At the end when he is back in Arkham Asylum, that immediately said to me "he just imagined this entire movie". I say this because he was supposedly found mentally competent to stand trial, went to trial, and was found guilty. He was not found not guilty by reason of insanity. Just plane guilty. Arkham is for the criminally insane. Black Gate is for the "sane" criminals. So, if he actually stood trial and was found guilty, he would not be sent back to some minimal security (as portrayed in the movie) insane asylum and be allowed to watch cartoons in the day room.

Also, what kind of asylum for the criminally insane allows people to check in and out at will? Now, maybe it was all really supposed to have taken place but, if so, the points I brought up are major plot holes that make the movie even crappier.

Hate the movie, fine... But that song was written for the voice of Tom Waits

I don’t understand the hate. We all know he’s not the real Joker, but an inspiration. And his killer looks to be the real Joker as he cuts a smile into his face. Can somebody explain why people hate it so much?

When you are so house hermit and solitary that you are obsessed with a film and make video and photo editings (amv) about it and you want to make many more of it... But it's a reel pleasure. c'est dommage pour Joker Folie à Deux... Tellement déçue.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9hQXfjP7aM

This is not a Joke (and it's not the same words I know)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nra5aqUyMAQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5JdfcPm85Q

The whole point of the second movie is showing how fans don't care about Arthur - they only are interested in him while he is joker, no matter how much he suffers. I liked that idea as a general concept and some meta-comment.

But it doesn't work well with the first movie. It means that Todd failed as the director and a writer if he meant the same things in the first movie. Because we don't see him suffering from being Joker as it is stated in joker 2. He does terrible things, his actions lit up the crowd for violence, we understand as viewers that it's a bad thing if we are moral people. But we have been shown the whole movie of Arthur suffering trying to be normal and being rejected, no matter what the reasons are. Director builds up our empathy to him for the whole movie, so we understand why he goes crazy. We see Arthur combining symbol created by society with his personality and enjoying being it. We see him genuinely enjoying chaos. But we should somehow understand that he is not being himself doing it? That he is only pretending?

I have no problem with comment, but I don't understand how it should work with the ending of the first movie.

Personally, I found it to be a massive misfire. There was a few things I liked about it, mostly the filmmaking and acting on display being just as good as the first movie. And the first half or so of it I was fairly on board with this epilogue of Arthur being on trial and his time spent in Arkham. But besides that, I didn't like any direction this went with the character or the story that was presented in the first film (which I love). And I felt it ends on a huge whimper as opposed to me being blown away by those last 10 minutes from the last film.

But there's quite a few people I see who think it was great, or at least, overhated. I'm always willing to see other people's opinions, so I'd like to hear your reasons!

At the end I always think about how the “young inmate” Stabs Joaquin Phoenix 6 times I feel for every one of his victims then he forgets his mother Penny Fleck? Is this why he slices his face as a smile because it’s known that Arther’s mother always told her “happy” that he was meant to bring joy and happiness into the world to bring a happy face?

Only wrote that in case this post gets dropped sensitive ass people now a days lol anyways he gets fuxked up by the guards and then decides to come clean? Is this really the end? Why the car bomb? Is Arther really dead? He runs to Harley and plays victim. Did he know she didn’t want him for his true masterpiece? There’s time Harley Quinn gets back at joker could this be a she hits first since Arther was so accepted by her presence?

Arther was imagining the endings outcome and there is a part 3 and Harley really does go with him after realizing he escaped the car bomb was all part of the plan lol

Even at the age he is at, Willem defoe would still be perfect for a comic accurate joker, if anything the age gives him better smile lines and wrinkles for the roll. It's not often you have an actor who has the perfect look for the roll, but also is an incredible actor. It's a shame he hasn't played it

https://thatfilmblog.uk/2024/10/30/in-defence-of-joker-folie-a-deux/

Joker 2 is awful and ruins the first one. Should be made non canon. Anyone know anything about starting a petition for this?

I think it keep to the more grounded feel of The Batman while still staying true to joker. I like him still having the chemical burns but also being deformed like The Man Who Laughs, who inspired Joker. He also just looks insanely creepy as well.

I saw comments saying it's just a forced sequel made for commercial reasons.

I think she did a great job! The mask was a fun take over the traditional makeup.

WDYT?

The guy who kill Arthur, I think he gave himself a forced smile and he started laughing in a joker manner. Maybe he's the one to become joker 🤔