Watch Youtube instead, you will find plenty of cacs singing off key on there for free.
"Joker: Folie a Deux" | sequel to "Joker" starring Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga
- Thread starter Optimus Prime
- Start date
Watch Youtube instead, you will find plenty of cacs singing off key on there for free.
I have nothing against musicals, in fact me and the wife enjoy going to see them at stage theaters.
But if you are going to make a movie a musical it better have some visuals or effects that make it improbable to put on stage.
I’m not going to the movies to see some people sing a bunch of songs to a paper thin plot.
But if you are going to make a movie a musical it better have some visuals or effects that make it improbable to put on stage.
I’m not going to the movies to see some people sing a bunch of songs to a paper thin plot.
Just got out of this.
This wasn't one for the mouth breathers.
Cinematography was great
Gaga is great in most of this, especially when she sings.
Joaquin is great in this, except when he sings.
I kinda was on some
when they went into the
song, but I'll forgive it.
To please the mouth breathers, there was a scene in the 1st act that could have went a different way, but they decided on a court room drama instead.
If they would have went the other way, the film would look like a typical Harley Quinn and Mr J. type of movie.
The biggest problem in this film........
Typical Coli Breh should stay away from this.
Cinephiles, there really is some gorgeous cinematography, great acting, good singing - but even if you excuse the plot problems - but it's not a good movie. It will be even worse on the small screen imo.
This wasn't one for the mouth breathers.
Cinematography was great
Gaga is great in most of this, especially when she sings.
Joaquin is great in this, except when he sings.
I kinda was on some
when they went into the
gospel-ish
To please the mouth breathers, there was a scene in the 1st act that could have went a different way, but they decided on a court room drama instead.
If they would have went the other way, the film would look like a typical Harley Quinn and Mr J. type of movie.
The biggest problem in this film........
Todd Phillips/Fleck killed the Joker in the 3rd act.
Who actually killed the talk show host - Murray Franklin? Who was that guy?
That wasn't Fleck at all. (which kinda proves the defense's case, or at least lends creedence to it)
The mentally disabled/troubled soul (Fleck)that "had one bad day" and slipped into madness/that got pushed over the edge? (Joker)
That was the "charm" of the first movie.
That was what the Joker fans in the movie itself liked about him. (and also what we in the real world were afraid of)
If it was just Fleck "acting" like "Joker" the whole time (which I am just not convinced by, despite the text of the film) - then this film basically destroys the first one.
If Joaquin he was just going with this Joker thing, and it had gotten away from him, so he had to become this cartoon of himself - that'd be understandable. The film would then have to give the watcher some clues to that motivation.
"The in over his head, so he has to go with it" trope.
But If he was always Arthur, a man who wouldn't hurt a fly, there's no way to understand the killing of that one dude (while Gary Puddles watched) and the Murray Franklin (talk show host).
Where did that "monster" even come from? Film #1 tells us.
This movie?
It was Arthur all along.
Which, imo, was very unconvincing - the moment he said it, but in contrast to how Joaquin played the character the whole time, and in the last movie.
Who actually killed the talk show host - Murray Franklin? Who was that guy?
That wasn't Fleck at all. (which kinda proves the defense's case, or at least lends creedence to it)
The mentally disabled/troubled soul (Fleck)that "had one bad day" and slipped into madness/that got pushed over the edge? (Joker)
That was the "charm" of the first movie.
That was what the Joker fans in the movie itself liked about him. (and also what we in the real world were afraid of)
If it was just Fleck "acting" like "Joker" the whole time (which I am just not convinced by, despite the text of the film) - then this film basically destroys the first one.
If Joaquin he was just going with this Joker thing, and it had gotten away from him, so he had to become this cartoon of himself - that'd be understandable. The film would then have to give the watcher some clues to that motivation.
"The in over his head, so he has to go with it" trope.
But If he was always Arthur, a man who wouldn't hurt a fly, there's no way to understand the killing of that one dude (while Gary Puddles watched) and the Murray Franklin (talk show host).
Where did that "monster" even come from? Film #1 tells us.
This movie?
It was Arthur all along.
Which, imo, was very unconvincing - the moment he said it, but in contrast to how Joaquin played the character the whole time, and in the last movie.
Typical Coli Breh should stay away from this.
Cinephiles, there really is some gorgeous cinematography, great acting, good singing - but even if you excuse the plot problems - but it's not a good movie. It will be even worse on the small screen imo.
The 1st one was pretentious and got hyped up too much, so now we are here
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
Y’all actually taking the homie @Bryan Danielson seriously. Bruh is a marvel stan trolling DC stans lol.
Yall Marvel Stans wild
No one falling for your Dr Strange Jedi Mind Tricks
This the best movie since Blue Beatle, Flash & Black Adam
And I’m gonna see it again tonight or tomorrow…..
Something I ain’t don’t in years!!
Repeat viewing
The 1st one is a top 5 comic book movie of all time I own it in blu-Ray. But I planned on seeing this on my off day next week looks like that’s $20 bucks saved
Which movie in the Dark Knight Trilogy is the first movie better than
Better than Iron Man 1?Blade?Logan? Watchmen?Havent even gotten to the Infinity Saga yet. Do you like comic book movies,or do you like that it wasnt like a comic book movie? I really cant grasp my mind around this opinion. Id say its hands down the worst comic book movie ive ever seen outside of maybe Batman Forever. But Jim Carey at least had his moments.
Yall Marvel Stans wild
No one falling for your Dr Strange Jedi Mind Tricks
This the best movie since Blue Beatle, Flash & Black Adam
And I’m gonna see it again tonight or tomorrow…..
Something I ain’t don’t in years!!
Repeat viewing
Poetical Poltergeist
Precise and cold hearted
There's always one.Just got out of this.
This wasn't one for the mouth breathers.
Cinematography was great
Gaga is great in most of this, especially when she sings.
Joaquin is great in this, except when he sings.
I kinda was on somesong, but I'll forgive it.gospel-ish
To please the mouth breathers, there was a scene in the 1st act that could have went a different way, but they decided on a court room drama instead.
If they would have went the other way, the film would look like a typical Harley Quinn and Mr J. type of movie.
The biggest problem in this film........
Todd Phillips/Fleck killed the Joker in the 3rd act.
Who actually killed the talk show host - Murray Franklin? Who was that guy?
That wasn't Fleck at all. (which kinda proves the defense's case, or at least lends creedence to it)
The mentally disabled/troubled soul (Fleck)that "had one bad day" and slipped into madness/that got pushed over the edge? (Joker)
That was the "charm" of the first movie.
That was what the Joker fans in the movie itself liked about him. (and also what we in the real world were afraid of)
If it was just Fleck "acting" like "Joker" the whole time (which I am just not convinced by, despite the text of the film) - then this film basically destroys the first one.
If Joaquin he was just going with this Joker thing, and it had gotten away from him, so he had to become this cartoon of himself - that'd be understandable. The film would then have to give the watcher some clues to that motivation.
"The in over his head, so he has to go with it" trope.
But If he was always Arthur, a man who wouldn't hurt a fly, there's no way to understand the killing of that one dude (while Gary Puddles watched) and the Murray Franklin (talk show host).
Where did that "monster" even come from? Film #1 tells us.
This movie?
It was Arthur all along.
Which, imo, was very unconvincing - the moment he said it, but in contrast to how Joaquin played the character the whole time, and in the last movie.
Typical Coli Breh should stay away from this.
Cinephiles, there really is some gorgeous cinematography, great acting, good singing - but even if you excuse the plot problems - but it's not a good movie. It will be even worse on the small screen imo.
Bryan Danielson
Jmare007 x Bryan Danielson x JLova = King Ghidorah
Only thing that’s predictable is how mad yall Marvel Stan’s at yall flopping so yall review bomb
Jealous of how well we eating in the DCU
There's always one.
Did you even see the first one?
How can you complain about the second one, when the first one was not trying to be a comic book movie?
That's why I'm saying this wasn't for y'all mouth breathers. He wasn't gonna pull out a 4 foot long pistol or gas the city with Smile-X.
DaRealness
I think very deeply
Only thing that’s predictable is how mad yall Marvel Stan’s at yall flopping so yall review bomb
Jealous of how well we eating in the DCU
Who said that I was a marvel Stan?
Last edited:
Poetical Poltergeist
Precise and cold hearted
I've always said the 1st movie isn't a comic book movie. But I was making a joke bruh how u the only one liking this flick. Lmao
