Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), directed by Todd Phillips, stars Joaquin Phoenix, Lady Gaga, Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener, Harry Lawtey, Zazie Beetz, Leigh Gill, Steve Coogan, Jacob Lofland, Bill Smitrovich, Sharon Washington, and Connor Storrie. The film follows Arthur Fleck/Joker (Phoenix) as he is imprisoned in Arkham Asylum for the murders he committed during the events of Joker (2019). While there, he meets fellow oddball Lee Quinzel (Gaga) and the two immediately form a passionate romance. When Arthur’s trial commences, Lee convinces him to go against the wishes of his lawyer (Keener) and lean more heavily into his Joker persona. This raises the question: Is Arthur a true leader of the disenfranchised or just a symbol for what’s to come? 

Phoenix is once again fantastic as Arthur Fleck/Joker. He conveys a level of physical as well as mental instability that feels completely authentic. Lady Gaga is likewise great as Lee. She holds her own acting-wise when coupled with Phoenix, which also extends to the musical sequences. In these sequences, she is undoubtedly and unsurprisingly the star of the show. Phoenix is stronger performance-wise, but Gaga is stronger musically. When one of their performances stumbles, the other picks them up. This seems intentional in the sense that their romance is framed as one another finding their missing piece. As for the supporting cast, no one stands out, but no one feels out of place either. Any problems I have with these characters relate to how they’re implemented/written as opposed to the skills of the cast members portraying them. 

Fans of the first film will be disappointed to find that this sequel goes in a completely different direction genre-wise. As opposed to a dark, villain-on-the-rise story, Joker: Folie à Deux is a musical-romance courtroom drama that lacks almost any kind of traditional action/comic-book setpiece. This makes a person scratch their head because why would the filmmaker seem intent on purposely alienating their core audience (which is a large one)? This slower pace also causes the script to retread themes and characterizations that ultimately make this feel like an epilogue/footnote to the first movie. Certain characters reappear just to go over what happened to them in the last film, and although it is fun to an extent, feels like fan service that pads the runtime (which is far too long). 

All that being said, I also think this results in a much more creatively daring and unique sequel experience. Although it fails to deliver the traditional thrills one expects from this kind of movie, I do think it’s satisfying in the sense that it often feels thematically dense. For example, it explores the idea of how finding love can save a person’s life or just as easily lead to their downfall. Speaking of downfalls, that’s essentially what this movie is. The first film showed his euphoric rise while the sequel shows his pitiful fall. I understand how this would be frustrating for certain fans to see a character they “love” be beaten down and ripped to shreds in every way possible, but it feels natural and almost necessary in a sense. The first felt incomplete because it didn’t comment on the morality of Arthur’s actions and this movie is all about that. Where the first movie shows Arthur acting his worst but feeling his best, this movie shows Arthur acting his best but feeling his worst. It’s not particularly “fun” in comparison, but I think it works in terms of dramatic flair.   

The musical elements aren’t particularly exciting, but they fit what’s going on thematically and don’t overstay their welcome compared to most musicals. Although this is undoubtedly a musical, Todd Phillips seems to understand when it would get to be a little much. The gritty visual style is once again effective, but I struggle to understand how this movie cost 200 million dollars. I’m assuming most of it went to the cast and crew because a majority of the runtime either takes place in a dreary mental hospital or a standard city courtroom.

Overall, this is the definition of a “mixed-bag” experience and is destined to be one the most divisive movies of the year. It’s slow, far too long, and sometimes gives clarity on things that were better left ambiguous. Fans expecting this to match the first movie in terms of entertainment value will be disappointed, but if one goes in with the right expectations, I think it’s satisfying in terms of characterization and themes. On top of that, it’s original and there’s always something to appreciate about a film that takes chances (even if a lot of them don’t work out). Most people are saying this is a disaster, but I truly think it’s something everyone who liked the first movie should check out granted they have the right expectations. C+