The anticipated sequel to Joker called Joker: Folie À Deux, directed by Todd Phillips, was officially released on Oct. 4. The film reprises Joaquin Phoenix, who previously won an Oscar for his portrayal of the Joker in the first movie, and has now also added Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn or "Lee." As part of the premise, the pair fall in love at Arkham Hospital while Arthur (the Joker) awaits his trial for murdering five people (or really six).

Unlike the first film, which became the first R-rated film to ever pass the $1 billion mark globally, the sequel seems to be a box office flop, with opening weekend revenues being less than anticipated at $40 million. Additionally, the sequel also received low ratings from critics and audiences. On Rotten Tomatoes, the audience and critics gave it the same rating of 32%, which is a pretty rare occurrence. Videos circulated on TikTok show people walking out of the movie theater, yet on Google reviews there are fans loyally defending the movie, claiming that those who despise it are surface-level fans. I do not think the film is truly as bad as some people are saying, yet I am struggling to understand those who gave it five stars. Here are my reflections after seeing Joker: Folie À Deux.

Let's start with arguably the most controversial aspect of the film: the fact that it is a musical. Unlike the first movie, Todd Phillips decided to make a very bold yet creative decision to mix a dark, psychological film with over-the-top musical numbers. When I initially heard that the sequel was turning into a musical, one with the icon Lady Gaga, I was intrigued. This is because I adore musicals and because I have never seen one that combines such contrasting elements. I have seen many people criticize the film for being a musical, which I do not think is fair since it was marketed as a musical from the very beginning.

My issue is not that it is a musical, my issue is that it is a bad musical. Not even Gaga's vocals could save this movie. Typically, when watching musicals, I expect to have this bursting desire to immediately search for my favorite songs on Spotify and have them stuck in my head for several weeks after watching the film. I did not feel that at all with this production. Most songs were not memorable and were honestly redundant since Arthur and Lee were consistently singing about the same things. There were just too many musical numbers that felt quite abrupt. I honestly think that the songs took away from certain scenes rather than added to them, almost distracting the audience. I understand that Arthur and Lee’s psychological processes were purposely shown through song and flashy performances, yet I wanted some of the songs to further the plot, as I felt that they rather slowed the storyline down.

Another important aspect of the film is the relationship between Arthur and Lee. Phoenix and Gaga did a magnificent job portraying their compelling yet toxic relationship. At times, I found myself thinking how twisted yet perfect for each other they were (spoiler alert: they were not). Phoenix does an impeccable job of portraying Arthur's varying emotions. While I think these emotions were more subtle in this film than in the first, Phoenix's portrayal of Arthur no doubt delivered as expected. Gaga also proves that she is as great an actress as she is a singer. Lee is presented uniquely and is intriguing to watch, which is why I think she is under-utilized. While I understand that the movie is supposed to represent both of the characters through their complicated relationship, I wish we saw more of Lee's thought process and history as well as more of her as Harley Quinn. With Arthur having an entire movie before this one to explain his thoughts and behavior, it naturally feels like Lee is not given the same chance to show who she is. I felt like the audience was somewhat disconnected from her. For a film called "folie à deux", meaning “madness for two” in French, this film felt like “madness for one and a half.”

There are a few other new characters in this film. The first is one of my favorite DC supervillains, Harvey Dent, portrayed by Harry Lawtey. I have heard a lot of people complain about how Harvey was portrayed in this film. While I certainly agree that there are large differences between other film portrayals and the comics, Lawtey's portrayal is not necessarily bad. Harvey is presented as that stereotypical, overconfident attorney who usually gets what he wants rather than the man seen as a hero for his city, as seen in other productions. However, I think a large part of why we see Harvey the way we do in this film is that he is the antagonist before ever becoming Two-Face — the film is presented from the Joker's view, so naturally, the guy trying to get him the death penalty is not going to seem like an angel. I think that people expecting a thorough, detailed representation of Harvey will be disappointed by watching this film because Harvey's character does not add much to the plot if anything at all. Rather, I think Phillips purposely makes changes and adds some easter eggs, like Harvey's injuries on one side of his face after the bomb goes off in court, to tease the audience rather than create this entire new subplot of another Gotham villain.

Another interesting character was Jackie Sullivan, a guard at the Arkham Hospital played by Brendon Gleeson. Having seen a few of Gleeson's films, I appreciated his performance here as well. He is presented as kind in one scene and incredibly cruel in another, and Gleeson demonstrates this wonderfully. While his character is not that prominent, he is an interesting character to watch and adds to Arthur’s development.

One aspect of the movie that I did appreciate was its cinematography. Some shots in the film were tastefully constructed and added to the dark and eerie atmosphere. The sets of the musical pieces were also presented beautifully. I appreciated that the film still held somewhat of a darker tone of colors like the first film, yet it brought warmer colors, possibly reflecting Lee's effect on Arthur or his healing from his actions in the first film. However, the light and dark contrasted each other heavily, so I wish that the transitions between these shots flowed better and were a bit more cohesive.

Lastly, and arguably most importantly, is Arthur Fleck's death. I mention Arthur as "the Joker" in quotation marks as the film displays that he is not the Joker that the fans know to be Batman's biggest rival. The beloved yet misunderstood Arthur Fleck dies at the hands of an unnamed inmate played by Connor Storrie, who appears to be the "real" Joker. On one hand, I appreciate the cleverness of Phillips' decision to kill Arthur. From the beginning of the film, Storrie appeared as always watching, to foreshadow his importance to the plot. The way Storrie starts to carve the Joker's disturbing smile while maniacally laughing in the background as Arthur is dying on the floor is a scene hard to forget. While I understand why Phillips decided to kill Arthur and ground his character as only inspiring the "real" Joker, I cannot help but be disappointed by his death. A character we have been following along for two movies is killed so quickly in front of us. It is clear that Phillips is trying to represent this bigger issue of society idealizing criminals through the audience. Initially, we are supposed to feel shocked that Lee leaves him because he claims he is not the Joker. Yet once it is determined that he definitely is not, the audience naturally feels like all of Arthur's character development has been for nothing, almost abandoning Arthur when we no longer see him as this glorified villain. I understand that Phillips is trying to get the audience to realize that we are part of the cult-following that he ridicules in the film. I am just wondering if there could have been another way to portray this without killing Phoenix's character. My issue is not that the "Joker" dies. It is that Arthur dies, too. And at a time when he just wanted to be a nice person and listen to a terrible joke. It seems in the end that everyone has failed Arthur Fleck.

Overall, while I was very excited to watch the film, its creative elements were not enough to save it and, in some ways, made it less appealing. While I do not think the film is nearly as terrible as some reviews are saying, I do not appreciate how some people who see this movie as a modern masterpiece claim that the only people who did not like the film did not understand it. Some of the film community needs to realize that they must get rid of their superiority complex and understand that a person can fully comprehend a movie and the point that the director wants to get across and still think it is simply not a good feature film as we see with Joker: Folie À Deux.