Joker: Folie à Deux

MeatHookGekko said:

Some media outlets are allowing their "professional reviewers" to spike their reviews based on things not specifically related to the film itself. This is coming from multiple directions.

Trust word of mouth from people you know. Assess most everything else, especially from "mainstream media", as compromised.

Click to expand...

but what's the reason

ebor said:

…so we all all ‘pre-hating this?’


Cool…

Still going opening night

Click to expand...

you will love it. I guarantee it

crows said:

but what's the reason

Click to expand...

"Burnout is a way of telling you that your form of activism was perhaps not very full circle."

- Gloria Steinem

Well, I'm old enough to remember the critics being super divided on the original with a lean towards the negative often for reasons utterly unrelated to the movie, so no need to abandon all hope.

Yeesh - see what I mean "Of all the things Phillips does better in “Joker: Folie à Deux” than he did in “Joker,” the best is by far his course correction in catering to radical misogynists."

Like, its clear many of these critics have an axe to grind and quite a few seem to hold a grudge against the first movie's very existence.
BUT - it ALSO seems from some of the outlets that gave the first movie a good score that this film seems to be written to appease critics like the one quoted above.... which seems like a mistake.

Gonna be interesting to see how it shakes out.

lordnastrond said:

ALSO seems from some of the outlets that gave the first movie a good score that this film seems to be written to appease critics like the one quoted above.... which seems like a mistake.

Click to expand...

Yes. It's now an Oscar darling, so expect it to appeal to that crowd.

I just have a feeling that the "ugliness" that made the first one a train-wreck to watch has now been diverted into a cleaner, more tolerable "delusion" by way of Broadway.

If these rumors are true then I'm gonna be pissed.
Spoilers below from what I've learned from reviews - some of which seem to not give a **** about spoiling the movie and its ending.


If true then I am simply not gonna watch this film and keep the original the fresh and interesting take on an iconic character it is in my minds eye.

lordnastrond said:

If these rumors are true then I'm gonna be pissed.
Spoilers below from what I've learned from reviews - some of which seem to not give a **** about spoiling the movie and its ending.

Spoiler

Arthur Dies, never truly becomes "The Joker"
It pisses me off because what I loved about the first movie is you could really see Arthur becoming the monster from the comics by the final scene, he has become a symbol for the violent and dispossessed of Gotham and fully embraces the alter-ego and its brutality and theatricality in order to be seen and be someone important, we see he has become a monster by the time of the scene with his therapist as he laughs [genuinely according to Todd] at the idea of the murdered Waynes and then brutally murders his therapist and dances through Arkham with her blood on his shoes.....
HE WAS THERE.
So not only does it seem, from what ive learned from the reviews - that Arthur and Harley get up to very little chaos/anarchy... he rejects her because she is more evil than him and he dies by the films end......
WTF.

If true then I am simply not gonna watch this film and keep the original the fresh and interesting take on an iconic character it is in my minds eye.

Click to expand...

its true but it's worst than you think, full spoilers from what I read
full ending spoiler :



that's what happens.

crows said:

its true but it's worst than you think, full spoilers from what I read
full ending spoiler :

Spoiler

joker has. split personalities. joker and Arthur.
Harley falls in love with joker. but doesn't like Arthur
she only loves joker. she only loves the bad side.
at the end joker wants to be loved for being Arthur. he just wants Harley to love him. he doesn't even care about joker anymore.
Harley is grossed out by Arthur and hates Arthur and puts a bomb to kill him
Harley and jokers followers they become the new " joker"
and Arthur died betrayed.

that's what happens.

Click to expand...

If this is what happens I don't think I'm gonna watch it.
Like... why even do that?

[un]fortunately recent years have given me much experience in ignoring unwanted sequels that undermine their predecessors.

lordnastrond said:

If this is what happens I don't think I'm gonna watch it.
Like... why even do that?

[un]fortunately recent years have given me much experience in ignoring unwanted sequels that undermine their predecessors.

Click to expand...

those spoilers came from different sources and different websites.not just one, i think that it's fully true. I've heard it everywhere
the reason :

I kinda stopped caring about this film months ago when I realized it's still focusing on Arthur and that the "Joker persona" was not the main plot. I'm in no hurry to watch this.

The first one was good but left me wanting more at by the end. This one clearly isn't gonna do that so, oh well. Glad some folks are enjoying it tho. Just not for me, I think.

I'm just not interested in the delusions of Arthur or the story being told about his hardships.

crows said:

its true but it's worst than you think, full spoilers from what I read
full ending spoiler :

Spoiler

joker has. split personalities. joker and Arthur.
Harley falls in love with joker. but doesn't like Arthur
she only loves joker. she only loves the bad side.
at the end joker wants to be loved for being Arthur. he just wants Harley to love him. he doesn't even care about joker anymore.
Harley is grossed out by Arthur and hates Arthur and puts a bomb to kill him
Harley and jokers followers they become the new " joker"
and Arthur died betrayed.

that's what happens.

Click to expand...

This sounds terrible. Gimme the source

Unreliable Narrator is unreliable

Unreliable reviewer is unreliable

Mr. Awesome said:

I kinda stopped caring about this film months ago when I realized it's still focusing on Arthur and that the "Joker persona" was not the main plot. I'm in no hurry to watch this. The first one was good but left me wanting more at by the end. This one clearly isn't gonna do that so, oh well. Glad some folks are enjoying it tho. Just not for me, I think. I'm just not interested in the delusions of Arthur or the story being told about his hardships.

Click to expand...

"When a village does not embrace a child, that child will burn the village for warmth when he grows" - African Proverb


What I find appealing about the current slate of Joker films ( and everyone has the right to feel as they wish about it, I lean towards mostly free speech absolutism, so people should feel and, for the most part, say what they want) is that it explores the complex narrative behind why someone behaves as they do. Why they react the way they do. That everyone didn't just immediately start out as a villain. That there was a road there, a process, a set of experiences, a litany of personal tragedy and loss, that brought someone to that place. It's not a justification of someone's actions, especially evil ones against innocents, but it's a reminder that people really aren't that simple.

Something I feel many "professional film reviewers" tend to miss is this - IMHO, you can have actual empathy for a question of the human condition without justifying the pathology of the open social terrorism that the Joker archetype inspires. More to point, it's OK to ask how someone got to that place, without trying to gaslight viewers/readers into some kind of purity test which infers that those questions in themselves are some kind of complicity in the matter itself.

The first time I saw Ad Astra, I didn't like it. But it bothered me some later, just to consider some of the dialogue and themes. When I revisited it a 2nd time, I liked it very much. But it's a very specific film geared towards a specific kind of viewer that aligns some certain experiences. People who grew up in great family dynamics and around positive uplifting family support can probably let go of Ad Astra more easily. But those who had problems at home growing up, there are a lot nuances that ask some pretty complex questions in a very quiet way. I get why many people hate Ad Astra, but I also get why some love it.

There are different "flavors" for the Joker character over time. If people don't like the Todd Phillips version, that's OK, they might like the next iteration in a few years time. But I enjoy it. Very few mainstream films will cover the issue of "maladaptive daydreaming" as the Phoenix version of the Joker does. If one has had to see and live through or watch another suffer though deep mental illness, especially someone you love, it's pretty horrible. For many of those people, these Joker films will likely speak to them.

One of the hard truths about real life is no one truly ever wants to talk about crazy. Mental illness is a taboo subject for many. There's a natural consistent aversion to it by many people. So my personal take on this is even if some don't like this version of the Joker or his story, I consider how Phillips and Phoenix are handling it to be actually very brave. You can't raise the level of discussion around real mental health struggles ( I'm not talking about canned virtue signaling nor shock marketing) without knowing you are going to take some hard hits soon after.

Again, I'll say it again, most professional film reviewers are compromised. Most of the larger media outlets and interests behind them are also compromised. Even ones not criticizing these Joker films but their views will be cooked with other subject matter/agendas too. I wouldn't take much stock in what they say. Something that most people don't know about most "known" film reviewers is that many of them despise being film reviewers in the first place. They are often stuck there because they aren't skilled/talented enough to write anything else better ( And yes, to make it fair , I'll throw Critical Drinker and sporadically Ben "I'm A Failed Screenwriter" Shapiro into that category too) If a film carries some interest for you, give it a shot. If you don't like it in the first 10-20 minutes, you can turn it off. This current culture of entitlement and open activism within the ranks of professional film reviewers ( not people here) is just plain exhausting.

The premise of the film is fine. It's just not a premise I am interested in attaching to the Joker character. I personally don't find the character deserves that much effort put into it's story. I'd be more open to the film if it had nothing to do with Joker, if that makes sense.

Which as it turns out, it kind of doesn't lol.

ebor said:

Unreliable Narrator is unreliable

Unreliable reviewer is unreliable

Click to expand...

we will know soon enough, if it was wrong then that's ok.

ironwez20 said:

This sounds terrible. Gimme the source

Click to expand...

it was many different ones . I'll send you message. I'll send u all

Mr. Awesome said:

I personally don't find the character deserves that much effort put into it's story. I'd be more open to the film if it had nothing to do with Joker, if that makes sense.

Click to expand...

It actually makes perfect sense.

Unfortunately all current film is also influenced by the tone and culture around it at the time. For example, Children Of Men came out in 2006. It is IMHO still a great film, but it fit a little differently as a snapshot in time in an entirely different era of our society. How it might be received today will likely be perceived in a much different way.

Something to consider is these Joker films might speak to you differently ten years from now. Or maybe not. I've had that happen before, a film didn't quite hit with me then, but as life moved on, when I got more life experience or faced different things, my viewpoint began to shift on certain issues/themes.

Here's the biggest problem I see from a Joker centric live action film in general. Once you introduce the Batman, there can't be a complete character arc for Joker unless he kills Batman. I don't think the general movie going audience is going to be able to handle that. Or that any studio would support that kind of storyline. Other than an origin story, where Phillips and Phoenix went, there really isn't much room to take the character.

If you assess Joker as a mostly narrative dead end, I'd be apt to agree with you.

I just don't think the average casual movie audience could handle a high profile prestige film solely on the open fracture points of "professional" mental health and the cooked public policy behind it. Having the "Joker" storyline wrapped around the issue is actually an escape hatch for viewers. Big questions are being asked, but it's packaged in a way that's disposable.

Mr. Awesome said:

The premise of the film is fine. It's just not a premise I am interested in attaching to the Joker character. I personally don't find the character deserves that much effort put into it's story. I'd be more open to the film if it had nothing to do with Joker, if that makes sense.

Which as it turns out, it kind of doesn't lol.

Click to expand...

They’re literally only using the name Joker for these movies to put butts in seats. If this had 0 ties to DC nobody ever would have seen the first movie.

Which is sad cause it proves in order for a movie to work today it needs to be attached to an ip

I mean, yeah. There's a distinct lack of original content being produced today.

It's all tied to something that came before it or a reboot ~ 85% of the time. I'm guessing AI will eventually "fix" that, God help us...

Indeed. People ask for new IP yet they never put their money where their mouths are.

ironwez20 said:

Which is sad cause it proves in order for a movie to work today it needs to be attached to an ip

Click to expand...

I was gonna send you the links. but if you search joker 2 spoilers reddit
you see the same spoilers on different boards.
I'll still send it to you. but it's multiple people.