Todd Phillips original ‘Joker’ was received in many different ways when it hit theatres back in 2019. It was considered extremely controversial, shockingly violent and gratuitously bleak. Crucially, and most importantly, it was also considered a massive runaway success. The film grossed over a billion dollars, became the highest grossing R-rated film of all time, received eleven Oscar nominations, and went on to win two of them. It is due to this enormous surprise success that we now have a pseudo musical infused sequel starring a returning Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga. Does the joke land a second time around? Or is the joke just on us this time?
Clearly once envisioned as a standalone crime tale. The first ‘Joker’ revitalised the clown Prince of crime through the lens of an ’80s New York, littered with present day social commentary on the class system and mental health. Unfortunately, this sequel shows its unnecessary existence clear as day throughout its bloated two and a quarter hour runtime. The plot is essentially an extended epilogue of the original, which marginally expands upon the narrative and themes we saw there. An incredibly long-winded court drama, with arbitrarily selected musical sequences sprinkled throughout, that have very little impact or relevance on the overall story.
Indeed, much has been made of Phillips choice to make the film a quasi-musical. Something that the marketing team cleverly navigated with its decision to basically exclude it entirely. The bold swing the filmmakers took is both respectable and commendable for such large scale franchise film making. But, with every swing there’s always the change you’ll miss. And they certainly did miss here.
That’s not to say that there aren’t things to appreciate. The cinematography is breathtaking and some of the imagery on display is practically wallpaper worthy. This goes especially for the musical sequences. It’s just a shame it lacks any real depth, substance and commentary that made its predecessor so gripping. You’ll find yourself mentally drifting for what feels like inordinate amounts of time, only to realise nothing has really happened to move things forward in any meaningful way during that time. The film does open with a beautifully animated Looney Tunes-esque cartoon. Which may be the only original element of this film that makes a lasting impact. And that’s a painful statement to make as such a huge personal fan of Joker.
The narrative mirrors the films jukebox musical genre, in that its ‘greatest hits’ are just scenes desperately recreating and reminiscing about what came before. And neither are very memorable or interesting when they’re re-digested in this manner. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s score is still haunting and disturbingly atmospheric. But often this coupled with characters either referencing the events of the original, or flashbacks showing it, are as exciting as things get.
Phoenix and Gaga are phenomenal as expected, but both are underserved by the script. In fact, Gaga is surprisingly underused considering her prominence in the marketing materials. Given that this is only the second live action interpretation of the Harley Quinn character, after Margot Robbie, it seems strange for her character to be treated this way. Even the central love story between the two is somewhat muddled and confusing. Clearly every cast member believed in the potential to 2019’s most surprising success though, and their performances reflect that. Which almost makes the whole thing even sadder.
Joker: Folie à Deux ultimately ends up reflecting its title in the worst way. Style over substance. Pretension over imagination. The film unsatisfyingly answers the questions that made the first film so tantalisingly ambiguous. And creates more questions that are far less interesting in their place. That includes an ending that is destined to be controversial. Phillips was always going to be walking a tight rope here, but sadly this sequel is an utter disappointment.
Joker: Folie à Deux is released in cinemas on 4th October.
Joker: Folie à Deux
Summary
A disappointing follow-up to Phillips’ billion-dollar original outing. This one unsatisfyingly answers the questions that made the first film so tantalisingly ambiguous.
