First off, I did like the father-son dynamic that was present here, it's just that I didn't care about what was happening on screen since it's nonsensical majority of the time. But there's only real development between those two by the end, nobody else.
And the casting is quite bad as well because none of the actors really sell me on their performance, just seems they're phoning it in. The villain doesn't have a great performance either but that's mostly due to poor writing, they could've done something far greater than her. But the creativity that's present is short lived if it's constantly followed by a villain saying a poor landing joke, or even a main character.
How can a Garfield movie truly be done? After seeing this I have little hope for Garfield movies in the future. But the idea of Garfield being in a movie is outlandish and quite hard to make a feasible plot without introducing lame characters. This franchise is hard to make acceptable for fans since it will never live up to what Garfield truly is. But to give us an hour and a half of our time with him for a outlandish, out of this world, story is enough regardless of how bad it might be, because it will never work out.

Seemingly abandoned by his dad in an alleyway in the rain, poor little "Garfield" espies the unsuspecting and lonely looking "Jon" having a pizza across the road. In a shot he's looking all sad and bedraggled at the windows, next he's demolished the man's dinner and finally coaxed him from his comfortable flat to a new house that they share with the dog "Odie". His life is just one idyllic round of snoozing, eating and watching "Catflix" until he and "Odie" are kidnapped. Why? Well it's only when they are rescued by a caped hero - who turns out to be his dad "Vic", and we then are introduced to the criminal mastermind that is "Jinx" who has an axe to grind, that we start to get to the bottom things. She spent ages in the pound and is looking for her pint of milk! Now "Garfield", "Odie" and "Vic" have to come up with plan to rob a well defended dairy to settle scores. Even if they succeed, can they trust the duplicitous "Jinx" and her two sinister hench-creatures? It's an amiable enough adventure movie, this, with plenty of daft escapades for the cats, a menacing security officer and even an old lovelorn bull ("Otto") who's seen better days. I found the story reminded me a bit of the "Wallace and Gromit" kind of mishap-ridden narrative and though it's probably twenty minutes too long to sustain a film that doesn't seem to ever want to end, it's got the usual messages to team-playing, family and loyalty and has some quite witty one-liners now and again.

This movie is less realistic than Slotherhouse. No one on the crew had their Open Water certification. Absolute crap. 3 because they killed that one really annoying guy who sucked and I imagine he's the wretched people who wrote/directed this crap. But it's only 1.5 hours so...I kinda like it. Would have been 20 minutes had they just opened the door so...I really hate it.

Terrible Script, dialogue, directing, hammy editing. Music is meh. Poor acting (but they clearly got no support). This crap show's the contempt producers like this have for the audience that gives them money. The writer, director, producers and editor must have been so full of ego that I bet continues today, despite the poor reviews. During the boring minutes (90) I drifted off imagining them all working on these scenes thinking they were amazing, and trying to understand the level of narcissism required. Just delusional film makers that like the smell of each others farts. During the credits I imagined the director is still down there and that's what got it 0.5 rather than 0.

Hit Man by Richard Linklater is a solid watch, blending a deliberate pace with engaging character work. The first act feels like it lingers a little too long, but by the time the final act rolls around, you realize it was all intentional. That slower setup creates a nice payoff later, making the transitions between acts smooth and well-timed. It’s clear Linklater knew exactly how much breathing room to give the story, even if it left me wishing for a bit more energy upfront.
Glen Powell and Adria Arjona carry the film with their performances, delivering exactly what their roles demand without overdoing it. Their character arcs extend nicely into the second act, which keeps things interesting and makes you care about what happens next. The plot itself isn’t groundbreaking and leans on some predictability, but it seems like Linklater aimed to keep things simple, possibly to avoid overwhelming the audience. Still, a touch more depth in the story wouldn’t have hurt.
Visually and musically, the film doesn’t go above and beyond, but it also doesn’t drop the ball. The cinematography and score do their job without overshadowing the narrative. Overall, Hit Man may not wow you on every front, but it’s an enjoyable and well-crafted movie that knows its strengths and sticks to them. It’s the kind of film where the characters and pacing shine more than the visuals or complexity, making it a worthwhile experience.

Richard Linklater‘s “Hit Man” is a film with a serious identity crisis. This genre blending disaster starts out as a wannabe goofy comedy, then veers off the rails into dark noir, finally settling on a bizarrely erotic femme-fatale rom-com. This movie is absolutely terrible, and its only saving grace is its lead’s bonafide Hollywood star power.
Straight-laced professor Gary Johnson (Glen Powell) has an odd hobby: he moonlights with the New Orleans Police Department as a fake hit man. With a penchant for inhabiting different personalities and donning outrageous costumes, Gary has a knack for telling potential clients (and marks) just the right things to get them arrested. Things get complicated when he falls for Madison (Adria Arjona), a potential criminal who meets with Gary to discuss hiring him to murder her awful husband. The two start a romantic relationship in a sea of deception and moral ambiguity, which changes Gary’s life forever.
It’s a great premise for a film, but Linklater just can’t make it work. While he admittedly isn’t one of my favorite directors, he completely misses the mark here. The narrative is disjointed and the tonal inconsistencies are too jarring, and no amount of talent can balance the uneven, overstuffed elements of comedy, romance, and thriller. The film struggles on just about every level, but thankfully Powell saves it from being completely unwatchable.
Powell is the highlight here. His charm and versatility shines as he navigates the complex layers of his character. This is an actor who is a true chameleon, and the film at least provides a vehicle where he can showcase his range. Powell is great; the movie is not.
Linklater introduces a lot of bland melodrama with the relationship between Gary and Madison and, despite a believable chemistry, it causes the film to stumble even more. With her character’s motivations being murky at best, it was impossible to feel fully invested in Madison’s relationship with Gary’s alter-ego, Ron.
For a film that had the potential to be so unique, it ends up feeling generic and unsatisfying. Despite having a small theatrical release, “Hit Man” is a disappointing effort that appropriately feels right at home as a streaming title on Netflix.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

**Passable**
I watched this movie with low expectations, and I wasn't disappointed.
This movie falls into the mid-level cheesy category, offering a fair amount of entertainment without being extraordinary.
The actors are good at what they do, and the direction is also good. However, you can only do so much with a mediocre plot.
Overall, watchable one time.

'Hit Man' is fun!
Glen Powell and Adria Arjona team up to form a strong acting chemistry, I enjoyed seeing them both feature all the way through - two great performances. On the note of the cast, good to see Austin Amelio appear; I like that guy from his 'The Walking Dead' days.
This movie is paced very well, the two hour run time did not feel of that length at all. It holds an interesting and fairly amusing plot, one brought to life by everyone involved on and off screen very nicely. It's goofy in certain ways, though that is only a positive to be honest. I also thought it was going to end slightly differently, but again that's not a negative.

At this rate, Glen Powell is going to be able to pay Tom Cruise back for his flying lessons pretty swiftly! Here, he's a rather geeky teacher (Gary) who teaches philosophy at a college whilst occasionally helping out the cops with some criminal profiling. When one of their investigators "Jasper" (Austin Amelio) goes a bit too far and gets suspended, Gary gets drafted in last minute and proves quite effective at getting folks who want to bump of their nearest and dearest for $5,000 to admit their cunning plans to a well wired-up con. The more of these cases he does, the better he gets; the more fun he has dressing up and adept he becomes at assuming a range of identities. It's "Maddy" (Adria Arjona) who sets the cat amongst the pigeons when she asks him to get shot of her thuggish husband "Ray" (Evan Holtzman). He takes a shine to her and talks her out of her criminal ploy. Quickly the two are seeing each other - which is manna from heaven for the deposed "Jasper". When her husband is found dead, he thinks he knows exactly who did what and how best to exact his revenge... It's quite an entertaining romantic thriller this, providing Powell with an opportunity to charm his way through an almost two hours of cinema that is light and fluffy, completely preposterous yet based on a true character. Arjona looks like she is having a good time here, too - and the last twenty minutes are quite fun. No, it won't trouble a BAFTA jury I suspect - but it's quite enjoyable summertime fayre.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://fandomwire.com/hit-man-venice-film-festival-review-one-of-the-years-greatest-comedies/
"Hit Man leaves everyone floored with one of the best comedies of the year in a magical case of cinema in which direction, screenplay, and cast combine so well with each other that, in the end, it's impossible not to applaud.
Richard Linklater and Glen Powell deliver an insanely hilarious, genuinely entertaining script elevated by the filmmaker's flawless technical execution and career-best performances from Powell and Adria Arjona. A light, non-stop narrative filled with memorable, thought-provoking, sharp dialogue, exploring notions of identity and personality through the question: "can we really change who we are?"
One of the most sensationally enjoyable theater experiences in recent years."
Rating: A-

It Ends With Us, directed by Justin Baldoni and based on Colleen Hoover's bestselling novel, explores the complexities of love and domestic abuse through the eyes of Lily Bloom (Blake Lively). The film captures Lily's journey from a hopeful flower shop owner to a woman facing the harsh realities of her relationship with Ryle (Justin Baldoni), a charming but abusive neurosurgeon.
My Experience:
Watching It Ends With Us was both impactful and frustrating. The cinematography was beautiful, and Lively delivered a nuanced performance that conveyed Lily's internal struggles effectively. However, I felt the film struggled with pacing and often leaned too heavily on melodrama, which detracted from its emotional weight. The portrayal of domestic violence was raw and unsettling, but at times it felt like it glossed over the deeper implications of such trauma.
While I appreciated the film’s attempt to address serious themes, the resolution felt overly neat and left me questioning its message about healing and forgiveness. Overall, It Ends With Us left me with mixed feelings; it was visually engaging and thought-provoking but ultimately fell short of delivering a satisfying emotional payoff.
If you enjoyed my experience, then check out the Latest Movie Reviews.

Amazing movie, I really like it. It is outstanding.

I found 'It Ends with Us' to be largely great, though the way it ends does make me question how I feel about it.
The performances of Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni (just me who thinks he looks a touch like Runar from 'Ice Age'? ...), Brandon Sklenar, Jenny Slate - heck, even Isabela Ferrer and Alex Neustaedter (iffy likeness aside) - are stellar. I sensed a lot of chemistry between Lively & Baldoni and Lively & Sklenar, which is impressive to succeed in that area twice.
Pace-wise the movie jumps along nicely, all the other major elements like editing, music and whatever are all well done and are only plus points. However, the conclusion disappoints a bit. I do think it just about regains its footing to produce a positive ending, though how it gets there by wrapping up the relationship between Lively's Lily and Baldoni's Atlas left me feeling a bit uneasy. As did a few other scenes, though they were of course as intended.
Amusing that I'm pretty sure I was the only dude (or at least one of a few) in a packed cinema watching this. Upon exiting, visually I kinda felt like Will Smith in that famous 'The Pursuit of Happyness' (which I still haven't seen btw, gotta get on that) crowd scene - only surrounded by women. Bit awkward, I can't lie. "Will watch anything!" evidently leads me astray sometimes!

"Lily" (Blake Lively) is supposed to give an eulogy at her father's funeral, but she can't. Even with her mother (Amy Morton) there and in the full glare of a packed church, she cannot find five good things to say about the man. Quickly we learn - through some flashbacks - just why that is, and just why she's grown up to be a bit of a romantic. Then she encounters neuro-surgeon "Ryle" (Justin Baldoni) and there is instant chemistry. She then opens a long-dreamed of flower shop and a stranger walks in seeking a job. Guess what? She's "Allysa" (Jenny Slate) who just happens to be the sister of her enigmatic stranger. Maybe they can make a go of things? Well a dinner one evening brings her face to face with "Atlas" (Brandon Sklenar) and that takes us back down the path of retrospection as it turns out that in her younger days, she (Isabela Ferrer) has met this vagrant (Alex Neustaedter) and they's had quite an intense relationship until her father (Kevin McKidd) caught them, and - well you can use your imagination. When "Ryle" catches them chatting, he suspects the worst and that proceeds to cause his behaviour to materially change the dynamics as matters take a series of quite unpleasant turns. Now, quite why anyone thought this was a film worth making eluded me. Sure the subject matter is serious, but this plodding drama just takes way too long to get going and then when it might to become more compelling it runs out of steam. The camerawork pays far too much superficial attention to the undercooked character of "Lily" and the writing all too often resorts to power-ballad mode when the story becomes potentially more poignant and resonant. We know that the gist of the plot is to underscore not just the effects of domestic violence in the present, but to try and understand the sources so that path need never be taken again, but it's all presented in too shallow a fashion and could easily lose half an hour without impacting on the thrust - such as it is - of the drama. It's disappointing.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/it-ends-with-us-review-balancing-love-trauma-and-abuse/
"It Ends With Us tries to balance heavy drama and conventional romance with some difficulties, but it manages to offer a minimally thought-provoking reflection on generational trauma and relationship abuse.
Formulaic and not as deep as the complexity of its themes demands, yet still effective enough due to the strong performances of the cast, Justin Baldoni's sensitive lens, and several valuable messages for the audience.
The heart is in the right place, despite the problems that haunt the film."
Rating: B-

**A true masterpiece**
After experiencing years of fatigue from Marvel & DC, along with pervasive Hollywood trends and tiresome moral lectures in entertainment, I have finally discovered something original, unapologetic, and genuinely captivating.
This series is a refreshing change, offering a tightly woven storyline, brilliant acting, meticulously chosen dialogues, stunning cinematography, excellent pacing, and masterful editing and direction. It exceeded all my expectations.
The female characters exemplify strength and bravery. Mariko Sama’s fight in episode 9 still gives me goosebumps—it's one of the most courageous scenes ever created. Fuji Sama’s emotional resilience is equally commendable, showcasing true perseverance. This is how strong and independent women should be portrayed.
Overall, this series is a true masterpiece, rekindling hope that creativity in entertainment is very much alive.

Shogun is a miniseries produced by FX, based on the famous 1975 novel of the same name. With a first season of 10 episodes, I can only applaud and appreciate the privilege of witnessing such a well-made production, with a fascinating script and an impressive setting.
The series follows the adventure of John Blackthorne, an English pilot who shipwrecks with his crew in Japan in 1600. This story serves as a thread to immerse ourselves in a sea of intrigues, betrayals, and power struggles between the fiefs over the future of the nation.
The series carefully presents the cultural conflict faced by the Portuguese people in their mission of evangelization in Japan. In addition, it shows us the severity, the courage and a concept of honor that sometimes seemed uncomfortable and impressive to me. The respect for families, the honor of the legacy, and the excellent female roles in a raw and masculine world, sometimes provoke the desire to stand up and applaud.
Shogun has the level of production, the war intensity and a carefully developed script that resembles a great saga. In my opinion, it is one of the highest points of television in recent years, which is a great achievement in today's times.

I preferred the original but this was so so good.

Shogun is the new benchmark for epic television.
In the realm of historical dramas, FX's "Shogun" stands tall as a monumental achievement in television. The series, an adaption of James Clavell's beloved novel, will no doubt be met with acclaim for it's riveting performances, exceptional writing, and meticulous attention to cultural (and historical) authenticity.
The 1980s adaptation of "Shogun" was a product of its time, focusing heavily on the character of Anjin, the English navigator. While it was a remarkable piece of television for its era, it deviated from the novel's core narrative by sidelining Yoshii Toranaga, the enigmatic power player in feudal Japan. The 2024 series corrects this course, placing Toranaga at the center of the narrative, and the series is all the better for that.
"Shogun" 2024 is a standout even in what many consider the golden age of television epics. It's been compared to HBO's "Game of Thrones," but "Shogun" carves out its own identity with a more focused narrative and a refined storytelling approach. The series does not shy away from depicting the era's inherent violence and sensuality, yet it does so with a sophistication that sets it apart, akin to the artful precision of sashimi versus the hearty mix of a stew.
The performances are nothing short of extraordinary, elevating "Shogun" to new heights. Hiroyuki Sanada, renowned for his role in "The Last Samurai," embodies the master strategist warlord Toranaga with an intensity that captivates the audience. Sanada's portrayal is nuanced, oscillating between menacing and endearing, showcasing a range that few actors achieve.
Cosmo Jarvis's portrayal of the English sailor Anjin is less compelling. His character's journey from a shipwrecked outsider to a pivotal chess piece in the political machinations of feudal Japan is portrayed with an raw energy. Of the main cast, he falls into the background to an extent but his scenes with brilliant Tadanobu Asano's Yabushige are great. Both characters are more antagonists than protagonists but I doubt they'll outlive their welcome to most viewers.
However, it is Anna Sawai who delivers the truly standout performance. Known for her roles in "Fast and the Furious" and Apple TV's "Pachinko," Sawai shines as both the translator for Anjin and the audience's guide through the intricate world of "Shogun." Her character is not merely a conduit for understanding; she is integral to the unfolding events, leaving an indelible mark on the series.
"Shogun" 2024 is a triumph of storytelling, a testament to the power of well-crafted historical drama. It is a series that not only respects its source material but also elevates it. This is a series that will be remembered and celebrated, a jewel in the crown of television's current golden age. We may not know it yet, but this series might well be it's peak.
[Note there is a companion podcast series, which much like the HBO series "Chernobyl", is very good. Highly recommend this too.]

The level of historical accuracy in this show is astounding. Much attention to detail in the clothing, architecture, armaments, and cultural practices. It neither romanticizes nor condemns 16th century Japanese culture, it simply portrays it, good and bad, side by side.
All the actors are doing a fantastic job. I'm a little underwhelmed with Sanada Hiroyuki's character, i feel he has been underutilized. The actor's performance is great, but i think the Toranaga character is not particularly complex in his portrayal. Abe Shinnosuke, Satō Tadanobu, and Hoshi Moeka are stand outs, turning secondary roles into amazingly deep side-stories.

The original Shogun, the series, from 1980 like the novel it was based upon,by James Clavell, was a masterpiece.
It worked because of tight coherent storytelling, compelling characterisations and intelligent narrative, that very wisely took its inspiration and direction, from the novel it was based upon.
Then along lumbers this latest effort. Its manages to partly shift its focus away from the relationship between the pilot John Blackthorne and Lord Toranaga. In so doing, diffusing a key focal point of the story. A story which is essentially about the collision of Western and Eastern societies and cultures, which resonates in this period of Japanese history and beyond.
The other key aspect of the original story that no longer works as well, was one of ultimately tragic love between Blackthorne and Lady Mariko. Mariko is a courtier who relies on her skill as a negotiator, to influence those around her. We see this clearly in the book and the original series.
Instead, we now get a shift towards female warriors, which might reflect modern expectations but not those of Japan in the 1600's. Yes, there were female warriors in this period but they were not courtiers, trained in the art of diplomacy. Their role was in defence of the home, when male Samurai were absent or had fallen in battle, guarding women at court and at times, they were found on the battlefield.
Suffice to say, the new revised Mariko is anything but diplomatic. She rebukes male Samurai in the opening episode in the way that is jarringly and unconvincingly, at odds, with the talents, that define this character who is able to delicately and intricately navigate the conspiracies and intrigue, of courtly life.
The result is a series that feels clumsy and monotonous but also rather ignorant. The narrative in many cases does not work well, because the new series has discarded many of the subtleties and intrigue inherent in this tale, that are as much a weapon of the Japanese nobles, as the spear, bow and sword.
Acting in this series is excellent, sets admittedly amazing and visuals often spectacular. Regrettably the degree of meddling in the underlying story, for this reviewer, ruins what could have been, a promising updated series.
In summary. Lavish sets, stunning visuals and quality acting can't overcome flawed, revisionist storytelling. The result feels awkward, unbalanced and lacking in coherence and direction. My advice, read the remarkable book and watch the wonderful series from 1980.

"Joker: Folie `a Deux" has a variety of reveries based upon Arthur Fleck and Lee Quinzel, but it isn't long before these elaborately staged musical extravaganzas begin to make the entire film resemble some sort of expensive television show starring the one and only Jaoquin Phoenix and his very special guest Lady Gaga. The film certainly provides a superb showcase for the musical talents of them both, but it comes at a price: It is also responsible for side lining the other necessary elements of the film and as a direct result of this what we are lumbered with is essentially a virtually non-existent story the filmmakers have decided to overload with a plethora of musical numbers and HEY, PRESTO! THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT! Well, yes. After a fashion. What is going to happen in the third film it will no doubt be revealed none of this actually happened - which is probably what both audiences and the executives at Warner Bros. are thinking to themselves right this minute, especially in light of the meagre profit this film struggled to scrape together at the box office when compared to the extraordinary success of the original.

If this beautiful and well executed fiLm was not the Joker I wouldn't have watched it. I would have liked it the same but wouldn't have wasted my time.
Loser gets laid, becomes winner. Gets beat up. Is loser again.
I didn't like the new matrix for its 'haha this movie's making fun of the movie' premise. At least this is funnier as a trick to get fans to watch this. What a waste of weight loss.
Telephone is a much better musical Gaga prison caper.

Meh I liked it, not as much as Joker (2019) but liked it enough
Not that it didn't have it's problems because it had so many, but not as many as some feel it has
Seems the producers/writers had a few different ideas that they just decided to mush together which created this very average sequel.
I've seen the first Joker three times, probably wouldn't give this a rewatch, would give a third a watch.

Great title, great movie.
I had heard tiny bits about 'Joker: Folie à Deux' falling below expectations since its release, though they weren't substantial enough to know if the film was any good or not. I have to say, I really enjoyed watching it all play out. It admittedly isn't on the same level as the phenomenal predecessor, but that's OK - I wasn't expecting it to be.
I will say that making this a musical of sorts was a bold choice, it wouldn't have been the direction that I would've went with it but to be honest I thought they executed it nicely. I presume that is one reason many didn't like this, as well as possibly the lack of craziness that seemed like it was on the horizon based on the 2019 flick. For me, mind, it all works.
Joaquin Phoenix is as excellent as anticipated in his reprisal as Joker, while Lady Gaga is a neat piece of casting for Lee - obviously her music chops for one, though I do enjoy her acting too. Lee perhaps could've been used more, but what we got is more than sufficient in my opinion. Brendan Gleeson, elsewhere, does well in a more minor role.
Is is slightly overlong? Possibly. Did we need a sequel? Probably not. All I can confirm is that I had a positive time viewing it, so I can't harbour any noteworthy complaints. It's a shame to now read that this film has seemingly bombed in more ways than one. C'est la vie.

Was this a Lady Gaga's special? What a joke.

Combining movie genres can be tricky business. When the mix is right, the outcome can be truly impressive, but, when it’s off, it can spell cinematic disaster. In the case of this long-awaited sequel to the 2019 box office and critically acclaimed success, unfortunately, the result is closer to the latter than the former. Picking up where the protagonist’s story left off, this saga about charismatic villain Arthur Fleck (a.k.a., the Joker) (Joaquin Phoenix) finds him in prison awaiting trial for his string of heinous crimes. Most of the picture’s first half takes place here, an unlikely venue for Arthur meeting the love of his life, the psychopathic Lee Quinzel (a.k.a., Harley Quinn) (Lady Gaga), who diligently stands by her man when he eventually goes to court, the primary focus of the film’s second half. So, at this point, the picture is already part prison film, part courtroom drama and part dark romance. But, if that weren’t enough, writer-director Todd Phillips draws upon a fourth genre – musicals – to make the mix even more overstuffed (but, hey, if you’ve got a talent like Lady Gaga at your disposal, why not, right?). The result is a convoluted, overlong, often-uninteresting offering that’s heavy on style but weak on substance and not especially interesting. Admittedly, the performances of the two leads and many of the supporting players (Brendan Gleeson, Catherine Keener and Steve Coogan in particular) are quite good, doing a more than commendable job of making this material look far better than it actually is. In addition, stylistically speaking, the picture is terrific when it comes to its production design, costuming and cinematography. And the soundtrack is great, too, including an array of superbly chosen standards to complement the narrative (even if there are a few too many selections). But these strengths by themselves aren’t enough to make a good picture overall; what’s stuck in between these elements feels more like filler than substance, and that’s where the movie falls apart. In my view, “Joker: Folie à Deux” isn’t as resoundingly awful as many reviewers have made it out to be in light of its artistic and aesthetic accomplishments, but that doesn’t mean this release is not without its share of problems, most notably in the dreadful writing and mishandled film editing. This is one of those pictures where you get to the end and are likely to heave a heavy “Ho hum, so what?” And that’s regrettable, given that the character and this picture’s predecessor both deserved better than what this follow-up has to offer. If you haven’t seen this yet, you might be better off sticking to the picture’s genuinely stellar trailer, as that’s ultimately much better than most of what’s found in this clunky 2:18:00 release.

FULL SPOILER-FREE REVIEW @ https://talkingfilms.net/joker-folie-a-deux-review-an-ambitious-musical-failure/
"Joker: Folie à Deux holds immense technical and artistic merit, but it fails to replicate the success and impact of the original.
Todd Phillips’ boldness in turning the film into a musical is admirable, but the execution ends up being incoherent, with abrupt transitions between the dark drama and the musical numbers, resulting in a jarring experience, made even more frustrating by the studio’s embarrassing secrecy about the movie’s format.
While visually impressive and with standout performances from Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga, the lack of thematic and character development makes this sequel an ambitious yet ultimately disappointing attempt that adds little to the thought-provoking study presented in 2019."
Rating: C-

both **JOKER** movies were clickbait. he is not the joker & she is not Harley. (they are Arthur & Lee) 🤮**that's what you get for overhyping first movie!** 😂🤣

I was going to go and see the first Joaquin Phoenix outing as the "Joker" (2019) to remind my self of who did what to whom, but I didn't have time. I think I am glad because I recall that being so very much better than this. Here, we pick up after "Fleck" (Phoenix) has been on his clown-faced slaughtering spree and is in prison supervised by prison officer "Jackie" (Brendan Gleeson). His lawyer "Maryanne" (Catherine Keener) is trying to have him declared competent to stand trial for his crimes so she can plead some sort of personality disorder defence - he's not "Fleck" when he's the "Joker" sort of thing. Thing is, he encounters "Lee" (Lady Gaga) at a prison sing-a-long and she manages to ingratiate herself with him and then to derail that plan ensuring the plot twists it's way into the courtroom where his conviction for multiple homicides quickly appears as inevitable as there being a song in the film. Now I did like the soundtrack, but by the way Todd Phillips has presented this, it might as well have been either Tony Bennett or Newley who took on the leading role as her part is largely a series of entertainingly photographed music videos with the thinnest slices of meat constituting a weak story in between. It's a love story, I suppose, but that wasn't really what I turned up to see. There's loads of excess, but no menace or jeopardy and the character's previous adeptness at treading the thin line between sanity and madness isn't really developed at all here. He comes across more as a pathetic, emaciated, prisoner whose flame has well and truly gone out. His legal antagonist (Harry Lawtey) looks about eleven years old but that doesn't really matter either as the judicial proceedings themselves offer us little by way of sustaining drama, even as we build to a denouement that offers the tiniest bit of hope then... It's a stunning piece of cinema, money has been spent and there's imagination a-plenty from the production's designers. It's just too much of a jigsaw of a film with too little plot serving as a vehicle for an album boxed-set that's doubtless ready to hit the shops.