Back in 2019, Todd Phillips’ “Joker” took the world by storm, and the way it changed film and internet culture was insanity both literally and figuratively. Five years later, however, not only have opinions changed, but with this sequel, the reactions have been less than stellar.
Taking place two years after the first film, “Joker: Folie a Deux” sees Arthur Fleck, played once again by Joaquin Phoenix, struggling with his dual identity that society has placed on him. While awaiting his trial, Arthur meets the love of his life, “Harley Quinn,” played by Lady Gaga, a fellow inmate incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.
Lady Gaga and Joaquin Phoenix as Harley Quinn and Joker. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
“Folie a Deux” left me with a state of annoyance yet also a feeling of confusion. The film contradicts its themes and ideas at every turn, and yet each time I think about it, there is something I like about that I then go back to disliking.
As a fan of musicals, I was optimistic of how the film would pull off its take on the musical genre, and while there are some numbers in the film that work, many of the numbers do not. The main reasons why are the vocals, the number of songs, and the pacing. When you expect a movie musical you expect big lavish numbers or amazing vocals.
Even in a musical with many songs, you expect the vocals to be either amazing or at least subpar. Not only is Phoenix not great at singing, which is bizarre as he sang great in the Johnny Cash biopic “Walk the Line,” but Gaga, an established singer, chooses to sing the songs like she is at a karaoke club at two in the morning.
Additionally, the amount of songs these two have to sing becomes absolutely exhausting. After singing one song, they sing another that does little more than emphasize the emotion they just said they were feeling. The idea of this film being a musical could intrigue me, as about three of the songs work decently. Most of the time, however, that’s less because of the song and more because of the scenery and energy.
Harry Lawtey as Harvey Dent. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
The film seems less about progressing forward with the ideas presented with the first “Joker” and seems more focused on answering any of the criticism that occurred previously. While the first film was about how society neglects people with mental health problems, this film decides to be both a one hour long recap of the first film while also serving as a response to those who think the first film was bad.
Outside of boring the audience with song, the characters do not feel fleshed out. They act more as cardboard cutouts with even Gaga’s new portrayal of Harley Quinn serving less as a legitimate character and more coming off as a mere fan who does nothing but sing every chance she gets to a point where it just gets annoying.
The character of Arthur Fleck does evolve through the film and just serves as a simple rejection that he is the Joker. Nowhere is that more evident than in the ending which feels like both a slap in the face to anyone who liked “Joker” and a slap in the face for comic book fans.
Joaquin Phoenix singing as Joker. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
The film is frustrating in how it treats these characters both artistically and physically, devolves the themes of the first, gives no sense to be a musical and continues its trend of only slightly being a comic film with its Easter eggs to the world of Batman being only a passing notion. Even still this film does offer some things of note.
For one, the acting from Phoenix and even Leigh Gill, who returns from the first film, give legitimately great performances, both in a comedic and dramatic sense. On top of that, the film looks incredible, courtesy of cinematographer Lawerence Shar, giving each scene a spectacle for the eyes. They make the musical numbers, despite the overloaded amount, still pretty to look at.
Joaquin Phoenix as Arthur Fleck, also known as Joker. Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
As mentioned before, some of the musical moments do work, to a point where I might rewatch some of those scenes. Unfortunately, these moments alone do not save the film enough for me. When walking out of the theater, the unanimous thing I kept hearing as I threw out my trash was “What was the point of that?”
That statement means the most when regarding this film. While maybe alone some scenes hold merit, cobbled together it just leads to a frustrating and overall disappointing mess. While the film is called Folie à Deux, which translated means madness of two, I think the only thing it left me was une déception pour un.
