John Lark

The Joker sequel is far beyond disappointing. The first Joker was a cinematic masterpiece—gritty, intense, and thought-provoking. Unfortunately, the sequel is the complete opposite. I left the cinema feeling genuinely confused and let down, wondering how a follow-up to such a phenomenal movie could end up this bad. It felt like a cheap attempt to cash in on the original's success without understanding what made it so great in the first place. The storyline was incredibly weak. Nothing really happens, and the few events that do occur feel disjointed and lack any real impact. At times, I found myself checking the time, hoping for the film to pick up, but it never did. The pacing was slow and aimless, making it a real chore to sit through. One of the most baffling decisions was to introduce a musical element. While it could have been a unique addition, it mostly fell flat. Aside from one or two scenes where it mildly worked, it felt forced and out of place. Instead of enhancing the story, it distracted from the already lacking narrative. It was as if the filmmakers were trying too hard to be artistic, but instead ended up creating something confusing and jarring. Joaquin Phoenix’s performance was, once again, nothing short of amazing. He brought the same intensity and raw emotion that made his portrayal of Arthur Fleck so captivating in the first film. But the problem was that the story never gave him the chance to fully become his true character. Every time his acting started to get intense and you could feel the build-up of tension, it was broken up by some unnecessary musical element, pulling you out of the moment. It’s almost as if the film actively worked against him, sabotaging his brilliant work with poor choices and disjointed scenes. Ultimately, this movie felt like it was written by several different people with clashing ideas, and then awkwardly stitched together in the hope it would somehow work. Spoiler: it doesn’t. The result is a muddled mess that’s not worth your time.