After spending too much time watching its critic and audience scores sink like stones on Rotten Tomatoes, I took the time to check out “Joker: Folie a Deux” at my local movie theater. Regardless of its horrific reception and the fact it is now one of the biggest box office bombs of 2024, I had to see it for myself as, and I am in agreement with Tony Farinella, the original was one of the very best movies of 2019. Surely it could not be as bad as many were making it out to be, and perhaps its Cinemascore grade of a D might prove to be a badge of honor. And perhaps it may be a misunderstood masterpiece which will only grow in stature like other box office debacles have in the past. Anything is possible.

Well, in the meantime, I have to be honest and say “Joker: Folie a Deux” is a tremendous disappointment. In its attempt to retain the anarchic spirit of its predecessor, it instead becomes a miserable and lifeless spectacle which many have described as being inert. This reminds me of some dialogue uttered by Hal Williams in “Private Benjamin:”

“Beware, there are mine fields out there. Most of them are inert. However, some are ert.”

Well, this sequel could use way more of those ert moments.

We catch up with Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) two years after the murders he committed, and he is in custody at Arkham State Hospital, the place where all DC Comic villains end up residing in at some point. While he awaits trial where he is expected to answer for his crimes, his lawyer Maryanne Stewart (Catherine Keener) looks to prove he suffers from dissociative identity disorder and that his alter ego of Joker is far more responsible for the heinous acts he has committed.

While passing by a musical therapy session, Arthur catches the eye of Harleen “Lee” Quinzel (Lady Gaga), a patient who becomes instantly smitten with him. From there, these two form an unshakeable bond as they revel in one another’s chaos and fight against a society which seems infinitely determined to break them down in any and every way. But can this love affair survive the legal ramifications Arthur may have to answer to?

The big question many have about “Joker: Folie a Deux,” as I do, is this: is this sequel really a musical? Ever since the commercial failure of Steven Spielberg’s remake of “West Side Story” and the underperformance of the movie version of “In the Heights,” Hollywood has been shy about declaring any of its upcoming releases as being anything resembling a music video, let alone a musical. I can easily imagine a conversation between a film buff and a movie executive sounding something like this:

“Is this film a musical or not?”

“Well… it has music in it…”

When it comes down to it, “Joker: Folie a Deux” has a number of musical moments where Arthur and Harleen sing and dance to such tunes as “What the World Needs Now is Love,” “For Once in My Life,” “If My Friends Could See Me Now” and “That’s Entertainment” among others. Some are rehearsed to where the actors are not expected to be as well-rehearsed as the average Broadway actor, and others prove to be more theatrical in ways I expect from someone like Lady Gaga. Regardless, I felt this sequel did not engage the musical form in any kind of enthralling manner. It’s like it wanted a musical, and then it didn’t want to be as it went straight into a courtroom drama which simply regurgitated the events of the previous film.

This is a real shame as there is a lot to admire about “Joker: Folie a Deux.” The cinematography by Lawrence Sher is truly Oscar worthy, the production design by Mark Friedberg is impressive, and Hildur Guðnadóttir, who won an Oscar for her work on the previous film, gives this installment strong musical compositions. As for the actors, Joaquin Phoenix remains one of the best working in movies today, Lady Gaga remains an amazing talent, and we get terrific performances from infinitely reliable actors like Catherine Keener, Brendan Gleeson, Steve Coogan and Zazie Beetz throughout.

And let us never forget Leigh Gill who returns as Gary Puddles, Arthur’s former clown co-worker whose life he spared despite very brutal, not to mention horrifically bloody, circumstances. Seeing Gary testifying against Arthur is quite painful as he is testifying against a former friend and one who was always kind to him when no one else was proves to be moving and painful, and also one of the few moments this sequel has with any kind of invigorating emotion.

But as “Joker: Folie a Deux” reaches its final act, I became completely bewildered at what unfolded before me. We watch Arthur Fleck, decked out in his Joker makeup, apologize for his murderous actions to where he renounces his Joker persona. The problem is, “Joker” dealt with all the forces and a cruel, unforgiving Gotham city which turned Arthur into the menace he became to where it acted as an indictment of a society which renders his mental health a minute concern. By that film’s end, Arthur has fully embraced his alter ego to where his former life is just a memory, and he no longer feels any shame forced on him. But here, it is almost like the first film is treated like a joke when it never should have been.

Todd Phillips described the first “Joker” film as being an origin story, but not the  origin story of this particular villainous DC Comics character. To him, these two films were based on an idea of this character not actually being the Joker, but instead being an inspiration for the Joker. This is an interesting idea, but he doesn’t do a good job of communicating this idea to us. Instead, I came out of it feeling like the rug was ripped out from under me, and its conclusion left me feeling as emotionally wrung out as the one from “Alien 3” did, and that one made me want to shoot myself.

I don’t know; perhaps time will be kind to “Joker: Folie a Deux.” It was released the same year as Francis Ford Coppola’s “Megalopolis” and, like that one, received a terrible critical and commercial reception. It pains me to think this will be the last time in a while where a filmmaker will have unchecked power when making such a big-budgeted motion picture. While Coppola has the excuse of self-financing his passion project, Phillips is not so lucky as a major film studio backed him on this one, thinking they had another billion dollar hit on their hands. This feels like an implication that future movies like this one will be rendered more formulaic and safer in the process. That sucks, doesn’t it?

For what it is worth, “Alien 3” has grown on me a lot since its theatrical release, and maybe this one will too. Then again, it doesn’t have Marc Maron whose character survived the last one. Could the man with the WTF podcast have saved this one? Okay, that’s wishful thinking,

* ½ out of * * * *