If you told people like, 5 months ago that between this and the animated transformers movie, Transformers would be the one getting critical acclaim, they would’ve slapped you
lol true, I’m still shocked at how amazing that film was, it took a lot of convincing on my brother’s part to go see it, man I’m glad I did instead of Joker 2!
@@omarhajar9822Yeah, musicals can be fantastic but it was clear day 1 that this was not it lol, especially with gaga and being a jukebox musical instead of having new songs lol
I mean the first o e should have been called Arthur, because the only thing relating to the Joker in that film is the name, and he just so happens to be in Gotham.
The director was basically like "Aight since yall forced me to make this sequel I'm killing any chance I have to be brought back for more" literally after the movie came out bro said he never wants to do DC movies again SOMETHING had to have happened behind the scenes.
Apparently, Joaquin and Gaga were divas who wanted the script to continuously be rewritten over and over. I also believe some of these executives were responsible for the decisions made, so it soured Todd's love for DC films.
@@toiletsponge He expressed INTEREST in making a sequel, the original film was still made to be standalone. It's clear the sequel was not the kind of sequel Philips wanted to make.
Yeah it's called Incells... Do you know how many dude saw that movie & thought that the joker was the good guy? He made it a musical & made the joker a fool cause he knew that the Incells would hate it-... (Edit: if ya reply to me then you're an Incell)
@@watermelonprom7197do you think that decision wise? Spending millions of dollars, and time to spite a small group of losers? Kinda seems like an incel move if you ask me
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.
So he learned to deal with more or less accept REALITY? And not live in blissful ignorance? I have not seen the 2nd movie but I can't stand stories where some version of: it was all or mostly faked is a big reveal and that's typically a thing with the joker character which I can't stand anyways imo but let me know if my understanding was wrong feel free to correct or spoil me I'm not goin to see this
@@marvellesaulsberry I haven't seen the second movie yet either, but my point was: The first movie deconstructed Arthur's reality to the point he basically went "Alright, fuck it, I'm making my reality out of what I have, killing!" but then the second movie seemingly walks it back and says that no, Arthur is still his reality and he suddenly feels bad about abandoning his status quo. Which is ludicrous since the first movie showed us how genuinely horrible Arthur felt in his own skin, only being happy as Joker once he finally let loose.
@@darklord884 It shouldn't make any sense for Joker 2 to be a thing now. Just like you said in the 1st movie, the character Arthur is being deconstructed by the fact that's not Arthur at all there was no Arthur to begin with. It's the Joker coming to life. Joker 2 (I haven't seen) seems like it's doing it backwards instead, Joker kills Arthur becuz Arthur is not Joker? Wtf?
@@tngaming50 Pretty much like you said, yeah. What's worse is that there was potential for this to be good. We haven't seen the process of Joker brainwashing Harley in real time, so if the movie focused on how this Joker dazzled her with his unearthly confidence born of his new identity and sense of purposeless purpose, that could have actually been pretty solid as a movie about both giving in to your demons and the responsibility of fans to realise the immorality of their own idols. In today's climate of every celebrity being accused and then pardoned of some reprehensible action sooner or later, a movie about a deranged criminal celebrity brainwashing someone through her fascination with him could have been interesting. You know if they didn't make it the point of the film that he's a pathetic sad sack after all.
I genuinely don't think I have ever heard of a movie that tries so unbelievably hard to undo everything that the first movie did. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the Joker movie did not need a sequel. I had a small inkling of hope that maybe they could have made it work but obviously they didn't
Arthur's story ended perfectly in the first one. They could have done the 3 Jokers concept with the two springing him out to lead them as the true Prince of Crime
@@nono9543 I thought it was the critics acting up like last time, but the audience reviews killed my hope in seeing this one Like damn, we deserved better than this.
@@Gchildwarriorthe first one was shit too, I ended up seeing it 3 times (picked a bit for family movie night at my protest for the 2nd and 3rd times) and each time the flaws became more and more apparent the lack of sense the way they absolutely fucked up the blend of fantasy and real elements due to a lack of detail in certain scenes (the scene where he kills for the first time had too many shots from his gun to have not been a fantasy element but was apparently real for example) the character work really just not being good, the batman elements being shoehorned in to a completely untreated movie seemingly just to use the name of a well known character All the sequel does is make these flaws more apparent My biggest hope for this one was to get an actual joker which ig we sort of do with the way they changed Harley around so much
I think you the only one who think this. The first joker was a good and grounded take with a commentary on how people mistreat the mentally and such. The sequel ruin that with a dramatic shift in the tone and genre of the first movie. It had more focus on Harley than Arthur, so no they didn't do a better portrayal 😅@Mrbody-tq9uc
@@masterace9543Honestly tho I understand it I didn’t completely like the 1st movie either because it could’ve been a stand alone movie without the Joker as branding and got better results. I like my villains to be villains.
Especially Wild Robot. I know Transformers fans are really dedicated and that movie will do fine. But Wild Robot is a relatively unknown IP. The movie was good and I want more. I want a lore-filled sequel so bad!
Then the dude who shanked him cuts a smile into his own face, revealing that he was the real Joker and the one we were following was just his inspiration.
Him renouncing joker, should've came at the start, so that when Harley shows up he can build himself back into it, that would have saved the movie. But considering how the first one ended, it would be kinda repeating itself
I would like to imagine this movie is just the imaginary scenario Arthur was thinking when he told the therapist lady “You wouldn’t get it” at the end of the first movie.
A comment summed this up perfectly Thor 4 🤝 Joker 2 = Directors who didn't want to make a sequel but were pressured by the studio Edit: I realize that the director of Thor 4 wanted to do the sequel, my bad.
What I don't like about is that this is that it has literally nothing to with the Joker. You could take out all references to Joker and DC from these movies and nothing changes. Arthur is not Joker, he acts nothing like Joker, his motivations share nothing with Joker, his skills share nothing with Joker. The only resemblences between the two is the Clown aesthetic. Why are these movies even called Joker?
Probably because if it was called something like Arthur, audiences would be less enticed to go see it. Now if you slap the name Joker a pop culture icon for DC and comics as a whole then you get peoples attention.
The first one is called Joker because I imagine they wanted to do their own origin story for him. It seemed like they took out of The Killing Joke's playbook and gave the character a more sympathetic/tragic, in addition to being an arguably realistic character. The second movie just feels like intentional self sabotage. I keep seeing everyone say that the movie was bad on purpose because the first one was never meant to have a sequel, but idk. I was kinda hoping they would make The Joker and The Batman movies take place in the same continuity, and giving us more realistic and nuanced depictions of the Caped Crusader and his Rogues Gallery Guess that's never happening now tho lol
@@babiestbadge1302 The Batman movie universe already has a person in place to one day become the Joker. He was in a cell next to Riddler at the end of the film. Phoenixs character was never going to be part of the aforementioned universe.
I believe Tod and Phoenix both had no interest in this movie. Both of them, on record, said they wouldn't do a sequel, and the first movie speaks and completes itself. But, y'know, WB forced this to be made because what the movie made what 1.2 billion. I also think that's why the risk was made to turn this into a musical
First they kill Han Solo then make Luke give up, then Indiana Jones got punched in the face and knocked out at the end of his own damn movie, and now Joker takes it in the rear. Hollywood just can't help but tear down every fan favorite character.
Online incels try not to tie everything back to Star Wars challenge (LITERALLY impossible) Seriously, stfu, this has NOTHING TO DO with anything you said.
@@justmyluck624 humans are just good at recognizing patterns. The pattern here is these studios keep hiring people that don’t know anything about or give a crap about these properties, and expect everything to turn out great. The director of joker 2 openly said he hated the source material.
Apparently the movie was bad because the director said he hated how everyone liked him as the joker so this Sequel is some what a flip off to the original movie
They literally found a perfect formula and said “nah let me show you something even more boring than high school musical itself” shut was boring, uninspired and just a drag, I couldn’t even concentrate, plus Harley is dog water, it’s one thing to make your own character and not follow the original work, but when the character is so ass compared to the original I start to hate, if you wanna switch it up that’s fine but make it good. A standalone it’s not terrible, still boring but as a sequel to what we had, shit was ass.
I actually enjoyed the ending cause it shows you that arthur was just a depressed person with many mental disabilities and problems just from his childhood
MoistCritikal said it best, I think "It feels like the director was trying to walk it back because he had regrets about the first film" This was a disgrace of a sequel
A 5 out of 10 is generous, when the first movie didn't even score for me. This was just a hastily rubbed out cash grab. Great acting, great sets, fantastic direction, but the story lets it down: No Batman, _no Joker!_ Forget the "you failed to save me, causing my disfiguration," origins of the character, let's even forget the "I would be nothing without you" Heath Ledger impression on the character! *EVERYTHING* about the Joker is cast in a twisted image of Batman! Gotham has a hand in creating him, and I see a bunch of good representations of that, but so many of them try to have this character form in a vacuum without his inspiration! Batman is gonna dress in dark colors and sneak around? Joker gonna dress in bright colors and dance around in the open (if just to force Batman out of the shadows) Batman is going to haunt the criminals of Gotham for taking his normal life Joker is going to terrorize the people of Gotham for thinking they can have a normal life when he no longer can Batman wants you to live in fear of him Joker wants you to expire laughing from him It is the Joker that necessitates a "Bat-Signal" in a world where Bruce would largely want to remain an urban legend. And if Thomas and Martha Wayne were alive in the first movie (I recall her giving a speech on the news) that puts us around 15-20 years away from the emergence of a fully trained Batman.....making this Joker a 60 -70 year old chain smoking failed comedian in clown make-up.
I disagree, Batman's villians are often foils to different parts of batman, but they also have identities and problems that can be expanded upon as separate stories. Such as clayface being so desperate to remain a star that he disfigured himself or dollface so distraught to be forgotten that she kidnapped and tried murdering the original cast of the show that left her behind or poison ivy trying to protect plants from humanity. Yes joker does work well when put next to batman but that doesn't mean he can't function on his own, and the criticaly aclaimed Joker movie would suggest exactly that. The first movie set up joker as a symbol of the violent and broken system found in Gotham, that even an everyday man can break down and commit heinous acts of violence without any care given a bad enough day, in which gotham has many bad days. It was joker in that movie who inspired a criminal to shoot and murder Bruce's parents. Joker is a foil to batman but batman is also a foil to joker. And just as you can have a standalone batman movie followed by him meeting joker, you can do the same in reverse. If joker had met batman in the sequel, having to directly combat the ramifications of his action from the first film, then the sequel would of been amazing but that doesn't mean joker can't function on his own without batman or that batman is necessary for the joker as a character.
Yeah, that’s the point. The entire move is about exploitation. NOBODY cares about *arthur* , they care about the joker. The instant he dropped the joker is the instant everyone dropped *him* . They were all exploiting arthur in different ways. Hell, the joke is even on the *audience* too. All the people complaining are the exact type of person this movie is calling out. You never cared about Arthur, and you never cared about these movies, all you cared about was what *you wanted*
Yes because this is what movies are invented for they are invented for giving the audience what they want and yes we all cared about the joker not Arthur and I don't care if the movie call me out on that
Except people have been misunderstanding the message. We SHOULD care about Arthur because he was not the Joker. Never was. He was meant to be the one to elevate the message of chaos and defiance against the Gotham elite, thus inspiring the riots that make people like Joe Chill decide to go mug Thomas Wayne and his family. Arthur was the stepping stone, he was the underdog. We were all looking out for Arthur because he is just a common man, a common man with a bad day. Sound familiar?
@@Nagakon more than misunderstanding people didn't wamted that this was the message and we didn't had any idea that this was the message they wanted to give there was nothing that pointed that this was the message that the film wanted to give before his release and so our expectations got distorted because we didn't had any guidelines on what this film would had centered and the film itself its called the Joker so you can't than say no I am not at this point you changed the title with the joker:Arthur and Harley at least we would had a idea that it centered about the person and not the image because everyone expected a Arthur going deeper in the role of the joker to the point of becoming it
The problem with this is that Arthur doesn't have his own identity -- he has no past, no occupation, no family, absolutely nothing. He became the Joker as a tragic, horrific way of self-actualization; there just isn't any separating the two. Moreover, being the Joker was his way of lashing out at people he thought had wronged him. If this movie were true to his character, Arthur would've started killing Harley and the rest the moment he found out they were using his persona to their benefit.
Tell that to the comic people with joker going thru many different things in all different comics, hell there's a comic with joker as a head in a pod and he helps Batman
To me it's more like Joker isn't a deep character, not saying it's impossible, but more often than not, Joker just works as a character without an overtly direct backstory
Contrary to popular belief, i think Joker 2 could've worked as a musical if they really leaned into the surrealist madness and used the songs as ways to symbolize things that were going on in reality. Like using the 70s Variety Show as ways to parallel the madness and circus of the reql world. Chicago and Cabaret does this excellently. As it stands, this movie is what people who hate musicals think what musicals are like.
Tbf Arthur is to soft and old to become the actual joker, he’d be late 50/60s in age. He doesn’t have the psychotic tendencies that it takes to be the joker, makes sense in a way he’s just a suicidal man with mental illness who inspired the persona of the Joker.
Ya know thank you, cause I never thought about it past the age and how that would work. That actually makes me see it in a better light for what it truly is/could be
I mean yea but that doesn't excuse them destroying his character and making a terrible sequel this movie could have been him breaking out starting another movement and him dying as people in Gotham truly stick and belive his ideas and that could have lead into the new batman being made and what made Gotham so bad and then they can make an entirely new joker that was born from his ideas
@@randyking2057 He never believed in his own ideals ? He did was he did simply out of misery. Arthur has always been an insecure, depressed, suicidal man he’s wanted to die since the first film. He put on the clown makeup because it made him feel confident, but he the man himself was a suicidal weak man. Arthur doesn’t have the mindset to be the official joker Arthur doesn’t have the mental strength to either. Trying to turn this frail man into the joker would’ve been character assassination. While I dislike the film for the singing, the story itself is alright if you paid attention to the first movie.
@@morbidzombii I know he wouldn't be a good fit for the joker that's why he could have paved the way for a new joker while getting the death he wanted and being remembered because he actually did want to be someone I was agreeing with you just displeased with how the movie was
I knew ppl weren’t gonna understand the ending. They never planned for the joker to be fulfilled with this character. The joker becomes an idea a character, a state of mind. Arthur always wanted to be his own person and he becomes that. But this world, his relationships, this movie, are all about joker. The moment Arthur stops being joker, he stops being useful and dies. Don’t devalue a movie just because you never got the writing
Its not about getting the writing but not getting what the people wanted to see the people wanted to see him accept the idea of the joker because this is what everyone expected the film was about
Yeah I didn't mind the ending or the idea of the Joker persona outliving its creator. My problem is that I wish the film tackled that theme with effort instead of making it a musical. Just felt gimmicky.
Him having a time of lucidity makes sense to me. That other inmate being killed for believing in and following him temporarily shocked him out of his joker state. Revolutionaries often turn on leaders who give up on the dream.
Okay, so I'm not the only thinking Arthur is taken back that he basically started to ruin lives as Gary and that one inmate kid being triggers that suddenly took him back to I suppose "morality". Did you also thought his last musical number was him basically crying out his true dream but turns out he was a complete fool for believing Harley still when she says that she lies a little.
The media failed so hardly at convincing people that the first one was a bad movie that they had convinced the director and producer to just make a bad sequel
Remember this director and everyone who worked on this film wanted it to be a middle finger to the "edgelords" At this point it just like everyone wants to make a political statement without showing reasoning to why the other side would fall for whatever they believe in and just falls flat. But Remember piss off the other side means you win
I saw this movie in the cinema yesterday with a friend (for free as they worked at the cinema we went to), and while i dont think its as bad as a lot of people made it out to be, it definitely does leave alot to be desired. I think Phoenix and gaga acted very well in this movie, and that they embodied the roles they were given, it is just unfortunate that the writing was not up to par. SPOILERS AHEAD: The music was quite good, but as you mentioned, there were times it felt out of place and other times it felt like the song just stopped halfway through for no reason. The story in the movie was ok, the first half was actually quite enjoyable to me and was mostly what i expected, the 3rd quarter was ok, a few gripes about it but not too many. But the final quarter felt like it just threw everything they were building up to out of the window, set it on fire then threw the ashes into a volcano. The final quarter did not live up to it all. The whole movie, you get shown Arthur falling further back into his madness, his desire to be front and center and to be loved, even to the point that (as you mentioned) he dons the joker persona in court. But then the ending just suddenly goes "actually he doesnt want to be joker anymore and he doesnt want to be front and center" and it heavily implies that its caused because of the guards killing another patient in arkham and that the guilt for that changed his mind, despite him having murdered 6 people in the previous movie with seemingly no guilt at all. Storylines: while this does tie in to the story in the movie, i feel like it deserves its own section. While the main storyline (joker and harley) was handled quite well in the first 3 acts (again aside from a few gripes (if you know you know)) there were quite a few other storylines that felt like they were abandoned or cut. For example, in one scene harley says she is pregnant, this is pretty much never brought up again. Harley is revealed to be a grad student from a psychiatry course and that the story she had been telling Joker was a lie, Aside from 1 scene later, nothing else about this is shown/revealed. Harley is somehow constantly getting access to areas she realistically shouldn't (like jokers solitary cell), never explained how or why aside from "oh the guard let me in." Despite Arthurs seeming obsession in the first movie with the Waynes (since he thinks he is thomas waynes kid) they are never brought up in this movie at all. The ending: while I am disappointed with how phoenix's joker ended, i'm not upset about the set up with the implication that the psychopath that killed him would later become the Joker who would later face off against batman. I honestly did suspect that this movie would reveal that Phoenix's Joker would be the catalyst for the joker rather than him being the joker himself (and honestly i suspected that from the first movie, as by the time that bruce would have grown up to be batman, Phoenix's joker would be like 60). Overall, the setup/implication was expected, however, the way Phoenix's joker died was very disappointing and anticlimactic. My review: overall, i would give this movie a 4-5/10. The acting was good (especially from phoenix) and the music was also good (though the timing on where they were put could have been better(some of the songs felt they were just put in there because they could be)), the story and storylines were decent but left a bit to be desired (especially near the end) and the ending could have been handled alot better. Personally, its in my list of movies that if i didnt care what to watch and it was on, i would watch watch it, but i wouldnt go out of my way to put it on myself (unless it had been quite a while since i saw it). Edit: my take on it being a musical: Personally I think it could have actually worked really well as a musical and there were some scenes in the movie that to me proved it would have worked (like the joker is me or the joker and harley show) as to me it showed him falling further into his madness and truly accepting himself as the joker. The problem was that some of the songs didnt fit the scene (like the song after he finds out the DA is going for the death penalty) and that the ending pretty much said "oh no he isnt insane, its all an act." If the songs were better timed and the ending supported his break down to pure insanity it definitely would have worked as a musical.
I swear, the moment Heath Ledger died, the Joker role legit became cursed for almost everyone else. Jared Leto to this day still hasn't recovered from this, Mark Hamill is basically done with the role once the main reason he did the role died, and now Phoenix ended up with this one role obliterated because the director didn't want to do a sequel at all. At this point, maybe we should just retire the character before he ruins countless other actors/ect. simply because DC refuses to let the Joker finally die due to marketing/merch.
Bro didn't just didn't get shanked and died. He got shanked and it hinted that the guy who did it would be the next Joker. This movie was a class example of not everything needs a sequel
This felt like a movie made out of spite, which it kinda was. The director was very clear on not wanting to be married to the Joker or DC, and boy he made sure he won’t be.
As a person that unfortunately never watched this movie. I would give a 5/10 too, if there was less musical or no musical, just focus a story about Arthur of who he is. Then maybe the story would be a 8/10 or 7.5/10 in my personal opinion.
They hated the fact the people they called incels loved the first movie and didn’t commit mass violence. So they ruined him in the second to get back at the fans.
Joker 2 electric boogaloo would unironically be a banger ass name
The Jonkler: Fall of The Broken Sigma would be better
*don’t read my name…..😮
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375😐
@@godhimself688 I know...I am just gonna leave
Jelker 2 the edge would have been better imo
"-gets shanked and dies."? Bro you didn't spoil me. You saved me money. Bout to Luffy the hell out of this movie.
I am dead
Snitch
I heard he also got raped or something before he decided to quit being joker
Lmao he dead? Like really REALLY DEAD?!?! LMFAO 😂😂
Honestly
Talk about a fall from grace.
*don’t read my name…..😮
@@DontReadMyProfilePicture113 Nobody cares
@@DontReadMyProfilePicture113I have seen you in another comment section before bruv
the movie lost it all before it even began
Great example of interesting concept but poorly executed
If you told people like, 5 months ago that between this and the animated transformers movie, Transformers would be the one getting critical acclaim, they would’ve slapped you
😂
lol true, I’m still shocked at how amazing that film was, it took a lot of convincing on my brother’s part to go see it, man I’m glad I did instead of Joker 2!
@@questworldiangreenknight7455Paramount’s marketing team is probably trying to get help from Osama Bin Laden’s ghost
Tbh, I would have believed it 😂 as soon as I heard this movie was gonna be musical, I know it was gonna flop like a fish
@@omarhajar9822Yeah, musicals can be fantastic but it was clear day 1 that this was not it lol, especially with gaga and being a jukebox musical instead of having new songs lol
This movie should have been called Arthur, because what was even the point of the first movie, because the ending destroyed it completely
I mean the first o e should have been called Arthur, because the only thing relating to the Joker in that film is the name, and he just so happens to be in Gotham.
@@freddieadams8435 I would have accepted this as an elseworld joker, even Heath did not fall into a vat of chemicals
No because Arthur is an amazing film. Arthur's Theme the best you can do is a great song.
Parents when they take their kids to go to see what they thought was a movie about an aardvark with Glasses: 😳
No, because then it would be sharing the name of an actually good movie
The director was basically like "Aight since yall forced me to make this sequel I'm killing any chance I have to be brought back for more" literally after the movie came out bro said he never wants to do DC movies again SOMETHING had to have happened behind the scenes.
Apparently, Joaquin and Gaga were divas who wanted the script to continuously be rewritten over and over. I also believe some of these executives were responsible for the decisions made, so it soured Todd's love for DC films.
Stop spreading this bullshit. Phillips WANTED a sequel
@@toiletsponge He expressed INTEREST in making a sequel, the original film was still made to be standalone. It's clear the sequel was not the kind of sequel Philips wanted to make.
Yeah it's called Incells... Do you know how many dude saw that movie & thought that the joker was the good guy? He made it a musical & made the joker a fool cause he knew that the Incells would hate it-...
(Edit: if ya reply to me then you're an Incell)
@@watermelonprom7197do you think that decision wise? Spending millions of dollars, and time to spite a small group of losers?
Kinda seems like an incel move if you ask me
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.
A truly perfect overview of the meaning of the first movie and how the second one ruins the point of the first. Well done 👏
So he learned to deal with more or less accept REALITY? And not live in blissful ignorance?
I have not seen the 2nd movie but I can't stand stories where some version of: it was all or mostly faked is a big reveal and that's typically a thing with the joker character which I can't stand anyways imo but let me know if my understanding was wrong feel free to correct or spoil me I'm not goin to see this
@@marvellesaulsberry I haven't seen the second movie yet either, but my point was: The first movie deconstructed Arthur's reality to the point he basically went "Alright, fuck it, I'm making my reality out of what I have, killing!" but then the second movie seemingly walks it back and says that no, Arthur is still his reality and he suddenly feels bad about abandoning his status quo. Which is ludicrous since the first movie showed us how genuinely horrible Arthur felt in his own skin, only being happy as Joker once he finally let loose.
@@darklord884 It shouldn't make any sense for Joker 2 to be a thing now. Just like you said in the 1st movie, the character Arthur is being deconstructed by the fact that's not Arthur at all there was no Arthur to begin with. It's the Joker coming to life. Joker 2 (I haven't seen) seems like it's doing it backwards instead, Joker kills Arthur becuz Arthur is not Joker? Wtf?
@@tngaming50 Pretty much like you said, yeah.
What's worse is that there was potential for this to be good. We haven't seen the process of Joker brainwashing Harley in real time, so if the movie focused on how this Joker dazzled her with his unearthly confidence born of his new identity and sense of purposeless purpose, that could have actually been pretty solid as a movie about both giving in to your demons and the responsibility of fans to realise the immorality of their own idols. In today's climate of every celebrity being accused and then pardoned of some reprehensible action sooner or later, a movie about a deranged criminal celebrity brainwashing someone through her fascination with him could have been interesting.
You know if they didn't make it the point of the film that he's a pathetic sad sack after all.
This movie is the embodiment of “good concept, horrific execution”
More like the director did self sabotage because he didn't want to direct the sequel but was forced to.
"Good Concept"
Lol. No.
I genuinely don't think I have ever heard of a movie that tries so unbelievably hard to undo everything that the first movie did. I've said this before and I'll say it again, the Joker movie did not need a sequel.
I had a small inkling of hope that maybe they could have made it work but obviously they didn't
The last jedi
@@massgunner4152 honestly, that's a pretty good answer lol. Last Jedi was so awful
They definitely did this on purpose!
@@seeonaga1524 legends was good. If they copy that movie would have done ok. I rather watch Jedi being rebuilt by Luke over Rey
@@massgunner4152ironically Rise of Skywalker was the correct answer there lol
Damn, Todd Phillips really didn’t want this to be a franchise, he committed self-sabotage.
*don’t read my name…..🌹😮
@@DontReadMyProfilePicture113 Nobody gives a shit
@@DontReadMyProfilePicture113 ok
@@ChiefKeefBangBanq Diddy is after you
Seems more pretentious because he put a French name
The promise Neverland treatment
Ouch, you're not wrong.
Wdym that show never got a season 2
@@COCO-tm3gp yes it did and it flopped badly
@@blueblazedemon Pretty sure he was being sarcastic...
@@blueblazedemon nuh uh
The fact they made it to where he's not even the joker at all... WHAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF BOTH MOVIES THEN?!
Seriously, who the hell gave the ok on this shit
Arthur's story ended perfectly in the first one.
They could have done the 3 Jokers concept with the two springing him out to lead them as the true Prince of Crime
Yeah him competing over the Joker identity with other Jokers sounds way more interesting than the movie we got.
@@nono9543 I thought it was the critics acting up like last time, but the audience reviews killed my hope in seeing this one
Like damn, we deserved better than this.
@@Gchildwarriorthe first one was shit too, I ended up seeing it 3 times (picked a bit for family movie night at my protest for the 2nd and 3rd times) and each time the flaws became more and more apparent the lack of sense the way they absolutely fucked up the blend of fantasy and real elements due to a lack of detail in certain scenes (the scene where he kills for the first time had too many shots from his gun to have not been a fantasy element but was apparently real for example) the character work really just not being good, the batman elements being shoehorned in to a completely untreated movie seemingly just to use the name of a well known character
All the sequel does is make these flaws more apparent
My biggest hope for this one was to get an actual joker which ig we sort of do with the way they changed Harley around so much
I think you the only one who think this. The first joker was a good and grounded take with a commentary on how people mistreat the mentally and such. The sequel ruin that with a dramatic shift in the tone and genre of the first movie. It had more focus on Harley than Arthur, so no they didn't do a better portrayal 😅@Mrbody-tq9uc
@@masterace9543Honestly tho I understand it I didn’t completely like the 1st movie either because it could’ve been a stand alone movie without the Joker as branding and got better results. I like my villains to be villains.
Anyway, everyone better go make sure that Transformers One and the Wild Robot succeed in theaters
Superheroes are out. Robots are in.
@@CoraCreatesThis is the Year of the Apes and Robots.
I’m waiting to see TFO with a friend! Really want to see and support the film! I loved the Wild Robot!
Especially Wild Robot. I know Transformers fans are really dedicated and that movie will do fine. But Wild Robot is a relatively unknown IP. The movie was good and I want more. I want a lore-filled sequel so bad!
@@CoraCreates exactly. Robots are in... Which is why we need a Titanfall movie
I guess Heath Ledger now wins as the best Live Action Joker now.
I was not expecting you here after Omni-Man VS Bardock. 😂
Ending even implies it too
Just ignore this movie, and both Jokers are great in their own ways.
@@BCCSquidward I saw ur comment too lol
Wdym he always won/is the best live action joker
I don't wanna live in a timeline where Joker 2 and Morbius have the same score.
Damn 💀 joker 2 was that trash
I was thinking about seeing it to just see for myself I'm not too sure about that 😅
Is the Jonkler gonna Jonkillion dollars
Well I have good news for you, Joker is actually lower!
We're truly living in the darkest knightmare timeline
THEN LET’S LOWER IT.
gets shanked and dies... gets shanked and dies?... GETS SHANKED AND DIES!?
Then the dude who shanked him cuts a smile into his own face, revealing that he was the real Joker and the one we were following was just his inspiration.
@nathanhuerta4445 That's stupid. Way to steal the spotlight from the main character amd give it to a random guy for shock factor
5 out of 10 is too generous. That movie was straight doo doo water in my opinion
5/10 is very generous considering on what it could of been
*Joker never existed apparently*
“Guess I’ll die.” -Arthur Fleck
He degraded as a character, went back to Arthur
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375 that just makes the first film pointless then
Him renouncing joker, should've came at the start, so that when Harley shows up he can build himself back into it, that would have saved the movie.
But considering how the first one ended, it would be kinda repeating itself
Guys, it's Jokever.
Todd Phillips never wanted a Sequel and made sure to teach the studio and audience a lesson.
Misinformation
Audience getting taught a lesson is crazy work. “They gave me another multi million dollar opportunity, ILL SHOW THEM” goofy ahh
WHoa, whoa, what?! The movie ends with him quitting being The Joker?! AAND THEN HE FUCKING DIES?!
Joker: "Nah, I'd win."
I would like to imagine this movie is just the imaginary scenario Arthur was thinking when he told the therapist lady “You wouldn’t get it” at the end of the first movie.
A comment summed this up perfectly
Thor 4 🤝 Joker 2 = Directors who didn't want to make a sequel but were pressured by the studio
Edit: I realize that the director of Thor 4 wanted to do the sequel, my bad.
Nah Taika wanted a sequel. I think it’s just that he’s a one trick pony. The style worked for phase 3. It’s out of line for phase 4.
@@Achieme the director himself wanted to do thor 5, turns out he just sucks balls, they also pulled him out of it after 4 bombed
@@AnnoyingMobileGames ah I see
@@massgunner4152 well thank God
Thaaaaaank you, saved me from wasting time and money for the ending of "gives up, goes to prison and gets shanked."
You gave it a 5/10 and yet this is the highest rating someone has given joker 2 so far
“That was trash.”
Gives it an average score.
I mean mid is a synonym for terrible nowadays.
@@zenketski But it really shouldn't be. I don't understand how "trash" could be considered a 5/10
I think he was just referring to the ending itself, not the movie as a whole.
Considering What’s Up? Balloon To The Rescue exists, yeah.
@@fatterplatter3029 it shouldn't be. but thats how people use it.
This really didn’t have to suck, but Todd wanted to ensure it did.
Arthur realized he wasnt him when he heard his twink getting strangled is crazy work 😭😭😭
Well, im seated for the wild robot rn, so I'm hoping its great
Edit (after watching): its amazing, 10/10
Bruh, I saw it that movie last night. It had no business that great of a movie
I saw it this movie, it was amazing!
@@keiththegreaterit's from the same director as Lilo and Stitch. It has every right to be that good.
The part where Joker said "It's joking time" and joked all over the place was such a masterful scene. Truly deserving a 10/10
That's a really generous 5
I haven't watched it yet,but I knew that the Harley Quinn not being like harley quinn was going to fail.
What I don't like about is that this is that it has literally nothing to with the Joker.
You could take out all references to Joker and DC from these movies and nothing changes.
Arthur is not Joker, he acts nothing like Joker, his motivations share nothing with Joker, his skills share nothing with Joker. The only resemblences between the two is the Clown aesthetic.
Why are these movies even called Joker?
Probably because if it was called something like Arthur, audiences would be less enticed to go see it. Now if you slap the name Joker a pop culture icon for DC and comics as a whole then you get peoples attention.
The first one is called Joker because I imagine they wanted to do their own origin story for him. It seemed like they took out of The Killing Joke's playbook and gave the character a more sympathetic/tragic, in addition to being an arguably realistic character.
The second movie just feels like intentional self sabotage. I keep seeing everyone say that the movie was bad on purpose because the first one was never meant to have a sequel, but idk.
I was kinda hoping they would make The Joker and The Batman movies take place in the same continuity, and giving us more realistic and nuanced depictions of the Caped Crusader and his Rogues Gallery
Guess that's never happening now tho lol
@@babiestbadge1302 The Batman movie universe already has a person in place to one day become the Joker. He was in a cell next to Riddler at the end of the film. Phoenixs character was never going to be part of the aforementioned universe.
Tbf that's the same issue I had with the first Joker movie.
I believe Tod and Phoenix both had no interest in this movie. Both of them, on record, said they wouldn't do a sequel, and the first movie speaks and completes itself. But, y'know, WB forced this to be made because what the movie made what 1.2 billion.
I also think that's why the risk was made to turn this into a musical
Some movies should never have a continuation. I can’t imagine a sequel that gave a bigger fall from grace after the 1st movie.
First they kill Han Solo then make Luke give up, then Indiana Jones got punched in the face and knocked out at the end of his own damn movie, and now Joker takes it in the rear. Hollywood just can't help but tear down every fan favorite character.
Fr
Online incels try not to tie everything back to Star Wars challenge (LITERALLY impossible)
Seriously, stfu, this has NOTHING TO DO with anything you said.
Didn't Harrison Ford say he wanted han solo to get killed off so he wouldn't have to play that character anymore?
@@justmyluck624 humans are just good at recognizing patterns. The pattern here is these studios keep hiring people that don’t know anything about or give a crap about these properties, and expect everything to turn out great. The director of joker 2 openly said he hated the source material.
@@chief664 The director of Joker 2 was the director of Joker 1 my guy
Apparently the movie was bad because the director said he hated how everyone liked him as the joker so this Sequel is some what a flip off to the original movie
5/10 is mighty generous
More like Foile a Deuce.
Underrated comment
Lmao, got 'em
Transformers one deserved this type of marketing
A 5/10 is being EXTREMELY generous
They literally found a perfect formula and said “nah let me show you something even more boring than high school musical itself” shut was boring, uninspired and just a drag, I couldn’t even concentrate, plus Harley is dog water, it’s one thing to make your own character and not follow the original work, but when the character is so ass compared to the original I start to hate, if you wanna switch it up that’s fine but make it good. A standalone it’s not terrible, still boring but as a sequel to what we had, shit was ass.
This movie has so many plot holes it could identify as Swiss cheese
I actually enjoyed the ending cause it shows you that arthur was just a depressed person with many mental disabilities and problems just from his childhood
MoistCritikal said it best, I think "It feels like the director was trying to walk it back because he had regrets about the first film"
This was a disgrace of a sequel
That's cause he was. Todd Phillips has stated numerous times he hated the audience that the first one attracted
Him getting shanked is crazy 🤣
And also getting back shots
You didn’t spoil the movie, you saved the moviegoers
A 5 out of 10 is generous, when the first movie didn't even score for me. This was just a hastily rubbed out cash grab.
Great acting, great sets, fantastic direction, but the story lets it down:
No Batman, _no Joker!_
Forget the "you failed to save me, causing my disfiguration," origins of the character, let's even forget the "I would be nothing without you" Heath Ledger impression on the character!
*EVERYTHING* about the Joker is cast in a twisted image of Batman! Gotham has a hand in creating him, and I see a bunch of good representations of that, but so many of them try to have this character form in a vacuum without his inspiration!
Batman is gonna dress in dark colors and sneak around?
Joker gonna dress in bright colors and dance around in the open (if just to force Batman out of the shadows)
Batman is going to haunt the criminals of Gotham for taking his normal life
Joker is going to terrorize the people of Gotham for thinking they can have a normal life when he no longer can
Batman wants you to live in fear of him
Joker wants you to expire laughing from him
It is the Joker that necessitates a "Bat-Signal" in a world where Bruce would largely want to remain an urban legend. And if Thomas and Martha Wayne were alive in the first movie (I recall her giving a speech on the news) that puts us around 15-20 years away from the emergence of a fully trained Batman.....making this Joker a 60 -70 year old chain smoking failed comedian in clown make-up.
*"IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE THE DARK KNIGHT OF JUSTICE, THEN I'LL BE THE CLOWN PRINCE OF CRIME!!!"*
It is *NOT* that hard, people!!!!!
I disagree,
Batman's villians are often foils to different parts of batman, but they also have identities and problems that can be expanded upon as separate stories. Such as clayface being so desperate to remain a star that he disfigured himself or dollface so distraught to be forgotten that she kidnapped and tried murdering the original cast of the show that left her behind or poison ivy trying to protect plants from humanity.
Yes joker does work well when put next to batman but that doesn't mean he can't function on his own, and the criticaly aclaimed Joker movie would suggest exactly that.
The first movie set up joker as a symbol of the violent and broken system found in Gotham, that even an everyday man can break down and commit heinous acts of violence without any care given a bad enough day, in which gotham has many bad days. It was joker in that movie who inspired a criminal to shoot and murder Bruce's parents.
Joker is a foil to batman but batman is also a foil to joker. And just as you can have a standalone batman movie followed by him meeting joker, you can do the same in reverse. If joker had met batman in the sequel, having to directly combat the ramifications of his action from the first film, then the sequel would of been amazing but that doesn't mean joker can't function on his own without batman or that batman is necessary for the joker as a character.
The only thing I know about this movie is that an AVGN skit now acts as a spolier.
Hopefully he covers Deathbattle Fight With Omni-Man Vs Bardock
Garbage results
Cool Animation
@@justsomeguywholovesberserk6375 agreed
Did they have omniman win somehow 💀
@@bigred212 yep They even gave him Oozaru Form & SUPER SAIYAN and he still lost
@@Future_Edits2.0 ....
Okay so we all universally agree that regardless of what anyone else says, this movie was not canon.
Yeah, that’s the point. The entire move is about exploitation. NOBODY cares about *arthur* , they care about the joker. The instant he dropped the joker is the instant everyone dropped *him* . They were all exploiting arthur in different ways.
Hell, the joke is even on the *audience* too. All the people complaining are the exact type of person this movie is calling out. You never cared about Arthur, and you never cared about these movies, all you cared about was what *you wanted*
Yes because this is what movies are invented for they are invented for giving the audience what they want and yes we all cared about the joker not Arthur and I don't care if the movie call me out on that
@@massimilianoreali4398 congrats, I guess. have fun being the real clown here
Except people have been misunderstanding the message.
We SHOULD care about Arthur because he was not the Joker. Never was.
He was meant to be the one to elevate the message of chaos and defiance against the Gotham elite, thus inspiring the riots that make people like Joe Chill decide to go mug Thomas Wayne and his family.
Arthur was the stepping stone, he was the underdog. We were all looking out for Arthur because he is just a common man, a common man with a bad day.
Sound familiar?
@@Nagakon more than misunderstanding people didn't wamted that this was the message and we didn't had any idea that this was the message they wanted to give there was nothing that pointed that this was the message that the film wanted to give before his release and so our expectations got distorted because we didn't had any guidelines on what this film would had centered and the film itself its called the Joker so you can't than say no I am not at this point you changed the title with the joker:Arthur and Harley at least we would had a idea that it centered about the person and not the image because everyone expected a Arthur going deeper in the role of the joker to the point of becoming it
The problem with this is that Arthur doesn't have his own identity -- he has no past, no occupation, no family, absolutely nothing. He became the Joker as a tragic, horrific way of self-actualization; there just isn't any separating the two.
Moreover, being the Joker was his way of lashing out at people he thought had wronged him. If this movie were true to his character, Arthur would've started killing Harley and the rest the moment he found out they were using his persona to their benefit.
It really is insane that this Joker never met Batman
Hmm... its almost like the Joker isnt actually an interesting character and people watching the last movie were just seeing what they wanted to see
Tell that to the comic people with joker going thru many different things in all different comics, hell there's a comic with joker as a head in a pod and he helps Batman
To me it's more like Joker isn't a deep character, not saying it's impossible, but more often than not, Joker just works as a character without an overtly direct backstory
Contrary to popular belief, i think Joker 2 could've worked as a musical if they really leaned into the surrealist madness and used the songs as ways to symbolize things that were going on in reality. Like using the 70s Variety Show as ways to parallel the madness and circus of the reql world. Chicago and Cabaret does this excellently. As it stands, this movie is what people who hate musicals think what musicals are like.
Tbf Arthur is to soft and old to become the actual joker, he’d be late 50/60s in age. He doesn’t have the psychotic tendencies that it takes to be the joker, makes sense in a way he’s just a suicidal man with mental illness who inspired the persona of the Joker.
Ya know thank you, cause I never thought about it past the age and how that would work. That actually makes me see it in a better light for what it truly is/could be
I mean yea but that doesn't excuse them destroying his character and making a terrible sequel this movie could have been him breaking out starting another movement and him dying as people in Gotham truly stick and belive his ideas and that could have lead into the new batman being made and what made Gotham so bad and then they can make an entirely new joker that was born from his ideas
@@randyking2057 He never believed in his own ideals ? He did was he did simply out of misery. Arthur has always been an insecure, depressed, suicidal man he’s wanted to die since the first film. He put on the clown makeup because it made him feel confident, but he the man himself was a suicidal weak man. Arthur doesn’t have the mindset to be the official joker Arthur doesn’t have the mental strength to either. Trying to turn this frail man into the joker would’ve been character assassination. While I dislike the film for the singing, the story itself is alright if you paid attention to the first movie.
@@morbidzombii I know he wouldn't be a good fit for the joker that's why he could have paved the way for a new joker while getting the death he wanted and being remembered because he actually did want to be someone I was agreeing with you just displeased with how the movie was
I knew ppl weren’t gonna understand the ending. They never planned for the joker to be fulfilled with this character. The joker becomes an idea a character, a state of mind. Arthur always wanted to be his own person and he becomes that. But this world, his relationships, this movie, are all about joker. The moment Arthur stops being joker, he stops being useful and dies. Don’t devalue a movie just because you never got the writing
Its not about getting the writing but not getting what the people wanted to see the people wanted to see him accept the idea of the joker because this is what everyone expected the film was about
The director definitely self sabotaged so the franchise wasnt milked
Joker 2 is the best definition of "being less than the sum of its parts".
Damn, I was not expecting full on end of movie spoilers without a warning
Yeah I didn't mind the ending or the idea of the Joker persona outliving its creator. My problem is that I wish the film tackled that theme with effort instead of making it a musical. Just felt gimmicky.
They tried to do a soulless cash grab but failed to make the movie appeal to any demographic whatsoever
Him having a time of lucidity makes sense to me. That other inmate being killed for believing in and following him temporarily shocked him out of his joker state. Revolutionaries often turn on leaders who give up on the dream.
Okay, so I'm not the only thinking Arthur is taken back that he basically started to ruin lives as Gary and that one inmate kid being triggers that suddenly took him back to I suppose "morality". Did you also thought his last musical number was him basically crying out his true dream but turns out he was a complete fool for believing Harley still when she says that she lies a little.
Honestly, a 3 jokers origin story plot would've been a better sequel for Joker 2019
The media failed so hardly at convincing people that the first one was a bad movie that they had convinced the director and producer to just make a bad sequel
Maybe the first one should have been a musical
Welp I hope Superman is really good.
One of the kindest reviews and probably the only. Lol
The director made this film as a protest. He didn't want to make it.
Why do you guys keep saying that? He literally signed on for the sequel.
Remember this director and everyone who worked on this film wanted it to be a middle finger to the "edgelords"
At this point it just like everyone wants to make a political statement without showing reasoning to why the other side would fall for whatever they believe in and just falls flat. But Remember piss off the other side means you win
Bro is pretty generous to give it a 5
I saw this movie in the cinema yesterday with a friend (for free as they worked at the cinema we went to), and while i dont think its as bad as a lot of people made it out to be, it definitely does leave alot to be desired.
I think Phoenix and gaga acted very well in this movie, and that they embodied the roles they were given, it is just unfortunate that the writing was not up to par.
SPOILERS AHEAD:
The music was quite good, but as you mentioned, there were times it felt out of place and other times it felt like the song just stopped halfway through for no reason.
The story in the movie was ok, the first half was actually quite enjoyable to me and was mostly what i expected, the 3rd quarter was ok, a few gripes about it but not too many. But the final quarter felt like it just threw everything they were building up to out of the window, set it on fire then threw the ashes into a volcano. The final quarter did not live up to it all. The whole movie, you get shown Arthur falling further back into his madness, his desire to be front and center and to be loved, even to the point that (as you mentioned) he dons the joker persona in court. But then the ending just suddenly goes "actually he doesnt want to be joker anymore and he doesnt want to be front and center" and it heavily implies that its caused because of the guards killing another patient in arkham and that the guilt for that changed his mind, despite him having murdered 6 people in the previous movie with seemingly no guilt at all.
Storylines: while this does tie in to the story in the movie, i feel like it deserves its own section. While the main storyline (joker and harley) was handled quite well in the first 3 acts (again aside from a few gripes (if you know you know)) there were quite a few other storylines that felt like they were abandoned or cut. For example, in one scene harley says she is pregnant, this is pretty much never brought up again. Harley is revealed to be a grad student from a psychiatry course and that the story she had been telling Joker was a lie, Aside from 1 scene later, nothing else about this is shown/revealed. Harley is somehow constantly getting access to areas she realistically shouldn't (like jokers solitary cell), never explained how or why aside from "oh the guard let me in." Despite Arthurs seeming obsession in the first movie with the Waynes (since he thinks he is thomas waynes kid) they are never brought up in this movie at all.
The ending: while I am disappointed with how phoenix's joker ended, i'm not upset about the set up with the implication that the psychopath that killed him would later become the Joker who would later face off against batman. I honestly did suspect that this movie would reveal that Phoenix's Joker would be the catalyst for the joker rather than him being the joker himself (and honestly i suspected that from the first movie, as by the time that bruce would have grown up to be batman, Phoenix's joker would be like 60). Overall, the setup/implication was expected, however, the way Phoenix's joker died was very disappointing and anticlimactic.
My review: overall, i would give this movie a 4-5/10. The acting was good (especially from phoenix) and the music was also good (though the timing on where they were put could have been better(some of the songs felt they were just put in there because they could be)), the story and storylines were decent but left a bit to be desired (especially near the end) and the ending could have been handled alot better. Personally, its in my list of movies that if i didnt care what to watch and it was on, i would watch watch it, but i wouldnt go out of my way to put it on myself (unless it had been quite a while since i saw it).
Edit: my take on it being a musical: Personally I think it could have actually worked really well as a musical and there were some scenes in the movie that to me proved it would have worked (like the joker is me or the joker and harley show) as to me it showed him falling further into his madness and truly accepting himself as the joker. The problem was that some of the songs didnt fit the scene (like the song after he finds out the DA is going for the death penalty) and that the ending pretty much said "oh no he isnt insane, its all an act." If the songs were better timed and the ending supported his break down to pure insanity it definitely would have worked as a musical.
This movie made me feel like a disappointed parent 💀
I thought this movie would’ve been great as a pseudo three jokers plot
When the director hates the fans, but still wants the money
How I describe the ending like a game that has multiple endings. We got the bad ending instead of the true one.
Nobody wanted a sequel except DC executives because they missed out on making bank with the first one.
I swear, the moment Heath Ledger died, the Joker role legit became cursed for almost everyone else. Jared Leto to this day still hasn't recovered from this, Mark Hamill is basically done with the role once the main reason he did the role died, and now Phoenix ended up with this one role obliterated because the director didn't want to do a sequel at all.
At this point, maybe we should just retire the character before he ruins countless other actors/ect. simply because DC refuses to let the Joker finally die due to marketing/merch.
Look Back came out on the same day, WATCH THAT PLEASE ITS SO MUCH BETTER
You called it trash, yet gave it 5/10. That's the hump of the bellcurve
Honestly this a movie for a director that didn’t even want to make a sequel
Bro didn't just didn't get shanked and died. He got shanked and it hinted that the guy who did it would be the next Joker. This movie was a class example of not everything needs a sequel
Bro was like "our movie really resonated with poor, depressed, young men. This is a big issue
I actually like this movie guys. Get mad if you want but it was a good movie imo
If Joker didn't have plot armor
This felt like a movie made out of spite, which it kinda was. The director was very clear on not wanting to be married to the Joker or DC, and boy he made sure he won’t be.
As a person that unfortunately never watched this movie. I would give a 5/10 too, if there was less musical or no musical, just focus a story about Arthur of who he is. Then maybe the story would be a 8/10 or 7.5/10 in my personal opinion.
*the ONLY way they can come back from this movie if they make a 3rd one bro is to make this one a bad dream Arthur had like deadass*
If they played the Joker beatbox phonk it would have saved the movie
Thanks for saving my money, my guy
It seems most people didnt notice that the guy who kills him then cuts a smile into his own face insinuating that hes just the man who inspired Joker
He just gets diddyed and then all of a sudden doesn’t wanna be joker 🤡
"It will be funny if it wasn't so pathetic"the joker
Joker 1: THE Rise
Joker 2: THE Fall
Haven't even seen the 1st but guess ill check both out
To be fair the opening scene with the cartoon was cool and that’s about it
They hated the fact the people they called incels loved the first movie and didn’t commit mass violence. So they ruined him in the second to get back at the fans.