Joker 'JOKER: FOLIE À DEUX' (Phillips and Phoenix return for the sequel) General News & Discussion Thread

Yeah honestly, I think a lot of the reviews are really just a result of feeding into the “mob mentality” that we witness a LOT these days.
Not saying the film deserves high praise or anything, but I do think it’s a lot of following what’s “popular” to do.

Even as dull as it is, I really don’t think it’s worse than films like Shazam 2, Aquaman 2, Black Adam, Antman Quantumania etc etc

The production value, cinematography, and acting alone beats those.
 
IMO the story is great, but the musical aspects were just so poorly integrated making for a grueling and often cringe inducing experience. And I love musicals.

It wasn’t the raw amateur singing. That can be an effective choice in a musical. It was simply the lack of narrative function.

Annette with Adam Driver is sort of what I was hoping this would be more like. Wild, raw, weird.
 
Last edited:
Dan Murrell's spoiler review of the film. I think he points out some very good criticisms but he also praises the film in many respects. Worth a look, especially if you did enjoy the film. IMHO nothing wrong if you did. The movie is taking a beating right now, but all power to those who did like it.

 
IMO the story is great, but the musical aspects were just so poorly integrated making for a grueling and often cringe inducing experience. And I love musicals.

It wasn’t the raw amateur singing. That can be an effective choice in a musical. It was simply the lack of narrative function.

Annette with Adam Driver is sort of what I was hoping this would be more like. Wild, raw, weird.

IMHO considering most of the musical numbers are like fantasy sequences happening in the characters' imaginations, they should've been bolder and better done.

Now, also I think Phoenix probably should've been dubbed over for his lyrics. His voice did not sound good. These are fantasy imagination sequences, it's OK if his voice sounds more bombastic. It's clearly not him singing Burt Bacharach in the opening for example.
 
This movie would have been way better without any of the musical element's IMO. Anytime I caught myself enjoying it or appreciating what they were doing with the Arthur character they would break into a musical number, and not only did I find it jarring but I also got really annoyed by it after a while.

Those sequences added absolutely nothing to this movie IMO outside of being some random/forced artistic choice by Phillips or the studio and it pretty much backfired on them entirely.

I definitely don't think this is one of the worst sequels ever of anything but then again, I'm not one of those people who loved the first movie although even I can admit that's a better film overall.

It's just crazy to me to see a studio like Warner Bros completely mishandle a property like this after how successful the first movie was and spending so much money to go with this direction.

Them not test screening this in advance explains a lot though.
 
No, I understand that's the point of the movie, but I just find his performance doesn't have any spark to it until the very end of the movie. His Joker is a joyless character.
You're blaming the actor for the material. The performance that's given is exactly what the script calls for. The world Fleck lives in is so cartoonishly cruel to him, there's no joy to be found.
 
Well, that was fun. Nice, packed Friday showing and everyone looked to be having a good time. Wonder what all the discourse on the internet is abo-

%ED%98%BC%ED%8C%8C%EB%A7%9D-%ED%94%BC%EC%9E%90.gif


Sheesh. All this hostility, anger, and divisiveness? It's like the reactions to the first Joker all over again, and I gotta ask-

4ea67cea5e548fd633dc7b1754b5b523.gif


Look, long story short, I dug the hell out of this movie and I'm not sure if everyone else just accidentally walked out of Borderlands or their sixth showing of Megalopolis by accident. Nor am I interested in finding out. Everything that was aces in that first film is present here, whether it's the direction, lead performances, and score. If anything, it's nice that Phillips, who probably didn't even want to make a sequel, took this in different directions compared to that first one.

Yes, it did feel more like an epilogue instead of needing to be its own film, but Phoenix and Gaga had this chaotic chemistry that made me want to see more of them. If my negative is that I wanted to see more of the characters, then I don't see that as a problem. Even appreciated the slight nods to her origin. I didn't mind the songs and sure, at one or two instances the characters could've just talked instead of sang (which I appreciate Arthur calls attention to at one point), but helped the film feel as distinct as the first one. Again, more Black Label DC stuff like this, please.

Not sure what people were expecting, and at times I think Phoenix's performance at times is better than the first one, especially in the prison scenes. I don't think it ruins or lessens the first film at all. Even with the critical lashing this one has gotten, I very much enjoyed it. Then again, I did just see Megalopolis last weekend, I don't think Eternals is nearly as bad as some critics made it out to be (certainly better than Love and Thunder or Guardians Vo. 2), and my favorite DCEU film is Man of Steel- all with rotten scores. So I'm past the point of paying mind to what the peanut gallery thinks. :D

I'd probably give Folie a Deux a 8 out of 10, if I had to rate it. Hopefully it proves profitable, even though it appears that might be a struggle. But I very much enjoyed this movie and will happily purchase it once it gets a physical release. It did need more puddles, though.

And I suppose-

0b31d7a6fb8af10397d4c5da2d77b6d1.gif
 
I still haven't seen the film, so I can't judge the form yet...
But being inevitably spoiled on various aspects of it, I have to say that the direction Phillips has taken seems... to make sense?

The talk about how Arthur can never completely become the Joker we know and how he's more of a vehicle to show something else, all of that was already clear to me in the first film.

I mean, this guy was introduced as a joke to everyone: a joke to his mother, who manipulated him, a joke to the medical community and the administration, who take his illness too lightly, a joke to those around him, who don't take him seriously, and so on...
All this to end up in the worst joke of all: being taken as a symbol of emancipation, and worse as an endorsement of violence, by the most desperate people.

I never saw Philips' approach as a demonstration against incels (or whatever the buzzword is), or as an anti-rich pugilism (which at this point is a gag when it comes to artwork analysis/layground), but as a way larger and pessimistic picture of modern decaying societies, even if it sounds like the infamous meme. A story about how absolutely everyone is wrong about Arthur Fleck, turning him into kind of a pathetic catalyst of decline and violence, with the ultimate film's strength to eventually fool part of the audience into cheering for a massacre.

So seeing the sequel continue to explore how Fleck will inevitably be consumed by the (fake) symbol he's taken as only makes perfect sense to me.
I know this isn't the case now, but I was 99.5% expecting the film ending with Harley killing him, thus also falling into the trap of that “Joker” and pursuing the "cycle of violence" in what was probably always the only logical outcome for this particular take.


The D cinemascore and Rotten Tomatoes.... yikes. WB is really having it with their DC movies lately. Those are just dismal results.

That's... really a disaster. Damn.
 
Last edited:
My thoughts on the ending. Spoilers, of course


It was kind of an “edgy” ending for the sake of being edgy, but I honestly didn’t mind it.

Arthur never felt like “Joker” to me anyway. But I get why people say the ending makes it feel like it makes the first film and this film basically pointless. And I do agree to a certain extent.

I think it probably would have made more sense if it happened in the first film tbh. And this film dealing with the aftermath of that. But it is what it is.

I’m guessing that they wanted to show that the guy who killed Arthur is the “true” embodiment of the Joker and a result of the craziness Arthur brought out.

He was probably someone that was inspired by the Joker movement, but even more unstable than Arthur. A true psychopath.

But I think the “real Joker” of the story is Harley.


The one that is actually manipulating the narrative and the one who is the true villain. There was a lot left unsaid, but I’m going to take it that she somehow manipulated the crazy dude into killing Arthur. Somehow knew him already and pushed him to kill Arthur after he denounced the Joker identity at the trial.

If this story were to go on, I think Harley would be the main character of the two, and this new “Joker” would be her sidekick. Basically what they did in the Telltale games.

I could see her becoming a true menace to Gotham. So twisted that all the Arthur followers would realize this is not just a case of a down on his luck guy being pushed around too many times. It’s now evolved into something much more sinister, and Harley is that symbol.



In a way, going down a more “comic book” path, but with the roles of the characters reversed

 
I find it ironic that the first movie and the people who made it really catered to the Martin Scorsese "comic book movies are not real cinema" crowd, and ultimately once it became a billion dollar grosser the sequel fell into the same traps and tropes that a lot of generic comic book movies fall into, like introducing legacy characters like Harley Quinn and Harvey Dent (because its now a franchise), setting up Harvey Dent to become Two-Face by having half his face get blown up in the court room, and tying into The Dark Knight Trilogy by having Arthur get killed by Heath Ledger's Joker, or hints at it .

So in the end, this "franchise" becomes the very thing it was supposed to be the antithesis of: Just another Batman franchise.
 
I liked this more than the first; I liked the intention of the musical interludes but do think they could have been handled/integrated better for the most part. Some went a little too long and would cut next to a montage, so I feel like there could have been tighter editing.

But every scene with Gaga as Lee worked for me; if anything I wanted to see more of her character. Listen to her new Harlequin album if you haven’t yet.

This review is a good pull:



I didn’t walk into this movie blind (maybe that helped ?) but I don’t think I went into the first blind either. And, again, this was always an Elseworlds story…I did not, and still do not want, a Joker cinematic universe.
 
Last edited:
Poor Harvey, but I love see him getting half his face blown away.
 
IMHO considering most of the musical numbers are like fantasy sequences happening in the characters' imaginations, they should've been bolder and better done.

Now, also I think Phoenix probably should've been dubbed over for his lyrics. His voice did not sound good. These are fantasy imagination sequences, it's OK if his voice sounds more bombastic. It's clearly not him singing Burt Bacharach in the opening for example.

Agreed; I think the movie worked better when it went full Chicago with the musical interludes—even though I think they could have been better intercut with the goings-ons happening in the real world, like in the aforementioned movie musical.

However, when it was just extended singing in-person, it became a little too disjointed for me. Again, I think there was a better way to handle those moments that Philips didn’t quite nail. But I liked the intention.
 
Even as dull as it is, I really don’t think it’s worse than films like Shazam 2, Aquaman 2, Black Adam, Antman Quantumania etc etc

The production value, cinematography, and acting alone beats those.

Agreed. It's not a terrible movie. For me it's just dull and uncompelling, but that's just to me. It's very well shot, it's well acted, and I sincerely admire the swing taken even if I personally don't think Todd stuck the landing. In fact I can very much see a world where over time that it develops a bit of a cult following. It may not but I can picture it because there are things that are done very well in the film.
 
I find it ironic that the first movie and the people who made it really catered to the Martin Scorsese "comic book movies are not real cinema" crowd, and ultimately once it became a billion dollar grosser the sequel fell into the same traps and tropes that a lot of generic comic book movies fall into, like introducing legacy characters like Harley Quinn and Harvey Dent (because its now a franchise), setting up Harvey Dent to become Two-Face by having half his face get blown up in the court room, and tying into The Dark Knight Trilogy by having Arthur get killed by Heath Ledger's Joker, or hints at it .

So in the end, this "franchise" becomes the very thing it was supposed to be the antithesis of: Just another Batman franchise.
I know I'm probably giving Phillips too much credit, but I feel like things were deliberate choices for that very reason. The more I read about this movie, the more I think he intentionally Joe Dante'd the film.

This year has been a train wreck for the industry, but it's been fantastic for film discussion.
 


Some pundits predicting that WB is overestimating the Sunday figure to get a $40 million total out there and soften the blow (If that's possible).

Could be looking at an actual total of $38-39 million on Monday.
 
Yikes. Rotten tomatoes, cinemascore and now box office numbers. If I didn't know this wasn't a DCEU movie, I would have thought the bad streak of DCEU was just continuing.
 
It figures that Superman would have to be the savior that comes in and carries the impossible weight on his back.
 

What is KMS?

I know critics of the first movie called it a pro-incel film, but I did not view it that way. I viewed Arthur in the original film as a product of social and moral decay. He's the result of a breakdown in a society that's lost its sense of empathy. Social programs breaking down. A lack of community and others willing to help him in his situation, be it social therapy, child wellness, etc. You can even argue a grander moral message about gun control. Look how easily someone like Arthur got access to a gun, someone who is clearly not well and mentally disturbed, which later caused gun violence.

It shows classism between the rich upperclass and the lower class of Gotham. The lower-class feel neglected and abused. The rich uppercrust Gothamites think they know everything and they either bully or look down upon people like Arthur because they are rich and privileged. IMHO the point isn't that Arthur was "justified" for his actions. There is no justification for his actions or the lives he took. The point is that the social decadence of Gotham City, the social and moral decay, people lacking empathy, Arthur's abuse as a youth, lack of funding in social programs brought these events about.

Take for example the "Trial" episode of BTAS. The supervillains argue that they are victims of Batman. Batman "created" him. The anti-Batman lawyer serving as Batman's attorney then argues a chicken or the egg paradox. Batman didn't create them. They created Batman. The presence of crime. So I think Joker took a more broader view on that idea. These circumstances of Gotham City. The crime and moral decay produced a monster. I'm not saying Joker is an innocent victim all of this, but he's a product of his environment. Gotham City in this awful state was bound to produce violent tragedies such as this. That was my reading of the first film.
 
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"