Estimated read time: 5-6 minutes
- "Joker: Folie à Deux," the sequel to the critically acclaimed 2019 film "Joker," falls short of expectations.
- While Joaquin Phoenix's reprisal of Arthur Fleck is excellent, the movie becomes mired in an incoherent narrative, marked by abandoned plotlines and unfulfilled character arcs.
- Despite the haunting score by Hildur Guonadóttir, the film's surprising yet misguided ending undermines both its own storyline and the legacy of the original.
The Joker has become one of the most iconic characters in comics, television, and film. The character has seduced some great actors to bring him to life.
In 2019, Joaquin Phoenix gave us arguably the darkest interpretation of the Clown Prince of Crime in Todd Phillips' "Joker." The movie went on to make an absolute fortune at the box office and earned Phoenix an Academy Award for his portrayal. Five years later, a sequel to the dark and depressing origin story is now in theaters, and it does not work.
The movie is a mess and even manages to take away the disturbing brilliance of the first film.
Here are a few things that worked in "Joker: Folie à Deux" and why it is an unsatisfying sequel.
The good-ish
The acting
It shouldn't be a big surprise, but Phoenix is again excellent as Arthur Fleck. He brings the same energy and discomfort to the role as he did in the first. The performance doesn't feel quite as impactful because, in the first film, we were introduced to this insanity and, in the sequel, it's not quite the same surprise.
Lady Gaga is also solid in her role as Harley Quinzel. It's not necessarily mind-blowing, but she does good work alongside Phoenix. Other solid performances include Brendan Gleeson and Jacob Lofland.
The score
I thought Hildur Guonadóttir's music in the first film was stunning. It was minimalist and moody, but it was perfect for the film, and the haunting melodies reverberated in your bones. Thankfully, Guonadóttir returned for the sequel and continued with those melodic cello solos and slow-build crescendos.
You may have heard that "Joker: Folie à Deux" is a musical, and that is correct, but when I say the score is a standout, I'm not talking about the musical numbers, but Guonadóttir's contributions.
The bad
The story is a mess
The first "Joker" was a well-executed slow burn into mental illness and an eventual, violent snap. The sequel seems more concerned with being odd and quirky and inserting random musical numbers than with giving us an intriguing story that continues Arthur's story.
It feels like nothing happens, and we are introduced to characters, storylines and big plot devices that are eventually abandoned and never come close to a resolution. Characters we are set up to care about in the first half are all but abandoned in the second half. Storylines and relationships we connect with are forgotten or ignored as the movie plows on to an unsatisfying conclusion.
Considering the attention to detail in character development and story arcs of the first film, the lack of any of that in the sequel is a sincere disappointment.
The ending is infuriating
I am not going to give any specific spoilers here, but if you are hoping to avoid anything that may hint at the movie's conclusion, please jump to the next section.
The filmmakers wanted to surprise us at the end — and I admit, it was a surprise. What I'll also admit, however, is that it was the wrong surprise. I couldn't get out of my head how the first movie wrapped. It was a depressing movie and not everyone's cup of tea, but it brought up issues of mental health and forced me to see this iconic villain in a very different light.
When "Joker: Folie à Deux" ended, I also could not stop thinking about it, but for all the wrong reasons. The so-called twist not only weakened the entire movie up to that point, but it also took a bite out of the first film for me. Truthfully, I cannot look at the first film and the characters the same way I used to with the way they chose to end the sequel, and that's frustrating to me.
What parents need to know
This should come as no surprise, but "Joker: Folie à Deux" earned its R rating, and it is not for younger audiences. There are dozens of F-words and other language, plenty of graphic violence, dark themes and an overall depressing tone. There is a sex scene with no nudity, but it is very graphic nonetheless. There is also obscured nudity in a few scenes.
If you remove all of the violence, sex and language, this movie still earns an R rating, given its overall tone and themes. Just like the first film, you need to be prepared to walk out of the theater a bit lower than when you walked in.
Conclusion
It likely sounds like I loved "Joker" and didn't care for "Joker: Folie à Deux." I appreciated "Joker" and how well it was made, but I did not particularly like it. I saw it once, and as I walked out of the theater with one of my brothers, I said, "I don't ever need to see that again," and I haven't. The movie was brilliantly constructed and executed, but it wasn't for me.
The sequel was not only not for me but was poorly constructed and executed. As I mentioned earlier, I now see the original in a different light, and this movie may hurt the legacy of the franchise as a whole.
"Joker: Folie à Deux" is officially rated R for some strong violence, language throughout, some sexuality and brief full nudity.
__
