Time: 138 Minutes
Age Rating: R16 – Violence, sex scenes, suicide & content that may disturb
Cast:
Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck/Joker
Lady Gaga as Harleen “Lee” Quinzel
Brendan Gleeson as Jackie Sullivan
Catherine Keener as Maryanne Stewart
Zazie Beetz as Sophie Dumond
Director: Todd Phillips

The response to Todd Phillips’s Joker was interesting, it was generally well received and was a huge hit with audiences and even snagged some awards, but also had a lot of detractors. I liked Joker both times I watched it, and I still think that it’s good, even if I probably rated it a bit too high. Regardless of everyone’s opinion on the movie however, the general consensus was that it didn’t need a sequel, and yet, it got one. While I would be opposed to it, the inclusion of Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn and the fact that it would be something of a musical did have me intrigued. With that, Joker: Folie à Deux ended up as one of my most anticipated films of the year. At the very least, I was curious as to what they had in store. Looking at the reactions now, this really is in contention for the most polarizing comic book movie ever released. While I do understand some of the mixed and negative reactions, I ended up liking the movie.

Joker: Folie à Deux is a very different movie from what a lot of people are expecting from a Joker sequel. As grimy and dark as the first movie was, it was undeniably a crowd pleaser (as evidence from the box office). The sequel is definitely not a crowd pleaser. Sure, the trailers may hint at a movie about Joker and Harley forming a romantic connection and causing mayhem and chaos, but if you were expecting that, you might be disappointed in the film. The sequel honestly cares even less about being a comic book movie; Joker may be in Arkham Asylum, and the film has Harley Quinn and even Harvey Dent, but that’s about all the comic bookly elements it has. It very much is a follow up to the first movie. A lot of this movie is just characters talking, and often talking specifically about the first movie, because that’s what the sequel is focused on. Folie à Deux works as a clarification of the first movie, and seeks to deconstruct it. It even becomes something of a courtroom drama halfway through, interrogating protagonist Arthur Fleck and the events of the first movie. There’s a lot here that will turn people off, but personally it worked for me, and was thematically more intriguing. I think the sequel succeeds more as a character study too, and provides a little more depth to its central character. I liked the first movie, but the criticisms of it being a shallow hybrid of The King of Comedy and Taxi Driver weren’t wrong. For what it’s worth, the sequel doesn’t feel like it is taking from any particular film.

Essentially, Folie à Deux is about how people just care about the Joker, but not about Arthur Fleck himself. It focuses on the man underneath the Joker makeup, and refuses to play into the hyper masculine fantasy that many people saw in the first movie (or were hoping for). Arthur is going through an identity crisis, amongst everyone seeing him as the Joker or as one half as a person, he doesn’t know who he really is. It’s not subtle about this either, the opening Looney Tunes style cartoon pretty much announces it right from the beginning. There’s social commentary to be seen here, as it looks at how people (especially the media) sensationalize crime and even the mentally ill. There are multiple instances of Arthur being exploited for different agendas or entertainment, with no regard for his own life. The film definitely holds a lot of contempt for people, but it seems to hold the most contempt for certain fans of the first film. Let’s just say that people who interpreted Joker as a story about Arthur Fleck becoming an alpha male and unironically idolize him probably won’t like this sequel very much. I wouldn’t be surprised if Phillips did this on purpose. As for whether or not the film counts as a musical, I think it has enough elements to be classified as such. So if you are allergic to musicals, Folie à Deux will probably put you off. Personally, I thought that these sequences are used well, as they are mainly used to get into the heads of Joker and Harley, and serve as fantastical escapes for them and their shared delusions. That said, I have mixed feelings about the executions of these sections, most of all I wished that it actually committed to being a full on musical throughout. The most frustrating thing is that I’m on board with the directions that this weird film goes in, yet I can’t help but feel like it could’ve gone further in some areas. I wouldn’t call the movie boring, but you definitely feel the 2 hour and 20 minute runtime, and it doesn’t do as much as that length suggests. Admittedly, I did hear about the film’s baffling ending before my viewing, but perhaps that was for the best, as it helped me appreciate the note that it ended on. If it was intended to be a giant troll to the audience, it definitely succeeded. One thing for sure, a lot of people are going to absolutely despise its conclusion.

Joaquin Phoenix returns as Arthur Fleck/Joker, and while I still think that his performance in the first film was great, I think he’s better in the sequel. Fleck is given more depth and nuance in the writing and acting here; you really feel the conflict and doubt within him and comes across as far more sympathetic and human with his struggles. Lady Gaga plays Harley Quinn (referred to as Lee Quinzel) and she’s really good here. This is a very different version of the character than what we’ve seen in other media, and she was a stand out in the film. She was on par with Phoenix, and they had great chemistry together. Unfortunately, she’s not in the movie as much as you’d think she would be, and it’s already been noted out that some of her scenes seen in the trailer just aren’t in the movie. The thing is, the amount of screentime for Gaga/Lee makes sense for the story, but it is still a shame that she’s restricted to being just a major supporting role. The rest of the supporting cast is good, with Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Harry Lawtey, and a brief Steve Coogan delivering in their parts.

Todd Phillips returns to direct the sequel, and while I’m not confident enough to say that he has an excellent vision for the film, I think it is great on a technical level. The cinematography is stunning, and the production design is top notch, with grounded and grimy environments, but also some good sets for the musical sections. Hildur Guðnadóttir once again composes another great and brooding score, which is full of dread and sets the mood perfectly. As for the musical sections, they can be hit or miss. They are generally good and the songs are largely decent, even if some are better than others. However, I can’t help but feel that they could’ve been directed better. The choreography and performances are good, but the lack of camera movements and the direction not being very dynamic undercuts the otherwise stronger elements.

Joker: Folie à Deux is a confounding and contemptuous film that oddly works better than its predecessor. It shines in its visuals and great performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga, and takes some big swings. However, it is also very messy and could’ve gone further in some areas. I will say that it is definitely a baffling film, which won’t be for everyone. It’s in cinemas at the same time as Megalopolis, and it’s honestly impressive that between these two, Joker 2 might actually be a far harder sell to audiences. If you’re a certain kind of fan of the first movie (i.e. view Arthur Fleck as a role model of sorts), you’ll probably hate it. If you hate musicals, you probably won’t like it, and even if you like musicals, that’s no guarantee that you’ll like it either. I can’t nail down a target audience for this movie, it is very alienating, but I kind of respect it as such. Personally, I still like Joker: Folie à Deux, despite its visible issues.