Joker 2: The Musical (2 Viewers)

Previous Next
Booker said:
Ouch. I think I'll be waiting for this one to stream...
1728071661127.png
Click to expand...

I think this is going to be a very polarizing movie where you either love it or hate it. It's likely to be incredibly weird and make people very uncomfortable in similar ways to the first one. That kind of movie tends to produce strong reactions in both directions but often is not appealing to the majority of people.

FWIW, I thought the first one was a great movie, but I also found it really hard to watch and couldn't watch it more than once.
 
I know a lot of comic enthusiasts hated the first film because it gave us an entirely different Joker than the character from the Batman comics.
To me, it was an okay, but flawed, film. It developed slowly by design, but it was painfully slow in spots and in many places just too awkward in setting up his character. There were even a couple of moments I felt were a little dumb. I liked it overall, but it was far from a great film. It could have used some serious editing imho. It was almost like nothing happened until the last 10-15 minutes.
I've been hoping this film "takes off" from the end of the first. I certainly hope it doesn't do the same overly slow, overly awkward burn the first film did. If that's how it's structured, I'll probably skip it.
 
tenordas said:
I know a lot of comic enthusiasts hated the first film because it gave us an entirely different Joker than the character from the Batman comics.
To me, it was an okay, but flawed, film. It developed slowly by design, but it was painfully slow in spots and in many places just too awkward in setting up his character. There were even a couple of moments I felt were a little dumb. I liked it overall, but it was far from a great film. It could have used some serious editing imho. It was almost like nothing happened until the last 10-15 minutes.
I've been hoping this film "takes off" from the end of the first. I certainly hope it doesn't do the same overly slow, overly awkward burn the first film did. If that's how it's structured, I'll probably skip it.
Click to expand...

I thought the painful slowness, difficulty to watch, and awkwardness were intentional ways of putting you in the world of the character. And I think that's why the payoff at the end works so well and why when he snaps it's so impactful. It makes you feel sorry for him and then slowly breaks him to the point that he is a psychopath and you almost sympathize with him. But, maybe I'm reading too much into the intent of the director.
 
Last edited:
St. Widge said:
I thought the painful slowness, difficulty to watch, and awkwardness were intentional ways of putting you in the world of the character. And I think that's why the payoff at the end works so well and why when he snaps it's so impactful. It makes you feel sorry for him and then slowly breaks him to the point that he is a psychopath. But, maybe I'm reading too much into the intent of the director.
Click to expand...
No, I agree with you. That's why I said it was by design.
I fully realize the director's intent; for me, I just felt it was a little more than necessary; almost "preachy" in a way as though he felt he had to hammer the point home or the audience wouldn't get it. That was just my reaction, of course.
 
i didn't watch it, but i know someone who did. i don't plan on watching it anytime soon, so i got him to tell me how is ended.
he said he didn't like the ending, but to me it make perfect sense. Arthur dies and another inmate who admired him while he was in Arkham, basically becomes the real joker. which makes sense. Arthurs character was not someone who could have become a criminal mastermind. i said that after the first one.
.
 
bigdaddysaints said:
i didn't watch it, but i know someone who did. i don't plan on watching it anytime soon, so i got him to tell me how is ended.
he said he didn't like the ending, but to me it make perfect sense. Arthur dies and another inmate who admired him while he was in Arkham, basically becomes the real joker. which makes sense. Arthurs character was not someone who could have become a criminal mastermind. i said that after the first one.
.
Click to expand...
Yeah, Arthur in the first "Joker" seems like too much of a good guy. He killed and murdered several people, including A late-night comedian (Robert De Niro reimagined "King of Comedy" early 80's character) by shooting him on live television, but his crimes and the path his life took, with all its difficulties, his past mental illness and current struggles with it, discovering his own mother was a psychopath who may/may not have had a relationship with a young Thomas Wayne, him working in a endless cycle of dead-end, demeaning jobs where he's constantly disrespected and walked over. His crimes or him going insane make more "sense" under those grim circumstances then the "real Joker" who is an unapologetic psychopath, presumably in the comics, its inferred the Joker was a feared, terrifying mob hitman that was called only to do certain, unspeakable crimes by the Falcone crime family and even then, his viciousness, level of sadism and cruelty and barbarity is so immense, it eventually turns even then off and then as the "Red Hood", well, we all know how that little encounter went down between him and Batman at the Ace Chemical plant.

The Joker who becomes Batman's arch-nemesis is irredeemable, an unabashed anarchist who, unlike X-Men's Magneto, isn't meant to be understood. He's like Caligula on steroids.
 
Last edited:
Saintman2884 said:
Yeah, Arthur in the first "Joker" seems like too much of a good guy. He killed and murdered several people, including A late-night comedian (Robert De Niro reimagined "King of Comedy" early 80's character) by shooting him on live television, but his crimes and the path his life took, with all its difficulties, his past mental illness and current struggles with it, discovering his own mother was a psychopath who may/may not have had a relationship with a young Thomas Wayne, him working in a endless cycle of dead-end, demeaning jobs where he's constantly disrespected and walked over. His crimes or him going insane make more "sense" under those grim circumstances then the "real Joker" who is an unapologetic psychopath, presumably in the comics, its inferred the Joker was a feared, terrifying mob hitman that was called only to do certain, unspeakable crimes by the Falcone crime family and even then, his viciousness, level of sadism and cruelty and barbarity is so immense, it eventually turns even then off and then as the "Red Hood", well, we all know that little encounter went down between him and Batman at the Ace Chemical plants.

The Joker who becomes Batman's arch-nemesis is irredeemable, an unabashed anarchist who, unlike X-Men's Magneto, isn't meant to be understood. He's like Caligula on steroids.
Click to expand...
yea, no way Arthur Fleck could ever become that guy.
 
I had little desire to see this movie after reading this thread and after seeing the Pitch Meeting, it's goona be a NO for me, dawg!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom