I loved the performances and the direction that Todd Phillips and Joaquin Pheonix decided to go with the character of Arthur with having him face the consequences of his actions and battle with his identity through them. The challenges placed on Arthur both felt subversive and yet cohesive with where we last saw him in 2019’s Joker. However, the lame musical sequences, thin story, and off-putting ending bog this movie down tremendously! Still, I have not stopped thinking about since I left the theatre, and that is worth something in my opinion. Great review!
People did not enjoy the regression back to Arthur, but after expectations are removed(often on second viewing)- one can really appreciate this film for itself. Nice thumbnail btw!
I think both movies are better than you give them credit for, but kudos for being one of the very few youtube reviewers that didn't ride the hate wave for views and actually went into the theater with an open mind and enouch patience to at least enjoy its ups and get the gist of what the author was trying to do. Your review is fair, and that's all that matters. Just my two cents: the musical scenes are jarring on purpose, to show all the conflicting emotions on Arthur's head, and the words sung actually do represent what the characters (at least Arthur for sure) feel and think. Maybe, like you said, there are some latent emotional aspects that are not represented on many numbers (like Arthur's increasing lack of trust of Lee's intentions) but I feel they are still subliminally evoked through the doom and dark sounds of the symphonic score that appears here and there and many times even interrupts the singing numbers. I do agree the courtroom drama is a bit tedious, but I think that's exactly the point, the audience oughta feel the same lack of comfort Arthur does, given it's a psychological type of thriller film. The first one is also very dependant on Arthur's mental state, so that's another consistent element that carries onto the sequel.
Many non-dumb people also dislike it, but due to extreme dissapointment over their heightened expectations over the realistically non-existent possibility of Arthur becoming the clown prince lf crime. Not everybody saw Fleck as a symbol of rebellion, but many did oversee his mental limitations and believed he might become some type of real criminal, like myself. I was a bit dissapointed too, because the story was not what I expected, but I did get Phillip's message and quite liked the concept he went for here. Imo, there is a big misconception about this film: that Phillips and Phoenix did it to spite comic book movies' fans by heightening the patheticism of Fleck. I think that was never the intention. This sequel (just like the first film) was made for a different type of audience, the only difference is that Phillips made this sequel to point out what Arthur's representation is really about, and why we should care about what he truly represents (mentally ill patients that are vilified and ignored by society, not glorified psychos like Dahmer or Ramirez). So, not spite, just thematic clarification.
