Dan, never ever change. The world needs more calm, intelligent, and balanced reviewers like you. You are SUCH a welcome change to the more toxic bro-reviewers. When I heard Harley Quinn was going to be in it, I thought they were going to go down a “Natural Born Killers” crime spree route that would solidify Joker’s place on the national stage, inspiring Bruce Wayne to counter him and become Batman.
Do you have anyone specific in mind, re "toxic bro-reviewers"? And are you familiar with Deep Focus Lens (I think her name's Maggie)? If you want another very chill, but intelligent film reviewer, she is very articulate. I disagree with her quite a lot, but I don't need to agree with reviewers or critics - they just need to communicate why they feel the way they do, and not be dismissive of other tastes or takes.
Reviews like this is why I’ve been following Dan since screenjunkies. My taste in movies only overlaps with his maybe 60-70% of the time, but I really like how Dan’s analysis of movies gets me to re-evaluate scenes and the characters in even movies I hated watching
Unsurprisingly, Dan actually understands this film and what it was trying to do, and still gives it his fair assessment. You're the best out there right now, Dan.
I'm new here but Dan is quickly becoming my favorite reviewer. I feel like we always come away from movies with the same thoughts but he's better at putting it into words
Arthur at the end of the Joker (2019) is the Joker. The last scene of him in the hospital shows how he completely embraced Joker and is laughing about the joke “you wouldn’t get.” It’s not the Arthur that started the film. It’s a completely new person who tipped over the edge and even killed again just because. The bloody footprints show that. The woman he is talking to didn’t bully him or ruin him like the people he killed in the movie. He just does it because he is mad. Joker 2 introduces Arthur as if he is the Arthur from the start of Joker (2019) and he straight up isn’t. He is a different guy now and he wouldn’t be questioning anything about a shadow. There are not two different people in one body. It’s one person now in one body.
First of all, I do think sexual abuse happened to Arthur by the guards, so I don't believe it was handled well. You can say the joker was abused out of him, and that's a terrible message. Other than a few standouts, the musical numbers detracted from the film. They don't add much and literally pause the actual plot. Overall, I didn't like this movie. It just seems confused.
I have to say, I heard a lot of bad things about the music before i saw it, so maybe that effected how i saw them, but i didn't see any issues with any of them except the longest one, with the tapdancing, which dragged a bit.
Agreed I couldn't stand the guards they were very unlikeable and the way they treated Arthur and the inmates were horrible and not right, definitely mishandled and not facing any consequences
I can honestly say I agree 100% with your assessment of Joker 2. The AMC Burbank crowd I saw it with was filled with young men hoping they got a violent action film and couples hoping they’d get a Harley-Joker cosplay inspiring film. People want Joker to do the evil they can’t. And then there’s the film nerds liking it for being a musical lol
Cinephiles will dig this one. The DC Snyder fan boys and wider audiences won’t methinks. Will have to see - I enjoyed it - definitely better than the 33% on Rotten.
@@JackOsborneFilmI dunno, I'd probably be counted as a 'cinephile', and both these films look dreadful to me. Partly because I get the distinct impression Todd Phillips isn't that smart, and is incapable of making a coherently mature work. Funny you namecheck Snyder, because I get a similar vibe from both going from their interviews and remarks over the years. "Delusions of grandeur", as a scruffy lookin' nerf herder might say. From everything I've heard above glimpsed, Joker 2 is more interesting. But I think the whole project was doomed from the start.
@@JackOsborneFilmdoes Snyder live rent free in your head? Just wondering why you feel the need to randomly bring him up? Film critics are some of the biggest "cinephiles" around and the majority of them did not like this movie and the audience score is in lockstep with theirs. Do you really think all these people are just too dumb to get it?
@@SabiJD I didn’t think it was perfect by any stretch, but I was a little disappointed by the first film, it was like a King of Comedy and Taxi Driver re-boot with a thin Batman coat of paint. I’m not sure I even like Todd Philips or Joaquin Phoenix as people - but as a film it worked more as this tragedy, and the music helps convey some of the insanity and feelings of the characters - it works better in the realm of obscurity in my opinion. Is he the Joker? Is it multiple personalities co-existing is it all a fantasy from his cell? I’m interested to see how it pans out.
There are a lot of things they could have done with that storyline but they decided to just make fun of audience and their expectations. I would have like a movie of the joker turning the doctor into Harley or the joker making chaos that he cannot really control and mentally suffering. This movie was just pointless.
@@krlos2588 I think audience expectations are greatly misplaced. I never thought Arthur would ever become the Clown Prince and I'm not sure why anyone would want him to, he's an extremely weak man. Joker should never have had a sequel to begin with; Phoenix and Phillips were never interested in making one.
The only “Joker: folie a deux” review I’ve seen that I fully agree with. I always felt the arc progression would be one where the misunderstood character gets abandoned by all, and it was never a DC comic book movie - at this point Todd Philips was just borrowing names.
So the goal was to play with people expectations all along? Does that sounds like a good plan to you for multimillion dollar movie? That sound like an art student project more than a sequel from a Billion dollar movie.
Just watched Last King of Scotland again (first time in about 5 years). Feels like the first Joker movie is like the first half of Last King of Scotland, where James McAvoy suddenly gets everything seemingly going his way, despite never really doing anything to warrant it. Were people expecting that to last the whole time, through sequels.
@@krlos2588Let the artist create his vision. It will be at least more interesting that the endless generic slop that we've been getting. I did not like the movie, but I'm glad that Todd Phillips was able to tell the story the way he wanted.
@@krlos2588 The “goal” was to tell Arthur Fleck’s story as Todd Philips and the creatives envisioned it. In the first movie as well, the “Joker” is very reactive to his traumas and the whole societal collapse is incidental, so I feel keeping it to Fleck’s story and not like an escalation (like Nolan’s Joker) tracks. Even though the execution was sloppy, props to the creative team who didn’t see this as a sequel to a billion dollar movie, but as the conclusion to a story. They should’ve been more responsible with the budgeting. As Dan said, given how the first movie’s treatment was and how the story ended, if audiences expected a comic book movie, that’s a bit surprising. 🤷♂️
For me is not an expectation of the character. The movie feels messy. It has a weird pace and I am not sure what this story was. I wasn't looking for batman but I was hoping for a good story and I didn't get that. I got weird musical scenes in a kind of courtroom drama and prison.. It wasn't for me. It was not an enjoyable movie experience and I think the director was making fun of the batman audience by keep teasing joker just to tell them there is no joker. Acting was fine but it wasn't enough to save the movie.
Thank you for finally saying it...the moment he turns his back on being the Joker, Harley gets up and walks out and tells him he is nothing. That essentially happens with the audience at the same time. Mildly brilliant IMO
I think that might be a disingenuous way of putting it. Are there expectations that fans have for a character they’ve seen done before in comics, tv, video games and film? Yes. The first Joker seemed to cater to this notion just enough. The second one is a complete misfire. And I don’t think fan service is the reason. It’s clearly not resonating with people that don’t usually like Batman stuff either.
I don't think I've seen a single critic of this film say there's not enough fan service. I thin that's a really reductive and bad faith way to interpret the negative reactions to this film.
Running with your 'Harley egged him on' theory, it makes more sense, I like it. Once Arthur is gone and full-fledged JOKER appears, the dangerous narcissistic murderer, NOT just a sad man, Harley thinks; 'Oh, THIS guy's got the stuff,' and she bites off way WAY more than she can chew when she tries to get reflected glory off him.
I like that you bring up audience expectations, because I think my expectations are what allowed me to enjoy it for what it was. Also, hearing the absolute dogpile of hate before I saw it had me watching the movie wondering when it was going to become terrible
In the first movie we saw Arthur Fleck BECOME Joker and at least for me it played as a warning saying that people and society should be kinder otherwise we'll create monsters like The Joker. That's why I expected to see Joker, NOT Arthur Fleck, meaning the character we saw at the epilogue of the first film who didn't have any makeup but you could tell was a different person than Arthur Fleck. I wanted to see THAT guy have a negative psycological impact on other people like Harlee BECAUSE society hadn't learned the lesson of the first movie therefore the madness and desperation continued to spread.
I think you nailed that. When they first announced Harley for the sequel, a real down to Earth version of her story would be fantastic. I haven't seen the movie so I can't have an opinion, but this version would had interested me more than what we got because it's called "Joker" not "Fleck"
Nah the director needed to be edgy he made a BILLION dollar movie with the first one so he knows better than the audience because we don't get it. There is no joker, people are dumb liking joker or batman so let's have some musical to make fun of the people that thinks they know what joker is. And don't give people anything that they want just tease some scene with the joker makeup and laugh about it at the end.
Exactly. It feels like the sequel is gaslighting us because we SAW Arthur in Arkham in the first movie's final scene, and he was carrying himself in a manner completely different than his old pathetic self. So the idea that he's still his old pathetic self in Arkham in the sequel makes no sense.
I'm getting pretty frustrated with the dog pile from movie reviewers on this film. I thought it was different and interesting. Good luck getting WB to take more risks after this one!
I really liked it. I thought it’s much more ambitious and reaches further than the first. I thought the musical sequences worked - the whole thing is a bit of a fever dream - so it gelled tonally. Framing Harley Quinn as this manipulative villain of the piece was an angle I wasn’t expecting. 7 or 8 out of 10 - not the 33% Rotten Tomatoes suggests. This is gonna be a Last of Us vs Last of Us Part II scenario.
In the first movie there was lots of moments where you questioned what you saw, reveals every 25 mins or so, and you could feel the tension building, there was always a sense of dread that something horrible is about to happen as thing get worse and worse and worse for Arthur… in this movie, there was none of that. I wouldn’t have even minded a musical but it should have been way more visually chaotic, it felt like an amateur student attempt of a musical. Also I felt that as soon as the dialogue was getting interesting, the writers didn’t know how to bring it home and instead made the character sing. Also I love characters studies and don’t want to sound like the guy who just wants explosions and violence, but this movie needed something to shock audiences throughout. I feel like there was way way less emotional peaks in this one compared to the first. No lines stuck in my head from this one. It’s not awful but it’s awful compared to the first, as a reg movie it’s a 4/10 for me, largely due to pheonixs acting.
I think i'm pretty forgiving as to how Arthur got where he ended up. I think the movie did enough to convince me. Very much appreciate your thoughts here Dan. You've helped me understand a lot of my feelings on this film and why I liked it so much.
I will say the joker not having a proper origin story and his "clown prince of crime" thing being stolen from a guy who turned out to be fraud is very joker. didnt like how it was executed here though, it was frustrating because with a bit of tweaking that could have been a great way of loosely connecting the joker movies to the new batman. so you get Arthur a mentally ill pathetic broken loner being the source/ origin point of both Batman and the Joker.
I heard an interview with Phillips on NPR the other day. The interviewer seemed to suggest that he used the IP to sell the first film to the mainstream when the story wasn't truly that relevant. His response wasn't ANGRY, but it sounded dismissive and defensive. It seemed to me like he was accurately called out. I enjoyed the first film for what it was, but I really felt like it "borrowed" way too much from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and repackaged it for marketing purposes. As a lifelong Batman/DC fan, I was a little upset at the ignorance of the IP, and though I haven't seen pt.2, it sounds like he or they have doubled down on that. I have to side with the fans that say, "Don't sell me a Joker movie that's not really about the Joker."
I liked the approach for the first one on how the joker comes from society more than just a crazy guy. But this second movie is pretty obvious that Phillip doesn't care about that he just used the IP for his own art project.
My problem with the first film (and the constant disagreement with friends) has been that it is not a “Joker” movie. It is a good movie about that story, but the director just dropped in “Wayne”, “Joker” and a couple more things in to sell it as a Batman movie so more people would see it. It bugs me to this day, and it is clear the director actually hates the Joker character.
"Joker" was truly born when he put the bullet in Murray Franklins's head. Joker is the ONLY avenue that sets him free. For Arthur to turn on a dime and say "there is no Joker" because he was naive enough to believe the lies that Lee fed him seems ridiculously bad writing. Todd Phillips said that 'there's always been a little bit of Joker (musical expression) within him', so why would Arthur go back to a place that made him sick in the first place? This is not consistent with the character in the 2019 movie, not because he doesn't become THE Joker - because it erases the progression of Arthur's arc in the first film.
I completely agree but there are people like Dan that enjoy going against expectations just for the surprise effect of it that at the long run doesn't go well for the movie. This movie felt like Phillips wanted to make fun of people that liked the Joker and thought the Joker was about the existing Batman IP. Great joke......
Haven't seen it yet, but Dan's points on the "us vs me" relationship is reminding me of NIN's song "Star****ers". Also applies to the song's hook "You think this song's about you, don't you..." to the Joker fanatics, critics, and Joker/Harley as well.
Remember in this movie when they said the trial was called "The City of New York vs Arthur Fleck" New York, not Gotham. Despite Wayne tower and tons of other references...
I think I could’ve gone along with what this movie was trying to do if it wasn’t so damn boring. In execution, it’s just a recap of the first movie with it constantly poking and nudging going, “Hey, did you know The Joker is actually not supposed to be a cool guy?” And the musical elements were so lackluster that they couldn’t pull me out of that repetitive funk. It’s like the movie exists just to explain the point of the last movie.
What’s the worst way to end a story? Do like Umbrella academy season 4 and say it never happened What’s the worst way to end a story about an established character? Do what Joker 2 does and say it wasn’t even about that character… Has nothing to do with audience expectations just don’t call it Joker if it’s not about Joker
I don't know why so many people keep correcting themselves with emphasis when they go "Harley"... "Or Lee" in an exacerbated tone as if they are annoyed that they changed her name in the film. They didn't change her name, she's referred to as Harley like three times and some characters just shorten her name.
About why Arthur dropped the Joker persona: In the first film he contemplated suicide before turning the gun on Murray. A fact he is confronted with in this movie, followed up by the question: "Do you still want to die?" Arthur knowing he would get the death penalty if he confessed to his crimes, ultimately decided that that is what he wanted: To die. He even said so in his courtroom confession: (paraphrasing) "I can't go on with this pathetic life.". He's even smiling after being stabbed by the other inmate. And that is the conflict of the movie: What does Arthur want? vs. What do Lee / the lawyer / Harvey Dent / the psychologist want?.
I think Todd kind of attacks SOME of the people who like the first Joker. The way I describe this movie to my friends is like this: Did you see Joker and think "wow I really want a sequel where we get the joker going full villain mode or leading the clown anarchy revolution"? if No then good job you dont need to see the sequel, if Yes then watch the sequel to get that thought beaten out of you. if you left the first movie and thought "YES! thats the joker!" you don’t really know the joker. theres so much more to the joker than just being crazy, he doesnt just laugh his way into beating batman and pulling off complicated plans and committing atrocities.
I don't love The Joker. But it you can see the Joker peeking out. I hoped this movie would be a different take on the Joker origin. Ah well, c'est la vie.
U said it best all these critics wanted to pull Joker out of Todd Phillips for their own entertainment instead of watching a movie about mental illness and how society treats it
Here's a problem: Both movies are called "Joker". Turns out *neither* one was actually about the Joker. People wanted a movie about the Joker. They didn't get it and were told that the last movie that they thought was about the Joker, wasn't about the Joker. People don't like that kind of "subverting your expectations" sophomore nonsense. It's that simple.
I don’t like the first one whatsoever, but I swear I remember Phillips saying the first one was never supposed to be about “The” Joker as we know him when that movie came out
That may be a problem on the audience's part for expecting things from an artist that isn't necessarily their particular vision. And the idea of who exactly 'The Joker' is can be completely subjective since this was one interpretation of many.
@@lorriechristian7164 lmao that's some top tier coping. The movie was named Joker, so people who expected Joker are just rubes who don't respect the artist's particular vision. Whatever, entertainers who don't cater to their audience aren't very entertaining.
@lorriechristian7164 Come on. The first movie earned a BILLION dollars instead of getting released on some streaming platform, only BECAUSE it was named Joker. You can't name a movie Batman, and make it about a copycat wearing hockey pads who pretends to be Batman and who gets knocked out by the real Batman in the end. I mean, you can make that movie, and you will get trashed the fans you cheated.
The studio did mismanage expectations. I don’t believe the average Batman fan is going into this movie expecting some art house puzzle to put together to make it make some semblance of sense. It’s fine that this is the mental gymnastics you had to go through to allow you to enjoy it more, but moviegoers aren’t trying to treat the film the same way. I believe the reason why people liked the first one is because it made this infamous character a mystery box again. It was Joker redesigned. But because it kept just enough lore in its container, just enough familiarity, it resonated with comic book fans. This one was such a complete misfire, I actually understand why fans are coping by saying maybe Todd sabotaged his own movie because the first one didn’t “need” a sequel. As an adjacent fan of superheroes myself, it all just feels obviously the wrong move on the studio and director. However, I don’t believe that a director would do that (he could have just said no) and it’s probably giving Todd too much credit other than to say he just made a bad movie, which he’s done before. The movie was just .. bad. No justification for it will make it better. It didn’t reach its targeted audience. And that’s a fail on WB, Todd Phillips, and all of the rest of the people that thought this was a good idea.
This is exactly how I feel and you put it so much better than I was trying to say. It is a bad movie. People had all types of expectations and probably any of those could have worked if it was done well but not this movie. It felt like Todd wanted to show the audience that they were wrong on what the first movie was about.
@@krlos2588thanks! Really it’s a little sad, right? On paper, a joker musical might work, but given the bravado and grittiness already established in the first film, you’re gonna need to pull out all the stops to make it all come together. I feel like this film collapsed in on itself by the weight of its big ideas. Maybe it was hubris or intention on the part of Todd Phillips. Or maybe it was something else but clearly most people aren’t impressed.
Great review, Dan! I was actually going to pass on this movie because of all the negative buzz, but this actually has piqued my interest enough that I might actually give it a chance while it's still in theaters.
I actually liked the movie for how brave it was with these choices, making a joker sequel all about Arthur fleck is super bold. And it did work to an extent, not as good as the first one but still pretty good!
I wonder if people will accept they were wrong about this one, i think it can happen fast because some of the harshest cirtics are people that love the first one so they are close.
I thought it was brilliant deconstruction. Really entertaining and spot on for the Joker imo because the character is more theatrical than anything. The turn Arthur has at the end is a twist but I think it clearly comes out of the best scene in the movie with Puddles on the stand. Joker is shook after that exchange. Then solidified after hearing his cellmate murdered. I just like the idea that his story is simply inspiration within that lore.
12:35 there was a very similar Harley/Joker dynamic in the Telltale Batman game. That game made A LOT of BIG departures from the classic Batman mythos but executed them all really well, IMO.
I think that the main problem with this movie is that in the first one Arthur had been so beaten down by the world that it was such a cathartic moment when he became the Joker. In this movie, he had completely digressed. And not only that..he gets treated way worse and dies. What is the point?
Todd Phillips making 2 movies about someone that inspires Joker was part of the Real Joker's plan all along. Did you see him at the end?? That guy is THE REAL JOKER
Hey Dan! I went to see Joker 2 a second time too. The first Joker movie was a masterpiece, 10/10 for me. Part way through watching Joker 2 for a second time, I thought it was brilliant. Todd Phillips bookended the two movies. He originally never intended to make sequel but if WB forced him to, he decided to wrap it up: the dogpile on the movie is reminiscent of how the world has caved on Arthur Fleck especially when Arthur did not deliver the spectacular Joker. I have to admit, in the first Joker movie, it was a bit like watching a Rocky type underdog come out of the shadows, but hey, you can’t really celebrate this tragic killer unless he’s Dirty Harry taking out serial child rapists, kwim? Oh and yes, I loved all the songs so that helps a lot. Harley used Arthur too and only wanted him as the Joker not his real self. Oh it’s complicated…I think there’s an element of Arthur having an alter ego, we saw that in the first movie how confident he became when he fought back and wasn’t the victim anymore. Man, it’s complicated though.
Beautifully shot, next level acting, deep character study. Once you understand that this is "Joker" and not "The Joker", everything makes more sense. I enjoyed it.
Arthur was s3xually abused by his dad when he was a kid, so it makes sense how broken he seems after the bathroom scene. Also, I wanna say that Dan is one of the best movie critics on TH-cam.
Dan youre looking for a reason, you said that arthur is dangerous, one of the last scenes was the abuse of the guards, in the first one the trigger was the abuse, but now he just checks out and accepted the abuse, i sincerely dont understand, thats why is a big FU, the arc of arthur they drop it by they added DC characters, WHY?
Dan I’m gonna have to give you some push back on something you said. There actually ISNT a Batman movie where Batman Shows up at a “point of no return”. In fact, the ONLY movie where Batman shows up brand new, is Batman begins, and even then, the only people controlling the crime are the mob. Every other movie, we show up and Batman has already existed in the city for some time.
I hate how every movie musical since Anne Hathaway won that freaking Oscar now has to have at least one song where characters sing quietly with their voice quivering and breaking. Except this movie is that stretched out to fill two hours.
You need a whole dissertation to explain the movie. 😂👎🏽👎🏽 This is not an insult to Dan but rather the creators of Joker 2. They over-complicate the Joker. Joker’s a bad guy who likes to do bad things. Batman tries to stop him. That’s it. It’s that simple. How do they fuck up that character?!
I watched the first movie, but when I saw a description of this one, it sounded too strange and artsy (in a pretentious way) for me to want to see it. The way Dan describes the story makes it seem more interesting than the marketing did and I do feel that the movie seemed to have potential despite the negative reaction. Though ultimately, I still am not very interested as I began to not really like the first movie over time when I originally really liked it.
This is the best examination of the film I have seen. I can’t say it makes me want to see the film but I have more respect for what the director was trying to do.
I legitimately wanted Joker to prison-break with mates he met in prison (with commentary on how people in prison are treated), and him and Harley wreaking havoc on Gotham, staging the perfect entry for the presence of the Batman. That is was I legitimately wanted to see.
It's not a good movie but i didn't really like the last one either. It's a very well made movie but there's a lot plot issues & logic issues. Great performances from Gaga & Joaquin.
It’s crazy that the movie hand held the audience to know this was not a dc joker movie and they still compare it to the dc joker movie. The fact that people say the end was suppose to be the dark knight joker is insane. That’s not what the ending was saying but people spew it. This movie was too tell all the fans that their love for the first movie was wrong. I hated the first joker movie. I stated that this is not the joker and the sequel told you this reality in the court end scene.
Here's my guess on what a lot of us were expecting. The whole 3rd act of the first movie seemed to be Arthur transition from himself to fully being the Joker. Many people consider the scene where he kills Randall to be the moment where he goes from Arthur Fleck to being the Joker. So a lot of us were expecting Arthur to really take on the Joker persona for this movie
I can always count on Dan to put passion and reason into words instead of just angrily saying "it sucks cause my expectations weren't met". So much of his arguments make sense and the whole idea is awesome just weirdly executed.
this movie is what's wrong with hollywood: a $200m IP franchise film that's supposed to be "indie" - WB coulda made 10x animated Joker movies for the same price - what a waste
This is the weirdest take I’ve seen yet tbh. Very small audience for animated movies. And why would we want TEN animated Joker movies? That’s not how budgets work.
@@endlessvoid7952 i just used the animated movies as an example. how about 4x $50m movies or 10x $20m indie films. My point is this was an awful waste of money and should have never been even considered at this price point, let alone actually made.
@@mikestand8067 i just used the animated movies as an example. how about 4x $50m movies or 10x $20m indie films. My point is this was an awful waste of money and should have never been even considered at this price point, let alone actually made.
Personally, I feel like it was so obvious that Todd Phillips did not want to make this movie. Remember that he initially intended Joker to be a standalone movie and had zero plans to do a sequel. But I guess Warner Bros pressured him to do one after how successful the first movie was
The biggest problem of Folie A Deux is not the fact that it's a Batman movie without Batman, that it has musical elements or even the fact that it tries to continue a story that already feels complete. Really, it's the fact that it's so dark and gritty that it gives the audience no characters to root for. Arthur himself doesn't care whether he lives or dies, so why should I care?
7:20 he’s not trying to laugh here intentionally. This is his laughing condition which he carried a card to explain in the first film and they reference during the trial- the reason his mom calls him “Happy” because he has this condition that causes him to laugh when he’s emotionally elevated whether it be sadness, or anxiety or general discomfort
i can respect the dedication todd phillips has to exploring these topics & this character in this way , especially that he seemingly doubled down on it for the second movie (which i have not seen & wont til its not in theatres), but to me it sounds like this movie has the same issue the first movie did... he wants to talk about this stuff but doesnt understand it on a level deep enough to do it actual justice , leading to two films that feel like they have a lot to say but dont really say much at all. and i think the success of that first film is largely because audiences themselves do not understand these issues well enough to see that he's not doing them justice. i personally think the joker being used as a catalyst to talk about the ways that society treats mentally ill people , is not a bad idea. i dont even care if it has anything to do with the actual DC comics character either. i dont really enjoy the first film specifically because *it doesnt actually know what it wants to say*. and it sounds like going more granular on that theme is doing the second one even more of a disservice. ill have to see it myself to fully deliver on that thought , though.
The real brilliance in this film was, for me, illuminated by a commentary I read on Twitter ( Sometimes, even a cesspool can bring enlightenment).. "Lee perfectly represents the audience. She craves delusion, spectacle, and tries to manipulate Arthur to her liking, but when she realizes he's not playing along, she feels betrayed--much like the audience's reaction to the film itself. Todd Phillips was a genius." I walked out of that film really unsure about how I felt... but this analysis really flipped the switch for me- Joker 2 is brilliant.
I largely agree with your general assessment, I think I liked it more than you as I thought Arthur's story arc worked perfectly for me. Because Joker wasn't a separate personality from Arthur, nor had it notably become his dominant personality, just a side of him where he's able to lash out with violent impulses. So the way that Lee, and others as you said, try to push him to be the Joker encourages him to play into that role as we see him do a bit, but it's not genuine in the way that it came out last time because though he's frustrated in his circumstances, he clearly doesn't have the same murderous impulses, which makes sense since he's most motivated to try and live in the fantasy he imagines with Lee. That being said, I also agree that Lee's story arc was not as clear, I mean, it made sense but we didn't really get as much time with her so her 'turn', if it can be called that, felt a bit cold and sudden, even though the groundwork was laid for it. For me, the slow pacing and the songs hurt the film for me so it's far from a favorite of mine, but I thought the story was solid, and Phoenix put in a really strong performance again as Joker/Fleck.
The most interesting idea this movie brings to the table, which I hope future Batman writers will expand upon, is the idea that Harley is just as toxic as the Joker, and they're both trapped in this endless cycle of manipulation where they bring out the worst possible sides of themselves. It makes them both far more scary and relatable as two VILLAINS in a relationship.
Its going to be an interesting charts with dan on monday, especially if Joker Folie a deux continues to plumet against expectations at the box office. I imagine the 2nd weekend will be brutal with a D cinemascore.
4:14 That's a great story concept but the problem is that both movies are called Joker but by the end we find out that the person we've focused on wasn't the Joker. It would have been better if both movies were titled "Gotham..." or some other non-Joker related name.
It seems like people want the big, powerful villain - not the sad little crazy person underneath. But I'm pretty sure EVERY big villain has a sad little crazy person underneath. I thought it was an interesting and uncommon take; I give them credit for that.
Perhaps the most bizarre, unexpected reactions of the whole year. I asked the same: What were the audience expectations exactly? The saying goes, they didn´t want a sequel. Well, TP made sure of that this time. Which is a good thing in my book. I quite liked it. I had a good calibrated sweet spot ahead of time before going in.
Remember in 2016 when people were reporting seeing random clowns at night? I'm a longtime comicbook fan. This sounds like a twist on a Grant Morrison idea that Joker is an Jungian archetype. Morrison posited that any Many Joker Theory was a result of the Joker's mania (or perhaps the multiverse). This film seems to suggest that there have been proto-Jokers that might've influenced the "real Joker"...whatever that actually is.
I think the first movie was way overhyped, people have rose colored glasses about the first one and are now way over disappointed about the 2nd one when they are really on par with each other
I think that 3rd act turn comes from Lee telling him to "get up there and show them who you really are". Only it happens backwards. As you mentioned, he has been trying to coax Joker out the entire time, but it's only once he's fully in dress and makeup, that he realizes it's just not there. I still don't think the execution of the movie was done well enough, but I do really like what was there. Such a bummer it missed the mark
About the sudden character switch in the third act: It happens right after the judge says 'this is not a show, Arthur.' He stares at the camera and... gives up. I think he was thinking: Why does the judge say that? It's (one of the) first live-screenings of a trial in this universe. He has a massive crowd outside cheering him on. His crimes have been turned into a movie. They talk about him on the radio all the time. He could dress up as the god damn Joker and parade around in a courtroom... But no, 'this isn't a show', not a performance, something he wanted to do for a very long time and never succeeded at. Lee gave him hope for the future by making him wanting to sing and perform again (as Joker) but she also wasn't there.
![[UNCUT]"ตุลามรณะ"ย้อนฟังคำทำนาย หมอดูทุกสาย ดวงเมืองร้อน (หมอปลาย ฟองสนาน อ.โอเล่)I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/lE5az5VvT9M/mqdefault.jpg)
Dan, never ever change. The world needs more calm, intelligent, and balanced reviewers like you. You are SUCH a welcome change to the more toxic bro-reviewers.
When I heard Harley Quinn was going to be in it, I thought they were going to go down a “Natural Born Killers” crime spree route that would solidify Joker’s place on the national stage, inspiring Bruce Wayne to counter him and become Batman.
Do you have anyone specific in mind, re "toxic bro-reviewers"?
And are you familiar with Deep Focus Lens (I think her name's Maggie)? If you want another very chill, but intelligent film reviewer, she is very articulate. I disagree with her quite a lot, but I don't need to agree with reviewers or critics - they just need to communicate why they feel the way they do, and not be dismissive of other tastes or takes.
Geeks and Gamers 😅
Zip his pants when urdone
Man outta here with all that. people are allowed to not like a movie. There's no one way to dislike a movie. Ain't nothing toxic about that.
@@andeekumar2817 bruh wth 🤣
Reviews like this is why I’ve been following Dan since screenjunkies. My taste in movies only overlaps with his maybe 60-70% of the time, but I really like how Dan’s analysis of movies gets me to re-evaluate scenes and the characters in even movies I hated watching
Unsurprisingly, Dan actually understands this film and what it was trying to do, and still gives it his fair assessment.
You're the best out there right now, Dan.
The story reflects exactly what is happening to the movie. People wanted "their Joker" but they got Arthur Fleck.
Great comment. Sums it up in one sentence. Now I like it even more. 😍
People did get their joker, that’s why the first one did so well. They then gutted joker in the second film.
I'm new here but Dan is quickly becoming my favorite reviewer. I feel like we always come away from movies with the same thoughts but he's better at putting it into words
Arthur at the end of the Joker (2019) is the Joker. The last scene of him in the hospital shows how he completely embraced Joker and is laughing about the joke “you wouldn’t get.” It’s not the Arthur that started the film. It’s a completely new person who tipped over the edge and even killed again just because. The bloody footprints show that. The woman he is talking to didn’t bully him or ruin him like the people he killed in the movie. He just does it because he is mad.
Joker 2 introduces Arthur as if he is the Arthur from the start of Joker (2019) and he straight up isn’t. He is a different guy now and he wouldn’t be questioning anything about a shadow. There are not two different people in one body. It’s one person now in one body.
Well put
First of all, I do think sexual abuse happened to Arthur by the guards, so I don't believe it was handled well. You can say the joker was abused out of him, and that's a terrible message.
Other than a few standouts, the musical numbers detracted from the film. They don't add much and literally pause the actual plot.
Overall, I didn't like this movie. It just seems confused.
I have to say, I heard a lot of bad things about the music before i saw it, so maybe that effected how i saw them, but i didn't see any issues with any of them except the longest one, with the tapdancing, which dragged a bit.
Agreed I couldn't stand the guards they were very unlikeable and the way they treated Arthur and the inmates were horrible and not right, definitely mishandled and not facing any consequences
I can honestly say I agree 100% with your assessment of Joker 2. The AMC Burbank crowd I saw it with was filled with young men hoping they got a violent action film and couples hoping they’d get a Harley-Joker cosplay inspiring film. People want Joker to do the evil they can’t. And then there’s the film nerds liking it for being a musical lol
Cinephiles will dig this one.
The DC Snyder fan boys and wider audiences won’t methinks.
Will have to see - I enjoyed it - definitely better than the 33% on Rotten.
@@JackOsborneFilmI dunno, I'd probably be counted as a 'cinephile', and both these films look dreadful to me. Partly because I get the distinct impression Todd Phillips isn't that smart, and is incapable of making a coherently mature work. Funny you namecheck Snyder, because I get a similar vibe from both going from their interviews and remarks over the years.
"Delusions of grandeur", as a scruffy lookin' nerf herder might say.
From everything I've heard above glimpsed, Joker 2 is more interesting. But I think the whole project was doomed from the start.
@@JackOsborneFilmdoes Snyder live rent free in your head? Just wondering why you feel the need to randomly bring him up? Film critics are some of the biggest "cinephiles" around and the majority of them did not like this movie and the audience score is in lockstep with theirs. Do you really think all these people are just too dumb to get it?
@@SabiJD I didn’t think it was perfect by any stretch, but I was a little disappointed by the first film, it was like a King of Comedy and Taxi Driver re-boot with a thin Batman coat of paint.
I’m not sure I even like Todd Philips or Joaquin Phoenix as people - but as a film it worked more as this tragedy, and the music helps convey some of the insanity and feelings of the characters - it works better in the realm of obscurity in my opinion. Is he the Joker? Is it multiple personalities co-existing is it all a fantasy from his cell?
I’m interested to see how it pans out.
Anyone who thought Arthur Fleck was going to somehow become a criminal mastermind really needs to go back and watch the first movie again.
There are a lot of things they could have done with that storyline but they decided to just make fun of audience and their expectations. I would have like a movie of the joker turning the doctor into Harley or the joker making chaos that he cannot really control and mentally suffering. This movie was just pointless.
@@krlos2588 I think audience expectations are greatly misplaced. I never thought Arthur would ever become the Clown Prince and I'm not sure why anyone would want him to, he's an extremely weak man. Joker should never have had a sequel to begin with; Phoenix and Phillips were never interested in making one.
@krlos2588 Yeah I wanna see a 70 year old Joker limp around Gotham City fighting Batman 😂
The only “Joker: folie a deux” review I’ve seen that I fully agree with. I always felt the arc progression would be one where the misunderstood character gets abandoned by all, and it was never a DC comic book movie - at this point Todd Philips was just borrowing names.
So the goal was to play with people expectations all along? Does that sounds like a good plan to you for multimillion dollar movie? That sound like an art student project more than a sequel from a Billion dollar movie.
Just watched Last King of Scotland again (first time in about 5 years).
Feels like the first Joker movie is like the first half of Last King of Scotland, where James McAvoy suddenly gets everything seemingly going his way, despite never really doing anything to warrant it.
Were people expecting that to last the whole time, through sequels.
@@krlos2588Let the artist create his vision. It will be at least more interesting that the endless generic slop that we've been getting. I did not like the movie, but I'm glad that Todd Phillips was able to tell the story the way he wanted.
@@krlos2588 The “goal” was to tell Arthur Fleck’s story as Todd Philips and the creatives envisioned it. In the first movie as well, the “Joker” is very reactive to his traumas and the whole societal collapse is incidental, so I feel keeping it to Fleck’s story and not like an escalation (like Nolan’s Joker) tracks. Even though the execution was sloppy, props to the creative team who didn’t see this as a sequel to a billion dollar movie, but as the conclusion to a story. They should’ve been more responsible with the budgeting. As Dan said, given how the first movie’s treatment was and how the story ended, if audiences expected a comic book movie, that’s a bit surprising. 🤷♂️
@@luckyspurs will add to my watch list
For me is not an expectation of the character. The movie feels messy. It has a weird pace and I am not sure what this story was. I wasn't looking for batman but I was hoping for a good story and I didn't get that. I got weird musical scenes in a kind of courtroom drama and prison.. It wasn't for me. It was not an enjoyable movie experience and I think the director was making fun of the batman audience by keep teasing joker just to tell them there is no joker. Acting was fine but it wasn't enough to save the movie.
You wont get it
😂
@@BeautifulAaliyahAustin-b4b why did you copy my exact comment.. Also why do you have 120 likes while I only got 2 XD. But I'm glad you agreed with it
@@krlos2588If it's your exact comment, that's probably a bot
Thank you for finally saying it...the moment he turns his back on being the Joker, Harley gets up and walks out and tells him he is nothing. That essentially happens with the audience at the same time. Mildly brilliant IMO
Kind of funny that people are complaining there's not enough fan service now.
Did you watch the movie? Is the complete opposite. It felt to me that the director made fun of the fans that thought it was a joke movie.
I think that might be a disingenuous way of putting it. Are there expectations that fans have for a character they’ve seen done before in comics, tv, video games and film? Yes. The first Joker seemed to cater to this notion just enough. The second one is a complete misfire. And I don’t think fan service is the reason. It’s clearly not resonating with people that don’t usually like Batman stuff either.
I don't think I've seen a single critic of this film say there's not enough fan service. I thin that's a really reductive and bad faith way to interpret the negative reactions to this film.
Running with your 'Harley egged him on' theory, it makes more sense, I like it. Once Arthur is gone and full-fledged JOKER appears, the dangerous narcissistic murderer, NOT just a sad man, Harley thinks; 'Oh, THIS guy's got the stuff,' and she bites off way WAY more than she can chew when she tries to get reflected glory off him.
Charts on Monday is gonna be a wild one
I like that you bring up audience expectations, because I think my expectations are what allowed me to enjoy it for what it was. Also, hearing the absolute dogpile of hate before I saw it had me watching the movie wondering when it was going to become terrible
This was exactly my experience. I was sitting in the theater about an hour in, wondering when the movie was supposed to get bad and it just never did.
same, I kind of like it in a requiem for a dream sort of way, the musical stuff was a "meh" miss though.
In the first movie we saw Arthur Fleck BECOME Joker and at least for me it played as a warning saying that people and society should be kinder otherwise we'll create monsters like The Joker. That's why I expected to see Joker, NOT Arthur Fleck, meaning the character we saw at the epilogue of the first film who didn't have any makeup but you could tell was a different person than Arthur Fleck. I wanted to see THAT guy have a negative psycological impact on other people like Harlee BECAUSE society hadn't learned the lesson of the first movie therefore the madness and desperation continued to spread.
You have explained my vision perfectly 🤝
@@theorangutan1914 😊 Thank You!
I think you nailed that. When they first announced Harley for the sequel, a real down to Earth version of her story would be fantastic. I haven't seen the movie so I can't have an opinion, but this version would had interested me more than what we got because it's called "Joker" not "Fleck"
Nah the director needed to be edgy he made a BILLION dollar movie with the first one so he knows better than the audience because we don't get it. There is no joker, people are dumb liking joker or batman so let's have some musical to make fun of the people that thinks they know what joker is. And don't give people anything that they want just tease some scene with the joker makeup and laugh about it at the end.
Exactly. It feels like the sequel is gaslighting us because we SAW Arthur in Arkham in the first movie's final scene, and he was carrying himself in a manner completely different than his old pathetic self. So the idea that he's still his old pathetic self in Arkham in the sequel makes no sense.
I'm getting pretty frustrated with the dog pile from movie reviewers on this film. I thought it was different and interesting. Good luck getting WB to take more risks after this one!
I really liked it.
I thought it’s much more ambitious and reaches further than the first.
I thought the musical sequences worked - the whole thing is a bit of a fever dream - so it gelled tonally.
Framing Harley Quinn as this manipulative villain of the piece was an angle I wasn’t expecting.
7 or 8 out of 10 - not the 33% Rotten Tomatoes suggests.
This is gonna be a Last of Us vs Last of Us Part II scenario.
In the first movie there was lots of moments where you questioned what you saw, reveals every 25 mins or so, and you could feel the tension building, there was always a sense of dread that something horrible is about to happen as thing get worse and worse and worse for Arthur… in this movie, there was none of that. I wouldn’t have even minded a musical but it should have been way more visually chaotic, it felt like an amateur student attempt of a musical. Also I felt that as soon as the dialogue was getting interesting, the writers didn’t know how to bring it home and instead made the character sing.
Also I love characters studies and don’t want to sound like the guy who just wants explosions and violence, but this movie needed something to shock audiences throughout. I feel like there was way way less emotional peaks in this one compared to the first. No lines stuck in my head from this one. It’s not awful but it’s awful compared to the first, as a reg movie it’s a 4/10 for me, largely due to pheonixs acting.
Saw it getting a D on Cinemascore, that has got to be one of the steepest drop from original to sequel.
Has any film gotten such a grade drop?
I think i'm pretty forgiving as to how Arthur got where he ended up. I think the movie did enough to convince me. Very much appreciate your thoughts here Dan. You've helped me understand a lot of my feelings on this film and why I liked it so much.
Imagine if in the Batman 2, Robert Pattinson get killed by a random goon that becomes the real batman.
Thats how this movie feel to me.
Wouldn't it likely be he Gera killed o the job and a random bystander takes his place? Feels that more adds up.
If that's how this film made you feel then I think you have drastically misunderstood both the original Joker and the first Batman.
Bro.....very good example... it's the first time I out right disagree with Dan on his review of a movie.
Robert pattinson batman sucked and sucks
They aren't the same kinds of films. Even the first one was never like The Batman or any traditional Batman interpretation.
In the words of the Joker, "And here we go!"
I will say the joker not having a proper origin story and his "clown prince of crime" thing being stolen from a guy who turned out to be fraud is very joker. didnt like how it was executed here though, it was frustrating because with a bit of tweaking that could have been a great way of loosely connecting the joker movies to the new batman.
so you get Arthur a mentally ill pathetic broken loner being the source/ origin point of both Batman and the Joker.
I heard an interview with Phillips on NPR the other day. The interviewer seemed to suggest that he used the IP to sell the first film to the mainstream when the story wasn't truly that relevant. His response wasn't ANGRY, but it sounded dismissive and defensive. It seemed to me like he was accurately called out. I enjoyed the first film for what it was, but I really felt like it "borrowed" way too much from Taxi Driver and King of Comedy, and repackaged it for marketing purposes. As a lifelong Batman/DC fan, I was a little upset at the ignorance of the IP, and though I haven't seen pt.2, it sounds like he or they have doubled down on that. I have to side with the fans that say, "Don't sell me a Joker movie that's not really about the Joker."
I liked the approach for the first one on how the joker comes from society more than just a crazy guy. But this second movie is pretty obvious that Phillip doesn't care about that he just used the IP for his own art project.
My problem with the first film (and the constant disagreement with friends) has been that it is not a “Joker” movie. It is a good movie about that story, but the director just dropped in “Wayne”, “Joker” and a couple more things in to sell it as a Batman movie so more people would see it. It bugs me to this day, and it is clear the director actually hates the Joker character.
"Joker" was truly born when he put the bullet in Murray Franklins's head. Joker is the ONLY avenue that sets him free. For Arthur to turn on a dime and say "there is no Joker" because he was naive enough to believe the lies that Lee fed him seems ridiculously bad writing.
Todd Phillips said that 'there's always been a little bit of Joker (musical expression) within him', so why would Arthur go back to a place that made him sick in the first place?
This is not consistent with the character in the 2019 movie, not because he doesn't become THE Joker - because it erases the progression of Arthur's arc in the first film.
I completely agree but there are people like Dan that enjoy going against expectations just for the surprise effect of it that at the long run doesn't go well for the movie. This movie felt like Phillips wanted to make fun of people that liked the Joker and thought the Joker was about the existing Batman IP. Great joke......
Haven't seen it yet, but Dan's points on the "us vs me" relationship is reminding me of NIN's song "Star****ers". Also applies to the song's hook "You think this song's about you, don't you..." to the Joker fanatics, critics, and Joker/Harley as well.
So it looks like Dune 2 is going to be the best blockbuster movie of 2024 after all
You spelled deadpool wrong
@@theycallmemrboombastic6870nah dawg, he didn't
@@theycallmemrboombastic6870sure buddy😂
@@theycallmemrboombastic6870are you stupid?
Thankfully Alien, Dune, Apes, and Deadpool were all good ! Alien and Dune my favorite
Remember in this movie when they said the trial was called "The City of New York vs Arthur Fleck" New York, not Gotham. Despite Wayne tower and tons of other references...
I found that weird too but then I realized that Gotham is a city and it's the state that's prosecuting.
So apparently Gotham is in New York now 🤷♂
I believe they said “The State of New York”
I noticed this too and made the same observation
Goatham is supposed to be in New Jersy, so the movie said "State of New York vs Aurther Fleck"
@@williamfeliciano8980Gotham in comics has almost consistenly been in New Jersy
Think you’re 100% correct on expectations.
I think I could’ve gone along with what this movie was trying to do if it wasn’t so damn boring. In execution, it’s just a recap of the first movie with it constantly poking and nudging going, “Hey, did you know The Joker is actually not supposed to be a cool guy?” And the musical elements were so lackluster that they couldn’t pull me out of that repetitive funk. It’s like the movie exists just to explain the point of the last movie.
What’s the worst way to end a story? Do like Umbrella academy season 4 and say it never happened
What’s the worst way to end a story about an established character? Do what Joker 2 does and say it wasn’t even about that character…
Has nothing to do with audience expectations just don’t call it Joker if it’s not about Joker
I don't know why so many people keep correcting themselves with emphasis when they go "Harley"... "Or Lee" in an exacerbated tone as if they are annoyed that they changed her name in the film. They didn't change her name, she's referred to as Harley like three times and some characters just shorten her name.
About why Arthur dropped the Joker persona: In the first film he contemplated suicide before turning the gun on Murray. A fact he is confronted with in this movie, followed up by the question: "Do you still want to die?" Arthur knowing he would get the death penalty if he confessed to his crimes, ultimately decided that that is what he wanted: To die. He even said so in his courtroom confession: (paraphrasing) "I can't go on with this pathetic life.". He's even smiling after being stabbed by the other inmate. And that is the conflict of the movie: What does Arthur want? vs. What do Lee / the lawyer / Harvey Dent / the psychologist want?.
It was not what I expected but I liked it anyway. Great review
Seen the movie three times in theaters. Loved the music and overall tone of this dark end to Arthur Fleck.
I think Todd kind of attacks SOME of the people who like the first Joker.
The way I describe this movie to my friends is like this: Did you see Joker and think "wow I really want a sequel where we get the joker going full villain mode or leading the clown anarchy revolution"? if No then good job you dont need to see the sequel, if Yes then watch the sequel to get that thought beaten out of you.
if you left the first movie and thought "YES! thats the joker!" you don’t really know the joker. theres so much more to the joker than just being crazy, he doesnt just laugh his way into beating batman and pulling off complicated plans and committing atrocities.
This movie is cringe and bad
I don't love The Joker. But it you can see the Joker peeking out. I hoped this movie would be a different take on the Joker origin. Ah well, c'est la vie.
U said it best all these critics wanted to pull Joker out of Todd Phillips for their own entertainment instead of watching a movie about mental illness and how society treats it
Joker: Folie à Deux: Proof that not everything needs a sequel.
Here's a problem: Both movies are called "Joker". Turns out *neither* one was actually about the Joker. People wanted a movie about the Joker. They didn't get it and were told that the last movie that they thought was about the Joker, wasn't about the Joker. People don't like that kind of "subverting your expectations" sophomore nonsense. It's that simple.
I don’t like the first one whatsoever, but I swear I remember Phillips saying the first one was never supposed to be about “The” Joker as we know him when that movie came out
That may be a problem on the audience's part for expecting things from an artist that isn't necessarily their particular vision. And the idea of who exactly 'The Joker' is can be completely subjective since this was one interpretation of many.
@@lorriechristian7164 lmao that's some top tier coping. The movie was named Joker, so people who expected Joker are just rubes who don't respect the artist's particular vision. Whatever, entertainers who don't cater to their audience aren't very entertaining.
@@tambarskelfirWay to call out Miyasaki...
@lorriechristian7164 Come on. The first movie earned a BILLION dollars instead of getting released on some streaming platform, only BECAUSE it was named Joker.
You can't name a movie Batman, and make it about a copycat wearing hockey pads who pretends to be Batman and who gets knocked out by the real Batman in the end. I mean, you can make that movie, and you will get trashed the fans you cheated.
This is one of the few times where I enjoyed my expectations being subverted.
The studio did mismanage expectations. I don’t believe the average Batman fan is going into this movie expecting some art house puzzle to put together to make it make some semblance of sense. It’s fine that this is the mental gymnastics you had to go through to allow you to enjoy it more, but moviegoers aren’t trying to treat the film the same way. I believe the reason why people liked the first one is because it made this infamous character a mystery box again. It was Joker redesigned. But because it kept just enough lore in its container, just enough familiarity, it resonated with comic book fans.
This one was such a complete misfire, I actually understand why fans are coping by saying maybe Todd sabotaged his own movie because the first one didn’t “need” a sequel.
As an adjacent fan of superheroes myself, it all just feels obviously the wrong move on the studio and director.
However, I don’t believe that a director would do that (he could have just said no) and it’s probably giving Todd too much credit other than to say he just made a bad movie, which he’s done before.
The movie was just .. bad. No justification for it will make it better. It didn’t reach its targeted audience. And that’s a fail on WB, Todd Phillips, and all of the rest of the people that thought this was a good idea.
This is exactly how I feel and you put it so much better than I was trying to say. It is a bad movie. People had all types of expectations and probably any of those could have worked if it was done well but not this movie. It felt like Todd wanted to show the audience that they were wrong on what the first movie was about.
@@krlos2588thanks! Really it’s a little sad, right? On paper, a joker musical might work, but given the bravado and grittiness already established in the first film, you’re gonna need to pull out all the stops to make it all come together. I feel like this film collapsed in on itself by the weight of its big ideas. Maybe it was hubris or intention on the part of Todd Phillips. Or maybe it was something else but clearly most people aren’t impressed.
Great review, Dan! I was actually going to pass on this movie because of all the negative buzz, but this actually has piqued my interest enough that I might actually give it a chance while it's still in theaters.
Give it a chance!
No it's terrible.
You should see it.
Good take on the movie. I enjoyed it, the movie actually flew by for me.
Ironically, Arthur’s death will in fact not make more cents than his life.
cents?
Lmao good one
@@stiimulithe joke being this movie won't be as profitable as the 1st
Dan, your breakdown of the film was brilliant. I still hated the movie, but I feel I have a better understanding of it now
I actually liked the movie for how brave it was with these choices, making a joker sequel all about Arthur fleck is super bold. And it did work to an extent, not as good as the first one but still pretty good!
Dan is the undisputed king of reviews imo, there's no agenda or bias in it. He reviews the movie as the movie itself.
My first thought when it ended was “I actually really liked this bad movie”
Saw it last night. Loved it. Not as good as the first but man…what a picture. The people got this one wrong.
nah
I wonder if people will accept they were wrong about this one, i think it can happen fast because some of the harshest cirtics are people that love the first one so they are close.
I kept wanting them to show what that TV movie looked like. Who did they get to play Arthur in that TV movie?
same
Same here. I kept waiting for them to show a clip or a movie poster, but nothing!
I thought it was brilliant deconstruction. Really entertaining and spot on for the Joker imo because the character is more theatrical than anything. The turn Arthur has at the end is a twist but I think it clearly comes out of the best scene in the movie with Puddles on the stand. Joker is shook after that exchange. Then solidified after hearing his cellmate murdered. I just like the idea that his story is simply inspiration within that lore.
12:35 there was a very similar Harley/Joker dynamic in the Telltale Batman game. That game made A LOT of BIG departures from the classic Batman mythos but executed them all really well, IMO.
I think that the main problem with this movie is that in the first one Arthur had been so beaten down by the world that it was such a cathartic moment when he became the Joker. In this movie, he had completely digressed. And not only that..he gets treated way worse and dies. What is the point?
Todd Phillips making 2 movies about someone that inspires Joker was part of the Real Joker's plan all along. Did you see him at the end?? That guy is THE REAL JOKER
Hey Dan! I went to see Joker 2 a second time too. The first Joker movie was a masterpiece, 10/10 for me. Part way through watching Joker 2 for a second time, I thought it was brilliant. Todd Phillips bookended the two movies. He originally never intended to make sequel but if WB forced him to, he decided to wrap it up: the dogpile on the movie is reminiscent of how the world has caved on Arthur Fleck especially when Arthur did not deliver the spectacular Joker. I have to admit, in the first Joker movie, it was a bit like watching a Rocky type underdog come out of the shadows, but hey, you can’t really celebrate this tragic killer unless he’s Dirty Harry taking out serial child rapists, kwim? Oh and yes, I loved all the songs so that helps a lot. Harley used Arthur too and only wanted him as the Joker not his real self. Oh it’s complicated…I think there’s an element of Arthur having an alter ego, we saw that in the first movie how confident he became when he fought back and wasn’t the victim anymore. Man, it’s complicated though.
Beautifully shot, next level acting, deep character study. Once you understand that this is "Joker" and not "The Joker", everything makes more sense. I enjoyed it.
That seems like a Quantum of Solace to Joker’s Casino Royale.
It’s a no for me.
Arthur was s3xually abused by his dad when he was a kid, so it makes sense how broken he seems after the bathroom scene.
Also, I wanna say that Dan is one of the best movie critics on TH-cam.
Dan youre looking for a reason, you said that arthur is dangerous, one of the last scenes was the abuse of the guards, in the first one the trigger was the abuse, but now he just checks out and accepted the abuse, i sincerely dont understand, thats why is a big FU, the arc of arthur they drop it by they added DC characters, WHY?
Harley Quinn represents the audience. Don´t People see the obvious. It´s a commentary about what we want from such a Film!
Dan I’m gonna have to give you some push back on something you said. There actually ISNT a Batman movie where Batman Shows up at a “point of no return”. In fact, the ONLY movie where Batman shows up brand new, is Batman begins, and even then, the only people controlling the crime are the mob. Every other movie, we show up and Batman has already existed in the city for some time.
I hate how every movie musical since Anne Hathaway won that freaking Oscar now has to have at least one song where characters sing quietly with their voice quivering and breaking. Except this movie is that stretched out to fill two hours.
You need a whole dissertation to explain the movie. 😂👎🏽👎🏽
This is not an insult to Dan but rather the creators of Joker 2. They over-complicate the Joker.
Joker’s a bad guy who likes to do bad things. Batman tries to stop him. That’s it. It’s that simple. How do they fuck up that character?!
You like less words. We get it.
@@ubersc00ber I was not insulting Dan. I was commenting on how overly-complicated they made the Joker out to be.
Well the twist at the end is that Arthur isn’t the actual “Joker”, so there you go
What if the real Jokers are the friends we made along the way?
I watched the first movie, but when I saw a description of this one, it sounded too strange and artsy (in a pretentious way) for me to want to see it. The way Dan describes the story makes it seem more interesting than the marketing did and I do feel that the movie seemed to have potential despite the negative reaction. Though ultimately, I still am not very interested as I began to not really like the first movie over time when I originally really liked it.
Dan makes it sound much better than what it is. He really tries to makes sense of it but it is just a mess.
This is the best examination of the film I have seen. I can’t say it makes me want to see the film but I have more respect for what the director was trying to do.
I legitimately wanted Joker to prison-break with mates he met in prison (with commentary on how people in prison are treated), and him and Harley wreaking havoc on Gotham, staging the perfect entry for the presence of the Batman. That is was I legitimately wanted to see.
It's not a good movie but i didn't really like the last one either. It's a very well made movie but there's a lot plot issues & logic issues. Great performances from Gaga & Joaquin.
It’s crazy that the movie hand held the audience to know this was not a dc joker movie and they still compare it to the dc joker movie. The fact that people say the end was suppose to be the dark knight joker is insane. That’s not what the ending was saying but people spew it. This movie was too tell all the fans that their love for the first movie was wrong. I hated the first joker movie. I stated that this is not the joker and the sequel told you this reality in the court end scene.
Here's my guess on what a lot of us were expecting. The whole 3rd act of the first movie seemed to be Arthur transition from himself to fully being the Joker. Many people consider the scene where he kills Randall to be the moment where he goes from Arthur Fleck to being the Joker. So a lot of us were expecting Arthur to really take on the Joker persona for this movie
"a dogpile is going on" yes, bc this movie is nothing but dog shit
I can always count on Dan to put passion and reason into words instead of just angrily saying "it sucks cause my expectations weren't met". So much of his arguments make sense and the whole idea is awesome just weirdly executed.
this movie is what's wrong with hollywood: a $200m IP franchise film that's supposed to be "indie" - WB coulda made 10x animated Joker movies for the same price - what a waste
This is the weirdest take I’ve seen yet tbh. Very small audience for animated movies. And why would we want TEN animated Joker movies? That’s not how budgets work.
Why would anyone want an animated Joker film? Let alone 10 of them? This is why they are film producers and you are not.
@@endlessvoid7952 i just used the animated movies as an example. how about 4x $50m movies or 10x $20m indie films. My point is this was an awful waste of money and should have never been even considered at this price point, let alone actually made.
@@mikestand8067 i just used the animated movies as an example. how about 4x $50m movies or 10x $20m indie films. My point is this was an awful waste of money and should have never been even considered at this price point, let alone actually made.
They wanted Natural Born Killers 2.
Personally, I feel like it was so obvious that Todd Phillips did not want to make this movie. Remember that he initially intended Joker to be a standalone movie and had zero plans to do a sequel. But I guess Warner Bros pressured him to do one after how successful the first movie was
At this point I think that "The Joker" is the most volatile role in popular media to cast and play... it may as well be Macbeth in clown makeup.
When I saw the first JOKER, I left thinking that he didn’t feel like the “real Joker” and this movie solidified it
Wearing a Florida State hat is a BOLD move right now Dan😂
The biggest problem of Folie A Deux is not the fact that it's a Batman movie without Batman, that it has musical elements or even the fact that it tries to continue a story that already feels complete. Really, it's the fact that it's so dark and gritty that it gives the audience no characters to root for. Arthur himself doesn't care whether he lives or dies, so why should I care?
wow, you're a brave one, Dan, for watching it again. 😬
7:20 he’s not trying to laugh here intentionally. This is his laughing condition which he carried a card to explain in the first film and they reference during the trial- the reason his mom calls him “Happy” because he has this condition that causes him to laugh when he’s emotionally elevated whether it be sadness, or anxiety or general discomfort
I think this is a movie I’d want to see get a do over. I’d love to see a well executed version of what it is going for. Thanks Dan ! Great breakdown!
Thank you Dan. Beautiful and informative review as always. Keep going 👍
i can respect the dedication todd phillips has to exploring these topics & this character in this way , especially that he seemingly doubled down on it for the second movie (which i have not seen & wont til its not in theatres), but to me it sounds like this movie has the same issue the first movie did... he wants to talk about this stuff but doesnt understand it on a level deep enough to do it actual justice , leading to two films that feel like they have a lot to say but dont really say much at all. and i think the success of that first film is largely because audiences themselves do not understand these issues well enough to see that he's not doing them justice.
i personally think the joker being used as a catalyst to talk about the ways that society treats mentally ill people , is not a bad idea. i dont even care if it has anything to do with the actual DC comics character either. i dont really enjoy the first film specifically because *it doesnt actually know what it wants to say*. and it sounds like going more granular on that theme is doing the second one even more of a disservice. ill have to see it myself to fully deliver on that thought , though.
The real brilliance in this film was, for me, illuminated by a commentary I read on Twitter ( Sometimes, even a cesspool can bring enlightenment)..
"Lee perfectly represents the audience. She craves delusion, spectacle, and
tries to manipulate Arthur to her liking, but when she realizes he's not
playing along, she feels betrayed--much like the audience's reaction to the
film itself. Todd Phillips was a genius."
I walked out of that film really unsure about how I felt... but this analysis really flipped the switch for me- Joker 2 is brilliant.
I largely agree with your general assessment, I think I liked it more than you as I thought Arthur's story arc worked perfectly for me. Because Joker wasn't a separate personality from Arthur, nor had it notably become his dominant personality, just a side of him where he's able to lash out with violent impulses. So the way that Lee, and others as you said, try to push him to be the Joker encourages him to play into that role as we see him do a bit, but it's not genuine in the way that it came out last time because though he's frustrated in his circumstances, he clearly doesn't have the same murderous impulses, which makes sense since he's most motivated to try and live in the fantasy he imagines with Lee.
That being said, I also agree that Lee's story arc was not as clear, I mean, it made sense but we didn't really get as much time with her so her 'turn', if it can be called that, felt a bit cold and sudden, even though the groundwork was laid for it. For me, the slow pacing and the songs hurt the film for me so it's far from a favorite of mine, but I thought the story was solid, and Phoenix put in a really strong performance again as Joker/Fleck.
The most interesting idea this movie brings to the table, which I hope future Batman writers will expand upon, is the idea that Harley is just as toxic as the Joker, and they're both trapped in this endless cycle of manipulation where they bring out the worst possible sides of themselves. It makes them both far more scary and relatable as two VILLAINS in a relationship.
Its going to be an interesting charts with dan on monday, especially if Joker Folie a deux continues to plumet against expectations at the box office. I imagine the 2nd weekend will be brutal with a D cinemascore.
4:14 That's a great story concept but the problem is that both movies are called Joker but by the end we find out that the person we've focused on wasn't the Joker.
It would have been better if both movies were titled "Gotham..." or some other non-Joker related name.
I think you’re the only person I’ve seen review this movie for what it is and not how you expected it to be
It seems like people want the big, powerful villain - not the sad little crazy person underneath.
But I'm pretty sure EVERY big villain has a sad little crazy person underneath.
I thought it was an interesting and uncommon take; I give them credit for that.
Perhaps the most bizarre, unexpected reactions of the whole year. I asked the same: What were the audience expectations exactly?
The saying goes, they didn´t want a sequel. Well, TP made sure of that this time. Which is a good thing in my book. I quite liked it. I had a good calibrated sweet spot ahead of time before going in.
Remember in 2016 when people were reporting seeing random clowns at night? I'm a longtime comicbook fan. This sounds like a twist on a Grant Morrison idea that Joker is an Jungian archetype. Morrison posited that any Many Joker Theory was a result of the Joker's mania (or perhaps the multiverse). This film seems to suggest that there have been proto-Jokers that might've influenced the "real Joker"...whatever that actually is.
I think the first movie was way overhyped, people have rose colored glasses about the first one and are now way over disappointed about the 2nd one when they are really on par with each other
Arthur = Todd Philips
Lee = Fans
Guards = Studio Excecs
I think that 3rd act turn comes from Lee telling him to "get up there and show them who you really are". Only it happens backwards. As you mentioned, he has been trying to coax Joker out the entire time, but it's only once he's fully in dress and makeup, that he realizes it's just not there.
I still don't think the execution of the movie was done well enough, but I do really like what was there. Such a bummer it missed the mark
About the sudden character switch in the third act: It happens right after the judge says 'this is not a show, Arthur.' He stares at the camera and... gives up. I think he was thinking: Why does the judge say that? It's (one of the) first live-screenings of a trial in this universe. He has a massive crowd outside cheering him on. His crimes have been turned into a movie. They talk about him on the radio all the time. He could dress up as the god damn Joker and parade around in a courtroom... But no, 'this isn't a show', not a performance, something he wanted to do for a very long time and never succeeded at. Lee gave him hope for the future by making him wanting to sing and perform again (as Joker) but she also wasn't there.