!! 😂 For the first time ever, he could in fact NOT find the therapeutic in the movie 😅 I’ve watched this review maybe six or seven times now and it gets better every time 😂
It sounds like when you give a student a project. They have a lot of technical skills but got mixed up trying to be clever and artistic and didn’t read the brief.
Joker 2 might end up being the most META film in a twisted Joker sense. The Joker, as a character, is someone who is defined by unpredictability. Depending on the author/continuity, The Joker can be a very sympathetic victim of a broken system who gives in to deadly impulses, OR The Joker can be a deliberate, active, homicidal person out there to hurt others for the sake of doing it. And we can see this array of interpretations since the 1966 Batman movie, wherein all of the live action Jokers are a reflection to each other as much as a they are to Batman. 1966 Joker is basically a clown whose more content with making elaborate pranks with a criminalistic flair. He doesn't want to kill Batman; he just wants to have fun making elaborate traps for Batman to escape. Contrast that with 1989 Joker, whose an active 'homicide artist' with a severe narcissistic personality disorder and is more engaged in killing Batman - but only because Batman is an active obstacle to the Joker rather than being anything symbolic between the two of them. And contrast 1989 Joker with 2008 Joker, who drops the artistic murders for flat-out terrorism and is psychologically obsessed with Batman rather than physically harming him. 2008 Joker is more obsessed with psychologically breaking his victims, contrast with 1989's morbid sense of humor leading to death. And contrast 2008 Joker with 2019 Joker, who's really a normal guy who is psychologically broken by and failed by society and is obsessed with creating a social identity for himself. While I personally don't think Joker 2 should have ever been made at all, I personally think that it's completely in the spirit of the Joker to have a really trash film after a really great film. If anything, I think Joker 2 just made the audience feel like they were all victims of the spirit of the Joker.
Hellooo (Insert Mrs Doubtfire sound with icing face) from Quebec Canada! For your personal fun here's something I thought of to help for the prononciation: FOLIE (foe-lee) À (if you were to say apple but just say the letter ''a'') DEUX (pronouce it as if you would say burrr or blur it's the only equivalent I could think of..there dose'nt seem to be that exact sound in english or none I could think of) So cool to have found this channel, I love Cinema therapy, you guys keep branching out! love it God bless :)
Pronounced FALLee ado Translation: madness for two Meaning one person actually taking on the psychosis of another. Has been seen in many real life situations, one famous one were two sisters in Europe who were approached by highway cops for walking on the highway and the sisters thought they were "not human" or something of the sort and both ran, one getting hit by an 18 wheeler, she did live but was badly hurt. Both went to the hospital and one left, subsequently stayed with a polite guy trying to help and she ended up stabbing him thinking he was after her. She jumper from a 40 ft bridge and lived... Obviously long story, I probably shouldn't have tried to tell so much of it. But there ya go.
I swear I saw a TV episode, maybe a L&O show, where they use the term. In that case, in was a couple doing crimes together and fueling each other. Like, wrapped in each other’s madness. I wish I could remember more.
I did like the movie, because is was Fleck head, every time that a song stars it's telling us how he sees what's going on, in Fleck. He was not crazy or a double personality. Joker was there to protect and revenge Fleck. And how sociality rejecteds. Flecks says in one point am not who I was.... To me it was a really good movie. I felt his pain ....I knew that Harley was using him.
Who is this movie for? Who can benefit from this movie? Probably the Corporate Officers and stockholders of Warner Bros. This movie is a big old warning against endless sequels and reboots. The biggest lesson anyone should learn is “Not everything has to be a sequel. Some stories can be okay as they are.” You can have some of the best sets, best costuming, best special effects, and best actors out there. But if the movie doesn’t have a story to tell, then you don’t really need the movie. What I’ve noticed with Hollywood these days, is that they’re more comfortable with a higher quantity of films with a variety of quality to each film. From a business perspective, this is great in the short-term. When a company has an established legacy of making good films, they can afford to make a lot of mediocre films. And they’ll know people will watch these films regardless because of brand legacy. In the long-term, all this is ensuring is that people will simply not watch movies because the general public will be expecting mediocre projects. And if a movie is mediocre, who wants to spend their time watching something they’ll know is a huge waste of time.
This is why I have a greater appreciation for what Matt Reeves is doing with his Batman universe. An honestly great start with The Batman that sets up a character arc we’d expect from the 90s animated series. And now what they’re doing with The Penguin which he is a producer for…I think he’ll deliver what we need from DC projects right now. Darkness, but nuance to that darkness. Anyway, thanks for coming to my TEDTalk haha
SPOILERS I left with a positive outlook on the movie. I felt like Arthur just has a full deconstruction of his thinking after seeing that it may be harmful to people that don’t deserve it. In the first movie he killed people personally connected to his descent to instability. Once Puddles on the stand says “you were so nice to me, and now I’m traumatized” Joker had that pause before he stops cross examination. The prisoner gets choked out standing up to him. Then the courtroom gets blown and a room full of innocent including supporters of his get hurt. Him running away from the copycats that help him escape the courthouse is telling. The overall ending for me just felt the natural way to end because it’s too late to backtrack
Absolutely. I feel like it's not matching what people expected or it is so wild that at this moment, they have trouble understanding it. It really is a masterpiece of art in itself.
I predict that in twenty to thirty years people will look back at this film as a cult film and a masterpiece. Some of the best pieces of art don't get the respect they deserve when they originally come out.
Its so funny to see people's reaction to this movie. Ive got to say, it may or may not be what Todd Philips was trying to do, but there were several points in the movie (only a few of the songs) that felt chaotic, in line with the character of Joker across DC media. So, it may not have fit in with this Joker, but the Joker across DC media. I would say the movie took some big swings and sadly a lot of folks didnt think they landed. I do agree with other commentors that the movie showed that Fleck was a troubled man who had an image thrust upon him that didnt fit who he actually was. He had moments that people latched onto and others wanted that to be him. I mean at the end the joke the other patient tells him a joke that basically says, he's disappointed with who Fleck turned out to be. The punch line is the same thing Fleck said to Murray. And laughed in a very Joker way almost taking over the Joker identity. Pretty dark ending, as if to say he still wasn't seen for who he was, but for who others wanted him to be. And they killed him for it.
My sister-in-law loves this movie, but only because she's a Lady Gaga super fan, and she really enjoyed watching her cut loose and sing and all that. My brother, her husband, tried to enjoy the movie on the level of, "I think I get what Todd Phillips was going for" and then imagining that movie.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this film. I've been hearing similar things from other reviewers which makes me sad. I loved the first film and I really hope it's not as bad as people have said it is.
Just curious, would you guys be interested in reviewing TV shows as well because I’m interested to hear what you have to say about Arcane Season 2 when it comes out
Love you guys - thanks for creating more CT content for us to enjoy! I'm so sad neither of you liked it!! 😭😭As a fan of the first movie (and not a big fan of superhero movies nor musicals) I really enjoyed Joker Folie A Deux (JFAD)! I was shocked to see the negative reception. The first Joker film was such a cool character study addressing the kind of circumstances that could create a villain like the Joker. To me, the sequel was a great, logical continuation of Arthur's story. SPOILERS AHEAD! I think there are two main threads in the movie: 1. continuing themes from Joker 1, the consequence of -being a mentally ill loner in a society that treats him like trash!- being someone hyper empathetic but traumatised like Arthur in a world as cruel, unforgiving, and unempathetic as Gotham and 2. demonstrating that the Joker is just a defence mechanism that - while successfully protects him (to some extent) - also actively prevents Arthur from healing, and connecting authentically to others (mix that in with Lee and the parasocial stuff and it's mega bad for Arthur's inner pains). Arthur is mentally just a traumatised child, really desperately in need of empathy, but he's also extremely empathetic - as seen in the first movie, he seeks out a sense of humanity in Gotham and is constantly hurt by its treatment of him, as well as its mistreatment of others (he is upset by people bullying Gary, and in turn also does not bully anyone). It appals him when he finds out he made Gary feel the very way he has felt before. Also, I understood the Joker persona as Arthur Fleck's defence mechanism - Joker was 'born' in the subway when he killed the three finance guys ; when he'd finally been pushed to the edge. A part of him decided not to put up with the power imbalance any longer. In JFAD, he's now empowered by music, but also continues/combines with Arthur's original coping mechanism from childhood of creating fantasy worlds in order to protect his emotional state. I think the music helps to emphasise Arthur's very childlike, romanticised view of life (or at least what life should be like in his opinion). Notice that the musical numbers start when he feels intense emotions; happiness, love, disgust, fear, anger, serving as a momentary mental escape. Joker became more pronounced in JFAD because of Arthur's motive to be seen and heard - being Joker was the only time people paid attention to him. In regard to his relationship with Lee and by extension the public, while the Joker persona keeps Arthur emotionally safe (using anger and sarcasm to deflect, it also hides him away, and prevents people from being able to perceive the real 'him' - Arthur Fleck. Note that in both movies, he expresses a focus on 'existing' and not being invisible. Arthur wants real authentic connection, and wants to be treated fairly. However, being mentally ill and not equipped with support, he has not entangled the idea that the Joker is not himself per se. I don't necessarily mean that he does have a split personality, I just mean that trauma makes us lash out like feral animals sometimes. Sometimes it's not who we want to be, and not in line with our values. But the fact is, we did those things, even if we didn't want/plan/intend to. In the end, he does indeed own up to it, and sadly loses everything by being himself instead of the Joker. To me that was such an ironic and sad aspect of the story. He was truly 'sane' when he killed all those people. He understands that it did come from himself, yet has such limited means toward healing or learning healthier methods of expressing his feelings. From the start of his life, he was pushed into a corner and he didn't stand a chance of getting better in a world like Gotham. All Arthur wanted was a bit of understanding and connection. He was never in search of chaos or violence, it was an extremely exaggerated/dramatised and unfortunate outcome of his pain. It made sense to have that final scene reveal the real Joker as the man who murders him - having Arthur die in the end made sense too. I felt this was inevitable for his character. Maybe I read too much into Arthur or tried too hard to relate it back to my own experiences, but I truly felt the pain of his life-long lack of empathy and forgiveness and it made both movies very clear to me. Please let me know your thoughts, thank you so so much if you have taken the time to read my thoughts.
I loved it so much and I can’t explain why. I had so much fun. I laughed a lot. And I loved the music even though it wasn’t sung well. I just get so desperately wanting to be in love you ignore the red flags. He just wanted recognition and he gets it and it’s not what he thought it was. Idk. I loved it. I had so much fun.
I love the fact that I was sort of a loner talking about how much I don't like the first Joker movie. I get it what it tried to do it, I just don't like the way Todd Phillips decided to do it. I think it gives the wrong message to people. So, seeing all this people hating on the sequence makes me feel revenged, ngl 😂 I didn't watched it yet BUT I'm sure I'll just hate as much as I did the first one. Todd Phillips was stupid enough to make it a sequel 🎉
You're not alone. The first Joker is not good at all. Once in a while, you will be lucky to encounter someone like me, who can tell you exactly why it fails. I have a meticulously crafted list of reasons...
For Folie I would say Pho and Lee would make a good pronunciation of it PhoLee. à would be say aaahh at the doctor's office. Not the same, but close. Deux... the eu sounds doesn't really exist in English, so it's a really hard one, even for people that have been living in Quebec for a while. The x is silent. I saw someone online say it sounds a bit like duh! or doe, but yeah, that and oeuf (egg) are quite difficult.
In complete agreement with you guys. I loved the first one. There was clear character development/devolvement, there was an emotional payoff. There was a message. It was thought provoking. Disturbing. This one was disturbing, but the music was forgettable, there was no emotional payoff (especially the ending), the only message seemed to be about the cruelty and horror of mental hospitals, so I guess there was shock value. There was some interesting lighting. And I paid the extra 5 bucks to see it in imax 😂 this is only the 2nd time I have ever walked out of a theater going "that was not worth it." The other being the lobster. Everything just went straight over my head 😂
Since I do not plan to watch any of the Joker movies, this was interesting :D And hilarious in the way of you really TRYING to find the nice parts of it, which speaks more to your awareness of how much work goes into a film and how the individuals are great but the result just ... is what it is, sometimes.
To everyone posting that enjoyed the movie: enjoying something doesn't have anything to do with its quality. You can love something that is objectively garbage and absolutely despise something that is objectively well crafted (even a masterpiece).
Bing-pot. This didn't work for us, but it had a bunch of stuff that was objectively extremely well-made. Likewise, we like movies that are "worse" but also 'better'. Taste is subjective. But uh... if your taste is _anything_ like ours, you will not like this movie. Which is a bummer. It was almost great so many times...
The irony of telling someone his opinionn of a subjective notion of "enjoyable" doesn't equate with "quality" as if in the subjective medium that is art and specifically movies, there is an absolute "quality".
Your opinion of a film's quality is just your opinion. There is no objectively good or bad film. People discuss why they tought something was good or bad and come to different conclusions most of the time. That's how art works. Just because you hate something doesn't make it bad.
@@Regenmacher175just because you love something doesn’t make it good. Art & Taste is subjective. I might go to a seafood restaurant and hate what I was served, because I don’t like seafood. That is my tastes not aligning with the art, giving me a poor experience. That experience does not align with objectivity, as I am biased against seafood. Let’s say I love seafood though, and I go to that same restaurant and hate the food I was served. That experience may be more representative of reality. “I don’t like this restaurant because I hate seafood” versus “I don’t like this restaurant because the food is soggy, undercooked, raw, and downright inedible”. One of these opinions is far more objective than the other. Of course, there are people out there that love eating garbage. They eat raw food, processed slop, etc. They might love the restaurant. However, they are approaching the food with a bias: they have bad taste. For the vast majority of people though, they will avoid the restaurant like a plague and it will likely close down. If art is truly subjective, then why do professional chefs exist? Why do directors, actors, and scriptwriters exist? Why do we have art school, film school, culinary school, etc? How can you teach someone to create good art, if there is no good or bad art? If art is truly subjective, then EVERYONE can make great art! Why can’t you take a random person of the street, give them $200 million dollars and have them make a blockbuster success? If art is 100% subjective and there is no good or bad art, then why does some art achieve cultural significance while other art is cast aside and forgotten? Art is subjective, but not entirely. The value of anything is perception. If your art speaks to millions, and touches them emotionally, that is valuable art. If your art speaks to maybe a few dozen people, and fails to illicit barely anything from your audience, you have failed to create spectacular art. Sure it could still be considered “art” but it’s “art” that only speaks to its creator and a small number of like-minded individuals. If that’s what you’re going for, that’s totally fine! But that is not “art” that needs hundreds of millions of dollars to be created. That is simply a selfish waste of resources.
There’s so much this film could have been. Honestly, the entire film could have been the first 30 mins followed by J&H on an NBK-style rampage. I would’ve paid good money to see just H developing her obsession with J. But no, they had to go the big budget musical court room character study route. Who asked for this?
I wish you had expanded more on why you disliked it-were there plot holes? Did character development not make sense? Did the musical aspect take over too much? The first one I thought was a master piece, so I still want to see this one even though I know it isn’t getting great reviews. I will say, there was an interview from Joaquin saying that Arthur isn’t meant to be a good singer. Remember his attempt to be funny in the first one? He failed at it, but that was kinda the point. He’s not meant to be good, he’s meant to be relatable. We can’t all sing like Lady Gaga.
I didn't like this movie, I didn't hate-hate this movie, I was confused by this movie. I now have to go back and watch Gotham as a pallet cleanser, because if you are going to subvert my expectations on who the "Joker" is I'd rather it be Cameron Monaghan because THAT was entertainment.
I'm one of those (apparently few) that liked the movie. Spoilers ahead (obviously). There are many elements that contribute to my enjoyment, but most of all is the arc of the story. I feel it completed the character, and it was a good progression. A mentally ill abused person lashed out as he came to the end of his rope. Beaten, laughed at, physically threatened, he cracked and killed the three almost-could-have-been sexual abusers (if not rapists). That level of control and power and seeing them being afraid, instead of him, was empowering to him. Liberating. So he escalated as we all saw with the deaths of three more; his mother, his asshole co-worker, and Murray. The end of the first movie is him being beloved by so many and triumphant! What a change in his psyche that was. Then we start this movie. He is still smiling and thinking fondly of what he has done. But now he has a lawyer fighting for him to get him the mental health treatment he needs! In the entire movie, she is the only one truly on the side of Arthur! No one else is; from the psychiatrists, to the judge, to his "friends", even Quinn. But he is still just him, mostly, enjoying his limelight, the weight of his actions being justified to him, but not bombastic about it, large, grandiose! He has even adjusted to life in prison, mostly evident by his quick kiss with the other male inmate. The guards thought to pull a homophobic prank on Arthur, sending a susceptible prisoner to him to teach him how to kiss, because the guards told him that Arthur knows how! This is all to get a rise out of Arthur, to make a scene either of embarrassment or anger or some kind of show. Arthur defuses the entire thing by actually giving a small quick kiss to the inmate. The guard's enjoyment is destroyed by completely obeying. Arthur is impressive in this! And in this life, here enters Quinn. She is abusing Arthur, she doesn't care one bit about him, it's all a manipulation. All she cares is the image of Joker, the power of Joker, which feeds into her mental illness. She separates Arthur from everyone else, even possibly from reality, and he is all too eager to follow! Of course he is. He finally has a woman's attention, attraction, adoration! In all his life he has been looking for this in all the wrong places and now here it is, easily, entirely and completely his! He falls in with everything he has, and Quinn's influence is complete. Dismiss your lawyer! Dismiss reality and become Joker! Joker is the best! Joker is you, but JOKER is what matters (because that is her misguided view). Your film was amazing! Never matter what others say! Joker looks at her and she confirms that the movie is great and his smile is content, reassured, at peace. But all that cannot go on. He has now bought in completely to Joker! I'm Joker and I am the best and I will represent myself! He is terrible at it. He ends up realizing it, deep down at least, but that it where it starts. His lack of legal skill (why would there be any?). His lack of empathy to his friend that is now completely terrified of him. It cracks. I am Arthur. I am not Joker. I do not want this burden of this thing I created! As soon as he says it, he sees his followers, and his love, leave his side! It doesn't register completely, not yet. But the courtroom explodes and he runs out, escaping. His followers pick him up and he is terrified of what they are doing, saying, behaving, how they elevate him to something he doesn't want to be. So as soon as possible, he leaves them, abandons his saviours, rescuers! He goes to the stairs. Artistic license? Maybe, but it's suitable. It ends where it started. He flat outs states to Quinn that it's him and her, no joker, no one else. A family, that can leave now and be happy together, just them, no one else! Quinn is obviously not having any of that. It was always the Joker she wanted, was infatuated with, wanted to build a mountain with! Not Arthur! Arthur is pathetic! She leaves. He dies inside. He is completely not there for the few remaining scenes. A symbolically healed Arthur doesn't care about anything anymore. He doesn't laugh, not even nervously as his condition would cause that we all know. He is a shell, just passing time, nothing matters. What he created though catches up to him! The legend has to be maintained! The betrayal of his followers is too much to take! Ending his life is punishment and birth. The pretender is dead. Long live the new Joker! This is how I experienced this movie, this is what I was thinking about motivations and how I interpreted the plot. And I loved it.
I guess this movie is a giant middle finger to the producers. The director said that Joker was made to be one movie only. But corporate got greedy after the success. If this is true, i really find that great.
Who to recommend this movie to, and who it can help: Film classes and students. And other filmmakers. Watching and analyzing both the first and second Joker movies could be beneficial to many people's film making skills, specifically regarding the construction of a sequel, as well as the elements of what makes a good musical, plus more. So, at the very least, Folie a Deux could be teaching material.
The second film seems to actually be made by a responsible filmmaker. I'm glad it debunks the notion that Arthur Fleck was in any way justified in doing what he did. There are way too many incels out there celebrating that mediocre character who blames everyone else for his problems and thinks he's more ingenious and talented than he actually is.
What worked with the original was just capturing what made the joker into who he is by making him a victim of society, which it may have worked on the narrative, but what I said about that movie is still the same. The joker does not and will never truly worth without Batman, trying to make the Joker become an icon of Gotham's worst without the clashing that made his insanity truly reach new heights is kind of a big risk, but it worked once and they just expected it to work again. This is why we need to let a story end, sequels made without any real plans aside milking an idea will always fail.
3:16 I'm fine with songs and musical numbers at important parts of a plot and where they fit what's going on but the reason I've never liked musicals is because there seems to be a song every few minutes and the characters come off like they have a form of OCD that forces them to sing things at people instead of saying it to them.
i’m happy to be in the minority having enjoyed this film. i don’t think it was as good as the first one & i would’ve preferred another direction w the sequel. but idk i respect this direction & i understand it. i’m really surprised by how many people don’t especially this channel as i usually agree w their reviews, but i absolutely understand everyone’s outrage lol.
I haven't seen it, had it all spoiled for me (I willingly wanted it spoiled, but I won't spoil it for anyone.) But... It's very clear to me Todd Philips didn't want to do this, and made sure it won't have a third film
Great review! I’m definitely not watching that film. If you would like another movie to review that is out now might I recommend ‘The Substance’. It is filled with body horror, but does have a good message about how destructive self hatred, ageism, and body dysmorphia is and how important it is to love and value yourself. ❤
Personally I think this movie was a message on how violence breeds more violence. In the first movie, we got to see how the way he was abused, humiliated, and ignored. How that rage blew up an he took on the Joker persona to not only deal with the hurt but punish those who hurt him. But not only is he punishing those he believed deserved it, he’s unintentionally hurting innocent people like Gary Puddles and Sophie in the process. In the second movie, it’s him realizing that he’s not the hero he’s carved out to be and this Joker role is not one he wants to take on.
I also think it’s a critique on society, that people often praise those who they think carry their cause and understand their plight. They paint him as this hero who will take the world by force when all he’s ever been is Arthur Fleck. The first movie, all he wanted was to be treated like somebody, to be wanted, to be like Murray and be famous. Well now he’s got the spotlight he always wanted but they want the maniacal Joker to perform not Fleck
Ofc I do think that film be better executed. Cut back on the length of song and cut some songs even. I personally think Harley could’ve had more to do in the movie.
Honestly, I would always describe the first Joker movie as Joker’s origin story in a different timeline in the DC Multiverse. That’s the only way the first movie makes sense to me. For Harley Quinn’s origin story, I like the portrayals that stay more loyal to the comics. I can’t say I like the parasocial re telling of her origin story in this movie. At least the original Harley spends time with him, as his prison therapist, and delulu falls for him after spending time with him. Yeahhhh can’t say I’m a fan of the Gaga Harley…Margot Robbie forever!
I'm really surprised you can't appreciate the tragedy of Arthur Fleck. Every time the two of them were overwhelmed with emotion, they sang and explored the delusion together. It was just a fantasy and the title alone makes that clear. Arthur is a sad damaged man who was misunderstood by his fans. Both in the films and in the theaters. It's very tragic that no one can accept him for who he is. He doesn't believe in anything. He's not here to start a movement. He just wants to be seen and understood. Maybe watch them back to back and see how much this second film makes sense for his journey and how he began and ended as a tragic soul who was never meant to be "The Joker" we wanted. But maybe he was The Joker we deserved.
I actually quite like the movie and have warmed up to it. I quite liked the musical numbers and the movie is just stunning. The story itself is what I can’t sort my feelings about but it does mean that I’ve been thinking about this movie since I saw it
I cant believe you two disliked it so much. I was not expecting that. I really truly enjoyed it, and more than i did the first one. I found the first to be entertaining but not gripping or notable. In fact, i was a bit disappointed by the first because it was very clearly some alternate version of the joker that ive come to know through shows and movies. Folie a deux however was great and a wonderful continuation of what the first had built. Now i'm able to appreciate the first more because of how the second expanded on that story. I think this is because at the end of the first one i accepted that the joaquin phoenix joker is distinctly not the same joker as ive seen in batman media products.
I’m probably one of the few, but i actually enjoyed the movie. The more manic he is, the more musical performances we got. As for “that’s entertainment”, i saw it as the Joker viewed everything he did as entertaining the masses and getting acceptance, and all the killings were just collateral damage, which makes the whole concept of the Joker even more disturbing. But then when he realised he became the bully, something in him broke.
I really liked this movies, I get I am in the minority. It’s different than most movies of the genre. It’s artistic , it continues some of the same dialogue of society, great characters. It’s anti climatic , but I really liked it, the cinematography is fabulous, Also to me, I think this was all in his head. To me, HarleQuinn was his imagination, And I admittedly like the harkening back to the couple singing line Jun & JohnnybCash or like Sonny & Cher:)
"I think this is the first time you've been defeated by a film" not counting Labyrinth, of course... Are you ever going to revisit that one, perhaps with a guest who can add a different perspective and interpretation?
Haven't seen it but hoping it's one of those ones that you need to see twice to get. I've had a couple movies that were like that for me. But I also know you can have the most amazing actors in the world in something but the writing and pricing can dismantle their great performances. Honestly intrigued to see it because of this though
2:27 "How do you make a sequel to one of the most gripping films of the past five years"? That is actually very simple: You don't make a bloody sequel. Seriously, the first Joker was such a perfect stand-alone project, and it should have stayed that way. But money money money, I suppose...
2 months after the fact😂 but still. I really liked it. I understood what Arthur was going through. Losing reality. Seeing his ‘Joker’ pop op everywhere, from the beginning on. With the pills and the umbrellas. Showing us it was right under the surface. Then the psychosis and Joker growing steadily. I can go on 😂. Even Harley. Being so extremely on his side, only to see she cares nothing for Arthur. She only wants Joker. I’ll definitely watch it again.
Joker was the last film that needed a sequel. The message was simple, basic, crystal clear. The only compelling addition was as you say Harley and the parasocial relationship relationship, but it went mostly undeveloped.
Apparently the message wasn't that clear because lots of people came away idolising the violent, murderous clown in the film and so the need for the sequel sems to be to clarify to that audience that there's nothing glamorous or justifiable about that character's actions.
With all due respect I'm rather surprised that a therapist did not catch the Jungian Shadow theme running rampant in this movie. It's all about accepting the shadow and not living in a fantasy world as it will not lead to anything good.
So from what a lot of online folks are saying (which you know, take w/ a huge grain of salt), the point of the movie was that the joker wasn't just a normal guy who got beat down and became the joker. It was that the guy was always a horrible person and everything he did was on him. The "joker" isn't real, its just Arthur, and bad people do bad thing. Apparently, the director was mad that a lot of people took the first move as a justification for people doing horrible things because society didn't love them enough and he wanted to not so subtly tell all those people off.... Or at least that interwebs are saying. Who knows how accurate that take really is.
Yeah, that's very much the vibe of the movie. But 2 things: That's not the character named Joker, so... miss. And: I still don't think it's a good movie, just as a movie. Take all the Joker out of it, and still, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it, as a film. But hey, taste is subjective. If people love it, and get something out of it, great! -alan
You have to excuse my english, its no my first language. The movie is afraid of being a musical and never reaches its potential, Lady Gaga is a good actress, but is wasted. The movie has a lot rhythm problems, it feel repetitive, specially the middle. But the message is very clear, and I believe people didnt get it, or didit care. You want Joker, but the first movie it wasnt about him, is about Arthur Fleck, and his madness, and Joker 2 makes that very clear, but the audience is Lee. We want chaos, violence at the cost of a guy's mental health. We see him like..weak, and we want the power of his "Joker". This was never DC Joker, and Todd had to make a second movie to prove it. The criticism has become exaggerated on social media. Its not better that first one, but is no a disaster. The movie deserve a second view.
I loved both j films. They r such essentials and landmark films. J2 will be a cult classic. In my dark little country of Belgium I expect it will be dusted off and run in our cinemas n yrs to come ❤❤❤ Edit I loved it so much that this is my second comment I forgot about the first 😂
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I suspect the viewer's disappointment is because it is even less comic book-accurate than "Joker" (2019), a likely deconstruction of the Batman villain. This is probably because director Todd Phillips intended "Joker: Folie a Deux" to deconstruct the Joker/Harley Quinn relationship in "Batman: The Animated Series." The musical numbers probably represented Arthur Fleck's romantic and showbiz fantasies about his comedy career and relationship with Quinn. They likely failed because Phillips does not have a background in musicals, prison, or courtroom drama films.
This movie is a master piece, one of the best movies ever made, a true piece of art. And if you felt disappointed, then you felt the right way. This movie is disappointing on purpose, and it doesn't care on pleasing its public and it doesn't treat its public as idiots. It has a message and it delivers it without compassion, you'll gonna watch it, you're not gonna like it, it will not entertain you and you'll love it because of this. This movie is the equivalent as Blade Runner when it first came out. Nobody liked it nor understood it or it purpose, just like Joker 2.
I'm really curious to see if it ever gets re-appraised. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it, as a film. Not just as an unpleasant experience. But hey, who says my taste is to everyone's liking? -alan
I watched it 3times! (One of them withtarantino;). I really loved the way it's like a round life of mentally fleck. The first was from fleck to joker, the second... From joker back to fleck. Btw: one more notice about both of them: the way he lay down in the end of joker2 it's the same way he layed down in the beggining of the first joker... 🃏😏
“This movie sucked the kindness out of me” damn that’s brutal, coming from Jono.
So it was Joker: Fully doo doo?
Joker: Fully a deuce can work as well
@@zero213ktEven better 😂
“Folly” is right there, too you know.
I didn't the like the first why would I watch this? at least the first was mildly interesting and only watched it because everybody said it was great. definitely not watching this film.
If you consider it a lovestory yeah it's hot. The ending hits right in the gut but makes so much sense upon reflection 😊
I am Swiss (french speaker) and your intention of saying "folie à deux" in a classy french way cracked me up 🤣 Love this new channel by the way!
We're goofy Americans 😂 thanks for watching!
It'd hard to pronounce for English speakers because the "eu" sound doesn't exist in the English language. They did great considering that fact haha!
@@Clairevoyante They did absolutely great to be honest! I just really loved the exageration, Alan sounded like a mad french chef😂
I think for the "eu" sound, the only advise I would give is to pronounce it "uh" rather than "ooh", like "deux" would more "duh" than "doo", but yeah, it's hard to describe
I saw Joker2 twice. The first time it is not what I wanted. The second time I got it, Todd was trolling us. The first 20min of the film Arthur is Joaquin and Todd being dragged around doing media and put on show for people’s entertainment. Lady Gaga is us the fans, people should not be loving nor idolizing the Joker like she does. The court case and musical numbers are there trolling us and the part “Let’s give the people what they want” was violence and over the top. Which wasn’t what the first movie was about. Then near the end it turned into fight club the whole idea of people blindly following a mentally ill guy.
When I was younger I would get lost in certain songs and create fantasy’s out of them. Sometimes I would forget who I am and imagine myself as a rockstar or some great musician while listening to those songs. The musical scenes in the movie reminded me a lot of that. I felt like I was in Arthur’s head watching him dissolve into that type of fantasy over and over again.
Same. I noticed more musicals then more manic and insane he got.
But when he sobered up, the musicals stopped.
Quoting Alan: “I will say, there was an inspired bit of casting the young actor who plays Harvey Dent, has and I mean this with all the love in my heart, the most punchable face I’ve ever seen!” 😂😂😂
Pure gold! 🥰 Tho wouldn’t expect any less from this duo 💜
If you are going into this movie expecting the iconic DC Joker you were hoodwinked. Todd Phillips had no interest in making that film. Since the first movie it was evident he sprinkled just enough to hint at it but the execution especially in this movie clearly indicates Phillips is doing his own version of all his favorite Scorsese movies. I think he co-opted the brand to get more eyes and money on his films. I’m actually surprised DC and WB let Phillips use the IP in this way based on the backlash I’m seeing.
However, I love the aesthetic in both films as I too am a fan of old gritty films from the 70’s and 80’s. Also, I enjoyed both films in part because I can appreciate them without the expectation of seeing a DC Joker movie. It was an interesting and intriguing character study. So yes there is an audience out there for this film, a minority but we exist. I would see it again actually. I love the song choices and the raw non-performative presentation of them. As another commenter said in the thread, it was a device used to indicate the dissociative behavior of the character. It made sense to me. The shared madness was in the singing. That’s my interpretation anyway.
My teenager & I both like this movie as well. We also enjoy musicals , I appreciate the artistic choices/manner of this film. I see we r in the minority tho:)
@@IndigoBellyDance I enjoyed it for what it was. I think ppl are extremely disappointed they didn’t get the movie they expected. Not entirely their fault as the marketing somewhat ‘hid’ the movie in the trailer.
I don’t know how anyone WOULD have gone into this expecting that - I mean I get it, but it’s always been clear this is not what these movies are. I found it a fascinating and tragic character study and social commentary. It was uncomfortable and had some editing issues, I think - but I loved it.
Yes, execution wise... I couldn't understand what they were singing, but in the Context of the last movie the singing was an excellent device to express the shared delusion and the way lee Manipulated him the same way his mother did.
Exactly. The music is not the polished things you see in other musicals, but that fits because everything in this universe is rough and broken. I also enjoyed that Arthur ended up trying not to be the Joker. I know a lot of the audience didn't like that, but choosing health is rebelling against the status quo.
Joker: Folie a Deux fan here! You asked for what you guys might be missing, so here goes! Apologies in advance for the length!
SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
If you were to ask me who this movie is for, I would say: People who weren’t big fans of the original! I respected the first Joker movie and enjoyed parts of it but generally agreed with the view that it was ultimately very derivative of other better films and said nothing I found particularly interesting about mental health or societal iniquity.
I think Folie a Deux works better for me because it asks more unusual questions. Jono touched on the idea of parasocial relationships as they relate between Arthur and Lee. But I think the “folie a deux” - the shared madness of the title - is between the persona of the Joker and the entire world that consumes that persona, and the film is about how that leaves Arthur in the dust. Looking back on it, I believe that’s what the opening cartoon is about - this “shadow self” that presents itself as Arthur that balloons out of control and eventually gets him killed. No one in this movie ever sees Arthur for who he is - not even Arthur himself. They only see the Joker persona and what they want it to mean to them. And I think this movie did a good job of showing that many of these musical numbers are dissociative coping mechanisms for him - even as he’s dying, he retreats into the Joker persona because that’s the only place he’s ever been able to process his feelings. I think it’s an even bleaker tragedy than the original - even when he takes full accountability for his actions, his ultimate reward is a brutal death (a death many could argue is exactly “what he deserved.”) It’s a ending that makes me sad and that I don’t necessarily agree with, but I don’t think it’s untrue to the spirit of either movie.
Again, it’s by no means a perfect film. I think you both are correct in noting that the first film was very focused while this one meanders. But personally, I found the choices it made and the ideas it wrestles with much more interesting than what the original had to offer. I’m excited to see this again and further develop my thoughts!
Thanks for taking the time to read this, and for everything you do across all your channels! I’ve had some significant challenges to my mental health this year and your channel has been a great resource of practical advice and compassionate insight. Thanks for sharing your light! (Huge Makoto Shinkai fan, can’t wait for y’all to do a video on Weathering with You!)
My best friend saw this movie today and LOVED it. I was shocked then to see all the negative opinions online. Glad to see another person who really enjoyed it! The way she described the movie through her eyes sounded great!
Well said esp liked your observation about the musical numbers being Arthur’s way of coping with his despair. I saw it that way too. I enjoyed this film on an aesthetic level. I appreciated the reference to Umbrellas of Cherbourg and loved the raw realistic singing the way Les Miz movie did a few years ago. The acting performances were great. That scene with Gary Puddle was esp poignant. I also loved the song choices. I went and searched for the soundtrack after I saw the movie. Most of the hate this movie is getting (not all) are from DC Joker fans expecting to get the iconic character the first film alluded to. I never saw this Joker as that DC Joker character. I think Todd Phillips co-opted that brand to bring more eyes (and money) to his film about a sad broken man who just wanted to be loved. And yes that Looney Tunes cartoon told the audience at the beginning of the movie what this movie was about. Was the execution perfect? No but it was intriguing and engaging enough for me.
First movie 9/10
This one 7/10
As a two pack 8/10
The cartoon
The sex
The end
Are all important parts that people are forgetting but over time like the prequels… they will come back to and actually pay attention.
Wait, so a DC version of Satoshi Kon’s Perfect Blue…?
I absolutely love this take on it! And I agree so much
Arthur wasn't supposed to be a great singer. Joaquin Phoenix has said in an interview that Arthur singing is like an 8yr old who's singing their heart out and you know it means a lot to them but you can tell they're off key.
The singing would happen when he would disassociate. Something stressful was going on when it would happen. It's just how he coped. A lot of people don't care for the movie but I thought it was so tragic but well done. I understand some will not jive with it and everyones entitled to that, but I feel like it got more hate than it deserved. I think some people who can't understand trauma from that level wouldn't really be able to connect and thats understandable. It's not supposed to be a feel good movie. The point was to sorta discourage idolizing people in the media because you don't exactly know whats really going on with them. There's so many layers to it but I personally loved it. Not something I'd watch again for awhile because it's so sad but I definitely see what Todd Phillips was trying to accomplish and to me I think he nailed it.
From what I've heard this seems to be a movie that Todd Phillips made to deliberately crap on the people who liked the first one, and that just boggles my mind that someone would spend years of their life working on a follow up to one of their greatest achievements, and deliberately spit in the face of the original. Subverting expectations and reexamining a past work can make for interesting and thought provoking cinema, but it's a shame to hear that instead of interesting and challenging, it's arduous, exhausting, and intensely boring in a way that alienates pretty much everyone who might be interested.
If you disliked Joker 1, you won't like this one. If you did like Joker 1, you REALLY won't like this one. Such a shame with the amount of wasted talent here.
If that's the case it's an even greater waste as from some rumblings I've heard it seem as though Joaquin Pheonix may be retiring from acting. If this ends up being his last role that would be really unfortunate.
I liked both movies actually. And let’s be real Todd Phillips never intended to make a DC Joker film. He co-opted that brand to get people to watch his homage to Scorsese’s greatest hits.
The first Joker isn't a great achievement. It's just a great money sponge.
I liked the first and the second equally. So there goes that statement.
I love both films. Just depends on your expectations I feel.
I really seem to be in the minority here, but I find appreciation in this film.
My initial thought weren’t positive, but the more I though of it, the more I could motivate its existence.
What this film does is to really explore the fame and status Arthur got in the end of the first one. He is longing for love, acceptance and appreciation. Now he gets it, but it’s not him they warship, it’s the joker.
In the first film “Joker” was the persona that he found confidence in and the thing that helped him cope, but now he finds the pressure in leading the army of followers that want to stick it to that authority’s, while he just wanted to make people happy. Harley uses his need for attention and makes him go against his own wants.
He struggles to fill the shoes, that he never wanted to wear. And when he finally is true to himself, he looses everyone he had gained. Nobody likes Arthur his all alone, the world has turned his back on him, he’s suffered so much pain and there is no exit but pain. And he has to live with that.
YES YES AND YES
Thanks!
(Edit: for sharing!)
Damn that's dark. I can see why some people who want to make Joker into a hero/protagonist would be so put off. I hope over time people lean into the raw truth of it.
@@lbjcb5 I agree
Literally what you describe just sounds like a massive F U to the message of the first movie. And It doesn’t help that the movie just drags on wastes so much time on completely pointless musical numbers to get its shitty message across.
Thank for for validating my feeling that this movie is not for me without my spending time to see it. I don’t have as much kindness as Jono so I can’t afford to have any sucked out.
Don’t hold back. What did you really feel? 😂
😅🫣
😂😂😂
Whole video filled with "beeps".
Maybe the “who can this movie help” is “people who come out of the first film idolizing Arthur/Joker”…?
haven't watched this mess, is there a point to it? like does gaga-quin find out by the end he really is a bad person? iirc she was in an abusive relationship so that's why maybe she liked this role?
@@HisameArtworkwhy would Quinn realize he is a good person? He isn't, and she doesn't want him to be.
@@HisameArtworkshe finds out he isn't evil enough. She finds out he isn't evil but just a loner that flipped out once but doesn't have the evilness to embrace it
@@seePyou Yeah, her character is literally "I can make him worse."
@HisameArtwork The point of the movie is that the people who came out of the first film thinking that "Arthur/Joker was right" are deluding themselves.
I wonder, who are these mythical people who idolize Joker? Joker is someone you can only feel sorry for or despise and that's it. There's nothing to idolize. In fact there's noone to idolize in that movie but plenty of characters to hate.
From what I'm hearing, I might actually like this. I liked the first film but not for the charged origin story that it was, for the deliciously painful tragedy of the whole thing. This seems like it's continuing that arc, with some hard reality-bites; a full circle tragedy and disappointment in expectations that I'm really interested to see. Sometimes, the story was nothing but a tragedy.
There was that fan speculation that went around when the first film came out that Arthur was just the inspiration for the real Joker of that universe. I wonder if that theory takes on a new meaning after seeing this film...
UPDATE: I have now seen the film! Pleased to say I actually really liked it. Here’s a few short (spoiler-free) thoughts:
This was another beautifully twisted and gleefully symphonic twist of the knife.
Joker is spread around across screens, faces and dancefloors like a contagious ‘joie de vivre’.
In the first film, Joker is born; in this one, he becomes immortal.
I really like what they did here. I honestly think this film will have its redemption once all the shock and post-hype has died down. This feels like the inevitable sequel for the setting they created in the first - with an ending that makes the Joker all the more sinister.
This ain’t going to be a film you’ll forget anytime soon.
I'd love for you to update your comment if you end up watching it! Art is subjective and I think it's awesome how just about any film out there could be someone's favorite/something they genuinely enjoy even though other people don't see it's merit.
@@mchjsosde Roger that! Will do
Ohhhh you really need to watch the movie after that comment!! 😂
@@seePyou you’re not wrong 😂
@@mchjsosde Officially updated 👌🏼
I watched this review, then I went to see the film anyway, and now I'm back to remind myself to listen to my internet dads haha
Probably THE most hilarious video I've seen on this channel! SO much fun!
Glad you enjoyed it!
Dang it, I didn't realize there was a separate channel for this. I kept waiting for the reviews to pop up on your main channel 😅
Damn, if the guy who turned me onto Xanadu didn't even enjoy the musical numbers in this movie, then this movie really is fucked 🤣. Love the honesty from both of you! It's refreshing to hear someone bash a movie in a fun and lighthearted way, rather than taking it as a full-on personal attack.
😂
Ah, good old Bluey. Maybe Bluey is TV therapy for whoever just watched a terrible or disturbing movie, and needs something wholesome and uplifting? #BlueyTherapy
I attend Bluey Therapy on a regular basis 😂
Breaking news!!! Jono’s been defeated! I repeat, Jono’s been defeated!!! 😂 For the first time ever, he could in fact NOT find the therapeutic in the movie 😅
I’ve watched this review maybe six or seven times now and it gets better every time 😂
It sounds like when you give a student a project. They have a lot of technical skills but got mixed up trying to be clever and artistic and didn’t read the brief.
Joker 2 might end up being the most META film in a twisted Joker sense. The Joker, as a character, is someone who is defined by unpredictability. Depending on the author/continuity, The Joker can be a very sympathetic victim of a broken system who gives in to deadly impulses, OR The Joker can be a deliberate, active, homicidal person out there to hurt others for the sake of doing it.
And we can see this array of interpretations since the 1966 Batman movie, wherein all of the live action Jokers are a reflection to each other as much as a they are to Batman.
1966 Joker is basically a clown whose more content with making elaborate pranks with a criminalistic flair. He doesn't want to kill Batman; he just wants to have fun making elaborate traps for Batman to escape.
Contrast that with 1989 Joker, whose an active 'homicide artist' with a severe narcissistic personality disorder and is more engaged in killing Batman - but only because Batman is an active obstacle to the Joker rather than being anything symbolic between the two of them.
And contrast 1989 Joker with 2008 Joker, who drops the artistic murders for flat-out terrorism and is psychologically obsessed with Batman rather than physically harming him. 2008 Joker is more obsessed with psychologically breaking his victims, contrast with 1989's morbid sense of humor leading to death.
And contrast 2008 Joker with 2019 Joker, who's really a normal guy who is psychologically broken by and failed by society and is obsessed with creating a social identity for himself.
While I personally don't think Joker 2 should have ever been made at all, I personally think that it's completely in the spirit of the Joker to have a really trash film after a really great film.
If anything, I think Joker 2 just made the audience feel like they were all victims of the spirit of the Joker.
Enjoyed reading it so much thanks
From the sounds of it, reading this is probably the most enjoyment anyone is going to get out of this movie😂
Hellooo (Insert Mrs Doubtfire sound with icing face) from Quebec Canada!
For your personal fun here's something I thought of to help for the prononciation:
FOLIE (foe-lee) À (if you were to say apple but just say the letter ''a'') DEUX (pronouce it as if you would say burrr or blur it's the only equivalent I could think of..there dose'nt seem to be that exact sound in english or none I could think of)
So cool to have found this channel, I love Cinema therapy, you guys keep branching out! love it
God bless :)
I guess it wasn't able to *WALTZ* past expectations
Pronounced FALLee ado
Translation: madness for two
Meaning one person actually taking on the psychosis of another. Has been seen in many real life situations, one famous one were two sisters in Europe who were approached by highway cops for walking on the highway and the sisters thought they were "not human" or something of the sort and both ran, one getting hit by an 18 wheeler, she did live but was badly hurt. Both went to the hospital and one left, subsequently stayed with a polite guy trying to help and she ended up stabbing him thinking he was after her. She jumper from a 40 ft bridge and lived... Obviously long story, I probably shouldn't have tried to tell so much of it. But there ya go.
I swear I saw a TV episode, maybe a L&O show, where they use the term. In that case, in was a couple doing crimes together and fueling each other. Like, wrapped in each other’s madness. I wish I could remember more.
I did like the movie, because is was Fleck head, every time that a song stars it's telling us how he sees what's going on, in Fleck. He was not crazy or a double personality. Joker was there to protect and revenge Fleck. And how sociality rejecteds. Flecks says in one point am not who I was.... To me it was a really good movie. I felt his pain ....I knew that Harley was using him.
So grateful u guys made this channel, i have the hardest time picking movies, and this just saves me time from watching "bad" movies
Who is this movie for? Who can benefit from this movie?
Probably the Corporate Officers and stockholders of Warner Bros. This movie is a big old warning against endless sequels and reboots. The biggest lesson anyone should learn is “Not everything has to be a sequel. Some stories can be okay as they are.”
You can have some of the best sets, best costuming, best special effects, and best actors out there.
But if the movie doesn’t have a story to tell, then you don’t really need the movie.
What I’ve noticed with Hollywood these days, is that they’re more comfortable with a higher quantity of films with a variety of quality to each film.
From a business perspective, this is great in the short-term. When a company has an established legacy of making good films, they can afford to make a lot of mediocre films. And they’ll know people will watch these films regardless because of brand legacy.
In the long-term, all this is ensuring is that people will simply not watch movies because the general public will be expecting mediocre projects. And if a movie is mediocre, who wants to spend their time watching something they’ll know is a huge waste of time.
Nah, this film can benefit the deluded people who came away from the first film cheering for Arthur Fleck/The Joker.
Hello, algorithm. Pay attention to Allen and Jono. Kay! Thnx. Bye!
As a Gaga fan, I'm slipping this under the rug with House of Gucci.
(Fingers in ears) Alalalalalaa Didn't happen Lalalalalalala
This is why I have a greater appreciation for what Matt Reeves is doing with his Batman universe. An honestly great start with The Batman that sets up a character arc we’d expect from the 90s animated series. And now what they’re doing with The Penguin which he is a producer for…I think he’ll deliver what we need from DC projects right now. Darkness, but nuance to that darkness. Anyway, thanks for coming to my TEDTalk haha
SPOILERS
I left with a positive outlook on the movie. I felt like Arthur just has a full deconstruction of his thinking after seeing that it may be harmful to people that don’t deserve it. In the first movie he killed people personally connected to his descent to instability. Once Puddles on the stand says “you were so nice to me, and now I’m traumatized” Joker had that pause before he stops cross examination. The prisoner gets choked out standing up to him. Then the courtroom gets blown and a room full of innocent including supporters of his get hurt. Him running away from the copycats that help him escape the courthouse is telling. The overall ending for me just felt the natural way to end because it’s too late to backtrack
Absolutely. I feel like it's not matching what people expected or it is so wild that at this moment, they have trouble understanding it. It really is a masterpiece of art in itself.
I predict that in twenty to thirty years people will look back at this film as a cult film and a masterpiece. Some of the best pieces of art don't get the respect they deserve when they originally come out.
Its so funny to see people's reaction to this movie. Ive got to say, it may or may not be what Todd Philips was trying to do, but there were several points in the movie (only a few of the songs) that felt chaotic, in line with the character of Joker across DC media. So, it may not have fit in with this Joker, but the Joker across DC media.
I would say the movie took some big swings and sadly a lot of folks didnt think they landed. I do agree with other commentors that the movie showed that Fleck was a troubled man who had an image thrust upon him that didnt fit who he actually was. He had moments that people latched onto and others wanted that to be him. I mean at the end the joke the other patient tells him a joke that basically says, he's disappointed with who Fleck turned out to be. The punch line is the same thing Fleck said to Murray. And laughed in a very Joker way almost taking over the Joker identity. Pretty dark ending, as if to say he still wasn't seen for who he was, but for who others wanted him to be. And they killed him for it.
7:44 "Out of Spite" sums up the entire movie and its production.
7:48 at least the room was fun to watch 😂
My sister-in-law loves this movie, but only because she's a Lady Gaga super fan, and she really enjoyed watching her cut loose and sing and all that.
My brother, her husband, tried to enjoy the movie on the level of, "I think I get what Todd Phillips was going for" and then imagining that movie.
Thankyou for just being honest instead of being 'positive'
I'm really looking forward to seeing this film. I've been hearing similar things from other reviewers which makes me sad. I loved the first film and I really hope it's not as bad as people have said it is.
the movie was for me and i liked the first film.
I considered it a lovestory and having gaga those two were my reasons for seeing it and I loved it. Painfully beautiful. On my rewatch list ❤
Just curious, would you guys be interested in reviewing TV shows as well because I’m interested to hear what you have to say about Arcane Season 2 when it comes out
Love you guys - thanks for creating more CT content for us to enjoy! I'm so sad neither of you liked it!! 😭😭As a fan of the first movie (and not a big fan of superhero movies nor musicals) I really enjoyed Joker Folie A Deux (JFAD)! I was shocked to see the negative reception. The first Joker film was such a cool character study addressing the kind of circumstances that could create a villain like the Joker. To me, the sequel was a great, logical continuation of Arthur's story. SPOILERS AHEAD!
I think there are two main threads in the movie:
1. continuing themes from Joker 1, the consequence of -being a mentally ill loner in a society that treats him like trash!- being someone hyper empathetic but traumatised like Arthur in a world as cruel, unforgiving, and unempathetic as Gotham and
2. demonstrating that the Joker is just a defence mechanism that - while successfully protects him (to some extent) - also actively prevents Arthur from healing, and connecting authentically to others (mix that in with Lee and the parasocial stuff and it's mega bad for Arthur's inner pains).
Arthur is mentally just a traumatised child, really desperately in need of empathy, but he's also extremely empathetic - as seen in the first movie, he seeks out a sense of humanity in Gotham and is constantly hurt by its treatment of him, as well as its mistreatment of others (he is upset by people bullying Gary, and in turn also does not bully anyone). It appals him when he finds out he made Gary feel the very way he has felt before.
Also, I understood the Joker persona as Arthur Fleck's defence mechanism - Joker was 'born' in the subway when he killed the three finance guys ; when he'd finally been pushed to the edge. A part of him decided not to put up with the power imbalance any longer. In JFAD, he's now empowered by music, but also continues/combines with Arthur's original coping mechanism from childhood of creating fantasy worlds in order to protect his emotional state. I think the music helps to emphasise Arthur's very childlike, romanticised view of life (or at least what life should be like in his opinion). Notice that the musical numbers start when he feels intense emotions; happiness, love, disgust, fear, anger, serving as a momentary mental escape.
Joker became more pronounced in JFAD because of Arthur's motive to be seen and heard - being Joker was the only time people paid attention to him. In regard to his relationship with Lee and by extension the public, while the Joker persona keeps Arthur emotionally safe (using anger and sarcasm to deflect, it also hides him away, and prevents people from being able to perceive the real 'him' - Arthur Fleck. Note that in both movies, he expresses a focus on 'existing' and not being invisible. Arthur wants real authentic connection, and wants to be treated fairly. However, being mentally ill and not equipped with support, he has not entangled the idea that the Joker is not himself per se. I don't necessarily mean that he does have a split personality, I just mean that trauma makes us lash out like feral animals sometimes. Sometimes it's not who we want to be, and not in line with our values. But the fact is, we did those things, even if we didn't want/plan/intend to. In the end, he does indeed own up to it, and sadly loses everything by being himself instead of the Joker. To me that was such an ironic and sad aspect of the story. He was truly 'sane' when he killed all those people. He understands that it did come from himself, yet has such limited means toward healing or learning healthier methods of expressing his feelings.
From the start of his life, he was pushed into a corner and he didn't stand a chance of getting better in a world like Gotham. All Arthur wanted was a bit of understanding and connection. He was never in search of chaos or violence, it was an extremely exaggerated/dramatised and unfortunate outcome of his pain. It made sense to have that final scene reveal the real Joker as the man who murders him - having Arthur die in the end made sense too. I felt this was inevitable for his character. Maybe I read too much into Arthur or tried too hard to relate it back to my own experiences, but I truly felt the pain of his life-long lack of empathy and forgiveness and it made both movies very clear to me.
Please let me know your thoughts, thank you so so much if you have taken the time to read my thoughts.
I loved it so much and I can’t explain why. I had so much fun. I laughed a lot. And I loved the music even though it wasn’t sung well. I just get so desperately wanting to be in love you ignore the red flags. He just wanted recognition and he gets it and it’s not what he thought it was. Idk. I loved it. I had so much fun.
We found the twink it was made for
I actually liked this movie, and I think the risks paid off. At least for me it did.
I love the fact that I was sort of a loner talking about how much I don't like the first Joker movie. I get it what it tried to do it, I just don't like the way Todd Phillips decided to do it. I think it gives the wrong message to people. So, seeing all this people hating on the sequence makes me feel revenged, ngl 😂 I didn't watched it yet BUT I'm sure I'll just hate as much as I did the first one. Todd Phillips was stupid enough to make it a sequel 🎉
You're not alone. The first Joker is not good at all. Once in a while, you will be lucky to encounter someone like me, who can tell you exactly why it fails. I have a meticulously crafted list of reasons...
What message do you think the first movie tried to give? And was it the wrong message or just some people misunderstood and took it the wrong way?
The boys have a new channel, loving this!
For Folie I would say Pho and Lee would make a good pronunciation of it PhoLee. à would be say aaahh at the doctor's office. Not the same, but close. Deux... the eu sounds doesn't really exist in English, so it's a really hard one, even for people that have been living in Quebec for a while. The x is silent. I saw someone online say it sounds a bit like duh! or doe, but yeah, that and oeuf (egg) are quite difficult.
I tried to think of an example of the eu-sound, and the one that I think is close is how one pronounce the i in circumstance 😛
In complete agreement with you guys. I loved the first one. There was clear character development/devolvement, there was an emotional payoff. There was a message. It was thought provoking. Disturbing. This one was disturbing, but the music was forgettable, there was no emotional payoff (especially the ending), the only message seemed to be about the cruelty and horror of mental hospitals, so I guess there was shock value. There was some interesting lighting. And I paid the extra 5 bucks to see it in imax 😂 this is only the 2nd time I have ever walked out of a theater going "that was not worth it." The other being the lobster. Everything just went straight over my head 😂
The only part that I loved from this movie was the court dialogue between Fleck and Mr. Puddles. That lasted what, 15 minutes?
Since I do not plan to watch any of the Joker movies, this was interesting :D And hilarious in the way of you really TRYING to find the nice parts of it, which speaks more to your awareness of how much work goes into a film and how the individuals are great but the result just ... is what it is, sometimes.
And yet you haven't seen either of those films so how would you be able to judge any of them?
To everyone posting that enjoyed the movie: enjoying something doesn't have anything to do with its quality. You can love something that is objectively garbage and absolutely despise something that is objectively well crafted (even a masterpiece).
Bing-pot. This didn't work for us, but it had a bunch of stuff that was objectively extremely well-made. Likewise, we like movies that are "worse" but also 'better'. Taste is subjective. But uh... if your taste is _anything_ like ours, you will not like this movie.
Which is a bummer. It was almost great so many times...
The irony of telling someone his opinionn of a subjective notion of "enjoyable" doesn't equate with "quality" as if in the subjective medium that is art and specifically movies, there is an absolute "quality".
@@seePyou You completely missed my point.
Your opinion of a film's quality is just your opinion. There is no objectively good or bad film. People discuss why they tought something was good or bad and come to different conclusions most of the time. That's how art works. Just because you hate something doesn't make it bad.
@@Regenmacher175just because you love something doesn’t make it good.
Art & Taste is subjective. I might go to a seafood restaurant and hate what I was served, because I don’t like seafood. That is my tastes not aligning with the art, giving me a poor experience. That experience does not align with objectivity, as I am biased against seafood.
Let’s say I love seafood though, and I go to that same restaurant and hate the food I was served. That experience may be more representative of reality.
“I don’t like this restaurant because I hate seafood” versus “I don’t like this restaurant because the food is soggy, undercooked, raw, and downright inedible”. One of these opinions is far more objective than the other.
Of course, there are people out there that love eating garbage. They eat raw food, processed slop, etc. They might love the restaurant. However, they are approaching the food with a bias: they have bad taste. For the vast majority of people though, they will avoid the restaurant like a plague and it will likely close down.
If art is truly subjective, then why do professional chefs exist? Why do directors, actors, and scriptwriters exist? Why do we have art school, film school, culinary school, etc? How can you teach someone to create good art, if there is no good or bad art?
If art is truly subjective, then EVERYONE can make great art! Why can’t you take a random person of the street, give them $200 million dollars and have them make a blockbuster success?
If art is 100% subjective and there is no good or bad art, then why does some art achieve cultural significance while other art is cast aside and forgotten?
Art is subjective, but not entirely. The value of anything is perception. If your art speaks to millions, and touches them emotionally, that is valuable art. If your art speaks to maybe a few dozen people, and fails to illicit barely anything from your audience, you have failed to create spectacular art. Sure it could still be considered “art” but it’s “art” that only speaks to its creator and a small number of like-minded individuals. If that’s what you’re going for, that’s totally fine! But that is not “art” that needs hundreds of millions of dollars to be created. That is simply a selfish waste of resources.
Thank you both for settling my dilemma about watching this. I'd love to hear both of your thoughts on my old ass
There’s so much this film could have been. Honestly, the entire film could have been the first 30 mins followed by J&H on an NBK-style rampage. I would’ve paid good money to see just H developing her obsession with J. But no, they had to go the big budget musical court room character study route. Who asked for this?
I wish you had expanded more on why you disliked it-were there plot holes? Did character development not make sense? Did the musical aspect take over too much?
The first one I thought was a master piece, so I still want to see this one even though I know it isn’t getting great reviews.
I will say, there was an interview from Joaquin saying that Arthur isn’t meant to be a good singer. Remember his attempt to be funny in the first one? He failed at it, but that was kinda the point. He’s not meant to be good, he’s meant to be relatable. We can’t all sing like Lady Gaga.
I didn't like this movie, I didn't hate-hate this movie, I was confused by this movie. I now have to go back and watch Gotham as a pallet cleanser, because if you are going to subvert my expectations on who the "Joker" is I'd rather it be Cameron Monaghan because THAT was entertainment.
I'm one of those (apparently few) that liked the movie.
Spoilers ahead (obviously).
There are many elements that contribute to my enjoyment, but most of all is the arc of the story. I feel it completed the character, and it was a good progression. A mentally ill abused person lashed out as he came to the end of his rope. Beaten, laughed at, physically threatened, he cracked and killed the three almost-could-have-been sexual abusers (if not rapists). That level of control and power and seeing them being afraid, instead of him, was empowering to him. Liberating. So he escalated as we all saw with the deaths of three more; his mother, his asshole co-worker, and Murray. The end of the first movie is him being beloved by so many and triumphant! What a change in his psyche that was.
Then we start this movie. He is still smiling and thinking fondly of what he has done. But now he has a lawyer fighting for him to get him the mental health treatment he needs! In the entire movie, she is the only one truly on the side of Arthur! No one else is; from the psychiatrists, to the judge, to his "friends", even Quinn. But he is still just him, mostly, enjoying his limelight, the weight of his actions being justified to him, but not bombastic about it, large, grandiose! He has even adjusted to life in prison, mostly evident by his quick kiss with the other male inmate. The guards thought to pull a homophobic prank on Arthur, sending a susceptible prisoner to him to teach him how to kiss, because the guards told him that Arthur knows how! This is all to get a rise out of Arthur, to make a scene either of embarrassment or anger or some kind of show. Arthur defuses the entire thing by actually giving a small quick kiss to the inmate. The guard's enjoyment is destroyed by completely obeying. Arthur is impressive in this!
And in this life, here enters Quinn. She is abusing Arthur, she doesn't care one bit about him, it's all a manipulation. All she cares is the image of Joker, the power of Joker, which feeds into her mental illness. She separates Arthur from everyone else, even possibly from reality, and he is all too eager to follow! Of course he is. He finally has a woman's attention, attraction, adoration! In all his life he has been looking for this in all the wrong places and now here it is, easily, entirely and completely his! He falls in with everything he has, and Quinn's influence is complete. Dismiss your lawyer! Dismiss reality and become Joker! Joker is the best! Joker is you, but JOKER is what matters (because that is her misguided view). Your film was amazing! Never matter what others say! Joker looks at her and she confirms that the movie is great and his smile is content, reassured, at peace.
But all that cannot go on. He has now bought in completely to Joker! I'm Joker and I am the best and I will represent myself! He is terrible at it. He ends up realizing it, deep down at least, but that it where it starts. His lack of legal skill (why would there be any?). His lack of empathy to his friend that is now completely terrified of him. It cracks. I am Arthur. I am not Joker. I do not want this burden of this thing I created!
As soon as he says it, he sees his followers, and his love, leave his side! It doesn't register completely, not yet. But the courtroom explodes and he runs out, escaping. His followers pick him up and he is terrified of what they are doing, saying, behaving, how they elevate him to something he doesn't want to be. So as soon as possible, he leaves them, abandons his saviours, rescuers!
He goes to the stairs. Artistic license? Maybe, but it's suitable. It ends where it started. He flat outs states to Quinn that it's him and her, no joker, no one else. A family, that can leave now and be happy together, just them, no one else!
Quinn is obviously not having any of that. It was always the Joker she wanted, was infatuated with, wanted to build a mountain with! Not Arthur! Arthur is pathetic! She leaves.
He dies inside. He is completely not there for the few remaining scenes. A symbolically healed Arthur doesn't care about anything anymore. He doesn't laugh, not even nervously as his condition would cause that we all know. He is a shell, just passing time, nothing matters. What he created though catches up to him! The legend has to be maintained! The betrayal of his followers is too much to take! Ending his life is punishment and birth. The pretender is dead. Long live the new Joker!
This is how I experienced this movie, this is what I was thinking about motivations and how I interpreted the plot. And I loved it.
I guess this movie is a giant middle finger to the producers. The director said that Joker was made to be one movie only. But corporate got greedy after the success.
If this is true, i really find that great.
Who to recommend this movie to, and who it can help: Film classes and students. And other filmmakers. Watching and analyzing both the first and second Joker movies could be beneficial to many people's film making skills, specifically regarding the construction of a sequel, as well as the elements of what makes a good musical, plus more. So, at the very least, Folie a Deux could be teaching material.
The second film seems to actually be made by a responsible filmmaker. I'm glad it debunks the notion that Arthur Fleck was in any way justified in doing what he did. There are way too many incels out there celebrating that mediocre character who blames everyone else for his problems and thinks he's more ingenious and talented than he actually is.
I'm glad that my very best friends, Jono and Alan, were here to educate all of you about parasocial relationships!
What worked with the original was just capturing what made the joker into who he is by making him a victim of society, which it may have worked on the narrative, but what I said about that movie is still the same.
The joker does not and will never truly worth without Batman, trying to make the Joker become an icon of Gotham's worst without the clashing that made his insanity truly reach new heights is kind of a big risk, but it worked once and they just expected it to work again.
This is why we need to let a story end, sequels made without any real plans aside milking an idea will always fail.
THE Hideo Kojima says it's an underrated game that'll appreciated in 10-20 years.
I enjoyed it! Specially by lowering my expectations from watching this video before watching the movie 😂
I think you guys really hit the nail on the head with this one.
3:16 I'm fine with songs and musical numbers at important parts of a plot and where they fit what's going on but the reason I've never liked musicals is because there seems to be a song every few minutes and the characters come off like they have a form of OCD that forces them to sing things at people instead of saying it to them.
I absolutely loved it and felt it nailed a lot of the core Joker aspects that other films have tried to do with varied degrees of success.
Jono: “This is not entertainment”
Me: “Goddamn!”😂
i’m happy to be in the minority having enjoyed this film. i don’t think it was as good as the first one & i would’ve preferred another direction w the sequel. but idk i respect this direction & i understand it. i’m really surprised by how many people don’t especially this channel as i usually agree w their reviews, but i absolutely understand everyone’s outrage lol.
I haven't seen it, had it all spoiled for me (I willingly wanted it spoiled, but I won't spoil it for anyone.)
But... It's very clear to me Todd Philips didn't want to do this, and made sure it won't have a third film
My exact thoughts on "I Saw The TV Glow". 😂 Like whaaaat is this?!
Great review! I’m definitely not watching that film. If you would like another movie to review that is out now might I recommend ‘The Substance’. It is filled with body horror, but does have a good message about how destructive self hatred, ageism, and body dysmorphia is and how important it is to love and value yourself. ❤
Personally I think this movie was a message on how violence breeds more violence. In the first movie, we got to see how the way he was abused, humiliated, and ignored. How that rage blew up an he took on the Joker persona to not only deal with the hurt but punish those who hurt him. But not only is he punishing those he believed deserved it, he’s unintentionally hurting innocent people like Gary Puddles and Sophie in the process. In the second movie, it’s him realizing that he’s not the hero he’s carved out to be and this Joker role is not one he wants to take on.
I also think it’s a critique on society, that people often praise those who they think carry their cause and understand their plight. They paint him as this hero who will take the world by force when all he’s ever been is Arthur Fleck. The first movie, all he wanted was to be treated like somebody, to be wanted, to be like Murray and be famous. Well now he’s got the spotlight he always wanted but they want the maniacal Joker to perform not Fleck
Turns out all this time the joke was on him
Ofc I do think that film be better executed. Cut back on the length of song and cut some songs even. I personally think Harley could’ve had more to do in the movie.
Took on? It was basically just an extension of his job (before he was fired). Dumb as hell. One among many problems with Joker.
Here we go.. C'est parti ... do your best:
Idk if y'all were planning to, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE watch Look Back, it's an anime film and it's beautiful and in theaters now 😊😁
The Room is a masterpiece, just admit it
Yep, Bluey makes everything better 😊
Honestly, I would always describe the first Joker movie as Joker’s origin story in a different timeline in the DC Multiverse. That’s the only way the first movie makes sense to me. For Harley Quinn’s origin story, I like the portrayals that stay more loyal to the comics. I can’t say I like the parasocial re telling of her origin story in this movie. At least the original Harley spends time with him, as his prison therapist, and delulu falls for him after spending time with him. Yeahhhh can’t say I’m a fan of the Gaga Harley…Margot Robbie forever!
I'm really surprised you can't appreciate the tragedy of Arthur Fleck.
Every time the two of them were overwhelmed with emotion, they sang and explored the delusion together. It was just a fantasy and the title alone makes that clear. Arthur is a sad damaged man who was misunderstood by his fans. Both in the films and in the theaters. It's very tragic that no one can accept him for who he is. He doesn't believe in anything. He's not here to start a movement. He just wants to be seen and understood.
Maybe watch them back to back and see how much this second film makes sense for his journey and how he began and ended as a tragic soul who was never meant to be "The Joker" we wanted.
But maybe he was The Joker we deserved.
I actually quite like the movie and have warmed up to it. I quite liked the musical numbers and the movie is just stunning. The story itself is what I can’t sort my feelings about but it does mean that I’ve been thinking about this movie since I saw it
Any chance you'll be reviewing "The Outrun" soon?? So excited to see what Saoirse Ronan did with it!!
I cant believe you two disliked it so much. I was not expecting that.
I really truly enjoyed it, and more than i did the first one. I found the first to be entertaining but not gripping or notable. In fact, i was a bit disappointed by the first because it was very clearly some alternate version of the joker that ive come to know through shows and movies.
Folie a deux however was great and a wonderful continuation of what the first had built. Now i'm able to appreciate the first more because of how the second expanded on that story.
I think this is because at the end of the first one i accepted that the joaquin phoenix joker is distinctly not the same joker as ive seen in batman media products.
FYI, Folie a Deux means a madness shared by two.
If you'd like a really fun movie to review. Might I recommend Hundreds of Beavers?
I’m probably one of the few, but i actually enjoyed the movie.
The more manic he is, the more musical performances we got.
As for “that’s entertainment”, i saw it as the Joker viewed everything he did as entertaining the masses and getting acceptance, and all the killings were just collateral damage, which makes the whole concept of the Joker even more disturbing.
But then when he realised he became the bully, something in him broke.
I really liked this movies, I get I am in the minority. It’s different than most movies of the genre. It’s artistic , it continues some of the same dialogue of society, great characters. It’s anti climatic , but I really liked it, the cinematography is fabulous,
Also to me, I think this was all in his head. To me, HarleQuinn was his imagination,
And I admittedly like the harkening back to the couple singing line Jun & JohnnybCash or like Sonny & Cher:)
"I think this is the first time you've been defeated by a film" not counting Labyrinth, of course... Are you ever going to revisit that one, perhaps with a guest who can add a different perspective and interpretation?
Haven't seen it but hoping it's one of those ones that you need to see twice to get. I've had a couple movies that were like that for me. But I also know you can have the most amazing actors in the world in something but the writing and pricing can dismantle their great performances. Honestly intrigued to see it because of this though
2:27 "How do you make a sequel to one of the most gripping films of the past five years"? That is actually very simple: You don't make a bloody sequel.
Seriously, the first Joker was such a perfect stand-alone project, and it should have stayed that way. But money money money, I suppose...
I really liked it...one of the best movies I've seen in a while.
2 months after the fact😂 but still. I really liked it. I understood what Arthur was going through. Losing reality. Seeing his ‘Joker’ pop op everywhere, from the beginning on. With the pills and the umbrellas. Showing us it was right under the surface. Then the psychosis and Joker growing steadily. I can go on 😂. Even Harley. Being so extremely on his side, only to see she cares nothing for Arthur. She only wants Joker.
I’ll definitely watch it again.
Joker was the last film that needed a sequel. The message was simple, basic, crystal clear. The only compelling addition was as you say Harley and the parasocial relationship relationship, but it went mostly undeveloped.
Apparently the message wasn't that clear because lots of people came away idolising the violent, murderous clown in the film and so the need for the sequel sems to be to clarify to that audience that there's nothing glamorous or justifiable about that character's actions.
With all due respect I'm rather surprised that a therapist did not catch the Jungian Shadow theme running rampant in this movie. It's all about accepting the shadow and not living in a fantasy world as it will not lead to anything good.
So from what a lot of online folks are saying (which you know, take w/ a huge grain of salt), the point of the movie was that the joker wasn't just a normal guy who got beat down and became the joker. It was that the guy was always a horrible person and everything he did was on him. The "joker" isn't real, its just Arthur, and bad people do bad thing. Apparently, the director was mad that a lot of people took the first move as a justification for people doing horrible things because society didn't love them enough and he wanted to not so subtly tell all those people off.... Or at least that interwebs are saying. Who knows how accurate that take really is.
if that's the case, good for him.
Yeah, that's very much the vibe of the movie. But 2 things: That's not the character named Joker, so... miss.
And: I still don't think it's a good movie, just as a movie. Take all the Joker out of it, and still, the more I think about it, the more I dislike it, as a film.
But hey, taste is subjective. If people love it, and get something out of it, great! -alan
You have to excuse my english, its no my first language. The movie is afraid of being a musical and never reaches its potential, Lady Gaga is a good actress, but is wasted. The movie has a lot rhythm problems, it feel repetitive, specially the middle. But the message is very clear, and I believe people didnt get it, or didit care. You want Joker, but the first movie it wasnt about him, is about Arthur Fleck, and his madness, and Joker 2 makes that very clear, but the audience is Lee. We want chaos, violence at the cost of a guy's mental health. We see him like..weak, and we want the power of his "Joker". This was never DC Joker, and Todd had to make a second movie to prove it. The criticism has become exaggerated on social media. Its not better that first one, but is no a disaster. The movie deserve a second view.
I loved both j films. They r such essentials and landmark films. J2 will be a cult classic. In my dark little country of Belgium I expect it will be dusted off and run in our cinemas n yrs to come ❤❤❤ Edit I loved it so much that this is my second comment I forgot about the first 😂
At 53 seconds in and after reading some of the comments I will return to this review after I have watched Joker Folie a Deux at the Cinema :-)
I haven't seen this movie yet, but I suspect the viewer's disappointment is because it is even less comic book-accurate than "Joker" (2019), a likely deconstruction of the Batman villain. This is probably because director Todd Phillips intended "Joker: Folie a Deux" to deconstruct the Joker/Harley Quinn relationship in "Batman: The Animated Series." The musical numbers probably represented Arthur Fleck's romantic and showbiz fantasies about his comedy career and relationship with Quinn. They likely failed because Phillips does not have a background in musicals, prison, or courtroom drama films.
This movie is a master piece, one of the best movies ever made, a true piece of art.
And if you felt disappointed, then you felt the right way. This movie is disappointing on purpose, and it doesn't care on pleasing its public and it doesn't treat its public as idiots.
It has a message and it delivers it without compassion, you'll gonna watch it, you're not gonna like it, it will not entertain you and you'll love it because of this.
This movie is the equivalent as Blade Runner when it first came out. Nobody liked it nor understood it or it purpose, just like Joker 2.
I'm really curious to see if it ever gets re-appraised. The more I think about it, the more I dislike it, as a film. Not just as an unpleasant experience. But hey, who says my taste is to everyone's liking? -alan
I watched it 3times! (One of them withtarantino;).
I really loved the way it's like a round life of mentally fleck.
The first was from fleck to joker, the second... From joker back to fleck.
Btw: one more notice about both of them: the way he lay down in the end of joker2 it's the same way he layed down in the beggining of the first joker... 🃏😏