Joker 2 is what I call a New Coke movie. Remember the eighties, when Coca-Cola found out that Pepsi was selling better than Coke, so they made a "New Coke" that tasted more like Pepsi? Turns out, the people who liked Coke didn't want something that tasted like Pepsi, and the people who liked Pepsi were happy to keep on drinking Pepsi. Joker 2 is kind of like that- it simultaneously alienates old fans by being a musical and turns off potential new fans by insisting it isn't a musical.
I do think there's an alternate universe where this is a brilliant film. Moulin Rouge meets Chicago with the Joker branding to get butts in seats. Joaquin Phoenix played Johnny Cash to a T, he can sing, Lady Gaga has the acting talent and the pipes. The ingredients are there but Todd Phillips decided to bake the metaphorical cake in a pasta strainer inside a microwave.
To be absolutely fair.. this is exactly what the Joker would do. A dissonant mess that purposefully pleases no one. Granted, that means nobody really wants to see it. But still.
Even though I agree it's not well portrayed, Arthur falling hard for the first woman to show him any physical affection after a lifetime of being starved of physical touch from anyone except his abuser was one of the parts I found most believable. I've seen it happen in real life. Often to the exact kind of people who found The Joker to be a revelation about themselves.
That's just one of the things he gets wrong in this review. You are correct. Arthur falling for Harley is extremely believable when you consider this is a grown man who has likely never been shown the slightest bit of positive attention from a woman, outside of his mother. He's also wrong about the scene of Arthur laughing being completely pointless. It was meant to show Arthur's frustration in his inability to channel the "Joker" aspect of his personality. It's him realizing he's just a fucked up dude named Arthur who killed some people, not a hero. Also, a person wouldnt pantomime a sword murder by swinging a pretend sword. They would use the edge of their hand/forearm in a swiping motion towards their neck/body. This is generally how people pantomime a blade slashing. These types of reviews are as tired as the Hollywood dogshit they're criticizing. Quick edits, snarky tone, trying too hard to sound clever, basically being correct but nitpicking and being just objectively wrong about other things because they have to be as negative as possible to get more subs. I saw a channel with 20k subs when The Acolyte first came out end up with like 150k subs by the time it ended, all because of the extremely negative weekly reviews. Joker 2 is just the newest thing to hate. Btw I didnt like it either, though I can appreciate what Philips was going for with the meta-commentary and Harley representing a toxic fanbase of the first film. There just needed to be more, and it's clear Philips wasn't interested. This movie should have never been made.
@@marioargiropoulos4747 A+ for your comment it's all clear and true. I've also recently noticed that bashing trend on different topics and it's annoying.
They could've made a *really* good movie about Harley Quinn. A prologue that's a time lapse of her witnessing the events of the first movie. Then we follow her activities getting into Arkham, experiencing *her* mental image of the Joker. Make him bigger than he ultimately is because that's how she see's him. Telling him lies, that we know from the jump are lies, because she views him as intimidating but desires to be close. You can still hit the same plot lines of this movie, but present it from her perspective. The only scenes the Joker are actually in are the ones where he's with Harley Quinn. And in them he's acting like the Joker. Extremely confident... his laughing is not desperate and forced, but mirthful and on purpose. An image she has which is shattered by the ending twist. A twist that hits harder because we've spent the movie only seeming him as the Joker caricature. And leave the court room scenes out. Just have Quinn learn from the news about crazy nonsense. Oh my god, it would've been really great commentary to present news media as hyping up the antics of "The Joker" only to reveal, at the end, that it's just Arthur Fleck in over his head. And Harley Quinn bought into the media's portrayal, built up her new identity around that portrayal, only at the end to learn that Arthur Fleck isn't the person she thought. Have her interact with his supporters slowly becoming their commander due to her closeness with the Joker, portray them as believing that he's going to be the force of chaotic change they want him to be, but in the end he's really not all what they think. But they refuse to believe and, in the end, are shown latching onto the replacement Joker that killed Arthur Fleck. There's a hint that Harley knows better, but... eh, she wants a Joker in her life.
And that's where the musicals became actually thematic. Have them be for the fantasies that people are having. But the music *stops* during the times when reality happen. You can even still have that moment where Harley is desperately trying to hold onto the fantasy and starts singing. But make it *bad* singing and have Arthur stop her. He *never* liked the singing because they were doing it badly the whole time, even though it was presented as good singing.
@@billmcdermott9647 The singing wasn't... bad. Especially from Lady Gaga. The music was bad. Overall. But the performances were fine. Kinda iffy from Jaoquin, but nothing I'd call regular-person bad. The music being bad "on purpose" is pure copium, though. For a billion reasons I keep starting to type out but then realize it's going to take pages of explanation and I'm not a TH-cam essayist. In short, making it bad "on purpose", without juxtaposition, would be contradicting the very point of a musical.
To be fair, from what I understand, the bad singing on Phoenix's part was intentional. Supposedly (because I haven't seen the movie) Lady Gaga sings intentionally badly, too. They're not singing as Gaga and Phoenix. They're singing as Fleck and Quinzel. To your point, though, that's part of the problem. If you're going to make it a musical, the singing has to be good. Having bad singing -- even if it's intentionally bad -- isn't going to win you any friends.
There is exactly one movie with music as a crucial piece of the story where singing was intentionally bad that worked, and that was Florence Foster Jenkins. Even that that wasn’t a musical, it just had a lot of music in it. It was a “biography” of a New York Heriess that wanted to do opera, but was really bad at it. The only reason it worked is because the entire story was about her being bad at opera, but still wanting to do it. Just shoving in that the characters are bad at singing into a completely different story doesn’t work at all.
@@metronicmagician1816 wouldve cost nothing to write the characters as people who just loved singing privately and do the simplest level of lampshading. Ex., he stopped singing for XYZ trauma reason and that's why we don't see him "actually" sing in the first movie. It's an insult to the musical genre to suggest it's "unrealistic" or "unrelatable" for the characters to actually be good singers, when every single musical ever expects suspension of that specific disbelief. It's for the love of the genre that you have great performers, choreographers, and songwriting. Without those things it actually kinda just isn't a musical imo.
It feels off having Harley Quinn being the manipulator when a huge part of her relationship with the Joker is that he manipulated her and was abusive to her
I think flipping the relationship could work though, lol there's no reason Joker can't be the victim and Harley the abuser, as long as that's its own reimagining. That's pretty much how the Telltale series does the Joker and honestly it's one of my favourite depictions of the characters. Like thinking about it an asylum patient being abusive towards the psychologist in a position of power over them has got to be less common than the alternative.
The problem is that it wouldn't be in-character for Arthur to be a manipulative abuser. He longs for connection and will fall for any woman who actually shows interest
And also tend to sexualize women far more than men which just is icky cause a real life woman did have to be filmed for those scenes and basically be exploited for her body
Lady Gaga is a rare case where a good actress (yeah, you read it right) made bad material work. Her character is horrid and badly written but she played it well and is a bonus that in this musical she obviously shines through. And yet, some folks wholeheartedly believe she's the sole responsible of the movie's downfall.
She is a good performer generally in film, but she was flat in this movie. In all fairness, they didn’t do much with her Lee character. A lot of jarring character decisions in this movie
They did her (and the film) a major disservice when they completely changed Harleen Quinzel's character from an Arkham psychologist to voluntarily committing herself (to an asylum for criminals?) to get to him. They replaced one of the best characters in comics with a mish-mash of Crazy Girl stereotypes.
Projection hehe. Also there's something about him that's very queer-coded. What's your super power? Running? Not quite as masculine as super strength, did you get beat up in school Barry Allen?
@@CJMGalaxy don't you take MY rights away!!! My favourite character growing up was Baloo and I identify as a binary bear, and you HAVE NO RIGHT to limit that to shape shifting characters alone!!!!
About Harley "not understanding" that Arthur will get the chair if he's okay, I really think she want that : latter when she said that they lost the "fantaisy", I feel like she wanted him to die so she'll have her perfect little tragic story to tell.
Yeah, I also thought it was kind of the point that Harley didn't care about Arthur and doesn't believe that The Joker would die. She's more insane then Arthur. He turned out that way, she embraced it.
@@jamesrule1338 Yeah. There was some nuggets in there, like the explorstion of the consequence of violence and the glorification of, but it felt so rushed to me.
See if that’s what was intended, THAT is very Harley in a post-Stockholm’s syndrome arc kinda way. But I feel like that’s your opinion and not what was intended 😂
A scene where the Joker gets SA'd so brutally that he renounces the Joker persona feels like a scene made by someone who absolutely hated the first Joker movie and hated that version of the Joker for some reason. Why? The first movie was so good. DC had a goldmine with the first Joker movie. At this point, I would understand if someone thought that DC had an aversion to making good movies.
I think it's someone trying to 'gotcha' the incels who misunderstood the first one and thought Arthur was the hero just because he was the main character.
@@Joe90h I read it like that. Less like a gotcha, but more as the logical conclusion of the story. I did not feel the movie was unkind to the protagonist though. The camera showed the protagonist each time he got insulted and humiliated and I felt for him, I did not hate him for it, I emphasized. But yes, he wouldn't be the person to walk out of that with his head held high. I have the impression that I enjoyed the movie a lot because I didn't try to think too much about the meta-aspects of the movie and just took it for what it is, the delusion of the protagonist crumbling.
Nah. Theres no shows or movies that go into depth about their relationship at all. Most of the movies have been her on her own in different ways .. unless I've missed something.
I personally hated the DC tie-ins from the first one past just calling him "Joker" and thought it would've been better framed as something like Black Swan or The Whale instead of a full on DC movie. This second one shouldn't have been made. It's so pointless.
That's my thing. Is the first movie good? Eh, not my style, but a lot of people really like it. But Arthur Fleck isn't the Joker. There's almost no overlap between the iconic villain and Phoenix's character. And Gaga's Lee has even less in common with Harley Quinn, except for a psychology degree. These shouldn't be DC movies at all.
I didn't like the first one, but respected they were trying something different with the character, and that Joaquin was giving it all to his performance. But if there was ever a film that did not need a sequel, it's Joker. Its message and theme are crystal clear. It would be equally clear if it were a short film. There was nothing more to say. And I sure don't need them to say it in a jukebox musical.
Joaquin Phoenix didn’t want a sequel The director didn’t want a sequel F*ckin’ WE didn’t want a sequel But the execs wanted a third yacht, so a lackluster sequel we get
Yeah I legit haven't heard anyone aside from disconnected executives who wanted this. I heard it's estimated to lose them most of what they made off the first so hopefully that's the case and perhaps a message will be learned (probably not).
Yeah, I think this is the bulk of the movie industry now. Certainly, it's standard for films set out to lure people into cinemas. When the phenomenon of the sequel and franchise occurred - that's when the rot set in. It used to be that certain films, particularly seeing them in cinemas without all the extraneous gimmicks like needing to permanently confuse the senses of the audience, were historical events.
If you're gonna go the musical route, you have to 2000% commit to the bit. Camp the f*ck out of it. Chew the scenery. Overact. A musical should be fun.
@@myfriendscallmepat The Joker and Harley Quinn are already ridiculous characters anyway. I think this movie had a lot of good ideas, but ideas aren't necessarily what make a good story. But, if I had a say, I'd want a scene where Joker is singing a music number in the styles of Hard Knock Life, with the rest of Arkham's inmates where they dance on tables and have a childish foodfight. During the song, there are lots of nods and references to other Batman villains. The goon squad comes in and beats the absolute shit out of everyone while the villains try in vain to resist the guards. Tension between the warden and Joker is created because of this. Harley is inspired by his antics and attempt to appeal to the warden for leniency, to no avail. Her faith in the system further deteriorates.
I honestly think a musical could have been fine, if it was focused on the joker slowly tearing the city apart. But they didn't do that. It would need to be over the top and absolute _crazy_ when involving the Joker.
Why the hell do people think it's a smart move to set a musical somewhere where your characters are confined and mostly sitting? It made the Dear Evan Hansen movie absolutely unbearable to watch, and it's how we got insufferable dream sequence numbers because they couldn't find another way to shoehorn in the songs. If a movie is going to work as a musical, it has to be dynamic. There's a reason Moulin Rouge works and this landed like a wet fart.
Yeah like they went "we're going to focus on the more realistic and gritty parts of the joker in this one. Oh I know! Let's make it a musical, it's not like those are notorious for being high energy and extravagant and basically the opposite of our vision for this movie "
Genuinely would not be suprised if they had french in the title because of Les Misérables. Which would be bizarre seen as the reason Les Mis is French because it was written by a French man Victor Hugo
It is supposed to portray that they are both crazy and is a bit of a pun since deux means two in French and this is a sequel. Don’t like the movie though
Pretty disgusting to use sexual violence as a f*ck you to a certain group of fans. It's one of those topics you should not use as a tool to piss people off or use it to punish a character for being a bad person.
Yeah. I was finding the film pretty neutral until then, but that scene made me actually cry because it was so out of left field and violent, caught me off guard.
It's a concept of a jukebox musical. The marketing was so noncommittal to this film being a musical to the point you could tell they didn't take that aspect seriously.
I don't think we are puritans for wanting less sex. Its more that the sex in movies often carry no meaning for character development or plot. It is wasted screen time.
Also a lot of Gen Z reportedly watch r-rated movies with their parents and feel awkward when the sex or nude scenes come up. Personally I think it's the result of the internet allowing people to compartmentalize the erotic into its own separate sort of time and place with things like pr0n and lewd fanfiction, making the younger of us ill-prepared for coping with a culture that is saturated with the very sexuality it also fears and rebukes. That and greater acceptance of aces has made us a little more considerate of their likes and dislikes from entertainment.
Porn has been a thing for generations though. Playboy magazine is from the 50s for example. Besides wouldn't any teenager feel a little flustered watching an r rated movie around their parents? @@rickyrhodes9008
@@rickyrhodes9008I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, it often times feels straight up out of place and leaves you asking why it had to be there in the first place. If it was to 'please' the audience it often times fails because, (as you noted and as the great prof oak once said) theres a time and a place for everything but now is not that time. So it more so comes off as being out of place and meaningless. Of course, in the context of films that deal with the subject matter of sex, it might be necessary to show it off, but in this sort of context you wouldnt think it to be out of place. Its not that it should be subdued, or banned, or looked down upon as it was in the past, its that it should be used appropriatley in the contexts that justify it and warrent it.
Im so over juke box musicals; they never improve on the original songs and are just the definition of lazy. But I really didn't like the first movie or the character of Joker so I am definitely not their audience. Whenever someone says "The Joker" is their favorite comic book character, I know to stay away....looking at you Diddy.
in defence of juke box musicals I do think they can work if the songs actually have a purpose and drive the plot. in Mamma Mia for example the songs are a genuine device to give information or character development/insight. sadly a lot of juke box musicals rely on the quality of the original songs and the viewer going “oh I know that one” so instead of telling the story these songs make the musical crawl to a painful stop (like what happened in this movie on top of being a bad movie) and I totally agree with your assessment of “joker fans tm”
@@diesdas5851 Mamma Mia also works because its all from the same band and that constraint makes it more interesting compared to other juke box musicals, at least to me
@@brianbrady139Shrek also works because the pop songs fit into the broader purpose of the film. It was designed to run counter to Disney and everything they stood for, and some of the songs are well integrated i think.
There's actually a lot of cool things that could be done with jukebox musicals, the problem is nobody does it effectively, which makes it lazy. But when a studio works the plot around the music, then it actually works. 99% of movies will add the music later, which never works.
There was only one original song by Lady Gaga in the film. When she made an entire album based on being inspired by the film that they could have, ya know, used. Baffling decision making once again.
The fact that they went with a jukebox musical and no original songs is an absolutely bizarre choice. I really wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that discussion lol.
@@blueyandicy The familiar, in most cases, is much safer. So they thought they were playing it safe by using songs most folks are probably going to recognise. Its such an odd choice that I am almost willing to bet money on studio execs wanting it.
The weird thing is that I know Joaquin Phoenix can sing as he did play Johnny Cash in Walk The Line Edit: I'm gonna say it: I like Harley Quinn when she's not under Joker's thumb. James Gunn's Suicide Squad, Injustice, Birds of Prey and the animated series are some of the best Harley Quinn works
I'm pretty sure the bad singing was intentional and in character. I felt it was a great choice and am puzzled that people think that was a flaw of the movie, not of the character. I now learn that the movie was teased as being a musical. In that case, I get the disappointment. I would have thought the singing was not meant as musical-singing. In a musical, we are expected to realize the people are not actually singing. In this movie, it was all in character, or in their heads.
Harley's origin is intrinsically tied to the Joker, so her origin story has to include him. She can - and has - evolved beyond that, but if you're doing her origin story then he has to be there.
I think a musical could have worked amazingly if the Joker was actually funny, but this versions whole deal is that he fucking sucks as a clown and is (hilariously,(but only in a meta way)) way too serious
I don't even care about the original joker, but as a lover of musical theatre, every single thing and clip I see from this film fills me with inexplicable wrathful despair.
I kinda feel like the director made this movie bad on purpose because he knew that if he didn't make it, someone else would and the concept would just get milked to death. This way he kinda put an end to it on his own terms.
This kind of demonization of DID?? In 2024? Feels like some shit out of the early 2000s. Its such a weird addition like it doesnt even make sense, the fact that you barely mention it in the video just further shows how strange and out of place of an addition this was.
@@Keebrev do you mean in some new kind of context? If so, why? This kind of media is nothing new, I just thought we were finally moving past it a little
@@autumn_breeze616 Idk if this is what the other person means, but there was a rise of pre-teens on social media (particularly TikTok) during covid-era who would fake that they had DID. And TH-cam too, pre-covid. I remember Trisha Paytas faking it. It seems like no one takes it seriously
I'm not usually supersensitive, but with all the talk about the movie's many flaws, I'm surprised more people don't talk about the assault in the showers. I don't get why it was included and it's giving me the icks, because it either seems to imply it's what sets Joker straight and makes him take accountability, or it's just in there out of a sort of moral vindictiveness, like "see what happens to you when you're like this", and in both cases it's kinda disturbing. I'm being reminded of American History X, and how much more integrally it was set it up and dwellt on the aftermath, and also made it clear it wasn't on its own what set the protagonist to the path of righteousness. Idk, just me?
I hate how they made an effort to make the Joker look like the Joker with the full clown make up, and bright suit, but Harely Quinn just looks like Lady Gaga with some crazy eye shadow like they put absolutely no effort into her design.
A+ for the Frontier Psychiatry reference. I knew the film was screwed the moments I caught a homage to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg in the trailer. As a tech theatre kid, this was a terrible musical. As a comic book fan, this was lazy. As a film nerd, this was a tonal mess I assume WB and Philips made for money. Then again, I thought the first film was average at best.
Finding out that (modern) Joaquin Phoenix can’t sing is the least surprising thing ever. I’ve been saying ever since they announced it was going to be a musical that “I don’t think that Joaquin Phoenix can sing anymore”
I can still appreciate bold experiments in the superhero genre like Joker 2 and Glass no matter how much they might not work as films. They definitely add something unique to a somewhat stale genre.
Well now the theory goes the director didn't even want to make a sequel so the plot itself was a bit of a protest. Don't know if I buy it, but it would explain a few things
People watching this need to know of two things 1. Joker 1 was not a DC movie and is just a remake of the concepts around Taxi Driver and King of Comedy 2. Joker 2 is why major studios are losing so much money...and why Taxi Driver also didn't need a sequel At the very least I am glad the technical staff and crews were paid, I guess...
never thought I'd feel bad for the Joker "literally me!!" nerds but here we are. imagine making a movie out of spite when millions of people would love the opportunity to tell a story on the big screen. gross! let's stop rewarding people like that pleeeeease Hollywood
Joker 2 goes after the people that misunderstood the first movie, and I'd say that's something that's needed sometimes. People sometimes need to be told that the main character isn't the hero, isn't to be idolized, isn't to be sympathized with.
@@ToaAgarwaenBut did they REALLY have to SA Arthur tho? I felt like they kinda showed that he wasn’t a good guy in the first movie as it was, why not exemplify that more, show that he’s a broken man that refuses to go back and get help or acknowledge his trauma?
@@ToaAgarwaen yeah that is bs. Arthur was shown as extremly sympathetic in the og movie. Not a hero but if the director belives it is out fault that we sympathised with a mentally ill man that gets constantly abused and played with then that is on him. He wrote badly. Joker 2 should have been about the director taking a writting course
@@goldenhorse4823 He was shown as sympathetic to start, but you're supposed to stop sympathizing with him as the movie goes on; no matter what was done to him, that doesn't justify what Arthur goes on to do. I think enough people missed that and this movie is a shot at the notion the Joker is still sympathetic after all the shit he did.
@@GOFFBITZH666 I think the movie did all of that. He's a broken man who is just trying to find acceptance, but doing so in all the wrong ways. The SA scene is uncomfortable and unpleasant to watch. I don't feel sorry for Authur and I feel absolute contempt for the guards. To me, the scene handled the subject as well as can be expected; it doesn't make fun of Arthur, it isn't played for laughs, it doesn't make the guards better people. Its showing SA as the horrifying act it is. It may not be necessary, but with how often I see people saying bad men should be SA'd as punishment for certain crimes (not even SA-related crimes, just severe crime in general), the scene seems to resonate with how a lot of Americans feel about prison SA (which is to say, a lot of people just don't care).
Joker was Taxi Driver/The King of Comedy. Joker 2 should've been One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/A Clockwork Orange. I think if Todd Phillips stuck to copying older films, it would've worked. It was a missed opportunity to tell a gritty, disgusting, institutional story. The first film gave us glimpses of how malfunctioned, and utterly flawed healthcare in Gotham is. Citizens with mental health issues in Gotham are treated like scum. Let's delve deeper into that, Run with that. Tell a rich story that just so happens to have Joker in it. Arkham could've been a trough of material.
As a Flash fan who is painfully straight (I suffer from it every day) I'm not upset at the comment so much as using Barry instead of Wally. Granted I'm also old as dirt,, turned 40 this year, so I'm forever stuck in the late 90s/early 2000s when he was the main Flash and I feel it's been a step backwards to bring back Barry so all the old comic boomers can pretend time doesn't move on. Which weirdly also made me okay with them moving on from Wally to Bart and was a bit let down when that lasted all of like a year.
@তুলিরাঙা just being silly is all. My girlfriend teases me about being uninterested in men romantically and sexually but I will point out and appreciate when a man is good looking.
Just an observation: the first movie I thought always flirted a little too much with the idea that Fleck was justified in what he was doing, and the movie is structured to empathise with him a little too much, so it almost seems like this movie is Todd Phillips going "oh, fuck, gotta correct that".
I literally just figured out how to rewrite the movie to make it not suck anymore without really changing the actual plot. Have it instead take place from Harley Quin's Lady Gaga's perspective, and the general plot is about Harley Quinn falling in love with the "Joker" and helping to break him out, only to realize by the 2nd act that he's not some "revolutionary" but a legit murderous psychopath that's going to kill everybody, and now in the 3rd act she has to try to make sure he does go to jail but of course the justice system doesn't believe women, so she has to do a dangerous dance with the devil to get him to confess that he's not who everybody says he is (instead of him confessing it himself), and then it's a final confrontation against a legit psychopath in a burning courtroom, and everything else goes down the same way. What makes this story better is that it's basically Joker 1, but it's a social critique of how women are also negatively impacted by inequality that makes them vulnerable powerful manipulative men who will promise them anything, and then screw them over, and they still get to keep their DCMU franchise ending if they want.
I'm going to go on a limb and say this movie was written and filmed as you suggested & at the last minute, decided to not create a new group of Quinn-inspired femcels.
As a person who loves musicals, i thought the way they handled the musical segments was atrocious. It was frustrating to get invested with a scene and have them interrupt it with a song that had no impact on the story I could tell people in my theater didn't like it either as i noticed some of them walked out and started to use their phones less than an hour in. Also to have a Joker film where he doesn't kill a single person is WILD
I respect ambition above many things, yet if you’re an artist trying to do something you don’t fully understand; maybe it’s best not to close off those who are professionals out of production.
Dedaaaasssss. The problem I hold with a few people who say ‘the movie is about Arthur’s internal struggles’ is that if it was DONE WELL by people WHO KNOW how to do it, it would work really well. But we just got one slow beat which was shiteeee
My god, the first one got absolutely UNREAL praise and I watched it thinking the whole time, "THIS?? THIS IS THE MOVIE people are clamoring about?" Now I feel like the Joker laughing at society tricked into watching this and me just overflowing with schadenfreude.
Being a musical is not a deal breaker for comicbook fans. Any media containing Music Meister will prove that. However, bad musicals tend to crash and burn rather hard.
I feel like they could have done so much with the “folie á duex” point. Making Lee obsessed with the joker as much as comic Harley is, Arthur using Lee’s presence to fill the void making him lose himself in the delusions, using Gaga’s beautiful voice for inner thoughts and feelings. While I know Gaga’s Harlequin album isn’t wholly apart of the movie it would have been great if they went the eccentric direction the album went, it probably would have made the movie more enjoyable.
I was not a fan of the first Joker movie. I didn't think it was that much better than numerous movies that are on Netflix for a couple of weeks and disappear. However, it caught lightning in a bottle and really resonated with some people. It would've taken a miracle for that to happen again.
I thought the scene you mention of him laughing in the rain was going to lead to a short reprise of the song sung beforehand, as a like *okay, that last scene was just in his head, but from here on out, the singing is ACTUALLY happening* kind of moment. I even thought I heard the score surging up in the background to allow the laughing to lead into him bursting out into singing, but then he just....laughs? Which - fine, whatever, but the set up for a "reprise of the I Want song" moment felt so intentional that I have to assume the choice to NOT go that direction was Also intentional...and I hated that!
I disagree honestly coming from the camp of thinking the Joker was average and wasn't as profound as some people made it. Trial movies are hard but centering a story on persona can honestly be boring. The symbolism was clear if not boldface. It wasn't a musical that was a device not genre.
I usually don't like watching video essays about media I haven't seen, but I have to say that your videos are always the exception to this. I really love how you explain them to someone who has pretty much no context. Love your vids and your sense of humor, keep it up Pat
Joaquin Phoenix CAN sing, for some reason the director just wanted him to sing poorly on purpose. I feel like we really shouldn't take his performance in this movie as a good example of his singing ability.
Arthur is crying in the rain laughing scene. Lee lit a matchbook and music sheet then dropped them i to the piano. She didnt light the curtains on fire. Smoking is so common in arkham asylum so its reasonable that it took awhile before people noticed the smoke as coming from something other than cigarette. Its okay to not like the movie. Just remember that not liking a movie is not the same as a movie being bad. There are issues with the movie, but few were touched on by Pat. Most of their complaints were about things they didnt like.
See, now you're nitpicking with my choice of words lol. The curtains almost instantly caught on fire, alongside the piano. And moreover, if you honestly believe that the smell of half a room being on fire and a few people smoking cigarettes are in any way comparable, you're giving the movie far too much credit and not being very honest.
@myfriendscallmepat Nit-picky? Maybe, but at least I accurately recount the movie. You misrepresent scenes or actions in the movie. By doing so, you change the movie into something it is not. Usually, you change the movie into something more easily ridiculed, which isn't surprising given that you're trying to be entertaining. Most of the time, you exagerate like what you're doing now. Half the room was not on fire when people began to notice. That's an exaggeration. The fire hadn't spread outside the corner of the room before people started leaving. You're right. The fire had quickly spread to the curtains, but that's not what you said in your video. You claimed that Lee lit the curtains and piano on fire with the match book. Fleck did not make out with his lawyer in court. That's an exaggeration. Making out implies Fleck was repeatedly kissing her. He kissed her once in that scene. Now, I know that you don't accurately recount movies, and that's okay. You're a youtuber trying to make a funny movie review first and an accurate movie review second. Everybody has their lane.
One of the more bizarre things to me is Joaquin Phoenix played Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. He sang fine in that! The cover of Jackson he and Reese Witherspoon did for it was pretty popular. Like. He has some singing ability, why you gotta push him so far outside his range and make everyone suffer.
I’m so, so sick of Hollywood jukebox musicals. I feel like it’s a lot of people’s primary exposure to the musical genre, and it gives all of Broadway a bad impression.
You are not a homosexual him, pretending like the flash isn’t one of the most popular superheroes is kinda insane. Go to any Walmart target or bookstore and you will see flash book bags/comics/shirts. I’m just gonna assume that was a slip of the tongue because there’s no way he could actually think that.
I noticed that the number of viewers who are subscribers is up again, that's good! I actually think the idea of making the sequel a musical for no real reason is kinda brilliant in a weird way, but you'd have to *really* stick the landing and deliver on the execution and apparently this movie does not, at all. Goes to prove that all those AI bros are wrong and ideas AREN'T the only thing that matters in creating art!
Yeah I really tried to get this point across, like I was genuinely hyped for this movie and I think if it had been a true musical and written as such, it would've been a lot better
First off, thank you for enduring The Joker Fail at Everything for us. Sadly, I went into this movie more or less blind having not even watched any trailers but given how enjoyable the first one was, I thought, "Why not?". That's over two hours of my life I will never get back. Regarding the effect this movie will have on the deranged incel crowd, my concern is that by making Harley a manipulator, it may only fan the flames of their deep hatred for "the whamens". Also, the only redeeming feature of this film I could dig out was the performance of Leigh Gill as Gary Puddles on the stand. He gave an incredible showing as a genuinely terrified, broken man who is being forced to face his greatest fear and also deal with the misery of knowing the one person who treated him with even the smallest amount of decency is a lunatic murderer.
The first one sucked too. Can't we have new actors in these roles? Phoenix as the Joker and Napoleon were so badly cast he ruined both films. Give some new talent a chance.
You mean the sequel to a movie that replicated other movies about psychological breakdowns, replicated them in a way that was superficial, and seemed to have no concept of the actual human condition made a movie that replicates other movies and songs to recreate them in a superficial way while not understanding the actual human condition behind those other things? Damn. Also I swear the prison sexual assault scene is just Shawshank Redemption.
Also, Joker one is good as it portrays what life is like for most under privileged citizens with severe mental illness have to go through in the states. Usually, they are homeless or live in a shelter. Then shows you that Joker isn't a morally good person as he has been abused in life and finally had snapped. As a Man who was supposed to act like I wasn't allowed to talk about my Severe Depression and Severe Social Anxiety because of my abusive father and toxic masc culture i was in. It helps bring the Idea of everyone needs help and shouldn't be shunned for it. The bad parts are people thinking that all people with mental illness are going to do something crazy like kill people. Plus the Incel energy was real in the movie. Otherwise it was pretty good.
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Too much of a musical for Joker fans, not enough of a musical for musical fans. This demented middle ground is a nightmare.
Too crazy for boy's town. Too much of a boy for crazy town. The child was an outcast.
Avoiding reaching both groups is actually super easy, barely even an inconvenience.
Joker 2 is what I call a New Coke movie. Remember the eighties, when Coca-Cola found out that Pepsi was selling better than Coke, so they made a "New Coke" that tasted more like Pepsi? Turns out, the people who liked Coke didn't want something that tasted like Pepsi, and the people who liked Pepsi were happy to keep on drinking Pepsi. Joker 2 is kind of like that- it simultaneously alienates old fans by being a musical and turns off potential new fans by insisting it isn't a musical.
I do think there's an alternate universe where this is a brilliant film. Moulin Rouge meets Chicago with the Joker branding to get butts in seats. Joaquin Phoenix played Johnny Cash to a T, he can sing, Lady Gaga has the acting talent and the pipes. The ingredients are there but Todd Phillips decided to bake the metaphorical cake in a pasta strainer inside a microwave.
To be absolutely fair.. this is exactly what the Joker would do. A dissonant mess that purposefully pleases no one.
Granted, that means nobody really wants to see it. But still.
It took me a moment to see you were dressed as the Joker, and not a formal male Velma. Perhaps it’s that color combo that’s cursed.
I WISH it was a male Velma costume
Jenkies, that's harsh
I thought he was dressed as the Fantastic Mr Fox 😭
@@hayleywindus8471whistle click click
i shrieked, help
Even though I agree it's not well portrayed, Arthur falling hard for the first woman to show him any physical affection after a lifetime of being starved of physical touch from anyone except his abuser was one of the parts I found most believable. I've seen it happen in real life. Often to the exact kind of people who found The Joker to be a revelation about themselves.
You've nailed it, and I think if any of them noticed, they are mad about it.
That's just one of the things he gets wrong in this review. You are correct. Arthur falling for Harley is extremely believable when you consider this is a grown man who has likely never been shown the slightest bit of positive attention from a woman, outside of his mother. He's also wrong about the scene of Arthur laughing being completely pointless. It was meant to show Arthur's frustration in his inability to channel the "Joker" aspect of his personality. It's him realizing he's just a fucked up dude named Arthur who killed some people, not a hero. Also, a person wouldnt pantomime a sword murder by swinging a pretend sword. They would use the edge of their hand/forearm in a swiping motion towards their neck/body. This is generally how people pantomime a blade slashing.
These types of reviews are as tired as the Hollywood dogshit they're criticizing. Quick edits, snarky tone, trying too hard to sound clever, basically being correct but nitpicking and being just objectively wrong about other things because they have to be as negative as possible to get more subs. I saw a channel with 20k subs when The Acolyte first came out end up with like 150k subs by the time it ended, all because of the extremely negative weekly reviews. Joker 2 is just the newest thing to hate.
Btw I didnt like it either, though I can appreciate what Philips was going for with the meta-commentary and Harley representing a toxic fanbase of the first film. There just needed to be more, and it's clear Philips wasn't interested. This movie should have never been made.
@@marioargiropoulos4747 A+ for your comment it's all clear and true. I've also recently noticed that bashing trend on different topics and it's annoying.
You're absolutely right.
Literally as soon as the lady in the first movie showed an ounce of care he was attached so yea that’s totally believable on that front.
its strange that the first one has more dancing than the musical one
No WAY
😢
Part of me wishes producers stopped getting directors that hate their movies
or authors, producers that hate their work (yes, i _will_ talk about HOTD on a completely unrelated video)
@@killer_queen4062 You mean Highschool of the dead? it didn't strike me as a show they didn't like making, but it has been a while
@@CORV3TT33 oh what a coincidence, i was talking about house of the dragon lol. but either way my comment stands 😆
@@killer_queen4062 Ah, yeah that makes sense.
@@killer_queen4062 I thought it was the little House On The Dairy.
They could've made a *really* good movie about Harley Quinn. A prologue that's a time lapse of her witnessing the events of the first movie. Then we follow her activities getting into Arkham, experiencing *her* mental image of the Joker. Make him bigger than he ultimately is because that's how she see's him. Telling him lies, that we know from the jump are lies, because she views him as intimidating but desires to be close. You can still hit the same plot lines of this movie, but present it from her perspective. The only scenes the Joker are actually in are the ones where he's with Harley Quinn. And in them he's acting like the Joker. Extremely confident... his laughing is not desperate and forced, but mirthful and on purpose.
An image she has which is shattered by the ending twist. A twist that hits harder because we've spent the movie only seeming him as the Joker caricature.
And leave the court room scenes out. Just have Quinn learn from the news about crazy nonsense. Oh my god, it would've been really great commentary to present news media as hyping up the antics of "The Joker" only to reveal, at the end, that it's just Arthur Fleck in over his head. And Harley Quinn bought into the media's portrayal, built up her new identity around that portrayal, only at the end to learn that Arthur Fleck isn't the person she thought. Have her interact with his supporters slowly becoming their commander due to her closeness with the Joker, portray them as believing that he's going to be the force of chaotic change they want him to be, but in the end he's really not all what they think. But they refuse to believe and, in the end, are shown latching onto the replacement Joker that killed Arthur Fleck. There's a hint that Harley knows better, but... eh, she wants a Joker in her life.
That’s very good.
And that's where the musicals became actually thematic. Have them be for the fantasies that people are having. But the music *stops* during the times when reality happen. You can even still have that moment where Harley is desperately trying to hold onto the fantasy and starts singing. But make it *bad* singing and have Arthur stop her. He *never* liked the singing because they were doing it badly the whole time, even though it was presented as good singing.
@@PebkioNomare that’s something. They say the singing was bad on purpose but if it’s delusions wouldn’t you imagine yourself singing good?
@@billmcdermott9647 The singing wasn't... bad. Especially from Lady Gaga. The music was bad. Overall. But the performances were fine. Kinda iffy from Jaoquin, but nothing I'd call regular-person bad.
The music being bad "on purpose" is pure copium, though. For a billion reasons I keep starting to type out but then realize it's going to take pages of explanation and I'm not a TH-cam essayist. In short, making it bad "on purpose", without juxtaposition, would be contradicting the very point of a musical.
That could actually work
"People should've been upset that they made a live action Beauty and the Beast movie." Facts.
People were sort of upset about it.
I mean that one was the most okay out of any of the live action films
And with a bad singer as Belle.
@@CoolAnagramI think Aladdin was the best I saw. And I've heard good things about Cinderella. But it's not a very high bar to clear.
I'm still upset!
To be fair, from what I understand, the bad singing on Phoenix's part was intentional. Supposedly (because I haven't seen the movie) Lady Gaga sings intentionally badly, too. They're not singing as Gaga and Phoenix. They're singing as Fleck and Quinzel.
To your point, though, that's part of the problem. If you're going to make it a musical, the singing has to be good. Having bad singing -- even if it's intentionally bad -- isn't going to win you any friends.
There is exactly one movie with music as a crucial piece of the story where singing was intentionally bad that worked, and that was Florence Foster Jenkins. Even that that wasn’t a musical, it just had a lot of music in it. It was a “biography” of a New York Heriess that wanted to do opera, but was really bad at it. The only reason it worked is because the entire story was about her being bad at opera, but still wanting to do it. Just shoving in that the characters are bad at singing into a completely different story doesn’t work at all.
This is so true.
The music is not meant to pleasing like Pat wanted. The singing worked for me. It allowed the characters to be more relatable and realistic to me.
The music is not meant to pleasing like Pat wanted. The singing worked for me. It allowed the characters to be more relatable and realistic to me.
@@metronicmagician1816 wouldve cost nothing to write the characters as people who just loved singing privately and do the simplest level of lampshading. Ex., he stopped singing for XYZ trauma reason and that's why we don't see him "actually" sing in the first movie. It's an insult to the musical genre to suggest it's "unrealistic" or "unrelatable" for the characters to actually be good singers, when every single musical ever expects suspension of that specific disbelief. It's for the love of the genre that you have great performers, choreographers, and songwriting. Without those things it actually kinda just isn't a musical imo.
My favorite part was when he said "it's jokin' time" and then he jokered to the extreme
It feels off having Harley Quinn being the manipulator when a huge part of her relationship with the Joker is that he manipulated her and was abusive to her
Wasn't it done in a game adaptation as well?
I mean, in the comics the joker is not a poor working class person with a lot of issues and is generally a crime lord
I think flipping the relationship could work though, lol there's no reason Joker can't be the victim and Harley the abuser, as long as that's its own reimagining. That's pretty much how the Telltale series does the Joker and honestly it's one of my favourite depictions of the characters.
Like thinking about it an asylum patient being abusive towards the psychologist in a position of power over them has got to be less common than the alternative.
The problem is that it wouldn't be in-character for Arthur to be a manipulative abuser. He longs for connection and will fall for any woman who actually shows interest
@@kc8391 actually yes, in Batman Telltale their relationship is the opposite. And It works!
My favorite line was when he said "I'm the joker, baby!"
“I’m da Arthur, babey!”
When he said "It's jokin' time" really got me choked up
He then Joked all over the place.
and then he said 'it's jokin time' and joked all over the joking jokes as much as a joked joker could possibly joke
@@PostingCringeOnMain absolute cinema
Gen Z doesn't hate sex scenes. But most sex scenes are like the raining scene, like you mentioned. Completely unnecessary and irrelevant to the plot.
Agreed
And also tend to sexualize women far more than men which just is icky cause a real life woman did have to be filmed for those scenes and basically be exploited for her body
@@bakuhatsubutsuany sex scene in a romance, rom com or coming of age story. Also the sex scene in fight club.
An example pls@@SineN0mine3
irrelevant? lee later says shes pregnant and uses that to manipulate arther. couldnt have that if they dont show a sex scene?
Lady Gaga is a rare case where a good actress (yeah, you read it right) made bad material work. Her character is horrid and badly written but she played it well and is a bonus that in this musical she obviously shines through.
And yet, some folks wholeheartedly believe she's the sole responsible of the movie's downfall.
She is a good performer generally in film, but she was flat in this movie. In all fairness, they didn’t do much with her Lee character. A lot of jarring character decisions in this movie
They did her (and the film) a major disservice when they completely changed Harleen Quinzel's character from an Arkham psychologist to voluntarily committing herself (to an asylum for criminals?) to get to him. They replaced one of the best characters in comics with a mish-mash of Crazy Girl stereotypes.
She’s such an incredibly talented person.
She can't act at all and can barely sing. She payola'd her way into stardom.
From what I read Joaquin had a dream and that's how this movie came to be.
"if you liked the flash as a kid you're probably gay now" PAT HOW THE FUCK DID YOU KNOW THAT?!
Tom Cruise as The Flash: "You can't catch me gay thoughts!"
Projection hehe. Also there's something about him that's very queer-coded. What's your super power? Running? Not quite as masculine as super strength, did you get beat up in school Barry Allen?
@@myfriendscallmepat every kid who loved any shape-shifting character as a kid is trans now, it's just how it works
That's so true tho
@@CJMGalaxy don't you take MY rights away!!! My favourite character growing up was Baloo and I identify as a binary bear, and you HAVE NO RIGHT to limit that to shape shifting characters alone!!!!
About Harley "not understanding" that Arthur will get the chair if he's okay, I really think she want that : latter when she said that they lost the "fantaisy", I feel like she wanted him to die so she'll have her perfect little tragic story to tell.
Yeah, I also thought it was kind of the point that Harley didn't care about Arthur and doesn't believe that The Joker would die. She's more insane then Arthur. He turned out that way, she embraced it.
Good eye
A good idea. Shame about the movie it's in.
@@jamesrule1338 Yeah. There was some nuggets in there, like the explorstion of the consequence of violence and the glorification of, but it felt so rushed to me.
See if that’s what was intended, THAT is very Harley in a post-Stockholm’s syndrome arc kinda way. But I feel like that’s your opinion and not what was intended 😂
A scene where the Joker gets SA'd so brutally that he renounces the Joker persona feels like a scene made by someone who absolutely hated the first Joker movie and hated that version of the Joker for some reason. Why? The first movie was so good. DC had a goldmine with the first Joker movie. At this point, I would understand if someone thought that DC had an aversion to making good movies.
I think it's someone trying to 'gotcha' the incels who misunderstood the first one and thought Arthur was the hero just because he was the main character.
In what scene does joker get SAd 🤨
Wait, what?! He gets WHAT?!?!
@@mattgarcia2168he gets severely beaten by the guards at Arkham and it's heavily implied that they SA'd him after
@@Joe90h I read it like that. Less like a gotcha, but more as the logical conclusion of the story. I did not feel the movie was unkind to the protagonist though. The camera showed the protagonist each time he got insulted and humiliated and I felt for him, I did not hate him for it, I emphasized. But yes, he wouldn't be the person to walk out of that with his head held high.
I have the impression that I enjoyed the movie a lot because I didn't try to think too much about the meta-aspects of the movie and just took it for what it is, the delusion of the protagonist crumbling.
The best harley quinn portrayals are ones where she's independent of joker. We've adapted their relationship enough.
That’s why I love Birds of Prey!!!
Nah. Theres no shows or movies that go into depth about their relationship at all. Most of the movies have been her on her own in different ways .. unless I've missed something.
I personally hated the DC tie-ins from the first one past just calling him "Joker" and thought it would've been better framed as something like Black Swan or The Whale instead of a full on DC movie. This second one shouldn't have been made. It's so pointless.
That's my thing. Is the first movie good? Eh, not my style, but a lot of people really like it. But Arthur Fleck isn't the Joker. There's almost no overlap between the iconic villain and Phoenix's character. And Gaga's Lee has even less in common with Harley Quinn, except for a psychology degree. These shouldn't be DC movies at all.
I didn't like the first one, but respected they were trying something different with the character, and that Joaquin was giving it all to his performance. But if there was ever a film that did not need a sequel, it's Joker. Its message and theme are crystal clear. It would be equally clear if it were a short film. There was nothing more to say. And I sure don't need them to say it in a jukebox musical.
Joaquin Phoenix didn’t want a sequel
The director didn’t want a sequel
F*ckin’ WE didn’t want a sequel
But the execs wanted a third yacht, so a lackluster sequel we get
Lackluster would be heavy praise for the first Joker
Then don't make sequel but they took the 💰💰 and took a dump on studio and fans.
Yeah I legit haven't heard anyone aside from disconnected executives who wanted this. I heard it's estimated to lose them most of what they made off the first so hopefully that's the case and perhaps a message will be learned (probably not).
What? Do you realize that the director is a grown ass man and he can choose to make the movie or not?
Stop defending him for making a shit film.
Yeah, I think this is the bulk of the movie industry now. Certainly, it's standard for films set out to lure people into cinemas. When the phenomenon of the sequel and franchise occurred - that's when the rot set in. It used to be that certain films, particularly seeing them in cinemas without all the extraneous gimmicks like needing to permanently confuse the senses of the audience, were historical events.
22:46 It wasn't even a gay kiss for LeFou, he literally just danced with a man on screen for two seconds. 😭
Oop apparently I memory-holed that one. In fairness I was on a pretty terrible date at the time, I was more focused on my gay kisses tbh
If you're gonna go the musical route, you have to 2000% commit to the bit. Camp the f*ck out of it. Chew the scenery. Overact.
A musical should be fun.
Yes! This was my biggest thing that the film was missing. Musicals are fun!
@@myfriendscallmepat The Joker and Harley Quinn are already ridiculous characters anyway.
I think this movie had a lot of good ideas, but ideas aren't necessarily what make a good story. But, if I had a say, I'd want a scene where Joker is singing a music number in the styles of Hard Knock Life, with the rest of Arkham's inmates where they dance on tables and have a childish foodfight. During the song, there are lots of nods and references to other Batman villains. The goon squad comes in and beats the absolute shit out of everyone while the villains try in vain to resist the guards.
Tension between the warden and Joker is created because of this. Harley is inspired by his antics and attempt to appeal to the warden for leniency, to no avail. Her faith in the system further deteriorates.
I honestly think a musical could have been fine, if it was focused on the joker slowly tearing the city apart. But they didn't do that. It would need to be over the top and absolute _crazy_ when involving the Joker.
Why the hell do people think it's a smart move to set a musical somewhere where your characters are confined and mostly sitting? It made the Dear Evan Hansen movie absolutely unbearable to watch, and it's how we got insufferable dream sequence numbers because they couldn't find another way to shoehorn in the songs. If a movie is going to work as a musical, it has to be dynamic. There's a reason Moulin Rouge works and this landed like a wet fart.
Yeah like they went "we're going to focus on the more realistic and gritty parts of the joker in this one. Oh I know! Let's make it a musical, it's not like those are notorious for being high energy and extravagant and basically the opposite of our vision for this movie "
"If you liked the Flash as a kid, you're probably gay now"
How dare you be absolutely correct.
Honestly surprised by how much I seemed to have gotten it on the money haha
I loved the Flash when I was young, and yes, I am gay, therefore I'm personally attacked and you will be hearing from my lawyer
Is your lawyer just you dressed as the Joker
Genuinely would not be suprised if they had french in the title because of Les Misérables. Which would be bizarre seen as the reason Les Mis is French because it was written by a French man Victor Hugo
I just think "folie a deux" is a well known psychological term and it fit the idea of the story.
It is supposed to portray that they are both crazy and is a bit of a pun since deux means two in French and this is a sequel. Don’t like the movie though
Pretty disgusting to use sexual violence as a f*ck you to a certain group of fans. It's one of those topics you should not use as a tool to piss people off or use it to punish a character for being a bad person.
Yeah, that part felt pretty cruel and unnecessary
Bad plot device. Beeen sauying that. Its so annoying. Just write better. 🤷♀️
Yeah. I was finding the film pretty neutral until then, but that scene made me actually cry because it was so out of left field and violent, caught me off guard.
It's a concept of a jukebox musical. The marketing was so noncommittal to this film being a musical to the point you could tell they didn't take that aspect seriously.
I'm not a fan of jukebox musicals at the best of times and this seemed like a particularly shitty rendition of the idea
I don't think we are puritans for wanting less sex. Its more that the sex in movies often carry no meaning for character development or plot. It is wasted screen time.
Also a lot of Gen Z reportedly watch r-rated movies with their parents and feel awkward when the sex or nude scenes come up.
Personally I think it's the result of the internet allowing people to compartmentalize the erotic into its own separate sort of time and place with things like pr0n and lewd fanfiction, making the younger of us ill-prepared for coping with a culture that is saturated with the very sexuality it also fears and rebukes. That and greater acceptance of aces has made us a little more considerate of their likes and dislikes from entertainment.
Porn has been a thing for generations though. Playboy magazine is from the 50s for example. Besides wouldn't any teenager feel a little flustered watching an r rated movie around their parents? @@rickyrhodes9008
Nah, you're just prudes.
@@rickyrhodes9008I think you hit the nail on the head with this one, it often times feels straight up out of place and leaves you asking why it had to be there in the first place. If it was to 'please' the audience it often times fails because, (as you noted and as the great prof oak once said) theres a time and a place for everything but now is not that time. So it more so comes off as being out of place and meaningless. Of course, in the context of films that deal with the subject matter of sex, it might be necessary to show it off, but in this sort of context you wouldnt think it to be out of place. Its not that it should be subdued, or banned, or looked down upon as it was in the past, its that it should be used appropriatley in the contexts that justify it and warrent it.
@@gavinferguson2938 Oh, I absolutely hate it and think you're all frigid little prudes. I just understand why and can empathize to a limited capacity.
Im so over juke box musicals; they never improve on the original songs and are just the definition of lazy. But I really didn't like the first movie or the character of Joker so I am definitely not their audience. Whenever someone says "The Joker" is their favorite comic book character, I know to stay away....looking at you Diddy.
in defence of juke box musicals I do think they can work if the songs actually have a purpose and drive the plot. in Mamma Mia for example the songs are a genuine device to give information or character development/insight. sadly a lot of juke box musicals rely on the quality of the original songs and the viewer going “oh I know that one” so instead of telling the story these songs make the musical crawl to a painful stop (like what happened in this movie on top of being a bad movie)
and I totally agree with your assessment of “joker fans tm”
@@diesdas5851 Mamma Mia also works because its all from the same band and that constraint makes it more interesting compared to other juke box musicals, at least to me
@@brianbrady139Shrek also works because the pop songs fit into the broader purpose of the film. It was designed to run counter to Disney and everything they stood for, and some of the songs are well integrated i think.
@@AnEmu404shrek also has a musical identity outside of pop songs
There's actually a lot of cool things that could be done with jukebox musicals, the problem is nobody does it effectively, which makes it lazy. But when a studio works the plot around the music, then it actually works. 99% of movies will add the music later, which never works.
Some movies are better left as a standalone. Not every good movie benefits from a sequel.
There was only one original song by Lady Gaga in the film. When she made an entire album based on being inspired by the film that they could have, ya know, used. Baffling decision making once again.
I suspect that the movie was intentionally not allowed to be good because the director was feeling spiteful
The fact that they went with a jukebox musical and no original songs is an absolutely bizarre choice. I really wish I could have been a fly on the wall for that discussion lol.
You and me both
Especially considering the frankly absurd budget...all that money and they couldn't afford an original OST? fucking HOW?
@@blueyandicy The familiar, in most cases, is much safer. So they thought they were playing it safe by using songs most folks are probably going to recognise.
Its such an odd choice that I am almost willing to bet money on studio execs wanting it.
The fact even Lady Gaga couldn’t save this movie speaks volumes.
Yeah I liked her in a star is born but this was just tragedy
My friends call me the Joker, Baby!!!
The weird thing is that I know Joaquin Phoenix can sing as he did play Johnny Cash in Walk The Line
Edit: I'm gonna say it: I like Harley Quinn when she's not under Joker's thumb. James Gunn's Suicide Squad, Injustice, Birds of Prey and the animated series are some of the best Harley Quinn works
I'm pretty sure the bad singing was intentional and in character. I felt it was a great choice and am puzzled that people think that was a flaw of the movie, not of the character.
I now learn that the movie was teased as being a musical. In that case, I get the disappointment. I would have thought the singing was not meant as musical-singing. In a musical, we are expected to realize the people are not actually singing. In this movie, it was all in character, or in their heads.
Harley's origin is intrinsically tied to the Joker, so her origin story has to include him.
She can - and has - evolved beyond that, but if you're doing her origin story then he has to be there.
Wanna know how I got these songs? Well, I'm tha Jokah, baby! 🤡
“This town needs an enema!”
I think a musical could have worked amazingly if the Joker was actually funny, but this versions whole deal is that he fucking sucks as a clown and is (hilariously,(but only in a meta way)) way too serious
0:40 I’m sorry but the jump scare of seeing a bunch of F1 drivers used as a stock photo is INSANE!!
i briefly saw it and went “wait… is that?” and i was right
Why is he drinking milk…
Agreed 😂
I don't even care about the original joker, but as a lover of musical theatre, every single thing and clip I see from this film fills me with inexplicable wrathful despair.
"Eating an antire bag of potato chips in one sitting"
Well goddamn fine I'll put down the potato chips
Literally have an open bag of ruffles in front of me, cannot stop calling me out 😂
@@CJMGalaxy Ikr right like, leave me and my son (bag of chips) alone!
Found your channel recently and I hope it explodes in the algorrithm someday. Your review style feels very fresh and dynamic. Keep it up.
Awe, thanks my friend. I really do just try to channel what I feel about the movie and break it down and make some jokes.
I kinda feel like the director made this movie bad on purpose because he knew that if he didn't make it, someone else would and the concept would just get milked to death. This way he kinda put an end to it on his own terms.
I agree
Could've also done that at the end of the first movie by having the car that Arthur is in crash and him die.
That's dumb. You're just wasting everyone's time, talent and money because you're childish.
I'm going to throw a watch party for this movie, invite a bumch of people, and then actually play "The Giy Who Didn't Like Musical" by the Star Kidz.
the star kidz???? do you mean starkid?
@@confused-as-ell yeah, I don't know what happened in my brainpan.
I blame legalization.
This kind of demonization of DID?? In 2024? Feels like some shit out of the early 2000s. Its such a weird addition like it doesnt even make sense, the fact that you barely mention it in the video just further shows how strange and out of place of an addition this was.
DID has been rather controversial for the past few years.
@@Keebrev do you mean in some new kind of context? If so, why? This kind of media is nothing new, I just thought we were finally moving past it a little
what is did?
@@autumn_breeze616 Idk if this is what the other person means, but there was a rise of pre-teens on social media (particularly TikTok) during covid-era who would fake that they had DID. And TH-cam too, pre-covid. I remember Trisha Paytas faking it. It seems like no one takes it seriously
@@jiri6691I think disassociative identity disorder
I'm not usually supersensitive, but with all the talk about the movie's many flaws, I'm surprised more people don't talk about the assault in the showers. I don't get why it was included and it's giving me the icks, because it either seems to imply it's what sets Joker straight and makes him take accountability, or it's just in there out of a sort of moral vindictiveness, like "see what happens to you when you're like this", and in both cases it's kinda disturbing. I'm being reminded of American History X, and how much more integrally it was set it up and dwellt on the aftermath, and also made it clear it wasn't on its own what set the protagonist to the path of righteousness. Idk, just me?
Nah I’m totally with you. Leave it to the director of the hangover to do male SA as a moral punishment. I eek I tell ya. I eek!
I'm with you too, that scene felt totally unnecessary and cruel.
Seriously, I wish more people talked about it...I didn't think much of it initially, but when I saw it it ruined the movie for me.
It's lazy shock value to get people to feel something..it's very bottom of the barrel
Can I also point out the REAL antagonists of this film (The Arkham Guards) had absolutely no fucking consequences??
There actually couldn't possibly be a better Joker movie. The joke is on the audience, and the Joker is extremely sadistic.
It's about sending a 🎶A MESSAGE🎶
Picturing Mark Hamill's Joker sitting in the director's chair. Perhaps Todd Phillips was the Joker we made along the way
The joke is on the audience yes. They were hoping for a decent movie and they didn't get it. Hahaha. High level humour
I hate how they made an effort to make the Joker look like the Joker with the full clown make up, and bright suit, but Harely Quinn just looks like Lady Gaga with some crazy eye shadow like they put absolutely no effort into her design.
Aw, come on Pat, no clown makeup?
I shit you not I thought I had some in my apartment but all I could find were makeup wipes. I'm as frustrated as you lol
@@myfriendscallmepat If you had done it, you could have said that this review has more Joker makeup screentime than the entire movie 😁
A+ for the Frontier Psychiatry reference.
I knew the film was screwed the moments I caught a homage to The Umbrellas of Cherbourg in the trailer.
As a tech theatre kid, this was a terrible musical. As a comic book fan, this was lazy. As a film nerd, this was a tonal mess I assume WB and Philips made for money.
Then again, I thought the first film was average at best.
Finding out that (modern) Joaquin Phoenix can’t sing is the least surprising thing ever. I’ve been saying ever since they announced it was going to be a musical that “I don’t think that Joaquin Phoenix can sing anymore”
Tim Heidecker was right all along
5:02 "Lady Gaga, what's next? Lord Googoo?"
I can still appreciate bold experiments in the superhero genre like Joker 2 and Glass no matter how much they might not work as films. They definitely add something unique to a somewhat stale genre.
Like peeing in a puddle of water.
Glass was as generic as they come and like it or not it inspired the lack of originality we see today
Better they exist than not. They could either be exceptional films hailed as examples of risk, or just serve as cautionary tales
Tf? I thought it was supposed to be the jokers origin story. Why would they kill him?
Well now the theory goes the director didn't even want to make a sequel so the plot itself was a bit of a protest. Don't know if I buy it, but it would explain a few things
People watching this need to know of two things
1. Joker 1 was not a DC movie and is just a remake of the concepts around Taxi Driver and King of Comedy
2. Joker 2 is why major studios are losing so much money...and why Taxi Driver also didn't need a sequel
At the very least I am glad the technical staff and crews were paid, I guess...
never thought I'd feel bad for the Joker "literally me!!" nerds but here we are. imagine making a movie out of spite when millions of people would love the opportunity to tell a story on the big screen. gross! let's stop rewarding people like that pleeeeease Hollywood
Joker 2 goes after the people that misunderstood the first movie, and I'd say that's something that's needed sometimes. People sometimes need to be told that the main character isn't the hero, isn't to be idolized, isn't to be sympathized with.
@@ToaAgarwaenBut did they REALLY have to SA Arthur tho? I felt like they kinda showed that he wasn’t a good guy in the first movie as it was, why not exemplify that more, show that he’s a broken man that refuses to go back and get help or acknowledge his trauma?
@@ToaAgarwaen yeah that is bs. Arthur was shown as extremly sympathetic in the og movie. Not a hero but if the director belives it is out fault that we sympathised with a mentally ill man that gets constantly abused and played with then that is on him. He wrote badly. Joker 2 should have been about the director taking a writting course
@@goldenhorse4823 He was shown as sympathetic to start, but you're supposed to stop sympathizing with him as the movie goes on; no matter what was done to him, that doesn't justify what Arthur goes on to do. I think enough people missed that and this movie is a shot at the notion the Joker is still sympathetic after all the shit he did.
@@GOFFBITZH666 I think the movie did all of that. He's a broken man who is just trying to find acceptance, but doing so in all the wrong ways.
The SA scene is uncomfortable and unpleasant to watch. I don't feel sorry for Authur and I feel absolute contempt for the guards. To me, the scene handled the subject as well as can be expected; it doesn't make fun of Arthur, it isn't played for laughs, it doesn't make the guards better people. Its showing SA as the horrifying act it is.
It may not be necessary, but with how often I see people saying bad men should be SA'd as punishment for certain crimes (not even SA-related crimes, just severe crime in general), the scene seems to resonate with how a lot of Americans feel about prison SA (which is to say, a lot of people just don't care).
idk if I met Gaga in an insane asylum after being there for a couple years I’d probably fall hard for her too lol
The “Harlequin” album by Lady Gaga is spectacular but this movie is… just… whyyyyyy?
Omg you are the second channel this week to reference "a succulent Chinese meal" and I had NEVER heard that before 😂
I had only heard it when the dude died, and I felt making a joke about Joker 3 was an apt way to honor his memory.
Joker was Taxi Driver/The King of Comedy.
Joker 2 should've been One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest/A Clockwork Orange.
I think if Todd Phillips stuck to copying older films, it would've worked. It was a missed opportunity to tell a gritty, disgusting, institutional story. The first film gave us glimpses of how malfunctioned, and utterly flawed healthcare in Gotham is. Citizens with mental health issues in Gotham are treated like scum. Let's delve deeper into that, Run with that. Tell a rich story that just so happens to have Joker in it. Arkham could've been a trough of material.
As a Flash fan who is painfully straight (I suffer from it every day) I'm not upset at the comment so much as using Barry instead of Wally. Granted I'm also old as dirt,, turned 40 this year, so I'm forever stuck in the late 90s/early 2000s when he was the main Flash and I feel it's been a step backwards to bring back Barry so all the old comic boomers can pretend time doesn't move on. Which weirdly also made me okay with them moving on from Wally to Bart and was a bit let down when that lasted all of like a year.
@তুলিরাঙা just being silly is all. My girlfriend teases me about being uninterested in men romantically and sexually but I will point out and appreciate when a man is good looking.
Man this movie was disappointing. I was honestly pretty excited that it was a musical, cuz that sounded weird, concerning, but interesting.
Just an observation: the first movie I thought always flirted a little too much with the idea that Fleck was justified in what he was doing, and the movie is structured to empathise with him a little too much, so it almost seems like this movie is Todd Phillips going "oh, fuck, gotta correct that".
I literally just figured out how to rewrite the movie to make it not suck anymore without really changing the actual plot.
Have it instead take place from Harley Quin's Lady Gaga's perspective, and the general plot is about Harley Quinn falling in love with the "Joker" and helping to break him out, only to realize by the 2nd act that he's not some "revolutionary" but a legit murderous psychopath that's going to kill everybody, and now in the 3rd act she has to try to make sure he does go to jail but of course the justice system doesn't believe women, so she has to do a dangerous dance with the devil to get him to confess that he's not who everybody says he is (instead of him confessing it himself), and then it's a final confrontation against a legit psychopath in a burning courtroom, and everything else goes down the same way.
What makes this story better is that it's basically Joker 1, but it's a social critique of how women are also negatively impacted by inequality that makes them vulnerable powerful manipulative men who will promise them anything, and then screw them over, and they still get to keep their DCMU franchise ending if they want.
I'm going to go on a limb and say this movie was written and filmed as you suggested & at the last minute, decided to not create a new group of Quinn-inspired femcels.
As a person who loves musicals, i thought the way they handled the musical segments was atrocious. It was frustrating to get invested with a scene and have them interrupt it with a song that had no impact on the story
I could tell people in my theater didn't like it either as i noticed some of them walked out and started to use their phones less than an hour in.
Also to have a Joker film where he doesn't kill a single person is WILD
I respect ambition above many things, yet if you’re an artist trying to do something you don’t fully understand; maybe it’s best not to close off those who are professionals out of production.
Dedaaaasssss. The problem I hold with a few people who say ‘the movie is about Arthur’s internal struggles’ is that if it was DONE WELL by people WHO KNOW how to do it, it would work really well. But we just got one slow beat which was shiteeee
The best part about this movie is the companion album that Lady Gaga released where she sings all the songs by herself
15:55 I hate those Hollywood single piano notes so so so much
My god, the first one got absolutely UNREAL praise and I watched it thinking the whole time, "THIS?? THIS IS THE MOVIE people are clamoring about?" Now I feel like the Joker laughing at society tricked into watching this and me just overflowing with schadenfreude.
A gay person who likes sports? What is this? Bizarro world?
Plenty of gay people like sports. Usually gay women.
No, he's just a real life person, not a Hollywood stereotype of a gay man.
@@Itcouldbebunnies That was the joke.
@@LittleMissLounge
Maybe, maybe not. Poe's Law, you know?
Being a sports gay is one of the burdens I must bear, I fear.
How has "Succulent Chinese Meal" guy appeared so much in my zeitgeist this week?
This is like the 4th thing to reference it in 5 days.
He did recently die, I believe.... this could be what's pushing him to relevancy again but idk?
@@ShipFantastic Yes, he died two months ago
Being a musical is not a deal breaker for comicbook fans. Any media containing Music Meister will prove that.
However, bad musicals tend to crash and burn rather hard.
I just realized Frontier Psychiatrist is over 20 years old
I am ancient
Still such a good song! That whole album is lovely.
The only way to make a bad movie worse is to make it a bad musical. And the only way to make a bad musical worse is to make it a bad jukebox musical.
I feel like they could have done so much with the “folie á duex” point. Making Lee obsessed with the joker as much as comic Harley is, Arthur using Lee’s presence to fill the void making him lose himself in the delusions, using Gaga’s beautiful voice for inner thoughts and feelings. While I know Gaga’s Harlequin album isn’t wholly apart of the movie it would have been great if they went the eccentric direction the album went, it probably would have made the movie more enjoyable.
I was not a fan of the first Joker movie. I didn't think it was that much better than numerous movies that are on Netflix for a couple of weeks and disappear. However, it caught lightning in a bottle and really resonated with some people. It would've taken a miracle for that to happen again.
I thought the scene you mention of him laughing in the rain was going to lead to a short reprise of the song sung beforehand, as a like *okay, that last scene was just in his head, but from here on out, the singing is ACTUALLY happening* kind of moment. I even thought I heard the score surging up in the background to allow the laughing to lead into him bursting out into singing, but then he just....laughs? Which - fine, whatever, but the set up for a "reprise of the I Want song" moment felt so intentional that I have to assume the choice to NOT go that direction was Also intentional...and I hated that!
Remember when Todd Phillips said Arthur is "bi and stuff". That was very funny.
I disagree honestly coming from the camp of thinking the Joker was average and wasn't as profound as some people made it. Trial movies are hard but centering a story on persona can honestly be boring. The symbolism was clear if not boldface. It wasn't a musical that was a device not genre.
I usually don't like watching video essays about media I haven't seen, but I have to say that your videos are always the exception to this. I really love how you explain them to someone who has pretty much no context. Love your vids and your sense of humor, keep it up Pat
I know it's fallen out of fashion, but they could've just had him lip-sync to someone else's voice. Movies used to do it all the time.
As soon as you said his lawyer was going for a split personality thing I was convinced Harley was in his head. Sounds like that would have been better
Joaquin Phoenix CAN sing, for some reason the director just wanted him to sing poorly on purpose. I feel like we really shouldn't take his performance in this movie as a good example of his singing ability.
Arthur is crying in the rain laughing scene. Lee lit a matchbook and music sheet then dropped them i to the piano. She didnt light the curtains on fire. Smoking is so common in arkham asylum so its reasonable that it took awhile before people noticed the smoke as coming from something other than cigarette.
Its okay to not like the movie. Just remember that not liking a movie is not the same as a movie being bad. There are issues with the movie, but few were touched on by Pat. Most of their complaints were about things they didnt like.
See, now you're nitpicking with my choice of words lol. The curtains almost instantly caught on fire, alongside the piano. And moreover, if you honestly believe that the smell of half a room being on fire and a few people smoking cigarettes are in any way comparable, you're giving the movie far too much credit and not being very honest.
@myfriendscallmepat Nit-picky? Maybe, but at least I accurately recount the movie. You misrepresent scenes or actions in the movie. By doing so, you change the movie into something it is not. Usually, you change the movie into something more easily ridiculed, which isn't surprising given that you're trying to be entertaining.
Most of the time, you exagerate like what you're doing now. Half the room was not on fire when people began to notice. That's an exaggeration. The fire hadn't spread outside the corner of the room before people started leaving. You're right. The fire had quickly spread to the curtains, but that's not what you said in your video. You claimed that Lee lit the curtains and piano on fire with the match book.
Fleck did not make out with his lawyer in court. That's an exaggeration. Making out implies Fleck was repeatedly kissing her. He kissed her once in that scene.
Now, I know that you don't accurately recount movies, and that's okay. You're a youtuber trying to make a funny movie review first and an accurate movie review second. Everybody has their lane.
One of the more bizarre things to me is Joaquin Phoenix played Johnny Cash in Walk the Line. He sang fine in that! The cover of Jackson he and Reese Witherspoon did for it was pretty popular. Like. He has some singing ability, why you gotta push him so far outside his range and make everyone suffer.
Okay, the bargain-bin Joker outfit kind of slays though, I genuinely love the colors
I feel like I'm giving fruity professor more than Joker but I'll take any chance to wear my slightly too short red blazer hehe
Trolls 4 took a dark turn.
Also good job working on your mental health. Take care of yourself. You're not alone.
I’m so, so sick of Hollywood jukebox musicals. I feel like it’s a lot of people’s primary exposure to the musical genre, and it gives all of Broadway a bad impression.
Bargain bin Joker looks a bit like bargain bin Doctor Who
3:47 erm ackshually that's Wally West, a different Flash than the Flash played by Ezra Miller, Barry Allen🤓(yes, I'm gay)
You are not a homosexual him, pretending like the flash isn’t one of the most popular superheroes is kinda insane. Go to any Walmart target or bookstore and you will see flash book bags/comics/shirts. I’m just gonna assume that was a slip of the tongue because there’s no way he could actually think that.
I think Joker 1 was a masterpiece. Joker 2 was a trainwreck
I noticed that the number of viewers who are subscribers is up again, that's good!
I actually think the idea of making the sequel a musical for no real reason is kinda brilliant in a weird way, but you'd have to *really* stick the landing and deliver on the execution and apparently this movie does not, at all. Goes to prove that all those AI bros are wrong and ideas AREN'T the only thing that matters in creating art!
Yeah I really tried to get this point across, like I was genuinely hyped for this movie and I think if it had been a true musical and written as such, it would've been a lot better
First off, thank you for enduring The Joker Fail at Everything for us. Sadly, I went into this movie more or less blind having not even watched any trailers but given how enjoyable the first one was, I thought, "Why not?". That's over two hours of my life I will never get back. Regarding the effect this movie will have on the deranged incel crowd, my concern is that by making Harley a manipulator, it may only fan the flames of their deep hatred for "the whamens".
Also, the only redeeming feature of this film I could dig out was the performance of Leigh Gill as Gary Puddles on the stand. He gave an incredible showing as a genuinely terrified, broken man who is being forced to face his greatest fear and also deal with the misery of knowing the one person who treated him with even the smallest amount of decency is a lunatic murderer.
Save your money just watch Man or Muppet at home and get just a way better value.
The first one sucked too. Can't we have new actors in these roles? Phoenix as the Joker and Napoleon were so badly cast he ruined both films. Give some new talent a chance.
The original joker is just a shitty version of the king of comedy
You mean the sequel to a movie that replicated other movies about psychological breakdowns, replicated them in a way that was superficial, and seemed to have no concept of the actual human condition made a movie that replicates other movies and songs to recreate them in a superficial way while not understanding the actual human condition behind those other things?
Damn.
Also I swear the prison sexual assault scene is just Shawshank Redemption.
Deeply BARRYed inside of the Flash, I see what you did there.
Its truly insane they did a musical....WAIT A MINUTE. Joker is insane so that means musical insane movie thing. Me think yes
Also, Joker one is good as it portrays what life is like for most under privileged citizens with severe mental illness have to go through in the states. Usually, they are homeless or live in a shelter. Then shows you that Joker isn't a morally good person as he has been abused in life and finally had snapped. As a Man who was supposed to act like I wasn't allowed to talk about my Severe Depression and Severe Social Anxiety because of my abusive father and toxic masc culture i was in. It helps bring the Idea of everyone needs help and shouldn't be shunned for it. The bad parts are people thinking that all people with mental illness are going to do something crazy like kill people. Plus the Incel energy was real in the movie. Otherwise it was pretty good.