• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Spoilers Joker: Folie à Deux

The movie hate is just out of control and I think lots of trend chasing going on as well. I would bet good money this movie will be seen as a cult classic in the future. It's got great acting and looks great which will elevate it's decent story into being seen as a great story. Plus the idea being put out their that the movie was made to piss people off as if it was made by the Joker, such as people like Tarantino saying is only going to add to the movies legacy in future years.
 
It looks good and the performances are great but beyond that it's pretty hollow. Like I said upthread, it's fine, but it's a three star movie (being generous) when the first was a four and a half knocking on five star film.
 
That's kind of common with lots of cult classics. Lots of cult classics have flaws but what elevates them is they have a sense of style or a character or characters that people really latch onto. This movie is also going to have a fascinating backstory to it with all the conspiracy theories as to why it was created and what the Director was going for.
 
Hey their are people today who think The Phantom Menace and the Prequels are good. It will happen. :)
 
^Can't disagree with much of that, although I actually thought the courtroom scenes were when the film started to come alive somewhat- he was at least the Joker there.
 
I really liked when he did a southern accent. It's like the only way he new how to be a lawyer was acting like Atticus Finch but of course he knew squat about the law and it was really just going off on something he saw when he watched that movie.
 
So it's available to watch on digital where I am. And... I liked it. I liked it more than the first movie, I regret not seeing this in theaters....

Don't get the Barry Keoghan copy cat in the film. Was it homage to the actor or making fun of him?
 
and I hate that history has sorta been rewritten given it now appears that when Arthur broke into his neighbour’s apartment in the first one he didn’t do anything and when she told him to go he just went.
But that's straight up what happened in the first film, there's no rewriting of history. Some people may have assumed he killed her but this was addressed in interviews at the time. Arthur ultimately only killed people he felt had wronged him and she hadn't, she was just his imaginary girlfriend.
 
To be fair I hadn't assumed he killed her...

I shouldn't have to read interviews to understand what happened in a film. The way Phillips directed that scene left it ambiguous, and given Arthur's mistaken belief that there was a romantic relationship between them, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine something unpleasant had happened.
 
I liked it fine and thought it was a good followup and capstone on the first film, but I’m in the minority.
 
After the explosion, I really thought the film was going to show that the bomb was what converts Harvey Dent into Two-Face. :shrug:

EDIT: OK, it turns out this actually was in the film but I missed it. D'oh! :brickwall:
 
Last edited:
Before the movie came out, I was expecting something akin to Natural Born Killers (Bonnie and Clyde) style film in a universe with no Batman. Mixed with elements of One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest.

Both would’ve been preferable to what we actually got. What’s funny about Joker 2’s situation is that WB is submitting it for Oscar nominations.

Bro… No.
 
After the explosion, I really thought the film was going to show that the bomb was what converts Harvey Dent into Two-Face. :shrug:

EDIT: OK, it turns out this actually was in the film but I missed it. D'oh! :brickwall:
It is but it's pointless because we're never going to see that version of Two Face. Even if Joker 2 had been a success, there wasn't going to be a Joker 3 and we were never going to revisit this universe, I guess it's just an easter egg but a fairy flat one
 
I just watched this movie this evening. It was f**king great! and I'm not ashamed to admit it. These two Joker movies together are a fantastic work. I didn't want to watch it because of everything I'd read/heard, but I'm obviously glad I did.

They are not DC Joker movies, of course. But, if they had been released using different names for the characters (as they should have been) and just told a story of some guy who put on clown make-up to create a different personality for himself then I really think this movie would be Oscar material this year.
 
I just watched this movie this evening. It was f**king great! and I'm not ashamed to admit it. These two Joker movies together are a fantastic work. I didn't want to watch it because of everything I'd read/heard, but I'm obviously glad I did.

They are not DC Joker movies, of course. But, if they had been released using different names for the characters (as they should have been) and just told a story of some guy who put on clown make-up to create a different personality for himself then I really think this movie would be Oscar material this year.
I just finished and would have to echo your comments. My read is it was a commentary on celebrity and the cults of personality that rise up around notorious individuals. People like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson and more recently Luigi Mangione. Lee was a lost person who gravitated towards Joker to give herself a sense of purpose and identity. Arthur was much less interesting to her.
I don't think the woman Arthur meets on the steps was Lee nor was his conversation with her real. Lee killed herself while listening to Arthur's message.
 
I agree...

Nearly all of the singing and dancing scenes were in his head, so it makes sense that this is the first time he acknowledges that she is singing.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top