That's what I call a heads up. You didn't put the accent over the a in the title, though.

@Bluethunder3852 said:

That's what I call a heads up. You didn't put the accent over the a in the title, though.

Yeah, it's much easier for me to put the proper accents over non-English words when I'm typing on my phone and can just switch the language preferences over, but I tend to write with more length on TMDB and find using my laptop is easier; the drawback is, it's harder for me to use accents on a laptop. But you're right, the "a" should have an "`".

One other thing that I wanted to say in my original post, is something else that I think detracts from the film being classified as a Musical, is that whenever there is a musical number, only Joaquin Phoenix or Lady Gaga sing, either singly or together. No one else in the musical sequences sing (which was fine by me, since-- with a few exceptions --I don't like Musicals).

@northcoast said:

@Bluethunder3852 said:

That's what I call a heads up. You didn't put the accent over the a in the title, though.

Yeah, it's much easier for me to put the proper accents over non-English words when I'm typing on my phone and can just switch the language preferences over, but I tend to write with more length on TMDB and find using my laptop is easier; the drawback is, it's harder for me to use accents on a laptop. But you're right, the "a" should have an "`".

One other thing that I wanted to say in my original post, is something else that I think detracts from the film being classified as a Musical, is that whenever there is a musical number, only Joaquin Phoenix or Lady Gaga sing, either singly or together. No one else in the musical sequences sing (which was fine by me, since-- with a few exceptions --I don't like Musicals).

According to those involved with "Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)", including Stefani, this movie is not a musical.

So, everyone else is wrong to call it a musical. It's a psychological drama with the protagonists singing at least 15 cover songs. Arthur has music in him and expresses himself by emulating music legends like Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr. in his unique way. His inspired interpretation makes this not a musical, but something different.

@northcoast said:

@Bluethunder3852 said:

That's what I call a heads up. You didn't put the accent over the a in the title, though.

Yeah, it's much easier for me to put the proper accents over non-English words when I'm typing on my phone and can just switch the language preferences over, but I tend to write with more length on TMDB and find using my laptop is easier; the drawback is, it's harder for me to use accents on a laptop. But you're right, the "a" should have an "`".

Right! I was just teasing.

It completes the story, only it does it in a really bad way. The movie is very boring and almost nothing happens in it. The entire story can be 20-30 minutes in another, much better movie. A lot of what is happening doesn't make any sense. Why would a judge allow Arthur to dress as a Joker to appear in court? That's just not plausible. And he is not a lawyer, so it's even stranger. And Joker had only one witness he questioned, that Puddles guy. The entire scene showed very little and told even less, it was completely pointless. Why was Joker even representing himself? What was his agenda to do so? What was he trying to do or achieve? If there was some clever purpose to it, then it's clearly not shown. What was the purpose of the trial anyway? Why do viewers need to care? What was the purpose of the movie?

Arthur suddenly has control over the Joker and decides when to pull him out and when to hide him? That undermines everything that was told us in the first movie. Suddenly Arthur decides that they need to run away and be a family just because Lee is pregnant? That is so uncharacteristic for the Joker and completely ruins the impression from the first movie. And the ending is the worst. I don't mind when the protagonist dies at the end, it's actually a very good resolution for any protagonist. But the movie first destroys Joker's legacy by his capitulation and then kills him. That's a really bad treatment of your character from the writing perspective. That's an amateur mistake.

The ending could've been much better without all this. Even if the future plans required Joker dead, it's always better to make him a martyr to keep his legacy alive for the future. To have his character become an icon for the future generations of criminals, rebels or just degenerates. That was the entire point of the first movie, that he became a role model, that he becomes an inspiration for the rage of the city's underbelly. But instead of exploring this and taking it even further, this sequel just wastes everyone's time.

I would prefer in the first act to see Arthur's trial and his transformation back to Joker because he meets Lee. Then in the second act he should've escaped with her help, giving them a honeymoon of crime, while both seed chaos and destruction over the city with their goons. And at the same time raising the stakes and elevating his insanity and psychopathy to high levels of what we are expecting from the Joker. And then in the third act to see them cornered and Joker being captured and martyred, while Lee escapes. That would've been a much better story from that dull and pointless final result.

The movie as a standalone is bad, but as a sequel it's even worse. Todd Phillips maybe had a good idea for the first movie, but it feels like he suddenly got scared and decided to capitulate completely. Joker kaput.