"Joker: Foile à Deux" receives a "D" on CinemaScore, making it the worst-scored comic book movie on CinemaScore EVER.
"Joker: Foile à Deux" receives a "D" on CinemaScore, making it the worst-scored comic book movie on CinemaScore EVER.
I think we all owe The Marvels an apology...
CinemaScore also gave these scores:
Catwoman: B The Crow (2024): B-
Madame Web: C+
Batman & Robin: C+
Morbius: C+
Fantastic Four (2015): C-
Borderlands: D+They seem really generous with their scoring
They seem really generous with their scoring
CinemaScore polls audiences and presents that data in the form of an A to F rating. They don’t do subjective ratings or reviews. The score is intended to be a measure of the average audience sentiment to a film.
The fact their audience gave Catwoman, one of the most embarrassingly bad things I have ever seen, a B means literally everything that comes from them is useless. What an astonishing fuck up, that film is every single thing wrong with bad comic book movies distilled it's an embarrassment that should've ended careers.
Madame Web was the most fun I've had in a theater since before the pandemic. I did not outlast 10 other people in that theater just to allow someone to slander that masterpiece!
That's surprising. First one was good.
First one was depressing. Awfully depressing. It was poignant and well done but I can't rewatch it because I have to gear up to be ready for it.
The second one is a musical. I'm not sure anyone is ready for that after the first one.
First film was a great film if it were new IP, but a shit joker batman film. The second film was always likely to be shit, because they were always going for abstract and avant garde artistry without a clear connection to the underlying and far stronger story and IP people are expecting. I'm sure it's a beautiful film and musical, but it's dog shit attached to joker.
There were people suggesting given the age of Bruce Wayne in Joker, that the Phoenix character probably wasn't The Joker, merely an inspiration for him. Harley showing up in the sequel would seem to refute this theory.
Everyone's shitting on the movie. I haven't seen it yet, but damn...
I’ve just seen it. It’s better than the reviews would suggest, but it’s not without flaws or quirks.
If you went into it expecting ‘more of Joker 1’ in terms of a straight, by the numbers sequel, you might very well come out disappointed. And there’s no denying that there’s a lot of singing in it, which inherently puts some people off. But if you’re willing to have an open mind, there’s a lot to love here.
I’ve seen terribly reviewed movies that I loved and well reviewed movies that I’ve hated. At the end of the day, it’s all someone else’s opinion anyway.
Joker and The Greatest Showman had a baby?
Yep, Joker 2 is terrible, IMO But, IMO, it already showed signs of no purpose in the first movie.
Good cinematography means nothing if the movie is empty. And the first one already made me feel like they were trying to sell me a concept that was impossible.
The second one doesn't even have a concept. It just has depressing musical numbers. Any possibility of a good storyline is dumped so they can show more memeable joker reels.
So, to me, a terrible rating is completely justified.
Wow, worse than the first Suicide Squad?
I enjoyed Suicide Squad far more than Incel Joker tbh
The second suicide squad was pretty good but the first was bad, more or less in the same ballpark as Joker IMO, but Joker was a little better.
Having watched both I would much rather watch both Joker movies several times than any of the suicide squads movies. None are perfect but if you know the story and where the character is supposed to exist it's a good story across both.
You didn't like the newest suicide squad? I found that very enjoyable, and the spin off series peacemaker is great imo.
Nah, 2nd Suicide Squad was good.
I don’t think that’s possible
I can kinda see what they were going for with the sequel, since more of the same would be tricky when balancing Arthur's battle with his alter ego. The musical idea does work in theory.
With that said, this kind of thing works really well on TV, but not so much in a follow-up to a movie many consider to be great. Also, I know she had great success in A Star Is Born, but I'm still not entirely sold on Lady Gaga as an actress. She can definitely act, but many of her roles are basically "...and Lady Gaga is in this too". She's definitely better than Beyonce in that regard, but IMO she was cast because they wanted to make a Joker-themed musical, rather than a sequel to a critically acclaimed movie called Joker.
Audience score ratings for the sequel of a well received film. People are giving a score based on a higher expectation going in compared to the original. The bigger they are the harder they fall sort of thing.
I'm just speculating. And still hopeful I might enjoy it, though I'm not a huge fan of Lady Gaga
I just saw it today. Can confirm - it's bad. Bad enough I'm upset it exists, because it practically taints the first.
The plot is pretty weak, and to make it worse, sporadically there are flashes that make you think it's finally building towards something, and then it just fizzles.
With very few exceptions, the songs are bad both in terms of the music and the lyrics, and they slow the movie to a crawl.
Additionally, Lady Gaga's lip synching is shameful, especially considering she's most famous for music. Her performance is otherwise fine, but it feels like they could have put anyone in there. She didn't bring anything to the role.
Joaquin Phoenix's performance is pretty good, and the cinematography is good. But... Don't see it. Definitely don't pay for it. I wish I had my money and my time back.
My partner saw the first, opening night. Shes been under the weather all week. Ratings turned her off. Previews just started
Well they're wrong