Joker: Folie a Deux

Events of Joker: Folie a Deux focus on the next phase of Arthur Fleck’s journey after the events of “Joker” that was released in 2019. Fleck is now awaiting trial while being locked up in Arkham hospital. Following his sense of isolation and under the effect of his medicine, he now appears lifeless physically and psychologically. Until one day he meets Harleen Quinzel who shows great admiration towards him and through his relation with her, Fleck finds love, fantasy and music.

Joker: Folie a Deux transcends the definition of an “unnecessary movie” to be an “offensive movie”. Offensive to its genres, offensive to its hero, offensive to the legacy of the first film and offensive to the fan base. In terms of genre, though the film feels so limited in the viewing experience, it’s actually rich in classifications. It’s a comic book movie, it’s a musical, it’s a courtroom drama, it’s a prison drama and it’s a love story. And it’s really difficult to tell in which genre it performs worse. This might be the part that hurts the most and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t count himself among the fan base of the first film. Couldn’t you at least get one right?

As a comic book movie .. well, it’s not really a comic book movie .. never was. The first movie set itself free from the bounds of the character storylines in the comic books so .. sky is the limit. The second movie feels restricted by its own shackles .. what on earth could’ve forced the screenplay to be so uninspiring?! As a musical, and I’m saying that as someone who doesn’t count himself among the fan base of musicals, it’s not really a musical. Most of the songs are not original. The design of the dancing numbers presented in the fantasies of the two leading characters is so basic. The movie cost 190 million dollars to make and I really didn’t see even half this budget on the screen.

To me, only one dancing number was interesting and only due to the physical performance of Joaquin Phoenix in it. Courtroom drama? .. one interesting testimony .. only because of the performance of the two actors involved in it. Prison drama .. so confusing and lacks any kind of logical progression due to the contradicting angles of the guard character portrayed by Brendand Gleeson. And I’m guessing you already raised an eyebrow when you heard me say “love story” earlier.

The best thing in the movie is of course the performance of Joaquin Phoenix. Which was wasted most of the time displaying what we already know about his abilities and the character in the first part. But every now and then he would showcase a moment of brilliance that might actually be the lifebuoy of the movie. Not to make it a good movie, not even to make it slightly better, but maybe, in a few months .. might make me wanna watch it again. The best character in the film in my opinion is that of Harleen Quinzel. She makes sense, her quest makes sense, her transformations make sense, and yes, among the characters of this film, that makes it an achievement. Gaga’s musical potential is wasted in the confinement of the songs the movie offered. But all in all, I believe this part could’ve been a step forward to Lady Gaga in the world of cinema only if it didn’t exist in this mess.

Wasn’t a fan of any element of the visual experience of the movie, and wasn’t annoyed much either. There’s a surprising and shocking sequence in the third act, that I believe was amazing visually and can be the key thing that cinematography can show for. But I believe it will also be a painful memory because of how poorly the screenplay dealt with its consequences.

I saw Joker: Folie a Deux 5 days ago and it’s among the longest times I’ve ever given a movie to marinate in my mind to try and see what I couldn’t see while watching it. See the point, see the purpose, see how it can be a good film even if I didn’t like it. See how it can have a positive score because I just couldn’t believe I can make a review and give the film a negative score no matter how many problems it had. I liked one dramatic scene with one dialogue. I liked one long sequence with great cinematography and amazing perspective. I liked one song because a good actor danced and acted so well in it .. And that’s it. I rate “Joker: Folie a Deux” at 3.5/10 .. like Arthur Fleck in this film, I fantasize about a world where this movie was never made.

House of Gucci

Patrizia and Maurizio and the story of love and murder

House of Gucci tells the story of a key period in the history of the Gucci fashion house by focusing on “Patrizia Reggiani”. Who sets her eyes on Maurizio the heir of 50% of the Gucci empire and manages to marry him. Then pushes him hard through the years to take his place on top of the family business, never shying away from actively scheming against other members of the family. A long journey filled with hopes, dreams, lies, deceit and eventually much worse things.

The element of peculiarity, or let’s call it the untraditional treatment, in the way the film feels is definitely intentional. The film didn’t make a mistake, it only took a risk. Which is understandable putting into consideration that it’s a real story and almost everybody knows how it’s going to end. It is always a great thing when a veteran filmmaker shows the courage to take risks with projects but it is also a good occasion to remind ourselves that risks can misfire.

Among the various areas where our movie failed, the most disappointing department is the screenplay. How long our running time is versus how little we explored everything that matters. Every angle of our story stole time from the other angles and never reached maturity. The key story of the relationship between our two leads felt rushed. Patrizia and Maurizio went through a lot together and their emotions towards each other seriously shifted. While our film presented so little to justify those shifts or study how each of them truly felt towards the other in critical moments and it didn’t really come in favour of other sides of our story.

Our story takes place in the core of the world of fashion. We’re talking about Gucci through the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s, and the transition of the gigantic fashion house plays the most important role in the shifts in the nature of relationships between the members of the house of Gucci. That is also poorly explored. It’s a movie about fashion with so little fashion in it. I heard a lot of lines explaining the philosophy of the Gucci products, the fact that it wouldn’t evolve and the so many other brands that managed to adapt and surpass it, but I just didn’t see it. Wouldn’t it be weird if a movie with the word “Gucci” in its title fails to land a nomination in costume design?!

What really works in “House of Gucci” is the study of “Patrizia” in the opening chapters. Offering the profile of an ordinary girl whose eyes shine at the rise of an opportunity. Playing the long game, knowing how to sleep on the winning ticket and when exactly to cash it. You see that in the design of her encounters with her love interest and other members of his family. Nothing is ever said about her except in the confrontation between Maurizio and his father and at this point, quite honestly, I’d seen much from her to suggest that they both could be right and without any contradictions in the performance of Lady Gaga. It was the finest display of her quality performance. The same could not be said about the second half though when all we could see is just reasons to hate her and suggest that she’s not really that smart or even in control of her own tools.

Adam Driver is great. He even managed to make the American English with the Italian accent not sound so weird .. and it was generally speaking weird and silly. Al Pacino and Jeremy Irons are also great. Jared Leto is just weird .. and slow. The worst moments for the entire cast, with the exception of Pacino, is when they had to share the screen with him. He would take so long to convey emotions and speak so slow, it seemed they didn’t know what to do meanwhile.

The epic story of the Gucci fashion house with the Patrizia/Maurizio drama in the middle of it is a challenging project. It’s tricky but it’s also rich. In the hands of Scott, that cast and everybody involved in the project I expected to see a triumph. I don’t believe it was facing a deadline so it can end up being half cooked. “House of Gucci” reminds me a lot of Ashton Kutcher’s Jobs. A movie you can’t call bad but can’t perceive as worthy.