I’ve watched several reviews of this movie, and they mostly seem to bash this movie. This review is so much better than all of them. You break it down perfectly. Good freaking job. Everyone interested in this movie should listen to this breakdown.
18:46 I think the reason Arthur forsake Joker after getting r*ped was because up until this point, Joker protected him from harm. But in this case him being Joker directly led to him receiving abuse, leading him to have no shield for his pain and wanting him to blow it all up
His joker persona also caused the death of his friend at the hands of the prison guards. Also the connection he had with “Puddles” who appreciated him for just being Arthur.
The Joker dies after this scene because he became useless. He couldn't protect Arthur anymore. Arthur finally realizes that living in a fantasy doesn't erase what is happening to him in the real world and he goes numb, not feeling anything anymore. The Joker is a symbol of his rage but after this brutal scene he isn't angry anymore. It shows in the scene where he watches cartoons. He doesn't laugh anymore either. I feel both movies completely and to me they make total sense.
@@nosphyit may have some sequencing issues and honestly they could’ve shaved off like 30 mins of time as the ending dragged but part of me thinks that’s the point. the entire movie immediately pulls you into this fantasy world and tells you to believe it just like arthur. i think the movie did this to purposely throw us in a confused loop, to get an inside on how arthur must feel in a way
@@calmitkillerI will Watch it again, I am such a fan of the first movie, the idea is good, but I do t know if it is missing something.…. I was waiting and waiting and.….. I missed the tension, the surprise element, I have to watch it again.
@@nosphy The transaction is convincing if you watch the movie. It had tension, because the ending was clear from the beginning, which created tension. I wouldn't call it weak, people just cannot understand that Joker 1 is just overrated and people don't wanna see this movie for what it is, real.
It's poetic tragedy about a weak, sick man who accidently became an idol. The clown mask became bigger than him. Arthur didn't know what to do with his sudden fame. He wanted someone to love him. Simple but impossible dream. Everyone loved only "Joker". I really liked this movie. It's cruel and realistic.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The heartbreaking part is his lawyer was the only one who showed a shred of genuine concern for him. She called out how the correction officers treated him-letting him get soaked in the rain. She was fighting for his life, and he ended up firing her. He was used to being abused, mistreated, and manipulated.
@@BuddSidewinder yes! You're so right) they had like a mother and son dynamic. Arthur trusted the wrong person. He was too fragile and naive, like a boy in a grown man's body.
@@Mindblowinable That’s what I think too. She was looking out for him and protecting him. Unlike his real mother who abused and neglected him. Lee Quinzel was the wrong person to trust. It ended up harming him.
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
Great read. People's expectatiins actually were the most harmful thing for this sequel's reviews. Too many dissapointed people refuse to analyze it's deeper meaning out of resentment to the film for not giving them what they wanted.
Excellent review! I'm genuinely disappointed by all the UA-cam reviewers that can't critique this film but only dump on it. Just like joker fans from the film, joker fans in reality are only interested in seeing him act like joker, if he's not being joker then f*ck off! I think this movie went right over their heads.
From a psychologist perspective this movie greatly portrays DID and shows how the system fails individuals when they are openly begging for help. The actual psychpath that stabs arthur to death and the very mentally unwell traumatized and dissociated Arthur are in the same facility when they are very different morally speaking. One of them being aware of the wrong-doing and another one on a plane of another reality in his hand. Also the joker disappearing could be reference the phenomenon of integrating when receiving therapy for DID.
But there is no "D.I.D." There is no real, separate "Joker" personality. Just Arthur and his delusions. Arguably that is true about DID too, but DID advocates appear to claim all their personalities are in fact real personalities that simply share the same body.
I have a DPDR diagnosis and have been told that I might have DID or OSDD (after speaking to many people who have known me a long time and reflecting, as well as other things like my amnesia issues and my childhood history, I do think I might have more severe dissociation than I am currently diagnosed with). I honestly think this is one of the closest depictions I have seen of the disorder. Obviously this isn't perfectly accurate, especially because there are only 2 in the system (from what I understand that is very uncommon and there are normally more). I like how it doesn't make systems out to be evil monsters (like most "split personality" media), but instead a trauma response to abuse that is triggered by certain things happening in the world around the person. Especially with how it shows the Joker alter as a direct response to trauma and it being the system's way of protecting the more emotionally vulnerable part from the reality of their past. Funnily enough, I think this movie may create more understanding of what dissociative disorders are and why they happen. Obviously actual education on dissociative disorders is ideal, but many people will never be in a situation where they are taught about dissociative disorders. So mainstream media that gives a decent depiction is the best we've got for now.
Lee is a psychopath herself, Joker is a liberation for her, and she is a fan of a symbol of rebellion, the women in general are not in love with a weak deranged Man. My problem with this movie is that the transaction from Joker back to Arthur makes no sense.
i think Foile a Deux was showing how the shadow of Joker was too big for Arthur so it consumed him. Joker became too much for him to handle and he decided he wanted out. Lee realized he didn’t want to share her madness so she left him after being made the “fool” to believe Arthur could be her Joker.
I liked the film. There is no repercussions for the prison guards as it would imply some kind of "good" comes out of it when in reality the brutality of the guards - whether they themselves or some other guards - simply continues. Joker disappears for the simple reason that, as the film indicates at the end, another candidate is ready and waiting (and prepared to kill Arthur) to take on the killer persona. You actually touch on it in your summary.
As a lifelong Harley fan I’d say it’s refreshing to see Harley be the one who gets the better of the Joker, but it’s not satisfying or cathartic. It’s not THAT Joker and it’s not THAT Harley. There’s no satisfaction in seeing an already traumatised Arthur be harmed by yet another vile person. That’s part of why I’m so glad they made it clear that Arthur is not the Joker we know. It makes so much more sense. The Joker isn’t this sad, abused, fragile human. He IS the manipulator, the unrelenting psychopath, the one who inflicts pain and trauma. Making him the victim only made sense if you accepted the movie was through the lens of Joker’s completely unreliable narration and a manipulation of the viewer. This ending makes it so much simpler.
I honestly had to sit with the movie a few days before trying to break it down in my head because I genuinely loved the first film, and the second one didn't feel like a sequel and I was trying to figure out why. I really loved the take on trauma response, but I don't think it was a split personality issue in the end at all. Rather it was a mask that he put on in order to feel important and needed and like he could protect himself. He starts to lose that mask when he recognizes his actions caused someone else to suffer as much as he did that didn't deserve it - Puddles - and continued to slip until he realized that the Joker mask or persona could not protect him from the consequences of his actions. People are angry and tired of being looked down on, and so when all of those people started to idolize him it was for a sequence of actions that he, quite frankly, was triggered into action for and so using the joker as a mask to take responsibility kept him from recognizing his reality. I think the most important message of the movie came from the inevitable cycle that comes with trauma and abuse. Sure, Arthur realized his follies by the end of the movie, but his actions had already sparked that cycle in other people who are more likely to cause more harm and on purpose as they continue. So Joker started as a mask and is now a shadow that is starting to connect tragedies and create new trauma in people despite his death. I, personally, really enjoyed the movie and I think that the reason it didn't feel like a sequel is because it was more of a beginning for a new cycle than it was an ending - and I think that was an extremely interesting choice.
I haven't seen the movie, but there is something called osdd. Which could be what Arthur has. Where he has a bit of a glimpse into the dissociative alter. Where he sees parts of the things he is doing, where he partly can influence a bit of the outcome, not fully but a bit. I think he has osdd because the way this break down talks about how he switches back and forth, especially when reliving stressful situations.
Incredibly disappointing, his reasoning is just Arthur realises he can't beat "city hall, or the guards" or institutions and gives up. Like ok. Thanks for that Todd. We couldn't get one big Joker go crazy scene that isn't a fantasy?
I have so much respect for how from psychiatric and psychological perspective they made sure to only give him symptoms and presentations that are shared between different mental health disorders and illnesses. It's a really good way to make him represent a huge variety of people without opening the door for people to put stigma on anyone in particular.
This is one of the best recaps and reviews Ive seen. You were so detailed and explained certain scenes in a very different way than I interrupted them. This channel is going to be huge!
Loved this movie. I think people were surprised it was a musical. His singing was raw, not bad. Too many comic purists are being too critical. I’m drawn to the psychopathy and lifelong abuse. People need to separate the two.
I think if your interpretation is correct about Joker being the shadow side that emerges to protect Arthur, then his failure to emerge after Arthur's brutal handling by the guards shows the ultimate futility and ineffectiveness of Joker to truly protect him. He is left with only himself to deal with the reality of the world. Also, in Jungian psychology there is the aim of integrating one's shadow with the conscious self to become whole. Arthur never has time to complete this process because he is killed.
I dont understand the negative review at the end of this video. He analysed the movie so well and yet doesn't understand why it turned it as it turned out. Everyone hating the story line is exactly those crowds in the movie cheering for Joker but don't getting one and in the end killing him, hating the movie respectively. This movie is brilliant! It is a mirror that wittingly reflects the movie goers EXPECTING Arthur to take on the mantle as joker but leaving the cinema disappointed and leaving hate comments on the internet
Despite issues with its structure and its over-reliance on musical numbers it serves as a litmus test for its viewers even more than the first film, and will likely be more appreciated in the long term as its audience matures. If you love Batman AND hate Broadway, it's a painful cinematic experience. But if you fully understand Joker 1's underlying message about escapism concealed behind the veneer of the comic book inspirations, you'll find that Joker 2 effectively cements the tragic and inevitable consequences of Arthur's choices. Perhaps the excessive musical numbers wearing down viewers symbolized Arthur's delusions waning as the real-life events wore him down, in which case it was super effective.
@lenircotia the musicals are 30% of the movie. They're dog shit. Beyond that, this was the least interesting way to do this movie. It's mostly just misery porn. You don't get points for being gratuitous.
I want to understand the thought process that the writers had when depicting the abuse that Arthur goes through, the physical and mental abuse is something that was essential in making Arthur assume the persona of the joker however, the sexual assault he went through made no difference, as someone who went through SA I was left shocked and emotionally disturbed when I watched the scene . I understand that when it comes to an all male prison it’s unfortunate that things like these do happens but I still don’t see the reason to show it and not really dealt into it , he already goes through abuse and that itself could’ve been used in a more complex way , however the movie was very interesting and it was a good portrayal of a man going through a mental breakdown and the aftermath of it.
I didn't even realize it was SA until I watched a commentary on it, but afterward, seeing his face it makes sense. I agree it could've been dealt with more, but I think that's the point. These horrible things happen and life goes on and victims are made to suppress/ feel guilty for the trauma they have endured.
I didn’t know how to take this film when I first left cinemas last week but I’ll be honest over time it slowly growing on me. I really dislike the ridiculous theories people have presented like this is in Robert pattinsons Batman universe or even this is heath ledgers etc. it’s weirdly beautiful how arthur describes his world through song and dance even at his lowest. Isn’t that enough? I think the only thing I’d change is him having a Murray situation again with that Jackie guy. Raping him towards the end of the film just left a really sour taste and it makes you already feel such sorrow for arthur as if you hadn’t already. Bittersweet film that in a few years I’m sure will get the respect it’s due. The idea of him and harley tearing up Gotham together didn’t sit well with me either as arthur clearly didn’t like the fandom he was getting
I think the Folie a Deux is a double entendre. It could mean Joker and Harley, sure. But it could also be Arthur and the People of Gotham, who fantasize about this 'character' Joker, who fantasize about the escalation of violence. Though this movie will never have a Batman. I think it sets up a Gotham that is corrupt and radicalized enough to NEED a Batman
It could also reference the movie itself (Arthur) and its audience (Harley), both sharing the fantasy that Joker was actually this cool, manipulative criminal mastermind when all he ever was is a sick man who danced and sang a bit (and shot a couple of people only because he came across a gun).
Maybe it's the way you broke down the movie, but this sounds pretty good. Might give it a watch. Enjoyed your breakdown of The Substance, a film which I enjoyed. Keep the good work. #subbed
Yea same. I might watch it. It kinda seems like the movie is giving hints of Arthur having osdd. And him interegrating Arthur and the Joker. It sounds like a good take on what would happen mentally. What would be going on in the universes jokers head.
In the scene where it shows the bathroom from the first, I think since it shows us the point right after the dance ends, that Joker’s “dance” with Arthur is done. It shows Arthur washing the makeup off after Joker was done, directly after showing the guards strip him and wash him…
i read through this one reddit thread about the R scene and there were so many strange ppl arguing against it having been HEAVILY IMPLIED to have been R and instead just showed him being beaten up.....weird
When Lee said, "Let's give the people what they want" then the gunshot. Arthur already had the fear that he may anger Lee if time comes, he'll decide not to give people what they want. It was all intentional. Todd did not give the people what they wanted for Joker. Some angry, some disappointed, some just accepted it. Good for me, I came to the theater with no expectations. I really don't mind the noise in social media right now about how bad this film is. Some even hated it just because it's a 'Musical', even though it's not really a musical film, considering the format. Well, who am I to judge? Art is subjective. What matters most is that - IT HAS BEEN SAID AND DONE. It's polarizing yet it sparked conversations. Whether you love or hate Joker 2, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
This is a really well put together breakdown/review. Subscribed! I really enjoyed this movie, and the more I sit on it, the more I think I start to like it. I think people will look back on this movie in years to come and change their perception.
I highly doubt that. Most Joker fans want to forget this movie asap. This movie could've been made using a different persona as the main character. Why pick on the Joker and then ruin it for what is clearly the vast majority of Joker fans? Just call it Arthur Fleck and invent a totally different alter ego for him! The fans of the Joker wanted a movie about the Joker. We didn't get it, despite the title. And therein lies the rub.
@eddiespike for the record... I'm a huge joker fan. I've been a DC fan since I was a little boy. I don't even know how many DC comics I own. Trust me. I'm a fan boy.... I guess I just see past the issues people have. It's always been an elseworld project. I dont understand why so many people have a hard time getting on board with the fact that this is just a one in a millionth version of the joker. Todd had a story to tell and he wanted to loosely tell this story around a character that, in the comics, has multiple versions of itself and multiple origin stories. This movie is brilliant. Yes I preferred the first, however I loved the story he was telling.
@santinowilson6716 I get where you're coming from. But the problem for me and for the vast majority is that Joaquin Phoenix's protrayal of the Joker was our favourite origin story. The realism it brought to the Joker story is totally unique and unmatched by any DC rendering, (or Marvel for that matter). But Joker 2 basically robs us of our appreciation of Joker 1 by telling us that the Joker wasn't even IN Joker 1. Right there, we were misled by the title. In order to enjoy Joker 1 the viewer needs to know that Joaquin Phoenix is playing the Joker....the actual Joker. That's what makes it an especially great movie. That movie hit the reset button on the Joker entirely. As much I loved Heath Ledger's portrayal, Joaquin Phoenix surpassed it. So many people connected with Phoenix's portrayal on a whole new level. Having that ripped out from under your feet in Joker 2 was a massive slap in the face. Joker 2 nosedived at the point when it should've soared. Myself, and the majority of fans thought we were going to see some kind of phenomenal retribution when Arthur Fleck gets brutally abused by the prison guards. We thought we'd see Fleck fully embrace his alter ego. Instead, we were presented with the fact that we'd been mercilessly duped and the character we'd been following all along was an entirely different character altogether. A submissive beaten down nobody suffering from a mental illness. So what was the point of offering the audience something spectacular in Joker 1, only to completely eviscerate it in Joker 2? As I said before, they could've easily made the first and second movie without building it around the Joker. They've done it before with movies like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. As a standalone concept these 2 Joker movies could've been great, if only they hadn't been presented as Joker movies. Call them Arthur Fleck 1 and 2. It seems like they just used the Joker theme to reel in a preexisting audience. And that's a cheap stunt which has come back to bite them in the ass, big time. $150M down the pan. Lady Gaga in shock and Joaquin Phoenix, (although $20M richer), also thoroughly embarrassed. I think this movie will serve as quite a severe lesson for Hollywood when it comes to respecting their audience. I personally just want to pretend it never happened.
@eddiespike I appreciate your views. However, all I'll say is this... if every time you watch a movie, all you get is what you want or expect, then what's the point? You'll never get classic movies that way... you'll just get more Disney Marvel crap. Simply cracking out movies to provide fan service. People need to learn to step away from their own expectations on an art form and learn to appreciate it for what it is. Movies need to be able to push back on the audiences expectations in order to be unique. I'm telling you. This film will age well. Once the "sheep" (who only hate it because that's the trend) begin to get bored of shitting on this movie online, then more and more people who actually enjoyed it will start to show. I think the genius of this movie is the fact that loads of people are hating it for the simple reason that they didn't get to see The Joker. Just like in the movie, all everyone wanted was the joker... forgetting about Arthur flecks trauma. The audience is just as guilty as barley quinn. And that's the message. Todd Phillips had a message to spread over these two movies. I truly believe both films and a work of art. People just need to learn to get over themselves basically and learn to appreciate the story that's being told. As I've said before. People don't need to like the movie.. in truth... I hate the shawshank redemption... but I would never say it's not a good movie. Its a great movie... it's just not for me. Just like joker 2 isn't for some people. That's okay, but to say it's a shit film is just wrong.
In the ‘kissing scene’ at the beginning of the movie. The guard says to the other guard something like: “I bet he will strangle him.” But Arthur just gave the vulnerable boy a kiss on his mouth. Towards the end of the movie, the guard himself strangles the vulnerable boy as he tries to support Arthur.
I really like this movie for being more philosophical and delving into less understood symptoms of mental illness. I would say it portrayed a greater interiority for the character now that he is incarcerated and can't externalize his pain the way he did in the first film. The 'shared madness' concept is also known as enmeshment in psychological terms and I liked how his overall affect brightened and he gained self-esteem and confidence from being loved by Lee, but it was temporary and evaporated when her 'love' did (it was just idolization based on a version of him she idealized, not real love). She screams borderline tendencies (changing everything about herself to match an idealized object) and his own identity is in flux in interesting ways throughout the movie. Unnecessary sequel, unnecessarily meditative and abstract, but I really loved that about it. There were no easy answers to questions posed about the intersection of mental health, societal ills, personal choice and the catastrophic combination of the three.
100% i agree with everything you just said. This sequel destroy the legacy of its own franchise. Actually to be específica just the last 20 minutes, because I have to admit I was loving it the hole movie until the rape scene came out of nowhere, then everything when to sh”t, what a bummer.
the fact that the guards broke his defense mechanism makes a lot of pf sense, as someone with a traumatic stress disorder. trauma strips you of things you didnt realize you had to appreciate...
This video is the best review or break down I’ve watched, and i’ve watched soooo many, where i feel sad that I wanted a “joker” movie and hated this movie because he wasn’t the joker. Great video!!!
My biggest complaint with the movie was I felt the music was excessive (yes, I knew it was a musical going in). I felt like there was more story to tell and the songs were drowning it out. Your video gave me a deeper appreciation, even if we both landed in the same spot in the end.
This is the movies, they need to "subvert expectations" & make it more like real life, no longer about entertainment & all about pretentious messenging.
Joker only worked as a standalone movie, not a franchise. Especially with how far they veered from any mainstream version. The first, while I hated it, was unique and almost was a meta commentary on society. Half the problem is there are too many Batman properties going on right now, so it’s hard to figure out which one is supposed to be canon to what they’re doing overall. Realistically, the only thing this Joker should have had in common with the character is name only. It should have never been put into any sort of “Batman” universe. Second, this is what happens when you take a beloved character like Quinn and completely make her what she’s not. I remember all the fans who insisted why this would be so good. And just like this, James Gunn’s DCU will fail, as well.
I see the movie, as much as I dislike it, as a downfall movie. A movie of someone who incidentally became a symbol for the chaotic and downtrodden that took violence as the only option remaining in their minds, but the person who was held as a symbol realizes his actions and the cruel reality and everything just got tiring. You pretty much pointed out stuff I missed in my viewing with no intention of watching it again, so I thank you 🙏
In my opinion the Joker part of Arthur died cuz what happened in the shower. For the first time he became Joker on purpose in the court room, it was the first time he really stood up for himself, and wanted to take control, not just reacted on what happened to him (before that it always was an answer on the threats (like the subway scene in the first movie, even when he killed Muray, it happened as an “accident”. He planed to kill himself on the show and he was dressed as joker cuz he was a joke for Muray, not to be somebody else)). When they dragged him to the bathroom he made jokes, for the first time he looked in the eyes of the threat, but he could do anything about it and got break totally. He realised there; he never been and never gonna be the Joker what the people loved and cheers for. At the end of the first movie he believed when he danced on the top of the car, then he was closed in tho Arkham and threated like shit, Lee came, he belived again he can be strong ,but he couldn’t. So he reached the rock bottom, where either the fantasy world couldn’t gave him safeness and realised it, so the Joker died.
Actually, for someone who did not enjoy the movie this is a well written analysis of the movie. Shame because some of the things you took pains to point out are exactly why the movie is so good. Have mixed feelings on your view about Arthur crawling back after the trauma but i think this is foreshadowed by the cartoon at the start of the movie. Enjoyed the movie and the performances of everyone. Shame. This is not The Joker you (ie: most people) are looking for!
21:35 To be fair, it might be possible. The psycho inmate is in his 20s and Bruce is near his 10s so the age difference isn't too greatly, and actually you could claim there was a bigger age gap between Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker. And now that there is a connection with the first one in that the dude that killed the Waynes might be the same one that kills Arthur, it gives more meaning to the "Joker" film title. It was indeed an origin story of the actual psycho killer Joker, but wrapped up in the story of Arthur Fleck, the man who inspired that character.
Unpopular opinion but despite all the bad reviews and it being called a flop, I think it’s gonna end up being a cult classic in the future. Kinda like Fight Club, Rocky Horror, The Big Lebowski.
Maybe. But I remember a lot of people LOVING those movies when they came out. I don't see much rewatch value in this one unfortunately. But I hope it finds it's people.
I like the idea that the "New Joker" said you get what you deserve then proceeding to stab Arthur is a way of putting Arthur to rest in a way and taking this burden of being Joker away from Arthur
I walked out of the movie. I was high going in, so it sobered me and tf up. It was executed poorly. Thanks for the breakdown so I can focus on something positive about it.
Joker is one of my favorite movies. Folie à deux is awful, but at least you've put some lights on stuff I hadn't noticed, and I agree with you, Folie à deux does tarnish the first one somehow.
My opinion is the movie arthur finally wants to be himself and realizes he's never been himself he's only acted on emotion and was what people wanted him to be. And when he wants to be himself the fans both in real life and in movie turn on him. Proving they never cared about him. His knock knock joke in court is so telling.
From this recap, I'm honestly not sure why fans are so upset with the movie. Other than it being a musical and basically rehashing the first film, which are good enough reasons! But it doesn't feel like it "hates fans" so much as it further illustrated that Arthur Fleck is a sad man who led a sad life, and he was not The Joker. Which I think was pretty well illustrated in the first movie, so am not sure why anyone is surprised or disappointed by it now.
I thought this review was more enjoyable for want of a better word than the actual movie. I think this reflects that some of the ideas in the movie were interesting but that shows while it might look good on paper, doesn't mean its necessarily going to make a good movie. Maybe if the movie was a bit shorter and tauter it could have been a better movie but the final product was too bleak and boring with bloated musical sections that feel more of a distraction from the narrative than what a true musical is supposed to achieve which is to drive the narrative. It's interesting to subvert expectations of joker fans by deconstructing the Joker persona but at the end of the day it was the character of Joker that made the big bucks and helped to win the awards. To me the I wondered was this whole movie about Arthur or more about the director Todd Philips. It felt too self conscious at times, like I was witnessing a therapy session of Tod Phillips on the couch. The judge looking like Scorsese and the fantasy bludgeoning didn't escape me. Incidentally Scorsese also made an experimental musical called New York New York with De Niro and Liza Minellli. In a way about another toxic relationship where in this case, De Niro played the manipulative lover. That too was shortly released after the relative success of Taxi Driver and resulted in a flop at the box office which Scorsese has been bitter about ever since. Coincidence?
Good summary, but bad conclusion. It's not that bad and it really is not comparable to GoT. Its more of a waku up call for people to stopping the idolizing of psychopaths. People loved Joker 1, not for the Traume, but rather for a psycho persona killing people and doing what he wants to do and it shows. The people who trash this move are the Lee of this world only being mad about Joker not becoming a maniac but rather actually being human. It's sad really. And it is definitely not trashing on its predecessor
My interpretation is that this movie is trying to tell the audience that this is not the de facto origin story, because some other movie maker will make another movie about Joker. The Joker will be remade into new versions over and over and over whether is on movie screens or television screens. I think the Director is saying, in a way this is just a story of a man who once was Joker, but he’s not The One because it doesn’t stop here.
Arthur rejects the joker when he finds love. He feels everything his mother and society never showed him. Lee is a grad student from well to do parents who psychologically manipulates him. Then later reveals that she is just as sociopathic and abusive as his mother.
19:27 i believe joker not coming out when arthur was being assaulted is to help make it clear to audiences that while joker is a “personality” or character he plays, by no means does arthur have multiple personality disorder or anything of the sort really. i think maybe they were trying to end any last misconceptions about what is actually happening between arthur and joker and try to erase the idea of splitting. it was really interesting watching this in theaters with my boyfriend who has DID 🤣
I thought it was because he had just had heartache listening to his friend on the stand, then heard another friend get murdered and they were both essentially his fault. The joker was bringing him trauma (second hand), not protecting him from it. x
And there you have it, this is simply a musical under the guise of a film, used as a platform to elevate LadyG with a complete disregard to the well-made arc in the first film. Your expectations have been subverted. Congratulations, you're a winner. #CopeNotHope
I was majorly excited to watch the film, I even loved the idea of it being a musical. After watching it in the cinema, I'm sure I was the only one who loved it. It's not the movie most were expecting, another batman villain, it's just someone trying to 'escape' what he's going to become. I would totally watch this again, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. I even had to explain to my friends why this stuff was happening in the film. The two movies are basically saying there's consequences for your actions despite being mentally ill. Sorry, I just liked this film a lot
I genuinely love love love LOVE the idea of this movie, to anyone who thought that this sequel was supposed to be some sort of glamorous bonnie and clyde-esque type movie I feel like people genuinely don’t understand the first one or life and art in general. I personally think this movie was meant to humanize the idea of joker if you follow the comics obviously joker doesn’t have a real identity and his identity has gotten lost over time turning joker into this sort of idea for chaos and anarchy however with this film it was meant to humanize a mentally disordered man who killed some people on his own personal accord and eventually was catapulted into this sort of martyr for the world or some shit like a symbol of anti authority when in actuality he was just someone who was suffering from mental health , trauma, saw some assholes and killed them, killed his mom for lying and abusive g him and killed the talk show host (which I’m sure a lot of guest on actually talk shows have thought of in their head) this second movie was meant to symbolize the reality of what he did the aftermath of his actions him trying to dissociate himself from them and come to terms with everything he tried to find comfort in a woman which is what alot of men do but the thing is if you do that you genuinely will never be happy until you come to terms with yourself that’s why this movie is great because it’s a reflection of REAL life real life not everyone is going to be heath ledger joker alot of us are just normal things who do bad shit sometimes and have to reflect on the bad shit we did
Imagine if after the guards do ‘what they did’ that he looks broken until he is thrown in the courtroom again where instead of denouncing the Joker he just starts laughing manically. And from that point on, Arthur is no more. But that’s wishful thinking.
Maybe people hate it so much because the first movie was really good and very hyped. That cant really be topped, nor should they try that. It was already a full story. I also dont think most people loving the first movie are interested in a musical.
This movie just seems depressing. So many movies nowadays seem to just aim to put people in bad moods. Even old horror movies would have some hope and light in them. Authur fleck had a horrible childhood, 15 minutes of awesomeness, a horrible adulthood, got played by Harley Quinn and died. WOW. They may as well have handed out prescriptions for depression medication in the theater.
@madmorphmovieclub I haven’t seen either Joker movie, and I’m not a big fan of serious batman, but I’m enough of the comic fan to be aware of the “super sane” theory, a compelling concept in which the Joker is aware he is a fictional villain & the world isn’t real, so not only does killing nameless background characters not matter, but that if he didn’t act like a wacky villain, he would be written out of the comics, & possibly the world itself would end since people wouldn’t buy a comic with a lack of excitement What your analysis sparked in my mind was an idea in which the Joker persona has developed its own sapience, an entity beyond the world, & that rather than be stuck with Arthur, it finds a means to escape - rather than die with Dr. Jeckyl, Mr. Hyde leaves him framed & finds a new body to perpetuate his actions- this would tie into both why the joker seems to have several different backstories, doesn’t seem to die, & most importantly why Joker doesn’t defend Arthur from the Guards assault
The feeling of confidence was triggered after he meet the girl….. let’s not confuse the plot! The movie was a self analysis of the character…… not the super villain movie yall wanted.
Joker 2 is a good film, it's defo no masterpiece like the first, but having watched joker 2 like 4 times..(2x in theater 2x on mannic streaming free) i have a new perspective on the film...(i can relate to Arthur that's one reason) i thought that fat guy was a nod to oz as well..👍🏻😅 Anyway, after watching this i understood what Todd (and joaquin /Scott) were doing. They could have gone a few different ways with this of course, but its still a good film. After seeing this the first time, i felt this film was the 3rd in the joker trilogy, like they made joker 2 and this felt like part 3. It really feels like they skipped joker2 What made me cross..I was waiting,and hoping, Arthur would kill Jackie or the other gaurds. I was thinking if Arthur is a "split" (D.I D) then joker, would come out and protect him from the abuse, because joker would never let anyone fuck with him. Through out the film i waa wishing they did die, i hated Jackie and his mates, disgusting people.(good writing) Smh..that really made me want to walk out. This film was just about Arthur struggling with himself and his consequences about being joker. The inmate killing joker was brilliant, now we have a new joker ,the real joker.. for now because like Batman, anyone can be joker.👍🏻🃏 Anyway i really liked tha film. Joaquin is brilliant as always my favourite actor, great music, Lawrence, the DP is fucking brilliant..smh.. unbelievable wiithe cinematography 👍🏻 Stephanie (gaga) was great. She looked pretty in this, i like her when she looks normal. Anyway, Good recap/review mate cheers.👊🏻
_Joker: Folie à Deux_ is a brilliant film. Its failure is a product of our current social and political climate, in much the same way that the social and political climate of the early 80's tanked John Carpenter's _The Thing,_ and perhaps also _Blade Runner._ As those films eventually gained the recognition they deserve, I think _Joker: Folie à Deux_ will, too. Probably in 4-5 years, but hopefully not too much longer. I went to the theater half expecting to hate it, myself, so it was quite the surprise. It's not without its problems, and definitely falls short of being a masterpiece - it could have been about 20 minutes shorter, for one thing - but I was thoroughly engaged by it, nonetheless. I think if you give it a year and circle back, you'll like it much more. As for the whole "the movie is trashing the fans of the first film" nonsense, the only thing I have to say is that if you think the movie is about you, then it is. If, somehow, you (not literally _you,_ but "you" in the rhetorical sense) see yourself being charicatured by Harley, the deranged fans outside the court, Arthur's "rescuers", or guy the who kills him at the end, then it says a whole lot more about you than the film itself.
Great analysis, however they didn’t give the audience what they wanted. The whole point of movies is to make money (let’s be frank) no one wanted this and now they will lose approx 200 million dollars. The studio got what they f*cking deserved!
@chillingspree3938 Geez man, I just have a different opinion, there's nothing wrong with that. Btw doesn't it make more sense that ur an NPC if you hate on the movie? Since then ur just doing what everybody else is doing, like an NPC following it's programming
@@Fillenbillen The pretentious title says it all. Since they won an oscar, Todd and Joaquin thinks they are "Aateectists" sent by the heavens. They last thing they need is an ego boost. Do you honestly believe Joaquin can sing?
What happened??. The way you explain it without showing the movie it sounds like it should be pretty good but I've heard nothing but negativeness it's maybe a one out of 10 and that's being generous I've heard
Thanks for the backstory on how the movie became a Musical...Hitchcock was right when he said that Actors should stick to acting....the whole Musical thing was a terrible idea.....
I love musicals n the insane lol so I liked it, was it the best? No, I was honestly expecting more of ‘Mad Love’ story, but of well. Took it with a grain of salt
Arthur was just a sad pathetic guy that finally gained attention by killing people. He was just trying to be something other people wanted him to be. In the end he meant a true psychopath, a true joker.
Ironically, the way this movie flopped, Todd Phillips himself represents the best example of the loser character of this Joker, the success of the first movie was bigger than him and he didn't know what to do with it, so he killed it in a pathetic way.
He’s not literally The New Joker, he’s meant to represent the fact that the fantasy will always be there and that Arthur “betrayed the fantasy” so the “fantasy” kills him, that’s why it cuts to his mind where the scene where Harley shot him… she represents what dragged him to that point. Also I think the Psycho is the Criminal Joker persona, “Joker” is the clown Joker, and the comedian Joker is Arthur.
I totally agree with the interpretations in this video. This was exactly my feeling on leaving the cinema. I felt that everything was leading to Arthur being forced permanently into the Joker persona. If that had happened, the movie up to that point would've been on the money. But unfortunately, at exactly this crucial point, it takes a serious nosedive and tailspins into obvlion. By the end, it felt like the audience had been MASSIVELY duped (and not in a good way) because it felt like all the reasons for our admiration and perception of the first movie were ruthlessly ripped out from under our feet. People loved the first movie because of its brutally realistic approach to the Joker's origen. It was believable. To be told in Joker 2 that the character of Arthur Fleck isn't even the Joker is a massive slap in the face. Personally, I wish I'd never seen Joker 2 and I certainly won't be buying it. Instead, I'm going to do my best to wipe it from my memory, so that I can continue to watch and enjoy the first movie in the same way I've always done. For me, Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of the Joker will always be the definitive Joker origin movie, and I'll never let a bad sequel take that away from me. Joker 2 needs to be erased from the collective memory.
Watch Next - The Substance EXPLAINED: ua-cam.com/video/vx4cda4Rwp4/v-deo.html
✅My Gaming Channel: ua-cam.com/users/MadMorph
✅I read audiobooks here: youtube.com/@DownToSleep
💥 Seems Like The JOKER Was Like A SPIRIT That Possessed Arthur & Then Left Him With The Consequences of What IT Made Him Do ....
I’ve watched several reviews of this movie, and they mostly seem to bash this movie. This review is so much better than all of them. You break it down perfectly. Good freaking job. Everyone interested in this movie should listen to this breakdown.
He breaks it down AND bashes it. And rightly so.
18:46 I think the reason Arthur forsake Joker after getting r*ped was because up until this point, Joker protected him from harm. But in this case him being Joker directly led to him receiving abuse, leading him to have no shield for his pain and wanting him to blow it all up
His joker persona also caused the death of his friend at the hands of the prison guards. Also the connection he had with “Puddles” who appreciated him for just being Arthur.
The Joker dies after this scene because he became useless. He couldn't protect Arthur anymore. Arthur finally realizes that living in a fantasy doesn't erase what is happening to him in the real world and he goes numb, not feeling anything anymore. The Joker is a symbol of his rage but after this brutal scene he isn't angry anymore.
It shows in the scene where he watches cartoons. He doesn't laugh anymore either.
I feel both movies completely and to me they make total sense.
Yeah, it makes sense but the transaction is not convincing, the movie has no tension, it is a weak movie, boring.….
@@nosphyit may have some sequencing issues and honestly they could’ve shaved off like 30 mins of time as the ending dragged but part of me thinks that’s the point. the entire movie immediately pulls you into this fantasy world and tells you to believe it just like arthur. i think the movie did this to purposely throw us in a confused loop, to get an inside on how arthur must feel in a way
@@calmitkillerI will Watch it again, I am such a fan of the first movie, the idea is good, but I do t know if it is missing something.…. I was waiting and waiting and.….. I missed the tension, the surprise element, I have to watch it again.
Just because it makes sense, doesn't mean it was delivered appropriately.
@@nosphy The transaction is convincing if you watch the movie. It had tension, because the ending was clear from the beginning, which created tension. I wouldn't call it weak, people just cannot understand that Joker 1 is just overrated and people don't wanna see this movie for what it is, real.
It's poetic tragedy about a weak, sick man who accidently became an idol. The clown mask became bigger than him. Arthur didn't know what to do with his sudden fame. He wanted someone to love him. Simple but impossible dream. Everyone loved only "Joker". I really liked this movie. It's cruel and realistic.
I couldn’t agree with you more. The heartbreaking part is his lawyer was the only one who showed a shred of genuine concern for him. She called out how the correction officers treated him-letting him get soaked in the rain. She was fighting for his life, and he ended up firing her. He was used to being abused, mistreated, and manipulated.
@@BuddSidewinder yes! You're so right) they had like a mother and son dynamic. Arthur trusted the wrong person. He was too fragile and naive, like a boy in a grown man's body.
No it’s not. For many many reasons
Yes, but it’s too poetic and deep for my liking. Even I find this harder to understand than Happy as Lazzaro, my favourite artistic movie of all time.
@@Mindblowinable That’s what I think too. She was looking out for him and protecting him. Unlike his real mother who abused and neglected him. Lee Quinzel was the wrong person to trust. It ended up harming him.
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
Great read. People's expectatiins actually were the most harmful thing for this sequel's reviews. Too many dissapointed people refuse to analyze it's deeper meaning out of resentment to the film for not giving them what they wanted.
Excellent review!
I'm genuinely disappointed by all the UA-cam reviewers that can't critique this film but only dump on it. Just like joker fans from the film, joker fans in reality are only interested in seeing him act like joker, if he's not being joker then f*ck off! I think this movie went right over their heads.
Excellent point! Honestly, the best comment I've seen since the release of the film.
I feel like people are just simply misunderstanding the movie and that's why they hate on it and it pisses me off ngl! 😭
People don’t want to understand anything beyond the superficial, these days
From a psychologist perspective this movie greatly portrays DID and shows how the system fails individuals when they are openly begging for help. The actual psychpath that stabs arthur to death and the very mentally unwell traumatized and dissociated Arthur are in the same facility when they are very different morally speaking. One of them being aware of the wrong-doing and another one on a plane of another reality in his hand. Also the joker disappearing could be reference the phenomenon of integrating when receiving therapy for DID.
Ok now again even more I'm wondering, how the fuck did people think it was a bad movie?! 😭
@@Fillenbillenlots of people don’t look beyond the surface.
I haven’t seen this yet, but this review makes me wanna see it!
But there is no "D.I.D."
There is no real, separate "Joker" personality. Just Arthur and his delusions.
Arguably that is true about DID too, but DID advocates appear to claim all their personalities are in fact real personalities that simply share the same body.
I have a DPDR diagnosis and have been told that I might have DID or OSDD (after speaking to many people who have known me a long time and reflecting, as well as other things like my amnesia issues and my childhood history, I do think I might have more severe dissociation than I am currently diagnosed with). I honestly think this is one of the closest depictions I have seen of the disorder. Obviously this isn't perfectly accurate, especially because there are only 2 in the system (from what I understand that is very uncommon and there are normally more). I like how it doesn't make systems out to be evil monsters (like most "split personality" media), but instead a trauma response to abuse that is triggered by certain things happening in the world around the person. Especially with how it shows the Joker alter as a direct response to trauma and it being the system's way of protecting the more emotionally vulnerable part from the reality of their past. Funnily enough, I think this movie may create more understanding of what dissociative disorders are and why they happen. Obviously actual education on dissociative disorders is ideal, but many people will never be in a situation where they are taught about dissociative disorders. So mainstream media that gives a decent depiction is the best we've got for now.
I've never really been into like Batman and the joker and things but this is really insightful and I really like it
Same here..I cannot stand comic book films now I'm no longer a child. But I LOVE Joker .
It's sad that Lee is only interested in Joker not Arthur.
I know..b!tch
Lee is a psychopath herself, Joker is a liberation for her, and she is a fan of a symbol of rebellion, the women in general are not in love with a weak deranged Man. My problem with this movie is that the transaction from Joker back to Arthur makes no sense.
She wanted a revolutionary, not some extremely unfortunate man.
Since when and why are people calling her Lee now ??
@@jamerejackson3233because that’s what she’s called
i think Foile a Deux was showing how the shadow of Joker was too big for Arthur so it consumed him. Joker became too much for him to handle and he decided he wanted out. Lee realized he didn’t want to share her madness so she left him after being made the “fool” to believe Arthur could be her Joker.
I liked the film. There is no repercussions for the prison guards as it would imply some kind of "good" comes out of it when in reality the brutality of the guards - whether they themselves or some other guards - simply continues. Joker disappears for the simple reason that, as the film indicates at the end, another candidate is ready and waiting (and prepared to kill Arthur) to take on the killer persona. You actually touch on it in your summary.
As a lifelong Harley fan I’d say it’s refreshing to see Harley be the one who gets the better of the Joker, but it’s not satisfying or cathartic. It’s not THAT Joker and it’s not THAT Harley. There’s no satisfaction in seeing an already traumatised Arthur be harmed by yet another vile person.
That’s part of why I’m so glad they made it clear that Arthur is not the Joker we know. It makes so much more sense. The Joker isn’t this sad, abused, fragile human. He IS the manipulator, the unrelenting psychopath, the one who inflicts pain and trauma. Making him the victim only made sense if you accepted the movie was through the lens of Joker’s completely unreliable narration and a manipulation of the viewer.
This ending makes it so much simpler.
I honestly had to sit with the movie a few days before trying to break it down in my head because I genuinely loved the first film, and the second one didn't feel like a sequel and I was trying to figure out why.
I really loved the take on trauma response, but I don't think it was a split personality issue in the end at all. Rather it was a mask that he put on in order to feel important and needed and like he could protect himself. He starts to lose that mask when he recognizes his actions caused someone else to suffer as much as he did that didn't deserve it - Puddles - and continued to slip until he realized that the Joker mask or persona could not protect him from the consequences of his actions.
People are angry and tired of being looked down on, and so when all of those people started to idolize him it was for a sequence of actions that he, quite frankly, was triggered into action for and so using the joker as a mask to take responsibility kept him from recognizing his reality.
I think the most important message of the movie came from the inevitable cycle that comes with trauma and abuse. Sure, Arthur realized his follies by the end of the movie, but his actions had already sparked that cycle in other people who are more likely to cause more harm and on purpose as they continue. So Joker started as a mask and is now a shadow that is starting to connect tragedies and create new trauma in people despite his death.
I, personally, really enjoyed the movie and I think that the reason it didn't feel like a sequel is because it was more of a beginning for a new cycle than it was an ending - and I think that was an extremely interesting choice.
I haven't seen the movie, but there is something called osdd. Which could be what Arthur has. Where he has a bit of a glimpse into the dissociative alter. Where he sees parts of the things he is doing, where he partly can influence a bit of the outcome, not fully but a bit. I think he has osdd because the way this break down talks about how he switches back and forth, especially when reliving stressful situations.
Ohhhhhhh.... Puddles. I didn't think that angle.
This is an awesome analysis. What I like is how Arthur is a flawed, broken man. No hero or anything of the sort but just a human.
REALLY needed a scene where he takes revenge on the guards.
Or dispatches *anybody*
Incredibly disappointing, his reasoning is just Arthur realises he can't beat "city hall, or the guards" or institutions and gives up. Like ok. Thanks for that Todd. We couldn't get one big Joker go crazy scene that isn't a fantasy?
Literally
Did They rape him ?
Did you not notice how weak frail and skinny he was? What did you think he was gonna do to the guards?
I have so much respect for how from psychiatric and psychological perspective they made sure to only give him symptoms and presentations that are shared between different mental health disorders and illnesses. It's a really good way to make him represent a huge variety of people without opening the door for people to put stigma on anyone in particular.
I hate to say it, I fucking loved this movie
No shame! I loved it, too.
This is one of the best recaps and reviews Ive seen. You were so detailed and explained certain scenes in a very different way than I interrupted them. This channel is going to be huge!
Loved this movie. I think people were surprised it was a musical. His singing was raw, not bad. Too many comic purists are being too critical. I’m drawn to the psychopathy and lifelong abuse. People need to separate the two.
I think if your interpretation is correct about Joker being the shadow side that emerges to protect Arthur, then his failure to emerge after Arthur's brutal handling by the guards shows the ultimate futility and ineffectiveness of Joker to truly protect him. He is left with only himself to deal with the reality of the world. Also, in Jungian psychology there is the aim of integrating one's shadow with the conscious self to become whole. Arthur never has time to complete this process because he is killed.
I dont understand the negative review at the end of this video. He analysed the movie so well and yet doesn't understand why it turned it as it turned out.
Everyone hating the story line is exactly those crowds in the movie cheering for Joker but don't getting one and in the end killing him, hating the movie respectively.
This movie is brilliant! It is a mirror that wittingly reflects the movie goers EXPECTING Arthur to take on the mantle as joker but leaving the cinema disappointed and leaving hate comments on the internet
Despite issues with its structure and its over-reliance on musical numbers it serves as a litmus test for its viewers even more than the first film, and will likely be more appreciated in the long term as its audience matures. If you love Batman AND hate Broadway, it's a painful cinematic experience. But if you fully understand Joker 1's underlying message about escapism concealed behind the veneer of the comic book inspirations, you'll find that Joker 2 effectively cements the tragic and inevitable consequences of Arthur's choices. Perhaps the excessive musical numbers wearing down viewers symbolized Arthur's delusions waning as the real-life events wore him down, in which case it was super effective.
@@Scrumshiz "overreliance" on and "excessive" musical numbers is definitely exaggerated!
@lenircotia the musicals are 30% of the movie. They're dog shit. Beyond that, this was the least interesting way to do this movie. It's mostly just misery porn. You don't get points for being gratuitous.
I want to understand the thought process that the writers had when depicting the abuse that Arthur goes through, the physical and mental abuse is something that was essential in making Arthur assume the persona of the joker however, the sexual assault he went through made no difference, as someone who went through SA I was left shocked and emotionally disturbed when I watched the scene . I understand that when it comes to an all male prison it’s unfortunate that things like these do happens but I still don’t see the reason to show it and not really dealt into it , he already goes through abuse and that itself could’ve been used in a more complex way , however the movie was very interesting and it was a good portrayal of a man going through a mental breakdown and the aftermath of it.
same the rape scene was tasteless...
I didn't even realize it was SA until I watched a commentary on it, but afterward, seeing his face it makes sense. I agree it could've been dealt with more, but I think that's the point. These horrible things happen and life goes on and victims are made to suppress/ feel guilty for the trauma they have endured.
I didn’t know how to take this film when I first left cinemas last week but I’ll be honest over time it slowly growing on me. I really dislike the ridiculous theories people have presented like this is in Robert pattinsons Batman universe or even this is heath ledgers etc. it’s weirdly beautiful how arthur describes his world through song and dance even at his lowest. Isn’t that enough? I think the only thing I’d change is him having a Murray situation again with that Jackie guy. Raping him towards the end of the film just left a really sour taste and it makes you already feel such sorrow for arthur as if you hadn’t already. Bittersweet film that in a few years I’m sure will get the respect it’s due.
The idea of him and harley tearing up Gotham together didn’t sit well with me either as arthur clearly didn’t like the fandom he was getting
I think the Folie a Deux is a double entendre. It could mean Joker and Harley, sure. But it could also be Arthur and the People of Gotham, who fantasize about this 'character' Joker, who fantasize about the escalation of violence. Though this movie will never have a Batman. I think it sets up a Gotham that is corrupt and radicalized enough to NEED a Batman
It could also reference the movie itself (Arthur) and its audience (Harley), both sharing the fantasy that Joker was actually this cool, manipulative criminal mastermind when all he ever was is a sick man who danced and sang a bit (and shot a couple of people only because he came across a gun).
This was the best and only way I can watch this movie. Thank you Morph!
Best breakdown
Maybe it's the way you broke down the movie, but this sounds pretty good. Might give it a watch. Enjoyed your breakdown of The Substance, a film which I enjoyed. Keep the good work. #subbed
Yea same. I might watch it. It kinda seems like the movie is giving hints of Arthur having osdd. And him interegrating Arthur and the Joker. It sounds like a good take on what would happen mentally. What would be going on in the universes jokers head.
In the scene where it shows the bathroom from the first, I think since it shows us the point right after the dance ends, that Joker’s “dance” with Arthur is done. It shows Arthur washing the makeup off after Joker was done, directly after showing the guards strip him and wash him…
i read through this one reddit thread about the R scene and there were so many strange ppl arguing against it having been HEAVILY IMPLIED to have been R and instead just showed him being beaten up.....weird
People are dumb lol
Yea I saw that one too, sad cope
When Lee said, "Let's give the people what they want" then the gunshot. Arthur already had the fear that he may anger Lee if time comes, he'll decide not to give people what they want.
It was all intentional. Todd did not give the people what they wanted for Joker. Some angry, some disappointed, some just accepted it. Good for me, I came to the theater with no expectations. I really don't mind the noise in social media right now about how bad this film is. Some even hated it just because it's a 'Musical', even though it's not really a musical film, considering the format. Well, who am I to judge? Art is subjective. What matters most is that - IT HAS BEEN SAID AND DONE. It's polarizing yet it sparked conversations. Whether you love or hate Joker 2, YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE.
My only gripe is that Arthur dies in the end and isn’t THE joker
This is a really well put together breakdown/review. Subscribed! I really enjoyed this movie, and the more I sit on it, the more I think I start to like it. I think people will look back on this movie in years to come and change their perception.
I highly doubt that. Most Joker fans want to forget this movie asap. This movie could've been made using a different persona as the main character. Why pick on the Joker and then ruin it for what is clearly the vast majority of Joker fans? Just call it Arthur Fleck and invent a totally different alter ego for him! The fans of the Joker wanted a movie about the Joker. We didn't get it, despite the title. And therein lies the rub.
@eddiespike for the record... I'm a huge joker fan. I've been a DC fan since I was a little boy. I don't even know how many DC comics I own. Trust me. I'm a fan boy.... I guess I just see past the issues people have. It's always been an elseworld project. I dont understand why so many people have a hard time getting on board with the fact that this is just a one in a millionth version of the joker. Todd had a story to tell and he wanted to loosely tell this story around a character that, in the comics, has multiple versions of itself and multiple origin stories. This movie is brilliant. Yes I preferred the first, however I loved the story he was telling.
@santinowilson6716 I get where you're coming from. But the problem for me and for the vast majority is that Joaquin Phoenix's protrayal of the Joker was our favourite origin story. The realism it brought to the Joker story is totally unique and unmatched by any DC rendering, (or Marvel for that matter). But Joker 2 basically robs us of our appreciation of Joker 1 by telling us that the Joker wasn't even IN Joker 1. Right there, we were misled by the title. In order to enjoy Joker 1 the viewer needs to know that Joaquin Phoenix is playing the Joker....the actual Joker. That's what makes it an especially great movie. That movie hit the reset button on the Joker entirely. As much I loved Heath Ledger's portrayal, Joaquin Phoenix surpassed it. So many people connected with Phoenix's portrayal on a whole new level. Having that ripped out from under your feet in Joker 2 was a massive slap in the face. Joker 2 nosedived at the point when it should've soared. Myself, and the majority of fans thought we were going to see some kind of phenomenal retribution when Arthur Fleck gets brutally abused by the prison guards. We thought we'd see Fleck fully embrace his alter ego. Instead, we were presented with the fact that we'd been mercilessly duped and the character we'd been following all along was an entirely different character altogether. A submissive beaten down nobody suffering from a mental illness. So what was the point of offering the audience something spectacular in Joker 1, only to completely eviscerate it in Joker 2? As I said before, they could've easily made the first and second movie without building it around the Joker. They've done it before with movies like Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy. As a standalone concept these 2 Joker movies could've been great, if only they hadn't been presented as Joker movies. Call them Arthur Fleck 1 and 2. It seems like they just used the Joker theme to reel in a preexisting audience. And that's a cheap stunt which has come back to bite them in the ass, big time. $150M down the pan. Lady Gaga in shock and Joaquin Phoenix, (although $20M richer), also thoroughly embarrassed. I think this movie will serve as quite a severe lesson for Hollywood when it comes to respecting their audience. I personally just want to pretend it never happened.
@eddiespike I appreciate your views. However, all I'll say is this... if every time you watch a movie, all you get is what you want or expect, then what's the point? You'll never get classic movies that way... you'll just get more Disney Marvel crap. Simply cracking out movies to provide fan service. People need to learn to step away from their own expectations on an art form and learn to appreciate it for what it is. Movies need to be able to push back on the audiences expectations in order to be unique. I'm telling you. This film will age well. Once the "sheep" (who only hate it because that's the trend) begin to get bored of shitting on this movie online, then more and more people who actually enjoyed it will start to show. I think the genius of this movie is the fact that loads of people are hating it for the simple reason that they didn't get to see The Joker. Just like in the movie, all everyone wanted was the joker... forgetting about Arthur flecks trauma. The audience is just as guilty as barley quinn. And that's the message. Todd Phillips had a message to spread over these two movies. I truly believe both films and a work of art. People just need to learn to get over themselves basically and learn to appreciate the story that's being told. As I've said before. People don't need to like the movie.. in truth... I hate the shawshank redemption... but I would never say it's not a good movie. Its a great movie... it's just not for me. Just like joker 2 isn't for some people. That's okay, but to say it's a shit film is just wrong.
In the ‘kissing scene’ at the beginning of the movie. The guard says to the other guard something like: “I bet he will strangle him.” But Arthur just gave the vulnerable boy a kiss on his mouth. Towards the end of the movie, the guard himself strangles the vulnerable boy as he tries to support Arthur.
I really like this movie for being more philosophical and delving into less understood symptoms of mental illness. I would say it portrayed a greater interiority for the character now that he is incarcerated and can't externalize his pain the way he did in the first film. The 'shared madness' concept is also known as enmeshment in psychological terms and I liked how his overall affect brightened and he gained self-esteem and confidence from being loved by Lee, but it was temporary and evaporated when her 'love' did (it was just idolization based on a version of him she idealized, not real love). She screams borderline tendencies (changing everything about herself to match an idealized object) and his own identity is in flux in interesting ways throughout the movie. Unnecessary sequel, unnecessarily meditative and abstract, but I really loved that about it. There were no easy answers to questions posed about the intersection of mental health, societal ills, personal choice and the catastrophic combination of the three.
100% i agree with everything you just said. This sequel destroy the legacy of its own franchise. Actually to be específica just the last 20 minutes, because I have to admit I was loving it the hole movie until the rape scene came out of nowhere, then everything when to sh”t, what a bummer.
Thank you so much for this amazing review! It's the best review I've seen after the movie dropped!
the fact that the guards broke his defense mechanism makes a lot of pf sense, as someone with a traumatic stress disorder. trauma strips you of things you didnt realize you had to appreciate...
Just when I think it can't get any darker, it does.
This video is the best review or break down I’ve watched, and i’ve watched soooo many, where i feel sad that I wanted a “joker” movie and hated this movie because he wasn’t the joker. Great video!!!
My biggest complaint with the movie was I felt the music was excessive (yes, I knew it was a musical going in). I felt like there was more story to tell and the songs were drowning it out. Your video gave me a deeper appreciation, even if we both landed in the same spot in the end.
The guards received no punishment for the realism
This is the movies, they need to "subvert expectations" & make it more like real life, no longer about entertainment & all about pretentious messenging.
Joker only worked as a standalone movie, not a franchise. Especially with how far they veered from any mainstream version. The first, while I hated it, was unique and almost was a meta commentary on society. Half the problem is there are too many Batman properties going on right now, so it’s hard to figure out which one is supposed to be canon to what they’re doing overall. Realistically, the only thing this Joker should have had in common with the character is name only. It should have never been put into any sort of “Batman” universe. Second, this is what happens when you take a beloved character like Quinn and completely make her what she’s not. I remember all the fans who insisted why this would be so good. And just like this, James Gunn’s DCU will fail, as well.
Interesting you brought up Johnny Depp. The fandom around Joker in the movie reminded me of the crazed fans around Johnny Depp and Ted Bundy.
well done!!! Great explanation
this a good - brilliant movie actually. people just have a wrong expectation when go watching it.
Gawk gawk
Be real
Arthurs character devolved and regressed to how he was beginning of the first one
You must be joking.
@@Kevin-cl2ezwell.. what do you expect if one only measuring it from one point only. not everyone have a great mind 🙃
@@BadBrucey i see and judge it as a whole story.
I see the movie, as much as I dislike it, as a downfall movie. A movie of someone who incidentally became a symbol for the chaotic and downtrodden that took violence as the only option remaining in their minds, but the person who was held as a symbol realizes his actions and the cruel reality and everything just got tiring. You pretty much pointed out stuff I missed in my viewing with no intention of watching it again, so I thank you 🙏
In my opinion the Joker part of Arthur died cuz what happened in the shower. For the first time he became Joker on purpose in the court room, it was the first time he really stood up for himself, and wanted to take control, not just reacted on what happened to him (before that it always was an answer on the threats (like the subway scene in the first movie, even when he killed Muray, it happened as an “accident”. He planed to kill himself on the show and he was dressed as joker cuz he was a joke for Muray, not to be somebody else)).
When they dragged him to the bathroom he made jokes, for the first time he looked in the eyes of the threat, but he could do anything about it and got break totally. He realised there; he never been and never gonna be the Joker what the people loved and cheers for. At the end of the first movie he believed when he danced on the top of the car, then he was closed in tho Arkham and threated like shit, Lee came, he belived again he can be strong
,but he couldn’t. So he reached the rock bottom, where either the fantasy world couldn’t gave him safeness and realised it, so the Joker died.
Actually, for someone who did not enjoy the movie this is a well written analysis of the movie. Shame because some of the things you took pains to point out are exactly why the movie is so good. Have mixed feelings on your view about Arthur crawling back after the trauma but i think this is foreshadowed by the cartoon at the start of the movie. Enjoyed the movie and the performances of everyone. Shame. This is not The Joker you (ie: most people) are looking for!
21:35 To be fair, it might be possible. The psycho inmate is in his 20s and Bruce is near his 10s so the age difference isn't too greatly, and actually you could claim there was a bigger age gap between Keaton's Batman and Nicholson's Joker.
And now that there is a connection with the first one in that the dude that killed the Waynes might be the same one that kills Arthur, it gives more meaning to the "Joker" film title. It was indeed an origin story of the actual psycho killer Joker, but wrapped up in the story of Arthur Fleck, the man who inspired that character.
The kiss joke is probly because he kissed that guest on the Murray Franklin Show i just remembered
Unpopular opinion but despite all the bad reviews and it being called a flop, I think it’s gonna end up being a cult classic in the future. Kinda like Fight Club, Rocky Horror, The Big Lebowski.
Not a fcking chance
@@westsidecater i guess we’ll find out in 20 years 😂
Maybe. But I remember a lot of people LOVING those movies when they came out.
I don't see much rewatch value in this one unfortunately. But I hope it finds it's people.
@@lvzyours No...we won't lol
I think it 20 years it will be seen as one of the worst sequels ever, like it is now.
I like the idea that the "New Joker" said you get what you deserve then proceeding to stab Arthur is a way of putting Arthur to rest in a way and taking this burden of being Joker away from Arthur
It was a masterpiece
First time I hear that!
I walked out of the movie. I was high going in, so it sobered me and tf up. It was executed poorly. Thanks for the breakdown so I can focus on something positive about it.
Joker is one of my favorite movies. Folie à deux is awful, but at least you've put some lights on stuff I hadn't noticed, and I agree with you, Folie à deux does tarnish the first one somehow.
Gladiator 2 Review❣️👏🏽❣️
My opinion is the movie arthur finally wants to be himself and realizes he's never been himself he's only acted on emotion and was what people wanted him to be. And when he wants to be himself the fans both in real life and in movie turn on him. Proving they never cared about him. His knock knock joke in court is so telling.
From this recap, I'm honestly not sure why fans are so upset with the movie.
Other than it being a musical and basically rehashing the first film, which are good enough reasons! But it doesn't feel like it "hates fans" so much as it further illustrated that Arthur Fleck is a sad man who led a sad life, and he was not The Joker. Which I think was pretty well illustrated in the first movie, so am not sure why anyone is surprised or disappointed by it now.
I thought this review was more enjoyable for want of a better word than the actual movie. I think this reflects that some of the ideas in the movie were interesting but that shows while it might look good on paper, doesn't mean its necessarily going to make a good movie. Maybe if the movie was a bit shorter and tauter it could have been a better movie but the final product was too bleak and boring with bloated musical sections that feel more of a distraction from the narrative than what a true musical is supposed to achieve which is to drive the narrative. It's interesting to subvert expectations of joker fans by deconstructing the Joker persona but at the end of the day it was the character of Joker that made the big bucks and helped to win the awards. To me the I wondered was this whole movie about Arthur or more about the director Todd Philips. It felt too self conscious at times, like I was witnessing a therapy session of Tod Phillips on the couch. The judge looking like Scorsese and the fantasy bludgeoning didn't escape me. Incidentally Scorsese also made an experimental musical called New York New York with De Niro and Liza Minellli. In a way about another toxic relationship where in this case, De Niro played the manipulative lover. That too was shortly released after the relative success of Taxi Driver and resulted in a flop at the box office which Scorsese has been bitter about ever since. Coincidence?
I was picturing the final joke as Bart and Krusty the clown…then he stabbed Arthur
Good summary, but bad conclusion. It's not that bad and it really is not comparable to GoT. Its more of a waku up call for people to stopping the idolizing of psychopaths. People loved Joker 1, not for the Traume, but rather for a psycho persona killing people and doing what he wants to do and it shows. The people who trash this move are the Lee of this world only being mad about Joker not becoming a maniac but rather actually being human. It's sad really. And it is definitely not trashing on its predecessor
Some think this movie is great. I haven't seen it so I don't have any opinion of it.
My interpretation is that this movie is trying to tell the audience that this is not the de facto origin story, because some other movie maker will make another movie about Joker. The Joker will be remade into new versions over and over and over whether is on movie screens or television screens. I think the Director is saying, in a way this is just a story of a man who once was Joker, but he’s not The One because it doesn’t stop here.
Arthur rejects the joker when he finds love. He feels everything his mother and society never showed him. Lee is a grad student from well to do parents who psychologically manipulates him. Then later reveals that she is just as sociopathic and abusive as his mother.
19:27 i believe joker not coming out when arthur was being assaulted is to help make it clear to audiences that while joker is a “personality” or character he plays, by no means does arthur have multiple personality disorder or anything of the sort really. i think maybe they were trying to end any last misconceptions about what is actually happening between arthur and joker and try to erase the idea of splitting. it was really interesting watching this in theaters with my boyfriend who has DID 🤣
I thought it was because he had just had heartache listening to his friend on the stand, then heard another friend get murdered and they were both essentially his fault. The joker was bringing him trauma (second hand), not protecting him from it. x
and schizophrenia would of fit better than spliting
I thought the Creep who stabbed him was Victor Zsasz
Very good Review
And there you have it, this is simply a musical under the guise of a film, used as a platform to elevate LadyG with a complete disregard to the well-made arc in the first film. Your expectations have been subverted. Congratulations, you're a winner. #CopeNotHope
Your review was far better than the actual movie.
I was majorly excited to watch the film, I even loved the idea of it being a musical. After watching it in the cinema, I'm sure I was the only one who loved it. It's not the movie most were expecting, another batman villain, it's just someone trying to 'escape' what he's going to become. I would totally watch this again, I was on the edge of my seat the entire time. I even had to explain to my friends why this stuff was happening in the film. The two movies are basically saying there's consequences for your actions despite being mentally ill. Sorry, I just liked this film a lot
I genuinely love love love LOVE the idea of this movie, to anyone who thought that this sequel was supposed to be some sort of glamorous bonnie and clyde-esque type movie I feel like people genuinely don’t understand the first one or life and art in general. I personally think this movie was meant to humanize the idea of joker if you follow the comics obviously joker doesn’t have a real identity and his identity has gotten lost over time turning joker into this sort of idea for chaos and anarchy however with this film it was meant to humanize a mentally disordered man who killed some people on his own personal accord and eventually was catapulted into this sort of martyr for the world or some shit like a symbol of anti authority when in actuality he was just someone who was suffering from mental health , trauma, saw some assholes and killed them, killed his mom for lying and abusive g him and killed the talk show host (which I’m sure a lot of guest on actually talk shows have thought of in their head) this second movie was meant to symbolize the reality of what he did the aftermath of his actions him trying to dissociate himself from them and come to terms with everything he tried to find comfort in a woman which is what alot of men do but the thing is if you do that you genuinely will never be happy until you come to terms with yourself that’s why this movie is great because it’s a reflection of REAL life real life not everyone is going to be heath ledger joker alot of us are just normal things who do bad shit sometimes and have to reflect on the bad shit we did
Imagine if after the guards do ‘what they did’ that he looks broken until he is thrown in the courtroom again where instead of denouncing the Joker he just starts laughing manically.
And from that point on, Arthur is no more.
But that’s wishful thinking.
Maybe people hate it so much because the first movie was really good and very hyped. That cant really be topped, nor should they try that. It was already a full story. I also dont think most people loving the first movie are interested in a musical.
This movie just seems depressing. So many movies nowadays seem to just aim to put people in bad moods. Even old horror movies would have some hope and light in them. Authur fleck had a horrible childhood, 15 minutes of awesomeness, a horrible adulthood, got played by Harley Quinn and died. WOW. They may as well have handed out prescriptions for depression medication in the theater.
@madmorphmovieclub I haven’t seen either Joker movie, and I’m not a big fan of serious batman, but I’m enough of the comic fan to be aware of the “super sane” theory, a compelling concept in which the Joker is aware he is a fictional villain & the world isn’t real, so not only does killing nameless background characters not matter, but that if he didn’t act like a wacky villain, he would be written out of the comics, & possibly the world itself would end since people wouldn’t buy a comic with a lack of excitement
What your analysis sparked in my mind was an idea in which the Joker persona has developed its own sapience, an entity beyond the world, & that rather than be stuck with Arthur, it finds a means to escape - rather than die with Dr. Jeckyl, Mr. Hyde leaves him framed & finds a new body to perpetuate his actions- this would tie into both why the joker seems to have several different backstories, doesn’t seem to die, & most importantly why Joker doesn’t defend Arthur from the Guards assault
The feeling of confidence was triggered after he meet the girl….. let’s not confuse the plot!
The movie was a self analysis of the character…… not the super villain movie yall wanted.
Doesn't make it good tho ...
Joker 2 is a good film, it's defo no masterpiece like the first, but having watched joker 2 like 4 times..(2x in theater 2x on mannic streaming free)
i have a new perspective on the film...(i can relate to Arthur that's one reason) i thought that fat guy was a nod to oz as well..👍🏻😅
Anyway, after watching this i understood what Todd (and joaquin /Scott) were doing.
They could have gone a few different ways with this of course, but its still a good film. After seeing this the first time, i felt this film was the 3rd in the joker trilogy, like they made joker 2 and this felt like part 3. It really feels like they skipped joker2
What made me cross..I was waiting,and hoping, Arthur would kill Jackie or the other gaurds. I was thinking if Arthur is a "split" (D.I D) then joker, would come out and protect him from the abuse, because joker would never let anyone fuck with him.
Through out the film i waa wishing they did die, i hated Jackie and his mates, disgusting people.(good writing) Smh..that really made me want to walk out.
This film was just about Arthur struggling with himself and his consequences about being joker.
The inmate killing joker was brilliant, now we have a new joker ,the real joker.. for now because like Batman, anyone can be joker.👍🏻🃏 Anyway i really liked tha film. Joaquin is brilliant as always my favourite actor, great music, Lawrence, the DP is fucking brilliant..smh.. unbelievable wiithe cinematography 👍🏻 Stephanie (gaga) was great. She looked pretty in this, i like her when she looks normal. Anyway,
Good recap/review mate cheers.👊🏻
_Joker: Folie à Deux_ is a brilliant film. Its failure is a product of our current social and political climate, in much the same way that the social and political climate of the early 80's tanked John Carpenter's _The Thing,_ and perhaps also _Blade Runner._ As those films eventually gained the recognition they deserve, I think _Joker: Folie à Deux_ will, too. Probably in 4-5 years, but hopefully not too much longer. I went to the theater half expecting to hate it, myself, so it was quite the surprise. It's not without its problems, and definitely falls short of being a masterpiece - it could have been about 20 minutes shorter, for one thing - but I was thoroughly engaged by it, nonetheless. I think if you give it a year and circle back, you'll like it much more.
As for the whole "the movie is trashing the fans of the first film" nonsense, the only thing I have to say is that if you think the movie is about you, then it is. If, somehow, you (not literally _you,_ but "you" in the rhetorical sense) see yourself being charicatured by Harley, the deranged fans outside the court, Arthur's "rescuers", or guy the who kills him at the end, then it says a whole lot more about you than the film itself.
Great analysis, however they didn’t give the audience what they wanted. The whole point of movies is to make money (let’s be frank) no one wanted this and now they will lose approx 200 million dollars. The studio got what they f*cking deserved!
Joker Folie A Deux is a masterpiece.
think the hate was very overexaggerated. This movie being worse than Madame Web? A film with NUMBEROUS visual technical issues? Yea, nah
I'm not sure why they had to make it a musical since Arthur didn't sing at all in the first movie.
He started singing in final scene of first film, actually a cool transition when you put the 2 together
It actually boggled my mind how people didn't think the movie was a masterpiece 😭
NPCs like you are the reason Todd Phillips thinks he is a genius god-king.
@chillingspree3938 Geez man, I just have a different opinion, there's nothing wrong with that. Btw doesn't it make more sense that ur an NPC if you hate on the movie? Since then ur just doing what everybody else is doing, like an NPC following it's programming
@@Fillenbillen The pretentious title says it all. Since they won an oscar, Todd and Joaquin thinks they are "Aateectists" sent by the heavens. They last thing they need is an ego boost. Do you honestly believe Joaquin can sing?
@chillingspree3938 I'm only talking about the movie itself, not who made the movie
What happened??. The way you explain it without showing the movie it sounds like it should be pretty good but I've heard nothing but negativeness it's maybe a one out of 10 and that's being generous I've heard
9:07 exactly
This is a movie that conceptually is fascinating but really doesn’t have a strong story to support those themes.
Thanks for the backstory on how the movie became a Musical...Hitchcock was right when he said that Actors should stick to acting....the whole Musical thing was a terrible idea.....
Brilliant review and analysis! Thank you!
I love musicals n the insane lol so I liked it, was it the best? No, I was honestly expecting more of ‘Mad Love’ story, but of well. Took it with a grain of salt
11:30🙂 14:00 🙂 18:45
Arthur was just a sad pathetic guy that finally gained attention by killing people. He was just trying to be something other people wanted him to be. In the end he meant a true psychopath, a true joker.
Im glad i didnt watch joker 2, and watched this instead. Just made me like joker 2 🤣
Ironically, the way this movie flopped, Todd Phillips himself represents the best example of the loser character of this Joker, the success of the first movie was bigger than him and he didn't know what to do with it, so he killed it in a pathetic way.
Excellent in-depth review. Thanks
They shouldn’t have made it a musical.
Noooooooo you understood the movie so much just to miss the whole point of the guy who stabbed Arthur… no pun intended
He’s not literally The New Joker, he’s meant to represent the fact that the fantasy will always be there and that Arthur “betrayed the fantasy” so the “fantasy” kills him, that’s why it cuts to his mind where the scene where Harley shot him… she represents what dragged him to that point. Also I think the Psycho is the Criminal Joker persona, “Joker” is the clown Joker, and the comedian Joker is Arthur.
I totally agree with the interpretations in this video. This was exactly my feeling on leaving the cinema. I felt that everything was leading to Arthur being forced permanently into the Joker persona. If that had happened, the movie up to that point would've been on the money. But unfortunately, at exactly this crucial point, it takes a serious nosedive and tailspins into obvlion. By the end, it felt like the audience had been MASSIVELY duped (and not in a good way) because it felt like all the reasons for our admiration and perception of the first movie were ruthlessly ripped out from under our feet. People loved the first movie because of its brutally realistic approach to the Joker's origen. It was believable. To be told in Joker 2 that the character of Arthur Fleck isn't even the Joker is a massive slap in the face. Personally, I wish I'd never seen Joker 2 and I certainly won't be buying it. Instead, I'm going to do my best to wipe it from my memory, so that I can continue to watch and enjoy the first movie in the same way I've always done. For me, Joaquin Phoenix's portrayal of the Joker will always be the definitive Joker origin movie, and I'll never let a bad sequel take that away from me. Joker 2 needs to be erased from the collective memory.
Dude that sex scene was hands down one of the most cringiest scenes I have ever witnessed
there is more in the movie to understand.watch it again.