@@Mereologistok but even at the end of the first he’s still weak, gay, and impotent. The riots were not his intention and he only killed because his fee fees were hurt 😂 he never realized anything because he’s mentally ill
I'm glad I can mentally cast these bad sequels/remakes into the fire and out of my head canon, as far as I'm concerned there was 1 Joker movie and it was pretty dang good.
@@hughiestanley516It really wasn't. Only people who haven't watched the movies it steals from thinks it was good. Joker is just Taxi Driver and King of Comedy with a comic character.
Joker: Folie a Doodoo is basically a movie made for the people who hated the first movie. Just one big two hour troll session instead of an actual well made sequel
Maybe . To me it was more like dr frankestain realizing what he had done and killed his monster . The directoe simmed flabbergasted that his cautionary tell was idiolized. The there is suffering yes , there is cruelty yes , there is no excuse for evil
They hate money more than they hate us? I don't know about that.. I don't think there was an agenda when they made this. It was just a bad movie, bad script, bad execution.
The actors get paid either way, they don't care. Director gets paid, he doesn't care. Studio loses money, but the executives get paid, they don't care. Only people losing money are shareholders, but that's mostly just BlackRock, they're a fund, they don't invest their own money, they don't care. The fund clients eat the loss, but they're mostly retirement funds, banks, insurance companies, so they don't care about losses, it's not their money they're losing, it's *yours.*
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 It seems incredible that the share holders don't care. The formula of an existing audience, Holywood "A" listing actors clearly isn't a success financial model. Will they eventually get film success down to a formula and what would it be?
“Da BIDNESS!” 15 years of trash and you clowns still don’t get that it’s not about the money it’s about “the message” and the nosenites that push it. Channels like all the grifters here on the panel need the slop to keep coming out to survive. It’s why they’ll just say “the message” instead of explaining what that message is and who constantly pushes it. You’ll see drinker here shill shamelessly for the daily wire and Ryan and Gary simp for israel. Chris gore is a lifelong democrat who loved the last jedi and mauler loves his sweet baby slop of war. All fake as hell only allowed to grift because of how softly they criticize the media as a sort of pressure release.
The 'musical' component is least of its problems, it's so bad. 1. it undoes the first movie in entirety 2. seriously what's $200m about this movie? apart from a minor court explosion, did it all go to Gaga's salary? 3. apart from the very end, literally NO ONE dies in a JOKER movie (and I'm not counting shitty dream sequences) 4. Literally nothing happens in both storylines and nothing progresses whatsoever, Gaga dumps him, and Arthur just admits he's not Joker, so why have we wasted 2 hours of nothing? 5. the musical scenes add NOTHING to the dialogue, or progression of the scene 6. none of the prison guards get their comeuppance, even when theres an implied rape scene 7. the most miscast Harvey dent I've ever seen
I'm glad I didn't end up spending money on this, I have to admit I was skeptical from the moment Lady Gaga was cast as Harley and the title had a weird subtitle, I'm like here we go pretentious bull incoming lol
@@austinkasunic1291gaga can neither act nor sing. All she does is self-promotion. Surprised a homemade ‘pron’ of her hasn’t been intentionally leaked yet
@NoelComiX yep. She falls in love with joker not Arthur. In court he has the pathetic speech where he admits he was Arthur the whole time not a separate personality of the joker and she walks out. Completed waste of 2 hours
@@isaacgraham5727 At the time there was this air in mainstream media outlets that the first movie would trigger some kind of school shooting or riot or something. It was humorous because it really felt like they *wanted* a tragedy to happen for some spicy story. But nothing actually happened, and so that attitude faded away. Audiences and critics alike praised the movie itself, and that's what most people tend to remember. As far as the sequel goes, I don't think the same media attitudes cares one way or the other anymore, and so it's just people talking about the movie itself instead of some wider social commentary of real life "society".
@@AmericanZergling You’re right - there was some silliness when that movie first came out now that I stop to remember. It was pretty short-lived though and I think most people just remember it mostly for the film it was and maybe for making Gary Glitter’s music briefly cool again. I guess I just feel like it’s a bit silly that people respond to what they feel the media “wants them to do” or whatever. As if there’s some committee of people watching movies and deciding that “Yes, this sends the politically subversive message that we approve of, release the rave reviews!”
@@ahabduennschitz7670call him little because your feelings got hurt when he insulted the gayker? How come you guys are ok with this gay joker but got mad with the equally zesty one from the suicide squad game. If anything he’s more hetero in that game
This movie made me upset. It felt so obvious that they hated the audience who enjoyed the 1st one. Im so sick of these holier than thou douchebags in the film industry. Screw Todd Phillips.
Did you struggle to understand it? The whole film is the concept of Arthur’s insanity and how he deals with his depression. The musicals parts are him visualising his escape from reality, and dream sequences with Harley. It’s very much a thinking persons film. In the end the concept of the Joker (in this interpretation) is that it’s all nonsense. Beneath it all, despite killing 6 people, he’s a worthless weakling. Yes the crowd outside have bought into the Joker, but it’s all fake. Fabulous film.
@@jesterssketchbook Well did you understand it? I suggest you didn’t and have taken it at face value. Let me guess, you really thought Harley was in the cell with him having sex?
@@BunFightWorthless weakling.. lol. It's funny how you leftie types, talk about toxic masculinity and compassion, when you're the ones who push toxic masculinity more than anyone
In all fairness, Hangover II was good. He nor Phoenix should've agreed to this sequel. They were adamant initially the first film was supposed to be stand-alone. Both should've simply stuck to their guns by keeping it as a one film story.
@@skyhunter2816That doesn’t really excuse how bad of a movie Rise of Skywalker was. There is nothing worth watching in that movie, even the entry text scroll is bad up to the finale directly being lifted from Independence Day.
Joker 1: a deep reflection on mental illness, and the effects of a society that rejects anything out of the norm can have on it. Joker 2: lmaaoooooo, look at this LOSER, he looked at a criminal on tv, and believed it was him! Hahahaha, let's all laugh at him as he gets sentenced to crimes he didn't commit, raped, and then murdered. Wtaf is todds problem.
Todd never wanted to do this movie that was the problem. ***SPOILERS*** but i think he even wrote to kill off Arthur Fleck on the very off chance this sequel makes a lotta money and the studios call on him to make a trilogy. Now he could be like i killed off the main character we cant make another one lmao
@@saunorineI don't think he wanted to push a mass boom boom thing. I think he wanted to avoid that. He made a movie about a guy struggling with mental/emotional issues while living in a society that fosters those issues. He was holding up a mirror to society just like the real inspiration for his first Joker were Taxi Driver and King of Comedy did years ago. He put a few comic book names to draw in a broader audience that have spent years now bringing comic book movies. No one would have seen a serious movie about mental health. The general public wants to shut off their brain for movies so they would come out for another comic book movie instead.
No it’s a goofy jaded audience that self inserted themselves on a character they were never supposed to identify with. Like if Alan Moore knew Rorschach was going to be the fan favorite he would’ve had him eat babies or do some other abhorrent act. This was his way of spelling it out to the clownish fans of the first trash movie
@@LordDarshdanall of the grifters on this video are the “modern audience” as their source of income depends on these slop movies being released. I can point out the source and why we’re receiving the demoralizing trash media we’re getting. These gatekeepers can’t and won’t because they won’t be monetized and Gary is part of the tribe while drinker shills for the isra- I mean daily wire. Can drinker explain “the message” and who is behind it? LOL no
Just took a look at Rotten Tomatoes for this movie. It is one of those rare times that both the critics and audience give it a lousy rating. The consensus there is also 'why did they make a sequel nobody asked for or wanted'.
I LOVED the first 2 acts then BAM they fuck the movie up at the third act and literally graped and killed the joker. And they kept giving us outs for the joker to come back but nope. they just made him a pathetic man. there was no joker. world building over, world dead. no batman, no new batman world that was built up from the first. just utter stupid.
Todd Phillips, you get what you deserve. You wanted to please the critics who hated the 1st movie with the sequel, and they won't return the favour. You end up isolated just like what you did to Arthur.
@@fr0ck360maybe he pitched them the most stupid idea he could think off hoping they would think for a second and give up, but instead they threw him 200mil like he is a stripper lol
They took a movie that described what it was like to be a man cast out and failed by society and how that leads a dark path paved by loneliness and desperation. Then they made a feminist sequel that makes then paints the tragic broken man into a buffoon trivializing the disturbing insights made by the first movie. Edit: The most frustrating part is that they could have painted him as a villain at a despicable figure and still kept the meaning from the first movie. As a matter of fact the more villainous and unlikable he became the more it would drive in the importance of not creating a society that breeds these type of men.
The only difference is Matt Reeves actually likes comic books and fans, so his stuff at least tries to appeal to fans, instead of try to teach them political lessons.
Godzilla minus one cost 15 million. Joker cost 50 million Phoenix and Gaga got paid 32 million for both to be in joker 2 and the movie cost 200million. The budgets are mind boggling. Is it money laundering and bloated industry.
Anyone else notice the whole thing with Zazie Beetz, how she said that she had to move away because people were sending her nasty messages and threats over how they portrayed her in the movie they made off of the events..? ...was that not supposed to be "commentary" on the stuff that they claimed happened with people like Kelly Marie Tran and Moses Ingram? It's just 2 hours and 20 minutes of fans getting the middle finger lol. And a weird obsession with sticking it to Inn-Cellz. The first one had nothing to do with sexual frustration, but they emphasized it a lot in this one and leaned into him being a weak man who created a character to play this alpha facade. And then he's humiliated and broken down in the most nightmarish way imaginable, ends the so-called facade, and is ultimately discarded. Pretty vile stuff...
The first movie accidentally captured the mood of most young men in the west, and gave an avenue for normal people to talk about the problems they face in modern society. The sequel was made by people who believe the first movie caused that mood, because they’re adherents to the ideology of social engineering, so they thought they could undo everything the first movie caused in shifting the conversation and political status quo, by simply making the same movie with an overtly opposite message.
Ironically, the second movie sends the dangerous message, they claimed the first one did. It basically pushes the message, that society doesn't care about disenfranchised young men and the most wicked of people get off Scott free, while you'll die a lonely miserable life
You guys are so weird with your fan fictions “THEY FORCED IT!!” First of all Phillips is one of them he doesn’t like you or channels like these and second the first movie was also insulting mentally unstable loners not trying to uplift them.
Joker 2 was a blatant humiliation ritual. This movie wasn't written FOR an audience. It was written AGAINST the audience of the first movie. The alphabet people were so outraged that Joker spoke to some of the underlying feelings of the casually disenfranchised modern male, that the industry had to create an entire sequel just to undo the first movie. It was literally written to be the opposite of what anybody who went to see it would want to see.
i know artists that dont want to interpret their own work bc they want the consumer to do that for himself and personally.-- to come out and make a movie to refute a certain interpretation,, i have no words.
The idea to make a R-rated comic book adaptation into a musical, genes that you would never want to mix, well if you want to make money and entertain the audience.
Well give Todd Phillips credit for trying something new instead of rehashing the same story. The Joker origin was a one off story so it was always going to be tough to come up with a sequel. Casting Lady Gaga was a mistake. The minute they cast her they automatically think they have to add a musical rendition. Not sure how many song and dance routine is in the movie but maybe if it was only one that was added and fits into the story then it's okay?
@@joe42m13repo the genetic opera too. But he meant in terms of mixing comic book stuff and musicals. Unless it’s a corny villain like music maestro the two don’t mix well
What this film needed to be, if it wanted to have any chance of success off of a film that didn't need a sequel: Proper Joker. No reset of the character (Because why would he at that point? He already went off the deep end in the first film.), have Harley BS her way into a Psychiatric degree to get to him and bust him out of Arkham because she became obsessed with him off of what he did, show him becoming Gotham's premiere chaos-magnet psycho-criminal. You already had the setup for that in the first film both in how they portrayed Arthur's progressive confidence in his derangement, and the implications of his unreliable narration implying a FAR darker tone, but that other unstable people obviously would be still inspired by him because of the setting of Gotham. Instead we have a film that by all accounts wants to undo what the first one made, WHEN THE ENTIRE REASON THIS FILM IS BEING MADE AT ALL IS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST ONE'S OUTRAGEOUS SUCCESS! I do have to wonder, maybe Gary is right and Todd Phillips is just trolling WB because they threw him 200 million for a sequel he didn't want to make.
@@blazinpuffs Well, he'd never admit to doing this. But it wouldn't be unheard of in Hollywood, I have heard of cases, usually because the Directors are under contractual obligation, they phone-in the productions of certain films because they just don't give a fuck. The only reason they're there is because the studio is making them. Saw 7 "The Final Chapter", I believe, is one of the best examples of this that comes to my mind. The Director of it had done Saw 6, but he didn't want to do 7, the studio forced him to via his contract with them, and he hated it.
Has anyone else reached their limit with all these rich, sheltered, silver-spoon fed "Artistes" constantly lecturing and shaming us, adapting their little tirades on to the silver screen about how we, the paying moviegoers, are (Insert slur here) for finding something relatable in "problematic" characters? I sure as hell have. If Todd is so insecure about Arthur's universal qualities, maybe he shouldn't have crafted a film about it. If he believes we missed the message of the first film, well that's on him for not communicating it clearly and concisely. Screw him.
Meanwhile, the same people cheer on actual real life men who feel hopeless and are radicalized into violence **cough cough hamas cough cough hezbolla**.
@@christopherpekel6096 hahaha... Yeah they didn't add a script with scenes to act in only because they hired an actor at some point. The singing was clearly an after thought and felt forced in spots where it wasn't needed. Sorry your shitty joker movie sucks
Joker 2 is an attempted retcon, but really it's just Death to Author. There was no split personality, just like Arthur WAS the real/only Joker, and we all know this version was based off the Killing Joke backstory. The audience didn't misinterpret the first movie , the director did (or pretends to, for money)
This was not killing joke backstory. He didn't have a wife or children. No batman. No mob connections. There was just the loose entertainer job previous to being joker. That's literally the only thing that's similar
They could’ve done the whole “this isn’t the REAL joker” thing, if they spent the movie building up a lunatic infatuated with the joker, that WASNT Harley, and showing he’s way more psychotic and wants to go further with tearing down society than Arthur ever wanted to, and rather than just a rando who kills him at the end, it’s a tragic ending where Joker finally takes his place by removing him.
In my opinion, a big part of the first one was about Arthur reconciling with his own mental illnesses - accepting who he really is without the drugs, and reveling in the newfound power and agency that doing so brings to him. That makes him feel for the first time in his life that nobody can hurt him anymore - like he's in control. For him to go in the complete opposite direction of that in the sequel is beyond disappointing. Personally, I don't think I'll ever acknowledge this film as a sequel of the first.
THIS. The first film taught me to do the same. Instead of being a victim to myself, I accepted and owned myself and felt inner power for the first time in my life. Felt free. I'm obv not the only one. And they can't have people tapping into that, so they gotta try and destroy it with a sequal like this, attacking those first film fans. Be hurt. Be angry. Let thst fuel us...
I love how the MSM activist pretending to be reviewers saying how much they support Phillip giving the middle finger to fans of the first one, and ESPECIALLY because they made Harley a "strong independent woman who dont need no man" *Never noticed the most of GaGas scenes from the first trailers were cut* Even the studios were worried people wouldn't want this crap but 200 mil was already spent, this is what happens when you "target modern audience" IE the professionally offended vocal minority, there never should of been a sequel (and the actors and Todd have said years ago there wasn't ever supposed to be one, it was standalone, and this sequel made just for money and spite shows and really only hurts the original)
I haven't seen this. From what I've heard, it seems like Phillips made this movie solely as a *hate letter* to super hero fans. If that's the case, then f**** him.
The original film used the premise - at least to an extent that was passable, going by the positive audience reception - and was more interesting as a deep dive into mental illness. It resonated with a lot of lonely men who felt unheard at the time by the media around them, and gave them a character removed from typical superhero tropes that connected with quite a lot of people via universally relatable discussions on mental illness. It was controversial, even slammed by legacy media and Hollywood establishment because it gave a semblance of a voice to a demographic that is *hated* in hollywood (ugly, mentally ill men). The second film tells those same struggling men that they deserve to suffer, and that men's mental illness is actually just a weakness of character. That's why I find the sequel so disgusting on top of the flaws discussed in this video.
There plans were to more subtly destroy the “sympathy for marginalized men” theme in the public’s subconscious mind, but they underestimated the intelligence of their audience so it blew back into their face.
Todd Philips is either spiteful to comic book fans or WB for nagging him to make a sequel. Not even Taika Waititi was this spiteful on purpose when he made Thor 4
Haven't seen it yet but it seems like Phillip's attitude towards The Joker as a character is quite similar to Harrison Ford's attitude towards Han Solo. Kill the character so dead that nobody will ask them to deal with it again.
A lot of actors hate the roles that made them famous because they want to be the star, like older movie stars john wayne, cary grant or james stewart et al. Modern audiences love the characters more that the actors who portray them, hence the jealousy. I think sean connery's attitude to james bond quickly became the same too.
Haven't and won't see Joker 2 because Joker is one of my favorite movies and it seems like they ruined my favorite part of it. By the end of Joker, it seems like Arthur Fleck has become free and snapped completely. He is a character who will just do crazy shit without worries of the consquences anymore- because being true to his own (warped) code is more important. I do not want to see him revert.
Don’t worry sweaty he gets the crazy taken out of them through corrective grape from an old cop :) then he is disposed of by a fanboy after getting dumped lolololol
Seeing the movie is a weird experience, it was well made but not intended to be a crowd pleaser. Like something you watch by yourself in a bad mood. Something cinephiles could appreciate.
Perhaps the REAL revelation in the film is NOT Fleck realizing his is not the Joker and saying, "What have I done?", but is actually director Todd Phillips revelation after the first movie saying, "What have I done?!" Thus his attempt to re-write and re-act the first movie. An attempt which can never really succeed and he should really know better. All he can do is waste other peoples' money and make a forgettable fail sequel that people will largely avoid and forget and will hurt his own career. He would have done better to own it and move on, or perhaps to give audiences what they really wanted even if it wasn't what HE wanted.
I would have loved it if they implied the entirety of Batman, all of it, was just the Joker imagining his world, escaping into his mind. This could explain why neither of them ever seem to age, and why Batman could not or would not kill Joker, no matter how what he imagined himself doing. Batman could be, in this universe, the Joker's idea of justice, an incorruptible standard that should work.
Well next time don’t make it pg or market it with lame humor. I keep hearing it’s great but uh NEWSFLASH kids don’t care about transformers these days. Michael bay made the smart move by making it for the older audience he knew was grown and that attracted younger ones. Now those kids that grew up with bayformers are adults and you try to win them back with tellytubby softness? Bomb guaranteed. I know it’s ultimately made to sell toys but the youth of today is exposed to so many cool action games and anime that you’re gonna have to kick it up a notch to get their attention. Nobody above the age of 7 wants to watch a pg movie
@ajscrewu The marketing most definitely hurt the film. Which is why im glad I gave the movie a chance. I myself was a bayformers fan. Trust me. The Transformers 2007 movie was my introduction to Transformers. Then I branched out overtime. When I saw the trailer for the movie I was hesitant. The humor had me in a pickle. But I said I'd give it a chance. It could surprise me or i could just get more Movie popcorn. When I went to see that movie I didn't even finish my popcorn. The movie was THAT good. I didn't want to go back for seconds in fear that I'd miss out on something. And whoo boy I'm happy I didn't miss a single second of the film. Now I'm planning to see it a second time. Marketing was shit. But the film itself? Shut up and take my goddamn money! Unlike Deadpool 3 which i saw once I'm watching Transformers one for a 2nd time and know I'm not going to Waste that time
@@johnprime1147yea I’ll watch it this weekend with some buds. Do shockwave and soundwave get punked around or are they shown to be formidable? Or if they’re not villains yet nvm and I’ll find out
@ajscrewu It's better to find out. The way they appear and when did surprise me. Especially if you remember the scene in the trailer showing Optimus and Megatron. You'll pleasantly be surprised. Will say your lucky to have buds with you because I went to it alone and was alone in the theater from beginning to end
@ajscrewu Forgot to mention this. But the wait from the moment I saw the trailer to the moment I knew I had to see the movie to judge it fairly which was when people were seeing it from fan somethings. It was a painful wait
What a letdown. Hollywood cant seem to get their collective heads out of their asses. On another note, please review the Wild Robot. Such a refreshing movie!
It's not a traditional musical. Like Megalopolis, it's a film where the director's vanity exceeds his talent. And just like Megalopolis, it's too damn long. Saw it yesterday in a matinee in the midwest, including myself, there were 4 in attendance.
You have to understand..... This movie is a apology for catering the incels( heterosexual men) for the success of the first joker movie..... The Rainbow mafia hated this movie ..and hated the fact the heterosexual audiance liked the movie..... Looks like the filmmakers were excluded from the big wigs shin digs in holllywierd and this film is a apology to them to win back their graces....
After making a Joker origin story, what they SHOULD have done is make 3 MORE origin stories that are completely different, and if they're all as good as the first one we got, they'd all succeed. Then at like the end of the 4th movie after the credits we get a totally different Joker in like Arkham talking to Harleen Quinzel and she's like "So we've had 4 of these sessions now, and you've given me 4 completely contradictory stories about where you came from." Then Joker responds with something like "Contradictory? Nonsense. Each of those was a totally valid tale of my woeful start." Then she replies "You described yourself, and you didn't even look the same as you do now, but it's still supposed to be you?" "What can I say? Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor." Then she just writes something down. Ect ect, the scene ends with Joker doing the famous line "If I'm going to have an origin story, I'd prefer it to be multiple choice." Then we show like classic, comic accurate Joker played by a new actor and the last line of the movie is Joker looking at his therapist while in a straight jacket going "Say, I've been thinking. Has anyone ever called you, Harley?" Bam, lead into a BIG blockbuster movie of full on proper super villain JOKER terrorizing Gotham with Harley Quin as a lead in to the next Batman movie, then in the actual Batman movie that follows the Joker movie, he can deal with Freeze or Ivy or something. It's almost like planning this shit out opens doors to lots of super interesting things you can do.
Let's see, The Joker was made on $55 million and made over $1 billion. No one was paying attention to such a low-budget movie, so the studio executives and creatives responsible for the crap we have been seeing these past years let talented people make the movie. In the wake of its success, the Hollywood goblins took notice and could not resist ruining the story, which they did on a budget of $200 million. The result? Predictably, Joker II is a flop. It seems the more Hollywood spends, the worse the movie is.
@@greggibson33 Umm...that's the point. The first film did make money, though Warner Bros Studios did not make the lion's share of the profits. Why? The studio did not have faith in the movie and did not invest. The money came from independent investors. The success of the first movie naturally caught the studio's attention. Consequently, Warner Bros. got involved. The result? A crap movie that cost about four times the original. Of course, that is only a coincidence.
Nothing about this movie seemed like a good idea. Joker didn't need a sequel in the first place, much less a musical featuring Lady Gaga. What part of that sounds like a blockbuster?
Subversive genius. They took a character who was absurdly crazy and violent, gave him a fleshed-out background giving him motivation, and then went "nah nevermind lul, the REAL Joker was this random kid who was crazy and violent all along just because."
Well... shit. The concept of making it a musical was a huge gamble. Looks like it didn't work. Fully agree that Joker didn't need a sequel, it was a complete journey. I always have hope that a director with balls will give us a gritty take on Harley Quinn's comic origin. Looks like this isn't it.
I could have told everybody this is some garbage when they put Lady Gaga in it. Then on top of that they told you it was going to be a musical a year ago anybody who had high expectations for this film just isn't very intelligent at this point. His first movie gave you the blueprint and they went and did some other crap
Personally, all I want in a joker movie is for the joker to be the clown prince of crime! Like he builds up a criminal empire, takes down rival gangs, causes mayhem, and I’m in.
4:56 this is what I was telling people who was so hyped by first movie. They took the Name Joker only for marketing purposes. Because no one would’ve gone and watch movie about losers reflection two hours straight, why wouldn’t call it Arthur? Because it wouldn’t made billion dollars in box office. Movie 100% rip off Scorsese and Dark Knight legacy!
Every description of how this movie tries to twist and change things from the first, how it clearly has disdain for the audience of the first, redoing things that were already done in the first, contrivances to forward the plot, realllllly reminds me of TLOU2
From seeing all the thumbnails trashing the movie and the director coming out and saying this movie will piss people off, I was expecting joker and his supporters to be cartoonish irredeemable incels that get put in their place by Harley Quinn. Joker is charmed by the morally perfect Harley Quinn and by the end of the movie, she kills him and takes over and the movie tries to justify it. I was also surprised that the film made his supporters terrorists since they’re the “eat the rich crowd.” I imagine the first movie struck a chord with their bosses and other powerful people so they would move away from that message but I didn’t expect Hollywood to make the supporters evil since Hollywood also likes to pretend they’re not rich and they’re against the machine when they pander to the eat the rich crowd.
Subversive character assassination. Tod knew exactly what he was doing. Don't give your money to this movie.
To be frank, i was honestly expecting some stupid ending when he said he didn’t want to do a sequel
No it was all in line. Arthur was an impotent soft bum not a genius criminal.
@@ajscrewu Almost every story is about a character realizing depths and abilities he never knew he had before.
It's like The Last Jedi and GOT all over again 😢
@@Mereologistok but even at the end of the first he’s still weak, gay, and impotent. The riots were not his intention and he only killed because his fee fees were hurt 😂 he never realized anything because he’s mentally ill
The didn't make a Joker 2.
They HAD to Destroy Joker 1.
$200M well spent, or perhaps not - the audiences will hopefully ignore this abomination
100%. They first movie was liked by “the wrong people”.
I'm glad I can mentally cast these bad sequels/remakes into the fire and out of my head canon, as far as I'm concerned there was 1 Joker movie and it was pretty dang good.
And honestly? Fuck em, I'm not letting them do that for me. I'll remember the first one the way it was 5 years ago and never watch this POS again.
To me it never happened I won’t acknowledge this shit and let it ruin the first movie for me
Of all the movies that didn’t need a sequel, Joker was at the top of the list.
Didn’t need the 1st one either
@@puzzlebawce795and yet it was good
@@hughiestanley516It really wasn't. Only people who haven't watched the movies it steals from thinks it was good. Joker is just Taxi Driver and King of Comedy with a comic character.
Probably closely followed by "Gladiator" (also featuring Phoenix).
Passion of the Christ
Joker: Folie a Doodoo is basically a movie made for the people who hated the first movie. Just one big two hour troll session instead of an actual well made sequel
Jeremy jahns, right?
And had one of the worst last 30-20 minutes in movie history
The first film is one of my favourite movies and I loved the sequel. I don't get the criticism.
@@brunocorbella7389Bot lol
@@brunocorbella7389I guess you didn't actually get EITHER of the films, then...
They hated the fact us common folks liked the first one , so they thought "we'll soon rectify that with the sequel"
Maybe . To me it was more like dr frankestain realizing what he had done and killed his monster . The directoe simmed flabbergasted that his cautionary tell was idiolized. The there is suffering yes , there is cruelty yes , there is no excuse for evil
They hate money more than they hate us? I don't know about that.. I don't think there was an agenda when they made this. It was just a bad movie, bad script, bad execution.
@@edgarmoran5203Well, I think he failed, Joker 2 doesn't exist for the fans
@@norm-bb3bb maybe . He could only try :)
Yes it’s an intentional turd and anyone who still thinks it’s lazy writing is hopeless
Making a movie sequel just to spite the fans of the first one seems like a poor choice in business 😆
The actors get paid either way, they don't care. Director gets paid, he doesn't care. Studio loses money, but the executives get paid, they don't care. Only people losing money are shareholders, but that's mostly just BlackRock, they're a fund, they don't invest their own money, they don't care. The fund clients eat the loss, but they're mostly retirement funds, banks, insurance companies, so they don't care about losses, it's not their money they're losing, it's *yours.*
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 It seems incredible that the share holders don't care. The formula of an existing audience, Holywood "A" listing actors clearly isn't a success financial model. Will they eventually get film success down to a formula and what would it be?
“Da BIDNESS!” 15 years of trash and you clowns still don’t get that it’s not about the money it’s about “the message” and the nosenites that push it. Channels like all the grifters here on the panel need the slop to keep coming out to survive. It’s why they’ll just say “the message” instead of explaining what that message is and who constantly pushes it. You’ll see drinker here shill shamelessly for the daily wire and Ryan and Gary simp for israel. Chris gore is a lifelong democrat who loved the last jedi and mauler loves his sweet baby slop of war. All fake as hell only allowed to grift because of how softly they criticize the media as a sort of pressure release.
I'm guessing the plan was "this will bring in the modern audience!"
@@nuclearmedicineman6270 lol no its not "yours"
The 'musical' component is least of its problems, it's so bad.
1. it undoes the first movie in entirety
2. seriously what's $200m about this movie? apart from a minor court explosion, did it all go to Gaga's salary?
3. apart from the very end, literally NO ONE dies in a JOKER movie (and I'm not counting shitty dream sequences)
4. Literally nothing happens in both storylines and nothing progresses whatsoever, Gaga dumps him, and Arthur just admits he's not Joker, so why have we wasted 2 hours of nothing?
5. the musical scenes add NOTHING to the dialogue, or progression of the scene
6. none of the prison guards get their comeuppance, even when theres an implied rape scene
7. the most miscast Harvey dent I've ever seen
I'm glad I didn't end up spending money on this, I have to admit I was skeptical from the moment Lady Gaga was cast as Harley and the title had a weird subtitle, I'm like here we go pretentious bull incoming lol
@@austinkasunic1291gaga can neither act nor sing. All she does is self-promotion. Surprised a homemade ‘pron’ of her hasn’t been intentionally leaked yet
She dumps him?? What the hell was the point of being her in then??
@NoelComiX yep. She falls in love with joker not Arthur. In court he has the pathetic speech where he admits he was Arthur the whole time not a separate personality of the joker and she walks out. Completed waste of 2 hours
Undoing the previous movie is an instant "never going to watch this" from me.
The fact that the media hated the first one and wants you to watch the 2nd tells you everything.
But the first one got great reviews and this one has terrible reviews? The reality is the exact opposite of what you’re saying, unfortunately.
I'm going to pretend the sequel doesn't exist. The first was brilliant.
@@isaacgraham5727 At the time there was this air in mainstream media outlets that the first movie would trigger some kind of school shooting or riot or something. It was humorous because it really felt like they *wanted* a tragedy to happen for some spicy story.
But nothing actually happened, and so that attitude faded away. Audiences and critics alike praised the movie itself, and that's what most people tend to remember.
As far as the sequel goes, I don't think the same media attitudes cares one way or the other anymore, and so it's just people talking about the movie itself instead of some wider social commentary of real life "society".
@@AmericanZergling You’re right - there was some silliness when that movie first came out now that I stop to remember. It was pretty short-lived though and I think most people just remember it mostly for the film it was and maybe for making Gary Glitter’s music briefly cool again.
I guess I just feel like it’s a bit silly that people respond to what they feel the media “wants them to do” or whatever. As if there’s some committee of people watching movies and deciding that “Yes, this sends the politically subversive message that we approve of, release the rave reviews!”
@@isaacgraham5727 Literally no "media" wants us to watch the 2nd one, the media is hating it ffs so no it tells me nothing.
I used to think joker 2 was a comedy, then I realized it’s a tragedy
[sad laughing]
No the first one was a joke. Not sure what you'd call this POS. Both of these movies are laughable
@@antiflo781 Ok little Man, we got you. Now do your Homework and go to Bed
@@ahabduennschitz7670call him little because your feelings got hurt when he insulted the gayker? How come you guys are ok with this gay joker but got mad with the equally zesty one from the suicide squad game. If anything he’s more hetero in that game
@@antiflo781 meh
Todd Phillips pulled a Rian Johnson on us..
"Let Joker die , kill it if you have too "
Jesus Christ. Why? 😒
@@trevorthornley8835 as an unsuccessful sellout, I could fake it if my audience's love gave me a billion dollar movie 🫢 this is wacky
Now we need JJ Abrams to direct Joker 3 and have it start with “Somehow Arthur Fleck Returned”
The Lense Flair Rises!@@kingDowahs
This movie made me upset. It felt so obvious that they hated the audience who enjoyed the 1st one. Im so sick of these holier than thou douchebags in the film industry. Screw Todd Phillips.
Did you struggle to understand it? The whole film is the concept of Arthur’s insanity and how he deals with his depression. The musicals parts are him visualising his escape from reality, and dream sequences with Harley.
It’s very much a thinking persons film.
In the end the concept of the Joker (in this interpretation) is that it’s all nonsense. Beneath it all, despite killing 6 people, he’s a worthless weakling.
Yes the crowd outside have bought into the Joker, but it’s all fake.
Fabulous film.
@@BunFight "It’s very much a thinking persons film." 🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@jesterssketchbook
Well did you understand it? I suggest you didn’t and have taken it at face value.
Let me guess, you really thought Harley was in the cell with him having sex?
@@BunFightwhether or not he understands it’s boring as shit regardless. And not even really about the joker.
@@BunFightWorthless weakling.. lol. It's funny how you leftie types, talk about toxic masculinity and compassion, when you're the ones who push toxic masculinity more than anyone
It's "The Last of Us 2" of sequels.
Undoing previous characters, humiliation rituals and meaninglessness.
Also the leaked ending of Joker 2 before the movie came out
*Joel Golf club leak flashback*
☝️🤓 you mean "The Last of Us 2" of movies, as TLoU 2 is, in fact, a sequel. But yeah fuck them both
Just like the game the director is of the same descent :) hmmm almost like there’s a pattern
Last of Us 2 was a sequel.
@@toh6261 And a terrible one at that
Never let Todd Philips cook again with sequels, it’s like letting Jar Jar Abrams conclude your trilogy.
In all fairness, Hangover II was good. He nor Phoenix should've agreed to this sequel. They were adamant initially the first film was supposed to be stand-alone. Both should've simply stuck to their guns by keeping it as a one film story.
@@LastSunrise1981 Let's see you stick to your guns when millions are being waved in your face.
Except Ryan Johnson is the one who screwed it up with Last Jedi.
@@skyhunter2816JJ screwed everything by undoing the triumphs of the OT.
@@skyhunter2816That doesn’t really excuse how bad of a movie Rise of Skywalker was. There is nothing worth watching in that movie, even the entry text scroll is bad up to the finale directly being lifted from Independence Day.
Joker 1: a deep reflection on mental illness, and the effects of a society that rejects anything out of the norm can have on it.
Joker 2: lmaaoooooo, look at this LOSER, he looked at a criminal on tv, and believed it was him! Hahahaha, let's all laugh at him as he gets sentenced to crimes he didn't commit, raped, and then murdered.
Wtaf is todds problem.
He is a leftwing dingaling. What did you expect?
He got one too many phone calls
They’re the same. Only this time it’s spelled out for you. Even in his big moment in the first he’s weak and effeminate.
Todd never wanted to do this movie that was the problem. ***SPOILERS*** but i think he even wrote to kill off Arthur Fleck on the very off chance this sequel makes a lotta money and the studios call on him to make a trilogy. Now he could be like i killed off the main character we cant make another one lmao
He look at The last of us 2 and thought to himself "hold my beer".
This may be the classic example of a creator making a creation he himself doesn't understand.
I mean its the same guy who made the first one. He just didnt like how it didnt push the mass boom boom thing
@@saunorineI don't think he wanted to push a mass boom boom thing. I think he wanted to avoid that.
He made a movie about a guy struggling with mental/emotional issues while living in a society that fosters those issues. He was holding up a mirror to society just like the real inspiration for his first Joker were Taxi Driver and King of Comedy did years ago. He put a few comic book names to draw in a broader audience that have spent years now bringing comic book movies.
No one would have seen a serious movie about mental health. The general public wants to shut off their brain for movies so they would come out for another comic book movie instead.
No it’s a goofy jaded audience that self inserted themselves on a character they were never supposed to identify with. Like if Alan Moore knew Rorschach was going to be the fan favorite he would’ve had him eat babies or do some other abhorrent act. This was his way of spelling it out to the clownish fans of the first trash movie
@@ajscrewufound the modern audience member… 😂
@@LordDarshdanall of the grifters on this video are the “modern audience” as their source of income depends on these slop movies being released. I can point out the source and why we’re receiving the demoralizing trash media we’re getting. These gatekeepers can’t and won’t because they won’t be monetized and Gary is part of the tribe while drinker shills for the isra- I mean daily wire. Can drinker explain “the message” and who is behind it? LOL no
Just took a look at Rotten Tomatoes for this movie. It is one of those rare times that both the critics and audience give it a lousy rating. The consensus there is also 'why did they make a sequel nobody asked for or wanted'.
I LOVED the first 2 acts then BAM they fuck the movie up at the third act and literally graped and killed the joker. And they kept giving us outs for the joker to come back but nope. they just made him a pathetic man. there was no joker. world building over, world dead. no batman, no new batman world that was built up from the first. just utter stupid.
Todd Phillips, you get what you deserve. You wanted to please the critics who hated the 1st movie with the sequel, and they won't return the favour. You end up isolated just like what you did to Arthur.
One. It didn't need a sequel.
2. It was a musical and it put people away.
3. Harley Quinn is box office poison.
This is fantastically wrong. Explain to me how Harley Quinn is box office poison.
@@williammccormick984James gunns suicide squad. Any questions?
Because she is just a prop now and people have figured it out. Make a crappy movie/game add HQ.
This movie might finally get James Gunn fired, even after his Superman releases and bombs
@@masonruniThe original made 746 million on a budget of 175 million. Both had Harley Quinn. Portrayed by the same actress.
Joker is the definition of a movie that didn’t need a sequel. No way I go anywhere near this.
They couldn't shame it into cultural irrelevance, they had to rot it from within
Considerating how Todd Philips himself said the original Joker movie didn't need a sequel. I wonder how much WB payed him for this
Crazy that he even accepted the offer and made a bad sequel on purpose
@@fr0ck360maybe he pitched them the most stupid idea he could think off hoping they would think for a second and give up, but instead they threw him 200mil like he is a stripper lol
@@fr0ck360 pretty based imo lol
@@monkii5258 True WB deserved it. But I’ll be surprised if that guy is still around and not blacklisted
The answer is he was paid $20 million, the same as Joaquin Phoenix and hilariously Gaga was only paid $10 million to star in this movie. 😂
It's like media are still upset about the first movie, and forced this sequel on to "fix" it.
They took a movie that described what it was like to be a man cast out and failed by society and how that leads a dark path paved by loneliness and desperation.
Then they made a feminist sequel that makes then paints the tragic broken man into a buffoon trivializing the disturbing insights made by the first movie.
Edit: The most frustrating part is that they could have painted him as a villain at a despicable figure and still kept the meaning from the first movie. As a matter of fact the more villainous and unlikable he became the more it would drive in the importance of not creating a society that breeds these type of men.
This wasn't a sequel or a musical. It was a "Bad Romance."
It Definitely showed it's poker Face!
It's definitely not on the Edge of Glory. 🎉
It was Born That Way.
But there was no "applause" afterwards..
Hate to be a stickler but I've seen this comment like 5 times already..
Here’s hoping that the penguin doesn’t follow the same path.
It will. It follows the same formula.
Be normal in season one to get in normal viewers.
Be woke in season two to “educate” those normal viewers.
@@TheKnoxvicious That’s a little cynical, but we’ll see I suppose.
As soon as activists realize that it is popular, they’ll come for it.
Cuz that’s what they do.
@@jeppyvpnot cynical, it’s accurate.
The only difference is Matt Reeves actually likes comic books and fans, so his stuff at least tries to appeal to fans, instead of try to teach them political lessons.
Calling Joker 2 a disappointment is an insult to disappointments.
Godzilla minus one cost 15 million.
Joker cost 50 million
Phoenix and Gaga got paid 32 million for both to be in joker 2 and the movie cost 200million.
The budgets are mind boggling.
Is it money laundering and bloated industry.
@drewtwon7374 Hollywood accounting as it`s finest, so true
Behind the scenes diddy parties
It’s jews.
Anyone else notice the whole thing with Zazie Beetz, how she said that she had to move away because people were sending her nasty messages and threats over how they portrayed her in the movie they made off of the events..?
...was that not supposed to be "commentary" on the stuff that they claimed happened with people like Kelly Marie Tran and Moses Ingram? It's just 2 hours and 20 minutes of fans getting the middle finger lol. And a weird obsession with sticking it to Inn-Cellz. The first one had nothing to do with sexual frustration, but they emphasized it a lot in this one and leaned into him being a weak man who created a character to play this alpha facade. And then he's humiliated and broken down in the most nightmarish way imaginable, ends the so-called facade, and is ultimately discarded. Pretty vile stuff...
its like they wanted to troll the audience and hurt the fans.
Does that remind you of Star Trek, Star Wars, Velma, Captain Marvel, Ghostbusters, Indiana Jones or... the movie industry as a whole in 2020's
Many such cases.
You can blame Gypsycrusader for that as his joker gets tons of views on tiktok they had to ruin its image
The first movie accidentally captured the mood of most young men in the west, and gave an avenue for normal people to talk about the problems they face in modern society.
The sequel was made by people who believe the first movie caused that mood, because they’re adherents to the ideology of social engineering, so they thought they could undo everything the first movie caused in shifting the conversation and political status quo, by simply making the same movie with an overtly opposite message.
Ironically, the second movie sends the dangerous message, they claimed the first one did. It basically pushes the message, that society doesn't care about disenfranchised young men and the most wicked of people get off Scott free, while you'll die a lonely miserable life
They could have made an easy billion dollars with two entertaining hours of pure Joker and Harley chaos but modern Hollywood hates success and fans
Joker should have been a stand-alone flim. Whoever decided to make this a musical should be banned from movies. 🎉
The fact that posters for this are plastered with good reviews tells you everything you need to know.
This is Todd Phillips having to pay the piper. "Hollywood" hated the first movies message and he was forced to do this.
No. Todd is just a shitty filmmaker
@@dfletchersoul Or both! First movie was lightning in a bottle and they had to eraze the "mistake" in all senses of that word.
Todd has an interesting track record. For every 2-3 shit shoots he turns out, we do get a masterpiece.
You guys are so weird with your fan fictions “THEY FORCED IT!!” First of all Phillips is one of them he doesn’t like you or channels like these and second the first movie was also insulting mentally unstable loners not trying to uplift them.
@@dfletchersoul C list. Always has been.
This gives me zero hope for Gladiator II
Gladiator 2 just looks like Gladiator : gladiate harder.
Honestly I would prefer an exact remake of Gladiator (1) word-for-word, action-for-action with Muppets to whatever Gladiator 2 (looks like) will be...
as much as I like Denzel I try to avoid anything with Pedro in it
Hope is poison.
@@BoondockRoberts Why? Pedro's been in good stuff like The Last of Us
Joker 2 was a blatant humiliation ritual.
This movie wasn't written FOR an audience. It was written AGAINST the audience of the first movie. The alphabet people were so outraged that Joker spoke to some of the underlying feelings of the casually disenfranchised modern male, that the industry had to create an entire sequel just to undo the first movie. It was literally written to be the opposite of what anybody who went to see it would want to see.
As soon as heard it was gonna be a musical with Lady Gaga, I just knew...
I knew it would be about her. She is a big name so they wouldnt hire her to make her a small character.
@@svetlanaandrasova6086She actually is a supporting character, Joaquin is still the main character but they did him dirty with that ending 😢
i know artists that dont want to interpret their own work bc they want the consumer to do that for himself and personally.-- to come out and make a movie to refute a certain interpretation,, i have no words.
Filet of Doodoo - The Jokes on You.
What the Fleck - someone just put a pillow of Hollywood's collective face already.
The idea to make a R-rated comic book adaptation into a musical, genes that you would never want to mix, well if you want to make money and entertain the audience.
Half of the musicals out there about s*x and m*rder: Phantom of the Opera, West Side Story, Les Miserables, Chicago. The list goes on
Well give Todd Phillips credit for trying something new instead of rehashing the same story. The Joker origin was a one off story so it was always going to be tough to come up with a sequel. Casting Lady Gaga was a mistake. The minute they cast her they automatically think they have to add a musical rendition. Not sure how many song and dance routine is in the movie but maybe if it was only one that was added and fits into the story then it's okay?
@@joe42m13 And don't forget about Sweeney Todd brilliantly played by Johnny Depp as a barber 💈 who likes killing his costumers. 😂
@@joe42m13repo the genetic opera too. But he meant in terms of mixing comic book stuff and musicals. Unless it’s a corny villain like music maestro the two don’t mix well
What this film needed to be, if it wanted to have any chance of success off of a film that didn't need a sequel: Proper Joker.
No reset of the character (Because why would he at that point? He already went off the deep end in the first film.), have Harley BS her way into a Psychiatric degree to get to him and bust him out of Arkham because she became obsessed with him off of what he did, show him becoming Gotham's premiere chaos-magnet psycho-criminal.
You already had the setup for that in the first film both in how they portrayed Arthur's progressive confidence in his derangement, and the implications of his unreliable narration implying a FAR darker tone, but that other unstable people obviously would be still inspired by him because of the setting of Gotham.
Instead we have a film that by all accounts wants to undo what the first one made, WHEN THE ENTIRE REASON THIS FILM IS BEING MADE AT ALL IS BECAUSE OF THE FIRST ONE'S OUTRAGEOUS SUCCESS!
I do have to wonder, maybe Gary is right and Todd Phillips is just trolling WB because they threw him 200 million for a sequel he didn't want to make.
I can't imagine why he'd want to risk getting black listed tho
@@blazinpuffs Well, he'd never admit to doing this.
But it wouldn't be unheard of in Hollywood, I have heard of cases, usually because the Directors are under contractual obligation, they phone-in the productions of certain films because they just don't give a fuck. The only reason they're there is because the studio is making them.
Saw 7 "The Final Chapter", I believe, is one of the best examples of this that comes to my mind. The Director of it had done Saw 6, but he didn't want to do 7, the studio forced him to via his contract with them, and he hated it.
Has anyone else reached their limit with all these rich, sheltered, silver-spoon fed "Artistes" constantly lecturing and shaming us, adapting their little tirades on to the silver screen about how we, the paying moviegoers, are (Insert slur here) for finding something relatable in "problematic" characters? I sure as hell have. If Todd is so insecure about Arthur's universal qualities, maybe he shouldn't have crafted a film about it. If he believes we missed the message of the first film, well that's on him for not communicating it clearly and concisely. Screw him.
Meanwhile, the same people cheer on actual real life men who feel hopeless and are radicalized into violence **cough cough hamas cough cough hezbolla**.
They clearly just added the musical aspect simple because they got that girl who is a singer to be Harley Quinn
But she just did a movie that didn't involve any singing, and people liked her in that!
They also got that guy who is an actor to play Joker
@@christopherpekel6096 hahaha... Yeah they didn't add a script with scenes to act in only because they hired an actor at some point.
The singing was clearly an after thought and felt forced in spots where it wasn't needed.
Sorry your shitty joker movie sucks
"There is no Joker sequel in Ba Sing Se." - Jodee
Joker 2 is an attempted retcon, but really it's just Death to Author. There was no split personality, just like Arthur WAS the real/only Joker, and we all know this version was based off the Killing Joke backstory. The audience didn't misinterpret the first movie , the director did (or pretends to, for money)
This was not killing joke backstory. He didn't have a wife or children. No batman. No mob connections. There was just the loose entertainer job previous to being joker. That's literally the only thing that's similar
Joker Folie à Deux: "Do you want to know how I got this sequel?"
Edit: Spelling.
@@jr_484 no won givs a fuc
"No, but I know how you got this one"
*stab
They could’ve done the whole “this isn’t the REAL joker” thing, if they spent the movie building up a lunatic infatuated with the joker, that WASNT Harley, and showing he’s way more psychotic and wants to go further with tearing down society than Arthur ever wanted to, and rather than just a rando who kills him at the end, it’s a tragic ending where Joker finally takes his place by removing him.
The escalation of unfiltered spite in recent years from the entertainment powers-that-be is astounding. I've never seen anything like it.
This movie is going to quickly be rejected and forgotten because nobody is going to want to (re)watch a movie about a fake Joker
I'm absolutely convinced that I won't watch this bomb of a 'film' again.
Not a romance, not a musical, not a court drama... just an afterthought.
"We made something that resonated with an ideology we hate, deflate that character ASAP."
Even the first movie was up its own ass.
In my opinion, a big part of the first one was about Arthur reconciling with his own mental illnesses - accepting who he really is without the drugs, and reveling in the newfound power and agency that doing so brings to him. That makes him feel for the first time in his life that nobody can hurt him anymore - like he's in control.
For him to go in the complete opposite direction of that in the sequel is beyond disappointing. Personally, I don't think I'll ever acknowledge this film as a sequel of the first.
THIS. The first film taught me to do the same. Instead of being a victim to myself, I accepted and owned myself and felt inner power for the first time in my life. Felt free. I'm obv not the only one. And they can't have people tapping into that, so they gotta try and destroy it with a sequal like this, attacking those first film fans. Be hurt. Be angry. Let thst fuel us...
I love how the MSM activist pretending to be reviewers saying how much they support Phillip giving the middle finger to fans of the first one, and ESPECIALLY because they made Harley a "strong independent woman who dont need no man"
*Never noticed the most of GaGas scenes from the first trailers were cut*
Even the studios were worried people wouldn't want this crap but 200 mil was already spent, this is what happens when you "target modern audience" IE the professionally offended vocal minority, there never should of been a sequel (and the actors and Todd have said years ago there wasn't ever supposed to be one, it was standalone, and this sequel made just for money and spite shows and really only hurts the original)
Yeah, feels like this films is just for trashing people that really liked Joker 1.
A movie with lady gaga sucks? Boy who would've thought
A successful original movie that doesn't hold your hand and shove a message down your throat? We cant have that!
I haven't seen this. From what I've heard, it seems like Phillips made this movie solely as a *hate letter* to super hero fans. If that's the case, then f**** him.
It's more about hollyweird they probably made him do this. He dint want a sequel when the first one came out
Should have had joker getting broken out by a fan or by harley and him building his gang of underworld henchmen. At the end he meets batman.
I would have loved that
Whole movie should have been joker and Harley just F*cking up the city. How did they mess this up so bad
@@TheAlmightyPain it's a more realistic version. killing 6 people is a big deal and will inevitably lead to capture and death sentence.
LOL. That sounds awful.
Yes I’m sure grandpa joker will be ready to face a 10 year old Batman -_- cringe
The original film used the premise - at least to an extent that was passable, going by the positive audience reception - and was more interesting as a deep dive into mental illness. It resonated with a lot of lonely men who felt unheard at the time by the media around them, and gave them a character removed from typical superhero tropes that connected with quite a lot of people via universally relatable discussions on mental illness. It was controversial, even slammed by legacy media and Hollywood establishment because it gave a semblance of a voice to a demographic that is *hated* in hollywood (ugly, mentally ill men).
The second film tells those same struggling men that they deserve to suffer, and that men's mental illness is actually just a weakness of character. That's why I find the sequel so disgusting on top of the flaws discussed in this video.
Can’t wait for the third one “Joker: Maoist Struggle Session”
There plans were to more subtly destroy the “sympathy for marginalized men” theme in the public’s subconscious mind, but they underestimated the intelligence of their audience so it blew back into their face.
They can't undo Joker 1 and its themes, but people will definitely forget Joker 2! 😊
Joker: Fillet a Poo is a big payday for the director and actors
My favourite part is when Arthur says,
“It’s joking time
Roadhouse
Peter griffin approves
The West needs more Joker and more Guy Fawkes.
Just Guy. We need organization, strength, and intelligence not unstable emotional weaklings
Wait wait wait wait
Your'e telling me that a MUSICAL about the criminally insane Joker co-starring a pop star who cant act is bad?
**shocked pikachu**
Lady Gaga can absolutely act, what are you smoking?
@@cyphoah8748She’s a talented singer and actress they hate her politics and antics.
Can’t be disappointed when you know it’s going to be terrible
This has become Arthur fleck 1 and Arthur fleck 2
No, the sequel was a dream, a fantasy
Todd Philips is either spiteful to comic book fans or WB for nagging him to make a sequel. Not even Taika Waititi was this spiteful on purpose when he made Thor 4
Haven't seen it yet but it seems like Phillip's attitude towards The Joker as a character is quite similar to Harrison Ford's attitude towards Han Solo. Kill the character so dead that nobody will ask them to deal with it again.
A lot of actors hate the roles that made them famous because they want to be the star, like older movie stars john wayne, cary grant or james stewart et al. Modern audiences love the characters more that the actors who portray them, hence the jealousy. I think sean connery's attitude to james bond quickly became the same too.
I saw Lady Gaga in the trailer and knew the movie would be a disappointment.
"YO DID ANYONE ORDER THIS PIZZA!?"
*The party remains silent*
If "lady Caca" is in it, I ain't watching! 😂
Haven't and won't see Joker 2 because Joker is one of my favorite movies and it seems like they ruined my favorite part of it. By the end of Joker, it seems like Arthur Fleck has become free and snapped completely. He is a character who will just do crazy shit without worries of the consquences anymore- because being true to his own (warped) code is more important. I do not want to see him revert.
Don’t worry sweaty he gets the crazy taken out of them through corrective grape from an old cop :) then he is disposed of by a fanboy after getting dumped lolololol
For whatever reason the just spend 200 millions just to "shove it to us".
I'm not impressed either way. Go on burn your cash.
"It's not about the money, it's about sending a message."
Seeing the movie is a weird experience, it was well made but not intended to be a crowd pleaser. Like something you watch by yourself in a bad mood. Something cinephiles could appreciate.
Perhaps the REAL revelation in the film is NOT Fleck realizing his is not the Joker and saying, "What have I done?", but is actually director Todd Phillips revelation after the first movie saying, "What have I done?!" Thus his attempt to re-write and re-act the first movie. An attempt which can never really succeed and he should really know better. All he can do is waste other peoples' money and make a forgettable fail sequel that people will largely avoid and forget and will hurt his own career. He would have done better to own it and move on, or perhaps to give audiences what they really wanted even if it wasn't what HE wanted.
I would have loved it if they implied the entirety of Batman, all of it, was just the Joker imagining his world, escaping into his mind. This could explain why neither of them ever seem to age, and why Batman could not or would not kill Joker, no matter how what he imagined himself doing. Batman could be, in this universe, the Joker's idea of justice, an incorruptible standard that should work.
WE need Transformers One reviewed. Great movie that is sadly bombing
Well next time don’t make it pg or market it with lame humor. I keep hearing it’s great but uh NEWSFLASH kids don’t care about transformers these days. Michael bay made the smart move by making it for the older audience he knew was grown and that attracted younger ones. Now those kids that grew up with bayformers are adults and you try to win them back with tellytubby softness? Bomb guaranteed. I know it’s ultimately made to sell toys but the youth of today is exposed to so many cool action games and anime that you’re gonna have to kick it up a notch to get their attention. Nobody above the age of 7 wants to watch a pg movie
@ajscrewu The marketing most definitely hurt the film. Which is why im glad I gave the movie a chance. I myself was a bayformers fan. Trust me. The Transformers 2007 movie was my introduction to Transformers. Then I branched out overtime. When I saw the trailer for the movie I was hesitant. The humor had me in a pickle. But I said I'd give it a chance. It could surprise me or i could just get more Movie popcorn. When I went to see that movie I didn't even finish my popcorn. The movie was THAT good. I didn't want to go back for seconds in fear that I'd miss out on something. And whoo boy I'm happy I didn't miss a single second of the film. Now I'm planning to see it a second time. Marketing was shit. But the film itself? Shut up and take my goddamn money! Unlike Deadpool 3 which i saw once I'm watching Transformers one for a 2nd time and know I'm not going to Waste that time
@@johnprime1147yea I’ll watch it this weekend with some buds. Do shockwave and soundwave get punked around or are they shown to be formidable? Or if they’re not villains yet nvm and I’ll find out
@ajscrewu It's better to find out. The way they appear and when did surprise me. Especially if you remember the scene in the trailer showing Optimus and Megatron. You'll pleasantly be surprised. Will say your lucky to have buds with you because I went to it alone and was alone in the theater from beginning to end
@ajscrewu Forgot to mention this. But the wait from the moment I saw the trailer to the moment I knew I had to see the movie to judge it fairly which was when people were seeing it from fan somethings. It was a painful wait
What a letdown. Hollywood cant seem to get their collective heads out of their asses.
On another note, please review the Wild Robot. Such a refreshing movie!
I knew it would be shite the second I heard Lady Gaga's in it.
So Harley and Real Joker are in their 50's by the time Batman enters the scene? Yeah that works...
It's not a traditional musical. Like Megalopolis, it's a film where the director's vanity exceeds his talent. And just like Megalopolis, it's too damn long. Saw it yesterday in a matinee in the midwest, including myself, there were 4 in attendance.
The Pitch Meeting for it was wild.
Francis Ford Coppola? I don't think that can be levelled at him.
@@businesssecretsofthepharao8901 See the film.
@@businesssecretsofthepharao8901it fits in this case
@@antonackermann9620 Awesome.
It’ll be like Indiana Jones 4 & 5: we don’t acknowledge it
You have to understand.....
This movie is a apology for catering the incels( heterosexual men) for the success of the first joker movie.....
The Rainbow mafia hated this movie ..and hated the fact the heterosexual audiance liked the movie.....
Looks like the filmmakers were excluded from the big wigs shin digs in holllywierd and this film is a apology to them to win back their graces....
After making a Joker origin story, what they SHOULD have done is make 3 MORE origin stories that are completely different, and if they're all as good as the first one we got, they'd all succeed. Then at like the end of the 4th movie after the credits we get a totally different Joker in like Arkham talking to Harleen Quinzel and she's like "So we've had 4 of these sessions now, and you've given me 4 completely contradictory stories about where you came from."
Then Joker responds with something like "Contradictory? Nonsense. Each of those was a totally valid tale of my woeful start."
Then she replies "You described yourself, and you didn't even look the same as you do now, but it's still supposed to be you?"
"What can I say? Joaquin Phoenix is a good actor."
Then she just writes something down.
Ect ect, the scene ends with Joker doing the famous line "If I'm going to have an origin story, I'd prefer it to be multiple choice."
Then we show like classic, comic accurate Joker played by a new actor and the last line of the movie is Joker looking at his therapist while in a straight jacket going "Say, I've been thinking. Has anyone ever called you, Harley?"
Bam, lead into a BIG blockbuster movie of full on proper super villain JOKER terrorizing Gotham with Harley Quin as a lead in to the next Batman movie, then in the actual Batman movie that follows the Joker movie, he can deal with Freeze or Ivy or something. It's almost like planning this shit out opens doors to lots of super interesting things you can do.
Your idea is goog...too good for Hollywood
Let's see, The Joker was made on $55 million and made over $1 billion. No one was paying attention to such a low-budget movie, so the studio executives and creatives responsible for the crap we have been seeing these past years let talented people make the movie. In the wake of its success, the Hollywood goblins took notice and could not resist ruining the story, which they did on a budget of $200 million. The result? Predictably, Joker II is a flop. It seems the more Hollywood spends, the worse the movie is.
Umm.... the first one made money. That's why they made the second. It's not advanced calculus.
@@greggibson33 Umm...that's the point. The first film did make money, though Warner Bros Studios did not make the lion's share of the profits. Why? The studio did not have faith in the movie and did not invest. The money came from independent investors. The success of the first movie naturally caught the studio's attention. Consequently, Warner Bros. got involved. The result? A crap movie that cost about four times the original. Of course, that is only a coincidence.
@@davidrichardson1636Bingo, WB greed is the reason the sequel exists, they won almost nothing with the first one.
Nothing about this movie seemed like a good idea. Joker didn't need a sequel in the first place, much less a musical featuring Lady Gaga. What part of that sounds like a blockbuster?
When I saw that Gaga was included I figured it was not for me.
It’s crazy cuz people were saying this movie was gonna be bad even before a trailer dropped
Subversive genius. They took a character who was absurdly crazy and violent, gave him a fleshed-out background giving him motivation, and then went "nah nevermind lul, the REAL Joker was this random kid who was crazy and violent all along just because."
Well... shit. The concept of making it a musical was a huge gamble. Looks like it didn't work. Fully agree that Joker didn't need a sequel, it was a complete journey.
I always have hope that a director with balls will give us a gritty take on Harley Quinn's comic origin. Looks like this isn't it.
I could have told everybody this is some garbage when they put Lady Gaga in it. Then on top of that they told you it was going to be a musical a year ago anybody who had high expectations for this film just isn't very intelligent at this point. His first movie gave you the blueprint and they went and did some other crap
Personally, all I want in a joker movie is for the joker to be the clown prince of crime! Like he builds up a criminal empire, takes down rival gangs, causes mayhem, and I’m in.
4:56 this is what I was telling people who was so hyped by first movie.
They took the Name Joker only for marketing purposes. Because no one would’ve gone and watch movie about losers reflection two hours straight, why wouldn’t call it Arthur? Because it wouldn’t made billion dollars in box office. Movie 100% rip off Scorsese and Dark Knight legacy!
Every description of how this movie tries to twist and change things from the first, how it clearly has disdain for the audience of the first, redoing things that were already done in the first, contrivances to forward the plot, realllllly reminds me of TLOU2
This film was the largest IQ test ever conducted. If you paid for this and thought it would be good, you’re legally re(dact)ed.
Oh well, at least it did not go the Gotham Route and just had Arthur push his hidden twin brother over the edge
This content is award-worthy!
From seeing all the thumbnails trashing the movie and the director coming out and saying this movie will piss people off, I was expecting joker and his supporters to be cartoonish irredeemable incels that get put in their place by Harley Quinn. Joker is charmed by the morally perfect Harley Quinn and by the end of the movie, she kills him and takes over and the movie tries to justify it.
I was also surprised that the film made his supporters terrorists since they’re the “eat the rich crowd.” I imagine the first movie struck a chord with their bosses and other powerful people so they would move away from that message but I didn’t expect Hollywood to make the supporters evil since Hollywood also likes to pretend they’re not rich and they’re against the machine when they pander to the eat the rich crowd.
A musical sequel to a movie about a joker without Batman, staring lady Gaga, you telling me that didn’t work out??