{"id":17630,"date":"2024-10-11T15:56:32","date_gmt":"2024-10-11T15:56:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cinemacocoa.com\/?p=17630"},"modified":"2024-10-11T15:56:34","modified_gmt":"2024-10-11T15:56:34","slug":"joker-folie-a-deux-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cinemacocoa.com\/?p=17630","title":{"rendered":"Review: Joker – Folie \u00e0 Deux"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

How can a film of 139 minutes achieve so little?

After his killing spree, Arthur Fleck lives his life in prison. But when psychologists and a fellow rehab client, Harley, believe he can be free… Maybe there’s time for one last laugh?

Returning director Todd Phillips and lead star Joaquin Phoenix are joined by Lady Gaga in a direct sequel to the surprise hit Joker <\/em>from 2019. Indeed, the stand alone comic book experiment, during the time Walter Yamada was in charge of DC, rocked the cinema world. It won two Academy Awards for Phoenix and for its music (ironic, given today’s topic). CinemaCocoa even gave it an illustrious five <\/em>cups of cocoa. Yes, that is the maximum.

So hype was high for a possible sequel. With Arthur Fleck seemingly transformed into an iteration of The Joker, with hordes of sycophants hanging on his every word. With fan favourite Harley Quinzel also joining the story, surely a sequel would be bigger and more unhinged than ever? “The Madness of Two” indeed.

Eh…
<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
“Let’s give the people what they want.”<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n


In a classic move of subversion, director Todd Phillips has not given fans what they wanted or <\/em>expected. If fans expected a Joker-centric crime spree, perhaps with expanded DC comic lore and storytelling coming in. A meteoric rise of the Prince of Crime in Gotham? Well, they won’t get it.
Indeed, Joker 2 <\/em>is about Arthur Fleck again, and the attempts by those around him to rehabilitate (or corrupt) him. With a healthy dose of the world crushing him down further, repeating the first film’s atmosphere of depression. Only this time with the action and violence replaced with… musical numbers. Huh.

The film is slow, but then the first film was also slow. However, the sequel feels more like a drawn out epilogue to it. Far too drawn out. Running at 139 minutes, it does far less with its characters than the original movie. It can be summarized with: Arthur is in prison. Arthur meets Lee. Arthur goes to court.

There is a kernel of intrigue, buried beneath repeating events from the first film and distracting musical interludes. The first film was about a man with several critical conditions, and his slow decent into murderous insanity. Take his laugh; a laugh caused by nervous tension. Not because he’s The <\/em>Joker. This laugh features infrequently in Folie \u00e0 Deux<\/em>, and used for this purpose. Arthur is not <\/em>The Joker. Arthur is just a man who has been trampled by the world around him, and now people want to make him something he doesn’t want to be: a symbol.
<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
Very much the movie’s vibe<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Again, the film flies in the face of the source material it riffs from. Harley Quinn (played by Lady Gaga) does not have her traditional backstory, despite it likely fitting this new narrative like a glove. In many ways, Harley is the true voice of anarchy here; being infatuated by Joker. At least that aspect is true to the material.

So the film is a lengthy epilogue for a character who was never The Joker. This artificial lengthening of the screenplay is to add songs. Now musicals have a place in cinema, no argument here. However with Folie \u00e0 Deux<\/em>, it is almost entirely inner monologues put to song. Arthur’s neuroses come out in fantasies where he is Joker and Quinzel is his lover. All of the scenes in the trailer that show Joker as “The Joker”, are from these dreamlike sequences. This means 97% of the runtime is not following Joker. It is probably the most aggravating implementation of songs in a musical; sudden and unwanted.

All of this will (and has) infuriated fans. From this wilfulness, to a deceptive trailer, and simply not matching the expectations of the majority.

Does that mean it is a bad <\/em>movie? I think in a few years time we will see retrospectives attempt to address the fires and initial anger this film has caused. For now… no, it isn’t a bad movie. But it is too long and rests entirely on the laurels and successes of its progenitor without adding enough substance of its own.

And maybe the world simply didn’t really want a sequel to Joker<\/em>.
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"2.5<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n