There is this point of view, that once the character has made a choice there is no going back. Which from a more practical point of view makes sense. What the film decides to address is the longer path, of asking about the consequences and assuming that the decision may have been wrong. Arthur is doomed to be a hostage to his own choices made in the first film. Basically, by embracing the Joker, he gives up the decision-making power he had. By betting on the illusion of having power, he gives up precisely that power.
Joker 2 is a cinematic masterpiece (far better than Joker 1), but it’s not made for simpletons like you. The entire message and point of the movie were to expose fake fans. Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn essentially plays the audience-you are Harley Quinn. You expected a movie where Joker does 'cool' and 'bad' things, as you think Joker is supposed to, without ever looking at the person behind the persona (Arthur). When you didn’t get the 'cool' stuff, you stormed off, just like Harley did. The movie perfectly portrays capitalism and its consumption-driven mindset. People are reduced to either being entertaining (the Joker) or not worth paying attention to (Arthur Fleck). This point is demonstrated flawlessly. People prefer to be entertained rather than engage with authenticity. When Joker is authentic (i.e., when he’s Arthur), he loses, and this perfectly illustrates our superficial capitalist culture. Authenticity is dead-we don’t care about the person behind the persona; we just want to see the Joker, the version we imagine he’s supposed to be. Like in capitalism, we crave the flashing lights, the illusion of realness, not realness itself, because that’s boring. When the movie shatters that illusion, you go cry on the internet. Harley Quinn doesn’t just represent the audience (or fake fans like you); she also symbolizes the 'higher-ups' who wanted Todd Phillips to make a 'cool' sequel about Joker and Harley taking over Gotham, causing anarchy, and doing bad shit. This is what the trailer suggested-another masterpiece in setting expectations and then demolishing them. She wants the Joker because the audience wants the Joker; they don’t want a 'loser' like Arthur. But Todd Phillips said no, and by doing so, he exposed the audience for what they really are: they don’t care about realness, they just want entertainment. Now that they didn’t get it, they’re crying online because their idea of what Joker is 'supposed' to be has been crushed. To everyone who hates this movie: first, you’ve been exposed as fracking idiots; second, this movie is the perfect slap in the face to all of you. Todd Phillips gave you that slap, and now you’re all storming off, whining online about how you didn’t like the movie, or asking 'what was the point?' when the point was you-you are the point. The truth is, this movie was a mirror, and that’s exactly why you don’t like it. I love this movie far more than the first one. As I said at the beginning, it’s a cinematic masterpiece. The only real clown is the audiance.
I was kinda mad when Todd Phillips said that Arthur isn't even a Joker, but now I know that the real Joker was me who watched that movie! Truly a genius piece of art 👏😩
@@GottiGonSlide They always have been. They never were not. Stories we told always have some deeper meaning, lesson or opinion in them. Really, thats what they are for. The problem is how modern day society and capitalism turned art into a mass prduced product to such a degree it just tastes stale and soulles and is as subtle as a brick to the head with a letter tied to it.
It explains a lot that the film was entirely conceived of by Joaquin Phoenix himself. This film was 100% made for him. The one I truly feel bad for is Gaga, she signed on before she read the finished script because she thought it would be like the first one. Kinda like Bill Murray (Murr-AY!) and Garfield. She learned a hard lesson.
The Telltale Batman games started with Harley as the masked criminal, and Joker didn't even exist yet. He can either become a hyber violent crimefighter (inspired by Batman), or more like the regular Joker (inspired by Harley and Batman's rejection).
@@ronan.pellen Yeah I know, I'm just being hyperbolic. ANother thing, I'm just wondering how addressing the Wayne family would do anything. At least from what I remember Bruce Wayne's parents are dead and he's still just a child. So like, what does this guy expect from the Wayne family?
1. A romance with no chemistry 2. A courtroom drama with no mystery or suspense 3. A musical with bad singing 4. A soundtrack with no original songs 5. A joker movie that has nothing to do with the joker or harley quinn characters
@@danculbert6349no one created monsters, he made choices and those choices landed him in the predicaments Saying society created him is like saying the weather is created by people that predict it
no instead we will be adding batman who laughs into films since dc saw that comic readers really loved him being shoved into every story since his introduction
The first movie systematically destroyed his identity by eroding things he thought he was: - He was NOT a great dancer. - He was NOT a lovable children's entertainer as he got fired and blamed for another guy's crime. - He was NOT a hilarious comedian. - He was NOT the illegitimate son of Thomas Wayne. - He was NOT in a healthy relationship with a kind neighbour. - He was NOT the biological son of Penny Fleck. - He might NOT have even been a real clown as he mentioned someone else say his own clown name was theirs. All this and some other things contributed to Arthur completely losing his self-image, only being able to correctly identify himself by the ONE thing he did that actually mattered: killing those "Wall Street guys." This man lost everything he THOUGHT he knew about himself and decided to cling to the one thing that he DID and that gave rise to this new identity as The Joker. A name he didn't even come up with on his own but the world around him chose FOR him to identify with as it was Thomas Wayne who called him this first and the public picked it up. For THIS man I just described to make the sudden choice that he DOESN'T want to be Joker anymore and he wants to be poor, weak, helpless, pathetic and potentially nonexistent Arthur again, that makes SO little sense I'm surprised the writers themselves aren't in Arkham.
IMO It makes sense because he cling to it and the whole second movie shows him that nobody cares about him but about the joker ultimately they will choose the joker over him. SPOILER - If he wanted something different from what was expected from the joker everybody expected him to still be joker. He did not matter even in "this life". - He never meant to hurt his colleague, to make him afraid and unable to sleep at night. He liked the only one guy that has been nice to him Arthur and this man was terrified of Joker and he never considered it before that, assuming now everybody loved him. - He also understood that he is still the same "victim" he has always been after what happened with the prison guards. Joker was a way for him to feel powerful and in control but he was not. The whole first movie was a story telling that nobody cares about those people including the richs but also pretty much everyone in the city from strangers to his own mother. The point made was that we could be better as a society (rich and powerful people like Wayne, but also citizen like the guys in the subway or even a simple mother in a bus). Joker was a consequence not a solution and everybody started to see the joker as it. The second movie proves that even as viewers, nobody cares about Arthur, they want the joker, that he is not, even if it hurts him. He never planned anything, He never wanted to make any statement or start anything, he was not a leader even in the first movie. He snapped. And audiences chose that they wanted to see this man becoming the "crime lord" he was never meant to be when it has always been Arthur, a man not really bright with a lot of traumas and they did not care about him like Gotham, like the TV Show host, everybody. They tied to the idea they have made of him, not to Arthur.
@@Heargroveyes, even the psychotherapist, who was indeed a compassionate woman, didn’t see Arthur for what he actually is. Not a single person ever cared about him.
I don't know about the parentage thing. If I've learned anything from "Punky Brewster", "Amen", "Good Times" and "Mommy Dearest", orphanages/CPS of the 1940's and 50's were pretty strict with who to give children to. A single woman with mental issues like Penny would've been a no-go. Even if this is Gotham. It wouldn't even fly in the 70’s and 80's. Though it also makes me wonder about Bruce's parentages as the Waynes seemed to have had him extremely late. Like, wasn't IVF still extremely new?
@@Heargrovethe issue I have is that the movie does not commit to this at all, and it does feel like a retcon I feel like the Puddles scene was a great set up to it, but they don't build up on this scene, Arthur barely seems to reflect on that, he was back into being the Joker right after that, it's like he gets abused and a switch flips on his head. It is an interesting set of ideas, but it feels underbaked and I have a lot of unanswered questions -The movement Joker started, what were the consequences of that? We see Harley and some guys, but the movie glosses over that so quickly - The movement still seems to be strong. So how does Gotham work now? - How come the Joker mob never broke into the courtroom? They only exploded the courtroom after Arthur conveniently gives up on being the Joker
@@danculbert6349 joker 2 had great ideas and that makes it so frustrating. The ideas they had in this were pretty good for a sequel, like the trial of the joker and him being in Arkham should’ve been executed way better. Have him embrace his persona, cause mayhem in the prison with Harley and kill the guards, have a stronger trial, and they should’ve just killed him off with the electric chair instead of that weird “twist” at the end. The musical part should’ve been left out or worked on way better
@@danculbert6349 it had all the right ingredients and actors, so for it to fumble this bad is shocking. I think Phillips intentionally made this terrible
How can a sequel exist when it never exist to begin with? I mean thats like saying Pacific Rim has a sequel or that Aang has a live action movie in 2010? Those never happened, right? RIGHT??????
The element of someone setting off a social movement of increasingly unhinged radicals they then lose control of sounds like a fantastic premise and one that could be really used for some dramatic chops. Unfortunately The Batman (2022) managed to pull off the same concept far more effectively around the Riddler of all characters!
They should have done that, but have Bruce Wayne on the stand and show Arthur how his actions broke the little boy that would become batman. Have him at that point not want to be remembered as a monster. Then as he tries to stop, the 'real' joker kills him and takes over cause the dominoes had already fell
What happens when a creator hates his own main character and then makes a sequel scolding the audience for liking that character. Basically we should all ask Todd Phillips: why did you choose a beloved DC Comic character to make a movie around if you didn’t want to feature that character? The whole thing is just a big middle finger to audiences and fans of the franchise. Like I get it. I get he doesn’t like comic movies. But no one forced him to make a Joker film.
I think he doesnt care about comic characters at all amd never wanted to make a super hero flick. My theroy is he had a movie about a mentally ill guy whose mad his health care got canceled but nobody wanted to give him money for that. Then he just erased Arthur and wrote in Joker and then they gave him money.
Well the first movie made it clear it wasn't comic book joker. It's about a pitiful man in a failing society and how symbols were created around this weak person. I think the 2nd really hammers home the point of how pitiful he really is.
The problem is that one is satisfying and the other is annoying. In the first film he's a pitiful person in a world that doesn't care about him, so when he explodes it's his response to the world, and even though he's been arrested and had his social life completely destroyed, he's still smiling, because he He won, now people know who he is. He's still a pitiful person, but he doesn't care, he had the last laugh In the second film, he becomes confused about the identity he created and at one point gives up on it, this happens precisely when the guards abuse him by taking advantage of the fact that he is physically weak. The excessive abuse, the fact that he was weak is what made him become the Joker in the first place. It's even more pathetic, a pathetic that only irritates, it's as if a serial killer in the end gave up on the figure he presented to the public and apologized for having killed people. Like, bro? You won't gain sympathy to apologize, you still killed people. And Arthur, in particular, has no internal reason to apologize, this is just pathetic @@musayibghani3986
The scene with Gary I really legitimately liked. As you said, the actor really put all he could into. His lines about Arthur being the only one not to make fun of him actually made me feel sad for him, and him talking about how afraid he is of Arthur was about the only thing to out into perspective Arthur’s transition into what he hated, giving others the same fear and powerlessness he had at the beginning of the first film.
This movie felt like one of those weird dreams where you don't know if it is some sort of nightmare or just randomness out of nowhere, but when you wake up you are glad to see that nothing of it was real.
Naw all the kids who thought it was bad bcz a RUclipsr said so will slowly form their own opinion and realize it's a good movie that holds up a mirror to the audience
@rynor2691 The "plot" of Joker 2 is too incompentent to even deconstruct the "Joker" persona in an organic manner. Do you really think Todd Phillips has the skill to hold up a "mirror" to the audience, especially in light of him claiming that he never wanted the Joker persona overshadowing Arthur Fleck, despite the ending of the first movie essentially showing just that?
The whole Hangover series taught me that Todd Phillips is not good at doing sequels. All of his sequels just revolve around reminding the audience about how good the first one was and then the movie ends. So I’m not surprised at all that that’s what happened to Joker 2.
Well the hangover 2 was the first one, pretty much beat for beat, as a blatant cash grab. The third, while still a cash grab playing on the hangover name, went in a different direction due to criticism of the second one and wow, what a terrible direction it chose. At least the second one did make me laugh a couple times. I loved the first Joker, but as soon as I heard the sequel would be a musical starring Lady Gaga, I was out. No thank you. Still, disappointed to hear its worse than even I thought.
Nope. The first movie was suppose to be mocking incels and white men. It wasn't intended for those same people to actually enjoy the movie. The producer of the movie got UPSET that people actually identified with the joker. Literally upset that people fell in love with the joker and viewed it as social commentary and related to the joker. So he made the sequal as trash as possible to discredit the first movie.
I’m pretty sure this movie was exactly as intended. Aggressively unpleasant and made to troll the more toxic fans of the original. Personally I would call that a waste of 200 million dollars that could have been spent on something original or useful.
I feel like they could’ve made a really cool sequel, actually. It could’ve been really cool if instead of focusing on Joker, we focused on Harley. Same gritty universe, and you’ve got this doctor so determined to help people that she tries to help rehabilitate the Joker and ends up falling under his thrall. Like if Hannibal convinced Clarice to join him at the end or something. Could’ve been really cool. And it could still be called “Folie a deux” as we watch Harley join him in his madness. Instead we got a musical about nothing.
I really thought Harley would be part of that defense lawyer's team of "Joker is just a split personality of yours, right Arthur" and end up turning looney tooney with Arthur. But her character was pointless and ended nowhere
Fun fact: At the end of the Hannibal novel, Dr.Lecter actually manipulated (or hypnotizes,I guess) Clarice into joining him and being together with him. It was pretty weird tbh,the movie changed it for the better
I literally thought this was the direction they were going with. Like having Harley and Arthur talk normally when they're apart but then begin to sing when they're together as if his words were like music to her.
This is the first American, corporate, “anti-movie” I can think of. A movie that hates the fans, all of them, on purpose, and wants to make a movie to offend them.
@@derpoltergeist8265 Matrix 4 wasn't really attacking the fans. It was attacking the studio and making sure no future Matrix projects would be greenlit (even though WB later greenlit a new movie lol).
The first movie was the same thing. The original intent of Joker I was to mock incels and lonely white men. But it failed and was instead embraced by those men. So the producer enraged made sure his message got across this time. im not even kidding this is admitted. The first movie was meant to demoralize men, instead it united them.
This movie just felt like a really long, depressing episode of Glee. I don’t know why they didn’t compose new songs for this. At times it felt like the screenwriter got lazy and threw in a vaguely relevant song rather than come up with original lyrics/dialogue.
@je5406 omg is tears of a clown in it? 😂😭 they lost me at musical, but not even creating their own music shouldn't have been considered to be taken seriously at all
They should have switched to the POV of Detective James Gordon, trying to unravel the man from the myth as he hunted him down before he gets put in Arkham. Have it so Gordon is trying to understand Joker's "master plan" his "5D chess", only to uncover he's just chaotically stumbling from event to event with no particular aim - and have copycats blur the line between what Fleck does and what Joker does... Like Gordon is comic book fans, trying to see *The* Joker's actions in Joker, and coming with that bias... That's what I'd have done anyway.
I really like that idea! The problem is that Todd Phillips clearly doesn't know or care about any of the Batman characters. So it would never occur to him,.
So basically, making this incarnation of The Joker something of a Mr. Bean type of character, where he constantly fails upwards and winds up achieving whatever he's setting out to do? That's the greatest thing I've ever heard and now I'm upset that that isn't what we got
I respectfully disagree with this point 1:19, in the sense that Arthur could have been developed to be more methodical especially in the sequel. We see traces of Arthur's intelligence in Joker (2019), when he evades the police in the third act. His evasion was a bit clumsy, but effective. Prison would have been a great place to develop this aspect of the character even further. Todd Philips and Scott Sliver are talented enough to have done this. Its a shame they didn’t.
4:00 We all remember that famous scene in "Terminator 2" when halfway thru the movie we find out Sarah Conner actually is insane and had a mental breakdown after years at a scummy job getting harassed by her boss. She fell ever deeper into depression and the substances and trauma created an elaborate fantasy about time traveling machines and super computers out to get her. The whole first movie was a hallucination from PTSD. That's why T2 was a great film, it showed her in court and being psycho analyzed.🤡💩 lmfao
And don't forget somebody stabbing her to death At the end of the second movie therefore randomly putting on the Terminator glasses revealing that some random background character Was the real Terminator all along
I like the analogy the Godfather, but I think it should be a little different. It's like Todd Philips and Phoenix wrote this movie, from the critics statement of the first Joker. Instead of embracing the ambiguity and letting the audience grapple with the unsettling questions the first film raised, or taking character arc Arthur has reached, they threw all of that and made a movie where they explicitly tell "violence bad", "joker bad", explicitly condemning Arthur, the mob, and violence. It feels less like a sequel and more like someone trying to "correct" the original's perceived message, taking us ten steps backward instead of pushing the story forward. I tell my friends it's less a sequel to Joker and more a response to its criticism.
Yes, exactly. The first film deliberately makes him into a sympathetic (not necessarily morally justified) character - a troubled loner who cannot connect to society in a setting ripe with corruption and depravity. It's specifically because the world he inhabits is merciless, pitiless, and unsympathetic that we as the audience naturally fill that void. Joker (2019) isn't asking us to pick sides, but it is challenging us to see violent social upheaval in context. The film goes out of its way to show Arthur as a fringe folk hero to a population who, like him, have reached a boiling point. He is a personification of social decay, his life mirroring a decade or more of urban decline.
They got too focused on directly responding to unironic fans of the Joker character. It's too meta, direct, & spiteful. I also don't like the meta message that Phoenix & Todd were forced to make a sequel. No you weren't, you two just wanted the money & delusionaly believed you were being clever.
I think its time for us as moviegoers to realize when it comes to directors and such... Sometimes intent... is BAD. Yes, someone might have intended to do something in a specific way... and shockingly, that's not always a good nor interesting thing.
And the musicals added nothing but filler. Theres even one song where the characters explain their motivation that has been explained a few minutes ago in a VERY repetitive manner. Like....I GET IT, Y'ALL CRAZY, MOVE ON!!! Good musicals can make not just great music but the music added something new to the plot or progress things further like Greatest Showman or Wonka. In Joker 2, its all needless filler
Make it a movie about the myth overtaking the man. Have everyone in universe buy into the idea that Joker is some comic book supervillain playing 5d chess with everyone, maybe have him stumble into some accomplishments unintentionally or his copycats get conflated with his own actions. Like a bunch of dudes in clown makeup rob a bank, so obviously the Joker must have orchestrated it. Or Arthur shoots a guy who attacked him, only for it to turn out said guy was related to someone important so the Joker was definitely trying to send a message. Then depending on how you want to go you can either have Arthur buy into his own hype only to be ignobly gunned down the second he tries a Joker thing, or have him killed in the crossfire of an event he had nothing to do with, and nobody notices because the myth of the Joker has long since outgrown the man that is Arthur Fleck.
For the life of me, I can't figure why they felt a sequel to the first movie was even needed. Joker was a completely self-contained story that didn't leave the audience asking for more details.
14:14 Yes. In Gotham, Jerome Valeska was killed off and implied to be the inspiration for the real Joker. However, people didn’t like this, so they brought him back.
It's even more convoluted than that, unfortunately. They later killed him off AGAIN and his long lost twin brother Jeremiah became the "real" Joker. I have some sympathy for the writers because I know DC was jerking them around about whether or not they could use a fully fledged Joker at the time. But it doesn't make the end result any less frustrating to try and watch, especially when Jerome was an excellent Joker and Jeremiah didn't really work imo.
Throughout the entire movie, I kept thinking of how animated Disney musicals have the restraint to feature at tops, maybe 5 songs, and make sure they're all bangers that tell us something about the story, while Joker 2 is trying to sequalize a non-musical with 8 random musical sequences that just tediously freezes the narrative every 5 minutes.
Maybe if you paid attention you’d recognize that the musical portions serve narrative purpose. Also, god forbid a director does something interesting and different with a sequel. It baffles me that a choice as benign as making your movie into a musical leads to such a vicious response from moviegoers. People complain about being handed the same slop over and over again w/ marvel and then throw a shit fit when someone finally does something different.
@@FriendlyGreg10 so we should watch bad entertainment just because it's a different shade of shit than what we've been getting? You're a woefully stupid and/or a bot.
@@FriendlyGreg10 Why are you so vociferous with your opinion on other peoples opinion? Criticism of this movie that Ive heard is not in the fundamental choices made, ie the decision to make it a musical but the execution thereof. If you like the film, cool, don’t get upset if other people don’t.
@@RoloT007 Because I'm very passionate about the things I like, and it makes me mad when people dislike a thing for reasons that don't make any sense. If you say Joker 2 is boring for example, sure, that makes sense to me, that's perfectly fine. People are also allowed to have their opinions on what makes a good musical, but it should at the very least make sense. Most of the reasons I've seen for why people don't like this movie can be boiled down to, "I don't like apples because apples are orange, and I don't like orange foods".
@@FriendlyGreg10Thats fair enough, passion is a good thing. But if people dont like the things that you like, dont take it to heart. There will be plenty of people that dont like Joker 2, for all sorts of reasons, they dont need to affect your enjoyment of it. Be comfortable in your enjoyment of film, music, whatever that be and your reasons for it.
Imagine after Batman Begins, the sequel was about Bruce Wayne discovering he didn't really want to be Batman after all, refuses to put on the costume, and the movie ends with Wayne dying and another person taking up the mantle. That is the bait and switch that the Joker 2 pulled by regressing the character away from, rather than embracing, his identity as the titular character. While I can give them some credit for being original, as I don't think it has ever been done before (setting up an origin for a character, then doing a 180 and showing that they aren't actually that character), it still feels wrong.
@@chiraqg1374 the fact everyone is focused on the SA part is very interesting IMO. A lot of real serial killers got SA'ed. Notably Clyde Barrows of the infamous Bonnie and Clyde crime group. It's actually what hardened him into a worse criminal. He was just serving time for being a car thief, afterwards he became a murderer. considering this is a "Joker & Harley" movie, I thought that contrast is probably relevant. But movie goers seem to think a fictional character a lot less for getting SA'ed. which is definitely very interesting for a gritty real comic book character setting movie. An expectations vs reality discrepancy if you will.
This is probably the video that best explains the issues with Joker 2. Everyone trashes it because it's easy, but examples and explanations are here. 10/10
Your right that Arthur Fleck is no Criminal Mastermind. But The Joker is a criminal Mastermind. The thing about Arthur Flecks Joker from the first movie was that he was only Just Born. The ending of the first movie is where Arthur Embraces His other Half and Fully Gives into His Joker Persona, letting it take control, after Having suppressed it his entire life. The ending leaves room for a story to be told with this newly freed Joker Persona. The story that they should have told was how this Joker establishes himself in Gotham. How he grows. Where Arthur fleck was weak, and incompetent, His Joker Persona is the polar opposite. Hes Strong, and Competent. Hes Smart, hes Capable. Not afraid to both stand up for himself and take charge. Arthur Fleck couldnt Lead his gang of followers, But his Joker Persona Could. Arthur Fleck couldnt evolve into a criminal mastermind, But his Joker Persona Could. That was the story they Should have told. If the first movie was all about how he becomes the Joker, this movie should have been all about his Growth as the Joker.
Joker is an extrapolation of the man. Jack Napier was a smart criminal that snapped. I guess the other Jack(?) from the cartoon has the Killing Joke origin. Arthur's Joker was Arthur unhinged. He was not a smart man. And that's fine
@@greenkoopa your right but that's my point. Arthur Fleck wasn't a smart man, he was an unhinged man who had a crazier, darker half hiding underneath him all along. But His Joker persona had the potential to evolve and grow into a smart criminal. He could have started out the movie a Novice/rookie criminal, but the more he embodies the Joker, the more he gets involved with his Followers, and the more he gets involved with Harley Quinn, his Joker persona develops into a smart criminal.
@@gensteps923 an alter ego can’t be smarter than the man. Arthur has literal brain damage. His joker persona is still using his damaged brain and limited intelligence.
I would have much rather seen a movie like that. Instead they do a deconstruction of the character, undo everything from the first movie, and then just... throw it all away leaving the viewer nothing else to think but "what was the point of that?"
Horrible film. Undoing all the character development just to have Joker beaten, humiliated, gang graped and killed while Lady Gaga sings and prances around. The audience that made the studio over a billion on the first movie were the ''wrong'' audience though so something had to be done! This film exists to punish you for liking the first movie and sympathizing with Arthur.
To be fair though, anyone who identifies with Arthur are pretty freakish. You can sympathize without identifying. This movie was not the proper way to handle that reception though
I think it was made horrible on purpose either by the director to piss off the studio, like "so, you want an unnecesary sequel? here you go!", or to piss off people for liking the "wrong" movie instead of liking stuff like Captain Marvel or whatever movie Hollywood tried to force to be the greatest thing ever but people didn't like it.
@@hunkahunka1488 personal taste, a lot of people like movies, songs or tv shows other people say "that's horrible". I love the first Super Mario movie, the old one, not the cartoon new one, everybody seems to hate it and everybody says it's an horrible movie but I like it.
I'm surprised they didn't deny any of Arthur's crimes as being figments of his imagination. It'd be a basic curveball but one that would very easily bring tension to Arthur and his struggle between him and his shadow.
and his "followers" could be stealing evidence or tainting the crime scene...joker could confess and wouldn't even know if he did it. it's like they made this movie bad on purpose
@@niceprofile-k6i Damn thats actually a pretty good plot. Arthur become regretful and want to confess but got a "plot armor" thanks to other Jokers which further spiraled him into madness. I feel like Todd purposely made this movie bad or sum
That’s such a terrible idea. Lamest “curveball” ever. Also, People would blame this movie even more for “ruining” the first one (even though it didn’t) by making his revenge not real and therefore meaningless. Also also, what would the plot be if he never even did anything wrong? You could have it so that only some of his crimes were imagined, but then that would just make even less sense.
Arthur never really had agency to begin with. I don’t see how people wanted him to go full throttle Joker & commit to this villain arc when he fought with himself tooth and nail the first movie about not wanting to be this way. His character is consistent with that. The idea of both movies is to add a conscious and emotion to the person we know to be Joker. What is he really like-- he’s a sad man, who is definitely on the autism spectrum and has an uncontrollable laugh that warrants very terrible things to happen to him. Thats it. Thats all it ever was. This makes perfect sense to the nature of who he is. This movie showed this man grappling with the idea of receiving some kind of fake tenderness and recognition to not receiving any of it based off of his persona and moods. This is the behind the scene of what that looks like. Also him going full fledge Joker wouldn’t develop the story in any real way. Who I was disappointed in was Harley (lees) role… she took over as the main character and didn’t add anything of real significance other than to support this grappling inside him
3:10, when you compared the way a fictional Godfather Part II could back track the first one, you perfectly described what The Godfather Part III did to Part II.
What went wrong with it, is that the idea came to life. They should’ve just left the Joker as a one off movie. In fact that’s what it felt like it was always supposed to be, because there was nothing left to do after that movie. This just felt like a bunch of Hollywood executives told them to make a new Joker movie.
I can’t get over how unbelievably disappointing this move is. Despite how skeptical I was when I heard that this was gonna be a musical, I still had a little bit of faith considering the fact that Lady Gaga was as Harley Quinn as she’s proving herself not just as a great vocalist but a great actress when she’s given the light material but after watching the movie, it taught me two things: the first is not every movie needs a sequel and second is that Todd Phillips is terrible at making sequels. They wasted Lady Gaga was so unforgivable. Not to mention the insultingly terrible ending.
Agreed I thought the addition of lady Gaga was going to enhance the showing even if it was a musical, which I'm for because it sounds creative, her creativity off the screen has convinced me she would great at acting/singing.
I would have liked to have seen Arthur become the ruthless villain that manipulates the mob to his own ends. You see plenty of signs of him doing just that in the first film. When he gets a mob of guys to batter the cops that were chasing him. He also made a spectacle of Murray Franklins death and made one of jokers signature jokes on camera. Even when he is incarcerated at the end he’s shown to be incredibly dangerous when he kills the woman interviewing him and tries to escape.
@@ben0it06-x9b yeah he used the mob as a distraction to brake into the theatre. Then he got them to beat up and hospitalise the cops that were chasing him with some quick thinking. At the end he kills the psychiatrist hence the blood on his shoes and tires to escape Arkham.
You could make a fantastic movie out of a man who finds himself launched to the head of a movement, who stuggles to maintain his standing while also not being fully sure how he even got there, and how the thrashing mass of public perception rips him apart, before casually moving on to the next thing. This movie does not do that.
Great summary. I'd add that music numbers in musicals are supposed to move the plot forward or at least contribute to the plot in some other way, fillin in the blanks that explain a character's actions and motivations. This movie has nothing even close to that. Every song put the story to a halt, and every song ending puts the audience in a state of confusion about what is/was going on. Ironically maybe the best (least bad) bits of this movie where the ones that alluded to its prequel like the stairs, the car escape, and Sophie and Mr. Puddles scenes. Which makes us wonder why did they try to distance themselves so much from a movie that not only (while not perfect) was good, had a strong narrative arc and a lot of heart, but also set the foundations for the character they were going to work with.
RE: The ending... despite what it implies (which I think was an -- obviously unsuccessful -- attempt to placate fans Phillips knew would be upset by the overall direction he'd taken), I don't think a "real Joker" could exist in this film's universe. The whole point of this movie seems to be that the persona of the Joker is an illusion, not the sort of twisted aspirational figure it's (arguably) portrayed as in the first film. It would be contradictory to everything this film is trying to do, I think, to expose the hollowness of what trying to embrace being the Joker brought to Arthur's life, while at the same time implying that SOME OTHER mentally ill dude is totally going to embrace that mantle and make it his own. I think the only way to make these films part of a coherent model of the Batman universe would be to follow up with a Batman film where Bruce gives being the Bat a go, is really shitty at it, and winds up getting himself killed and/or institutionalized, just like Arthur.
You bring up an excellent point regarding how the reveal with Harley happens WAY too early in the movie, it would have been so much more effective if it was a third act reveal but instead it made me lose interest in the character very fast. It's honestly kinda shocking how little Harley ended being in the movie after the first act. (Spoilers for Hazbin Hotel) It kinda reminds me of how in the first ep of HH S1, they reveal that Adam (as well as Heaven in turn) do not believe sinners can be redeemed and move up the next Extermination to six months. Thus rejecting Charlie's plan and essentially undercutting the premise the show was sold on in the pilot. Like....if that had been a mid-season reveal that would have been a good gut-punch but revealing this in ep 1 just makes you think "Oh....then what are we doing here?"
Seeing people on TikTok call this a ‘misunderstood masterpiece’ never fails to make me laugh, you can tell that they have 0 taste and are just happy to be there 🤣🤣
@@FriendlyGreg10 The Dark Knight, Scarface, Goodfellas, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds and Inception are some of my favourites but I watch everything tbh mate
I truly believe that Todd Phillips made this bad movie on purpose as a way to mock the studio and the fans of the first film, similar to what happened with Matrix 4, also from Warner. He must have been under a lot of pressure from Warner to create a sequel, but clearly had nothing to say. One of the main criticisms he faced with the first film was that he glorified the Joker, and that the film was seen as dangerous, influencing people who thought the Joker was a hero. So he decided to make the entire movie about that, to diminish the Joker he himself created, in a kind of self-sabotage since he has no interest in making a sequel (against the studio) and didn't like how fans interpreted his previous film (against those fans). The Harley Quinn in this film represents the fans of the first movie. She watched the TV movie they made about the Joker in the movie's universe multiple times, just like the fans who rewatched the first film. She doesn't want to see Arthur, only the Joker, just as fans expected to see in this sequel, and she constantly pushes him to be completely the Joker and abandon Arthur altogether. The moment Arthur rejects being the Joker, she stops liking him and abandons him just like his other supporters in the courtroom. Todd Phillips knows that fans will react the same way she does and will hate this decision. He is intentionally trying to frustrate the audience; even the fact that it's a musical is likely a way to frustrate viewers since he knows many of the film's target audience probably doesn't like musicals. The final scene is a way to simply end the franchise and have no return.
That's exactly what it was. The fans of the first film are to blame for this one. The nutjobs who wanted to be Arthur so badly and were going around posting insane memes and idolizing the things he did and said and taking it way too far. They made everyone very nervous. So because of that the writers had to make Arthur someone you do not want to be or idolize in any way.
Yeah but people still like the Joker it doesnt matter if todd phillips makes him revert to arthur in the film. So its a useless concept to basically sodomize him and kill arthur because the joker will always live.
@@RedTail1-1 Blaming the fans solely for this is a strange position. The makers of the original were afraid and reacted with violence. They did not choose to heal or grow but to attack. Responsibility for action cannot be transferred to another due to what is felt.
@@Dave102693the movie is "interesting" in what it tries to accomplish - and it accomplishes that: it frustrates everyone, pisses them off, alienates the entire audience. And by doing so, it becomes a horrible movie. The fact it succeeds at being awful doesn't make it 180 into being good; it (seemingly) was designed to be miserable and it is. Like you and OP (and everyone else), I was displeased to say the least at this movie - I just recognize it might be what we fucking deserved…
I don’t even care about the argument that there doesn’t need to be a sequel because there are so many interesting ways that they could have gone especially when he escapes at the end of the first. It’s just so mind boggling that this is the plot that they thought was best, musical or not it is just so uninteresting. Think about how the first movie is all about Arthur’s decision making and the second is entirely him going through the motions of what people tell him to do. It’s night and day
12:49 The people in the car who helped the Joker represent the viewers who enjoyed the first Joker movie. Their motivations aren't clear because the writers don't even understand their own fanbase. In fact, they actually have disdain for their audience and were hoping to trade us in for the "modern audience."
Since you said “us”, I’d be curious to know why you liked the first movie? I have never watched it but my favorite movie is the 2022 Batman… if the ending was edited to not have the joker scene 😅… which means I’ll probably be in the same position soon enough.
I genuinely wonder if this is some sort of self-sabotage on the part of Todd Philips. Even the idea of a second Joker movie felt unnecessary, so I wonder if this was an attempt to just kill any chance of a franchise, deliberately
I'm so tired of how expansive the Batman and Spiderman universes have become. It feels like we can't go a year without 1 character from each of these universes that's not the hero getting there own movie or spinoff mean while other superheros get neglected.
To be fair, Batman’s rogues gallery is so vast that you can make stuff with very different tones that can lean into drama instead of action. While I love the DC Universe, I miss films that can have a mid budget scale and no need for an action scene every 10 minutes
Yes for Spider-Man, no for Batman. The Batman gallery of characters is very versatile, to the point you can make a movie of one those and not even mention Batman, and it might work. Also, I'd love to see more non-action oriented adaptations of superhero comics. Full on horror and drama movies. Playing with stale formulas.
As long as its good like The Penguin or Spiderverses Miles, its alright. But most of the times, it can create such intense miss like Joker 2 or Madame Web that could dilute the brand
Joker 2 feels like punishment deliberately inflicted upon an audience that liked the first film. In "Joker", they managed to tell a compelling story around a conflicted, sympathetic anti-hero. And because audiences responded positively to the story they set out to tell (perhaps even identifying with some of the anger and pain and angst and betrayal the character felt), the producers had to pull the rug out from under them. EDIT: Yes, I realized that the second I wrote this, I would get a thousand "Erm, ackshully, he's a villain" responses. I think one could argue it either way for this *specific* depiction (largely divorced from other DC universe material). The tag doesn't matter. The point is that they created a sympathetic character who, in the world he inhabits-a world dripping with corruption and apathy towards social decay-is treated as something of a folk hero by others. They clearly got cold feet about leaning into this angle.
@@danculbert6349 People are just not realizing Joker 2 was written and directed by just Todd Phillips and assuming there were more people involved, like a tv show.
I liked the movie. It really wasn't a musical. Music was just the love language between Harlee and Arthur. It seams to me that the people who disliked the movie the most were incel types who connected too hard with what they thought Arthur was in the first movie. I believed the Joker persona stuff because in both the Joker films he's quite literally pushed by everyone in his life in negative ways. In this movie oddly the only person on Arthur's side was his lawyer. the guards used him for amusement, Harlee uses him for her fantasy, the other inmates before the trial are heard constantly in the background threatening him. Literally no one has treated this guy as a person and the Joker is his lash out. It made sense to me, the guards had subtle language throughout the movie to insinuate that the guards were raping the inmates. I think you needed the film spelled out, and that the problem with the first movie is that like this one it's not meant to be spelled out. But the first movie i think unintentionally did have a face value to latch onto, and that's what accidentally hit the hearts of the "we live in a society" and "you get what you deserve" type people. I think both Joker Movies are solid movies that accidentally picked up the wrong base. The story makes ton of emotional sense. But a lot of people walked into these films expecting laughing gas and knives. I'm a huge fan of batman, and in the comics there are tons of one off series or issues that take the premise in other directions. Like when Thomas and Martha wayne survived the mugging and Bruce Wayne died. They became the Joker and Batman. These two movies feel the same way. This is not a heath ledger Joker, this is a Joker that's born of being treated inhumanly by everyone around them, and the movies are attempting to show you a villain pushed in an extremely personal way to lash out in ways that would not survive the context of public scrutiny. He's a man that fell between the cracks. There's a lot more in these movies than some reviews out there would have you believe. Give it a shot and form your own opinions, cause this is a movie that is getting misunderstood just like the first one.
My take is that the harsh criticism just proves the point of the movie-- that people only love the Joker when he's the Joker. Once he becomes the mentally ill, easily manipulated, powerless Arthur Fleck, he means nothing to them anymore. The people criticizing the movie are the same ones who would be standing outside of the courthouse. I think there is a certain brilliance in that.
@@ey3z4yaWhy did people love the first movie? If he hadn’t become Joker, would they still have loved it? It was enjoyable because we knew what he would become, and by the end of the film he’d met all of our expectations.
But seeing THE JOKER is the point, that's why people went to buy ticket, if I want to see just another mentally ill guy I'll watch any other movie. PEOPLE WANT TO SEE BATMAN ARCH NEMESIS THAT'S THE POINT
@@seliamila1005 It's not about pandering to what your audience wants to see. Todd phillips wanted to make a movie with substance and a statement, and used iconography to do it. It's not a joker origin story
The point of the first movie was him becoming The Joker, and it ended with him taking on the mantle of The Joker. After all, it was an origin movie for The Joker. So it makes no sense (both in universe, and from a behind-the-scenes perspective) why this film flat-out stated that Arthur Fleck isn't The Joker in this universe.
In universe, in the realm of the movie, he's the only one who's called Joker, so how is he not Joker, the meta narrative people are praising this movie for is dumb. It only makes sense if there's another Joker that's been there before him.
Todd Phillips doesn't like comic book stuff, he said he wanted to do a Scorsese tribute to things like "Taxi Driver" about mentally unstable loners becoming psychopaths but knew it wouldn't be a success without some kind of hook so he hijacked the "Joker" name to do so.
It's obvious that Todd Philipps never intended to have a Joker as what we know from the Comics. He just used this story to talk about big problems on our society like mental health and segregation. Maybe he realized Joker 1 created a cult of this character and of course people was expecting to see an evolution of this along with Harley on Joker 2. But again, the idea was never to idiolize the classic Joker, but in this case Arthur's journey from liberating of such pain and suffering, letting go everything he's been through regardless of what comes to him. We see how the Joker starts to come up as Lee impulses him. But at some point Arthur realizes that violence will just make more violence. The movie is also a critique to the society that is seeking for spectacle and entertainment all the time. We see how the court is being broadcasted, how Harley is bored and just looking to see what else comes out of the Joker, what else he has to give in terms of violence. Basically, Harly represents the audience looking for more blood to be spread. It was all about the fantasy, about the symbol, not about the human behind Joker. Nobody cares about Arthur, he is just seen as a looser.
Neither film was about the DC Joker, they just threw in Batman character names to trick people into seeing the movies. The director has clearly stated this so he could fool audiences into seeing his "real" movie. Part of the reason I disliked the first one was how obvious this felt to me.
first one still had some root to the comics and despite a young bruce wayne and the difference in the origin arthur could still be called a comic book joker at heart.The second don’t even want to be a mogie about that character
Joker is a two part movie series about the origination of the Joker, who is the man that kills Arthur at the end of the film. Which is why the entire thing is not worth watching now.
Fincher has a scene in Fight Club where goons wipe Alien 3 movies clean in a video rental store. Deadpool shoots Ryan Reynolds while he reads the Green Lantern script. It happens.
If I wanted to make a sequel Even though I hated the first film but still keep the same themes and beats as this one. The big change that I would make is to reveal that it was a criminal organization that bailed Arthur fleck out and our basically using him as like a mascot mouthpiece in order to direct his new movement to do the stuff they want to do. And maybe the son of the head of the criminal organization is similar to Bruce's age and is basically kind of jealous of Arthur for being the son that he couldn't be because he's crazy even though off. Arthur doesn't want it. In the end that young kid who's around Bruce's age does the same ending or after Arthur tries to finally get away from the criminal group and the movement he creates is stabbed to death by the little kid and he carves the Glasgow grin on his face, thus the setting up The future joker that will fight the super young Batman that was in the first film.
maybe someday someone will make a movie about the ACTUAL JOKER, todd phillips certainly didn't. if someone made a movie called BATMANS about a guy dressed up like a bat and barely fought crime and then at the end it was revealed he wasn't the real batman. wtf?
No I don’t think the Heath ledger joker ‘twist’ works. Even disregarding the age discrepancy, there would have to be a paper trail for the Joker. In the Batman movie Alfred and Bruce discuss how they can’t find any information on a clown villain. When one killed a TV broadcaster in his own city and was murdered in holding by a guy who carved a smile into his own case. wtf even my local PD could solve that case
Bruh you’ve just never seen southern court dramas if you don’t recognize that accent he was using. I think that was probably the thought process, that Arthur got it from watching tv or movie lawyers
It could've been great sequel. If Todd Phillips was so keen on borrowing elements of 70's and 80's movies for the first one (ie Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy), he could've continued on with that tradition with this one (ie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Imagine Arthur Fleck getting acquainted with the other inmates of Arkham Asylum (some will eventually become other Batman arch enemies like The Riddler, The Penguin, Scarecrow, etc.) and eventually organizing and uniting them into an inmate revolt and ending in a major prison riot where everyone escapes out onto the streets of Gotham, ending Part 2 with the standard unresolved ending. This would leave the doors wide open for Part 3 where Batman is introduced briefly at the end.
That was one of the plots that I wanted to see in this film. I really, REALLY wanted to see the growth of his dark persona and how he gets influence and the 'street smarts' by others like him. NOPE. Todd Phillips shat on the Joker mythos to preach how wrong we were for even linking his previous movie.
Nothing went wrong, the movie is gorgeous and very good. I can’t remember a tragedy of such magnitude in cinema lately. If one will watch that movie without knowing all the hustle on the internet he’ll enjoy it.
His lawyer really didn't have his best interest at heart, she was forcing him to use a defense that Arthur clearly didn't believe for a second. She didn't really listen to him, she just wanted to further her career. This movie is all about people's expectations for what the Joker is and what he should be. And while it's far from perfect I find that much more interesting than a lot of what I've seen proposed in it's place.
I legit would've preferred a Joker 2 where he leads a group of henchmen from the abandoned carnival as they commit various heists around Gotham. Even if it's simple, it'd be interesting. Also, it makes no sense for the Health Ledger Joker to be in the ending when the movie has Harvey Dent get his two-face disfigurement from the courtroom bomb...
There’s literally nothing interesting about that 😂 Arthur Fleck, in the first movie is a sad, lonely, downtrodden, murdering psychopath. His acts in Joker 1 are not meant to be cool, villainous, calculated or masterminded. Arthur Fleck was never meant to be “The Joker”
That would’ve been an action film, & this isn’t an action film series. It’s a psychological drama thriller. I would’ve preferred a film that took place pretty much entirely within Arkham, involving maybe some other renditions of batman villains that fit this universe. Arthur should’ve been joker through-out the film & essentially causing drama. Would’ve been interesting to see this joker navigate the asylum prison culture, maybe forming a bond with another villain who has a plan to break out. Perhaps the ending could’ve involved a grand break out, a twist betrayal, & Harley/joker or just joker escaping & “riding off into the sunset”. Those are just ideas off the top of my head so i haven’t really cooked them. Would prefer it to continue to weave in the conversation on mental illness that the first film had
@@milk_bath never said he would be a mastermind. That’s why I said the other villain he forms a bond with would have the plan to break out. & through character building scenes & chemistry we form an emotional attachment to this relationship through out the film, only for it to end in a betrayal for whatever reason. Admittedly, im trying to think of a way for the film to shock the audience like the Murray scene did. Because it was so good & I’d say the biggest reason the first film was so well received. It was his big “joker moment”. & the sequel would need its own big joker moment. & Arthur betraying his own friend could be that & portray his further descent into madness, since he sparred a friend in the first film. Could involve commentary on how incarceration doesn’t treat the mentally ill but rather often makes it worse
Ten years afterwards, director Sam Rami admitted he made Spiderman 3 with a musical number because he didn't want to do it, and wanted to punish the studio. I wonder if that was the case here...?
I'd disagree that Arthur doesn't make any active moves here -- that he just gets pushed around by the plot. He takes his lawyer's warnings about Harley to heart and confronts her about lying to him (before being completely bamboozled by her again, of ocurse); he makes the decision, later, to take command of fhis defense in the courtroom; and, finally, he realizes that he's NOT truly the Joker, comes clean about that fact, confesses to his mom's murder, and once Harley abandons him, is presumably prepared to face the consequences (if only he'd lived long enough to do so). Nonetheless, I think the Michael Corleone comparison is apt. Arthur "decides" to embrace being the Joker at the end of the first film, just as Mike embraces becoming the new don. But I'd argue that this film catches up with Arthur a year or two after making that choice -- a year that he's spent in an asylum, being verbally abused and slapped around and basically made into a figure of fun by the guards. He doesn't seem to have rejected the Joker persona (yet), but he's had a reality check: where has all the power he felt after embracing the mantle of the Joker gotten him? What good does it do, when he's up against people with more authority, and who are more physically powerful, than him? This film finds Arthur in the same position he was in at the beginning of the first one: cowed and beaten down after trying for some unknown period of time to be something he's not. This time he doesn't escape by retreating into delusion, but by facing up to the truth (at least briefly).
This was a movie that should’ve never been made in the first place considering the ending of the first one but the billion dollars had them scramble for a nonsensical sequel
Things they could have done with a still ill-advised sequel to Joker (2019): - Arthur embraces Joker and becomes a preacher/agitator-like figure in Arkham. - Arthur slowly loses his grip on the Joker persona and spends the movie trying to reconcile his actual self with what he did and he still wants to do/be, but without hiding behind a persona this time. - Arthur imagines a whole parallel Joker storyline while he's sedated and depressed during his trial process. - Arthur gets broken out by his fans, and slowly gets disillusioned while having to put up the Joker persona so they don't turn on him, and in the process discovers this ain't who he is. - Joker has a pretty conventional unhealthy relationship with Harley, only for it to be revealed that Harley manipulated him for academic/professional purposes and she was faking the romance, gaslighting him into believing he imagined the whole thing. - Joker has a pretty conventional unhealthy relationship with Harley during which he corrupts her, only for it to be revealed to be Harley's fantasy of her own suppressed desires, ending with her embracing an alter ego of crime while Arthur is led to execution/solitary. - Joker breaking out and trying to become an outlaw figurehead of social discontent, only to be murdered by the "real" Joker, who admits his setup is cool, so he's adopting it, but he's thinking bigger, he's not just for social change and revolt against the powerful, he's against everyone and his aim is complete chaos. - The most subversive thing they could have done at this point, namely Arthur disappearing slowly, with little attempts at regaining himself, under the Joker persona, while realizing the power he can have over Harley, who's a led astray serial killer fangirl with serious issues, ending up in radical change for both, not necessarily good, obvs. This movie managed to do absolutely nothing of these, and that's an achievement.
Also, I forgot, it could work great as a musical, or rather a rock opera. The musical's tone doesn't fit the atmosphere at all. We wouldn't want West Side Story with jazz or Cabaret with heavy metal, Joker needed original songs, more daring and organic incorporation of singing and choreography in the script, and mostly a harsher tone than 1950s classics.
The incarcerated Arthur Fleck shown at the end of Joker 1 acts absolutely nothing like the Arthur in this movie. He acts like all his character development got stripped away for no reason. I would’ve loved for them to go down some kind of “now he’s amongst his own people” story now he’s in jail since we saw how people were worshipping him during the riots and stuff
2:41 a bogus excuse from the director. The leaked script of Joker 1 had a scene where in the end he cuts a smile onto his face, becoming the joker. There's even an explicit dialog to cement that. But it was removed probably due to Nolan's pressure who wanted only his joker to be the one who carved his own smile. Either way, they always had him as the joker and then went back feet on it when the movie flopped. It is like their version of "you don't understand the film" thing that happend with the pro-feminist films of mcu (i think it was The Marvels director who said that not sure though)
What makes this movie even more interesting in an unfortunate way is the amount of hype it had compared to the first movie. Despite the trailers having garnered millions of views, there wasn't as much fascination, interest, or test screenings from the general public. The vibe through the months was met with indifference at best and skepticism at worst. And those who saw the movie mostly winded up disappointed or even offended.
This movie should have been about Arthur’s split personality disorder and how he’s struggling to be Arthur & not give in to his urges to be Joker mostly due to his doctors, lawyers, and the Arkham guards trying to beat Joker out of him. But his popularity and his relationship with Harley Quinn force him to no longer want to be Arthur Fleck and fully embrace Joker. Gary Puddles should of been presented as the only person in Arthur’s life who could of prevented him from becoming Joker and that should of lead to Gary’s death before the film’s climax maybe at the hands of Harley Quinn without Joker’s knowledge.
Im still in Moviebobs camp on a better The Joker ending: the guy in the car in the clown mask says how much Fleck inspired him and spoke to him; Fleck says he didnt have a plan its all out of his hands etc; young fan sighs takes off his mask to reveal freshly cut scars at the corners of his mouth and stringy green hair and sighs smacking his lips "well, never meet your antiheros i guess..." and shoots Fleck then it pans out with him drawing a smile on the glass of the cab window.
The original was just rip off of King of New York and Taxi driver. If they can't be original in the original then the sequel was always going to be corn for the masses
What did you think of the movie? Am I being too harsh on it?
Get a GREAT deal on Nebula now: go.nebula.tv/captainmidnight
@@captainmidnight Didn't like it. I admire the risks it took, but none of them really paid off.
No you are right
There is this point of view, that once the character has made a choice there is no going back. Which from a more practical point of view makes sense. What the film decides to address is the longer path, of asking about the consequences and assuming that the decision may have been wrong. Arthur is doomed to be a hostage to his own choices made in the first film. Basically, by embracing the Joker, he gives up the decision-making power he had. By betting on the illusion of having power, he gives up precisely that power.
Your not being harsh enough !
Joker 2 is a cinematic masterpiece (far better than Joker 1), but it’s not made for simpletons like you. The entire message and point of the movie were to expose fake fans. Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn essentially plays the audience-you are Harley Quinn. You expected a movie where Joker does 'cool' and 'bad' things, as you think Joker is supposed to, without ever looking at the person behind the persona (Arthur). When you didn’t get the 'cool' stuff, you stormed off, just like Harley did.
The movie perfectly portrays capitalism and its consumption-driven mindset. People are reduced to either being entertaining (the Joker) or not worth paying attention to (Arthur Fleck). This point is demonstrated flawlessly. People prefer to be entertained rather than engage with authenticity. When Joker is authentic (i.e., when he’s Arthur), he loses, and this perfectly illustrates our superficial capitalist culture. Authenticity is dead-we don’t care about the person behind the persona; we just want to see the Joker, the version we imagine he’s supposed to be. Like in capitalism, we crave the flashing lights, the illusion of realness, not realness itself, because that’s boring. When the movie shatters that illusion, you go cry on the internet.
Harley Quinn doesn’t just represent the audience (or fake fans like you); she also symbolizes the 'higher-ups' who wanted Todd Phillips to make a 'cool' sequel about Joker and Harley taking over Gotham, causing anarchy, and doing bad shit. This is what the trailer suggested-another masterpiece in setting expectations and then demolishing them. She wants the Joker because the audience wants the Joker; they don’t want a 'loser' like Arthur. But Todd Phillips said no, and by doing so, he exposed the audience for what they really are: they don’t care about realness, they just want entertainment. Now that they didn’t get it, they’re crying online because their idea of what Joker is 'supposed' to be has been crushed.
To everyone who hates this movie: first, you’ve been exposed as fracking idiots; second, this movie is the perfect slap in the face to all of you. Todd Phillips gave you that slap, and now you’re all storming off, whining online about how you didn’t like the movie, or asking 'what was the point?' when the point was you-you are the point. The truth is, this movie was a mirror, and that’s exactly why you don’t like it.
I love this movie far more than the first one. As I said at the beginning, it’s a cinematic masterpiece. The only real clown is the audiance.
I saw it on a bootleg at home and walked out of my own house
Hope you took your keys with you ...*shrug.
Help...police...murder!
😂😂😂😂😂
Demand a refund
😂😂😂 brilliant
I was kinda mad when Todd Phillips said that Arthur isn't even a Joker, but now I know that the real Joker was me who watched that movie! Truly a genius piece of art 👏😩
Hahaha
🤡
maybe the joker is the friends we made along the way
more like the JOKE was on you for watching this movie
No! You weren't the Joker. You were the Jokee. 😛
What went wrong is the basic story: a movie that’s basically a discussion about the previous movie. That’s not a movie sequel- that’s a podcast.
That's both an apology and an insult too.
So many pieces of media now are just soapboxes for the creators to push their opinions. The Podcastification of Everything
This movie could've been an email
@@GottiGonSlide They always have been. They never were not. Stories we told always have some deeper meaning, lesson or opinion in them. Really, thats what they are for. The problem is how modern day society and capitalism turned art into a mass prduced product to such a degree it just tastes stale and soulles and is as subtle as a brick to the head with a letter tied to it.
It explains a lot that the film was entirely conceived of by Joaquin Phoenix himself. This film was 100% made for him.
The one I truly feel bad for is Gaga, she signed on before she read the finished script because she thought it would be like the first one. Kinda like Bill Murray (Murr-AY!) and Garfield. She learned a hard lesson.
"when joker falls under harley's influence" is truly a sentence I never ever thought I would hear
The Telltale Batman games started with Harley as the masked criminal, and Joker didn't even exist yet. He can either become a hyber violent crimefighter (inspired by Batman), or more like the regular Joker (inspired by Harley and Batman's rejection).
@@EGRJ Glad I didn't play that sounds awful
@@linkandshiek5522you're missing out on great games, don't be a hater.
I like that aspect bexause Arthurs Joker doesnt seem like a master manipulator
They did the same with telltale Batman which was stupid af
It pissed me off how this movie didn't even address anything about The Wayne family at all, like they were a huge part of the previous movie
I can’t believe they didn’t mention Mr. Freeze or Catwoman. Also, how am I supposed to pay attention if Superman isn’t there fighting Darkseid too?
@@FriendlyGreg10 those weren't part of the previous movie at all tho
@@FriendlyGreg10 you joke like that but they literally had two face make a cameo
@@MrMacka99how is it a cameo when he has a significant amount of screen time? That’s not what a cameo is.
@@ronan.pellen Yeah I know, I'm just being hyperbolic. ANother thing, I'm just wondering how addressing the Wayne family would do anything. At least from what I remember Bruce Wayne's parents are dead and he's still just a child. So like, what does this guy expect from the Wayne family?
1. A romance with no chemistry
2. A courtroom drama with no mystery or suspense
3. A musical with bad singing
4. A soundtrack with no original songs
5. A joker movie that has nothing to do with the joker or harley quinn characters
That sounds utterly pointless
No. Original. Song???
IDK why I had my standard higher than that but just, wow.
So Lady Gaga's career in movie form.
So you're saying they had a Bad Romance?
@@Lonaticus that's the dumbest fucking thing to say about a multiple Oscar and Grammy winner
At this point I'm exhausted of movies that take names of pre-existing characters and aren't even adapting them
What other movie does that?
@@Kelohmelloprobably movies like venom come to mind
Oh! Like Cassandra Cain in Birds of Prey.
Like what else?
Velma was a show that did it@@kidkunjer
Joker 1: a man's descent into madness.
Joker 2: other people talking about the man's descent into madness.... Plus love songs.
More accurate:
Joker 1: How society creates monsters out of those suffering from poor mental health
Joker 2: How society glorifies those monsters
@@danculbert6349 plus love songs
@@danculbert6349 Joker 2: How edgelords glorify those monsters
12:36 12:36 12:36 @@danculbert6349
@@danculbert6349no one created monsters, he made choices and those choices landed him in the predicaments
Saying society created him is like saying the weather is created by people that predict it
Can we shelve Joker as a character for like, 20 years? I don't want to see him onscreen again for a long, long time.
Battinson’s got some bad news for ya…
Are you a negative review bot?
My thoughts exactly.
God I I wish
no instead we will be adding batman who laughs into films since dc saw that comic readers really loved him being shoved into every story since his introduction
The first movie systematically destroyed his identity by eroding things he thought he was:
- He was NOT a great dancer.
- He was NOT a lovable children's entertainer as he got fired and blamed for another guy's crime.
- He was NOT a hilarious comedian.
- He was NOT the illegitimate son of Thomas Wayne.
- He was NOT in a healthy relationship with a kind neighbour.
- He was NOT the biological son of Penny Fleck.
- He might NOT have even been a real clown as he mentioned someone else say his own clown name was theirs.
All this and some other things contributed to Arthur completely losing his self-image, only being able to correctly identify himself by the ONE thing he did that actually mattered: killing those "Wall Street guys." This man lost everything he THOUGHT he knew about himself and decided to cling to the one thing that he DID and that gave rise to this new identity as The Joker. A name he didn't even come up with on his own but the world around him chose FOR him to identify with as it was Thomas Wayne who called him this first and the public picked it up.
For THIS man I just described to make the sudden choice that he DOESN'T want to be Joker anymore and he wants to be poor, weak, helpless, pathetic and potentially nonexistent Arthur again, that makes SO little sense I'm surprised the writers themselves aren't in Arkham.
IMO It makes sense because he cling to it and the whole second movie shows him that nobody cares about him but about the joker ultimately they will choose the joker over him.
SPOILER
- If he wanted something different from what was expected from the joker everybody expected him to still be joker. He did not matter even in "this life".
- He never meant to hurt his colleague, to make him afraid and unable to sleep at night. He liked the only one guy that has been nice to him Arthur and this man was terrified of Joker and he never considered it before that, assuming now everybody loved him.
- He also understood that he is still the same "victim" he has always been after what happened with the prison guards. Joker was a way for him to feel powerful and in control but he was not.
The whole first movie was a story telling that nobody cares about those people including the richs but also pretty much everyone in the city from strangers to his own mother. The point made was that we could be better as a society (rich and powerful people like Wayne, but also citizen like the guys in the subway or even a simple mother in a bus). Joker was a consequence not a solution and everybody started to see the joker as it.
The second movie proves that even as viewers, nobody cares about Arthur, they want the joker, that he is not, even if it hurts him. He never planned anything, He never wanted to make any statement or start anything, he was not a leader even in the first movie. He snapped. And audiences chose that they wanted to see this man becoming the "crime lord" he was never meant to be when it has always been Arthur, a man not really bright with a lot of traumas and they did not care about him like Gotham, like the TV Show host, everybody. They tied to the idea they have made of him, not to Arthur.
@@Heargroveyes, even the psychotherapist, who was indeed a compassionate woman, didn’t see Arthur for what he actually is. Not a single person ever cared about him.
I don't know about the parentage thing. If I've learned anything from "Punky Brewster", "Amen", "Good Times" and "Mommy Dearest", orphanages/CPS of the 1940's and 50's were pretty strict with who to give children to. A single woman with mental issues like Penny would've been a no-go. Even if this is Gotham. It wouldn't even fly in the 70’s and 80's. Though it also makes me wonder about Bruce's parentages as the Waynes seemed to have had him extremely late. Like, wasn't IVF still extremely new?
@@Heargrovethe issue I have is that the movie does not commit to this at all, and it does feel like a retcon
I feel like the Puddles scene was a great set up to it, but they don't build up on this scene, Arthur barely seems to reflect on that, he was back into being the Joker right after that, it's like he gets abused and a switch flips on his head. It is an interesting set of ideas, but it feels underbaked and I have a lot of unanswered questions
-The movement Joker started, what were the consequences of that? We see Harley and some guys, but the movie glosses over that so quickly
- The movement still seems to be strong. So how does Gotham work now?
- How come the Joker mob never broke into the courtroom? They only exploded the courtroom after Arthur conveniently gives up on being the Joker
@@gabrielmagalhaes859 well it is not a movie about the movement outside but about arthur.
I have never seen a sequel that makes the first one feel so pointless
Highlander 2 is another one
Just out of curiosity, if you assume the first Joker was always going to have a sequel, what do you think it should have focused on?
@@danculbert6349The Joker
@@danculbert6349 joker 2 had great ideas and that makes it so frustrating. The ideas they had in this were pretty good for a sequel, like the trial of the joker and him being in Arkham should’ve been executed way better. Have him embrace his persona, cause mayhem in the prison with Harley and kill the guards, have a stronger trial, and they should’ve just killed him off with the electric chair instead of that weird “twist” at the end. The musical part should’ve been left out or worked on way better
@@danculbert6349 it had all the right ingredients and actors, so for it to fumble this bad is shocking. I think Phillips intentionally made this terrible
This is going to be one of those films where, in a few years, everyone collectively forgets that the sequel even exists.
I've already forgotten.
Speed 2 - Bigger, Badder and more expensive in every way!!
Unfortunately I never forget this shit. I probably end up talking about Highlander II more than Highlander.
How can a sequel exist when it never exist to begin with? I mean thats like saying Pacific Rim has a sequel or that Aang has a live action movie in 2010? Those never happened, right? RIGHT??????
@johans3164 Man I'd love an Independence Day 2, but alas it's been so long it will never happen.
The element of someone setting off a social movement of increasingly unhinged radicals they then lose control of sounds like a fantastic premise and one that could be really used for some dramatic chops. Unfortunately The Batman (2022) managed to pull off the same concept far more effectively around the Riddler of all characters!
You should watch a foreign film called the wave
They kinds did that and it's quite good
*cough* Dune *cough*
@@korvo3427boring
They should have done that, but have Bruce Wayne on the stand and show Arthur how his actions broke the little boy that would become batman. Have him at that point not want to be remembered as a monster. Then as he tries to stop, the 'real' joker kills him and takes over cause the dominoes had already fell
That isn’t what happened. The riddler encouraged his followers to
What happens when a creator hates his own main character and then makes a sequel scolding the audience for liking that character.
Basically we should all ask Todd Phillips: why did you choose a beloved DC Comic character to make a movie around if you didn’t want to feature that character?
The whole thing is just a big middle finger to audiences and fans of the franchise. Like I get it. I get he doesn’t like comic movies. But no one forced him to make a Joker film.
Well you see he had this "genius" idea of combining Taxi Driver with King of Comedy to pay homage to classic Scorcese and... that's all folks!
I think he doesnt care about comic characters at all amd never wanted to make a super hero flick. My theroy is he had a movie about a mentally ill guy whose mad his health care got canceled but nobody wanted to give him money for that. Then he just erased Arthur and wrote in Joker and then they gave him money.
You can still pull that concept off with finesse - Metal Gear Solid 2 is brilliant, but also a deconstruction of MGS1 aimed squarely at Snake fanboys.
Well the first movie made it clear it wasn't comic book joker. It's about a pitiful man in a failing society and how symbols were created around this weak person. I think the 2nd really hammers home the point of how pitiful he really is.
The problem is that one is satisfying and the other is annoying. In the first film he's a pitiful person in a world that doesn't care about him, so when he explodes it's his response to the world, and even though he's been arrested and had his social life completely destroyed, he's still smiling, because he He won, now people know who he is. He's still a pitiful person, but he doesn't care, he had the last laugh
In the second film, he becomes confused about the identity he created and at one point gives up on it, this happens precisely when the guards abuse him by taking advantage of the fact that he is physically weak. The excessive abuse, the fact that he was weak is what made him become the Joker in the first place. It's even more pathetic, a pathetic that only irritates, it's as if a serial killer in the end gave up on the figure he presented to the public and apologized for having killed people. Like, bro? You won't gain sympathy to apologize, you still killed people. And Arthur, in particular, has no internal reason to apologize, this is just pathetic @@musayibghani3986
The scene with Gary I really legitimately liked. As you said, the actor really put all he could into. His lines about Arthur being the only one not to make fun of him actually made me feel sad for him, and him talking about how afraid he is of Arthur was about the only thing to out into perspective Arthur’s transition into what he hated, giving others the same fear and powerlessness he had at the beginning of the first film.
This movie felt like one of those weird dreams where you don't know if it is some sort of nightmare or just randomness out of nowhere, but when you wake up you are glad to see that nothing of it was real.
saw the movie for the first time last night off just a 5mg edible, had me thinking I was going insane with how much of a fever dream it was
Phoenix said this movie came in his dream makes sense now
Same goes for ice age 5
@@chanceseversondude I saw some guy on twitter watched it on four tabs of acid. I can’t imagine a worse way to spend two hours
@DoubleHCreations It's rare to find anyone who still remembers this movie exists.
The existence of this movie will become cinephile trivia in 15 years. "Huh??? There was a sequel???"
"disney dvd sequels" vibes
American Psycho 2 Moment
Naw all the kids who thought it was bad bcz a RUclipsr said so will slowly form their own opinion and realize it's a good movie that holds up a mirror to the audience
@rynor2691 The "plot" of Joker 2 is too incompentent to even deconstruct the "Joker" persona in an organic manner. Do you really think Todd Phillips has the skill to hold up a "mirror" to the audience, especially in light of him claiming that he never wanted the Joker persona overshadowing Arthur Fleck, despite the ending of the first movie essentially showing just that?
@@rynor2691Lmao just try to defend the film I dare you
The whole Hangover series taught me that Todd Phillips is not good at doing sequels. All of his sequels just revolve around reminding the audience about how good the first one was and then the movie ends.
So I’m not surprised at all that that’s what happened to Joker 2.
Well the hangover 2 was the first one, pretty much beat for beat, as a blatant cash grab.
The third, while still a cash grab playing on the hangover name, went in a different direction due to criticism of the second one and wow, what a terrible direction it chose.
At least the second one did make me laugh a couple times.
I loved the first Joker, but as soon as I heard the sequel would be a musical starring Lady Gaga, I was out. No thank you.
Still, disappointed to hear its worse than even I thought.
Nope. The first movie was suppose to be mocking incels and white men. It wasn't intended for those same people to actually enjoy the movie. The producer of the movie got UPSET that people actually identified with the joker. Literally upset that people fell in love with the joker and viewed it as social commentary and related to the joker.
So he made the sequal as trash as possible to discredit the first movie.
I’m pretty sure this movie was exactly as intended. Aggressively unpleasant and made to troll the more toxic fans of the original. Personally I would call that a waste of 200 million dollars that could have been spent on something original or useful.
@@Reidak12 Isn’t that the most Joker thing ever, though? Wasting 200 million on something no one will enjoy? “That’s entertainment.”
@@christophermanley3602 wouldn't it be the most joker thing to blow up the cinema ? what does this mean. The regisseur is not the joker.
I feel like they could’ve made a really cool sequel, actually. It could’ve been really cool if instead of focusing on Joker, we focused on Harley. Same gritty universe, and you’ve got this doctor so determined to help people that she tries to help rehabilitate the Joker and ends up falling under his thrall. Like if Hannibal convinced Clarice to join him at the end or something. Could’ve been really cool. And it could still be called “Folie a deux” as we watch Harley join him in his madness. Instead we got a musical about nothing.
I really thought Harley would be part of that defense lawyer's team of "Joker is just a split personality of yours, right Arthur" and end up turning looney tooney with Arthur. But her character was pointless and ended nowhere
Fun fact: At the end of the Hannibal novel, Dr.Lecter actually manipulated (or hypnotizes,I guess) Clarice into joining him and being together with him. It was pretty weird tbh,the movie changed it for the better
I literally thought this was the direction they were going with. Like having Harley and Arthur talk normally when they're apart but then begin to sing when they're together as if his words were like music to her.
It was really cool. Shows how the system failed a very tragic person.
This is the first American, corporate, “anti-movie” I can think of. A movie that hates the fans, all of them, on purpose, and wants to make a movie to offend them.
What about Matrix 4?
@@derpoltergeist8265 Matrix 4 wasn't really attacking the fans. It was attacking the studio and making sure no future Matrix projects would be greenlit (even though WB later greenlit a new movie lol).
@@derpoltergeist8265Please, don’t bring that movie up. Im doing my best to remove it from my memory.
For me, that was The Last Jedi
The first movie was the same thing. The original intent of Joker I was to mock incels and lonely white men. But it failed and was instead embraced by those men. So the producer enraged made sure his message got across this time.
im not even kidding this is admitted. The first movie was meant to demoralize men, instead it united them.
This movie just felt like a really long, depressing episode of Glee. I don’t know why they didn’t compose new songs for this. At times it felt like the screenwriter got lazy and threw in a vaguely relevant song rather than come up with original lyrics/dialogue.
Google : songs with the word clown or love in it.
@je5406 omg is tears of a clown in it? 😂😭 they lost me at musical, but not even creating their own music shouldn't have been considered to be taken seriously at all
@@AmandaabnamA Moulin Rouge did pretty well with cover songs, but it gave them new and interesting contexts.
Laziness of filmmaking is a central theme.
Felt like Finn died again
They should have switched to the POV of Detective James Gordon, trying to unravel the man from the myth as he hunted him down before he gets put in Arkham. Have it so Gordon is trying to understand Joker's "master plan" his "5D chess", only to uncover he's just chaotically stumbling from event to event with no particular aim - and have copycats blur the line between what Fleck does and what Joker does... Like Gordon is comic book fans, trying to see *The* Joker's actions in Joker, and coming with that bias...
That's what I'd have done anyway.
I really like that idea! The problem is that Todd Phillips clearly doesn't know or care about any of the Batman characters. So it would never occur to him,.
So basically, making this incarnation of The Joker something of a Mr. Bean type of character, where he constantly fails upwards and winds up achieving whatever he's setting out to do?
That's the greatest thing I've ever heard and now I'm upset that that isn't what we got
@@bkaneshiro14 Kind of, but not played for laughs...
Like Trump's life @@kidkunjer
@@bkaneshiro14 That's pretty much what the actual Joker does. He doesn't really make plans
Arthur needed Saul Goodman as his lawyer!
Definitely
He didn't need a criminal lawyer, he needed a Criminal Lawyer
Slippin' Jimmy
From the sounds of it that might've made this a marginally more enjoyable movie.
Now I'm imagining Tony Dalton's Lalo as the joker and I need this to be made
I respectfully disagree with this point 1:19, in the sense that Arthur could have been developed to be more methodical especially in the sequel. We see traces of Arthur's intelligence in Joker (2019), when he evades the police in the third act. His evasion was a bit clumsy, but effective. Prison would have been a great place to develop this aspect of the character even further. Todd Philips and Scott Sliver are talented enough to have done this. Its a shame they didn’t.
Shut up nerd
4:00 We all remember that famous scene in "Terminator 2" when halfway thru the movie we find out Sarah Conner actually is insane and had a mental breakdown after years at a scummy job getting harassed by her boss. She fell ever deeper into depression and the substances and trauma created an elaborate fantasy about time traveling machines and super computers out to get her. The whole first movie was a hallucination from PTSD. That's why T2 was a great film, it showed her in court and being psycho analyzed.🤡💩 lmfao
And don't forget somebody stabbing her to death At the end of the second movie therefore randomly putting on the Terminator glasses revealing that some random background character Was the real Terminator all along
This wasn't just a bad movie, but it was also a "Bad Romance." 😂
Very funny.
Ba bum bum prweeee!
Can't read my, can't read my, No he can't read my Joker Face.
(She's got me like nobody)
Ah haaa
What’s the emoji for a slow clap?
Todd Phillips said "How can I continue Joker as a character? I know. Hangover 3!"
I like the analogy the Godfather, but I think it should be a little different. It's like Todd Philips and Phoenix wrote this movie, from the critics statement of the first Joker. Instead of embracing the ambiguity and letting the audience grapple with the unsettling questions the first film raised, or taking character arc Arthur has reached, they threw all of that and made a movie where they explicitly tell "violence bad", "joker bad", explicitly condemning Arthur, the mob, and violence. It feels less like a sequel and more like someone trying to "correct" the original's perceived message, taking us ten steps backward instead of pushing the story forward.
I tell my friends it's less a sequel to Joker and more a response to its criticism.
Yes, exactly. The first film deliberately makes him into a sympathetic (not necessarily morally justified) character - a troubled loner who cannot connect to society in a setting ripe with corruption and depravity. It's specifically because the world he inhabits is merciless, pitiless, and unsympathetic that we as the audience naturally fill that void.
Joker (2019) isn't asking us to pick sides, but it is challenging us to see violent social upheaval in context. The film goes out of its way to show Arthur as a fringe folk hero to a population who, like him, have reached a boiling point. He is a personification of social decay, his life mirroring a decade or more of urban decline.
They got too focused on directly responding to unironic fans of the Joker character. It's too meta, direct, & spiteful. I also don't like the meta message that Phoenix & Todd were forced to make a sequel. No you weren't, you two just wanted the money & delusionaly believed you were being clever.
@@nates5703isn’t this just taxi driver
@@THEODSTKING117 The parallels are definitely there.
@@THEODSTKING117the first movie is s rip off of taxi driver anyways
If this thing fails hard enough, it might FINALLY destroy WB's obsession with the Joker!
Everyone walked out when I saw it on the plane.
I think its time for us as moviegoers to realize when it comes to directors and such... Sometimes intent... is BAD.
Yes, someone might have intended to do something in a specific way... and shockingly, that's not always a good nor interesting thing.
The more reviews I hear the more this movie shoulda been a 20 minute “the joker on trial” episode on BTAS
And the musicals added nothing but filler. Theres even one song where the characters explain their motivation that has been explained a few minutes ago in a VERY repetitive manner. Like....I GET IT, Y'ALL CRAZY, MOVE ON!!!
Good musicals can make not just great music but the music added something new to the plot or progress things further like Greatest Showman or Wonka. In Joker 2, its all needless filler
Arthur being pathetic and dying would have been an admirable artistic choice if the movie did something with it
Make it a movie about the myth overtaking the man. Have everyone in universe buy into the idea that Joker is some comic book supervillain playing 5d chess with everyone, maybe have him stumble into some accomplishments unintentionally or his copycats get conflated with his own actions. Like a bunch of dudes in clown makeup rob a bank, so obviously the Joker must have orchestrated it. Or Arthur shoots a guy who attacked him, only for it to turn out said guy was related to someone important so the Joker was definitely trying to send a message. Then depending on how you want to go you can either have Arthur buy into his own hype only to be ignobly gunned down the second he tries a Joker thing, or have him killed in the crossfire of an event he had nothing to do with, and nobody notices because the myth of the Joker has long since outgrown the man that is Arthur Fleck.
Todd Phillips hates how people loved the first movie, and created a two hour humiliation ritual. They literally rape the
Joker out of Arthur ffs.
For the life of me, I can't figure why they felt a sequel to the first movie was even needed. Joker was a completely self-contained story that didn't leave the audience asking for more details.
14:14 Yes. In Gotham, Jerome Valeska was killed off and implied to be the inspiration for the real Joker. However, people didn’t like this, so they brought him back.
It's even more convoluted than that, unfortunately. They later killed him off AGAIN and his long lost twin brother Jeremiah became the "real" Joker.
I have some sympathy for the writers because I know DC was jerking them around about whether or not they could use a fully fledged Joker at the time. But it doesn't make the end result any less frustrating to try and watch, especially when Jerome was an excellent Joker and Jeremiah didn't really work imo.
Throughout the entire movie, I kept thinking of how animated Disney musicals have the restraint to feature at tops, maybe 5 songs, and make sure they're all bangers that tell us something about the story, while Joker 2 is trying to sequalize a non-musical with 8 random musical sequences that just tediously freezes the narrative every 5 minutes.
Maybe if you paid attention you’d recognize that the musical portions serve narrative purpose. Also, god forbid a director does something interesting and different with a sequel. It baffles me that a choice as benign as making your movie into a musical leads to such a vicious response from moviegoers. People complain about being handed the same slop over and over again w/ marvel and then throw a shit fit when someone finally does something different.
@@FriendlyGreg10 so we should watch bad entertainment just because it's a different shade of shit than what we've been getting? You're a woefully stupid and/or a bot.
@@FriendlyGreg10
Why are you so vociferous with your opinion on other peoples opinion?
Criticism of this movie that Ive heard is not in the fundamental choices made, ie the decision to make it a musical but the execution thereof.
If you like the film, cool, don’t get upset if other people don’t.
@@RoloT007 Because I'm very passionate about the things I like, and it makes me mad when people dislike a thing for reasons that don't make any sense. If you say Joker 2 is boring for example, sure, that makes sense to me, that's perfectly fine. People are also allowed to have their opinions on what makes a good musical, but it should at the very least make sense. Most of the reasons I've seen for why people don't like this movie can be boiled down to, "I don't like apples because apples are orange, and I don't like orange foods".
@@FriendlyGreg10Thats fair enough, passion is a good thing.
But if people dont like the things that you like, dont take it to heart.
There will be plenty of people that dont like Joker 2, for all sorts of reasons, they dont need to affect your enjoyment of it. Be comfortable in your enjoyment of film, music, whatever that be and your reasons for it.
Imagine after Batman Begins, the sequel was about Bruce Wayne discovering he didn't really want to be Batman after all, refuses to put on the costume, and the movie ends with Wayne dying and another person taking up the mantle. That is the bait and switch that the Joker 2 pulled by regressing the character away from, rather than embracing, his identity as the titular character. While I can give them some credit for being original, as I don't think it has ever been done before (setting up an origin for a character, then doing a 180 and showing that they aren't actually that character), it still feels wrong.
Thanos gets SA, then feels bad, doesn’t want to snap his fingers and gets stabbed to death while in the background someone else picks up his gauntlet
@@chiraqg1374 the fact everyone is focused on the SA part is very interesting IMO. A lot of real serial killers got SA'ed. Notably Clyde Barrows of the infamous Bonnie and Clyde crime group. It's actually what hardened him into a worse criminal. He was just serving time for being a car thief, afterwards he became a murderer. considering this is a "Joker & Harley" movie, I thought that contrast is probably relevant. But movie goers seem to think a fictional character a lot less for getting SA'ed. which is definitely very interesting for a gritty real comic book character setting movie. An expectations vs reality discrepancy if you will.
and Bruce gets gang graped by thugs on the street while he's trying to be Batman.
@@JurassicRod"Directed by Zack Snyder"
Lets not.
They keep abusing Arthur, yet Todd expects us to not have any sympathy for his crimes and he doesn't even kill anyone in this movie.
Reminds me of The Boys how they wanted to portray Huey getting raped as comedic or his fault. But the audience hated it.
@@IncredibleFulk1 damn what did I miss?
@@clumsyninja925fr what? 💀
This is probably the video that best explains the issues with Joker 2. Everyone trashes it because it's easy, but examples and explanations are here. 10/10
Your right that Arthur Fleck is no Criminal Mastermind. But The Joker is a criminal Mastermind. The thing about Arthur Flecks Joker from the first movie was that he was only Just Born. The ending of the first movie is where Arthur Embraces His other Half and Fully Gives into His Joker Persona, letting it take control, after Having suppressed it his entire life. The ending leaves room for a story to be told with this newly freed Joker Persona. The story that they should have told was how this Joker establishes himself in Gotham. How he grows. Where Arthur fleck was weak, and incompetent, His Joker Persona is the polar opposite. Hes Strong, and Competent. Hes Smart, hes Capable. Not afraid to both stand up for himself and take charge. Arthur Fleck couldnt Lead his gang of followers, But his Joker Persona Could. Arthur Fleck couldnt evolve into a criminal mastermind, But his Joker Persona Could. That was the story they Should have told. If the first movie was all about how he becomes the Joker, this movie should have been all about his Growth as the Joker.
Joker is an extrapolation of the man. Jack Napier was a smart criminal that snapped. I guess the other Jack(?) from the cartoon has the Killing Joke origin.
Arthur's Joker was Arthur unhinged. He was not a smart man. And that's fine
If this had happened in the sequel, we'd be breaking box office records right now.
@@greenkoopa your right but that's my point. Arthur Fleck wasn't a smart man, he was an unhinged man who had a crazier, darker half hiding underneath him all along. But His Joker persona had the potential to evolve and grow into a smart criminal. He could have started out the movie a Novice/rookie criminal, but the more he embodies the Joker, the more he gets involved with his Followers, and the more he gets involved with Harley Quinn, his Joker persona develops into a smart criminal.
@@gensteps923 an alter ego can’t be smarter than the man. Arthur has literal brain damage. His joker persona is still using his damaged brain and limited intelligence.
I would have much rather seen a movie like that.
Instead they do a deconstruction of the character, undo everything from the first movie, and then just... throw it all away leaving the viewer nothing else to think but "what was the point of that?"
Horrible film. Undoing all the character development just to have Joker beaten, humiliated, gang graped and killed while Lady Gaga sings and prances around. The audience that made the studio over a billion on the first movie were the ''wrong'' audience though so something had to be done! This film exists to punish you for liking the first movie and sympathizing with Arthur.
To be fair though, anyone who identifies with Arthur are pretty freakish. You can sympathize without identifying.
This movie was not the proper way to handle that reception though
I loved the first movie and loved this one, such an interesting psychological character study
I think it was made horrible on purpose either by the director to piss off the studio, like "so, you want an unnecesary sequel? here you go!", or to piss off people for liking the "wrong" movie instead of liking stuff like Captain Marvel or whatever movie Hollywood tried to force to be the greatest thing ever but people didn't like it.
@@pelgervampireduck how do you explain the minority of people like myself who actually love the second film and is fascinated by the “trainwreck”
@@hunkahunka1488 personal taste, a lot of people like movies, songs or tv shows other people say "that's horrible".
I love the first Super Mario movie, the old one, not the cartoon new one, everybody seems to hate it and everybody says it's an horrible movie but I like it.
I'm surprised they didn't deny any of Arthur's crimes as being figments of his imagination. It'd be a basic curveball but one that would very easily bring tension to Arthur and his struggle between him and his shadow.
and his "followers" could be stealing evidence or tainting the crime scene...joker could confess and wouldn't even know if he did it. it's like they made this movie bad on purpose
@@niceprofile-k6i Damn thats actually a pretty good plot. Arthur become regretful and want to confess but got a "plot armor" thanks to other Jokers which further spiraled him into madness. I feel like Todd purposely made this movie bad or sum
That’s such a terrible idea. Lamest “curveball” ever. Also, People would blame this movie even more for “ruining” the first one (even though it didn’t) by making his revenge not real and therefore meaningless. Also also, what would the plot be if he never even did anything wrong? You could have it so that only some of his crimes were imagined, but then that would just make even less sense.
I see why joker didnt want a world without batman 😮💨😭
Arthur never really had agency to begin with. I don’t see how people wanted him to go full throttle Joker & commit to this villain arc when he fought with himself tooth and nail the first movie about not wanting to be this way. His character is consistent with that. The idea of both movies is to add a conscious and emotion to the person we know to be Joker. What is he really like-- he’s a sad man, who is definitely on the autism spectrum and has an uncontrollable laugh that warrants very terrible things to happen to him. Thats it. Thats all it ever was. This makes perfect sense to the nature of who he is. This movie showed this man grappling with the idea of receiving some kind of fake tenderness and recognition to not receiving any of it based off of his persona and moods. This is the behind the scene of what that looks like.
Also him going full fledge Joker wouldn’t develop the story in any real way. Who I was disappointed in was Harley (lees) role… she took over as the main character and didn’t add anything of real significance other than to support this grappling inside him
3:10, when you compared the way a fictional Godfather Part II could back track the first one, you perfectly described what The Godfather Part III did to Part II.
Godfather III is a masterpiece.
What went wrong with it, is that the idea came to life. They should’ve just left the Joker as a one off movie. In fact that’s what it felt like it was always supposed to be, because there was nothing left to do after that movie. This just felt like a bunch of Hollywood executives told them to make a new Joker movie.
That is exactly what gives it its artistic value though.
I can’t get over how unbelievably disappointing this move is. Despite how skeptical I was when I heard that this was gonna be a musical, I still had a little bit of faith considering the fact that Lady Gaga was as Harley Quinn as she’s proving herself not just as a great vocalist but a great actress when she’s given the light material but after watching the movie, it taught me two things: the first is not every movie needs a sequel and second is that Todd Phillips is terrible at making sequels. They wasted Lady Gaga was so unforgivable. Not to mention the insultingly terrible ending.
i was a bit nervous because i thought the media was going to try and push the failure off to her, when all the scenes she had were really good.
Agreed I thought the addition of lady Gaga was going to enhance the showing even if it was a musical, which I'm for because it sounds creative, her creativity off the screen has convinced me she would great at acting/singing.
@@purplesky99876 a few people are blaming her for it. i saw a few comments like "Everything Gaga touches dies"
I would have liked to have seen Arthur become the ruthless villain that manipulates the mob to his own ends. You see plenty of signs of him doing just that in the first film. When he gets a mob of guys to batter the cops that were chasing him. He also made a spectacle of Murray Franklins death and made one of jokers signature jokes on camera. Even when he is incarcerated at the end he’s shown to be incredibly dangerous when he kills the woman interviewing him and tries to escape.
he didnt kill that woman, nor did he manipulate anyone. What are you talking about?
@@ben0it06-x9b yeah he used the mob as a distraction to brake into the theatre. Then he got them to beat up and hospitalise the cops that were chasing him with some quick thinking. At the end he kills the psychiatrist hence the blood on his shoes and tires to escape Arkham.
GOTHAM had a far more interesting version of the Joker Fan Club storyline, it's a underappreciated show
You could make a fantastic movie out of a man who finds himself launched to the head of a movement, who stuggles to maintain his standing while also not being fully sure how he even got there, and how the thrashing mass of public perception rips him apart, before casually moving on to the next thing.
This movie does not do that.
Great summary. I'd add that music numbers in musicals are supposed to move the plot forward or at least contribute to the plot in some other way, fillin in the blanks that explain a character's actions and motivations. This movie has nothing even close to that. Every song put the story to a halt, and every song ending puts the audience in a state of confusion about what is/was going on.
Ironically maybe the best (least bad) bits of this movie where the ones that alluded to its prequel like the stairs, the car escape, and Sophie and Mr. Puddles scenes. Which makes us wonder why did they try to distance themselves so much from a movie that not only (while not perfect) was good, had a strong narrative arc and a lot of heart, but also set the foundations for the character they were going to work with.
Seems like it was just an excuse for gaga to release a new album
And all the songs that do focus on Arthur’s psyche are just repeating stuff that we the audience already know about
RE: The ending... despite what it implies (which I think was an -- obviously unsuccessful -- attempt to placate fans Phillips knew would be upset by the overall direction he'd taken), I don't think a "real Joker" could exist in this film's universe. The whole point of this movie seems to be that the persona of the Joker is an illusion, not the sort of twisted aspirational figure it's (arguably) portrayed as in the first film.
It would be contradictory to everything this film is trying to do, I think, to expose the hollowness of what trying to embrace being the Joker brought to Arthur's life, while at the same time implying that SOME OTHER mentally ill dude is totally going to embrace that mantle and make it his own.
I think the only way to make these films part of a coherent model of the Batman universe would be to follow up with a Batman film where Bruce gives being the Bat a go, is really shitty at it, and winds up getting himself killed and/or institutionalized, just like Arthur.
The Batman movie idea sounds awesome ngl
You bring up an excellent point regarding how the reveal with Harley happens WAY too early in the movie, it would have been so much more effective if it was a third act reveal but instead it made me lose interest in the character very fast. It's honestly kinda shocking how little Harley ended being in the movie after the first act.
(Spoilers for Hazbin Hotel)
It kinda reminds me of how in the first ep of HH S1, they reveal that Adam (as well as Heaven in turn) do not believe sinners can be redeemed and move up the next Extermination to six months. Thus rejecting Charlie's plan and essentially undercutting the premise the show was sold on in the pilot.
Like....if that had been a mid-season reveal that would have been a good gut-punch but revealing this in ep 1 just makes you think "Oh....then what are we doing here?"
Seeing people on TikTok call this a ‘misunderstood masterpiece’ never fails to make me laugh, you can tell that they have 0 taste and are just happy to be there 🤣🤣
What are some of your favorite movies, I am so very curious.
@@FriendlyGreg10 The Dark Knight, Scarface, Goodfellas, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds and Inception are some of my favourites but I watch everything tbh mate
@@boffyvidz7382 How am I supposed to take you making fun of people for having "zero taste" seriously when these are your favorite movies.
@@FriendlyGreg10 yeah you sound pretentious as fuck mate 🤣🤣🤣bet you’re fun at parties
@@FriendlyGreg10 what are your favourite movies then expert? Seriously people like you must be so miserable
I truly believe that Todd Phillips made this bad movie on purpose as a way to mock the studio and the fans of the first film, similar to what happened with Matrix 4, also from Warner.
He must have been under a lot of pressure from Warner to create a sequel, but clearly had nothing to say. One of the main criticisms he faced with the first film was that he glorified the Joker, and that the film was seen as dangerous, influencing people who thought the Joker was a hero. So he decided to make the entire movie about that, to diminish the Joker he himself created, in a kind of self-sabotage since he has no interest in making a sequel (against the studio) and didn't like how fans interpreted his previous film (against those fans).
The Harley Quinn in this film represents the fans of the first movie. She watched the TV movie they made about the Joker in the movie's universe multiple times, just like the fans who rewatched the first film. She doesn't want to see Arthur, only the Joker, just as fans expected to see in this sequel, and she constantly pushes him to be completely the Joker and abandon Arthur altogether. The moment Arthur rejects being the Joker, she stops liking him and abandons him just like his other supporters in the courtroom. Todd Phillips knows that fans will react the same way she does and will hate this decision. He is intentionally trying to frustrate the audience; even the fact that it's a musical is likely a way to frustrate viewers since he knows many of the film's target audience probably doesn't like musicals.
The final scene is a way to simply end the franchise and have no return.
I was saying the same thing and people keep saying “I’m coping “
I don’t even like the films to began with.
That's exactly what it was. The fans of the first film are to blame for this one. The nutjobs who wanted to be Arthur so badly and were going around posting insane memes and idolizing the things he did and said and taking it way too far. They made everyone very nervous. So because of that the writers had to make Arthur someone you do not want to be or idolize in any way.
Yeah but people still like the Joker it doesnt matter if todd phillips makes him revert to arthur in the film. So its a useless concept to basically sodomize him and kill arthur because the joker will always live.
@@RedTail1-1 Blaming the fans solely for this is a strange position. The makers of the original were afraid and reacted with violence. They did not choose to heal or grow but to attack. Responsibility for action cannot be transferred to another due to what is felt.
@@Dave102693the movie is "interesting" in what it tries to accomplish - and it accomplishes that: it frustrates everyone, pisses them off, alienates the entire audience. And by doing so, it becomes a horrible movie. The fact it succeeds at being awful doesn't make it 180 into being good; it (seemingly) was designed to be miserable and it is. Like you and OP (and everyone else), I was displeased to say the least at this movie - I just recognize it might be what we fucking deserved…
So we gonna ignore that fact that Angry Video Game Nerd predicted the end of this movie fifteen years ago?
Esplain
really?
Woah
No he didn’t
We wouldn't if you directly link or state where or what video that was
Moral of the story:
Go see Transformers One instead and go reward good filmmaking.
I hear "The Substance" is unironically a really good movie too
Or the wild robot, in fact both that and transformers are much more worth watching
@@mattkugelman4369Wild Robot was so good. I had fairly high expectations and it surpassed that
The Substance is one of those fake-deep movies with incredibly tired themes. But hey, if you want to see a movie that’s like, 60% porn go ahead lmao
Ah yes, good filmmaking, CGI slop advertisement for a toy line.
I don’t even care about the argument that there doesn’t need to be a sequel because there are so many interesting ways that they could have gone especially when he escapes at the end of the first. It’s just so mind boggling that this is the plot that they thought was best, musical or not it is just so uninteresting. Think about how the first movie is all about Arthur’s decision making and the second is entirely him going through the motions of what people tell him to do. It’s night and day
12:49 The people in the car who helped the Joker represent the viewers who enjoyed the first Joker movie. Their motivations aren't clear because the writers don't even understand their own fanbase. In fact, they actually have disdain for their audience and were hoping to trade us in for the "modern audience."
Since you said “us”, I’d be curious to know why you liked the first movie? I have never watched it but my favorite movie is the 2022 Batman… if the ending was edited to not have the joker scene 😅… which means I’ll probably be in the same position soon enough.
I genuinely wonder if this is some sort of self-sabotage on the part of Todd Philips. Even the idea of a second Joker movie felt unnecessary, so I wonder if this was an attempt to just kill any chance of a franchise, deliberately
I'm so tired of how expansive the Batman and Spiderman universes have become. It feels like we can't go a year without 1 character from each of these universes that's not the hero getting there own movie or spinoff mean while other superheros get neglected.
The Penguin is crushing it. Im happy they put the work into it.
To be fair, Batman’s rogues gallery is so vast that you can make stuff with very different tones that can lean into drama instead of action. While I love the DC Universe, I miss films that can have a mid budget scale and no need for an action scene every 10 minutes
Yes for Spider-Man, no for Batman. The Batman gallery of characters is very versatile, to the point you can make a movie of one those and not even mention Batman, and it might work. Also, I'd love to see more non-action oriented adaptations of superhero comics. Full on horror and drama movies. Playing with stale formulas.
As long as its good like The Penguin or Spiderverses Miles, its alright. But most of the times, it can create such intense miss like Joker 2 or Madame Web that could dilute the brand
Yeah that should definitely go after some other good characters and stories.
Joker 2 feels like punishment deliberately inflicted upon an audience that liked the first film. In "Joker", they managed to tell a compelling story around a conflicted, sympathetic anti-hero. And because audiences responded positively to the story they set out to tell (perhaps even identifying with some of the anger and pain and angst and betrayal the character felt), the producers had to pull the rug out from under them.
EDIT: Yes, I realized that the second I wrote this, I would get a thousand "Erm, ackshully, he's a villain" responses. I think one could argue it either way for this *specific* depiction (largely divorced from other DC universe material). The tag doesn't matter. The point is that they created a sympathetic character who, in the world he inhabits-a world dripping with corruption and apathy towards social decay-is treated as something of a folk hero by others. They clearly got cold feet about leaning into this angle.
Why are you saying “the producers”? What do you think the role of a director is?
I’m 100% okay with that.
@@danculbert6349 People are just not realizing Joker 2 was written and directed by just Todd Phillips and assuming there were more people involved, like a tv show.
@@planescaped Of course there’s others involved, but it’s a Todd Phillips movie. He directed it. He chose to portray Arthur this way.
you're right but he's a villain not an anti-hero, anti-hero's just use any means necessary to achieve heroic goals
I liked the movie. It really wasn't a musical. Music was just the love language between Harlee and Arthur. It seams to me that the people who disliked the movie the most were incel types who connected too hard with what they thought Arthur was in the first movie. I believed the Joker persona stuff because in both the Joker films he's quite literally pushed by everyone in his life in negative ways. In this movie oddly the only person on Arthur's side was his lawyer. the guards used him for amusement, Harlee uses him for her fantasy, the other inmates before the trial are heard constantly in the background threatening him. Literally no one has treated this guy as a person and the Joker is his lash out. It made sense to me, the guards had subtle language throughout the movie to insinuate that the guards were raping the inmates.
I think you needed the film spelled out, and that the problem with the first movie is that like this one it's not meant to be spelled out. But the first movie i think unintentionally did have a face value to latch onto, and that's what accidentally hit the hearts of the "we live in a society" and "you get what you deserve" type people.
I think both Joker Movies are solid movies that accidentally picked up the wrong base. The story makes ton of emotional sense. But a lot of people walked into these films expecting laughing gas and knives. I'm a huge fan of batman, and in the comics there are tons of one off series or issues that take the premise in other directions. Like when Thomas and Martha wayne survived the mugging and Bruce Wayne died. They became the Joker and Batman. These two movies feel the same way. This is not a heath ledger Joker, this is a Joker that's born of being treated inhumanly by everyone around them, and the movies are attempting to show you a villain pushed in an extremely personal way to lash out in ways that would not survive the context of public scrutiny. He's a man that fell between the cracks.
There's a lot more in these movies than some reviews out there would have you believe. Give it a shot and form your own opinions, cause this is a movie that is getting misunderstood just like the first one.
My take is that the harsh criticism just proves the point of the movie-- that people only love the Joker when he's the Joker. Once he becomes the mentally ill, easily manipulated, powerless Arthur Fleck, he means nothing to them anymore. The people criticizing the movie are the same ones who would be standing outside of the courthouse. I think there is a certain brilliance in that.
Except that makes no sense because general audiences loved the first movie and he's not the joker until the very end in that
@@ey3z4yaWhy did people love the first movie? If he hadn’t become Joker, would they still have loved it? It was enjoyable because we knew what he would become, and by the end of the film he’d met all of our expectations.
But seeing THE JOKER is the point, that's why people went to buy ticket, if I want to see just another mentally ill guy I'll watch any other movie. PEOPLE WANT TO SEE BATMAN ARCH NEMESIS THAT'S THE POINT
@@seliamila1005 It's not about pandering to what your audience wants to see. Todd phillips wanted to make a movie with substance and a statement, and used iconography to do it. It's not a joker origin story
The point of the first movie was him becoming The Joker, and it ended with him taking on the mantle of The Joker. After all, it was an origin movie for The Joker. So it makes no sense (both in universe, and from a behind-the-scenes perspective) why this film flat-out stated that Arthur Fleck isn't The Joker in this universe.
The movie isn't called The Joker. It's called "Joker". Todd has stated this multiple times
In universe, in the realm of the movie, he's the only one who's called Joker, so how is he not Joker, the meta narrative people are praising this movie for is dumb. It only makes sense if there's another Joker that's been there before him.
Todd Phillips doesn't like comic book stuff, he said he wanted to do a Scorsese tribute to things like "Taxi Driver" about mentally unstable loners becoming psychopaths but knew it wouldn't be a success without some kind of hook so he hijacked the "Joker" name to do so.
@@JFGaming.The Iron Man movies aren’t called “The Iron Man” the original Batman movie isn’t called “The Batman” but guess who the movie is about.
@@ShadowSonic2 Explains why it came to be doesn't excuse the end product of the sequel
It's obvious that Todd Philipps never intended to have a Joker as what we know from the Comics. He just used this story to talk about big problems on our society like mental health and segregation. Maybe he realized Joker 1 created a cult of this character and of course people was expecting to see an evolution of this along with Harley on Joker 2. But again, the idea was never to idiolize the classic Joker, but in this case Arthur's journey from liberating of such pain and suffering, letting go everything he's been through regardless of what comes to him. We see how the Joker starts to come up as Lee impulses him. But at some point Arthur realizes that violence will just make more violence. The movie is also a critique to the society that is seeking for spectacle and entertainment all the time. We see how the court is being broadcasted, how Harley is bored and just looking to see what else comes out of the Joker, what else he has to give in terms of violence. Basically, Harly represents the audience looking for more blood to be spread. It was all about the fantasy, about the symbol, not about the human behind Joker. Nobody cares about Arthur, he is just seen as a looser.
Neither film was about the DC Joker, they just threw in Batman character names to trick people into seeing the movies. The director has clearly stated this so he could fool audiences into seeing his "real" movie. Part of the reason I disliked the first one was how obvious this felt to me.
I wish that people didn’t have to go that in Hollywood
first one still had some root to the comics and despite a young bruce wayne and the difference in the origin arthur could still be called a comic book joker at heart.The second don’t even want to be a mogie about that character
@@Hollowfication96 "mogie"? 🙂
That's a lovely word you conjured up there. ❤
With or without the comic book characters the first one is derrivative work.
@@Hollowfication96 What, apart from names, had anything to do with the comics? Genuinely interested.
Joker is a two part movie series about the origination of the Joker, who is the man that kills Arthur at the end of the film. Which is why the entire thing is not worth watching now.
Not a single unplanned sequel in the 2000s was ever as good as the original movie
This film is a scattershot disaster where the director feels so ashamed of his own work, he destroys it
What the fuck, man?
Fincher has a scene in Fight Club where goons wipe Alien 3 movies clean in a video rental store. Deadpool shoots Ryan Reynolds while he reads the Green Lantern script. It happens.
That’s different. Joker 1 was actually really good
@@johnlee7164ok fed
On the bright side, at least more people are going to see Transformers One.
If I wanted to make a sequel Even though I hated the first film but still keep the same themes and beats as this one. The big change that I would make is to reveal that it was a criminal organization that bailed Arthur fleck out and our basically using him as like a mascot mouthpiece in order to direct his new movement to do the stuff they want to do. And maybe the son of the head of the criminal organization is similar to Bruce's age and is basically kind of jealous of Arthur for being the son that he couldn't be because he's crazy even though off. Arthur doesn't want it. In the end that young kid who's around Bruce's age does the same ending or after Arthur tries to finally get away from the criminal group and the movement he creates is stabbed to death by the little kid and he carves the Glasgow grin on his face, thus the setting up The future joker that will fight the super young Batman that was in the first film.
maybe someday someone will make a movie about the ACTUAL JOKER, todd phillips certainly didn't. if someone made a movie called BATMANS about a guy dressed up like a bat and barely fought crime and then at the end it was revealed he wasn't the real batman. wtf?
No I don’t think the Heath ledger joker ‘twist’ works. Even disregarding the age discrepancy, there would have to be a paper trail for the Joker. In the Batman movie Alfred and Bruce discuss how they can’t find any information on a clown villain. When one killed a TV broadcaster in his own city and was murdered in holding by a guy who carved a smile into his own case. wtf even my local PD could solve that case
Bruh you’ve just never seen southern court dramas if you don’t recognize that accent he was using. I think that was probably the thought process, that Arthur got it from watching tv or movie lawyers
It could've been great sequel. If Todd Phillips was so keen on borrowing elements of 70's and 80's movies for the first one (ie Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy), he could've continued on with that tradition with this one (ie One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest). Imagine Arthur Fleck getting acquainted with the other inmates of Arkham Asylum (some will eventually become other Batman arch enemies like The Riddler, The Penguin, Scarecrow, etc.) and eventually organizing and uniting them into an inmate revolt and ending in a major prison riot where everyone escapes out onto the streets of Gotham, ending Part 2 with the standard unresolved ending. This would leave the doors wide open for Part 3 where Batman is introduced briefly at the end.
That's so much better than what these guys came up with...
That was one of the plots that I wanted to see in this film. I really, REALLY wanted to see the growth of his dark persona and how he gets influence and the 'street smarts' by others like him.
NOPE. Todd Phillips shat on the Joker mythos to preach how wrong we were for even linking his previous movie.
As soon as I heard it was going to be a musical I said WHY!
Now, that's a good comic book movie about supervillains! 😃🤓
I think it would had been much better if they did a prison film
This movie was so terrible, it makes the first movie meaningless.
Nothing went wrong, the movie is gorgeous and very good. I can’t remember a tragedy of such magnitude in cinema lately. If one will watch that movie without knowing all the hustle on the internet he’ll enjoy it.
The first film was trash , why did people believe the 2nd would be better
If the first film, that earned Pheonix an Oscar, was indeed trash, people would gave had far lower expectations for its Sequel.
His lawyer really didn't have his best interest at heart, she was forcing him to use a defense that Arthur clearly didn't believe for a second. She didn't really listen to him, she just wanted to further her career. This movie is all about people's expectations for what the Joker is and what he should be. And while it's far from perfect I find that much more interesting than a lot of what I've seen proposed in it's place.
I legit would've preferred a Joker 2 where he leads a group of henchmen from the abandoned carnival as they commit various heists around Gotham.
Even if it's simple, it'd be interesting.
Also, it makes no sense for the Health Ledger Joker to be in the ending when the movie has Harvey Dent get his two-face disfigurement from the courtroom bomb...
There’s literally nothing interesting about that 😂
Arthur Fleck, in the first movie is a sad, lonely, downtrodden, murdering psychopath. His acts in Joker 1 are not meant to be cool, villainous, calculated or masterminded. Arthur Fleck was never meant to be “The Joker”
Wow, that’s impressively boring and shallow. Go watch the Adam West Batman if you want that.
That would’ve been an action film, & this isn’t an action film series. It’s a psychological drama thriller. I would’ve preferred a film that took place pretty much entirely within Arkham, involving maybe some other renditions of batman villains that fit this universe. Arthur should’ve been joker through-out the film & essentially causing drama. Would’ve been interesting to see this joker navigate the asylum prison culture, maybe forming a bond with another villain who has a plan to break out. Perhaps the ending could’ve involved a grand break out, a twist betrayal, & Harley/joker or just joker escaping & “riding off into the sunset”. Those are just ideas off the top of my head so i haven’t really cooked them. Would prefer it to continue to weave in the conversation on mental illness that the first film had
@@Tokyoprism Arthur isn't a criminal mastermind/psychological threat though.
@@milk_bath never said he would be a mastermind. That’s why I said the other villain he forms a bond with would have the plan to break out. & through character building scenes & chemistry we form an emotional attachment to this relationship through out the film, only for it to end in a betrayal for whatever reason. Admittedly, im trying to think of a way for the film to shock the audience like the Murray scene did. Because it was so good & I’d say the biggest reason the first film was so well received. It was his big “joker moment”. & the sequel would need its own big joker moment. & Arthur betraying his own friend could be that & portray his further descent into madness, since he sparred a friend in the first film. Could involve commentary on how incarceration doesn’t treat the mentally ill but rather often makes it worse
You were the only person who I wanted to hear talk about this movie. Thank you 🙏🏽
There's a lot of great reviews out there trashing this film. Its been fun to watch them all.
Ten years afterwards, director Sam Rami admitted he made Spiderman 3 with a musical number because he didn't want to do it, and wanted to punish the studio. I wonder if that was the case here...?
I did hear that neither Joaquin Phoenix nor Todd Phillips wanted to do a sequel. It was the studio who pushed for it.
8:54 Gary's scene was definitely the best part of the movie!
I'd disagree that Arthur doesn't make any active moves here -- that he just gets pushed around by the plot. He takes his lawyer's warnings about Harley to heart and confronts her about lying to him (before being completely bamboozled by her again, of ocurse); he makes the decision, later, to take command of fhis defense in the courtroom; and, finally, he realizes that he's NOT truly the Joker, comes clean about that fact, confesses to his mom's murder, and once Harley abandons him, is presumably prepared to face the consequences (if only he'd lived long enough to do so).
Nonetheless, I think the Michael Corleone comparison is apt. Arthur "decides" to embrace being the Joker at the end of the first film, just as Mike embraces becoming the new don. But I'd argue that this film catches up with Arthur a year or two after making that choice -- a year that he's spent in an asylum, being verbally abused and slapped around and basically made into a figure of fun by the guards. He doesn't seem to have rejected the Joker persona (yet), but he's had a reality check: where has all the power he felt after embracing the mantle of the Joker gotten him? What good does it do, when he's up against people with more authority, and who are more physically powerful, than him?
This film finds Arthur in the same position he was in at the beginning of the first one: cowed and beaten down after trying for some unknown period of time to be something he's not. This time he doesn't escape by retreating into delusion, but by facing up to the truth (at least briefly).
So he was pushed around by the plot
This was a movie that should’ve never been made in the first place considering the ending of the first one but the billion dollars had them scramble for a nonsensical sequel
You didn't mention the part where he said ''It's Jokering time.'' and then Jokers all over the place
Oh, the prison guards jokered all over the place, all right.
Things they could have done with a still ill-advised sequel to Joker (2019):
- Arthur embraces Joker and becomes a preacher/agitator-like figure in Arkham.
- Arthur slowly loses his grip on the Joker persona and spends the movie trying to reconcile his actual self with what he did and he still wants to do/be, but without hiding behind a persona this time.
- Arthur imagines a whole parallel Joker storyline while he's sedated and depressed during his trial process.
- Arthur gets broken out by his fans, and slowly gets disillusioned while having to put up the Joker persona so they don't turn on him, and in the process discovers this ain't who he is.
- Joker has a pretty conventional unhealthy relationship with Harley, only for it to be revealed that Harley manipulated him for academic/professional purposes and she was faking the romance, gaslighting him into believing he imagined the whole thing.
- Joker has a pretty conventional unhealthy relationship with Harley during which he corrupts her, only for it to be revealed to be Harley's fantasy of her own suppressed desires, ending with her embracing an alter ego of crime while Arthur is led to execution/solitary.
- Joker breaking out and trying to become an outlaw figurehead of social discontent, only to be murdered by the "real" Joker, who admits his setup is cool, so he's adopting it, but he's thinking bigger, he's not just for social change and revolt against the powerful, he's against everyone and his aim is complete chaos.
- The most subversive thing they could have done at this point, namely Arthur disappearing slowly, with little attempts at regaining himself, under the Joker persona, while realizing the power he can have over Harley, who's a led astray serial killer fangirl with serious issues, ending up in radical change for both, not necessarily good, obvs.
This movie managed to do absolutely nothing of these, and that's an achievement.
Also, I forgot, it could work great as a musical, or rather a rock opera. The musical's tone doesn't fit the atmosphere at all. We wouldn't want West Side Story with jazz or Cabaret with heavy metal, Joker needed original songs, more daring and organic incorporation of singing and choreography in the script, and mostly a harsher tone than 1950s classics.
The incarcerated Arthur Fleck shown at the end of Joker 1 acts absolutely nothing like the Arthur in this movie. He acts like all his character development got stripped away for no reason.
I would’ve loved for them to go down some kind of “now he’s amongst his own people” story now he’s in jail since we saw how people were worshipping him during the riots and stuff
2:41 a bogus excuse from the director. The leaked script of Joker 1 had a scene where in the end he cuts a smile onto his face, becoming the joker. There's even an explicit dialog to cement that. But it was removed probably due to Nolan's pressure who wanted only his joker to be the one who carved his own smile. Either way, they always had him as the joker and then went back feet on it when the movie flopped.
It is like their version of "you don't understand the film" thing that happend with the pro-feminist films of mcu (i think it was The Marvels director who said that not sure though)
5:20 That's not the elephant in the room. Something else is.
What is?
What makes this movie even more interesting in an unfortunate way is the amount of hype it had compared to the first movie. Despite the trailers having garnered millions of views, there wasn't as much fascination, interest, or test screenings from the general public. The vibe through the months was met with indifference at best and skepticism at worst. And those who saw the movie mostly winded up disappointed or even offended.
This movie should have been about Arthur’s split personality disorder and how he’s struggling to be Arthur & not give in to his urges to be Joker mostly due to his doctors, lawyers, and the Arkham guards trying to beat Joker out of him. But his popularity and his relationship with Harley Quinn force him to no longer want to be Arthur Fleck and fully embrace Joker. Gary Puddles should of been presented as the only person in Arthur’s life who could of prevented him from becoming Joker and that should of lead to Gary’s death before the film’s climax maybe at the hands of Harley Quinn without Joker’s knowledge.
Im still in Moviebobs camp on a better The Joker ending: the guy in the car in the clown mask says how much Fleck inspired him and spoke to him; Fleck says he didnt have a plan its all out of his hands etc; young fan sighs takes off his mask to reveal freshly cut scars at the corners of his mouth and stringy green hair and sighs smacking his lips "well, never meet your antiheros i guess..." and shoots Fleck then it pans out with him drawing a smile on the glass of the cab window.
The original was just rip off of King of New York and Taxi driver. If they can't be original in the original then the sequel was always going to be corn for the masses
The movie is EXCELLENT. You people are nuts.
Havent seen this movie, but that screenshot of the judge at @10:44 It is totally ment to be Martin Scorsese
Very excited to hear your opinion on penguin. Especially hearing you're a fan of tophat!