@@clipbang304 if you know Todd, he did the exact same thing with Hangover 3. This entire movie was intended to NOT give the people what they wanted. It’s an ENTIRE “fvck you” to the production company and the many sheep that keep wanting more. It’s a brilliant, very expensive waste. But I’m here for it lol
idk to me it seems more like "joker" is a movement, arthur "inspired" people with his alter ego and they started wearing clown masks in public rioting and stuff.
@@phaethonprime6427 that's kind of the point, isn't it? Everybody wants him to be Joker, but he just isn't. And leaning into the persona does nothing but harm more people.
The trial was literally almost a play for play of the Ted Bundy trial. The weird girl he doesn’t even know is obsessed with him, giving interviews, “gets pregnant”. Then, him firing his more than competent lawyer, making a mockery of the court, the “first time a trial is televised”.
This movie was crazy, poor arthur, he just wanted to be himself but the world loved joker and hated arthur. Just tragic. Arthur couldn't be joker, he wasn't crazy enough. Arthur getting beat up by the guards brought him back to reality
The guy who killed Arthur was the second in the shared delusion. He had been shown watching him a couple times throughout the movie. When Arthur stopped believing in the shared delusion, the recessive one killed the dominant one. Never meet your hero’s I guess:)
it seemed that the guy who stabbed Arthur at the end is the one who is actually going to take on and embrace the Joker persona. The hysterical laughing and the slicing of his mouth like the Heath Ledger character.
unlikely it's him because the age of bruce and the character cutting his face at the end still don't quite match up. So likely it's actually the inmate at the end who inspires the Joker we see in the dark night seriesl.
The dumb part is he denied being the joker, when we the audience know that he is in fact crazy. Like he literally just gave up on himself. Like what was the point of it all.
@@MurderousJohnny he had already given up at the beginning of the movie. Literally begging to die the first half of the movie. He was going to kill himself at the end of the first movie
We as the audience literally know that he isn't crazy. He was a miserable man who got his hands on a gun and was pushed over the edge. His laugh is a sign of distress, it couldn't be more obvious that he hates what he's doing. The Joker that we know simply hurts others for fun.
@@birdflox1337 Arthur was indeed "crazy." He was someone who suffered from mental psychosis and delusions. He needed help and did not receive it. The other part of what you say is also true, but the two things are not exclusive.
@@MurderousJohnny would have been interesting if they played on the idea of joker as a sona. While in arkham Arthur is the main sona but as he interacts with Harley begins to have conversations with joker
Arthur is crazy but not Crazy enough to be joker We seen many time real joker is mad psychopath So in the end he got what he deserved “ death” and the guy who kill him became real joker
Im just upset how 90% of the movie takes place in prison and in court. like the trailers lead me to believe the he mightve escaped prison/court and did all sorts of things with Harley out in the streets with his followers when hes actually causing some chaos. But those were just the musical parts...in his head
its your fault for knowing too much. just watch one trailer and stop. because ignorance really is bliss. i watched this movie blind and i'm giving it a 6/10.
@@lakilakisorong8204to be fair the age gap between Harvey dent in this movie and Bruce who is probably like at least 12 in the sequel, is probably 15 years only, it’s feasible a young Bruce could have a friend 15 years older, also it didn’t matter really because Batman was never going to exist in this world, therefore Arthur didn’t have to be THE Joker
Semantics, uh? So it was the public's fault to interpret the first movie as a "The origin story of The Joker" when it was, in reality, more of a "An origin story of some random dude who happens to call himself Joker as well".
It's titled Joker not The Joker, for me it was clear in the first movie. After all The Joker is a very intelligent and a master manipulator, Arthur is nowhere close to that
@@Dave.A.R it was a suicide squad. And now we have tTHE suicide squad. Lmao they should have just left this ambiguous. Like its better to choose your own ending in a way
@@jelsonmorota1221 this movie should of been a 3 jokers story or built up to one similar to how madara had nagato and obito. Imagine if Batman 2 or three was a three jokers story oh my god even if this is terrible there are other options
@@jelsonmorota1221 three jokers comic isn't canon to the main DC comic continuity and the idea of the "three jokers " has been retconed to just being three different personalities inside joker's head instead of three different people
You could argue that we had those 3 in this film. Arthur the comedian, his killer who refers to himself as the psychopath and the one who picks him up in the car and enjoys the chaos is the anarchist
@@epicghost1550 the next one to assume the joker persona, in the comics he got many aliases and in newer versions is stated that Joker persona has been assumed by different persons with different personalities.
From Batman's mythos, a character named Joe Chill* (eventually would also cross paths with Bruce's parents that fateful night) But there is more than one Joker. It is just difficult to translate if this one goes anywhere. As it is an Elseworlds tale
It was a pretty good movie, in its own cinematic universe from the idea of a joker. It definitely did a good job, cause honestly it was pretty realistic. Sad ending but great performance.
I’m expecting this to get a cult following when years go by, like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service that divided fans upon release and now is considered one of the best Bond films. When the years go by people will see it’s underrated
i really liked this movie, not in the same way i like any of the other films about batman/joker but in the way that i understand what the joker really is. the idea of what the joker stands for. like chaos and being unpredictable. also i hope that arthur is in fact the inspiration of joker. and that arthur influences alot of people and he probably got into his killers brain. thus you can hear his laughter after arthur is dead, and when he cuts himself the smile. finally submiting to the persona that arthur gave off. and there, the joker is born. amazing
This Joker got killed by the REAL joker. Watch then end. He carves the joker smile on his face with the same knife he killed Arthur with. In the dark knight joker always lied about where he got those scares. Maybe the movies tie in?
That would be awful though. Why would Nolans Joker lie about how his dad cut his face when he was a child? He also never admitted in that movie that it was a lie. Nolans Joker was always "you get what you see", a crazy mastermind with a vision but always honest straight forward.
@@AkiTerry in the Dark Knight he mentions at least 2 stories of how he got the scars.... One to the mob guy and another story to Maggie Gyllenhaal's character. The entire point of the Heath Ledger Joker was that nobody other than him knows the exact story bro
@@folx2733 okay, bro. It's been a few years & that sad story stuck into my brain somehow 😂 I need to re-watch soon. Thanks for letting me know & correcting me 🤗
@@BennyValdesMusic It can’t tie in. The way Bruce’s parents are murdered is different and there is already a Harvey Dent in the Joker universe and by the end his face is already half burnt.
Todd Phillips accidently made a good movie with The Joker. He said in interviews he hated how the audience took his message in the first film. So, he made a movie people liked by accident.
his first movie attracted the wrong crowd, so he made a second one to piss them all off, thats the joke and i was slow clapping in the end of the 2nd movie, bravo.
@@theshuriken It's not meant to piss you off, it just holds a mirror up to Fandoms, and people didnt like that. The joke isn't on you the joke is on Arthur bc the fans literally killed him.
@@theshurikenif you believe that you ll believe anything . No one makes a movie to spite fans because history won't remember that , people will only remember the worst movie ever and Philips career will be for the lame Sundance type people 😂
I’ll never understand how these people capture lightning in a bottle (Joker 2019) and they somehow end up ruining something that wasn’t broke and didn’t need any fixing (or a sequel)
They made the Joker sequel a Joke. Always rely on DC to fumble and ruin things. No one asked for this movie. And then you soured the taste for the first one too.
No not really. What this proves is the "rumours" about the first movie. That it was never a Joker movie, it was created as some dude with mental health problems movie and WB caught hold of the script and slapped on the Joker title. These two feels at the core having nothing to do with the Joker character.
A Joker sequel that not only resents the success of the first movie, but actively hates the audience who liked the first movie. What a colossal miscalculation this was
My takeaway and theory is that Harley's baby would be the one to become the true Joker and the one to fight Bruce Wayne in the future since many had complaints about the huge age difference Arthur and Bruce in the first movie.
@@rykavproductions666 It's heavily implied the one whose murdered Arthur would become The Joker. He does it just as Arthur fantasies about having a successor
"Joker" is a psychopathic character. In the movie Arthur is suffering from a disease which has nothing to do with mentality, he could just laugh without stopping and controlling it (forgot what it's called). And only thing he wanted is to be recognized by people, and to be loved, because he has never been loved nor by his mother in his childhood and never taken seriously by people around him. And at the end of first movie all those emotions burst out as a vengeful personality and called itself as "Joker", who would do the same as what everyone used to do to Arthur. Not giving a sh&t about others (especially bullies and careless ones). And as a result, all the people who felt the same they got inspired and took "Joker" as an idol. So, "Joker" himself is a psychopathic character, but Arthur wasn't. He was just a bit sick, not mentally though. But, at the end of the movie we got a real psychopath who probably suffered some kind of abuse in the past, but eventually was inspired by "Joker" personality of Arthur. After killing him, he cuts his mouth (like Hith Ledger's version). But anyways, probably we will have him as real Joker psychopath and villain in future movies.
Bro you have actually no idea og what you are talking about😂. The first movie actually told us bout the traumatic past of Arthur and his sick relationship with his mother. Which in psychiatry and psychopath is often a common issue!
I don’t get why people hate this movie. Maybe not for everyone but, the way I see this movie is, it’s the perspective of a mentally unstable person, hence all the songs. The musical didn’t changed the way I perceive joker as I did from the first one. This movie makes me more sad, feel empathetic towards him. The acting from Joaquin was phenomenal. Maybe that’s an understatement. Gagas lip was taking me out of the whole experience but other than that, it’s a really good movie
@@s4mus837I would argue that the concept of reality hitting someone who lived in fantasy (when the reverse was true) after the events of the first movie is captivating. I’ll give you credit that I think the first is better but I think this movie did have something to say and did a pretty good job at it.
There the first movie is like a steak,, that's getting ready for BBQ. Well seasoned, charcoils are ready.... just for Folie à Deux to dip it into a bucket a cake glaze, throw it into the steamer, chop it down to small pieces and go: "Bon appetit!". Or in how the kids say now: you cooked. And not in a good way. Complete, identity-less, unneeded mess.
The movie was great, if you get the movie, you know Joker is an Idea, an idea that can be picked up by anyone, and as you live along the lines of that idea, anyone can be a Joker, and since an idea is immortal, Joker is immortal. Only the person changes but the idea remains the same.
It’s ambiguity that made the first movie successful about Joker. The audience decided their ending and put you in Joker’s madness on what was true or not. Then the second one took that magic away and explained you wasted your time with that magic. The Joker character was then alluded to became an unoriginal product of the original Joker, creating an anti-climatic origin story. Secondly, Arthur’s new persona that was solidified in Joker was also deteriorated. Causing the original build-up as pointless.
@@Username-ei4ff maybe Arthur wasn't actually killed, maybe the killing was in his head, maybe his "Joker" persona cerebrally killed his "Arthur" persona altogether.
Of course it would be pointless, he’s mentally impaired and practically disabled, he could never become a criminal mastermind and people only have themselves to blame for not seeing that.
@@gauthierkasongo180the whole point of the first film is that Arthur is The Joker he embraces the new identity that gives him everything he's wanted hes finally himself he literally stats this multiple times in the first film
@@commanderjor4043 well that’s the point of the second movie. He never wanted to become the joker. As the trial goes on he hurts puddles and his lawyer the only two people who genially cared for him. The night before the sentencing an inmate that loved his joker persona his killed for being a blind supporter. He rejects the joker and just wants to be Arthur he doesn’t like chaos or what it means to the innocent he was just a broken man that wanted to be loved
Harley IS NOT REAL. She more than likely is a therapist he was see’ing , as stated by his lawyer. Anytime there’s a cigarette in the scene, it’s not real. It’s him making it up in his head.
Hate to break it to everyone here but the person who killed Arthur was Arthur himself. It was another one of his delusions where his entire personality was confused between being the joker or Arthur, when The Joker finally took over him, he killed the Arthur within. The Arthur who had a mother and a bad past had died all that remained was the psychotic Joker.
Except that dude has a physical cell and you see him in the background throughout the whole movie, idolizing Arthur, until the very end when Arthur drops the facade and he was face to face with another who never stopped believing in the facade and wants it to be real. Bruce Wayne is only a man, but Batman is an Idea; he's larger than life and can do what others can't. The power is in the idea. Arthur Fleck is only a man, but The Joker is an Idea; he's larger than life, and can do what others can't. The power is in the idea.
@@PunishedBrak tbh I’ven’t even seen the movie, it was just a speculation from all the comments. But if it indeed turns out the way you say, then the idea of a Joker movie leading to build up of a legendary character is utterly stupid. Because people follow originality, and this whole thing says that the idea of joker wasn’t original in itself but a second hand thought is simply destroying a character.
@@AedanBlackheart In all of his "delusions" of her, she never speaks. The only time she speaks is when it's really her. Same can be said with this guy. Sure, Arthur might have hallucinated seeing him; but he's definitely there at the end of the movie. It follows the same logic as the girl from the first film if that's the way you look at it.
So its the prequel of the Joker's actual origin story. Of a man who is an actual clown with a laughing condition, who is also a murdering psychopath, that inspires the real joker. The jokes on us.
The guy who killed Arthur was the split personality of the Joker. Arthur Fleck was diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder. His Joker persona killed off his Arthur persona because it deemed it too weak and unworthy.
@@Psyclonus7 it did because there are very few people I’ve seen that actually get it. I’ve seen it explained as “the real joker killed Arthur so Arthur isn’t even the joker” or “it makes a connection to Heath ledger’s joker” which are both wrong. The joker is an ideology, as well as a character. These movies were about the origin of the joker as an ideology, Arthur was still the joker, there’s simply now a new one and he’s not heath ledger, that would be dumb.
@@Travisaurus While there is an ideology, there’s also Batman’s nemesis of which the title is much more known for, and the guy that killed Arther reflects him too closely to argue that the ending isn’t the real Joker killing Arther. Joker can be both an ideology and a character, culturally he’s much more known for being Batman’s intellectual rival. It’s not a disappointment that Arther wasn’t the real Joker because his mental impairment was practically disabling so it never made any sense for him to be Batman’s intellectual equal. The guy that killed Arther though showed all the qualities of Batman’s Joker in just seconds. Thematically you can say it’s about the ideology, plot wise it’s about the real Joker.
@@zombiezone2010It's a decent movie, a horrible sequel, and an unnecessary extension of what we already knew and were shown from the first one; That Arthur is not Batmans "Joker", but rather the origin for a kind of archetypical persona that says "Do what you will"; we see Bruces parents shot by someone wearing a clown mask, and given the age differences EVEN THEN, this is also not very likely to be Batmans "Joker", further demonstrating that the idea and "Character", in-universe, is loosely defined and can be worn like a mask by many different people, also harkening back to Jokers own "multiple choice" origin story he tells in Killing Joke. It's all essentially an homage to the comics, not an adaptation, and for some reason people can't see that.
People salty because they all found themselves in joker, only to realize maybe they are just regular people...like arthur. And not the real.joker, who is a psychopath. Which these "fans" are not, nore anywhere close lol
Yall are slow. Arthur is the pioneer of Joker. Joker is an idea or a title not a person. Harley is a groupie for the ideology. The guy who kills Arthur in the movie wants the title of the Joker
Bruce Wayne is only a Man; but, Batman is an Idea; He's larger than life and can do what others can't. Arthur Fleck is only a Man; but, The Joker is an Idea; He's larger than life and can do what others can't.
@@rozeriley6548 Really? Dick Grayson. Azrael aka Jean Paul Valley. Gordon. Damian Wayne. Cassandra Cain. Thomas Wayne (alternate universe but I'll take it, wasn't his idea) Jason Todd. (Battle for the Cowl) Terry McGinnis (The "future" of Batman Beyond) Did you never watch Batman Begins? I'm quoting Alfred when he's discussing using Fear as a weapon against criminals with Bruce. The Idea can do what no "ordinary" human can, the concept that Batman, as an Idea, can achieve that which seems to be impossible for us with names; the same applies to the Joker. It's called "The Mantle of the Bat" for a reason; lots of people other than Bruce have been "Batman".
He wasn’t looking to make a movie about The Clown Prince of Crime aka THE Joker? So why even call it Joker in the first place? And build Arthur up as the same character, aka, an emotionally broken, insane man who gets beaten down by everyone and eventually snaps and starts dressing like a clown and killing people? At that point it’s not even The Joker, it’s just Arthur Fleck. Building him up to inspire someone else to become THE Joker is just stupid and contradicts that first movie. It doesn’t make any sense.
No..... Its like fight club. He says he is not the joker. She leaves him. He has a visitor (her) he kills the version of himself she didn't want. He cuts himself and creates the version of joker we all know.
@@NickyDoyle yeah, something tells me although the movie was bad and the director only made this to make a statement, maybe he cuts his own mouth killing "Arthur" which means he's there to stay, scars don't heal and are forever, instead of using his temporary makeup.
Great ending. Arthur was a wimp. To influence the real Joker makes more sense. When he embodied the Joker at the end of the first film he gave birth to the character but he let it go the moment he felt guilt over the trauma he caused Puddle---as he wasnt a psycopath but a depressed victim who cracked. The last joke, or "the killing joke", is what happens when a psycopath talks to a clown and we meet the person who takes on the Joker mantle who fits the personality of the Joker we all know. Harley and the people who believe in the idea of the Joker then follow him. It works. People are just too emotionally invested in Arthur who never fit as the Clown Prince of Crime
If we are to believe that Fleck is not the real Joker, then this film completely RUINS two major characters in it... Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn. Harvey Dent gets half his face disfigured at the end of Joker 2. Meaning that he becomes Two Face while Bruce Wayne is still a child. In Dark Knight, Harvey Dent becomes Two Face while Bruce Wayne is already a grown Batman. That nonsense they pulled in Joker 2 just doesn't jive. Harley Quinn is supposed to be the girlfriend of the ACTUAL Joker. Not the girlfriend of some weirdo named Arthur Fleck who is NOT the Joker.
Cristopher Nolan literally said not to do a face carving scene, BECAUSE THIS JOKER IS NOT HIS JOKER. This movie ruined that. Not every single good movie needs to be part of a massive franchise.
The hyperbole over how "bad" this film is was out of control - especially from comic nerds who desperately need to look up from their pages (and I'm a lifelong reader of the format, but have a life outside of those books). The film was a very interesting outro to the first film, and I did love the musical numbers (I mean, there could have been a few less). I'd rather interesting swings taken at well-trodden material, than to have cookie cutter shit spewed out lock-step in a calendar like Marvel does.
What did I think? That from the start it was real and grounded. All these people saying "it's bad, he should've became the joker and got with harley" don't really get the point. He is a broken man not a super villain. He was bound to get caught seeing as he wasn't a criminal mastermind like the comic joker. His fate was just like the fate of the 3 Wallstreet boys in the first movie. Realistic and probably what would've happened in real life. All the haters are children that want some colorful marvel movie where everything goes the main characters way. 🤷♀️
The only way this would be a little bit cool is if the one that killed him was the same joker who physically killed Bruce’s parents, so I’m just gonna pretend that’s it
Arthur eases his hallucination by turning into music after he had met Harley and it is part of the cure. This sequel is different from the Joker 1 that is the reason that makes Joker fans disappointed and it is even more disappointing at the end of the movie, even Harley feels bad to Joker in the movie too. This should be called "Folie à l'une" instead of "deux". Anyway, Harley acts so well in the movie which might lead to part 3 of her journey. This movie is a good one, not bad at all.
Such a perplexing film. At face value it’s awful and an insult to the source material, but from an artistic perspective, it’s really clever and well crafted.
I actually think its all a pretty decent idea that there could have been someone who inspired the joker and that Arthur dies at the end by his hand, killed by his own creation which had gotten out of control and he himself had shunned. The execution (plotting, pacing, settup, payoff) was just so bad though, and the songs/singing was a total misfire
People getting mad that it wasnt really THE joker literally fall into what the movie was tryibg to say, nobody (including the audience) cares about Arthur. Like all his supporters they only want joker
Arthur killed 5 ppl(3 Wall Street men, Randal and Murray) his mom is number 6. So what happen in the ending of part 1? So he didn’t kill the therapist? Cuz he walked out leaving blood prints down the hallway.
honestly one of the better depictions of ego, the true nature of self, and celebrity worship I've seen in modern media. people have tunnel vision though and expect everything to have predictable happy endings. they literally malfunction when given a dose of nihilism.
He is the Joker. The whole film takes place in his head while he watches the Peepe la pew cartoon. The long sleeved sweater he is wearing is a straight jacket. He wears this when he is killed and when he is chained up outside laughing in the rain.
That would of been a cool idea for a third film if the ending and direction of the second was different. Like Harley orders the 2 guys to blowup the courthouse and they both run off etc.
that’s what i’m saying… hopefully he lives, the joker is not a role that can be recasted quickly, and wether the meant it or not, they gave Joaquin THE joker role, he was the joker, and they killed him for some bs
because he is arthur fleck, not the Joker, Arthur Fleck's story was complete by the end of the movie. The true Joker that will go on to fight Batman is presumably the psychopath who murdered Fleck and then carved a smile onto his own face.
@@tomfallon8930 what he's saying is that he liked the Arthur character and wanted to see him succeed and not get brutally stabbed and die like a dog because honestly he deserved better.
Ok imagine if the scene where Arthur was killed was just his Joker persona taking over and killing his Arthur persona. Thus the only thing that remains is Joker. And not Arthur. Think like two face, except that the evil personality murdered the good personality. Thus only one face remaining, the evil one.
Except it's physically another inmate, with another cell, who we see throughout the movie seemingly idolizing Arthur. Watch it again. The Folly of 2 is Arthur and Joker. The INSTANT Arthur begins to drop the facade at the end of the movie, the other person can't take it anymore, like Arleen couldn't take it anymore; Arthur is shattering his world, their shared delusion, and so, he does what he has to to maintain the delusion of "The Joker", if not only for himself. Others, like Harley, who sincerely believed in the character being this larger than life criminal will have their delusions reaffirmed seeing Arthur dead, will stop caring about "who" the Joker is, and only care that "The Joker" is still alive.
7:13 Arthur in that scene said "Is it quick?" because he was in a hurry and was always considerant. He didn't say "Well yeah okay, of course." His hope was the visitor, not the kid that was approaching him with a joke.
People’s dislike for this movie reminds me of the hate Halloween Ends gets. That being that there is a love for the original inspiration so much so that there is an attachment to what they think and more to the point demand what follows should be. They instead get something that doesn’t fulfill their expectations be it by hard truths, different perspectives, deeper meanings that end up taking them out of the enjoyment of an easy journey and experience. Seeing Arther dead did bum me out, not that I see him as a hero, maybe because the blurred lines of hero’s and villains or our own inner dark side and good side can possibly get thrown off in the face of abuse and injustice.
How is death sad when he got what he wanted. Everyone he loved lies to him including his mother and Harley so he deserves nothing but peace after his killings.
@@Implosion-Gaming Getting stabbed in the gut over and over with a "shank" has got to be one hell of a painful death and in no way would ANYONE find it peaceful or being "at peace" lol
As a long time Batman fan with my last name being Gotham. I really love this Joker prequel and I think it says a lot about our society and how people are treated. This back story of the Joker makes more sense than anything else written. I'm also glad Batman isn't just beating up someone who has suffered so much.
They should made him rise as Joker and rule Gotham with harley quinn (fight the evil rich people and the bad cops) until he fights his depression together with Robert Pattinson - Batman
What a bunch of BS. Arthur was clearly meant to be the one and only Joker. That Philip’s took that away from him, demonized the audience that liked the first film, and had him die a pathetic shell of himself, as he was at the beginning of the first film, is a sign that he really didn’t want to handle the character, or know what to do with the character going forward. ThatWB even approved this script goes to show that WB under Zaslav and the DCU under Gunn is going to fall apart going forward.
How is Arthur "clearly" meant to be The Joker? Bruce Wayne is a child in this iteration. When he becomes Batman, Arthur Fleck will be well in his 70's. This movie is great, give it time.
@@ThatGuy-vf1wj I knew he wasn't going to be "the joker" in the first film but they could've done better with this one; just ended it as a standalone film. Grossly overpriced "art".
Todd Phillips just wiped his balls on all of our collective curtains. He not only destroyed whatever goodwill he has with the public, but he took Phoenix and Gaga with him.
So Joker 2 ties in with the Dark Knight! Connor Storrie - Young Inmate kills Arthur becoming Ledger's Joker. It's clear in the timeline of Bruce Wayne that a younger Joker is born.. This is great.
So basically Arthur’s Joker is not really Joker. He’s just someone’s inspiration.
yes, the first joker that inspires The Joker.
yes and we all knew this from the first Joker movie but in this movie we get to see how far the "fans" are willing to go
@@ardhisjz1114 that is the lamest thing I've heard, you got had and suckered into this scam yes you got had
Yeah
Why are people thinking this? Phoenix is this universes joker. The kid is just some kid, he’s not the joker.
What’s he actually saying is that the *first Joker film didn’t need a sequel*
@@MarvellousMorbing no that’s not what he is saying
No film needs a sequel
@@clipbang304 heard of sarcasm
Most movies don’t
@@clipbang304 if you know Todd, he did the exact same thing with Hangover 3. This entire movie was intended to NOT give the people what they wanted. It’s an ENTIRE “fvck you” to the production company and the many sheep that keep wanting more. It’s a brilliant, very expensive waste. But I’m here for it lol
Movie should have been called "Arthur" as it sure as Hell isn't about the Joker.
idk to me it seems more like "joker" is a movement, arthur "inspired" people with his alter ego and they started wearing clown masks in public rioting and stuff.
@@phaethonprime6427 it never was…it’s always been about Arthur. The first film was almost called “Arthur”.
Arthur the Aardvark!
@@phaethonprime6427 that's kind of the point, isn't it? Everybody wants him to be Joker, but he just isn't. And leaning into the persona does nothing but harm more people.
@@birdflox1337 lmao so the entire movie is Todd Phillips being ashamed of the first joker
The trial was literally almost a play for play of the Ted Bundy trial. The weird girl he doesn’t even know is obsessed with him, giving interviews, “gets pregnant”. Then, him firing his more than competent lawyer, making a mockery of the court, the “first time a trial is televised”.
@@ashj0 also the part where he had “Gary” constantly repeat his killings. 🙁
@ yeah I forgot about that when writing my comment.
This movie was crazy, poor arthur, he just wanted to be himself but the world loved joker and hated arthur. Just tragic. Arthur couldn't be joker, he wasn't crazy enough. Arthur getting beat up by the guards brought him back to reality
He got more than beat up...
@@HakeemTheDream616 what did they do?
@shogun3292 they gave him 🥒
The guy who killed Arthur was the second in the shared delusion. He had been shown watching him a couple times throughout the movie. When Arthur stopped believing in the shared delusion, the recessive one killed the dominant one. Never meet your hero’s I guess:)
like arthur killed his idol Murray
It's amazing how fewer people get this and don't fall for the red herring.
@@sixfeetunder0105🤯🤯🤯
Great insight.
Or never meet your biggest fan…
it seemed that the guy who stabbed Arthur at the end is the one who is actually going to take on and embrace the Joker persona. The hysterical laughing and the slicing of his mouth like the Heath Ledger character.
@@omeezy718 Suposedly in the script, the character name is Melvin and he's the brother of the Joker
It doesn't matter it's not like there's going to be a joker three
He isn't going to be taking on anything because this movie bombed
unlikely it's him because the age of bruce and the character cutting his face at the end still don't quite match up. So likely it's actually the inmate at the end who inspires the Joker we see in the dark night seriesl.
@ankd956 this is the last place I expected this joke i love this
The dumb part is he denied being the joker, when we the audience know that he is in fact crazy. Like he literally just gave up on himself. Like what was the point of it all.
@@MurderousJohnny he had already given up at the beginning of the movie. Literally begging to die the first half of the movie. He was going to kill himself at the end of the first movie
We as the audience literally know that he isn't crazy. He was a miserable man who got his hands on a gun and was pushed over the edge. His laugh is a sign of distress, it couldn't be more obvious that he hates what he's doing. The Joker that we know simply hurts others for fun.
@@birdflox1337 Arthur was indeed "crazy." He was someone who suffered from mental psychosis and delusions. He needed help and did not receive it. The other part of what you say is also true, but the two things are not exclusive.
@@MurderousJohnny would have been interesting if they played on the idea of joker as a sona. While in arkham Arthur is the main sona but as he interacts with Harley begins to have conversations with joker
Arthur is crazy but not Crazy enough to be joker
We seen many time real joker is mad psychopath
So in the end he got what he deserved “ death” and the guy who kill him became real joker
Im just upset how 90% of the movie takes place in prison and in court.
like the trailers lead me to believe the he mightve escaped prison/court and did all sorts of things with Harley out in the streets with his followers when hes actually causing some chaos. But those were just the musical parts...in his head
@@justtoocringey.png.6324 THIS.
its your fault for knowing too much. just watch one trailer and stop.
because ignorance really is bliss. i watched this movie blind and i'm giving it a 6/10.
I thought it was brilliant
@@rhovenom04 i did watch one trailer bruh
the trailer shows the courthouse explosion which led me to think to what i said in that comment
Many fans wondered why there was a big age gap between Bruce Wayne and Arthur Fleck in the first movie. It makes sense now why they chose this ending.
@@steelwayne explain then about harvey dent? he was supposedly in the same age as bruce, he dated bruce’s gf…
@@lakilakisorong8204Exactly
@@lakilakisorong8204to be fair the age gap between Harvey dent in this movie and Bruce who is probably like at least 12 in the sequel, is probably 15 years only, it’s feasible a young Bruce could have a friend 15 years older, also it didn’t matter really because Batman was never going to exist in this world, therefore Arthur didn’t have to be THE Joker
Joker should have taken over arthur at minute 40
Did people really think we'd have Arthur's Joker vs Batman in this universe? 😅
Semantics, uh? So it was the public's fault to interpret the first movie as a "The origin story of The Joker" when it was, in reality, more of a "An origin story of some random dude who happens to call himself Joker as well".
its the origin of the idea of the joker, but not the joker crime lord and batmans nemesis
It's titled Joker not The Joker, for me it was clear in the first movie. After all The Joker is a very intelligent and a master manipulator, Arthur is nowhere close to that
@@AutopSidI only understood now, but it makes much more sense
@@Dave.A.R it was a suicide squad. And now we have tTHE suicide squad. Lmao they should have just left this ambiguous. Like its better to choose your own ending in a way
It's the origing of Harley Quinn not THE Harley Quinn
so we have "The Clown, The Comedian and The Criminal" in the comics. in films we now have "The Comedian, The Psychopath and The Anarchist"
@@jelsonmorota1221 this movie should of been a 3 jokers story or built up to one similar to how madara had nagato and obito. Imagine if Batman 2 or three was a three jokers story oh my god even if this is terrible there are other options
I’m actually happy with this bc this means we still have a chance to get Willem Dafoe as Joker 😊
@@jelsonmorota1221 three jokers comic isn't canon to the main DC comic continuity and the idea of the "three jokers " has been retconed to just being three different personalities inside joker's head instead of three different people
Wrong, in films we now have, "The Comedian, "The Psychopath" and "The Premature Ejaculator"
You could argue that we had those 3 in this film. Arthur the comedian, his killer who refers to himself as the psychopath and the one who picks him up in the car and enjoys the chaos is the anarchist
I'm still confused. Like who EVEN was the guy who stabbed Arthur???
@@epicghost1550 the next one to assume the joker persona, in the comics he got many aliases and in newer versions is stated that Joker persona has been assumed by different persons with different personalities.
From Batman's mythos, a character named Joe Chill* (eventually would also cross paths with Bruce's parents that fateful night)
But there is more than one Joker. It is just difficult to translate if this one goes anywhere. As it is an Elseworlds tale
It was Heath Ledger !!!
@@kadosho02Joe Chill*
@@babybulllets no worries fixing my comment, autocorrect is battling me today
It was a pretty good movie, in its own cinematic universe from the idea of a joker. It definitely did a good job, cause honestly it was pretty realistic. Sad ending but great performance.
I’m expecting this to get a cult following when years go by, like On Her Majesty’s Secret Service that divided fans upon release and now is considered one of the best Bond films. When the years go by people will see it’s underrated
@@ivogoedhart1930 facts!
Second this
Third this.
yeah great take!
Like with most movies and video games.
i really liked this movie, not in the same way i like any of the other films about batman/joker but in the way that i understand what the joker really is. the idea of what the joker stands for. like chaos and being unpredictable.
also i hope that arthur is in fact the inspiration of joker. and that arthur influences alot of people and he probably got into his killers brain. thus you can hear his laughter after arthur is dead, and when he cuts himself the smile. finally submiting to the persona that arthur gave off. and there, the joker is born. amazing
This Joker got killed by the REAL joker. Watch then end. He carves the joker smile on his face with the same knife he killed Arthur with. In the dark knight joker always lied about where he got those scares. Maybe the movies tie in?
That would be awful though. Why would Nolans Joker lie about how his dad cut his face when he was a child? He also never admitted in that movie that it was a lie. Nolans Joker was always "you get what you see", a crazy mastermind with a vision but always honest straight forward.
@@AkiTerryrewatch the movie bro
@@AkiTerry in the Dark Knight he mentions at least 2 stories of how he got the scars.... One to the mob guy and another story to Maggie Gyllenhaal's character. The entire point of the Heath Ledger Joker was that nobody other than him knows the exact story bro
@@folx2733 okay, bro. It's been a few years & that sad story stuck into my brain somehow 😂
I need to re-watch soon. Thanks for letting me know & correcting me 🤗
@@BennyValdesMusic It can’t tie in. The way Bruce’s parents are murdered is different and there is already a Harvey Dent in the Joker universe and by the end his face is already half burnt.
6:30 is when the video starts 🙌🏿
@@070spacecowboy goat
Todd Phillips accidently made a good movie with The Joker. He said in interviews he hated how the audience took his message in the first film. So, he made a movie people liked by accident.
He didn't accidentally make a good movie, he just didn't like how peoole romanticized Arthur / Joker. He still intended the first one to be good.
his first movie attracted the wrong crowd, so he made a second one to piss them all off, thats the joke and i was slow clapping in the end of the 2nd movie, bravo.
@@theshuriken It's not meant to piss you off, it just holds a mirror up to Fandoms, and people didnt like that. The joke isn't on you the joke is on Arthur bc the fans literally killed him.
@@theshurikenif you believe that you ll believe anything . No one makes a movie to spite fans because history won't remember that , people will only remember the worst movie ever and Philips career will be for the lame Sundance type people 😂
It’s called Joker.
Not THE Joker.
I’ll never understand how these people capture lightning in a bottle (Joker 2019) and they somehow end up ruining something that wasn’t broke and didn’t need any fixing (or a sequel)
Reminds me of Game of Thrones or Dexter’s ending. Some directors just can’t end things right.
Joker 2 > Joker
@@ThatGuy-vf1wj you can do better than that come on
it's an opinion on a movie. Not a thesis on Quantum physics, relax dude.
They made the Joker sequel a Joke. Always rely on DC to fumble and ruin things. No one asked for this movie. And then you soured the taste for the first one too.
@@a.s.raiyan2003-4 I'm scared for Batman part 2
No not really. What this proves is the "rumours" about the first movie. That it was never a Joker movie, it was created as some dude with mental health problems movie and WB caught hold of the script and slapped on the Joker title. These two feels at the core having nothing to do with the Joker character.
Joker is an idea, Arthur was one of the inspirations for the three jokers
You can always declare the sequel never existed
@@DouglasSilva-pu3jqthat theory doesn't work after this film, Harleys presence makes that impossible
the joke is, movie is called Joker instead of Arthur
the first movie was initially planned to be called "Arthur"
A Joker sequel that not only resents the success of the first movie, but actively hates the audience who liked the first movie. What a colossal miscalculation this was
No
Agreed
@@RH1812go watch the movie doofus
@@RH1812shit musical
It was predictable honestly. The first movie is overrated it did great at the box office cause of quarantine so a lot of ppl bought it digitally
My takeaway and theory is that Harley's baby would be the one to become the true Joker and the one to fight Bruce Wayne in the future since many had complaints about the huge age difference Arthur and Bruce in the first movie.
@@rykavproductions666 It's heavily implied the one whose murdered Arthur would become The Joker. He does it just as Arthur fantasies about having a successor
@@AutopSid but he offed himself a second later?
@@diegoswatch no he was carving the smile on his mouth. He didn’t off himself
@@AutopSiduhhh no it’s not? He’s just the next guy to develop the persona
@@roachofdoom1234 both ways are possible
Hahaha nothing says a movie is good or even acceptable more then the director coming right out to explain the ending LOL
endings in movies don't have to be transparent and have no secret or mystery to them
Directors explain the endings of lots of movies. Especially today where people don’t want to think, or engage with art.
Todd really gave into the Warner bros bag💰 and gave us this. Tragic
@@everettenjeze6276 he gave into the bag with the first one too lol, it wasn't even meant to be called or really about the Joker
@@green49285 this movie sucked
"Joker" is a psychopathic character.
In the movie Arthur is suffering from a disease which has nothing to do with mentality, he could just laugh without stopping and controlling it (forgot what it's called). And only thing he wanted is to be recognized by people, and to be loved, because he has never been loved nor by his mother in his childhood and never taken seriously by people around him. And at the end of first movie all those emotions burst out as a vengeful personality and called itself as "Joker", who would do the same as what everyone used to do to Arthur. Not giving a sh&t about others (especially bullies and careless ones). And as a result, all the people who felt the same they got inspired and took "Joker" as an idol.
So, "Joker" himself is a psychopathic character, but Arthur wasn't. He was just a bit sick, not mentally though. But, at the end of the movie we got a real psychopath who probably suffered some kind of abuse in the past, but eventually was inspired by "Joker" personality of Arthur. After killing him, he cuts his mouth (like Hith Ledger's version). But anyways, probably we will have him as real Joker psychopath and villain in future movies.
Bro you have actually no idea og what you are talking about😂. The first movie actually told us bout the traumatic past of Arthur and his sick relationship with his mother. Which in psychiatry and psychopath is often a common issue!
@@felomleron.ml101 that’s right
@ladzerty he's actually spot on and YOU unfortunately don't know what you're talking about 😅
But did you see the deleted scene of the Batman(2022) where he meets joker he was same as this joker
@@MainHinduHun That's the only way they would be able to tie it in to The Batman, which, while a tad corny, sounds like something WB would do.
Omg how did I not see him cutting the smile at the end !!!!!! I was too busy being so sad about Arthur!!! Omfg that's brilliant
The lesson here is never give Todd Phillips money, especially for sequels.
Tbh after this hes right theres no joker because the fact that lee is actully not insane and willingly put her self in arkham says alot
I don’t get why people hate this movie. Maybe not for everyone but, the way I see this movie is, it’s the perspective of a mentally unstable person, hence all the songs. The musical didn’t changed the way I perceive joker as I did from the first one. This movie makes me more sad, feel empathetic towards him. The acting from Joaquin was phenomenal. Maybe that’s an understatement. Gagas lip was taking me out of the whole experience but other than that, it’s a really good movie
@@apollovishwas9349 nah, really bad movie, doesn't add or improve to the first one, doesn't have a captivating concept. Overall a disappointment
@@s4mus837I would argue that the concept of reality hitting someone who lived in fantasy (when the reverse was true) after the events of the first movie is captivating. I’ll give you credit that I think the first is better but I think this movie did have something to say and did a pretty good job at it.
You are copping bad. This movie is bad
@@ehbebakaCould you elaborate?
Getting my popcorn ready to scroll down the comment section. 🍿
There the first movie is like a steak,, that's getting ready for BBQ. Well seasoned, charcoils are ready.... just for Folie à Deux to dip it into a bucket a cake glaze, throw it into the steamer, chop it down to small pieces and go: "Bon appetit!".
Or in how the kids say now: you cooked. And not in a good way. Complete, identity-less, unneeded mess.
COOKED!!
The movie was great, if you get the movie, you know Joker is an Idea, an idea that can be picked up by anyone, and as you live along the lines of that idea, anyone can be a Joker, and since an idea is immortal, Joker is immortal. Only the person changes but the idea remains the same.
It’s ambiguity that made the first movie successful about Joker. The audience decided their ending and put you in Joker’s madness on what was true or not. Then the second one took that magic away and explained you wasted your time with that magic. The Joker character was then alluded to became an unoriginal product of the original Joker, creating an anti-climatic origin story. Secondly, Arthur’s new persona that was solidified in Joker was also deteriorated. Causing the original build-up as pointless.
That was the point the audience is basically Harley who rejected Arthur for being him and only wanted the joker
@@Username-ei4ff maybe Arthur wasn't actually killed, maybe the killing was in his head, maybe his "Joker" persona cerebrally killed his "Arthur" persona altogether.
Of course it would be pointless, he’s mentally impaired and practically disabled, he could never become a criminal mastermind and people only have themselves to blame for not seeing that.
@@gauthierkasongo180the whole point of the first film is that Arthur is The Joker he embraces the new identity that gives him everything he's wanted hes finally himself he literally stats this multiple times in the first film
@@commanderjor4043 well that’s the point of the second movie. He never wanted to become the joker. As the trial goes on he hurts puddles and his lawyer the only two people who genially cared for him. The night before the sentencing an inmate that loved his joker persona his killed for being a blind supporter. He rejects the joker and just wants to be Arthur he doesn’t like chaos or what it means to the innocent he was just a broken man that wanted to be loved
Harley IS NOT REAL. She more than likely is a therapist he was see’ing , as stated by his lawyer. Anytime there’s a cigarette in the scene, it’s not real. It’s him making it up in his head.
fan theory?
I’m usually not one of those that says “movies need happy endings” but this one could’ve maybe used one 😅
That was the happy ending for him
Hate to break it to everyone here but the person who killed Arthur was Arthur himself. It was another one of his delusions where his entire personality was confused between being the joker or Arthur, when The Joker finally took over him, he killed the Arthur within. The Arthur who had a mother and a bad past had died all that remained was the psychotic Joker.
Exactly
Except that dude has a physical cell and you see him in the background throughout the whole movie, idolizing Arthur, until the very end when Arthur drops the facade and he was face to face with another who never stopped believing in the facade and wants it to be real.
Bruce Wayne is only a man, but Batman is an Idea; he's larger than life and can do what others can't. The power is in the idea.
Arthur Fleck is only a man, but The Joker is an Idea; he's larger than life, and can do what others can't. The power is in the idea.
@@PunishedBrak tbh I’ven’t even seen the movie, it was just a speculation from all the comments. But if it indeed turns out the way you say, then the idea of a Joker movie leading to build up of a legendary character is utterly stupid. Because people follow originality, and this whole thing says that the idea of joker wasn’t original in itself but a second hand thought is simply destroying a character.
@@PunishedBrak Then again that woman being in a romantic relationship with Arthur was a delusion/illusion too lol
@@AedanBlackheart In all of his "delusions" of her, she never speaks.
The only time she speaks is when it's really her.
Same can be said with this guy. Sure, Arthur might have hallucinated seeing him; but he's definitely there at the end of the movie.
It follows the same logic as the girl from the first film if that's the way you look at it.
So its the prequel of the Joker's actual origin story. Of a man who is an actual clown with a laughing condition, who is also a murdering psychopath, that inspires the real joker. The jokes on us.
Yeah, Joker should have been a standalone movie.
The guy who killed Arthur was the split personality of the Joker. Arthur Fleck was diagnosed with Dissociative Identity Disorder. His Joker persona killed off his Arthur persona because it deemed it too weak and unworthy.
Then, that should have been shown in a dream or hallucination scene, followed by a prison break!
“Don’t hate what you don’t understand!” ~ John Lennon
Ironic he got shot and his woman did nothing to help.
Pretty cut and dry ending that didn't need "explaining".
@@Psyclonus7 it did because there are very few people I’ve seen that actually get it. I’ve seen it explained as “the real joker killed Arthur so Arthur isn’t even the joker” or “it makes a connection to Heath ledger’s joker” which are both wrong. The joker is an ideology, as well as a character. These movies were about the origin of the joker as an ideology, Arthur was still the joker, there’s simply now a new one and he’s not heath ledger, that would be dumb.
@@Travisaurus
While there is an ideology, there’s also Batman’s nemesis of which the title is much more known for, and the guy that killed Arther reflects him too closely to argue that the ending isn’t the real Joker killing Arther. Joker can be both an ideology and a character, culturally he’s much more known for being Batman’s intellectual rival. It’s not a disappointment that Arther wasn’t the real Joker because his mental impairment was practically disabling so it never made any sense for him to be Batman’s intellectual equal. The guy that killed Arther though showed all the qualities of Batman’s Joker in just seconds. Thematically you can say it’s about the ideology, plot wise it’s about the real Joker.
Tired of people who said Joker 2 was a bad movie because they didn't get it. The movie is well made and a lot of thoughts went into the production.
@@zombiezone2010 It's one of the worst sequels I've ever seen.
@@zombiezone2010It's a decent movie, a horrible sequel, and an unnecessary extension of what we already knew and were shown from the first one; That Arthur is not Batmans "Joker", but rather the origin for a kind of archetypical persona that says "Do what you will"; we see Bruces parents shot by someone wearing a clown mask, and given the age differences EVEN THEN, this is also not very likely to be Batmans "Joker", further demonstrating that the idea and "Character", in-universe, is loosely defined and can be worn like a mask by many different people, also harkening back to Jokers own "multiple choice" origin story he tells in Killing Joke.
It's all essentially an homage to the comics, not an adaptation, and for some reason people can't see that.
People salty because they all found themselves in joker, only to realize maybe they are just regular people...like arthur. And not the real.joker, who is a psychopath. Which these "fans" are not, nore anywhere close lol
@@TheRealChrissCarver that makes sense
that hilarious
Don't test how far some will go to test that theory lol.
The movie is just trash bro.
Yall are slow. Arthur is the pioneer of Joker. Joker is an idea or a title not a person. Harley is a groupie for the ideology. The guy who kills Arthur in the movie wants the title of the Joker
Bruce Wayne is only a Man; but, Batman is an Idea; He's larger than life and can do what others can't.
Arthur Fleck is only a Man; but, The Joker is an Idea; He's larger than life and can do what others can't.
@@PunishedBrak What other Batmans are there other than Bruce Wayne?
@@rozeriley6548 Really?
Dick Grayson.
Azrael aka Jean Paul Valley.
Gordon.
Damian Wayne.
Cassandra Cain.
Thomas Wayne (alternate universe but I'll take it, wasn't his idea)
Jason Todd. (Battle for the Cowl)
Terry McGinnis (The "future" of Batman Beyond)
Did you never watch Batman Begins? I'm quoting Alfred when he's discussing using Fear as a weapon against criminals with Bruce.
The Idea can do what no "ordinary" human can, the concept that Batman, as an Idea, can achieve that which seems to be impossible for us with names; the same applies to the Joker.
It's called "The Mantle of the Bat" for a reason; lots of people other than Bruce have been "Batman".
Arthur was laying down the same way he was when he gets beat down by those kids in the 1st one before the title card pops up
It’s a super villain origin story. It’s focused on Arthur because this is how Arthur dies. Joker is going to be the one who rises with no “good” side.
He wasn’t looking to make a movie about The Clown Prince of Crime aka THE Joker? So why even call it Joker in the first place? And build Arthur up as the same character, aka, an emotionally broken, insane man who gets beaten down by everyone and eventually snaps and starts dressing like a clown and killing people? At that point it’s not even The Joker, it’s just Arthur Fleck. Building him up to inspire someone else to become THE Joker is just stupid and contradicts that first movie. It doesn’t make any sense.
@@jak3y3 he didn’t build him like joker he built the movement
Go watch the movie again. Hint: it's about the idea of Joker.
No..... Its like fight club.
He says he is not the joker. She leaves him. He has a visitor (her) he kills the version of himself she didn't want. He cuts himself and creates the version of joker we all know.
@@NickyDoyle yeah, something tells me although the movie was bad and the director only made this to make a statement, maybe he cuts his own mouth killing "Arthur" which means he's there to stay, scars don't heal and are forever, instead of using his temporary makeup.
They would’ve used Joaquin to play both then if that was the case.
@@jayhosh8126 we literally see another inmate killing Fleck on screen.
Wrong Fleck never was and never will be the fully-fledged Joker, we presumably see the real Joker killing Fleck at the end.
Lost all interest with the route the sequel has decided to do. It's not Joker anymore.
It wasn't ever joker let's be honest.
It just wasn’t the Joker you wanted it to be. Was Arthur’s Joker really going to fight Batman? No lol
@@quokons fr Bruce was a kid in the first movie no way they wanted Arthur to be his joker
@@quokons Still sucked and was a movie that did not need to be made.
Joker is a persona he is a version of joker not the real one he the one that brought the real joker out
The ending you can see the dude who killed Arthur cutting his mouth he is the real joker it’s not that hard to understand
Yeah but hella stupid
Yeah but if they’re hinting at that being the origin of Heath Ledger’s Joker, then that’s incredibly insulting.
Even after the first one, they were saying Arthur isn't the real joker.
@@jak3y3 true very true
but he doesn´t look like the joker at all
We ARE taking a trip through jokers mimd.
It was incredible and profound, much more than a thinly plotted superhero movie.
Great ending. Arthur was a wimp. To influence the real Joker makes more sense. When he embodied the Joker at the end of the first film he gave birth to the character but he let it go the moment he felt guilt over the trauma he caused Puddle---as he wasnt a psycopath but a depressed victim who cracked. The last joke, or "the killing joke", is what happens when a psycopath talks to a clown and we meet the person who takes on the Joker mantle who fits the personality of the Joker we all know. Harley and the people who believe in the idea of the Joker then follow him. It works. People are just too emotionally invested in Arthur who never fit as the Clown Prince of Crime
If we are to believe that Fleck is not the real Joker, then this film completely RUINS two major characters in it... Harvey Dent and Harley Quinn.
Harvey Dent gets half his face disfigured at the end of Joker 2. Meaning that he becomes Two Face while Bruce Wayne is still a child. In Dark Knight, Harvey Dent becomes Two Face while Bruce Wayne is already a grown Batman. That nonsense they pulled in Joker 2 just doesn't jive.
Harley Quinn is supposed to be the girlfriend of the ACTUAL Joker. Not the girlfriend of some weirdo named Arthur Fleck who is NOT the Joker.
Cristopher Nolan literally said not to do a face carving scene, BECAUSE THIS JOKER IS NOT HIS JOKER.
This movie ruined that.
Not every single good movie needs to be part of a massive franchise.
So the guy who killed arthur is the ACTUAL joker
Joker became a symbol and mantle just like Batman. 2 halves to the same coin. Sometimes Batman creates joker sometimes joker creates Batman.
The hyperbole over how "bad" this film is was out of control - especially from comic nerds who desperately need to look up from their pages (and I'm a lifelong reader of the format, but have a life outside of those books). The film was a very interesting outro to the first film, and I did love the musical numbers (I mean, there could have been a few less). I'd rather interesting swings taken at well-trodden material, than to have cookie cutter shit spewed out lock-step in a calendar like Marvel does.
What did I think? That from the start it was real and grounded. All these people saying "it's bad, he should've became the joker and got with harley" don't really get the point. He is a broken man not a super villain. He was bound to get caught seeing as he wasn't a criminal mastermind like the comic joker. His fate was just like the fate of the 3 Wallstreet boys in the first movie. Realistic and probably what would've happened in real life. All the haters are children that want some colorful marvel movie where everything goes the main characters way. 🤷♀️
shut up nerd
The only way this would be a little bit cool is if the one that killed him was the same joker who physically killed Bruce’s parents, so I’m just gonna pretend that’s it
the one who killed athur fleck at last, is the real jokers
"You blew it!" - Billy Madison
Arthur eases his hallucination by turning into music after he had met Harley and it is part of the cure. This sequel is different from the Joker 1 that is the reason that makes Joker fans disappointed and it is even more disappointing at the end of the movie, even Harley feels bad to Joker in the movie too. This should be called "Folie à l'une" instead of "deux".
Anyway, Harley acts so well in the movie which might lead to part 3 of her journey. This movie is a good one, not bad at all.
The joke of the Joker is that he wasn't aspiring to anything, he was just molded by his environment, just like Luigi became Luigi.
Such a perplexing film. At face value it’s awful and an insult to the source material, but from an artistic perspective, it’s really clever and well crafted.
This!
Exactly. People who can seperate The Joker from the comics clearly enjoy it more than most people who come with expectations of the Mark Hamill Joker.
I actually think its all a pretty decent idea that there could have been someone who inspired the joker and that Arthur dies at the end by his hand, killed by his own creation which had gotten out of control and he himself had shunned. The execution (plotting, pacing, settup, payoff) was just so bad though, and the songs/singing was a total misfire
Best constructed opinion and not snobbish; def like this comment.
People getting mad that it wasnt really THE joker literally fall into what the movie was tryibg to say, nobody (including the audience) cares about Arthur. Like all his supporters they only want joker
She doesn't actually say goodbye, she sings. And thinking into the lyrics of that last song, was is that she was lying about it all? Or not
Todd Phillips really killed his own career to "own the chuds"
The King of Comedy was already done in the 80s
Cameron monaghan to, Joaquin Phoenix: First time? (IYKYK)
Todd Phillips created a legend in the joker 1 and destroyed it in joker 2
They really fumbled the bag with this one 😢
The trailer alone should've let you guys know that this was gonna be a disappointment
@@Young_Dabexactly but ppl were blindly hyped about it
It was a good movie but not as great as the first.
Arthur killed 5 ppl(3 Wall Street men, Randal and Murray) his mom is number 6. So what happen in the ending of part 1? So he didn’t kill the therapist? Cuz he walked out leaving blood prints down the hallway.
Masterpiece film. Everyone is trending in on the hate
Agree.
Good wouldn't call it a masterpiece
honestly one of the better depictions of ego, the true nature of self, and celebrity worship I've seen in modern media. people have tunnel vision though and expect everything to have predictable happy endings. they literally malfunction when given a dose of nihilism.
@hoordeyah Wow, that's a really great take on this film and the general audience. 🙂
Those scenes where he fires his lawyer then represents himself are incredible!
@@DanFarrell98 the only worthwhile scenes
Excellent sequel, and completely different, and daring. Really good
He is the Joker. The whole film takes place in his head while he watches the Peepe la pew cartoon. The long sleeved sweater he is wearing is a straight jacket. He wears this when he is killed and when he is chained up outside laughing in the rain.
What this movie should've been was Joker and Harley Quinn wrecking havoc in Gotham
That would of been a cool idea for a third film if the ending and direction of the second was different. Like Harley orders the 2 guys to blowup the courthouse and they both run off etc.
Yeah! And it should have Batman, Catwoman, Bane, the Penguin, Poison Ivy, and Mr. Freeze! More capeshit!
In other words fanservice bs that we have seen million of times in the comics. boooooring
@@ThatGuy-vf1wj that's your opinion "art is subjective" ring any bells?
U can see the guy who kills Arthur watching him every day like he was studying his character but very quiet and un noticed
Didn’t need a sequel
If you hated this movie or were disappointed your just projecting your expectations onto the filmmakers vision.
The joker isn't the joker without his Batman
He isn't "The Joker", he is "Joker". The one killing Arthur, is The Joker.
@@mounir1064 joker isn't joker. I'm not joking..
What a way to kill everything unique and amazing about the first movie. Nice work Todd
Why in the world would they kill him off that was the biggest mistake. Hopefully the 3rd one he escapes from the hospital. Who knows
that’s what i’m saying… hopefully he lives, the joker is not a role that can be recasted quickly, and wether the meant it or not, they gave Joaquin THE joker role, he was the joker, and they killed him for some bs
@@AnimalTree215 literally when he was joker in the scene with Gary it was the best part of the movie
because he is arthur fleck, not the Joker, Arthur Fleck's story was complete by the end of the movie. The true Joker that will go on to fight Batman is presumably the psychopath who murdered Fleck and then carved a smile onto his own face.
@@tomfallon8930 what he's saying is that he liked the Arthur character and wanted to see him succeed and not get brutally stabbed and die like a dog because honestly he deserved better.
Ok imagine if the scene where Arthur was killed was just his Joker persona taking over and killing his Arthur persona. Thus the only thing that remains is Joker. And not Arthur.
Think like two face, except that the evil personality murdered the good personality. Thus only one face remaining, the evil one.
Except it's physically another inmate, with another cell, who we see throughout the movie seemingly idolizing Arthur. Watch it again.
The Folly of 2 is Arthur and Joker. The INSTANT Arthur begins to drop the facade at the end of the movie, the other person can't take it anymore, like Arleen couldn't take it anymore; Arthur is shattering his world, their shared delusion, and so, he does what he has to to maintain the delusion of "The Joker", if not only for himself.
Others, like Harley, who sincerely believed in the character being this larger than life criminal will have their delusions reaffirmed seeing Arthur dead, will stop caring about "who" the Joker is, and only care that "The Joker" is still alive.
First movie could be somehow connected to the character... Folie a deux is simply not joker... very disappointing
it's not supposed to be The Joker, it's a film about arthur fleck..
7:13 Arthur in that scene said "Is it quick?" because he was in a hurry and was always considerant. He didn't say "Well yeah okay, of course." His hope was the visitor, not the kid that was approaching him with a joke.
People’s dislike for this movie reminds me of the hate Halloween Ends gets. That being that there is a love for the original inspiration so much so that there is an attachment to what they think and more to the point demand what follows should be. They instead get something that doesn’t fulfill their expectations be it by hard truths, different perspectives, deeper meanings that end up taking them out of the enjoyment of an easy journey and experience.
Seeing Arther dead did bum me out, not that I see him as a hero, maybe because the blurred lines of hero’s and villains or our own inner dark side and good side can possibly get thrown off in the face of abuse and injustice.
first was better, regardless of the goal, it was sad ending. Hope he isn't dead.
Hes not, this movie is based before because he doesn’t even know Harley Quinn that much
How is death sad when he got what he wanted. Everyone he loved lies to him including his mother and Harley so he deserves nothing but peace after his killings.
@@Implosion-Gaming Getting stabbed in the gut over and over with a "shank" has got to be one hell of a painful death and in no way would ANYONE find it peaceful or being "at peace" lol
It was a nice love fantasy to space off into with a harsh reality setting in at the end.
As a long time Batman fan with my last name being Gotham. I really love this Joker prequel and I think it says a lot about our society and how people are treated. This back story of the Joker makes more sense than anything else written. I'm also glad Batman isn't just beating up someone who has suffered so much.
They should made him rise as Joker and rule Gotham with harley quinn (fight the evil rich people and the bad cops) until he fights his depression together with Robert Pattinson - Batman
The one killing arthur was The Joker.
i mean it makes sense that Arthur isn’t the Joker that Batman fights, he’s at least in his mid 40s when bryce’s parents are killed
What a bunch of BS. Arthur was clearly meant to be the one and only Joker. That Philip’s took that away from him, demonized the audience that liked the first film, and had him die a pathetic shell of himself, as he was at the beginning of the first film, is a sign that he really didn’t want to handle the character, or know what to do with the character going forward.
ThatWB even approved this script goes to show that WB under Zaslav and the DCU under Gunn is going to fall apart going forward.
How is Arthur "clearly" meant to be The Joker? Bruce Wayne is a child in this iteration. When he becomes Batman, Arthur Fleck will be well in his 70's. This movie is great, give it time.
@@ThatGuy-vf1wj I knew he wasn't going to be "the joker" in the first film but they could've done better with this one; just ended it as a standalone film. Grossly overpriced "art".
So the Arthur's joker is just one of The joker's made op story of how he got these scars.
Director/script mistake. Joakin desirves an oscar for how he plays. Director and script let down the movie. Such a waste of good actors
Todd Phillips just wiped his balls on all of our collective curtains.
He not only destroyed whatever goodwill he has with the public, but he took Phoenix and Gaga with him.
So Joker 2 ties in with the Dark Knight! Connor Storrie - Young Inmate kills Arthur becoming Ledger's Joker. It's clear in the timeline of Bruce Wayne that a younger Joker is born.. This is great.
@@jboy2621 except it's not because in the dark knight harvey dents face gets burnt differently, not the same universe
Heath Ledgers Joker got his face cut by his dad when he was a child. He did not do it himself as an adult.
@@AkiTerrythat Joker is a liar, he always keeps making up stories on how he got the scars.
@@thelonelysponge5029 okeydoekey, time for a re-watch 😂 thanks for clearing it up though 🤗
Stop, get some help.
"Folly ah dooh"
The French: 👺👺👺👺👺👺🤬
Arthur : folie a deux