First film was a great film if it were new IP, but a shit joker batman film. The second film was always likely to be shit, because they were always going for abstract and avant garde artistry without a clear connection to the underlying and far stronger story and IP people are expecting. I’m sure it’s a beautiful film and musical, but it’s dog shit attached to joker.
That’s what it was supposed to be, a gritty disconnected story about what a more realistic take on a joker would be, don’t think batman or super heroes was supposed to be in either one, not sure where that commenter is coming from.
I think a lot of the Batman connections were completely unnecessary and felt jarring. There weren’t that many and they were brief but I just wish they weren’t there at all. It’s a great film flaws and all to me.
There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn’t The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.
That’s surprising. First one was good.
First one was depressing. Awfully depressing. It was poignant and well done but I can’t rewatch it because I have to gear up to be ready for it.
The second one is a musical. I’m not sure anyone is ready for that after the first one.
It’s weird. I watch the first Joker like three times so far. Haven’t seen the second. Now, Requiem for a Dream, that’s a hard watch for me.
I put Requiem in the category movies of “Best Films I’ll Never See Again”. “The Skin I Live In” is in there too.
Add Grave of the Fireflies to that list
They both are depressing as fuck. Add in Blow too.
Requiem is presented well, but I can’t get past the unrealistic situations they put the characters through, especially near the end.
Removed by mod
I’m actually interested in watching the first one just to see this musical, had zero interest in the franchise before.
Removed by mod
First film was a great film if it were new IP, but a shit joker batman film. The second film was always likely to be shit, because they were always going for abstract and avant garde artistry without a clear connection to the underlying and far stronger story and IP people are expecting. I’m sure it’s a beautiful film and musical, but it’s dog shit attached to joker.
I didn’t even view the first as anything related to Batman. Just a standalone movie to me.
That’s what it was supposed to be, a gritty disconnected story about what a more realistic take on a joker would be, don’t think batman or super heroes was supposed to be in either one, not sure where that commenter is coming from.
I think a lot of the Batman connections were completely unnecessary and felt jarring. There weren’t that many and they were brief but I just wish they weren’t there at all. It’s a great film flaws and all to me.
Removed by mod
It’s a musical?
There are a handful of singing renditions and dressed up numbers with the two main actors.
But why?
They had Lady Gaga in the movie and gotta use her talents, a couple of the numbers were good and made sense, some were forced and unnecessary.
Because the staircase scene in the first one was popular. So quadruple down!
Removed by mod
There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn’t The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.