Joker: Folie a Deux

Originally posted by NemeBro
The film is definitely a lot less structurally-sound and doesn't hit as hard as the first film. But is it a drastic departure in tone or experience from the first film? No, and the people acting like it's a massive swerve in that regard from the first film and "made to shit on fans of the first film" are ****ing insane schizo incels.

Personally, any failed sequel like this I just wait to eventually see via streaming now over paying to show up at an empty theater. Glad you enjoyed it though via the latter.

Already had the most eyebrow raising moments of this film accidentally spoiled for me by coming across second hand and can see why others might react the way they did about it, but I never doubted there was still some things to like about the film despite being a step down from the first one; most less successful sequels do even if they're rough around the edges.

p.s. Found it funny how Lady Gaga's a common denominator here. Machete Kills I thought was dumb fun like the first one, though can't comment on the Sin City sequel.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
I actually enjoyed Aquaman2 when I finally got around to it. Maybe because my expectations were really low. Shazam 2 was fine, but defo a step down from the first.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Shows it's always best to watch and see for ourselves. That said if reviews can save you money at the Theatre then it's not unreasonable to let them influence when and how to watch it.

Yeah I found The Batman overrated as well. But no doubt it was overall received well and was a success. But I won't hold my breath for the sequel being equally successul. DC sequels seem to be cursed for now.

All I know with the sequel is that Clayface was rumored and Robin was apparently a given. About time in which case, but the sequel itself got delayed because of the writers not being paid their fair share; one of the projects unfortunately still affected by the earlier Hollywood writer strike. Am just concerned the sequel will come too late for most who enjoyed the first one, regardless of its quality.

At least there's the James Gunn stuff, so good either way there.

Originally posted by Kazenji
Loki's coming for you now.

Let him. I'll beat the stuffing out of him for letting his fiancée anywhere near acting.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime

p.s. Found it funny how Lady Gaga's a common denominator here. Machete Kills I thought was dumb fun like the first one, though can't comment on the Sin City sequel.

Dang I saw that last week on Reddit.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime

Some appear to think Shazam 2 was better than the first one. I didn't know what they were on about until I eventually saw it. The feelsy moments and some of the fight scenes I can understand being more enjoyed than the first film, but the villains were definitely a step down. Enjoyed what I considered to be Gal's last appearance as Wonder Woman though at the end.

Yeah. How could one have Lucy Liu and Helen Mirren as antagonists and screw it up that much?

I'm more curious than ever to see this now that I saw Tarantino praising it.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I'm more curious than ever to see this now that I saw Tarantino praising it.

I'm having trouble convincing my wife to watch it, even though it has Lady Gaga she seems turned off by Joaquin Phoenix and his mentally disturbed roles.

So I will probably have to find some time to watch it on my own.

Alright, so I watched it.

I really liked the opening cartoon, that was fun and clever. I would have been okay with the movie bookending with another cartoon, honestly. That was cute. Overall, yeah, I agree that it's not a drastic departure from the first film in mood or tone by any means. Most of the musical numbers didn't bother me, because they were well paced and somewhat character driven with the state of his psyche, etc. I found the first act particularly hypnotic and engaging, long takes, etc. That stuff I really enjoy.

There's a lot to like, honestly. But I think probably where it failed to connect with audiences was that it didn't really develop character or plot much at all (especially after the end of the first film promising some chaos and mayhem) and instead just did more and more random musical numbers and Lee didn't even really amount to anything significant. It felt like the finale at the courthouse should have happened probably half-way through the movie (or at least to start the 3rd act) and then progressed from there to more consequential developments. But I guess it's a matter of expectations.

So, while I probably give the first film 8-9/10, I'd probably give this 6-7/10. But it's frustrating because it's beautifully shot and so hypnotic with some great moments, like Joker laughing while the jury read out the guilty verdicts. That was pretty excellent.

^ Interesting. But at this point ill wait for it to hit Sky Cinema.

I came away from the first one thinking "Okay, good performances and good production values...but, he's not the real Joker." It wasn't me being a stubborn fan about the lore, but because it would be too much of a violation of the lore itself for him to be the real Joker. Not the mention the fact that he would be Old Man Joker by the time Bruce Wayne grew up and became Batman.

Five years later, the twist in this film that angered so many proves I was on the right track; he was never the real Joker. But, I still think this departs to much from the lore.

Quentin Tarantino Praised ‘Joker 2’ and Got Called a ‘F—ing *******’ by Toxic Fanboys; He Fires Back: ‘What Do You Care What the F— I Like?’

^ Ha! It's true though. What's the issue if he likes it.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Ha! It's true though. What's the issue if he likes it.

Quentin is getting increasingly arrogant and contrarian in his movie opinions, as if to show up the opinions of others who apparently don't get 'art' like he does.

Eh, I agree. Who cares if QT likes it. There ARE things to like about it if you're not a die-hard Joker fanboy. But it's also easy to see why it didn't really satisfy general audiences because it didn't really progress much of anything.

Originally posted by Ridley_Prime
p.s. Found it funny how Lady Gaga's a common denominator here. Machete Kills I thought was dumb fun like the first one, though can't comment on the Sin City sequel.

A Dame To Kill For was superior to the original.

So this arrived on Max earlier and finally saw it. Beforehand, I was skimming through the first film and rewatching bits and pieces of it while waiting for my laundry to dry and then starting Joker 2 after, but yeah, it's not really a departure from the first one by any means. I get parts of it not living up to expectations, but the film as a whole was blown out of proportion for mostly the wrong reasons.

I don't have a problem with Arthur not being the real Joker but more of a catalyst to him. Jerome Valeska on the Gotham show technically wasn't Joker either, but didn't make him any less memorable as a precursor; at least to me.

The musical parts was whatever; some of it resonated with me, some of it didn't. Not sure I have much more to say that hasn't already been said.

Finally saw it. I think it's a smart plot but wow did they drag out the point. I'm not a fan of musicals and plot constipation, and this has both. The cutting room floor was too clean. With that said...

I like that both films now seem like a long overdue shot at Hollywood's ignorant interchangeably of "psychotic" and "psychopathic". Joker was delusional and homicidal, but he wasn't anything close to a psychopath. Everyone who was expecting Arthur to magically become the comic book joker was begging to be played

It was also interesting how they introduce a new joker who makes more sense and aligns more with who we're familiar with pre-phoenix joker, and it's also interesting how the real joker's own identity and personality are also his murder-trophy. I find that kinda brilliant