by Nick Nitkowski

I remember when I saw the first “Joker” movie. I remember loving it. Especially since the last rendition of the Joker wasn’t very well received by most. It was well shot, well scored, well acted as the Academy recognized by awarding Joaquin Phoenix the Best Acting Award for his performance. It was a great addition to the, what I would call oversaturated, list of Jokers. And then they announced a sequel with Joaquin Phoenix returning, which is a big deal since he’s never done sequels before. And of course, Todd Phillips was set to return as director. This actually worried a little bit because we all saw what he did with his “Hangover” trilogy. But nonetheless, I was excited and couldn’t wait to see it. Now that I have, did Todd Phillips manage to recapture that same lightning in a bottle?

Unfortunately, no. Not even close. As history has shown time and time again, it is very difficult, rare even, for someone to recapture lightning in a bottle and this sequel is another victim of that notion. Now, it doesn’t retread the same points as the previous film a la “Hangover Part II” beat for beat. It does try to be its own new thing. Many people have made mention of how the first “Joker” took inspiration from “Taxi Driver” and “The King of Comedy”, but this one… I don’t know what it took inspiration from if anything, and maybe that was part of the problem I had with this movie.

Starting off with the positives of this movie, Joaquin Phoenix is still a great Joker. He really commits to the role and plays it well. I also really enjoyed Brendan Gleeson as one of the Arkham security guards. I’d also say that just like the first one, this one was shot very well. There were a few small moments that I really liked and even some of the Joker jokes made me chuckle a little.

You’ll notice that I neglected to mention Lady Gaga as… Lee Quinzel (That’s right. Not a typo.) While I will say that she’s not bad in the movie, the issue is that her character, while always present, she wasn’t very memorable. Her overall performance didn’t stand out to me and that’s unfortunate for me to say because I thought this was a great casting choice. I was really looking forward to seeing Lady Gaga portray Harley, I mean Lee, Quinn. Quinzel. Sorry. But when it comes to best live-action representation of Harley Quin, Margot Robbie still holds the crown. Lady Gaga comes in second and I’d say that that falls onto the movie’s biggest problem.

This movie is very hollow in terms of its storytelling. It took me a little bit to realize a particular issue I was having with this movie as I was watching it, but I did reach that conclusion eventually and that is the undeniable fact that there is not much going on in this movie. The first half of the movie shows Arthur’s life in Arkham and then the second half is a court case movie, which I’m usually all for, but nothing being said or done in this movie is very interesting. Because of that, I really felt the runtime of this movie which clocks in at Deux hours and 18 minutes long. And this plays into my next issue.

Before this movie was released, it was announced that “Joker Deux” was going to be a musical. And while I am well aware that musicals are not everyone’s cup of tea, I happen to be a fan of them. I even argued that having this movie be a musical could work depending on the execution of the musical numbers. Keep in mind that the songs they sing are previously established and well-known songs. But now that I’ve seen how they executed the musical aspect of this film, I can honestly say that it didn’t work for me. Instead of the musical numbers helping to advance the plot, which is what they are supposed to do, they felt random and seemed like a desperate way to distract the audience to help them forget that nothing is really happening in the movie. Because if you take out the songs all together from the film, you’re left with a very slow, hollow, and somewhat boring film with a plotline about as thin as Arthur Fleck himself.

Overall, I’m sorry to say that I left “Joker: Folie à Deux” very disappointed. Much like “Sicario”, the first “Joker” didn’t really need a sequel and this resulted sequel is proof of that. But of course, studios will always try to “re-deux” their successful ventures and “Joker” was clearly never going to be an exception. It seems as though, to me at least, Todd Phillips is better at one-off films than franchises, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. One-and-done movies can be great as the first “Joker” proves. It’s only when they’re milked for more is when they fail. If you were looking forward to seeing “Joker: Folie à Deux”, I would say lower your expectations and know what you’re diving into. That way you have a better chance of walking out of the theater with a smile on your face. Otherwise, you’re going to be left feeling like the time you’ve spent on this sequel was folly leaving you with a bad taste of…

Deux out of 5.