Joker Folie a Deux Review

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is the movie even speculative in format? Should it be moved to general discussion?

[Nealithi]

Is the movie even speculative in format? Should it be moved to general discussion?

I think it still is? Joker and HQ are still well known characters even if they are being used in a 'grounded' manner. So it would be speculation off of the genre?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Because it's not sci fi or fantasy ha.

[clearspira]

Is the movie even speculative in format? Should it be moved to general discussion?

Depends on how you define the nature of what a comic book movie is. Personally, this is a film about a clown man in a world where everyone sings. That is pretty fantastical.

Genuine question: What's your definition of fantasy? Does it have to have an elf in it? Or magic? Are some comic book movies allowed to be fantasy or are all of them not?

[clearspira]

I won't spoil the ending. I did not like it.

6/10

I have not seen this movie, I am not interested in seeing it.

I am curious on your rating. You say you did not like it, yet you gave an above average score.

So what did it do well to be better than meh?

Good question. And I will answer that by comparing it to what I consider to be one of the worst comic book movies ever made: The Marvels.

1) The acting from the leads is top notch. You may not like what they are doing, but Phoenix, Ga Ga and Gleeson are doing their jobs. This would be an impossible claim to make about anyone in The Marvels besides the girl playing Kamala.

2) The concept of a musical trial is - for a comic book movie - very original. It did not work, but I absolutely appreciate that they tried. The Marvels is the most cookie cutter of cookie cutter paint-by-numbers Marvel fare that you'll ever see. Completely formulaic, generic and risk averse.

3) I like the fact that the Joker is finally shown to be facing justice. That is not a Marvels comparison, but in a way it is, because the way that Marvel always lets its villains escape several times over is pure nonsense. In ''Injustice Among Us'' Superman is meant to be the villain because he *checks notes* thinks that the paper thin justice system of the DC Universe is what led to the destruction of Metropolis. He takes it too far obviously but a lot of his innovations such as escape-proof prisons to hold people with death counts in the thousands and suggesting that maybe execution is a good way to deal with friggin' Lobo are sound.

3.5) The first movie does have a very unhealthy following of people. Incels, the dejected, the fringe of society. The sorts of people who did not seem to realise that there is nothing to respect, emulate or like about Arthur. We can sympathise with the few occasions that he does not deserve his treatment, but it is not an excuse. And too many people seem to think that he is one. I think that having a movie that shows this man up to be the sack of crap that he is was necessary. Yes - I did not think much of the first movie which may be why I like this one.

4) I did not like the prison rape scene. That was unneeded. BUT. But, but, but. Is it not refreshing to see the police and government realistically portrayed in one of these movies for once? We all know that this sort of thing happens. Joker showed them up publicly. Insulted them. Of course he was going to at least get a beating for that. It fits a lot of the stories i've heard about the prison system put it that way. Men like Commissioner Gordon who are incorruptible and noble exist - but so do men like Gleeson's character. And sadly, probably in larger numbers.

5) It kept my interest for its running time. The Marvels did not. The Eternals did not. The Phantom did not. Steel did not. Blade 3 did not. Shang Chi did not. Etc, etc. This is the most basic of all achievements and yet one that warrants it an average rank purely due to how many films DO NOT achieve this.

I stick by my review. 6/10. A movie not worth paying for but you should check out on streaming for ''free''.

[stryke]

I think that might be the highest ranking I seen for this movie.

Mark Kermode (probably still the number one film critic in the UK) liked it more than the first one, and he gave the first one 4 stars in a newspaper review. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvpfOuiBKqo

Also the Pitch Meeting for this went up yesterday and does mention the ending twist which sounds pretty dang awful to me, and I can see why the people who liked the first one are annoyed.

[Madner Kami]

3.5) The first movie does have a very unhealthy following of people. Incels, the dejected, the fringe of society. The sorts of people who did not seem to realise that there is nothing to respect, emulate or like about Arthur. We can sympathise with the few occasions that he does not deserve his treatment, but it is not an excuse. And too many people seem to think that he is one. I think that having a movie that shows this man up to be the sack of crap that he is was necessary. Yes - I did not think much of the first movie which may be why I like this one.

Presuming this was the case, that "Joker" needed a grounding for the sake of the... challenged parts of the fans, wouldn't this movie then fail completely in it's mission? From all I can tell, this movie runs pretty much counter to all the viewership-interests of the exact demographic you pointed out. Trying to sell fridges to Eskimos.

[CharlesPhipps]

I think the prison rape is worse because it's not shown as a flaw of the legal system. It's shown as what breaks Arthur out of being the Joker and into repentance.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Is the movie even speculative in format? Should it be moved to general discussion?

Depends on how you define the nature of what a comic book movie is. Personally, this is a film about a clown man in a world where everyone sings. That is pretty fantastical.

Genuine question: What's your definition of fantasy? Does it have to have an elf in it? Or magic? Are some comic book movies allowed to be fantasy or are all of them not?

I’m… not inclined to argue against the musical attribution.

As sci fi attempts to denote a world with physically consistent laws at the very least suggested to be supported by science simply not discovered in this world,, fantasy adds extraordinary elements to our expected physical world.

In the way that religion is typically a consistent social science, musicals are a precise type of speculative format.

[Nealithi]

I won't spoil the ending. I did not like it.

6/10

I have not seen this movie, I am not interested in seeing it.

I am curious on your rating. You say you did not like it, yet you gave an above average score.

So what did it do well to be better than meh?

Good question. And I will answer that by comparing it to what I consider to be one of the worst comic book movies ever made: The Marvels.

1) The acting from the leads is top notch. You may not like what they are doing, but Phoenix, Ga Ga and Gleeson are doing their jobs. This would be an impossible claim to make about anyone in The Marvels besides the girl playing Kamala.

2) The concept of a musical trial is - for a comic book movie - very original. It did not work, but I absolutely appreciate that they tried. The Marvels is the most cookie cutter of cookie cutter paint-by-numbers Marvel fare that you'll ever see. Completely formulaic, generic and risk averse.

3) I like the fact that the Joker is finally shown to be facing justice. That is not a Marvels comparison, but in a way it is, because the way that Marvel always lets its villains escape several times over is pure nonsense. In ''Injustice Among Us'' Superman is meant to be the villain because he *checks notes* thinks that the paper thin justice system of the DC Universe is what led to the destruction of Metropolis. He takes it too far obviously but a lot of his innovations such as escape-proof prisons to hold people with death counts in the thousands and suggesting that maybe execution is a good way to deal with friggin' Lobo are sound.

3.5) The first movie does have a very unhealthy following of people. Incels, the dejected, the fringe of society. The sorts of people who did not seem to realise that there is nothing to respect, emulate or like about Arthur. We can sympathise with the few occasions that he does not deserve his treatment, but it is not an excuse. And too many people seem to think that he is one. I think that having a movie that shows this man up to be the sack of crap that he is was necessary. Yes - I did not think much of the first movie which may be why I like this one.

4) I did not like the prison rape scene. That was unneeded. BUT. But, but, but. Is it not refreshing to see the police and government realistically portrayed in one of these movies for once? We all know that this sort of thing happens. Joker showed them up publicly. Insulted them. Of course he was going to at least get a beating for that. It fits a lot of the stories i've heard about the prison system put it that way. Men like Commissioner Gordon who are incorruptible and noble exist - but so do men like Gleeson's character. And sadly, probably in larger numbers.

5) It kept my interest for its running time. The Marvels did not. The Eternals did not. The Phantom did not. Steel did not. Blade 3 did not. Shang Chi did not. Etc, etc. This is the most basic of all achievements and yet one that warrants it an average rank purely due to how many films DO NOT achieve this.

I stick by my review. 6/10. A movie not worth paying for but you should check out on streaming for ''free''.

A well thought out response. Thank you.