Thank you so much for your review. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. It's poetic and tragic. Obviously It has flaws, but there are so many great elements in it. Arthur's journey is a cautionary tale. It's brutal and realistic. He accidently created something bigger than him. But in the end he chose his humanity, took responsibility for his actions and rejected a fantasy.
I loved this film, I thought it was a great sequel that expanded on the first and closed the story. I feel like during the musical numbers we explore Arthur's mind, especially during the delusions. I think the reason why so many people dislike it is because they were expecting to see the comic book version of the duo. It should have been learned during the first movie that these aren't comic book movies and are set in a different universe. I really hope it makes it to the Oscars but reviews aren't looking good. I guess a lot of people went into this movie with their own vision of how they wanted it to go.
They just did what audience didn't want, but also it feels like the sequel is the most realistic continuation and true to the character of Arthur. He could never be a comicbook prince of crime, and when at the end he says that he is basically fed up with the act, people walk away from him, and this is a mirror to the audience, because after watching the first movie and entirety of the second one, learning who Arthur is, they still wanted him to be THE Joker, after all of what is shown and knowing that he puts on Joker as a mental armor, they still don't care for him and only want a theme park of carnage and killing as THE Joker. I'm not a big fan of this direction of the sequel maybe, and also i think he shouldn've been singing but he should've been only dancing, singing ruins the style of his joker, takes away all the chilly mistery, but this is still the most realistic continuation. If in the sequel they'd establish him as a typical Joker, it wouldn't make sense, Arthur as a person can't carry this out. As much as people hate on it right now, some will come to understand that this is a true portrayal of him as a person, he can't be something you want him to be.
i left the theater, feeling totally defeated, so i guess the movie did its job. im taking a shot of addressing the problems, ive had with it, since this feeling of utter defeat is heavily boosted, by the backlash, it received. to address it, ill dive into SPOILERS!!!!! this film was frustrating, its definitely flawed and the way the musical aspects are woven into the narrative, makes said narrative stops dead in its tracks, every time the musical fantasy becomes more elaborate- and by design, it will be jarring, theres a contrast, especially in the last act, that reinforces said effect. with all that out of the way, i will say, that this movie emotionally affected me, far more, than the first one ever did and i was on board, with that one, empathizing with arthur, every step of the way. this movie deconstructs most of the first film, in some very frustrating ways- my main issues were, as follows 1. if youre going the route of integrating musical elements and portraying it as an elaborate fantasy, i think its a missed opportunity, to write original music, for your characters, especially when your composer previously won an oscar. i got why they chose to go with old fashioned american songbook tunes and imo it works half of the time, but theres definitely some instances, of the song not furthering the narrative, or stopping it dead in its tracks. they couldve cut about 4 songs out of the movie and it wouldve benefited the flow. 2. while on the subject of cut material, its clear from the trailers alone, that portions of the film were cut, especially regarding lee- gaga does good, with what shes given, but i cant help but feel, that she was originally a more rounded character (a pun on her clearly having a baby bump, in one of the cut scenes), but that she got sidelined, because this is ultimately arthurs story and they didnt want to lose sight of that fact. 3. it being arthurs story is an exact mirror image of the first films narrative- where youre led to believe, that the first ends with arthur transforming into the joker, this film is about his letting go, of this construct, letting go of the fantasy. you can argue the point, since a good bit of the first one was only playing out in his head, that it should have been more of a struggle, for him, to let go, of his persona. 4. the way hes quite literally forced, to let go of the joker persona, is frankly tasteless. the heavily implied rape from the guards seemed like an overreaction, to what was merely an unspecified name drop, in the courtroom- what seems to break him, is that they kill his only friend and this, in combination with garys testimony, finally makes him realize, the kind of impact hes had. while i appreciated, that it showed arthur still had some empathy left, (despite the state psychiatrist claiming, one of his psychological issues, being a lack of such), it felt like a quick, brutal solution, that i feel couldve been achieved more organically, in court. 5. while on the court topic, i will say that harvey dent seemed like a caricature, of a smug lawyer- its yet another missed opportunity, to have dent be the one, to make the case against arthurs dual identity, when harvey dent traditionally has his own struggles, with said diagnosis, arguably to a much heavier degree. one can make the case, that after this case and him being minimally disfigured, by the bomb going off, said events may influence his stance, on duality, further down the road, also furthering the theme of arthurs influence, on people. as it stands, hes just this smug guy, who seems to think the courtroom is his audition, for a modelling gig. 6. addendum to the courtroom scenes- i realize, im probably very much in the minority, but i actually appreciated, that some of the events of the first movie were clarified. i never was a fan of the read, that the whole first movie might have been in his head, a theory, heavily argued for, by a majority, as being the joke, that arthur replies to, with you wouldnt get it. getting that isnt clever, it was always dumb, because it not only destroys any purpose for a narrative, it also goes against the idea, of empathizing with arthur, which was my big takeaway, of both movies. i will also say, that for the attentive viewer, theres quite a few examples, when it can be seen, that arthur is imagining things, which purposefully have been edited- one example of that, comes in the very beginning of the movie, during the bus scene, with the kid. when the camera pans back, after the argument with the kids mother, the kid isnt there anymore. i also never felt, that sophie and her kid surviving, was left ambigious, in the context of what weve come to know, about arthur. 7. last, but definitely not least, ill address the elephant in the room- the ending. it baffles me, how many people tried to tie this in, with heath ledgers joker, despite neither timelines, nor events, nor actors ages and appearances, line up with the nolan trilogy. while on the subject of the nolan trilogy, it had a pretty similar ending, to this one and i for one, found it way harder, to buy into the idea, of john robin blake taking up the bat-mantle, when comparing it, to the joker, as being this shadow, that will always be there, as an influence. it does make more sense to me, especially because the symbol of batman, is too specific to bruce, in my mind. while on the topic of bruce, i found it very interesting, that pretty much everyone from part 1, that survived, was brought back, except him. in retrospect, it does make the wayne family plot point of the first feel kind of tacked on, but i feel, it was done on purpose, to separate it further, from the source material. its not hard to understand, why many fans of comic book movies will feel, like theyre being pranked, but its a tragic prank, as written by arthur fleck. arthur fleck who? this point wouldve gone over better, if they didnt make harley closer to her source material, than expected, only to completely flip the dynamic, that joker and harley have, in said source material. everything gets turned on its head. so yes, its kind of a mess, on purpose and the decisions are often baffling, but for me at least, there was still genuine emotional investment and i knew, that this numbness, after leaving the theatre, was the point, not a clever, (like some have interpreted the ending of the first one), but a deeply emotionally resonant one. warts and all, this has genuinely touched me deeply, more than any film ive seen in the theatres, since the last one. arguing whats the point, is missing and proving said point- collectively we didnt care about arthur, we wanted to see joker. we wanted escapism and got something uncomfortably real and the contrast, in the fantastical musical numbers, made it land even heavier and ive felt anxious, every time the flick came to a grinding halt, when musical sequences faded to black and we got thrown back, into reality. as an audience weve been collectively taught, to expect certain things, from a franchise movie and this film, if nothing else, exists, to defy these expectations and i for one, cant help, but respect it, for that, while still understanding perfectly, why this wont go over well, for a lot of people. it has made me think and feel a lot, since i came out of the cinema- about the last 20 years and how these franchises have turned into the flogging of a dead horse, yet somehow, a flick like deadpool and wolverine taking up the mantle, of biggest R rated film off of joker, feels like a statement, about where we are, both artistically and collectively- easy sarcasm, cameos and even characters being reduced to memes- you contrast this with the honest sentiment, of an old timey song, sung slightly off key, but genuinely vulnerable, naked, stripped, like arthur was, of any pretense. and while i wont argue against todd phillips very own pretensions, the character of arthur fleck will stay with me and cast a shadow.
@@joshuatitanreviews youre very welcome, i mostly wrote it, thinking nobody is going to read all of it, but feeling the need to show some love, for the movie, given its reception- citing my perceived flaws above, was more a means, to express, what made this movie harder to appreciate- as far as pure emotional impact goes, id actually put it above the first one
@@lepersonnage371 i get that and got what they were going for, yet i felt gagas original song sequence, was a clear standout and i stand by the notion, that if you portray delusion through music, anything goes, but as a musician myself, im not unbiased, admittedly- it also didnt ruin the movie for me, some renditions really stood out for me, like the song the joker, during the court sequences, which id argue shows the most traditional joker, in both movies and if you go away, which he sings on the phone, to harley, really tugged at my heartstrings, true love will find you during the end credits felt almost rewarding, after the initial conflicted feelings, after the last sequence. as written elsewhere, ive come around, to a fair bit of the elements, that didnt land for me, previously, even though id still say, its flawed, but its perceived flaws, in part, make it also more endearing. just to clarify, all my criticisms were me trying to be objective, because despite them, i absolutely loved, what it did, though it wasnt easy to love, at first sight, i did have to ponder certain aspects and as so often, in love, my heart won out, over my buzzing skull
@@joshuatitanreviews id like to add a bit of context, to my previous statement- i wouldnt even necessarily take the story of the movie, at face value, the more i think about it, the more its open to interpretation, even more so, than the first. the sex scene, between arthur and harley for example....notice how arthur doesnt laugh? it can certainly be argued, that deep down, she knew he was playing him all along and that her response, to him calling her out, on having lied to him, is brushed away so easily (him coming up with excuses for her, in his mind?) and she immediately goes into song mode, after telling him shes pregnant (how much time has even passed, regardless of the manipulation, to take that info, at face value?)- and if you want to believe, that she didnt kill herself, she basically confirms, that there never was a baby, or a future for them, when she matter of factly tells him, all they had was a fantasy and they were going nowhere- and while she gets acknowledged by mary anne, the lawyer and by paddy, the interviewer, when crashing the window, casually walking away and one time by a guard, telling her to keep her hands off arthur (after a possible, but improbable sex scene, mind you), theres also stretches, like in her introduction scene(s), where no one else acknowledges harley- i dont think it was quite as an extreme version, or repeat of the sophie relationship, but she did get him to quit his medication (though admittedly after her introduction, but he acknowledges as much, before the sex scene)
About the ending i do have a theory so here it is: I think Arthur is not the real joker that we think. That's why we had a very young Bruce Wayne in the first one to show that he is way too old to ever fight Batman in the future. This movie is called Joker but not The Joker so Joker in this movies is more of an inspiration/idea of the next inherit Joker. But that's just my theory about it if its accurate. 🤔
Yeah I couldn't get into here but I think kinda the same. The guy that killed him was an admirer and the shadow of Joker goes to him after Arthur rejects it
As a life long comic book fan I was pretty offended by the first one. You can change a lot about a character and the world they are in to have a different version of a character but you can't completely rewrite their character traits. That wasn't The Joker. The Joker isn't a whiny incel. Also, it really plays out like a pleb trying to make an artsy film. It pretty much rips off King of Comedy and Taxi Driver for it's entire meaning, tone, and most of it's themes. I can't imagine this one is going to be any better.
@JefferyCharlesNighswander hey that's fair, the more I rewatch the first one, the more I don't like it as much. I also agree when I watched it, I never saw Arthur as the Joker, he just took up a mantle that the public perceived
Thank you so much for your review. The more I think about this movie, the more I like it. It's poetic and tragic. Obviously It has flaws, but there are so many great elements in it. Arthur's journey is a cautionary tale. It's brutal and realistic. He accidently created something bigger than him. But in the end he chose his humanity, took responsibility for his actions and rejected a fantasy.
I loved this film, I thought it was a great sequel that expanded on the first and closed the story. I feel like during the musical numbers we explore Arthur's mind, especially during the delusions. I think the reason why so many people dislike it is because they were expecting to see the comic book version of the duo. It should have been learned during the first movie that these aren't comic book movies and are set in a different universe. I really hope it makes it to the Oscars but reviews aren't looking good. I guess a lot of people went into this movie with their own vision of how they wanted it to go.
@@Helena-vg2ii Exactly you get it, it's all in Arthur's mind, even being joker is just a shadow of him! Thanks for watching! :)
They just did what audience didn't want, but also it feels like the sequel is the most realistic continuation and true to the character of Arthur. He could never be a comicbook prince of crime, and when at the end he says that he is basically fed up with the act, people walk away from him, and this is a mirror to the audience, because after watching the first movie and entirety of the second one, learning who Arthur is, they still wanted him to be THE Joker, after all of what is shown and knowing that he puts on Joker as a mental armor, they still don't care for him and only want a theme park of carnage and killing as THE Joker. I'm not a big fan of this direction of the sequel maybe, and also i think he shouldn've been singing but he should've been only dancing, singing ruins the style of his joker, takes away all the chilly mistery, but this is still the most realistic continuation. If in the sequel they'd establish him as a typical Joker, it wouldn't make sense, Arthur as a person can't carry this out. As much as people hate on it right now, some will come to understand that this is a true portrayal of him as a person, he can't be something you want him to be.
Great review! While I disagree with the 9/10 rating, I agree with the points you made.
hey that's awesome, I actually like how this movie is sparking conversation rather than being generic. Thanks for watching!
i left the theater, feeling totally defeated, so i guess the movie did its job. im taking a shot of addressing the problems, ive had with it, since this feeling of utter defeat is heavily boosted, by the backlash, it received. to address it, ill dive into SPOILERS!!!!!
this film was frustrating, its definitely flawed and the way the musical aspects are woven into the narrative, makes said narrative stops dead in its tracks, every time the musical fantasy becomes more elaborate- and by design, it will be jarring, theres a contrast, especially in the last act, that reinforces said effect. with all that out of the way, i will say, that this movie emotionally affected me, far more, than the first one ever did and i was on board, with that one, empathizing with arthur, every step of the way.
this movie deconstructs most of the first film, in some very frustrating ways- my main issues were, as follows
1. if youre going the route of integrating musical elements and portraying it as an elaborate fantasy, i think its a missed opportunity, to write original music, for your characters, especially when your composer previously won an oscar. i got why they chose to go with old fashioned american songbook tunes and imo it works half of the time, but theres definitely some instances, of the song not furthering the narrative, or stopping it dead in its tracks. they couldve cut about 4 songs out of the movie and it wouldve benefited the flow.
2. while on the subject of cut material, its clear from the trailers alone, that portions of the film were cut, especially regarding lee- gaga does good, with what shes given, but i cant help but feel, that she was originally a more rounded character (a pun on her clearly having a baby bump, in one of the cut scenes), but that she got sidelined, because this is ultimately arthurs story and they didnt want to lose sight of that fact.
3. it being arthurs story is an exact mirror image of the first films narrative- where youre led to believe, that the first ends with arthur transforming into the joker, this film is about his letting go, of this construct, letting go of the fantasy. you can argue the point, since a good bit of the first one was only playing out in his head, that it should have been more of a struggle, for him, to let go, of his persona.
4. the way hes quite literally forced, to let go of the joker persona, is frankly tasteless. the heavily implied rape from the guards seemed like an overreaction, to what was merely an unspecified name drop, in the courtroom- what seems to break him, is that they kill his only friend and this, in combination with garys testimony, finally makes him realize, the kind of impact hes had. while i appreciated, that it showed arthur still had some empathy left, (despite the state psychiatrist claiming, one of his psychological issues, being a lack of such), it felt like a quick, brutal solution, that i feel couldve been achieved more organically, in court.
5. while on the court topic, i will say that harvey dent seemed like a caricature, of a smug lawyer- its yet another missed opportunity, to have dent be the one, to make the case against arthurs dual identity, when harvey dent traditionally has his own struggles, with said diagnosis, arguably to a much heavier degree. one can make the case, that after this case and him being minimally disfigured, by the bomb going off, said events may influence his stance, on duality, further down the road, also furthering the theme of arthurs influence, on people. as it stands, hes just this smug guy, who seems to think the courtroom is his audition, for a modelling gig.
6. addendum to the courtroom scenes- i realize, im probably very much in the minority, but i actually appreciated, that some of the events of the first movie were clarified. i never was a fan of the read, that the whole first movie might have been in his head, a theory, heavily argued for, by a majority, as being the joke, that arthur replies to, with you wouldnt get it. getting that isnt clever, it was always dumb, because it not only destroys any purpose for a narrative, it also goes against the idea, of empathizing with arthur, which was my big takeaway, of both movies. i will also say, that for the attentive viewer, theres quite a few examples, when it can be seen, that arthur is imagining things, which purposefully have been edited- one example of that, comes in the very beginning of the movie, during the bus scene, with the kid. when the camera pans back, after the argument with the kids mother, the kid isnt there anymore. i also never felt, that sophie and her kid surviving, was left ambigious, in the context of what weve come to know, about arthur.
7. last, but definitely not least, ill address the elephant in the room- the ending. it baffles me, how many people tried to tie this in, with heath ledgers joker, despite neither timelines, nor events, nor actors ages and appearances, line up with the nolan trilogy. while on the subject of the nolan trilogy, it had a pretty similar ending, to this one and i for one, found it way harder, to buy into the idea, of john robin blake taking up the bat-mantle, when comparing it, to the joker, as being this shadow, that will always be there, as an influence. it does make more sense to me, especially because the symbol of batman, is too specific to bruce, in my mind. while on the topic of bruce, i found it very interesting, that pretty much everyone from part 1, that survived, was brought back, except him. in retrospect, it does make the wayne family plot point of the first feel kind of tacked on, but i feel, it was done on purpose, to separate it further, from the source material. its not hard to understand, why many fans of comic book movies will feel, like theyre being pranked, but its a tragic prank, as written by arthur fleck. arthur fleck who? this point wouldve gone over better, if they didnt make harley closer to her source material, than expected, only to completely flip the dynamic, that joker and harley have, in said source material. everything gets turned on its head. so yes, its kind of a mess, on purpose and the decisions are often baffling, but for me at least, there was still genuine emotional investment and i knew, that this numbness, after leaving the theatre, was the point, not a clever, (like some have interpreted the ending of the first one), but a deeply emotionally resonant one.
warts and all, this has genuinely touched me deeply, more than any film ive seen in the theatres, since the last one. arguing whats the point, is missing and proving said point- collectively we didnt care about arthur, we wanted to see joker. we wanted escapism and got something uncomfortably real and the contrast, in the fantastical musical numbers, made it land even heavier and ive felt anxious, every time the flick came to a grinding halt, when musical sequences faded to black and we got thrown back, into reality. as an audience weve been collectively taught, to expect certain things, from a franchise movie and this film, if nothing else, exists, to defy these expectations and i for one, cant help, but respect it, for that, while still understanding perfectly, why this wont go over well, for a lot of people. it has made me think and feel a lot, since i came out of the cinema- about the last 20 years and how these franchises have turned into the flogging of a dead horse, yet somehow, a flick like deadpool and wolverine taking up the mantle, of biggest R rated film off of joker, feels like a statement, about where we are, both artistically and collectively- easy sarcasm, cameos and even characters being reduced to memes- you contrast this with the honest sentiment, of an old timey song, sung slightly off key, but genuinely vulnerable, naked, stripped, like arthur was, of any pretense. and while i wont argue against todd phillips very own pretensions, the character of arthur fleck will stay with me and cast a shadow.
@fabianhammer2864 Thanks for writing this Deep analysis, even though we disagree in spots, I enjoyed the read and all of your thoughts!
@@joshuatitanreviews youre very welcome, i mostly wrote it, thinking nobody is going to read all of it, but feeling the need to show some love, for the movie, given its reception- citing my perceived flaws above, was more a means, to express, what made this movie harder to appreciate- as far as pure emotional impact goes, id actually put it above the first one
Since the musical parts are Arthur's fantasy it makes sense that he imagines them singing songs that he heard before and knows about though
@@lepersonnage371 i get that and got what they were going for, yet i felt gagas original song sequence, was a clear standout and i stand by the notion, that if you portray delusion through music, anything goes, but as a musician myself, im not unbiased, admittedly- it also didnt ruin the movie for me, some renditions really stood out for me, like the song the joker, during the court sequences, which id argue shows the most traditional joker, in both movies and if you go away, which he sings on the phone, to harley, really tugged at my heartstrings, true love will find you during the end credits felt almost rewarding, after the initial conflicted feelings, after the last sequence. as written elsewhere, ive come around, to a fair bit of the elements, that didnt land for me, previously, even though id still say, its flawed, but its perceived flaws, in part, make it also more endearing. just to clarify, all my criticisms were me trying to be objective, because despite them, i absolutely loved, what it did, though it wasnt easy to love, at first sight, i did have to ponder certain aspects and as so often, in love, my heart won out, over my buzzing skull
@@joshuatitanreviews id like to add a bit of context, to my previous statement- i wouldnt even necessarily take the story of the movie, at face value, the more i think about it, the more its open to interpretation, even more so, than the first. the sex scene, between arthur and harley for example....notice how arthur doesnt laugh? it can certainly be argued, that deep down, she knew he was playing him all along and that her response, to him calling her out, on having lied to him, is brushed away so easily (him coming up with excuses for her, in his mind?) and she immediately goes into song mode, after telling him shes pregnant (how much time has even passed, regardless of the manipulation, to take that info, at face value?)- and if you want to believe, that she didnt kill herself, she basically confirms, that there never was a baby, or a future for them, when she matter of factly tells him, all they had was a fantasy and they were going nowhere- and while she gets acknowledged by mary anne, the lawyer and by paddy, the interviewer, when crashing the window, casually walking away and one time by a guard, telling her to keep her hands off arthur (after a possible, but improbable sex scene, mind you), theres also stretches, like in her introduction scene(s), where no one else acknowledges harley- i dont think it was quite as an extreme version, or repeat of the sophie relationship, but she did get him to quit his medication (though admittedly after her introduction, but he acknowledges as much, before the sex scene)
About the ending i do have a theory so here it is: I think Arthur is not the real joker that we think. That's why we had a very young Bruce Wayne in the first one to show that he is way too old to ever fight Batman in the future. This movie is called Joker but not The Joker so Joker in this movies is more of an inspiration/idea of the next inherit Joker. But that's just my theory about it if its accurate. 🤔
Yeah I couldn't get into here but I think kinda the same. The guy that killed him was an admirer and the shadow of Joker goes to him after Arthur rejects it
This is not Joker . None of you even know who Joker is .
your right, his name is Arthur Fleck...
i loved it, it growing on me, it age like a fine wine to me.
Yes finally someone thats loves it like i do
@@zackthestrongest5683 happy to join the club!
It was CINEMA!
I liked it too!
What's your favorite DC movie?
Who the hell asked for a musical
@@ericswag8465 no one but at least it's a risk
no one had to ask for it. if relying on what audience wants everyone would just be doing the most mediocre and obvious stuff over and over again.
I agree with you, it is a spacial movie
true. Nowadays u arent allowed to say disabled anymore. Today disabled is called "special".
As a life long comic book fan I was pretty offended by the first one. You can change a lot about a character and the world they are in to have a different version of a character but you can't completely rewrite their character traits. That wasn't The Joker. The Joker isn't a whiny incel. Also, it really plays out like a pleb trying to make an artsy film. It pretty much rips off King of Comedy and Taxi Driver for it's entire meaning, tone, and most of it's themes. I can't imagine this one is going to be any better.
@JefferyCharlesNighswander hey that's fair, the more I rewatch the first one, the more I don't like it as much. I also agree when I watched it, I never saw Arthur as the Joker, he just took up a mantle that the public perceived
It's so misunderstood. It will gain a cult following in a few years.
@@lllggbbttqueueplusplus true