Joker II, the stew of already bygone timelines and drama that no one cared for, tries to take inspiration from Arthur Fleck’s monotonous sadboy’ life, awkwardly blending it with its predecessor’. Now as dry as it sounds, the world was eager to explore more. Fleck’ crying film had the electric impetus of the most active stock market, bereft of any nuance, complexity, or well-defined goal. Now… Imagine a film revolving around tormented chunk of meat caked in clown makeup as it ponders on life for two extra hours. Slap a ‘2’ on it; positive reviews are guaranteed! There should be more thought about having another deep quote dish served With queerphobia seasoned With homicide and overcooked idolization of violence. Seeming overconfident, if not borderline unreasonable, wires were stabbed into ideas of visions scattered throughout board meetings rather than one genius head,” WE WANT MORE BOX OFFICE CASH.“ Only if they weren’t in their right minds! Either Way __Joker II__ offers additional content for social and physiological film art critiques That’ll ensure the evisceration needed while remaining totally and artfully unscathed.
With a plot so dry for twelve minutes you could grab a snow shovel to aid in the attempt,
However, if you thought joker was incoherent in the first movie, you’re in for a massive surprise. Not only does Joker II lack structure completely, but they don’t even try to pretend otherwise! It seems stubbornly decisionless giving up on curtailing any form of consistent narrative makes for an interesting motion picture buzz. Rather offer disjointed snapshots of time where candid pondering soul staring deep into life turns into interpretational art courtesy of Todd Phillips miscalculating the dividing line between meaning and injector and framing intent.
My initial impression is that we are in for round two when Arthur Fleck shows up at the start of the sequel. As in the first, Phoenix’s skeletal figure takes the screen followed by a muted voice, the accompanying world a nauseating blend of yellows and greens. Gotham is still burning. The people are still rioting. The rich are still terrible. As for Arthur, He is still dancing.
It feels like a poorly constructed narrative on absurdist comedy. Arthur, a free man from Arkham, now an unwilling and unwitting savior for the forsaking people of Gotham. Uh, Arthur. Whose arc feels like a half-baked collection of “look how society has failed him” moments, violence sprinkled throughout, meant to appear shocking but, in truth, feel any sense of originality is from echoes of the first film. And of this striking, unprecedented storytelling? Surely the man who brought us civilization must’ve started a podcast.
Tropes, tropes everywhere, and not a fresh idea in sight.
The “Rebel Leader Who Is Actually A Hot Mess” Trope: Arthur once more finds himself in the spotlight as the unwilling mascot of the broken and beaten people. With other leaders of this sort, we often see them ‘come into their own,’ but with Arthur, it’s the same self-loathing, overly self-indulgent man-child from the first film. No development or new layers of psychological insight—only stuttering, mumbling, and more limbs spasming.
The “Evil Rich People” Trope: It’s clear that portraying people of wealth and privilege is bad will suffice, but Joker 2 takes it a step further, ignoring subtlety in favor of volume and more burning cars. The film does not add any new perspectives, instead opting to point fingers at the tried-and-true, decidedly boring, cliche.
The “Mental Illness Portrayed as a Superpower” Trope: One thing that’s clear in Joker 2 is the equally exhausting and overly portrayed idea that mental illness equals violence and brilliance, lacking any strong reasoning. There is no new angle to Arthur’s fall—only a presentation of what seeks to pass as ‘aestheticized suffering’ with no genuine intention or meaning behind it.
Performances: Joaquin Phoenix Does His Best… But Why
Regardless of how you view him, Joaquin Phoenix is still phenomenal—because he is Joaquin Phoenix. The man could strut his way out of a wet paper bag and turn the act into an Oscar performance. Yet even the best of them all cannot salvage a film with no purpose.
One scene that really encapsulates the film’s issues is when Arthur, mid-monologue about how the world is out to get him, abruptly starts dancing. Again. The original film’s stairway dance was legendary—a moment of perverse self-actualization. In Joker 2, there are so many interpretive dance numbers that they lose all significance. At some points, the film feels less like a psychological thriller and more like an art film on movement therapy.
The supporting cast is largely forgettable, with new characters introduced just to drown as background for Arthur’s continued soap opera unraveling. But the greatest tragedy? Phoenix’s performance is constricted, as he is forced to cover familiar ground. Everything he does is something he’s done before, only in slight increments, more exaggerated.
Direction & Cinematography: Style Without Substance
Todd Phillips is once again trying to show filmgoers that he is more than just “the guy who made The Hangover.” Aesthetically, Joker 2 further increases the intensity of grimy close-ups and claustrophobic, loose-angled cam movement. The color palette remains a blend of deep grey and jaundice yellow, as if Gotham City were suffering from jaundice.
While the film attempts a stronger immersive experience, it still feels lacking. There is no effort to introduce new visual constructs; instead, there are washed out frames drowned in bleak color combinations, repetitive slow-motion sequences meant to artificially inflate importance, and mandatory destruction of tissue value in almost every scene. And the staggering sum of slow-motion? With so many scenes devoted to time literally raping the concept of motion, where we examine Arthur’s enduring gaze, the check on my wrist became inviting.
Cultural Relevance (or Lack Thereof)
Connecting Joker 2 to contemporary sociopolitical discontent is an effort worth noting but with no support. The riots, the class divide, and failures at governance? Present, but lacks imagination. It is painfully obvious that the film was simply copying headlines without any thoughtful analysis. This sequel lacks the underlying cultural discontent showcased in the previous movie, which tried at least attempted providing social critique buried beneath the fabric of the narrative.
Then, as always, there is the media conversation on the potential dangers of Joker 2. The first part of Joker was critiqued for supposedly encouraging incel violence, which never materialized. With this new installment, the film barely scratches the surface on being considered a cultural phenomenon, let alone a potential threat to society. If anything, the whole discourse is simply
Why Joker 2 Missed the Mark
In essence, The Joker 2 serves as a perfect example of the lack of creativity in Hollywood and the ever-increasing need for sequels. The first part of Joker was a standalone tragedy that the audience connected with on many levels. This part feels more like a masquerade of art in response to an obligation, or a financially-motivated endeavor.
There are many elements of the film that as a collective are exahusting to watch, but most notably:
Arthur’s character arc had a sense of finality to it and pulling that into an additional two-hour-long film seems counterproductive and offers little for audiences.
Relying too much on Phoenix’s performance: While he is one of the greatest actors of our time, no actor is capable of pulling together a nonsensical, directionless film.
Losing layers to social commentary: It’s as if making a film based on the themes that Joker already established without expanding upon them or infusing it with new ideas was the ultimate goal.
A muddled genre identity: Is this a psychological thriller? A political statement? A dance movie? Your guess is as good as mine.
Final Verdict
Joaquin Phoenix enthusiasts might appreciate Joker 2 just to watch him do his thing. But for fans of the original who were anticipating some form of expansion or elaboration, you are likely to be disappointed.
Because as far as I’m concerned, Joker 2 is not a movie; it is an echo. A sequel no one asked for, crafted by people that had nothing new to say. And if you’re like me, aggravated by the misleading title, you’re probably even less interested after learning that this “film” has Arthur Fleck’s two-hour “dance” recital. But congratulations, narratively this film was built for you. For everyone else, do yourself a favor and just skip to the first one. At least that one felt like it had a point.
