Joker: Folie à Deux (2024)

Joker: Folie à Deux was already a film that had garnered a certain amount of negative response from reviewers similar to Megalopolis. Similar to that film I went to see if it was as bad as the reviewers were saying and unlike Megalopolis I can say that I don't agree with them. I understand why they don't like it but I left the cinema feeling good about it. Set two years after the events of the first, Arthur is being put on trial for killing 5 people and is being 'supported' by Lee Quinzel (Lady Gaga).

HONOURABLE MENTION

Continuity Issue

Fleck is charged with killing five people but admits killing his mother which would make it six but in fact it should be seven as the woman he speaks to at the end is implied to have died because of the blood footprints. I took it to mean that she died so that would make seven murders but if it isn't a continuity error then she's just been injured in which its slightly undermines the ending.

GOOD POINTS

Lady Gaga is quite good

Bearing in mind that Gaga isn't known for her acting and also isn't the Academy Award Winner (as well as the Movie Addict Award Winner), she was surprisingly good. I say surprisingly because she has shown in A Star is Born and House of Gucci that she can act and she does well as Lee. It would have been nice to have her in a bit more of this so the character could grow a bit more than she did. 

Phoenix & Gaga have good chemistry

The partnership of Phoenix and Gaga was a big selling point of the trailers and considering they spend a large chunk of the movie together, the chemistry is there and they work very well together. The chemistry between Phoenix & Gaga is as strong as it is for Quinn & Fleck. 

Nice redemption for Fleck

By the end of the film, Fleck has pretty much got Joker out of his system. In his scene in front of the jurors he says as much and Fleck has undergone a nice contrast to the anger he felt when he shot Murray Franklin. It was subtle and it wasn't until the very end when he is dying that it occurred to me that this is what they were doing. It was very clever writing and hats off to the writers.

Was never bored of the film

At 2 hours and 18 minutes, this film is exactly the same running time as Megalopolis. One felt a lot longer than the other and this film did not feel long. The story was interesting, the performances were strong and when those two things come together time flies. Six days since Megalopolis and both are great examples of how to utilise a decent running time.

Brendan Gleeson and Steve Coogan

I knew Steve Coogan was in this film as he featured in the trailer and whilst I would have liked him to be in it more, it was a good performance and it was in a nice scene where Arthur basically calls out the media for only being interested in the headlines and not the actual story. Brendan Gleeson is always great in whatever he is in and he continues that in this  as Jackie the guard who is your typical scumbag guard but when Gleeson does it, he does is to the degree that you still like him despite what he does.

BAD POINTS

Felt very disjointed

Despite the fact I was never bored, the musical moments did make the whole film feel disjointed and makes the fact that I enjoyed it as much all the more remarkable. The film is a musical although the people involved seemed reluctant to call it a musical its not structured like a musical because normally scenes build up to a song whereas the songs seem to be chucked in whenever it suited the director.

Songs felt amateurish

Musicals have songs that are created specially for a film and flow in nicely with the film but they didn't sound professional even the Lady Gaga songs didn't come across as particularly great. I think that using songs in films have been made popular because of Guardians of the Galaxy but they have to be used well and they didn't in this case.

Phoenix cant sing

Joaquin Phoenix cant sing at all and is a far better actor than singer. He is bad when is sings on his own but when he is next to a professional Grammy Award winner then he sounds like he is doing karaoke at a bar. I applaud the fact they didn't try and get someone else to sing for him but it did remind me of Russell Crowe in Les Miserables.

Not enough Gaga

Even though we get a good amount of Lady Gaga, due to how good her performance it would have been nice to her more of Gaga. Never thought I would write that but its true and it may have meant that we got less of Phoenix singing. She seems to be in it a lot in the first half of the film but as the court scenes take over then we seemed to see less of Gaga.

OVERALL

This was a good film. Not a perfect one but one that I thought was generally very good. It's clear that they didn't really want to make this sequel but when the first made so much money and won an Oscar, then it was either do it yourself or get someone else to make it and hope for the best. Phillips was at least smart enough to do it himself and that is why it was better than it probably had any right to be. If this is the last time that Joaquin Phoenix plays this character then that's fine but if they carry on with someone else (like they hinted at the end) then that would be fine too. Joker 2 isnt as bad as some people would have you beleive but I think there is enough to like about it and would be happy to watch again.

Megalopolis (2024)

This film has gained a bit of a reputation because it was suppose to be really bad and I wanted to go and see it because I was intrigued by it and also wanted to see a Francis Ford Coppola film at the cinema. I had read in trivia about this film that he had to sell his winery to pay for this film because he didn’t want any studio interference and never has a film needed more studio interference as much as this film did.

GOOD POINT

Esposito, Emmanuel and Fishburne

Giancarlo Esposito, Nathalie Emmanuel and Laurence Fishburne are the ONLY three that give good performances. They seem to somehow make sense of this madness and deliver some good performances. Emmanuel is the weaker of the three but that's because the character wasn't the best written and I think to make her as good as she was is down entirely to Emmanuel herself and not Coppola. 

BAD POINTS

Terrible Performances

I don’t think i have seen a film waste a cast as badly as this since Cats. 

Jon Voigt looks like he was woken up from his afternoon nap and told to say lines into the camera. Dustin Hoffman looks like he was dug up from a cemetery which is ironic as he replaced James Caan who had passed away before filming. Aubrey Plaza is normally very good in what she is in even if the film itself is not and yet she was totally terrible as the terribly named Wow Platinum which must seem like a amusing name to Coppola but to me it was eye rolling and showed that the film isn't as smart as it thinks it is. Adam Driver is another who normally gives a good performance even when the film isn't great and he delivers one of the worst performances ever. If I didn't know better then I would say it was cry for help aimed at Disney.

Shia LaBeouf

No one is as bad as LaBeouf. I don’t think a word exists for how bad he is. I think he had an idea of what he wanted to do and the director just said yes because there is no other explanation that makes sense for why he did what he did. The Madison Square Garden scene is by far the worst part of a terrible outing and was the point where I thought the film had lost the literal and figurative plot. Even by his low standards, LaBeouf excels himself in being terrible and utterly slappable. 

Looked Cheap

This film reportedly had a budget of $120 million dollars and looks like it cost about $20 million. Most scenes seemed to be filmed in front of a green screen and looks terrible. According to IMDB trivia, Coppola fired most of his visual effects team cause Coppola wanted to use technology similar to what was used in The Mandalorian TV series. I was reminded of The Creator which has a budget of $80 million and yet looks like it cost $200 million.

Two People walked Out

There were five people in this screening (including me) at 7:15 on a Monday evening and two people walked out. I was considering it for a good 20 minutes but decided to persevere. I have never walked out of a film before but came pretty close. I had given up on the film after 15 minutes which was bad for me because I still had another TWO HOURS left.

Weird Directing & Editing

It’s a shame that the director of The Godfather directed this. This film has so many weird directing choices and also some poor editing choices. Scenes just happen out of nowhere then end and move onto something else. Normally this is so that the audience doesnt have time to think about what was happening but in this case I think it’s because they didn’t know what they were doing.

The Worst Vanity Project

This film has being in production hell since the 1980’s and Coppola has been trying to get it financed and struggled and to be honest, it wasn't worth the wait. I think vanity projects are fine if they cost less than $10 million but $120 million shows that he doesn't really value money because he wouldn't have spent that much money and be so lacking in quality control.

OVERALL

This is one of the worst films I have seen at the cinema since I started keeping track in 2016. Fantasy Island was the worst film that I had seen but this easily beats it. The reason is that it’s longer than Fantasy Island and at least I could see what they were aiming for in that film. This film doesn't know what its doing, the director doesn't seem to be giving his cast any instruction. This film isn't so bad its good, its so bad that it should be avoided at all cost. I spent £5 and still felt like I was robbed. Had I paid the full £12 then I would have been fuming. 

Shaun of the Dead (2004)

The first part of the Cornetto Trilogy is an ‘homage’ to the horror films that were made by George Romero. Having not seen the ‘of the dead’ series of films all the references that are littered throughout this film are lost on me. The setup of the film is that Shaun (Simon Pegg) and his friends are trying to survive a Zombie Apocalypse and get his girlfriend back who has recently dumped him. 

The film is funny because the film doesn’t take itself too seriously. There are plenty of references to George Romero films that most people would get and that is perhaps another reason why people would like this film. Having not seen these films, I still find the film entertaining and that shows why this film is so good. 

The performances are really good with Simon Pegg being a notable highlight. Even though he isnt the most successful person in the world. There is a likeable quality about Shaun, he does try to do the right thing but just seems to find being next to Nick Frost’s character as the easy approach. Nick Frost is funny in this film but he is one of those people that can be annoying at times. His character is suppose to be a stoner waste of space and yet becomes quite useful as the film progresses. When he turns into a Zombie it is handled quite well and nobody plays a monkey as well as Nick Frost. The other performances are all work and no one lets the film down.

Shaun of the Dead is a funny and entertaining film. Whether it’s the best film in the trilogy is something that is open for debate. Personally I think that Hot Fuzz is the better film but this is still a great film with great performances and shows that you can do horror comedies well. Admittedly the film hasn’t aged that well in some respects but in terms of humour and pacing, this film continues to be an entertaining film.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012)

The final part of the Dark Knight trilogy is the weakest. This was the third part of the triple bill and by this point in the cinema experience, I felt like things were going well. I wasn't feel fatigue or getting uncomfortable with the seat I was in but I always knew that this film was going to test me. Set several years after the events of The Dark Knight and Bruce Wayne has become a hermit but a psycho called Bane is going to cause more damage to Gotham than anyone could imagine.

GOOD POINTS

Some good scenes

Despite the run time, there are some good scenes throughout the film.  The opening scene with Bane on the airplane immediately comes to mind but there are plenty which show that Christopher Nolan might someone who likes the big philosophical ideas but he knows how to put interesting scenes together. Also the scene at the football match when Bane launches his masterplan is also very good because its simple and not flashy but to the point and does what it needs to do.

Tom Hardy as Bane

Tom Hardy saved this film for me. Back in 2012, the headlines were that Bane's voice was hard to hear and I don't know if time has fixed that problem (I don't think its a restored cut) but I didn't have any problem hearing Bane. Tom Hardy gives a personality to what is a fairly one dimensional character. Back in 1997, he was just Poison Ivy's hired help but in this he is breaking things up because he believes to be right and doing things for the right reasons. The character and film would have been weaker without Tom Hardy.

Michael Caine is heart-breaking

Michael Caine has been brilliant throughout these three films but he really steps it up in this one. The way that Alfred feels like is breaking his promised to Thomas Wayne is one of the saddest moments in the film and its because we care about Alfred because of what Caine has done with the character. Some might argue that Michael Gough is the best Alfred but in my mind, Caine manages to make Alfred feel like a loyal but integral part of Bruce Wayne's life.

BAD POINTS

There doesn't feel much enthusiasm for it

The first film felt like it had a point to it and the second one also did. This one felt like it was being made because the previous one took $1 billion dollars and Warner Brothers. It feels like there is no real discipline to the flow of the story with Nolan allowing himself to let philosophy take centre stage of the film when it didn't really have any need to.

I don't care about Cat Woman

I think that Selina Kyle isn't a very interesting character. She worked when played by Michelle Pfeffer in Batman Returns but in this she just feels like an irritation. I think it isn't really Anne Hathaway's fault although I don't think she really helped. 

Too Long

At close to three hours, this film is too long. Plain and simple. The whole Gotham under Bane's rule goes on so long that it feels like the film doesn't really belong in the film. You could have cut a bit of this and it would have been a much better product as a result.

OVERALL

This is a disappointing film if you compare it to the previous films in the trilogy but on its own it is ok. The film is too long and the film feels like it has to be something it doesnt want to be. I have no problem with moral messages in a film but the film has to be entertaining for it to work and despite the best efforts of everyone involved, they never manage to pull it. off.

The Dark Knight (2008)

The second of the Dark Knight trilogy is the best. After the teaser at the end of Batman Begins, the most iconic villain in comic book history (probably) makes his first appearance in a movie since 1988. The plot sees Batman take on the Joker as he tries to dismantle the corruption and crime in Gotham whilst Harvey Dent is trying to clean things up in his own way.

Good Points

Heath Ledger steals the show

This has always been my opinion and is the case upon watching again. Every scene is great and its perhaps the biggest loss in this franchise that Ledger died. The face paint along with the manner in which he talks helps create a version of the Joker that is completely different from the version that Jack Nicholson plays. His best scene is in the interview room when Batman is beating him up and then he has that great speech with the detective about why he uses a knife instead of a gun. Every scene is great.

Bale is great as Batman

Due to the plot, there wasn't very much of Bale in the Batman costume and he makes up for that in this film. He has some great moments in the costume most notably with Joker but he is also more confident as Bruce Wayne. He has got the swaggering playboy part down quite well and it makes a clear distinction between the two sides of the character. 

Pace is better than the previous despite longer run time

The first part of Batman Begins was perhaps slower than it should have been but this version doesn't have a problem with pacing. Each scene has something going on and even when the Joker isn't involved the acting helps you forget that and everyone (almost) is on the top of their game.

Rachel 2.0 is a big improvement

Katie Holmes was the weak link in the performances in Batman Begins and Maggie Gyllenhaal is much better in the role. I think that she makes more of the opportunities the character is given than Katie Holmes would have done. The love triangle between Bruce, Rachel and Harvey worked very well and only lasted as long as it needed to. It's a shame that Gyllenhaal wasn't in Batman Begins because I think that she would have made that film just that bit more entertaining.

Much more enjoyable

This film shows what can be achieved when you inject a bit of thought into a film. At this time Marvel was just gearing up for Iron Man and so was what comic book movies should be aiming for. This film deals with many things but still has the action stuff that people would expect. Batman and the Joker don't meet each other too many times and that works for the better so that when they do it means something and those scenes are great. 

Bad Points

Boat scene is too much

There are some high stakes scenes and they work but the final one on the boats is one too many. It goes on too long and doesn't really lead to anything and in the final act this really slows things down and 

Aaron Eckhart not great

When a lot of the central performances are so good, anything not as good will stand out and unfortunately Aaron Eckhart does stand out but not in a great way. I think that he is fine but next to the Joker he isn't as good. I think that he is there more so that the Joker can prove a point that be there for anything good. 

Overall

This is a great movie with a great cast and a story that works very well. The directing isnt flashy but is still great and everything works perfectly. This film was great when I first saw it in the cinema in 2008 and its still great in 2024.

Batman Begins (2005)

For the first time ever, I have seen three films in one day at the cinema. I had seen two films in one day but there was a gap of a couple of hours between them. I have always liked the trilogy and saw them when they originally came out, but there was something about seeing them in one go that proved to irresistible to turn down.

The opening part of the trilogy is not as gritty as people think it is. It is gritty compared to the Batman films that have come before it but its not that gritty and perhaps feel more grounded than gritty. The film follows as Bruce Wayne goes away to understand the criminal underbelly to try and exact revenge on the person who killed his parents all while the corruption of the city tries to stop him and the League of Shadows tries to get Wayne to be one of them.

The horror of the neon campiness of the Joel Schumacher which nearly killed the franchise is consigned to the history books with a film directed by someone who has a vision and a plan for bringing this character back from the dead.

Good Points

Strong Central Performances

Christian Bale is very good as the caped crusader, we see him through all stages of grief and he is believable as Bruce Wayne and as Batman. This version of Bruce Wayne feels the most grounded out of all the versions that we have seen in the movie. Bruce Wayne in this movie has the playboy lifestyle that has always been there in the character but Bale makes it seem a facade and hiding his true character. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are great as Alfred and Lucius Fox respectively and are as awesome as ever. Gary Oldman makes the character of James Gordon feel a bit more important than he has in the previous films.

Good Action sequences

Despite this being a more grounded version of Batman, there are still the action sequences which are all very good. Christian Bale never stuck me as an action star or someone who could do them but he manages to pull it off. This version of Batman is a more talkie incarnation of the character but it is still lends itself to the action sequences that cinema-goers would expect.

Visuals are good

We have the dark gritty version of Gotham in the Tim Burton films, the camp neon light version in the Joel Schumacher versions and now we get a better version in this movie. It has a futuristic feel and yet current. It does feel like it was film in a real street in a real city that is doubling as Gotham which is a nice middle ground from the two previous versions. 

Bad Points

Villain could have been stronger. Scarecrow was a better villain

I liked that there was some personal backstory for the character of Ducard but I would have liked to see more of Scarecrow because I think Scarecrow was a more traditional villain for Batman and he was played brilliantly by Cillian Murphy. Liam Neeson is great don’t get me wrong but I think that he was overshadowed by Murphy. 

Katie Holmes is not a great Rachel

Trying to be kind to Katie Holmes but she isn’t very good as Rachel. Rachel is suppose to be this form of support to Bruce and yet there isn’t that connection with Bruce Wayne that there should be. This was her only performance and it was a good thing. 

Overall

This is an underrated Batman movie, it’s the middle of the trilogy in terms of quality but it zips along at a good pace. This being the first part of the trilogy at the cinema. It has a story which it takes time to tell but doesn't feel like there is any padding or rushing at the end. An enjoyable film which even nearly 20 years later holds up and should be a film that people watch.

Speak No Evil (2024)

Be careful of remakes. Especially if the remake is of a film that only came out two years ago. I saw the original when it came out and liked it very much so my eyes rolled into the back of my head when I heard this film was coming out. Also the fact it was a Blumhouse production didn’t fill me with confidence because they aren’t known for subtle horror. I rewatched the original to try and be able to compare the two which might be unfair to both but I felt it was needed.

In the original a Danish couple are invited to a Dutch couple house after they became 'friends' on holiday and things go wrong pretty much straight away. In this version, a British couple invite an American couple to their isolated farm and things go strange very quickly.

GOOD POINTS

Good Performances from the adults

The central performances were really good with McAvoy being the best of the four adults. Never thought he was great as Charles Xavier in the X-Men films but he showed another side in this film. Mackenzie Davis was good as someone who felt like she wanted to do the right thing but seemed restricted. Scoot McNairy was also good as the husband who didn’t want to rock the boat or stand up to McAvoy’s character. All four of the performances work well together and this adds to the tension that runs throughout the film even from the very first scene.

Fixing the Bunny Rabbit Problem

The reason for the family returning after sneaking out always bothered me in the original but they fixed it in this film. In the original it seems like it is a normal toy but in this version it’s the daughters emotional support so it can’t really be replaced providing a decent reason for returning.

Enough mix of original and new

I always think if you're going to remake something then do something different and there are enough different things in this film that make it feel new but enough of the elements from the original to feel like it has done something new but not rubbishing the original and that's not an easy thing to pull off. I was happy that there were things that I recognised but not too much. 

Isolated Setting

I’m always a fan of isolated settings and the change from the original is moving the story from a cabin to an isolated farm. Simple idea but it’s used effectively and felt very claustrophobic in the third act. Apart from the opening part in Tuscany (?) and a scene at a resturant, the film takes place largely in one location and there is always something tense about the country that this film uses well.

Nice Atmosphere

The whole atmosphere and vibe was really good. It wasn’t as dark and grim and the original (more on that in the bad points) but it still had the same atmosphere they you would expect in a horror film and that with the performances help create a film that stands on its own compared to the original.

BAD POINTS

Disappointed with the ending

The ending was too upbeat for me. Having seen the original which has the nice couple stoned to death and the daughter becoming part of the psycho family minus her toy he whereas in this version they all drive off into the sunset.

This is probably harsh on the film as most people probably haven’t or won’t see the original so on its own merits it’s a fine ending but I think that horror films work better when they have a more downbeat ending.

OVERALL

I was sceptical when this was announced as Hollywood remakes of foreign language films rarely turn out better than the original but I did like this more than the 2022 version. I still like the original but found things just worked better for me. James McAvoy is a bit of a hit and miss actor for me but I thought that he excelled in this role. I hoped that he would be good based on the trailer that I saw and he didnt disappoint. It's not been as good as year for horror films as I would have liked but Speak No Evil manages to be as of writing the best horror film of 2024. Well acted, well structed and well directed.