“I wanted to come out here as Joker. I was gonna go on an…angry rant. And blame all of you, and everyone, for this fucking miserable life. But it wouldn’t matter anymore, because I can’t do this anymore. ‘Cause I can’t be who you want me to be. It was all just a fantasy. There is no Joker. It’s just me.”
When the original “Joker” premiered in 2019, it surprised the filmmaking world by winning the prestigious Golden Lion award at the Venice Film Festival and went on to become the first R-rated movie to gross more than one billion at the global box office, only recently being surpassed by 2024’s “Deadpool & Wolverine.” It then went on to receive a whopping 11 Academy Award nominations at the 92nd Oscars, winning two: Best Actor for Joaquin Phoenix, and Best Original Score for Hildur Guðnadóttir.
While I may have my problems with the film (the story blatantly follows Martin Scorcese’s plots for 1982’s “The King of Comedy” and 1976’s “Taxi Driver” without adding much new substance of its own), it is undeniable that it was a massive success, and that a sequel would soon be in order. When the director, Todd Phillips, announced that this next movie would be a musical co-starring Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn, I was certainly intrigued. But when the film premiered at this year’s Venice Film Festival, there was much less glowing praise.
The plot follows directly after the events of the first “Joker” film, with Arthur Fleck (reprised by Joaquin Phoenix) arranged in Arkham Asylum awaiting trial for his crimes committed as the “Joker,” when he meets another mental patient named Harleen “Lee” Quinzell (played by Lady Gaga) and they soon fall in love. She brings a bit of song and dance into his humdrum life, and Fleck soon faces the full force of the law, as well as his own moral compass.
In terms of other additions to the cast, Brenden Gleeson (who you may recognize as “Mad-Eye Moody” from the “Harry Potter” series and from his Oscar-nominated role in 2022’s “The Banshees of Inisherin”) plays prison guard Jackie Sullivan, who has an antagonistic relationship with Fleck. Catherine Keener also has a small role in the film, playing Fleck’s defense attorney Maryanne Stewart.
The film has been very controversial with critics and audiences alike, specifically in regards to how the film treats the strong and emphatic response that the first movie received, and repeatedly condemns the viewer for harboring any enjoyment for the previous picture. In the film, it is repeatedly mentioned that a “TV movie” was made about Fleck’s criminal escapades, and several characters criticize it for being senselessly violent and ruining their lives. Harley is portrayed as a stand-in for the superfans of the original film, claiming to have watched it “…about 20 times” and basing her whole personality around what she saw on the screen. Even though I have my issues with the previous movie, throwing your audience under the bus like this is just in extremely poor taste.
In terms of the musical aspect of the film, it was not horrible by any sense of the word, but it was by no means exceptional either. After winning an Oscar for the previous movie, I expected Guðnadóttir to really steal the show with this film, but her score was noticeably more subdued this time around, and I could not particularly remember any moment where her work added to the ambiance of the finished piece.
Most of the songs in the film are in the style of a jukebox musical, where characters spontaneously burst into dance to pre-existing tunes, and while Lady Gaga sounds phenomenal as always, Phoenix sings with a rather flat and raspy voice that becomes grating after an hour or so. I was honestly confused as to why he did such a bad job, given his excellent musical performance as Johnny Cash in the 2005 biopic “Walk the Line,” so it must be an issue with his direction. While I consider myself a fan of musicals, I felt bored with the numbers in this film because they interrupted the plot. In good musicals, the songs help move the plot along, in contrast to this film repeatedly dragging the same story beats over and over again.
There was at least one aspect of the film that consistently excelled, and that was the cinematography. The frequent use of high contrast lighting, strong compositions and pops of color make this film a visual treat. It was the only part of the movie where I could feel the increased budget translated itself into the end product.
In short, if you just want to see this film for Lady Gaga (such as the seven girls who watched the film in the same showing as me, the only other people there…), then you might enjoy yourself. If you want to see a satisfying continuation of the previous movie, just watch “The King of Comedy” instead – you’ll thank me later. “Joker: Folie à Deux” isn’t so much a bad film, but a bland and forgettable work, which leads me to give it a mediocre 5/10.