There's probably no better recent example of having too much of a good thing than Todd Phillips' "Joker". While the 2019 film starring Joaquin Phoenix had a mixed reception from critics, it was a surprise hit with audiences and grossed over a billion dollars. It was a unique adaptation that worked as a standalone story giving us a deep dive psychological character study that leaves you questioning his perception of reality. But when you have a billion-dollar hit, the word "standalone" means nothing in the quest for more money. While the idea of a Joker sequel was already head scratching, making it a jukebox musical and casting Lady Gaga as Harley Quinn was pushing the envelope. Still, the first Joker movie was a risk that paid off well, so maybe Phillips could turn out another successful project with "Joker: Folie a Deux"? Well, to paraphrase Dr. Ian Malcolm, they spent so much time wondering if they could that didn't ask if they should.
Let's go ahead and get the positives out of the way first. Joaquin Phoenix slips back in seamlessly reprising Arthur Fleck, getting his mind and body back into shape so to speak to portray the character. His arc here is trying to live up to the accidental celebrity he made of himself as Joker, once again playing into his need to perform. But such pressure leads to him cracking even further and somewhat brings the character full circle with imagery that parallels his journey in the first film.
While Lady Gaga is more well known for her music, let's not forget she is a well-received actress. As Harleen "Lee" Quinzel, she gives us a version of the character that works within this type of story. She still idolizes Joker but the film doesn't ignore the character's accomplishments in becoming a psychiatrist before falling down the rabbit hole of obsession, seeing Joker as an escape from what she considers a mundane life. And I also enjoy her and Phoenix's chemistry, with Lee's strong personality stirring something in the fragile Arthur as they both see the other as their missing half.
In my opinion there are two major factors that bring the film down.
The first is a majority of the film is Arthur's trial for his actions in the first one. This means a lot of recapping of what those going into this film already know. Similar to how much "Halloween Kills" talks about the events of the 1978 original, all this does is make you wonder why you're not watching the previous film.
But of course, what really bogs the film is the musical element, which they didn't even bother to portray in the marketing. The numbers are either rather simple or full-on productions with no in-between. There were only a few of each that I think were done rather well, either working in the context of the story or just had good quality in the sets and choreography. The latter plays into Arthur's fantasies, but it doesn't work as well as they did in the first film because it doesn't leave the audience questioning if what we're seeing is real. But generally, the musical element adds nothing to the story. Any time someone starts singing, especially Arthur, it's just dragging the scene out and keeping the audience hostage longer than needed. If there just had to be a musical element to the film, they should have kept to the simple approach and relegated it to just Lady Gaga as Lee as she serenades Arthur.
In some respect, I can understand what Todd Phillips was going for in regard to hero worship and idolatry, but the overall execution and decision to make it a musical left the film falling flat despite Phoenix and Gaga's best efforts. To compare it again to "Halloween", specifically the last two films, "Joker: Folie a Deux" burns a lot of good will built with the audience and brings down what came before along with it.
