I didn't see the first, "Joker," movie. It seemed to barely have anything to do with, "Batman," conceptually, and looked like a really negative, sour, and unpleasant movie--even if Joaquin Phoneix is a great actor. The sequel--"Joker: Folie à Deux," looked quite strange but still tonally dark, with the movie becoming a musical, somehow. Then it got awful reviews, had an ending few liked, and technically bombed in theaters as it did come in first at the box office the week it debuted, but didn't make nearly as much as was hoped for. It even has set a record of sorts for the, "'worst second-week box office drop' in comic book movie history," according to the AV Club. It fell off a metaphorical cliff. Everyone is blaming everyone else who was involved with the movie. Is it Phoenix demanding rewrites and new scenes? Is it how Lady Gaga had a lot of scenes cut? Director Todd Philips' refusal to work with the studio and let them offer opinions?
I think the first, "Joker," movie was a bit of a, "Lightning in a bottle," moment that had people curious enough to check it out. Still, nobody wanted more in the form of, "Joker: Folie à Deux," perhaps. It looked like, "Joker," but with more confusing elements (why a musical?) and narrative shifts to the, "Saga," of this Joker that everybody seems to have hated. The , "Joker, " sequel thankfully is its own, "Elseworlds," kind of tale and not related to the main DC continuity now being built up by James Gunn and Peter Safran. That take on the DC Universe has me more optimistic for a good time than I ever had for these, "Joker," flicks, which just seemed to be saturated with negativity, cynicism, and little else of a point besides saying, "Life sucks, oh well." I don't know who to blame for how badly this sequel went, but this particular take on a DC character is clearly finished and ended as a big ol' awful mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment