Joker: Folie à Deux movie review
If you've seen Joker: Folie à Deux, aka Joker 2, you've likely encountered the scathing reviews of the film. Despite these critiques, I watched the movie this weekend and found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with the prevailing opinions.
It wasn't a bad movie—it was a different one. It certainly wasn't a comic book film, and in many ways, it wasn't even a traditional sequel to the original. Here are my thoughts:
Yes, it was a musical—and that hurt it. The musical numbers interrupted the already slow-paced story. At two hours and 20 minutes, less happened in this film than in a 25-minute episode of Batman '66 or a 40-minute episode of Gotham. Most musical numbers added little to the plot, with Lady Gaga's performances being the sole exceptions.
Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, and the rest of the cast were excellent, but they had limited material to work with. Leigh Gill reprised his role as Gary Puddles, Arthur Fleck's "little person" friend from the original, and his single courtroom scene was easily one of the film's best. The standout casting choice was Bill Smitrovich (known for "Life Goes On" and "Millennium") as Judge Herman Rothwax.
The movie lacked meaningful connections to DC Comics. Apart from Joker, Harley (or "Lee" in this case), Arkham Asylum, Harvey Dent, and Gotham (portrayed as Gotham, New York), there were no other ties to the Batman universe. Unlike the original Joker's gritty, Batman: Year One-style Gotham, this version felt too modern. Even Harvey Dent's appearances, save for his final one hinting at a Two-Face origin, were unremarkable and offered no nods to the future Batman villain beyond his name.
I loved the animated opening scene. I wonder if more of these had been interspersed throughout the film instead of musical numbers, it might have fared better. The Joker and Harley Show scene was also visually captivating. Could this have served as a framing device, combined with animation and live action, to tell the story from Joker's perspective? The vibrant colors and callbacks to the Murray Franklin show finale from the first movie were iconic and deserved more prominence compared to the darkness of Arkham and the courtroom.
The film's thesis—that Joker was never real, just a persona Arthur played—disappointed some viewers who believed the Clown Prince of Crime needed a revealing origin to matter. In my opinion, the subtext surrounding Joker's followers carries a more significant message. Even in today's political climate, many wonder: what happens when a movement's leader is no longer seen as such? Does the movement fade, or does it evolve into something even more sinister?
The ending left me uncertain. I'm not sure how I would have concluded the movie, knowing it was likely the last with these characters. Even after watching, I'm unclear about what the final scene was truly conveying. I've heard comparisons to Heath Ledger's Joker, which don't quite fit, but I appreciate fans' attempts to connect this to the Batman world we know and love. Here's an alternative idea: As Fleck lies dying in a pool of blood that spreads into an almost bat-shaped pattern on the cold cement floor, he hears a television in a nearby guard's station. It's playing the "movie of the week" we've heard about. But instead of reimagining Arthur's experiences, it shows Joker fighting Batman and Robin—yes, it's Batman '66. Fleck smiles, almost laughs, then... fade to black with just a hint of the Batman '66 theme before the credits roll.
🤡🤡🤡 1/2
3 1/2 Fake Jokers out of 10
Comments