The idea of Joker treating everything like a play with musicals, a boardway show, or even a stage play as the background changes based on his mood or interpretation of what's happening shows way better. Unable to grasp what's really happening and just going with the flow. But we got 0.99 cent harley and dance numbers.
I hope by 0.99 cent you mean that she didn't get enough screen time to be dived into deeper and not the fact that Gaga sold her Born This Way album for that price back in the day, which was a clever and generous thing to do, considering how many people don't have taste in music at all. At least they could have listened to that masterpiece and learn something good.
The worst part is that it emboldens the very people he wants to discourage because they point to this movie and say "see he *should* have embraced the Joker! Look at what happened when he didn't" If he really wanted to make the point that embracing the Joker is bad he should either 1) reward Arthur Fleck for making the choice to reject the Joker or 2) Punish Arthur for accepting the Joker. Instead Arthur get punished for rejecting the Joker which has to be the dumbest route he could have taken.
@@universome511 which may be realistic, but not going to sell tickets. Like imagine Shawshank, but instead the ending is he died in prison and only exonerated after death. Much more realistic, but unsatisfying.
@@EflowNivek I don't think he ever gets exonerated in that one he just escapes And you're right about that but in this instance I'd rather have the more interesting movie that does something different that importantaly has thematic relevance over one that plays it safe and is boring.
This movie is what happens when you don't want to make a movie, you have no ideas about what a movie should be about, and dislike your previous movie. I think works can be antagonistic to the audience, but you need to be really good to pull it off successfully.
I wish the movies had the balls to be about societal issues and rich vs. poor. Treating mental illness as something that "just happens to some people, for some reason" is disrespectful.
@@Grogeous_Maximus The problem is Hollywood most times cannot make that types of movies, because the world they live in is not the same most "normal" people live in. You cannot expect an industry that is complacent with the status quo to challenge it. Look outside of Hollywood and you'll find more movies about these kinda issues. And on the subject of mental illness, is a complicated one. You can make a case that well-off people that have the social and finactial support needed to manage their mental illness are ill-equiped to talk about mental illness on people who don't have the support they have, and fall prey to ideologies like inceldom. Again, that would require a lot of emphaty on your part about these people, but is clear they don't have much
Joker 2 is a cinematic masterpiece (far better than Joker 1), but it’s not made for simpletons. The entire message and point of the movie were to expose fake fans. Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn essentially plays the audience-you are Harley Quinn. You expected a movie where Joker does 'cool' and 'bad' things, as you think Joker is supposed to, without ever looking at the person behind the persona (Arthur). When you didn’t get the 'cool' stuff, you stormed off, just like Harley did. The movie perfectly portrays capitalism and its consumption-driven mindset. People are reduced to either being entertaining (the Joker) or not worth paying attention to (Arthur Fleck). This point is demonstrated flawlessly. People prefer to be entertained rather than engage with authenticity. When Joker is authentic (i.e., when he’s Arthur), he loses, and this perfectly illustrates our superficial capitalist culture. Authenticity is dead-we don’t care about the person behind the persona; we just want to see the Joker, the version we imagine he’s supposed to be. Like in capitalism, we crave the flashing lights, the illusion of realness, not realness itself, because that’s boring. When the movie shatters that illusion, you go cry on the internet. Harley Quinn doesn’t just represent the audience (or fake fans like you); she also symbolizes the 'higher-ups' who wanted Todd Phillips to make a 'cool' sequel about Joker and Harley taking over Gotham, causing anarchy, and doing bad shit. This is what the trailer suggested-another masterpiece in setting expectations and then demolishing them. She wants the Joker because the audience wants the Joker; they don’t want a 'loser' like Arthur. But Todd Phillips said no, and by doing so, he exposed the audience for what they really are: they don’t care about realness, they just want entertainment. Now that they didn’t get it, they’re crying online because their idea of what Joker is 'supposed' to be has been crushed. To everyone who hates this movie: first, you’ve been exposed as fracking idiots; second, this movie is the perfect slap in the face to all of you. Todd Phillips gave you that slap, and now you’re all storming off, whining online about how you didn’t like the movie, or asking 'what was the point?' when the point was you-you are the point. The truth is, this movie was a mirror, and that’s exactly why you don’t like it. I love this movie far more than the first one. As I said at the beginning, it’s a cinematic masterpiece.
To be honest, I've always thought it was incredibly stupid (and a first World problem as well) when creators got upset because "the audience didn't understand their work the way they, the creators, THINK we, the audience, should understand it." The truth is that every work of art, once exposed to the world, ceases to be the property of the creator, takes on a life of its own and receives interpretations from the audience that often differ from those of the creator of the work (something that is natural, since different people have different perspectives). C'est la vie. Therefore, getting upset about this is whining and, in the case of people who want to indoctrinate the public, it also indicates a lack of character.
I do agree with this sentiment, but I have a question. Does this apply to things like video games? Some can be considered pieces of art, and if so, what parts of that medium are subject to interpretation that may go against the author's intent?
It's 100% Phillips' own fault people didnt like The Joker "the right way". The movie didnt need a Batman. It needed Arthur to hurt someone who wasnt guilty of assaulting him or being bad person. Phillips framed every victim of Arthur as being at least an *sshole to Arthur. The wall street guys while one was running away when Arthur shot him, assaulted him first. Randall and Murray were both pretty sh*tty humans. They didnt deserve to die but Phillips only shows the bad side of them.That was his choice! He has no leg to stand on when blaming the mass audiences from getting the wrong message. If you think Jordan Belfort was a hero, that's on you. If you think Arthur Fleck was a hero that's largely on Todd Phillips.
Very accurate comment! They never made Arthur become really "evil". So in the end it becomes an abuse fest, which results in him crumbling and losing his confidence in his alter ego. Therefore, by rejecting Joker, he didn't become good, he just succumbed to being weak.
Nope, Jordan Belfort's idolization is actually on Scorcese's depiction of him. Once Martin had tremendous commercial succes with his GoodFellas formula, he conformed to keep repeating it for any other movie with conmen (even Casino, which actually is the best movie out of the bunch, because it is more grounded and less idealized, even if it shows DeNiro's character in a kinda positive light, at least it is not obnoxiously misleading as the Belfort one). Scorcese's redemption actually came with "The Irishman" and "Killers of the Flower Moon". Phillips' Joker 1 was supposed to be ambiguous, but it is WAY less hypocritical about it than "Wolf of Wall Street", and his Joker 2 is akin to the patheticity of human nature shown in "Killers of the Flower Moon". Phillips has stayed true to Arthur's true essence in this sequel, we just were misled by the title of the films (if anything, that was the point all along).
Exactly, and the one victim that fits this criteria is his neighbor, killing her would have been unjust and this movie destroys this too by revealing that he left her alive
The legal bar for an insanity plea in the US is high. It's the inability to understand the difference between right and wrong, rather than the presence of mental illness. Arthur might have stayed in Arkham, but he almost certainly would have been found guilty by any decent jury.
Man what a nice video. Very measured and explaining in very diplomatic ways why the movie fell flat here and there. Keep it up, videos like these feel more like they're opening a discussion rather than hammering an opinion one way or the other
This was the start of a huge GaGa publicity promotion that backfired. Her new album is called "Harlequin" not by coincidence. They were sincerely hoping for a perfect storm, and I sincerely hope that Phoenix did say "That was horrible" at Venice.
THANK YOU! Excellent analysis, amidst much commentary about this movie, you put it the more succinct way. I see those who defend the movie return to the point that "it''s brutally realistic" and "this is what happens to criminals/people in the system/mental patients/people who buy into the "incel" ideology", yadda yadda, and they point to the dark fates of Scorsese's characters which were Joker's inspiration, but. They forget that rewarding evil and punishing good simply to say that this is how it happens sometimes, deny your character any sort, not of happy ending, but of even an esoteric moment of triumpIh or self-realization, is not "pointing out the dark reality", it's wallowing in that dark reality like a pig in the mud. Scorsese treated his characters with empathy, which is something Philips' movie totally lacked, and then he had the gall to pretend that the movie was an indictment to the public who wanted to see a Joker movie and didn't care about the man behind the Joker....all the while treating that same man simply as a collateral damage and stepping stone for the *actual* Joker to come in. (and how foolish, the fans, wanting the Joker in a movie called Joker, right?) Basically Philips did what those arthouse directors have been doing for decades, splattering ugliness on the screen without any moral lesson or emotional insight,and calling it a reflection on the grim state of the world, only in a more "civilized" way, since he's doing it through well-known franchises and big Hollywood studios. TLDR, I don't think he has enough understanding of what he tried to tackle to develop any sort of meaningful empathy for his subject, and that shows in how morally void and unsatisfying the movie is. Pity for Phoenix and Gaga's performances.
For a movie that supposedly dethrones Joker, it actually had little to no counterargument to the very idea of Joker that world's a big cruel joke you can just go along with. It just says "if you do something bad they'll put you behind bars and your ass won't be pitied". It's not really a counterargument, just a scare tactic, albeit a legit one. If this film had, for example, a scene with Bruce Wayne showing up in court and saying to Arthur that he aims to make something of himself and, more importantly, Gotham, in spite of his parents' death that Arthur indirectly caused, that would be something that could've helped. Not really, though, for it would be basically the rest of the movie this scene had to work against.
I don’t buy the theory that it was bad on purpose. That’s a clever way to mask Phillips’ arrogance and incompetence. No, he thought this movie was going to be great, and he operated in an echo chamber of yes men and sycophants. Zero oversight. He didn’t even have test screenings, and screened the final film for critics a whole month before theatrical release, that’s how confident he was of his own brilliance. This failure came as a shock
With the first Joker, I always wondered why the supposed intelligentsia thought it would be a "takedown" of incel culture, when it could very easily be interpreted as an incel's revenge.
Well, honestly, as someone who has mental illness*, it IS (or at least can be) very sad and pathetic. I think "empathetic" people trying to say it never is, are either naive or virtue-signalling liars. This is still not a great movie, of course, but I'm just saying. * serious depression and full-fledged anxiety disorder. I go to therapy and sometimes take medication, but it's not amazing. I don't want to take revenge on the world a la Arthur Fleck, but also understand I'm not a superhero or supervillain a la Batman or the Joker. I'm just a person, and I struggle, and it can be very very pathetic, which is okay. A modern mainstream movie would never, ever have the balls to portray that in a way that is honest to real life.
You are choosing to make healthy decesions in spite of, not because of, your challenges. THis is something fleck could have done but insdtead he made horrific choices for horrific reasons.
I think you did a good job explaining my job with the movie as well, in that it has two very strong ideas of what it wants to be and those ideas don't work together. If it wanted to be a musical it could have done that as a way to demonstrate Arthur losing himself to the identity of the Joker. I'd argue this is the more marketable choice. But the film ALSO wants to be a critique of the Joker identity and show that Arthur does not want to use it anymore, possibly due to guilt or the realization that the Joker persona does not save him from pain and trauma. This is the idea I find more interesting but it requires a lot more work to put in because you have to understand why Arthur would abandon something that gave him power initially. Unfortunately the film just does both things and mediocrely. There is a germ of a good idea in this movie but it's trapped between multiple opposing forces. It's a brave movie, I'll give it that. And I do in fact LOVE some scenes in here. But a few good scenes don't make up for an overall underwhelming film.
The finale of SEINFELD worked creatively (even if people didn’t much like it) because it recontextualized the characters as they went out the door. These people you spent all this time with that you loved? They were kind of awful and we’re going to make you see what happened from the point of view of everybody else in that world. JOKER 2 does not need to recontextualize JOKER. Gary Puddles was traumatized by what happened to him? Yeah, no shit. We already knew that.
Its probably why the 2nd movie is doing so horribly. Thee was plenty of people who despised the first movie and I understand that. And at this time, sequels and movies are made poorly on purpose is another big reason no one went to see this.
I do feel like this movie going to be seen differently in the future. It has issues but what its going for will be appreciated later. You do make great points about the the musical aspects.
Nice video. I enjoyed it. The message of Joker 2 is "reject being a criminal and get beaten, raped and dumped by your girlfriend." Not exactly a positive message. Arthur would have been better off embracing his Joker identity rather than choosing to be his sad, pathetic self. Those guards wouldn't have dared touch the murderous Joker but they were happy to abuse the pathetic Arthur. Todd Phillips should have had more guts and stood by Joker rather than apologise for it
The debate about The Joker’s being either homage or rip-off is just about the only thing worth discussing about the first film (an excellent performance by Phoenix wasted in a movie that didn’t deserve it, though kudos anyway). King of Comedy, like Scorsese’s earlier New York, New York, was not that well received at the time….but that The Joker is considered (in some circles) one of the finest superhero movies, and even movies in general from recent times, whereas KOC was largely dismissed (until later on) says a whole lot about todays reviewers, critics, and especially audiences. I’m betting that few of The Joker’s fans ever saw KOC, or were even aware of it, and possibly weren’t familiar with Taxi Driver either. That’s sort of like young 1980’s fans of Michael Jackson’s derivative and not very good dance videos loving what Jackson and company did in dance without ever knowing that a guy called Bob Fosse existed (let alone Jerome Robbins, Martha Graham, etc).
Also, to discuss Todd Phillips so seriously the way he has been is a bit of a sham…his films leading up to The Joker is a parade of mediocrity: Road Trip, Old School, Starsky & Hutch, School for Scoundrels, The Hangover 1, 2, 3, Due Date, War Dogs. Are any of these even worth watching if landing wile channel surfing? (No, in case someone likes any of them). Conversely, outside of the mediocre Boxcar Bertha, Scorsese’s early filmography included Who’s That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, New York New York, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy. All are very worthwhile films, with four flat out classics, and NY NY I feel underrated.
I said before that the first Joker is probably one of the best and, at the danger of sounding like a snob, more "serious" superhero films of all times....because it's only a superhero film tentatively. If one watched it as a drama it'd become pretty obvious that it's....kinda superficial, kinda simplistic, and in that it shares with Marvel films and the like. It'd never become so universally accepted without the Joker moniker in the form it was released. (Hell, it actually wouldn't be that universally accepted anyways without Joaquin Phoenix going above and beyond). In the second film, which didn't need to be made anyways, because the first film actually ended in the right moment, leaving the rest to the imagination, Philips tried to shed the Joker shield and do "serious" and "realistic" cinema and messed up, because he took away the only thing that elevated his film above average, ie its pretense at fleshing out an actual existing character. Idk if he actually wanted to make the movie or not, but unless he intended to mess it up beyond saving, this was pure hybris and buying into his own hype. Taking some cues from great directors to give some depth to your serviceable product is one thing, trying to make a great director movie another, and because were able to do one doesn't mean you are good enough for the other. Also, you don't do auteur cinema with comicbook properties and studios pulling your leash, sorry Todd.
You know what’s crazy, this pretentious debacle reminds me of another musical pretentious debacle: NEW YORK, NEW YORK. Scorsese’s musical and utter flop. Like Todd Philips was influenced by failure and said “ hey yeah this is the way!” Critic Bob Grimm: “Todd Phillips the rip-off king is at it again.” Lol. Some highlights from Wikipedia and other sources related to both: “New York, New York is a 1977 American romantic musical filmdirected by Martin Scorsese from a screenplay by Earl Mac Rauch and Mardik Martin, based on a story by Rauch. John Kander and Fred Ebbwrote several songs for the film, including ‘New York, New York’” “Scorsese explains that he intended the film as a break from the gritty realism for which he had become famous.” JOKER 2: “Todd Phillips would rather set fire to his own franchise than let the wrong people take inspiration from it.” -Rohan Nahaar, The Indian Express WIKIPEDIA NEW YORK NEW YORK: “He (Scorsese) saw it as an homage to musicals of Classical Hollywood cinema. That's why the sets and storyline are deliberately artificial. He acknowledges the experiment did not please everyone. “ “A risk is that there are so many borrowings that Folie à Deux is more a collage than a film.” Kim Newman, SciFi Now “Having just won the Palme d'Or, he (Scorsese) arrogantly felt he could improve the script during filming, but his excesses led to mistakes.” “Phillips throws himself into the void with explicit but less substantial influences on the history of musical cinema. -Pedro Gallego, Espinof” “Scorsese's cocaine addiction made matters worse, and according to Peter Biskind, the director was also taking lithium to control his anger. Scorsese lamented, "I was just too drugged out to resolve the structure".[7] He even cut press interviews short one day because he explained he had run out of cocaine” "it's a miracle that the film makes any kind of sense.” At least Scorsese admits his failure what’s your excuse Todd? Scorsese: COCAINE IS A HELL OF A DRUG. Philips: Scorsese is a hell of a drug! COCAINE > VIRTUE SIGNALING. “The experiment did not please everyone. “ Scorsese had a vision although misguided and approached the work as a filmmaker. “Roger Ebert lamented , ‘Scorsese's New York, New York never pulls itself together into a coherent whole, but if we forgive the movie its confusions we're left with a good time.’” Joker 2: ‘A colossal mess. It isn’t a “fascinating failure” but rather an infuriating one.’ Stephen Silver, Splice Today Philips approached the work like a vindictive wine mom. “The film underperformed at the box-office. Its budget ballooned to $9 million, much larger than Scorsese's previous work. It grossed only $16.4 million at the box office. The disappointment depressed Scorsese and worsened his drug addiction.[19] United Artists was sure that New York, New York was going to be a hit.” “‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ to Lose $150 Million to $200 Million in Theatrical Run After Bombing at Box Office.’” -Variety In the end though, we have 2 filmmakers trying to get one over on their audience bc they were ashamed of the “wrong kind success and message” of their previous work. “Scorsese explains that he intended the film as a break from the gritty realism for which he had become famous.” “Vincent Canby: wondered, ‘Why should a man of Mr. Scorsese's talent be giving us what amounts to no more than a film buff's essay on a pop-film form that was never, at any point in film history, of the first freshness?’”
I didn't watch it but when i heard about it my thought was: why? It didnt need a sequel, the story was finished. As for the insanity manifesting as musical, Precious did that snd could've worked well for joker.
Admittedly I did immediately think "Star Wars sequel trilogy" during the first part of this video. I'm not even just saying Rise of Skywalker. Last Jedi was the same. I sure hope people have started when interviewing directors asking "did you like the movie(s) before this one?" But yeah, this movie is the rare case where the director of both movies absolutely despised the first one he made...for reasons. And decided to make a movie that ruins the whole thing.
Agreed. Outside of outlandish appearance (which Bowie, and heck even Elton John did much better), there’s really nothing to recommend her as being a memorable performer, let alone a quality singer/vocalist.
I stopped the video almost right away (I thought the movie was well shot but with a very disappointing ending) - it's not that the director hates the previous film or fans of it. It's just that it was a dead end : what was going to happen : full Joker and Harley on the loose ? With no Batman (yet) in this reality ? Would Phoenix commit for another film or 3 ? Of course not. So they went with the easy way out, but at least, it wasn't "just in his head".
Man i wish i was spoilered because that would have saved me from being dragged there to watch it because my sister wanted to watch it. If i had known how disappointing the film was i would have never waisted my time watching it and would have asked her to pick a better film to watch.
Folie a deux is actually a psychiatric term and means shared insanity /madness. Educate yourself before speak. So it works well and shows the multicultural aspect of the film as music itself is a universal language. Not a "pretentious" title by all means.
@@bentwineham1986 Who are you? Put a sock in your mouth. Litterally. Hope you like this one better! Fyi, expressions have nothing to do with factual knowledge. And he just looks jealous that way, shitting on the cinematic work of great creative minds, the ones he'll never be close to.
People are angry that Arthur isn’t The Joker. It’s called “joker”, he is A joker. If you removed the “Arkham” sign and any reference to Gotham, there’s nothing that makes this the DC Joker. He’s an abused kid grown up into a mentally ill man in a terrible city. Anything else is projecting our expectation of The Joker onto him. (Har)Lee’s reaction to him later in the film is the audiences’ misunderstanding of the movie and the character. She wanted the Joker and he was only ever Arthur (just like the critics) Speaking of the music… the reason for the music? He first saw Lee in music therapy and she sang to him. If it was art therapy, Arthur would have been dancing through paintings to woo her in his hallucinations. Lee’s love language is music. She was a privileged upper East sider. She probably had music, voice, dance lessons as the girl of rich parents. This isn’t a musical, it’s the fever dream of a lovestruck, obsessive mental patient. He’s mentally ill, not a mastermind anarchist. Can anyone honestly say that you could see Arthur from Joker1 planning the downfall of Gotham? Outsmarting any of the batmans we’ve seen (Pattinson’s?!). Do you see him making penguin or the riddler bend the knee? Would Bane freeze at the sight of him?See him walk into a room full of mob bosses and walk out unscathed? Manufacture timed explosives, p0is0n gas, fight Batman hand to hand? He was full of swagger as joker, but he wasn’t smarter; he didn’t demonstrate any greater competency, he had no skills other than a good strut. Even his court skills were true to the story; his defense was so incompetent.. exactly what an uneducated person would be able to do. It’s like the arguments you hear in traffic court by people defending themselves. Heck, this was even shown in the 1st movie. Joker’s super moment on the stairs is shown as him just dancing like an idiot (lots of pelvic thrusts) hearing his own music. He was never The Joker. Even at the end of Joker1 we see him in police custody with no sign of a fight. He probably just sat down on the couch and waited for the police. Remember his plan was self h@rm, not murd3r. He didn’t know what to do next. Then he gets rescued by his followers and he stands on top of the car (again, just a strut) Then we see him hunched over, laughing his painful Arthur laugh smoking a cigarette with another counselor in Arkham. He was caught again. The audience wanted to see him powerful, so it did, but he was still Arthur just playing more roles for atttention and love. They wanted Hannibal Lechter but he was always Buffalo Bill
Never liked the first one, both actors are great dont get me wrong, but the joker was never just a crazy person, he was a genius, a mastermind of crime, i always go back to that justice league episode where the heavy hitters in the JL, you know superman, wonder woman, flash and green lantern, go after him thinking that it would be easy, since batman has no powers, and they all got schooled by the clown hehehe, amazing writing, DC has way better animations than movies.
And just like battered housewives you’ll be back buying your tickets 🎫 “ oh it will be better next time “ Wake the f up , Imagine if all that was made was produced was made to coherence, convince , alter Just turn it off all of it , do t say I didn’t try and warn you
Im going to be blunt: Anyone who saw Arthur/Joker as a purevhero has zero media literacy, they have never understood the concept that just because someone is the protagonist, does not automatically make them the good guy. And I'm just sick of everying needing to be dumbed down for them.
No no no. The r*pe makes sense. Look at our culture that coddles women and puts men down specifically for a moment. The first film could be sumerized as his life is so absurdly pitiful, his life is a joke. Now looking at both sex scenes, Arthur with Harley being a "quickshot" and the "don't drop the soap" are both sexual jokes against men. See, his life is still a joke in all aspects. Even looking back at the first film, his love for his abusive mom, his hallucinations with his gf and his love for Thomas were all jokes on his life. Harley was no different. "Don't drop the soap" is still the only acceptable r*pe joke after all.
Easily one of the best movies I've ever seen, it also happens to be one of the most misunderstood movies for general audiences & critics as well. Funny that. It's genius is unmatched, and will be remembered fondly years down the line. One day. Top shelf film.
Try processing before you react….a true creative experience takes time, but from the look of your timeline you ran to the internet with a bias opinion that’s not worth the you put into it….
I go out of my way not to say “um” or “like” and my brain subconsciously sabotages me with “ya know” overload lol. I should have noticed it in editing. Oh well! Win some lose some.
The idea of Joker treating everything like a play with musicals, a boardway show, or even a stage play as the background changes based on his mood or interpretation of what's happening shows way better. Unable to grasp what's really happening and just going with the flow. But we got 0.99 cent harley and dance numbers.
The musical thing totally could have worked, yeah. Wasted potential.
I hope by 0.99 cent you mean that she didn't get enough screen time to be dived into deeper and not the fact that Gaga sold her Born This Way album for that price back in the day, which was a clever and generous thing to do, considering how many people don't have taste in music at all. At least they could have listened to that masterpiece and learn something good.
It's often hard to tell the difference between incompetence and malice. Pretty sure this movie has equal measures of both though.
The worst part is that it emboldens the very people he wants to discourage because they point to this movie and say "see he *should* have embraced the Joker! Look at what happened when he didn't" If he really wanted to make the point that embracing the Joker is bad he should either 1) reward Arthur Fleck for making the choice to reject the Joker or 2) Punish Arthur for accepting the Joker. Instead Arthur get punished for rejecting the Joker which has to be the dumbest route he could have taken.
perfectly said
Great summary!
When logic fails, this is worst for the story
sometimes people do what they think is right and things still don't work out for them
@@universome511 which may be realistic, but not going to sell tickets. Like imagine Shawshank, but instead the ending is he died in prison and only exonerated after death. Much more realistic, but unsatisfying.
@@EflowNivek I don't think he ever gets exonerated in that one he just escapes
And you're right about that but in this instance I'd rather have the more interesting movie that does something different that importantaly has thematic relevance over one that plays it safe and is boring.
This movie is what happens when you don't want to make a movie, you have no ideas about what a movie should be about, and dislike your previous movie.
I think works can be antagonistic to the audience, but you need to be really good to pull it off successfully.
I wish the movies had the balls to be about societal issues and rich vs. poor.
Treating mental illness as something that "just happens to some people, for some reason" is disrespectful.
@@Grogeous_Maximusmental illness does indeed just happen sometimes, you can be born mentally ill. what are you getting at here?
@@Grogeous_Maximus The problem is Hollywood most times cannot make that types of movies, because the world they live in is not the same most "normal" people live in.
You cannot expect an industry that is complacent with the status quo to challenge it. Look outside of Hollywood and you'll find more movies about these kinda issues.
And on the subject of mental illness, is a complicated one. You can make a case that well-off people that have the social and finactial support needed to manage their mental illness are ill-equiped to talk about mental illness on people who don't have the support they have, and fall prey to ideologies like inceldom. Again, that would require a lot of emphaty on your part about these people, but is clear they don't have much
Joker 2 is a cinematic masterpiece (far better than Joker 1), but it’s not made for simpletons. The entire message and point of the movie were to expose fake fans. Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn essentially plays the audience-you are Harley Quinn. You expected a movie where Joker does 'cool' and 'bad' things, as you think Joker is supposed to, without ever looking at the person behind the persona (Arthur). When you didn’t get the 'cool' stuff, you stormed off, just like Harley did.
The movie perfectly portrays capitalism and its consumption-driven mindset. People are reduced to either being entertaining (the Joker) or not worth paying attention to (Arthur Fleck). This point is demonstrated flawlessly. People prefer to be entertained rather than engage with authenticity. When Joker is authentic (i.e., when he’s Arthur), he loses, and this perfectly illustrates our superficial capitalist culture. Authenticity is dead-we don’t care about the person behind the persona; we just want to see the Joker, the version we imagine he’s supposed to be. Like in capitalism, we crave the flashing lights, the illusion of realness, not realness itself, because that’s boring. When the movie shatters that illusion, you go cry on the internet.
Harley Quinn doesn’t just represent the audience (or fake fans like you); she also symbolizes the 'higher-ups' who wanted Todd Phillips to make a 'cool' sequel about Joker and Harley taking over Gotham, causing anarchy, and doing bad shit. This is what the trailer suggested-another masterpiece in setting expectations and then demolishing them. She wants the Joker because the audience wants the Joker; they don’t want a 'loser' like Arthur. But Todd Phillips said no, and by doing so, he exposed the audience for what they really are: they don’t care about realness, they just want entertainment. Now that they didn’t get it, they’re crying online because their idea of what Joker is 'supposed' to be has been crushed.
To everyone who hates this movie: first, you’ve been exposed as fracking idiots; second, this movie is the perfect slap in the face to all of you. Todd Phillips gave you that slap, and now you’re all storming off, whining online about how you didn’t like the movie, or asking 'what was the point?' when the point was you-you are the point. The truth is, this movie was a mirror, and that’s exactly why you don’t like it.
I love this movie far more than the first one. As I said at the beginning, it’s a cinematic masterpiece.
@@KyleCox404 You are assuming a lot here buddy. Of course, if you are not a bot or trolling. Don't mind me, just continue sniffing your farts.
To be honest, I've always thought it was incredibly stupid (and a first World problem as well) when creators got upset because "the audience didn't understand their work the way they, the creators, THINK we, the audience, should understand it."
The truth is that every work of art, once exposed to the world, ceases to be the property of the creator, takes on a life of its own and receives interpretations from the audience that often differ from those of the creator of the work (something that is natural, since different people have different perspectives).
C'est la vie. Therefore, getting upset about this is whining and, in the case of people who want to indoctrinate the public, it also indicates a lack of character.
I do agree with this sentiment, but I have a question. Does this apply to things like video games? Some can be considered pieces of art, and if so, what parts of that medium are subject to interpretation that may go against the author's intent?
It's 100% Phillips' own fault people didnt like The Joker "the right way". The movie didnt need a Batman. It needed Arthur to hurt someone who wasnt guilty of assaulting him or being bad person. Phillips framed every victim of Arthur as being at least an *sshole to Arthur. The wall street guys while one was running away when Arthur shot him, assaulted him first. Randall and Murray were both pretty sh*tty humans. They didnt deserve to die but Phillips only shows the bad side of them.That was his choice! He has no leg to stand on when blaming the mass audiences from getting the wrong message. If you think Jordan Belfort was a hero, that's on you. If you think Arthur Fleck was a hero that's largely on Todd Phillips.
I will say that the Belford thing has a similar problem, mainly because that movie doesn’t show just how many lives he ruined
Very accurate comment! They never made Arthur become really "evil". So in the end it becomes an abuse fest, which results in him crumbling and losing his confidence in his alter ego. Therefore, by rejecting Joker, he didn't become good, he just succumbed to being weak.
Nope, Jordan Belfort's idolization is actually on Scorcese's depiction of him.
Once Martin had tremendous commercial succes with his GoodFellas formula, he conformed to keep repeating it for any other movie with conmen (even Casino, which actually is the best movie out of the bunch, because it is more grounded and less idealized, even if it shows DeNiro's character in a kinda positive light, at least it is not obnoxiously misleading as the Belfort one).
Scorcese's redemption actually came with "The Irishman" and "Killers of the Flower Moon".
Phillips' Joker 1 was supposed to be ambiguous, but it is WAY less hypocritical about it than "Wolf of Wall Street", and his Joker 2 is akin to the patheticity of human nature shown in "Killers of the Flower Moon".
Phillips has stayed true to Arthur's true essence in this sequel, we just were misled by the title of the films (if anything, that was the point all along).
@@KabacisdeadActually, he did the right thing because he realized acting as The Joker didn't led nowhere he really wanted to be.
Exactly, and the one victim that fits this criteria is his neighbor, killing her would have been unjust and this movie destroys this too by revealing that he left her alive
The legal bar for an insanity plea in the US is high. It's the inability to understand the difference between right and wrong, rather than the presence of mental illness. Arthur might have stayed in Arkham, but he almost certainly would have been found guilty by any decent jury.
my favorite part of jonkler 2 is when he gave harley 4 pumps & looked like he was stroking sand paper
Man what a nice video. Very measured and explaining in very diplomatic ways why the movie fell flat here and there. Keep it up, videos like these feel more like they're opening a discussion rather than hammering an opinion one way or the other
This was the start of a huge GaGa publicity promotion that backfired. Her new album is called "Harlequin" not by coincidence. They were sincerely hoping for a perfect storm, and I sincerely hope that Phoenix did say "That was horrible" at Venice.
Too bad Philips didn't try to rip off Brian DePalma's Phantom of the Paradise this time around.
I haven’t seen that one yet. I’ll add it to the list. Likely the movie would have been better off if they ripped off just about anything.
He should have copied the homework from NATURAL BORN KILLERS
Excellent work in getting to the intended meaning of this muddled mess of a film.
MUDDLES REALLY MUDDLES YOU SERIOUS MUDDLES
When even Spider-Man 3 is a better musical than Joker 2
I think what pisses me off the most are the people who “understood” the movie and are gaslighting us by saying we didnt understand the movie.
Oh, WE GET IT.
Yeah my bitchy aunt told me if I didn't get the movie it's "because your stupid and not an artist like me" is 😂 what a clown 🤡
for a character study on mental health it was good but not for a joker movie...
THANK YOU! Excellent analysis, amidst much commentary about this movie, you put it the more succinct way. I see those who defend the movie return to the point that "it''s brutally realistic" and "this is what happens to criminals/people in the system/mental patients/people who buy into the "incel" ideology", yadda yadda, and they point to the dark fates of Scorsese's characters which were Joker's inspiration, but. They forget that rewarding evil and punishing good simply to say that this is how it happens sometimes, deny your character any sort, not of happy ending, but of even an esoteric moment of triumpIh or self-realization, is not "pointing out the dark reality", it's wallowing in that dark reality like a pig in the mud. Scorsese treated his characters with empathy, which is something Philips' movie totally lacked, and then he had the gall to pretend that the movie was an indictment to the public who wanted to see a Joker movie and didn't care about the man behind the Joker....all the while treating that same man simply as a collateral damage and stepping stone for the *actual* Joker to come in. (and how foolish, the fans, wanting the Joker in a movie called Joker, right?) Basically Philips did what those arthouse directors have been doing for decades, splattering ugliness on the screen without any moral lesson or emotional insight,and calling it a reflection on the grim state of the world, only in a more "civilized" way, since he's doing it through well-known franchises and big Hollywood studios. TLDR, I don't think he has enough understanding of what he tried to tackle to develop any sort of meaningful empathy for his subject, and that shows in how morally void and unsatisfying the movie is. Pity for Phoenix and Gaga's performances.
For a movie that supposedly dethrones Joker, it actually had little to no counterargument to the very idea of Joker that world's a big cruel joke you can just go along with. It just says "if you do something bad they'll put you behind bars and your ass won't be pitied". It's not really a counterargument, just a scare tactic, albeit a legit one. If this film had, for example, a scene with Bruce Wayne showing up in court and saying to Arthur that he aims to make something of himself and, more importantly, Gotham, in spite of his parents' death that Arthur indirectly caused, that would be something that could've helped. Not really, though, for it would be basically the rest of the movie this scene had to work against.
Not dragging young Bruce into courtroom is a wasted opportunity here right
I don’t buy the theory that it was bad on purpose. That’s a clever way to mask Phillips’ arrogance and incompetence. No, he thought this movie was going to be great, and he operated in an echo chamber of yes men and sycophants. Zero oversight. He didn’t even have test screenings, and screened the final film for critics a whole month before theatrical release, that’s how confident he was of his own brilliance. This failure came as a shock
I think he was forced to make the movie
Yeah. I also think it's a lot simpler then it being bad on purpose. I think Philips just isn't as good a creative as he thinks he is.
@@Jester_JinglesHis sequels are terrible (Hangover 2)
With the first Joker, I always wondered why the supposed intelligentsia thought it would be a "takedown" of incel culture, when it could very easily be interpreted as an incel's revenge.
what a great review! you put together everything I felt about the movie seamlessly
Glad you enjoyed it! More to come
It is about ruining a cultural icon. Like it is always with these people
Well, honestly, as someone who has mental illness*, it IS (or at least can be) very sad and pathetic.
I think "empathetic" people trying to say it never is, are either naive or virtue-signalling liars.
This is still not a great movie, of course, but I'm just saying.
* serious depression and full-fledged anxiety disorder. I go to therapy and sometimes take medication, but it's not amazing. I don't want to take revenge on the world a la Arthur Fleck, but also understand I'm not a superhero or supervillain a la Batman or the Joker.
I'm just a person, and I struggle, and it can be very very pathetic, which is okay.
A modern mainstream movie would never, ever have the balls to portray that in a way that is honest to real life.
You are choosing to make healthy decesions in spite of, not because of, your challenges. THis is something fleck could have done but insdtead he made horrific choices for horrific reasons.
I think you did a good job explaining my job with the movie as well, in that it has two very strong ideas of what it wants to be and those ideas don't work together.
If it wanted to be a musical it could have done that as a way to demonstrate Arthur losing himself to the identity of the Joker. I'd argue this is the more marketable choice.
But the film ALSO wants to be a critique of the Joker identity and show that Arthur does not want to use it anymore, possibly due to guilt or the realization that the Joker persona does not save him from pain and trauma. This is the idea I find more interesting but it requires a lot more work to put in because you have to understand why Arthur would abandon something that gave him power initially.
Unfortunately the film just does both things and mediocrely. There is a germ of a good idea in this movie but it's trapped between multiple opposing forces. It's a brave movie, I'll give it that. And I do in fact LOVE some scenes in here. But a few good scenes don't make up for an overall underwhelming film.
Honestly I do think the idea of a joker musical could work. In my opinion there’s no such thing as a bad idea, just bad execution.
American Psycho 2 was also pretty bad.
The finale of SEINFELD worked creatively (even if people didn’t much like it) because it recontextualized the characters as they went out the door. These people you spent all this time with that you loved? They were kind of awful and we’re going to make you see what happened from the point of view of everybody else in that world. JOKER 2 does not need to recontextualize JOKER. Gary Puddles was traumatized by what happened to him? Yeah, no shit. We already knew that.
Welp this should guarantee his hack ass never works again because his worst work is his sequels but this is Hollywood so he'll be fine.
Wow, i can't believe how few subs you have! Your presentation is so good and smooth! Love it. Subbed!
Thanks! Welcome aboard!
Thats the problem I have with the movie that they only used the name of the Joker to attract the audience... 🤷
Its probably why the 2nd movie is doing so horribly. Thee was plenty of people who despised the first movie and I understand that. And at this time, sequels and movies are made poorly on purpose is another big reason no one went to see this.
I do feel like this movie going to be seen differently in the future. It has issues but what its going for will be appreciated later. You do make great points about the the musical aspects.
I suppose we will see! I personally think this will be American Psycho 2 to Psycho. In that no one will remember a sequel even existed.
Some very intelligent comments, put in a concise way. Thank you!
THANK CHRIST! I told people it reminded of _Seinfeld,_ the finale episode in particular.
This if a fine take and video. Well done.
What sucks is that this means that we can't get a cool anthology of movies focusing on Gotham villains, like Marvel with their Spiderman villains.
great summary, nice work
Great video, you got yourself a new subscriber... 👏👏👏
Thanks and welcome to the channel!
8:01 TOOL reference on point
Nice video. I enjoyed it. The message of Joker 2 is "reject being a criminal and get beaten, raped and dumped by your girlfriend." Not exactly a positive message. Arthur would have been better off embracing his Joker identity rather than choosing to be his sad, pathetic self. Those guards wouldn't have dared touch the murderous Joker but they were happy to abuse the pathetic Arthur.
Todd Phillips should have had more guts and stood by Joker rather than apologise for it
The debate about The Joker’s being either homage or rip-off is just about the only thing worth discussing about the first film (an excellent performance by Phoenix wasted in a movie that didn’t deserve it, though kudos anyway).
King of Comedy, like Scorsese’s earlier New York, New York, was not that well received at the time….but that The Joker is considered (in some circles) one of the finest superhero movies, and even movies in general from recent times, whereas KOC was largely dismissed (until later on) says a whole lot about todays reviewers, critics, and especially audiences. I’m betting that few of The Joker’s fans ever saw KOC, or were even aware of it, and possibly weren’t familiar with Taxi Driver either. That’s sort of like young 1980’s fans of Michael Jackson’s derivative and not very good dance videos loving what Jackson and company did in dance without ever knowing that a guy called Bob Fosse existed (let alone Jerome Robbins, Martha Graham, etc).
Also, to discuss Todd Phillips so seriously the way he has been is a bit of a sham…his films leading up to The Joker is a parade of mediocrity: Road Trip, Old School, Starsky & Hutch, School for Scoundrels, The Hangover 1, 2, 3, Due Date, War Dogs. Are any of these even worth watching if landing wile channel surfing? (No, in case someone likes any of them).
Conversely, outside of the mediocre Boxcar Bertha, Scorsese’s early filmography included Who’s That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, Taxi Driver, New York New York, Raging Bull, The King of Comedy. All are very worthwhile films, with four flat out classics, and NY NY I feel underrated.
Very well said!
I said before that the first Joker is probably one of the best and, at the danger of sounding like a snob, more "serious" superhero films of all times....because it's only a superhero film tentatively. If one watched it as a drama it'd become pretty obvious that it's....kinda superficial, kinda simplistic, and in that it shares with Marvel films and the like. It'd never become so universally accepted without the Joker moniker in the form it was released. (Hell, it actually wouldn't be that universally accepted anyways without Joaquin Phoenix going above and beyond). In the second film, which didn't need to be made anyways, because the first film actually ended in the right moment, leaving the rest to the imagination, Philips tried to shed the Joker shield and do "serious" and "realistic" cinema and messed up, because he took away the only thing that elevated his film above average, ie its pretense at fleshing out an actual existing character. Idk if he actually wanted to make the movie or not, but unless he intended to mess it up beyond saving, this was pure hybris and buying into his own hype. Taking some cues from great directors to give some depth to your serviceable product is one thing, trying to make a great director movie another, and because were able to do one doesn't mean you are good enough for the other. Also, you don't do auteur cinema with comicbook properties and studios pulling your leash, sorry Todd.
You know what’s crazy, this pretentious debacle reminds me of another musical pretentious debacle: NEW YORK, NEW YORK. Scorsese’s musical and utter flop.
Like Todd Philips was influenced by failure and said “ hey yeah this is the way!”
Critic Bob Grimm: “Todd Phillips the rip-off king is at it again.” Lol.
Some highlights from Wikipedia and other sources related to both:
“New York, New York is a 1977 American romantic musical filmdirected by Martin Scorsese from a screenplay by Earl Mac Rauch and Mardik Martin, based on a story by Rauch. John Kander and Fred Ebbwrote several songs for the film, including ‘New York, New York’”
“Scorsese explains that he intended the film as a break from the gritty realism for which he had become famous.”
JOKER 2:
“Todd Phillips would rather set fire to his own franchise than let the wrong people take inspiration from it.”
-Rohan Nahaar, The Indian Express
WIKIPEDIA NEW YORK NEW YORK:
“He (Scorsese) saw it as an homage to musicals of Classical Hollywood cinema. That's why the sets and storyline are deliberately artificial. He acknowledges the experiment did not please everyone. “
“A risk is that there are so many borrowings that Folie à Deux is more a collage than a film.”
Kim Newman, SciFi Now
“Having just won the Palme d'Or, he (Scorsese) arrogantly felt he could improve the script during filming, but his excesses led to mistakes.”
“Phillips throws himself into the void with explicit but less substantial influences on the history of musical cinema. -Pedro Gallego, Espinof”
“Scorsese's cocaine addiction made matters worse, and according to Peter Biskind, the director was also taking lithium to control his anger. Scorsese lamented, "I was just too drugged out to resolve the structure".[7] He even cut press interviews short one day because he explained he had run out of cocaine”
"it's a miracle that the film makes any kind of sense.”
At least Scorsese admits his failure what’s your excuse Todd?
Scorsese: COCAINE IS A HELL OF A DRUG.
Philips: Scorsese is a hell of a drug!
COCAINE > VIRTUE SIGNALING.
“The experiment did not please everyone. “
Scorsese had a vision although misguided and approached the work as a filmmaker.
“Roger Ebert lamented , ‘Scorsese's New York, New York never pulls itself together into a coherent whole, but if we forgive the movie its confusions we're left with a good time.’”
Joker 2:
‘A colossal mess. It isn’t a “fascinating failure” but rather an infuriating one.’
Stephen Silver, Splice Today
Philips approached the work like a vindictive wine mom.
“The film underperformed at the box-office. Its budget ballooned to $9 million, much larger than Scorsese's previous work. It grossed only $16.4 million at the box office. The disappointment depressed Scorsese and worsened his drug addiction.[19] United Artists was sure that New York, New York was going to be a hit.”
“‘Joker: Folie à Deux’ to Lose $150 Million to $200 Million in Theatrical Run After Bombing at Box Office.’”
-Variety
In the end though, we have 2 filmmakers trying to get one over on their audience bc they were ashamed of the “wrong kind success and message” of their previous work.
“Scorsese explains that he intended the film as a break from the gritty realism for which he had become famous.”
“Vincent Canby: wondered, ‘Why should a man of Mr. Scorsese's talent be giving us what amounts to no more than a film buff's essay on a pop-film form that was never, at any point in film history, of the first freshness?’”
I didn't watch it but when i heard about it my thought was: why? It didnt need a sequel, the story was finished.
As for the insanity manifesting as musical, Precious did that snd could've worked well for joker.
Admittedly I did immediately think "Star Wars sequel trilogy" during the first part of this video. I'm not even just saying Rise of Skywalker. Last Jedi was the same. I sure hope people have started when interviewing directors asking "did you like the movie(s) before this one?"
But yeah, this movie is the rare case where the director of both movies absolutely despised the first one he made...for reasons. And decided to make a movie that ruins the whole thing.
Todd Phillips is the first man to hate his film grossed one billion dollars.
I ran out of the theater traumatized
Remind me of the game last of us 2. Both a product of creator’s insecurity.
Why would he make a movie that everyone would hate ???
3:25 No she's not. Name one Lady Gaga song from the past decade pro tip you can't because she hasn't made anything good.
I literally forgot she existed until this movie.
Very true
Agreed. Outside of outlandish appearance (which Bowie, and heck even Elton John did much better), there’s really nothing to recommend her as being a memorable performer, let alone a quality singer/vocalist.
That's... really not the issue here and in this movie though. That's just your music preference
@@pauldavidartistclub6723exactly she has a trained musical voice not a real singers voice and she’s an awful human being
Hope Todd Phillips meets the real Joker
I sequel to Joker I think would’ve been a great idea, its execution was poor.
I stopped the video almost right away (I thought the movie was well shot but with a very disappointing ending) - it's not that the director hates the previous film or fans of it. It's just that it was a dead end : what was going to happen : full Joker and Harley on the loose ? With no Batman (yet) in this reality ? Would Phoenix commit for another film or 3 ? Of course not. So they went with the easy way out, but at least, it wasn't "just in his head".
Man i wish i was spoilered because that would have saved me from being dragged there to watch it because my sister wanted to watch it.
If i had known how disappointing the film was i would have never waisted my time watching it and would have asked her to pick a better film to watch.
I actually enjoyed this movie but every point is correct
It's hilarious getting lectured by the chimos in Hollywood
Folie a deux is actually a psychiatric term and means shared insanity /madness. Educate yourself before speak. So it works well and shows the multicultural aspect of the film as music itself is a universal language. Not a "pretentious" title by all means.
Don’t lecture others until you get your own house in order. I can see some pretty poor uses of grammar, as well as incorrect usage of colloquialisms.
@@bentwineham1986 Who are you? Put a sock in your mouth. Litterally. Hope you like this one better! Fyi, expressions have nothing to do with factual knowledge. And he just looks jealous that way, shitting on the cinematic work of great creative minds, the ones he'll never be close to.
@@bentwineham1986 that doesn't mean they are wrong...
No. Batman doesnt belong in these movies. The joker title was to hide behind and has nothing to do with the comics.
Then they shouldn't add Batman universe characters since the beginning
you’re missing the message maaaaaan
People are angry that Arthur isn’t The Joker. It’s called “joker”, he is A joker.
If you removed the “Arkham” sign and any reference to Gotham, there’s nothing that makes this the DC Joker. He’s an abused kid grown up into a mentally ill man in a terrible city.
Anything else is projecting our expectation of The Joker onto him. (Har)Lee’s reaction to him later in the film is the audiences’ misunderstanding of the movie and the character. She wanted the Joker and he was only ever Arthur (just like the critics)
Speaking of the music… the reason for the music? He first saw Lee in music therapy and she sang to him. If it was art therapy, Arthur would have been dancing through paintings to woo her in his hallucinations. Lee’s love language is music. She was a privileged upper East sider. She probably had music, voice, dance lessons as the girl of rich parents. This isn’t a musical, it’s the fever dream of a lovestruck, obsessive mental patient.
He’s mentally ill, not a mastermind anarchist. Can anyone honestly say that you could see Arthur from Joker1 planning the downfall of Gotham? Outsmarting any of the batmans we’ve seen (Pattinson’s?!). Do you see him making penguin or the riddler bend the knee? Would Bane freeze at the sight of him?See him walk into a room full of mob bosses and walk out unscathed? Manufacture timed explosives, p0is0n gas, fight Batman hand to hand?
He was full of swagger as joker, but he wasn’t smarter; he didn’t demonstrate any greater competency, he had no skills other than a good strut. Even his court skills were true to the story; his defense was so incompetent.. exactly what an uneducated person would be able to do. It’s like the arguments you hear in traffic court by people defending themselves.
Heck, this was even shown in the 1st movie. Joker’s super moment on the stairs is shown as him just dancing like an idiot (lots of pelvic thrusts) hearing his own music. He was never The Joker.
Even at the end of Joker1 we see him in police custody with no sign of a fight. He probably just sat down on the couch and waited for the police. Remember his plan was self h@rm, not murd3r. He didn’t know what to do next. Then he gets rescued by his followers and he stands on top of the car (again, just a strut) Then we see him hunched over, laughing his painful Arthur laugh smoking a cigarette with another counselor in Arkham. He was caught again. The audience wanted to see him powerful, so it did, but he was still Arthur just playing more roles for atttention and love.
They wanted Hannibal Lechter but he was always Buffalo Bill
The message: Rape works?
I think people might not realise that the director was likely blackmailed into making this movie
THe chainsmoking is tight! This movie was made spiteful.
Never liked the first one, both actors are great dont get me wrong, but the joker was never just a crazy person, he was a genius, a mastermind of crime, i always go back to that justice league episode where the heavy hitters in the JL, you know superman, wonder woman, flash and green lantern, go after him thinking that it would be easy, since batman has no powers, and they all got schooled by the clown hehehe, amazing writing, DC has way better animations than movies.
Wah wah wah
And just like battered housewives you’ll be back buying your tickets 🎫
“ oh it will be better next time “
Wake the f up ,
Imagine if all that was made was produced was made to coherence, convince , alter
Just turn it off all of it , do t say I didn’t try and warn you
Im going to be blunt:
Anyone who saw Arthur/Joker as a purevhero has zero media literacy, they have never understood the concept that just because someone is the protagonist, does not automatically make them the good guy.
And I'm just sick of everying needing to be dumbed down for them.
No no no. The r*pe makes sense. Look at our culture that coddles women and puts men down specifically for a moment. The first film could be sumerized as his life is so absurdly pitiful, his life is a joke.
Now looking at both sex scenes, Arthur with Harley being a "quickshot" and the "don't drop the soap" are both sexual jokes against men. See, his life is still a joke in all aspects. Even looking back at the first film, his love for his abusive mom, his hallucinations with his gf and his love for Thomas were all jokes on his life. Harley was no different. "Don't drop the soap" is still the only acceptable r*pe joke after all.
The internet is slowly turning us into a caste without rights
You got filtered
Easily one of the best movies I've ever seen, it also happens to be one of the most misunderstood movies for general audiences & critics as well. Funny that. It's genius is unmatched, and will be remembered fondly years down the line. One day. Top shelf film.
Try processing before you react….a true creative experience takes time, but from the look of your timeline you ran to the internet with a bias opinion that’s not worth the you put into it….
sounds like you got filtered like every other UA-camr. The movie was pure kino and somehow topped the original.
You say “you know” A LOT. 😂
I go out of my way not to say “um” or “like” and my brain subconsciously sabotages me with “ya know” overload lol. I should have noticed it in editing. Oh well! Win some lose some.