Joker Folie à Deux (5 Stars)

Why it surpasses the first film

Joker (2019) was a character study built on grit, alienation and a slow descent into madness. Joker: Folie à Deux keeps that foundation yet pushes the concept into stranger bolder territory. This shift is exactly what makes it a stronger film. Where the first film offered a grim portrait of a man collapsing under the weight of society, the sequel becomes a fever dream shared between two unstable souls. It is more daring, more self aware and far more playful with the idea of cinematic reality.

The most obvious difference is the musical structure. Instead of repeating the grounded aesthetic of the first film, Folie à Deux uses musical sequences as windows into Arthur and Harley’s shared delusion. These scenes are not simple gimmicks; they become expressions of their mental state. The first film showed Arthur imagining an audience that never applauded him; the sequel lets him build entire worlds in song. The musical moments allow the film to explore fantasy, desire and dependency in ways the original could not. This added layer of surrealism gives the sequel more emotional range.

The chemistry between Joaquin Phoenix and Lady Gaga also strengthens the narrative. Phoenix retains his uneasy unpredictability, yet Gaga brings a chaotic vulnerability that reshapes Arthur’s story. She does not imitate past versions of Harley; she invents her own that fits this universe. The dynamic between them has more energy than anything in the first film. It creates tension, tenderness and danger. Their relationship becomes the engine of the plot rather than a simple consequence of Arthur’s actions.

The sequel also feels less burdened by the need to justify itself as a “serious” comic book movie. It allows moments of humour to seep through, then happily undercuts them with dread. The result is more confident and more artistically free. Where the first film sometimes felt restrained by its insistence on realism, Folie à Deux embraces the subjective chaos of its characters. The film shifts tone with purpose; suddenly a scene is menacing, then it becomes operatic, then intimate. This variety makes it richer and more memorable.

Visually the sequel is more expressive. The colour palette is bolder and the cinematography leans into the idea of unreliable perception. Gotham still feels oppressive, yet it also becomes theatrical, almost like a stage for Arthur and Harley’s fantasies. This blend of harshness and fantasy gives the film an identity distinctly separate from the first.

Most importantly the sequel expands the themes. Instead of focusing mainly on systemic neglect it explores shared delusion, co-dependency and the longing to be seen. Arthur’s story becomes larger than a lonely man’s breakdown; it becomes an unsettling duet about two people who find comfort in each other’s madness. It is disturbing, sometimes touching and always compelling.

Joker: Folie à Deux improves on the first film by refusing to repeat it. It is weirder, more emotional and more ambitious. Instead of explaining Arthur Fleck it lets us get lost in the world he creates with Harley. In doing so it becomes a sequel that dares to be different and ends up being more satisfying.

Success Rate:  - 0.9

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

Joker Folie à Deux (5 Stars)

I didn't think it was necessary to make a second film about the Joker. The first film said it all. Joaquin Phoenix was only prepared to make a sequel if it went in a different direction. That's what I saw today. Maybe the film was too different for critics and the audience, but it's exactly the film that Joaquin wanted to make.

Arthur Fleck, the Joker, is in prison for almost all of the film. Long sequences take part as a courtroom drama. On the whole, courtroom dramas are boring, but this problem was solved by interspersed musical numbers. Some were dreams, while others simply happened without explanation. I've read reviews that say the music was out of place. I disagree entirely. The music gives the film its strength. They also say there's not enough action. They don't get it. It was never intended to be an action film.

DC has further distanced itself from the film. There's no DC logo at the beginning of the film. I find this appropriate. The Joker in the film isn't the same character that we know from the comics or the Batman films. The comics are just a rough inspiration for the film. In the comics the Joker is a master criminal; in the film he's just a confused psychotic man.

The film is still in the cinemas, but initial predictions suggest it will be a box office flop. That would be a tragedy. Joaquin Phoenix won an Oscar for his performance in the first film, and he's just as outstanding in "Folie à Deux". Lady Gaga is an incredible actress, as always. Brendan Gleeson, one of my favourite actors, is brilliant as the abusive hospital orderly Jackie Sullivan. In my opinion, this is a film that everyone needs to see. Hurry, while it's still in the cinemas.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (4 Stars)

This delayed sequel almost but not quite lives up to the quality of the first film. Sadly it flopped at the box office. I have no idea why. The chronology is difficult to understand at first, because some parts of the film take place before the first film, some parts after it. This is further complicated by actors being replaced between the two films. It wasn't obvious to me at first that Josh Brolin was playing the same character as Clive Owen in the first film. They don't look vaguely alike. The replacement of Devon Aoki with Jamie Chung was less jarring. The absence of Michael Clarke Duncan was excusable, because he died before the sequel was made, but the only similarity with his replacement is that they both have the same skin colour. I didn't realise that Jeremy Piven was supposed to be playing the same character as Michael Madsen until after the film.

I just paused before continuing with this post. The more I think about it, the more weaknesses I can see in the second film compared to the first. The next time I watch the films I'll make sure it's back to back again.

Success Rate:  - 1.6

	Order from Amazon.com
	Order from Amazon.co.uk
	Order from Amazon.de

A Star Is Born (4 Stars)

A funny thing happened to me on the way to the cinema.....

While I was waiting at the bus stop to go to the cinema I saw a man, a casual acquaintance that I've known for over 30 years. We usually exchange a few words whenever we see one another. He asked me where I was going. I said to the cinema. Rather than ask the question I expected, "What film are you going to see?", he told me that the cinema isn't what it used to be. He said that the cinema used to be for people of all ages, but now it's only for young people.

That's a curious statement, and it's one I've heard before. When I was at university, 40 years ago, my Psychology professor, Dr. John Bradshaw, said exactly the same words. "The cinema used to be for people of all ages, but now it's only for young people". My professor was in his 60's, probably the same age as the man I spoke to today. It's obviously a false statement, but why do people think it's the case?

I think it's a question of attitude. When you're 20-ish you go to the cinema and you see a mixture of people: some are your own age, some are older. You have the feeling that the film is attracting people of all ages. Then as you get older, 40-ish, you go to the cinema and see that there are a lot of people younger than you, much more than there were 20 years ago, so you think that the film is attracting younger people. When you're 60 you look around the seats in the cinema and almost everyone is younger than you, so you think that only young people are going to the cinema.

The cinema is the same as it's always been. You're the one who's changed.

But let's get to talking about the film itself. It's the third remake of a film made in 1937. There must be something special about the story that still fascinates people after 80 years. It's a story for young and old. It's a love story, and love is an important matter to people of all ages. It's also a story of success in the cruel world of the music business. Who doesn't want to be famous? When you're young you dream of becoming successful, and when you're older you regret your missed chances.

Jackson Maine (Bradley Cooper) is a successful musician who plays sold-out concerts all over America. The previous versions of the film showed him playing country music, but in this film he's more of a rock musician. When he's off stage he's a wreck. Only alcohol keeps him going. After a concert his chauffeur takes him to the first bar he sees, which is a drag bar. On stage there's a talented singer called Ally (Lady Gaga) in whom he recognises considerable talent. His praise gives her the self-confidence that she's lacking, and she sings with him on stage at his next concert. Within a short time a romance develops. Ally also becomes a successful singer-songwriter in her own right.

The two love each other throughout the film. Their devotion to one another never falters. The problems come through Jackson's alcohol addiction. When he makes an effort he stops drinking, but it never lasts, and he ends up drinking even more than before.

Lady Gaga is stunning as the young woman who's swept up by stardom. It's as if the role was written for her. I was pleasantly surprised by Bradley Cooper's talent as a singer. He's much better in the role than I expected him to be. The chemistry between the two is sizzling. There's never any doubt that they love each other deeply.

This is a beautiful film. It's not always an attractive film. It's heart wrenching to see Jackson's steady deterioration. Sometimes I laughed when he fell over or did something stupid, then I felt ashamed of myself moments later. It's not a pretty sight.

I can vaguely remember seeing an older version of the film, but I'm not sure whether it was the 1954 or the 1976 version. As I remember, it was more of a musical and had songs throughout. I'm interested in watching the 1937 version, if I can get my hands on it. Watch this space.

Gaga: Five Foot Two (4 Stars)

This is a fascinating documentary about the pop star Lady Gaga, available on the streaming service Netflix. She's probably the only current pop star who interests me enough to watch a documentary. For years, so long ago that I've forgotten when it started, American pop music has degenerated into rap. Lady Gaga stands out as a young performer who sings songs which are songs, with a catchy rhythm and a chorus. She knows what music is. She's also a talented musician, as proved by her skills at the piano.

The documentary follows Lady Gaga over the course of a year from 2016 to 2017, culminating in her Superbowl half time show in February 2017. I already knew Lady Gaga before watching the documentary, but now I know Stefani Germanotta, the little Italian girl from New York. She might be a little girl, only five foot two, but she's a power house. She's very successful in the music industry, but she doesn't take anything for granted, she fights for everything she wants.

Something that hampers her in her struggles is the broken hip that still causes her pain after three years. She endures it. As she tells her doctor, she feels pain, but she continues. She has a job to do and she does it. This isn't because she has to "make a living" like me and most other people. She has enough money saved to retire. She carries on because she loves what she does, and she's willing to disregard the hip pain to present her music to the world. A true artist creates art because it's what he was born to do.

This is apparent in the making of the album "Joanne" during this year. Stylistically it was different to anything she had recorded before, but she was more interested in presenting something personal than just giving her fans what they expected from her. The album was about her Aunt Joanne, an important person in her life, although it's not clear from the documentary whether she ever knew her. It's possible that she died before she was born.

At the beginning of the film she says out loud that she doesn't need a man to get what she wants. I know that this refers to the recent break up of her engagement, but it's not completely true. While watching the documentary we see the repeated appearance of the most important man in her life, her father Joe Germanotta. She's devoted to him, and he's devoted to her. When they're together we don't see Lady Gaga, we see Stefani as the little girl in his arms. Could she have succeeded without such a loving father supporting her every step of the way? Maybe, but it would have been a lot more difficult. He helped to make her what she is today.

So much of Lady Gaga is about image. She rose to fame as someone who was glamorous, sexy and provocative (though not necessarily in that order). She chose the image herself because it was necessary. In today's world of YouTube videos a musician's appearance is as important as the music itself. She's still strong enough to do her own thing. If she's told she has to look sexy she makes herself sexy, but she adds something to her appearance to ridicule the look. Sometimes she dresses up in ways that aren't sexy at all, and these are her most provocative appearances that are shown in the newspapers.

In the preparation for her Superbowl appearance she told the organisers that she wanted to do the opposite of what her fans expected. That was a good intention, but impossible to achieve. The Superbowl halftime show is a big show, possibly the biggest show of the year, and it's expected to be a dazzling spectacle with dancing and pyrotechnics. Lady Gaga couldn't have sat alone on the edge of the stage strumming an acoustic guitar. That would have been too provocative, the establishment would never have accepted it. She entered the Superbowl arena like a fairy on a string.

Stefani Germanotta is a very likeable person. She doesn't have an attitude that she's way above her fans. The fans love her, and she loves them back. She's not a remote, untouchable celebrity. We see that especially in her meeting with her fan Marlene, who claimed that Lady Gaga's music had saved her life. After the meeting Lady Gaga was in tears. No person of Lady Gaga's fame can find time to meet all her fans personally, but she was able to show her generosity by spending some time with this one special fan.

Does all this make me a fan of Lady Gaga? No. I may have watched most of her music videos on YouTube, but I prefer rock music. However, I have a deep respect for her both musically and as a person. She has a dignity that will help her evolve into an adored popular singer, even a diva,  over the next 30 years. Long live Lady Gaga!

General: Academy Awards 2015 Fashion

Here are a few photos taken at last night's Academy Awards. Most, though not all of the men dressed conservatively. The women dressed up to get themselves noticed. While some women, in particular Lady Gaga, deliberately made themselves look ugly, others tried to look good but failed.

J. K. Simmons was the best dressed man of the evening. He has class with a capital K.

Lady Gaga tried her hardest to look ugly and almost succeeded. She showed up wrapped in a dish cloth and wearing her washing up gloves.

Jennifer Lopez was one of the few top actresses who actually managed to look good.

There was only one thing wrong with Emma Stone's outfit. She would have looked better without underwear.

Chloe Grace Moretz looked beautiful and elegant, as always. Some fashion sites have criticised her for wearing a dress with pockets, but it's a good idea. It gives a woman somewhere to hide her hands when she's feeling nervous. It also means she doesn't need to carry a handbag.

Neil Patrick Harris is an actor with nothing to hide. Almost nothing, that is.

After the show Neil Patrick Harris was seen asking J. K. Simmons for fashion tips. He was told he needed a hat.

Unbelievable! 61 years old, and Oprah Winfrey was one of the best looking women in the room.

At the other end of the scale, "supermodel" Karolina Kurkova wins my vote for the worst dressed woman, outdoing even Lady Gaga. The tragic thing is that Lady Gaga wanted to look ugly, whereas Karolina probably thought she looked good. Someone should send her back to fashion school.

The awesome twins, Tegan and Sara, were nominated for an Oscar for the Best Original Song. They should have won. "Glory" isn't too bad as a song, but it just isn't awesome!

It was kind of the Film Academy to invite Kelly Osbourne, to show that they're not biased against people with zero talent. She should have asked the Tegan twins for fashion advice though. At least they know how to make black look good.

Look who they allowed on stage. It's Mr. Terrence They-Don't-Pay-Me-Enough Howard. It looks like he was telling people how much he wants for his next film.

Someone told Jared Leto the roof was leaking, so he came prepared.

Shia LaBeouf was turned away at the door because the security guards didn't recognise him. Or maybe it was really an imposter? We'll never know.

Unfortunately, Kim Jong-Un wasn't invited to the Academy Awards this year. He requested a ticket, but he was told that they wouldn't invite him unless he got a better haircut. He attempted a new style last month, but it still wasn't good enough.

Machete Kills (5 Stars)

This week I finally bought "Machete Kills" on Blu-ray after seeing it in the cinema last year. Reading my original review reminded me that I was disappointed when I saw it. After watching it again I don't understand why. Maybe it was because I expected it to be like the first film? It's different, and I think the changes in style are justified. "Machete" was 100% grindhouse from beginning to end. "Machete Kills" is more of a James Bond spoof. It's so obvious that I don't know how I missed it the first time. I should have realised it at the latest when Miss San Antonio was presenting Machete Cortez his weapons, with dialogue that could have been spoken unchanged by James Bond and Q.

The film ends by preparing us for the sequel, or rather the third film in the trilogy, "Machete kills again in space". From what I've been told "Machete Kills" was a box office flop. That's a shame. I hope it doesn't mean the trilogy will never be completed.

"Machete Kills" is also notable for being Lady Gaga's first film role. Despite her character being seemingly killed in a car crash, it's already been announced that she will appear in the next film. Let's hope it will be made. I want to see more of her as an actress. It seems to me that in "Machete Kills" she's playing herself. I want to see if she has real acting ability. Among today's pop singers she's the one who impresses me most. She's more talented than most, nothing like the run-of-the-mill rappers being churned out by the American music industry. She also has an attitude that has made her notorious, shown by her skimpy clothing or even lack of clothing. In this respect many people compare her to Madonna, as she was in the 1980's. I'm sure that's meant as a compliment, but I disagree. When Madonna showed off her body, for instance in her 1992 photo book called "Sex", it seemed artificial. While many raved about it and many others were shocked by the contents, to me it seemed like a publicity stunt, an awkwardly deliberate attempt to shock. When Lady Gaga exposes herself it seems natural, like she's a woman who truly enjoys showing off her body.

This isn't the last you'll see of Lady Gaga.

Machete Kills (4½ Stars)

Today I did something I've never done before. I treated myself to a double bill in the cinema. After watching "The Dark Knight Rises" I didn't have anything else to do, so I stayed to watch "Machete Kills". The Cineworld Unlimited cards are worth the money.

The ex-Federale Machete Cortez is hired by the American president to prevent a Mexican bandit from firing a missile at Washington D.C. Machete easily captures the bandit, but a trigger device has been wired to him that will fire the missile if his heart stops beating. Most of the film is a chase through Mexico, as Machete attempts to safely escort the bandit from southern Mexico into the USA to have the trigger device deactivated. A bounty of $20 million has been placed on Machete's head, so he is under attack wherever he goes.

I expected the film to live up to the original film, but I was disappointed. The problem for me was the chase scene. Too many different characters appeared to challenge Machete. They were interesting characters, so interesting that I wanted to see more of them, but they were killed too quickly. For me the film didn't really settle down until Machete crossed the border into America and only had one set of enemies to contend with.

I would only have given the film 4 stars, but I had to add an extra half star because Sofia Vergara looked so delicious with a whip. Every lash of her whip made me squirm in my seat.

Did I ever mention that I like girls with whips?

The film ends with Machete heading into space to face his deadliest enemy in the next film, "Machete Kills Again in Space". Will Machete be able to survive a fight to the death against Justin Bieber? The world waits with baited breath.

P.S. Was it intended to be an insider joke that Lady Gaga played a man?

P.P.S. The film contains an after-credits sequence.

P.P.P.S. The after-credits sequence isn't worth waiting for.