It's important to make up your own mind. Each to his own opinion and critical spirit. At least the film tries to innovate and change codes. That's good for cinema. The film isn't bad. You just have to understand it. As far as the musical is concerned, it's a logical and very coherent follow-up to The Joker. Already in the first film, dance and song are the character's therapy. So it's no problem to have a sequel based on dance and song, Arthur's way of escaping from this prison. It's very well written.
@@EliasH-o8j that’s fair and yeah, to each his own. But to see the character devolve back to where he was at the start of the first film and start over again at the beginning of the second film to not even build himself back up to where he was isn’t good character progression, in my opinion. I don’t think we had an issue with understanding the film, the execution, for us, just wasn’t there regardless of it being a musical or not. And since we, personally, don’t like how they answered “what happened to Arthur fleck after the first film” it was much better when we didn’t know. The ambiguous open-ended way the first film ended was much more impactful.
no 1 asked for it - but phillips did not like arthur flexk was considered to be a hero - so phiilips took responsibility and deconstructed him instead of box office gold - which was the easy way out ! it took guts to destroy a franchise
I can give him that, that is a bold move for sure financially and professionally, but I think I just have the issue with them answering the question “what happens next?” After that first film. The ambiguous ending of the first one was much better but now that we have the answer, it almost cheapens the first film.
it could have went the easy way and made him joker - but I don't he realized the society is right - fleck got taken out of context and started to represent the real world - example had an employee and wasn't having a good day and he told me - I feel like joker ! and when anyone says that it's not a good thing - and Phillips must have noticed that also -
@@MarcAubin-jo1bh yeah that’s a good point and I understand where he’s coming from if that was the intention, but from a story and character progression perspective, it just didn’t hit
I've just come out of the screening. And frankly, I loved the film. As I expected, I was right to make up my own mind and not listen to the critics. So clearly, if someone asks me if I liked the first film, I'm going to say ‘YES, it's great’. Whereas with the second, I'd say ‘It's a good film, BUT...’. I think that to appreciate the film you have to see it as a continuation of the first, on the character of Arthur. We're not going to see the Joker, but Arthur's story. You have to see it as a psychological film and let yourself be immersed in the atmosphere, in Joaquin Phoenix's superb acting, in the artistic side of the film. And not everyone is so sensitive to that. The film is different from a Joker film, but even more different from the first Joker film. And I think that's why most people were disappointed by the film... You have to admit that it's the main actor who carries the film, and just seeing him on screen again was brilliant, letting yourself be carried away by the character, the very special atmosphere of the first film that we find here, some very beautiful scenes that we find again in this sequel, very well realised I think. And the famous staircase scene, this time he climbs the stairs towards his beloved, with the same gait as at the beginning of the first film, he's slumped over, everything stops, he lets himself be carried away, and it's here that he leaves his role as the Joker. The ending is poignant and leaves the torch to the ‘Real’ Joker. The message at the end is pretty good, it's well written, Arthur accepts his fate, he finally accepts who he is. And that's how he dies. Because nobody accepts him for who he really is. It's quite sad really. But no, I can't say that the film is BAD and I don't understand these disastrous scores. At least the film tries something original, it's hit or miss, but it's got the merit of having carried me along and I came out of the film ‘stunned’. All in all, I loved these two Joker films with Joaquin Phoenix and they left a lasting impression on me. This was the Joker's best performance. His laugh, his facial expressions, his charisma, his outfit too ! A real class act. To like the film you need to have a certain distance and a certain sensitivity, and alas, I can see from the ratings that the majority don't have that. So, sadly, we're going to be stuck in the future with good, big action films without trying to innovate. In the end, in the first film, Arthur starts at the bottom and works his way up. Whereas in the second film he's at the very top, and falls back to the very bottom. He's not the Joker, but he inspired the MOVEMENT for future Jokers, and at the end we see the real ‘Joker’ cutting his cheeks. THE END.
The movie is definitely a big miss , I will say this movie has nothing to do with any other franchise , people saying it does is just making dots connect that never connected in first place . The dark knight isn’t only story where joker has face scars . Something funny about this movie is the director / film makers from sounds of it had complete creative freedom …… I am not sure why but what we got was what film makers wanted to make with basicly no interference . I think the first one is a good film this one kind of puts it down in every way . While 200 million is a lot , it went to well the stars and director and maybe no one liked the musical sets but it’s expensive to build though especially with cost of stuff going up . The film was also reportedly not screen tested ether which is Mind-boggling….
That’s insane! On the one hand you think “cool, no studio interference! Creative freedom!” But then you see it and you’re like “maybe they should’ve interfered” lol
I've just come out of the screening. And frankly, I loved the film. As I expected, I was right to make up my own mind and not listen to the critics. So clearly, if someone asks me if I liked the first film, I'm going to say ‘YES, it's great’. Whereas with the second, I'd say ‘It's a good film, BUT...’. I think that to appreciate the film you have to see it as a continuation of the first, on the character of Arthur. We're not going to see the Joker, but Arthur's story. You have to see it as a psychological film and let yourself be immersed in the atmosphere, in Joaquin Phoenix's superb acting, in the artistic side of the film. And not everyone is so sensitive to that. The film is different from a Joker film, but even more different from the first Joker film. And I think that's why most people were disappointed by the film... You have to admit that it's the main actor who carries the film, and just seeing him on screen again was brilliant, letting yourself be carried away by the character, the very special atmosphere of the first film that we find here, some very beautiful scenes that we find again in this sequel, very well realised I think. And the famous staircase scene, this time he climbs the stairs towards his beloved, with the same gait as at the beginning of the first film, he's slumped over, everything stops, he lets himself be carried away, and it's here that he leaves his role as the Joker. The ending is poignant and leaves the torch to the ‘Real’ Joker. The message at the end is pretty good, it's well written, Arthur accepts his fate, he finally accepts who he is. And that's how he dies. Because nobody accepts him for who he really is. It's quite sad really. But no, I can't say that the film is BAD and I don't understand these disastrous scores. At least the film tries something original, it's hit or miss, but it's got the merit of having carried me along and I came out of the film ‘stunned’. All in all, I loved these two Joker films with Joaquin Phoenix and they left a lasting impression on me. This was the Joker's best performance. His laugh, his facial expressions, his charisma, his outfit too ! A real class act. To like the film you need to have a certain distance and a certain sensitivity, and alas, I can see from the ratings that the majority don't have that. So, sadly, we're going to be stuck in the future with good, big action films without trying to innovate. In the end, in the first film, Arthur starts at the bottom and works his way up. Whereas in the second film he's at the very top, and falls back to the very bottom. He's not the Joker, but he inspired the MOVEMENT for future Jokers, and at the end we see the real ‘Joker’ cutting his cheeks. THE END.
I was only slightly curious about the movie, but was likely not gonna watch it anyways. Seems like I dodged a bullet. A shame really, the first stood well on its own as a little alternative side story, but I never really considered it part of the canon in any way. More of a movie that had an interesting premise, but they slapped on a Joker/Batman coat of paint to get people to watch it.
Omg that dark knight and Harvey dent thing stop letting new gen writers ruin classic semicentenial or more charters who ever came up with jubilee in the 80s did not intend her as an Olympic gold medalist vampire omega mutant
I turned the first one off half way through this just feels like a bastardized version of a classic 100 year old character the joker is chaos embodied he doesnt need humanization I know its removed in the name change to Arthur who ever but this fuck you dad version of the joker is painful and a spit in the face of the characters creator who aren't here to protest it also the crew worked 10xs harder than the actors didnt see the movie but still ^
Y'all watched this movie for us so we didn't have to. Thank you for your service.
The heroes Gotham deserve! 😂
I’m glad we could save you the trouble, definitely a tough one to get through haha
It's important to make up your own mind. Each to his own opinion and critical spirit. At least the film tries to innovate and change codes. That's good for cinema. The film isn't bad. You just have to understand it. As far as the musical is concerned, it's a logical and very coherent follow-up to The Joker. Already in the first film, dance and song are the character's therapy. So it's no problem to have a sequel based on dance and song, Arthur's way of escaping from this prison. It's very well written.
@@EliasH-o8j that’s fair and yeah, to each his own. But to see the character devolve back to where he was at the start of the first film and start over again at the beginning of the second film to not even build himself back up to where he was isn’t good character progression, in my opinion. I don’t think we had an issue with understanding the film, the execution, for us, just wasn’t there regardless of it being a musical or not. And since we, personally, don’t like how they answered “what happened to Arthur fleck after the first film” it was much better when we didn’t know. The ambiguous open-ended way the first film ended was much more impactful.
@@thegotspodWell said!!!
I LOVE ur set
Thank you so much! Putting It together was a labor of love of definitely worth it!
"There's no ideas up there." 😂😂😂
no 1 asked for it - but phillips did not like arthur flexk was considered to be a hero - so phiilips took responsibility and deconstructed him instead of box office gold - which was the easy way out ! it took guts to destroy a franchise
I can give him that, that is a bold move for sure financially and professionally, but I think I just have the issue with them answering the question “what happens next?” After that first film. The ambiguous ending of the first one was much better but now that we have the answer, it almost cheapens the first film.
it could have went the easy way and made him joker - but I don't he realized the society is right - fleck got taken out of context and started to represent the real world - example had an employee and wasn't having a good day and he told me - I feel like joker ! and when anyone says that it's not a good thing - and Phillips must have noticed that also -
@@MarcAubin-jo1bh yeah that’s a good point and I understand where he’s coming from if that was the intention, but from a story and character progression perspective, it just didn’t hit
I've just come out of the screening. And frankly, I loved the film. As I expected, I was right to make up my own mind and not listen to the critics.
So clearly, if someone asks me if I liked the first film, I'm going to say ‘YES, it's great’.
Whereas with the second, I'd say ‘It's a good film, BUT...’.
I think that to appreciate the film you have to see it as a continuation of the first, on the character of Arthur.
We're not going to see the Joker, but Arthur's story. You have to see it as a psychological film and let yourself be immersed in the atmosphere, in Joaquin Phoenix's superb acting, in the artistic side of the film. And not everyone is so sensitive to that.
The film is different from a Joker film, but even more different from the first Joker film.
And I think that's why most people were disappointed by the film...
You have to admit that it's the main actor who carries the film, and just seeing him on screen again was brilliant, letting yourself be carried away by the character, the very special atmosphere of the first film that we find here, some very beautiful scenes that we find again in this sequel, very well realised I think.
And the famous staircase scene, this time he climbs the stairs towards his beloved, with the same gait as at the beginning of the first film, he's slumped over, everything stops, he lets himself be carried away, and it's here that he leaves his role as the Joker. The ending is poignant and leaves the torch to the ‘Real’ Joker. The message at the end is pretty good, it's well written, Arthur accepts his fate, he finally accepts who he is. And that's how he dies.
Because nobody accepts him for who he really is. It's quite sad really.
But no, I can't say that the film is BAD and I don't understand these disastrous scores.
At least the film tries something original, it's hit or miss, but it's got the merit of having carried me along and I came out of the film ‘stunned’. All in all, I loved these two Joker films with Joaquin Phoenix and they left a lasting impression on me. This was the Joker's best performance. His laugh, his facial expressions, his charisma, his outfit too ! A real class act.
To like the film you need to have a certain distance and a certain sensitivity, and alas, I can see from the ratings that the majority don't have that.
So, sadly, we're going to be stuck in the future with good, big action films without trying to innovate.
In the end, in the first film, Arthur starts at the bottom and works his way up.
Whereas in the second film he's at the very top, and falls back to the very bottom.
He's not the Joker, but he inspired the MOVEMENT for future Jokers, and at the end we see the real ‘Joker’ cutting his cheeks.
THE END.
The movie is definitely a big miss , I will say this movie has nothing to do with any other franchise , people saying it does is just making dots connect that never connected in first place . The dark knight isn’t only story where joker has face scars . Something funny about this movie is the director / film makers from sounds of it had complete creative freedom …… I am not sure why but what we got was what film makers wanted to make with basicly no interference . I think the first one is a good film this one kind of puts it down in every way . While 200 million is a lot , it went to well the stars and director and maybe no one liked the musical sets but it’s expensive to build though especially with cost of stuff going up . The film was also reportedly not screen tested ether which is Mind-boggling….
That’s insane! On the one hand you think “cool, no studio interference! Creative freedom!” But then you see it and you’re like “maybe they should’ve interfered” lol
I've just come out of the screening. And frankly, I loved the film. As I expected, I was right to make up my own mind and not listen to the critics.
So clearly, if someone asks me if I liked the first film, I'm going to say ‘YES, it's great’.
Whereas with the second, I'd say ‘It's a good film, BUT...’.
I think that to appreciate the film you have to see it as a continuation of the first, on the character of Arthur.
We're not going to see the Joker, but Arthur's story. You have to see it as a psychological film and let yourself be immersed in the atmosphere, in Joaquin Phoenix's superb acting, in the artistic side of the film. And not everyone is so sensitive to that.
The film is different from a Joker film, but even more different from the first Joker film.
And I think that's why most people were disappointed by the film...
You have to admit that it's the main actor who carries the film, and just seeing him on screen again was brilliant, letting yourself be carried away by the character, the very special atmosphere of the first film that we find here, some very beautiful scenes that we find again in this sequel, very well realised I think.
And the famous staircase scene, this time he climbs the stairs towards his beloved, with the same gait as at the beginning of the first film, he's slumped over, everything stops, he lets himself be carried away, and it's here that he leaves his role as the Joker. The ending is poignant and leaves the torch to the ‘Real’ Joker. The message at the end is pretty good, it's well written, Arthur accepts his fate, he finally accepts who he is. And that's how he dies.
Because nobody accepts him for who he really is. It's quite sad really.
But no, I can't say that the film is BAD and I don't understand these disastrous scores.
At least the film tries something original, it's hit or miss, but it's got the merit of having carried me along and I came out of the film ‘stunned’. All in all, I loved these two Joker films with Joaquin Phoenix and they left a lasting impression on me. This was the Joker's best performance. His laugh, his facial expressions, his charisma, his outfit too ! A real class act.
To like the film you need to have a certain distance and a certain sensitivity, and alas, I can see from the ratings that the majority don't have that.
So, sadly, we're going to be stuck in the future with good, big action films without trying to innovate.
In the end, in the first film, Arthur starts at the bottom and works his way up.
Whereas in the second film he's at the very top, and falls back to the very bottom.
He's not the Joker, but he inspired the MOVEMENT for future Jokers, and at the end we see the real ‘Joker’ cutting his cheeks.
THE END.
I was only slightly curious about the movie, but was likely not gonna watch it anyways. Seems like I dodged a bullet. A shame really, the first stood well on its own as a little alternative side story, but I never really considered it part of the canon in any way. More of a movie that had an interesting premise, but they slapped on a Joker/Batman coat of paint to get people to watch it.
What you said exactly!!!
Omg that dark knight and Harvey dent thing stop letting new gen writers ruin classic semicentenial or more charters who ever came up with jubilee in the 80s did not intend her as an Olympic gold medalist vampire omega mutant
Dude couldn’t agree with you more!!
I turned the first one off half way through this just feels like a bastardized version of a classic 100 year old character the joker is chaos embodied he doesnt need humanization I know its removed in the name change to Arthur who ever but this fuck you dad version of the joker is painful and a spit in the face of the characters creator who aren't here to protest it also the crew worked 10xs harder than the actors didnt see the movie but still ^