7/10, better than the 1st. At least people are now willing to admit that Arthur Fleck was and always has been Joker only by name, it was just a way to fund a movie. Im glad he got more creative with this one and I think he made this for him and Joaquin and not the fans which is a good thing.
I dont see it as a connection to heath ledgers joker, maybe a bit of a nod. but to me, it was saying "The joke carries on" and the joker will always find a way through someone.
@@devl29 100% agree. I don’t think they are trying to say “yea that’s heaths joker” because firstly the timelines don’t match up, and secondly it would be incredibly tone deaf and I don’t think Todd Philips is stupid enough to do it. What it does do is take elements from TDK for example the scars, or the idea that the joker is less of a person with a defined origins and just simply a chaos bringer.
It also ties into the line "There is no Joker" meaning the joker is more of a character that people take on, and will live on despite arthur fleck dying
@@chancecrimin 100% I think it’s rather bold of people to assume it’s immediately trying to link itself with ledgers joker especially when jack Nicholson also had scars and in fact I’d be willing to bet he was more in thought than ledgers when the final scene was in mind. People say he looks like ledgers joker, I thought he looked like jacks
I think that the opening and end of the movie are the "Folie A Deux" that the film was named. I think Lee was a red herring, that the true "Shared madness" was between Arthur and the the Joker that takes his place. I think that irony makes the movie itself a bit of a joke. WE are being told a story (like many joke structures) and the punchline is that the character wearing clown makeup wasn't THE clown at all, just the inspiration.
@@ternative More or less. I think Arthur was like a match, small and pretty insignificant. But then it spread and spread until it hit a powder keg (The visitor that kills him). The guys that take advantage of the chaos he causes are bad, sure. But the visitor not only commits murder, but mutilates his own face. How many people would do that?
This movie is sort of a fascinating social experiment. There's the people who saw the first movie and said to themselves "This is very clearly not the Joker for a large variety of reasons." And then there's people who saw this movie were mad and OUTRAGED by the ending, so clearly they thought he was.
im one of those people that thought he made for a good joker, and was happy to learn there was gonna be a sequel, and now disappointed that it was terrible and a waste
@@mrmeaty2140 The fact that he's about 30 years Bruce's senior and not in any way shape or form a criminal mastermind foil for a genius crime fighting detective never bothered you at all? For me this entire franchise was clearly just an excuse to do a big budget Scorsese tribute act and play around.
With this extra knowledge, not having him take back power in the end of the movie was an extra horrible choice. He should’ve gone to Harley with what happened, then Harley should’ve armed him, and they should’ve returned to the prison to rid the city of those guards.
Yall are ignoring the fact that there is another joker currently on screen with the same facial scarring. I don’t think it’s supposed to be heath I think it’s just supposed to be symbolic of a passing of the torch moment and they chose to have him cut his mouth open so that the symbolism wouldn’t be lost because it would be easy to say that this person killed him for whatever reason and was just any random crazy but tying it deeper to jokers mythology especially seeing how many people he’s inspired in this movie already I think it’s a really fitting ending actually.
To be fair, JOKER was never a super hero film, even though it had super hero named characters. That’s what made it unique. Just like Road To Perdition or A History Of Violence, it was more of a graphic novel adaptation. It’s not a super hero film, it’s not a musical, it’s not a horror, or a courtroom drama. It’s a very bespoke unique thing. It’s the conclusion to the original film that was meant to be a stand alone thing.
See my theory is that the person that killed Arthur is actually Jack Napier. And it goes down to the line that Joker doesn't just have one if any origin story.
@@TheDamagedKoda You kidding me ? everyone knows that by getting the glasgow smile. that the dude did to himself fot no reason, it means he is Heath's Joker
I work at our city's local movie theater and over the course of the entire day we only had between 2 to 12 people per showtime. Two people walked out halfway through and those who stuck it out were engaged in conflicting conversation on the way-out, expressing frustration and confusion, as well as a strong disapproval of the ending. 5 years ago in 2019 when the first Joker released we had an average of 30-50 people per showing for a month strait. In a year of sequels at the box office it seems that this one didn't hit it's note.
The guards let Harley in to see Arthur because she's from a very wealthy family and just paid them. No, it's not explicitly stated, but in this case it's more likely than it being imagined.
As I recall, Arthur was in solitary confinement at the time. I also recall that the guards where absolutely pissed at Arthur. When you consider how abusive the guards were ALL THE TIME, do you really think they'd let Lee in to see Arthur just because she's got a rich daddy?
I loved this movie. It's ironic that this movie's main message has been completely proven true by how many people disliked it. Many people wanted to see the Joker villain from the Batman movies, but instead they got poor Arthur Fleck. But isn't that exactly what Arthur was complaining about his whole life? That no one ever cared about him, who he really is. But the moment he became the Joker, then they paid attention to his alter ego. But the real Arthur is killed instead, the same way the critics killed this movie. Too bad. This movie is genius.
My complaint isn't that there's too much Arthur and not enough Joker. I just didn't enjoy the musical element. I knew it was going to be like that going in, but I think it would've been better without it.
the real arthur was the joker....did you not understand the first movie??? Nice try but that movie was so damn bad, they legit ruined any storyline with joker in that franchise XD no more of this joker or any for awhile after these horrible renditions of him. They ruined this, and the actors reputations by making this nonsense, no one likes something that cant find its own definition...
In psychology, the shadow is the part of ourselves that we see as unacceptable and the ego keeps the shadow hidden. So the shadow taking over in the cartoon shows the worst part of himself, the part that he is ashamed of, defeating his ego.
It must be understood that the introduction of got it wrong. There is no battle between Arthur and Joker personalities. Joker is a personality with confidence which Arthur gains through a gun, fan support, or rage. He is not battling with himself.
I think you're probably correct, but have you considered the fact that the court case rests on Arthur proving his insanity, against the state, who have been medicating him for thirty years, due to his insanity, now trying to prove he is not insane. Maybe Dent is right, and "his mental illness is a performance", but who wrote the script?
I reckon they were scared to seem like they were encouraging shootings/incels so took a HARD pivot. Seems like they just got Gaga, googled any song lyrics that have the word clown and made the rest up...
@@EatSleepEmpire How come all of your vast life experience didn't teach you what subjectivity means? Someone dislikes a movie that you like and that makes you think you know something about, not just them, but everyone that shares that opinion? That's not becoming of a sophisticado such as yourself.
Harley didn’t exist, rewatch the movie. Once you see the Pepe Le Pew cartoon the first time everything after that is in his head until we see the cartoon again, on the same TV, in the same room at the same time of day
I loved it as well. The musical parts were a little drawn out towards the end, but overall I really enjoyed it. I’m glad I didn’t look up reviews before watching.
This was an amazing movie. Idc what people say or think. It was so good. It follows the concept that the Joker name is a mantle handed down. This wasn't the joker we know, not yet.
So, we can all agree that this film is one major troll, right? Just like The Matrix Resurrections, this film seems to be dripping with contempt for its own existence. Its inaccessibility has to be deliberate.
I definitely don’t think it’s as bad as people are making it out to be, but I do understand and agree with the criticisms you presented in this video. It was definitely odd for them to continue using the same small list of songs over and over again
Nah..Todd Phillips is showing how the classic joker got turned into something darker. Those other films you talk about are what turned the modern interpretation of joker into reality
This is the first time we really get a glimpse into how insane the joker really is. The whole story is all in his head. I see why its being panned now but This film will be highly reguarded in the future.
Agreed. This film was brilliant in many ways. The direction was really good and the writing was as well. Of course people will always have negative things to say when the film evokes a strong emotion out of you. I think him dying at the end was the icing on the cake to end this title and close the chapter on his character. He pretty much had no way out. If he didn’t get killed he’d just die in the chair. The film was grounded to reality so nobody was gonna save the day and he wasn’t gonna get lucky again.
@@iancraigmthat’s what I remember 😂 I didn’t watch the first one in theaters because I remember a lot of people didn’t like it and I don’t care to go to the movies either way.. I don’t know if it was because of Joaquin Phoenix or what not… but then I saw it years later at home and I loved the movie… didn’t understand why people didn’t like it.. then I watched Joaquin on RU-vid getting praised for his work in the movie 🤦🏻♂️😂 I was thinking.. “I thought people said this was a bad movie?🙄” 😂
I think the issue is that we measure it against the Joker (the person) as an origin story. I think it’s more of an origin story on the idea of the Joker
I think the song that they were singing in the B sector class was “Daddy Sang Bass” by Johnny Cash.. a nod to Joaquin’s role as the star in Walk The Line.
It seems like the first 90% of Joker 2 was exactly the movie I wanted it to be . . . up until he said there was no Joker and Harley walks out. At that point I realized it was just the movie Todd Phillips wanted it to be. Too bad they weren’t the same movie.
9:30 Well, when the criminals keep escaping, having them be far way from the people of Gotham is a smart design choice and this is the smartest version of arkham I've seen
The thing about the first movie is that your constantly wondering what's in his head and what's not. However, the second film makes it so obvious that there's no questioning and it really kills the illusion
I don't know why people think it's such a bad film, I went to see it with my partner last night, and yeah there were maybe 2 or 3 too many musical numbers, but aside from that it was really good
Surprised you didn't mention the parallel between the final shot of the film, and the title-card shot from the first film. They're practically the same, even down to him grabbing at the left side of his abdomen.
I get people not liking the ending but to see people call the whole movie “ a shitty ass movie” is a joke it was good at what it was trying to do makes you question what’s actually happening and I think it did that element better then the first movie
The musicals distract you from the fact that this was a weak plot, there was no suspense, no chills, we basically knew what was going to happen and that Arthur was going to lose in the end either way.
@@Power_trip397 you telling me you were expecting him to die and the courtroom to blow up? Also Harley Quinn leaving him? I think those were pretty good plot twists
@@Vee_breeze2767 I expected him to escape the trial when he was going to defend himself and build that mountain with Harley, I mean the joker is a smart, manipulative fictional character after all, but Arthur couldn’t handle the pressure of being portrayed as the joker anymore that was just the let down point.
After the grape scene and he’s thrown in his cell looking lifeless it cuts back to the bathroom dance scene expect this time he’s just looking at himself almost lifeless
I'm someone who actually can appreciate musicals and wasn't turned off by that fact. So I enjoyed the first about 80% of the film. But then it just takes a totally BAFFLING turn in the 3rd Act to where I question if the same person was even writing it. It legitimately felt like they were INTENTIONALLY destroying the plot. I don't mean just bad writing or big plot holes... DELIBERATE sabotage of your own script. The ending is not only the opposite of satisfying, it doesn't even make logical sense from the standpoint of screenwriting.
i feel like the movie can work if initially it was all in his imagination, but by the end of the movie, it happens for real. he kills everyone in the room for real in a musical manner.
I think the only reason they used the same song so many times is because it filled time. This movie could have been 1hr 30mins if they didn't keep reusing songs for seemingly pointless reasons
I'm convinced Todd Phillips intentionally made this movie's story and writing so bad to ensure the studio would never ask for a third movie. Shit, Gotham did the legacy insanity for the Joker character in a vastly superior way.
I think your right, I think it was really good, but it's not a thriller/psyco-drama, it's a court-drama/musical. For what it is, I think it's good, but people wanted it to be like the first movie.
In no way does the dude cutting his face try to be Heath ledger. Him and Bruce are the same age basically. Bruce is like 12 in this movie. Makes no sense.
I’ve yet to hear a resounding yes to any of these questions: - is it a successful courtroom drama? - is it a successful musical? - is it a successful Joker journey? …the fact that it’s not good at any of its intentions is pretty damning
The problem was with expectations. It was never a movie about batman or the lore of batman; it was just about a character which is taking place in elseworld. He wasnt the real joker from the beginning. He was just inspiration for the next one
When you think about it. Joker has a variety of back/origins story. So, with this being a story about joker. His origins are multiple, i guess, archetypes. I think the team is trying to pay it forward. With the Joker being such an unpredictable enigma. If that man's sense.
