Joker: Folie à Deux

Top 10 WORST Movies of 2024

Posted on by Jack Drees

Hey everyone, Jack Drees here! It is time for the annual tradition! Something that everyone can agree on. Something that will unite us all. Something that will cause absolutely no fights whatsoever either in a comments section or on the streets. It is time for the end of the year countdowns. As I have done in the past couple years, we are starting with the worst movies list. It just feels better to get the bad stuff overwith. For those looking to see certain movies on this list, please note that I have a busy schedule between work, travel, life, and so on. I do not have time to get to every movie that has come out in 2024. There are some movies I have heard some not so good things about this year like “Harold and the Purple Crayon,” “Afraid,” and “Imaginary.” I ended up skipping these films. Either because I did not have time, or they looked terrible. Possibly both. Also, the usual reminder, this list is not scientific law, it is artistic subjectivity. If you disagree with this list, that is fine. Make your own that way you can say that the movie I hated is your favorite and celebrate it. Another thing that must be said, these movies also have to have played in theaters. Sounds snobbish, I know. But this list is about cinema, not television. With that in mind, let’s get to naming three dishonorable mentions before we go any further.

Dishonorable Mention: Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire

The first dishonorable mention is “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire.” “Godzilla Minus One,” which was made in Japan, ruled my top 10 BEST movies of 2023 list when I made that. Therefore, it is disappointing to know that this Hollywood-produced movie featuring the iconic kaiju in addition to Kong turned out to be a big, loud, bloated mess that made me dumber by the time it was over. It treats the audience like we have never seen a movie. It is sprinkled with some of the most in your face dialogue of all time. There are cool things in the movie though. We get to see King Kong use a young monkey as a weapon. Although it does not make up for the rest of the junk I had to trek through.

Dishonorable Mention: Sasquatch Sunset

I reviewed most of the movies on this list, but “Sasquatch Sunset” is not one of them. That said, if I were to review it, I would say that the experience the movie delivered was certainly unique, but also kind of boring. I ended up laughing quite a bit. Though I am not sure whether I laughed for the right or wrong reasons. Also, I did not really care for the characters. I sat through this movie in the sense that I was watching events happen as opposed to experiencing them. The film is definitely different, but one watch is enough for me.

Dishonorable Mention: Challengers

Here is an unpopular opinion… I really did not like “Challengers.” Do not get me wrong. The movie has good performances, especially from Zendaya. But there are a lot of things about the movie I did not enjoy. The story left me uninterested, the score left me with a headache, and to my surprise, I did not think the movie was that sexy. I know that was an aspect they were shooting for. Maybe it is a personal taste thing? A lot of people seem to love this movie, I was just not one of them.

With those dishonorable mentions out of the way, it is time go from the bad to the ugly. These are my top 10 WORST movies of 2024!

#10: Venom: The Last Dance

This list has a couple of consistencies on it. Bad Sony movies and bad comic book movies. Both of those consistencies start with the top of this list! Bottom? Top or bottom? I do not know which is more accurate. Whatever, it starts with perhaps the most tolerable of the top 10 movies on this list… “Venom: The Last Dance!” I was disappointed, but not terribly shocked that I found “Venom: The Last Dance” to be a bad film. I was not a fan of the first “Venom” movie, but I surprisingly dug the second one. This third movie is not the worst of the trilogy, but I found parts of it to be slow, tiring, and forgettable. The one thing that saves the movie is the chemistry between Tom Hardy’s characters. Eddie and Venom to be specific. That is one consistency between these films. Even though the franchise as a whole is not great, they did get the casting and chemistry right. Mrs. Chen is also in this movie. You could honestly remove her character and have the movie be no different. This movie serves both as a finale to the “Venom” character, at least this iteration of the character, and as a kickstarter to what could be an ongoing saga in Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. The execution of both aspects were not that satisfying.

#9: Bob Marley: One Love

Coming in at #9 is “Bob Marley: One Love.” This is a film that has glimmers of decency, but it is surrounded by a multitude of dull scenes with characters I do not care about and a story that nearly put me to sleep at times. This film seems to be heavy on drama, but I wish I were more intrigued by it. Looking back at Kingsley Ben-Adir’s performance, it is not the worst acting I have seen all year. But at times Ben-Adir comes off as if he were giving a Bob Marley impression rather than an authentic performance. I dislike this movie for a number of reasons, and I hate myself for disliking it for this one, but I have to be honest. I wish I understood the dialogue. I do not know if it was the accent or the audio levels not being up to snuff, but I there are times could not make out what was being said, even if there was no music in the background. My least favorite part of the movie though is the ending. I will not spoil it, but it was a huge letdown. It felt as if the movie were building up to something and suddenly said, “Forget it!”

#8: The Garfield Movie

At #8 is the next Sony movie on this list! You could even say it is based on comics too! Not superheroes, not Marvel, but still… Whatever the case may be, “The Garfield Movie” is the biggest waste of time I spent this year watching an animation. I knew this movie was going to be bad just from the marketing. Chris Pratt playing “Garfield?” Goodness gracious! That’s a choice! The guy already ruined “Super Mario” so why not add this hairball of a performance to his resume? Pratt’s execution of the title character did not just make me hate Mondays. It made me hate all the days. In fact, all the months. The years. The decades. All time, really if you think about it. Chris Pratt just plays Chris Pratt in this movie. The performance is as bland as can be. The movie barely had any laughs in it. And the ending, while not super annoying, does take a long time to tie things up. If it were not for some okay-looking animation and Ving Rhames’ stellar voice performance as Otto the bull, this movie would be even lower on the list.

#7: Argylle

I enjoy a good spy action thriller. This is not one of them. I am talking about “Argylle,” one of the biggest disappointments of the year. This film is directed by Matthew Vaughn, who also helmed the “Kingsman” movies. Like those films, this occasionally has decent action scenes. Yet the movie becomes perhaps the most diabolically unhinged headache-inducer I have seen all year. This is a movie that by the midpoint thinks it is so clever, so twisty, that my jaw hit the floor. Although in reality, my jaw dropped not because I was impressed, but rather annoyed. There is a good movie somewhere in “Argylle.” It starts off with a clever concept about someone’s book coming to life, but then it just spews a bunch of nonsense in your face and throws some cat porn into the mix. By the climax of the movie, when our main hero is ice skating on oil, I just shrugged like a maniac. My suspension of disbelief could only go so high. “Argylle” may have notable names behind it, but that is only a small part as to what makes the film such a big letdown.

#6: Night Swim

I will admit, after watching this next movie, I watched the short it was based on, and thought it was not that bad. That said, it does not change the fact that the feature-length version of “Night Swim” is one of the worst movies of 2024. This film is about a family who buys a house with a haunted swimming pool in their backyard. Sounds scary, right? No. What made this film not so scary to me is a direct correlation to something else this movie lacks, which is my personal investment in the characters. The film does an okay job fleshing out the father character, who used to be a pro baseball player. I liked seeing that play out. Although I did not really care about anyone else. Going back to what I said about “Argylle” and suspension of disbelief, that was also broken in this film too. I get this is a horror flick involving a haunted pool, but there is a point where I thought things may have gotten a little too off the rails. This is Bryce McGuire’s first feature film as a director. For all I know it could end up being his worst one should he continue down this career path. Maybe he has something better up his sleeve in a sophomore effort.

#5: Tarot

Guess what guys? Sony’s back! Although this time we will be talking about a Screen Gems release, not a Columbia Pictures release. Up next is a film that as soon as I finished watching it, my brain chose to vomit out anything I knew in relation to it. “Tarot” is one of the most forgettable, dull experiences I had watching a so-called horror movie in the past 12 months. I remember watching “Ouija” years after it came out, and if there were a film that I could easily compare it to, I think “Tarot” might be it. It is a bunch of young people playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes. Only difference, I do not think this film is going to have the cultural impact that “Ouija” did. Heck! “Ouija” got a sequel, and I hear it is actually pretty good! I did not see it. But who knows? Maybe it is worth watching in comparison to this pile of malarkey. The film is not that scary, and is full of characters who are bland at best. Maybe “Tarot” could be a good time with some alcohol, but I do not drink. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, this movie is just plain horrible. Just like “Night Swim,” this is a directorial debut. Only difference is, the movie is helmed by a duo – Spenser Cohen and Anna Halberg. Maybe their next outing, whether it be together or separate, will be better.

#4: Kraven the Hunter

It’s the gift that keeps on giving! ANOTHER Columbia Pictures release! And just like “Venom: The Last Dance,” it is based on Marvel’s “Spider-Man” comics! May “Kraven the Hunter” rot in a torture chamber for all I care! What was this thing?! “Kraven the Hunter” might as well be the nail in the coffin for Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. If this is not, then what are we doing here? What have we done to deserve this? This film is not just a massive waste of time for loyal viewers of its respective genre like myself, but I have to imagine it is equally as wasteful for the people working on it. You have Aaron Taylor-Johnson trying his absolute best to play a convincing anti-hero. He is certainly convincing but his material is not backing him up quite well. Then you have Oscar winners like Russell Crowe and Ariana DeBose, the latter of whom was also in “Argylle” this year so that is kind of sad. Crowe plays maybe the most one-dimensional so-called father figure in film history and DeBose plays some disposable character who plays with tarot cards. Consider yourself lucky “Tarot,” you are not the worst movie on this list involving those doohickeys! This movie has the most poorly structured screenplay I think I have ever had the displeasure of witnessing in a comic book movie. Add in some bad CGI and forgettable villain characters, you have the recipe for an utter disaster! The sad thing is, “Kraven the Hunter” is not even the worst comic book movie on this list!

#3: Joker: Folie à Deux

Marvel is already getting beaten to death on this list, so why not DC?! “Joker: Folie à Deux” is likely what happens when a studio gets so caught up in seeing dollar signs that they forget how to make something artistically sound. Throughout the 2010s, the comic book movie sub-genre has produced hit after hit after hit, including the original “Joker,” which then became the highest-grossing R rated title of all time. So making a sequel had to be an easy decision. From a business perspective, I could get the reason behind making a sequel. Although for art’s sake, I was nervous when they announced a sequel, and I think I was right for that reaction. The worst thing about “Joker: Folie à Deux” is that it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to every single person who could have possibly had any interest in it. I do not mind movies being bold or different. I was actually kind of excited when I found out there were going to be musical numbers in this movie. But I was disappointed when I found out that just about every musical sequence would make me roll my eyes and beg for mercy. Although several things that I thought were good about the original “Joker,” feels like it takes a step backward in this sequel. Story – boring. Characters – unlikable. The acting – not the worst I have seen, but still feels bad compared to what he have seen before. The ending – asinine. The pacing – slow. Deep exploration into the main character – nearly nonexistent. This is a two hour schlock that honestly feels like it a goes on for a month. There are positives of the film including the production design and Lawrence Sher’s cinematography. This film, like the original, is directed by Todd Phillips, who also co-wrote the film once again with Scott Silver. While I will give them credit for making a great original, I cannot help but detest their efforts on this sequel. These people honestly created a movie that comes off as an insult to its own audience.

And now, a live look at what happens to your money when you pay to see this movie…

Some men just want to watch the world burn.

#2: Borderlands

Coming in at #2 is an enormous embarrassment of a movie that somehow made me want at least one of the heroes to die. That is not the feeling I should be having while watching a story play out, but it happened. Ladies and gentlemen, the video game movie curse is not quite broken yet! Because we are still getting stinkers like “Borderlands!” I have never played “Borderlands,” and after watching this movie, I am of two mindsets. One, this movie is so bad that it ruined my chances of ever playing the games. Or two, this movie is so bad that it makes me wonder how much better the video games are in comparison. I have seen images of the games and if were to issue one compliment about the movie, the overall look tends to feel similar to the games. But that is about it. There are times where this movie genuinely looks like a video game, and I do not mean this as a positive. The backgrounds and special effects in this movie look obscenely fake. This film is an hour and a half of Cate Blanchett wearing one of the least convincing wigs I have ever seen all the while spewing uninspired dialogue. The film has a ton of big names, but that just makes the movie even worse! Aside from Cate Blanchett, you also have Ariana Greenblatt, Kevin Hart, Jamie Lee Curtis, and most annoyingly of all, Jack Black delivering one of the most headache-inducing voiceover performances of all time. If you think Cate Blanchett’s dialogue is horrible, just wait until you hear whatever the heck comes out of Jack Black’s mouth. It is not his fault. He clearly sounds like he is trying. But his character, Claptrap, is essentially the “Borderlands” equivalent to Jar Jar Binks from “Star Wars.” Gosh, how bad was Jack Black in this movie?! Speaking of video game movies, if the upcoming “Minecraft” movie is as bad as I am expecting, I think Black needs to find a new agent. This movie is a watered down version of a rather gory video game franchise that has stars, but it ends up wasting all of them. These people are talented, but here, they tend to come off as miscast. Some people say playing video games rots the brain. But if you would like the perfect movie to destroy your noggin, look no further than the poor excuse of mind-numbing buffoonery that is “Borderlands.”

#1: Madame Web

We have reached the culmination of the countdown, and not just because this is the #1 film. Guess who’s back again?! Sony! That’s right! It’s another Columbia Pictures release! And that’s not all! This is another movie based on Spider-Man characters! La-de-freaking-dah! My #1 worst movie of the year is “Madame Web.” My brain still hurts from this mess! The same can be said for my eyes! Not to mention my ears! And let’s not forget about my soul! This movie was a first for me. When the film ended, I literally stormed out of the auditorium like a child. No hyperbole. As soon as the credits popped up, I shoved myself out of my seat, turned right, waltzed my way through the row, and rushed down the stairs like a maniac just hoping to escape the saga of stress that was this movie. This is what happens when imagination dies. We get heaping piles of garbage like the ones Sony seems to be putting out in its non Spider-Man series of “Spider-Man” movies. And this is not just the worst of the three movies in this universe Sony put out this year. If you ask me, it is the worst one they put out period. Yes, I think it is worse than “Morbius!” You may remember that film topped my worst movies of 2022 list. “Madame Web” makes “Morbius” look competent. The funny thing is, both films have the same writers! If at first you don’t succeed, Sony will hire you again anyway, because why not.

I said this as I reviewed “Kraven the Hunter,” and I will say it again. I do not have comic book movie fatigue. But I nevertheless find this whole Sony Spider-Man Universe to be the most tiring trend in Hollywood. This is essentially Sony trying to make “fetch” happen time after time after time and never getting the message! I know some people say the Detective Comics Extended Universe plays second fiddle to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and by that I mean the Disney-owned Marvel timeline… But at least the DCEU has some great movies! “Madame Web” is just another waste of time in Sony’s web of bores and chores.

This film stars Dakota Johnson, who for all I know is a nice person, I liked her in a few projects. I still have not seen the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, which depending on the source, I hear is about as unwatchable as “Madame Web.” That said, I saw her performance and I do not think the word “sleepwalking” has ever been a more accurate term to use than it is here. Going back to “Borderlands,” you could say Cate Blanchett sounded like she was tired as the lead of that film. But at least that sort of ties into how the script describes her specific character. Dakota Johnson sounds like she was bored out of her mind. Every other scene she had a vibe that simply screamed, “just give me the paycheck.”

Of course, Johnson’s material did not serve her well. Once again, this is from the same writers behind “Morbius,” Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless. Granted, there were other writers too. I do not know if this is a case of not understanding the material, having too many cooks in the kitchen, or perhaps a combination of those two things. Perhaps something else entirely. Nevertheless, a bad movie is a bad movie. And believe me when I say this movie is a travesty. Take some of the worst dialogue of all time, unlikable characters, stiff direction, bad A-D-R, bleak color grading, and top it off with a rather deceptive marketing campaign, and you have the recipe for an utter disaster! Some could say this movie has a so bad it’s good vibe to it, but I do not see it. This is a movie made by people who seem to barely have any interest in what it is about.

Honestly, this movie reminded me of 2015’s “Fantastic 4,” where you have recognizable actors on screen known for other decent projects, but they are wasted in this mind-numbing comic book-based abomination. Granted some faces are more famous than others, but on top of the recently mentioned Dakota Johnson. You have Sydney Sweeney, a two time Emmy nominee! She even does the whole cliche where you take someone so shy and reserved and out of nowhere she becomes the belle of ball. It is so unbelievably corny.

And if you did not give your money to the fine people behind “Madame Web,” that is okay. Because Pepsi certainly did! Pepsi is everywhere in this movie! As a soda drinker myself, I kind of go back and forth between Pepsi and Coke. Although if you ask me, it is possible that “Madame Web” solidified me as a Coke drinker for a very long time because it is one thing for Pepsi to dominate every frame. And in this movie’s case, the drink dominates a noticeable amount of them. It is another thing for them to arguably play as much of a role in this film as our protagonist by the time the film reaches its conclusion.

And speaking of conclusions, that is both the best and worst part of the movie. Because remember how I said this movie has deceptive marketing? By the way, that is another thing this film and “Morbius” have in common. Pure poetry! If you remember the trailers for “Madame Web,” they show our heroes in costume, but we do not end up seeing that until the final couple of minutes! To top off the laziness, we see a vision of our characters in the future, probably in some story we will hopefully never see, and said vision borrows a shot from “Spider-Man 2,” a significantly better film in every way imaginable.

I said at the beginning of this list that you are going to see bad Sony movies and bad comic book movies. “Madame Web” as far as I am concerned, is the worst of both disciplines. It takes a giant crap on several well-known characters. It further tarnishes the rotting corpse that is the Sony Spider-Man Universe. The film itself is shot and presented in a rather lackluster fashion. It has an occasionally nonsensical screenplay that contains insufferable characters emitting terrible lines or in your face exposition. And it is sad to know that this movie was part of Columbia Pictures’ 100 year celebration! Judging by some of the other movies on this list, I do not think Columbia’s 100th year was their best. Some people say Disney and Warner Bros. had some noticeable missteps during their centennial celebrations in 2023, and it looks like Columbia is following them in such a path in 2024.

If someone buys you “Madame Web” on DVD, just run the copy over with a car. I would not wish this movie on my worst enemy. “Venom: The Last Dance” is bad, but Tom Hardy still holds his own as the two lead characters. “Kraven the Hunter” is a disgrace, but it has okay action scenes. “Madame Web” has nothing redeemable about it. There was one part in the middle of the movie that served the story in a halfway decent manner, and for all I know, maybe this movie could lead to someone remembering how to perform C-P-R one day. But that is about it! “Madame Web” is executed in such a way that made me wonder if the people behind it refused to give a single ounce of care about it. As for my experience watching this film, chances are I cared even less. So much so that “Madame Web” is easily the worst movie I have seen in 2024!

Thanks for reading this countdown! I have to tell you the absolute truth. The bad movies really stood out this year. The past couple years I gave a 1/10 to only a single movie. Well, that is unless you count movies I saw from those years after they ended, in addition to those I did not have time to review. 2024 is the first year in a while that I had to give a 1/10 for two movies. Granted, this is also a leap year, so with an extra day comes extra stupidity. And both of those 1/10 verdicts still stand by the way. Hopefully I can soon get out this hole of pessimism. Thankfully, there is probably a way to do that! Later this week I am also going to be diving into the best movies of 2024! Stay tuned for that countdown when it arrives! If you want to see this and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, what are your worst movies of 2024? What film irked you the most this year? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!

Joker: Folie à Deux (2024): An Unnecessary, Overpriced, Frustrating Sequel That Falls Flat On Its Face

Posted on by Jack Drees

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover, War Dogs) and stars Joaquin Phoenix (Don’t Worry, He Won’t Get Far on Foot, Gladiator), Lady Gaga (A Star is Born, House of Gucci), Brendan Gleeson (The Banshees of Inisherin, Troy), Catherine Keener (Being John Malkovich, Capote), Zazie Beatz (Deadpool 2, Atlanta), Steve Coogan (Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief, Philomena), Harry Lawtey (Industry, You & Me), and Leigh Hill (Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Game of Thrones). This is the sequel to the 2019 film “Joker” and once again follows Arthur Fleck who this time around meets the love of his life, Lee Quinzel, while incarcerated at Arkham State Hospital.

Comic book movies this year have been a fascinating ride. If you told me that we would be getting only one Marvel Studios film this year, multiple prominent R-rated titles, and another movie from the same writers who did “Morbius,” I would have you called you crazy. Just to recap, I loved “Deadpool & Wolverine” and I hated “Madame Web.” Those movies are on two opposite sides of the spectrum. The former might be my favorite movie of the year, while the latter might be my least favorite movie of the year. And for those asking, I did not see “The Crow.” Going into “Joker: Folie à Deux,” I assumed that this movie would fall somewhere between “Deadpool & Wolverine” and “Madame Web” in terms of quality because those are on two extreme ends of my quality scale. Statistically, it makes sense. But I also realize that there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel.

I say there is a lot of potential that could be fulfilled with a “Joker” sequel while also realizing there is just as much of a chance that nothing good could come from it either. After all, we got this sequel for the same reason we get sequels to lots of other movies. Money. The original film made history by being the first R-rated title to make a billion dollars at the box office. And one can argue it deserved to make a lot of money. It was a well made film that not only differentiated from other comic book movies at the time, but it was a well-crafted, well-directed, well-acted story that highlights how some of society tends to look at mental health. In addition to its praise from other bodies during awards season, “Joker” was nominated for 11 Oscars and took home two. If you are an executive at Warner Bros. and you are looking at the financial success and extended conversation that came about because of “Joker,” chances are you would want to greenlight a sequel. Personally, if I were there, I would be a bit hesitant. The first film ends a on satisfying note and I am not sure where I would want to take the story next. But I do admire the sequel taking a big swing with the idea that there were going to be musical elements attached. That is something we do not see in stories based on comic books. Forget “La La Land,” I want to know more about “Ha Ha Land!”

There is no doubt that “Joker: Folie à Deux” takes big swings, and because of how much money the last one made, it is likely that this sequel could get away with a lot of them. But it misses on each one. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that does not really understand its own identity. I think there are times when movies can be a bunch of different things at once, but “Joker: Folie à Deux” does not stand out positively in regards to any of its disciplines. When it comes to being a jukebox musical, it is annoying. That is if it technically is a jukebox musical. We will get to more on that later. As a courtroom drama, it is a bore sometimes. There are select moments that kept me interested, but it is kind of off and on. As a sequel documenting Arthur Fleck’s progression as a character, there is almost no progression to be seen. Yes, we see him meet Lee and that plays a part in the story. But a good portion of the sequel is a reflection of what happened in the first film. There is nothing wrong with referencing consequences in a case like this, but the movie spends so much time reflecting on its past that it forgets to live in the present. Yes, the story is about the aftermath of its 2019 predecessor, but the movie does not do a ton to explore this character any deeper.

I enjoyed the first film. I found it to be a fascinating study on how a broken man like Arthur Fleck transformed into someone who became a face of chaos. I was invested in his story, his journey. I was not invested in Arthur’s arc this time around. Sure, there are moments that had my attention. But again, these are moments in an otherwise excruciating film. When you spend an extended period of time in court hearing about and reflecting on the events of a successful first movie, all that comes to mind is the idea that if I had time on my hands, I would probably rather go back and watch that movie again instead of this one.

It is kind of like what I said about “Furiosa” earlier this year, which was not horrible, but it ended in such a way where I thought I should go back and watch “Fury Road” again as opposed to the movie I just watched, which I found to be inferior.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” plays very much like the finale to the popular TV series “Seinfeld.” Much like that finale, “Joker: Folie à Deux” piggybacks off the success of its predecessor and fills so much time referencing said predecessor. Both projects spend a lot of time in court where said references come to life. But they are both missing a spark of what made the older material click. Both projects tend to put its main characters in uncomfortable positions. Not just in the story, as many projects should. But as a viewer, I can say I watched both of these feeling a bitter taste in my mouth. The “Seinfeld” finale goes out of its way to spoon-feed to the audience that its regular cast just so happen to be morons. “Joker: Folie à Deux” centers around someone who has a criminal history, which we have seen before. Without going into specific details, I do not need to watch “Joker: Folie à Deux” with the need to “root” for somebody who did what they did in the previous movie. But at minimum, I want to be engaged. And the film does not allow me to do that much.

I would like to talk about the film’s musical elements, that is if you can call them that or if the crew can actually confirm if this movie is a musical to begin with. Again, we will discuss more on that soon… Because the way I see things, this film fails miserably as a jukebox musical. Yes, there are no original songs. Did I recognize any of the songs in the movie as they were being performed? Sure. Could I tell you what the songs in the movie were if you ran into me on the street? Probably not. The lead duo’s singing in this film is kind of off and on. But when it is off, it is off. Never once was I watching these two and felt a complete sense of immersion. This is also really sad because I saw the movie at my local IMAX, which just so happens to be one of the few locations showing the movie in the brand’s coveted 1.43:1 aspect ratio, which is often used when shooting and presenting Christopher Nolan’s movies. When we get to the musical sequences, the screen goes from scope to IMAX and personally, I notice it. But not once do I “feel” it. This movie does not do anything to make its musical or singing sequences exciting. The ideas represented in each song do not change much. They are often a distraction from the story as opposed to a part of the story. Can Lady Gaga sing? Of course she can. But I am not going to pretend she does her best work here. If you want to see Lady Gaga sing like a champ on screen, just go watch the 2018 edition of “A Star is Born.” She is incredible in that.

Although if there is one thing I like about the musical sequences, there is some cool set design. There is one sequence where we see the leads together in front of a clearly fake night sky with a “Hotel Arkham” in the background. I thought that set in particular was atmospheric. It looked nice. But the sequences themselves are sometimes a drag or simply outright unmemorable.

You might think I am not satisfied with these sequences because I have an agenda against musicals. To me, musicals are like any other genre, if there is a project in it that appears to be done decently, it has my interest. If you want a review for a musical that I think needs more attention, than check out my thoughts on Steven Spielberg’s “West Side Story.” I was looking forward to seeing what “Joker: Folie à Deux” can do with its musical elements. I knew that these elements were in the movie before I watched it. But I looked back at the marketing, and part of me wonders how good of a job the marketing team did at implying that this movie was going to be a musical. Every time I watched the teaser trailer and I saw the shot of the spotlight shining on Arthur and the scene with Hotel Arkham, I realized those moments were musical-like. I thought people would pick up on that. But I watched with this movie with my dad. In fact, we went to see “Beetlejuice Beetlejuice” together last month and the “Joker: Folie à Deux” teaser played in front of it. Maybe my dad’s trailer retention is not the greatest, but we ended up seeing this movie together too and he was not expecting a musical out of a film like this. For the record, he told me straight up, he does not like musicals. He made that clear when the film ended. Kind of like the first “Joker,” I respect this sequel for putting things in it that we do not usually see in a comic book-based film. I wanted all the musical shenanigans to work. But the singing was not the greatest. The songs were not that good. The movie kind of reminded me of “Dear Evan Hansen,” which did not work for me as a musical partially because the transitions to the numbers themselves did not come off as seamless as maybe they could have. They felt very out of place. There is one, maybe two numbers in the movie that feel natural in terms of that movie’s atmosphere. But that is about it.

Some of you might be reading this with the urge to ask several questions. For those who had no exposure to this movie, you may be wondering how musical elements got into the project to begin with. And others may wonder why the heck I am calling “Joker: Folie à Deux” a musical at all. Because if you ask one of its stars, Lady Gaga, or its director, Todd Phillips, they will say this film is not as much a musical, as opposed to a movie with a ton of music in it. If you ask me, “Joker: Folie à Deux” is simply a bad attempt at a musical. It is a musical that places its songs as an afterthought. I would like to use a quote from YouTuber Jeremy Jahns’ “Transformers: The Last Knight” review. This quote has more to do with that film’s pacing, but hear me out. “In the end, it’s how long a scene feels, not how long it actually is.” The same principle applies to this film’s identity and genre. Lady Gaga and Todd Phillips can try to sell me on the notion that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not a musical as much as they want. But even though I sometimes think the phrase “the customer is always right” can sometimes be overused and presents cases where that is not always accurate, as a customer who bought a ticket to this movie, all I saw was a bad musical. That is what my dad who went with me saw too.

But let us say that “Joker: Folie à Deux” is somehow not a musical, and instead just a movie with plenty of singing. I do think there is a place in cinema for non-musical movies where the characters do a lot of singing. One example that comes to mind is Mamoru Hosoda’s anime, “Belle,” which is about someone who develops a virtual singing career. The moments where the lead character in that film sings occasionally play out like a musical. They’re visually creative and are presented in a massive scale, but those moments are not straight up musical sequences per se… Though there is one moment that takes a lot of inspiration from Disney’s “Beauty and the Beast.” But unlike “Joker: Folie à Deux,” each song in “Belle” effectively furthers the story and just so happen to be presented in sequences where not once did I have the illusion that a gun was locked right next to my head. Additionally, the soundtrack to “Belle” itself contains banger after banger after banger. I have found myself not just rewatching “Belle” at home more times than I would like to admit, but also listening to the songs from the movie in my spare time such as when I am in the car or when I am doing reviews like these.

Now that such an overblown, elongated, supersized rant about whether or not this movie is actually a musical is over, you might be thinking… Did I like anything about the movie? Well, yes.

For starters, the film does carry a few consistencies from the previous installment that also work the second time around. Joaquin Phoenix does a good job in the lead role. I do not think he is going to win an Oscar this year unlike he did in the first movie. But he puts on a captivating performance. Although to be fair on that “no Oscar this year” comment, I think the material this time around did him fewer favors than what he had in front of him for the first movie. Lawrence Sher also returned to do the cinematography, which like the first film, is really good. In fact, you could argue it was improved from the last movie. This film feels slightly bigger than the last one in terms of its scale. I do not know if I saw $200 million brought to the screen like the budget suggests, I would assume Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga got a good chunk of that money. But as I mentioned earlier, I like how the movie uses IMAX technology. Judging by everything I said so far, you can probably tell I am in no rush to buy the Blu-ray. But I hope if they do put one out, Warner Bros. allows the release to show an expanded aspect ratio during the IMAX scenes. Another consistency that I love in this film is the score. Like Joaquin Phoenix did for Best Actor, Hildur Guðnadóttir won an Oscar for her work on the original film in the category of Best Original Score. Personally, it was not my favorite score of the year. I think Alan Silvestri’s music in “Avengers: Endgame” was that year’s winner for me. That and Michael Abels’ work on “Us” was quite good too. But I remember hearing the “Joker” score and it captured the dark tone the film carried at times. It is not exactly depressing, but can easily induce a sense of discomfort. And “Joker: Folie à Deux’s” score does the same thing. It really shows how good your score is when an image or scene of the movie from which it originates comes to mind, and when you are thinking about said image or scene, you hear a glimmer of that score in your head at the same time. When I think about “Star Wars” sometimes, I will think of a certain moment and easily attach John Williams’ music to that thought. Hildur Guðnadóttir’s work has that power in both the original film and this sequel.

There is also one scene in the movie that I will not go too heavily into because it does involve potential spoilers, but there is a moment where Arthur is asked to sign someone’s book. While the autograph is being written, the person who gave the book says something that prompts a certain reaction out of Arthur. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a movie that unlike many other comic book-based projects, does not have many laughs. But knowing what this movie entails, it does not need them. This one moment in particular though was hilarious. If you somehow drag yourself to the theater to check this monstrosity out and remember this part of the review, you will know which scene I am talking about when it comes up. It was a highlight of the movie for me.

The film also tends to maintain consistency with other stories about Joker and Harley Quinn, or in this case, Arthur and Lee. In the story, these two, as much as they like each other, show signs that they may not be the best match. I thought the film at times does an okay job at highlighting that. But at the same time, whether it was trying to highlight that or not, as I watched Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga together on screen, those two actors honestly could have played off each other a little better. Watching these two together felt awkward at times. Was discomfort the point when it comes to this film’s lead couple? You can definitely make that argument. But the discomfort was exactly as it sounds. Straight up uncomfortable. I was not marveled by the two leads of “Joker: Folie à Deux.” If anything, they were missing a spark. Yes, they are played by recognizable people with talent, but their talents do not lend themselves to this movie.

For the record, “Joker: Folie à Deux” has been out since early October, so chances are some of you reading this have seen the movie, but for those who have not, I will not spoil the ending. That said, we are going to talk about it. First off, it comes out of nowhere. Second, unlike the first movie, it does not feel satisfying. It is one of those endings that when you see it, you are left wondering if they forgot to finish the movie. Sure, it is somewhat conclusive, but there is a feeling of emptiness that comes with it. Is the ending bold? Perhaps. But again, this is another swing and a miss. Having seen this ending, it is a final note that would have honestly worked better if it were attached to the first movie. Knowing the climax of the first movie and how that all goes down, I think that if the climax of that first movie, as it was, came to an end, we see Arthur in jail, and a particular chunk of the second movie’s ending were implemented into the first, I think it would have been a better fit. In fact, as I said, I do not have anything against the first movie’s ending. But I think if that recently mentioned chunk were used to cap off the first film, it would have made for something incredible. It might be an ending that I would be talking about on a positive note for years to come. It would have been clever. The ending to “Joker: Folie à Deux” is a slap in the face. It left me speechless, confused, and a bit broken. The movie could have been a continued progression of the title character, or at least his alternate identity, but almost refuses to give any interesting expansion to him at all. And it culminates with maybe the most baffling ending I have ever seen in a movie based on a comic book.

This is one of those endings that tries so hard to be clever, but it fails to get any raw reaction out of me. It is the below freezing icing on the heavily wax-induced cake that is “Joker: Folie à Deux.” It is a contender to be the most controversial film I have reviewed in years. It is a film that seems to be confused in what its audience is. I found a decent number of people on the Internet who enjoyed this movie, but there is a reason why if you look at the box office, another clown-centered film, “Terrifier 3,” which for the record I do not plan to see, is currently finding its people and “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not. It appears to understand its purpose and who it is for. At the box office, “Joker: Folie à Deux” had the biggest second-weekend drop in comic book movie history. Clearly, I am not alone when it comes to adding to this film’s bad word of mouth. While this movie has some okay parts in it and looks nice, it is nowhere near enough to outweigh the pile of garbage that toppled me throughout its poorly paced runtime.

In the end, “Joker: Folie à Deux” just so happens to be a joke itself. But am I laughing? Absolutely not. There is a common consensus about sequels that they are usually not as good as their predecessor, but rarely do I recall seeing a step down as massive as this one. If anything, “Joker: Folie à Deux” reminds me of say my transition from “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” one of my favorite films in the franchise, to “Star Wars: The Last Jedi.” If you read my review for “The Last Jedi,” you would know that I gave that film a positive grade when it came out. But the more I thought about the movie, and after rewatching it, the less I liked its story choices. And “The Last Jedi” and “Joker: Folie à Deux” are kind of similar in some ways. Both films look beautiful. They have good scores. But I am not a massive fan of the directions they took the story and certain characters. I wish we got something different with them. “Joker: Folie à Deux” only manages to support my thoughts that this property would have been better had the timeline just been one and done. I did not see the point of this movie other than to make a quick buck. Going into the movie, I would have argued it could have garnered some awards talk because of the previous film’s success, but this film is not receiving the best word of mouth. If I were to picture this movie’s fate at next year’s Oscars, I think it will have a chance it being nominated for several technical categories. But I do not know if it will get any of the big ticket ones like screenplay, director, actor, or picture. “Joker: Folie à Deux” is not even the worst comic book movie of the year. This sequel has the abomination against humanity known as “Madame Web” to thank for that. But “Joker: Folie à Deux” is probably the biggest disappointment I have seen in a long time. I was looking forward to this movie. I thought it had potential. But all I saw was an iffy courtroom drama with bad musical and singing sequences, an underuse of Lady Gaga, a series of unmemorable events, and a big fat dumb ending. I am going to give “Joker: Folie à Deux” a 2/10.

“Joker: Folie à Deux” is now playing in theaters everywhere. Tickets are available now. Plenty of seats are available, I guarantee it!

Thanks for reading this review! My next reviews are going to be for “Look Back,” “Piece by Piece,” “Saturday Night,” and “Megalopolis.” If you want to see these reviews and more from Scene Before, follow the blog either with an email or WordPress account! Also, check out the official Facebook page! I want to know, did you see “Joker: Folie à Deux?” What did you think about it? Or, what is the biggest step down in a franchise you have seen from a certain installment to the one that came after it? Let me know down below! Scene Before is your click to the flicks!