We've maybe done a double impression before but this one is special. I'd like to compare these two flicks - Deadpool & Wolverine (2024), which I saw in theaters last July, and Joker 2 (2024), which I saw on MAX a few weeks ago. Both handle fan service in wildly different ways and SPOILER - one was good! You know I'm difficult so gonna say this from the jump, I liked Joker 2 a whole lot better!
Let's rewind. I saw D&W in theaters a year ago (hence this timely post) and I was pretty pumped up. It was a really fun movie, had a lot of great action, enthralling performances, and actually found something to say. I want to go into all that in a bit, but then two things made it fall apart. First, I was pumped when it dropped on Disney+ because I genuinely wanted to ride that ride again but I found it fell totally flat. I think it was really because perhaps more than any movie maybe ever, it was ridiculously reliant on outrageous cameos. Once you know Channing Tatum's Gambit is coming, his actual presence doesn't hold much weight or push the story forward.
There is still a lot I liked about it. Mostly there is an actual thematic resonance there, which is kind of the search for a theme. Deadpool is searching for a reason to matter, which is all kinds of meta when he is trying to find his way in the new Disney / Fox merger that now lets him interact with the Avengers. How can he fit in? Well, that's a really tough puzzle, and just like Adaptation (2002), they just decided to make the movie about that.
This all comes together really well with a not so subtle plot conclusion -
the collision of matter and anti-matter. They use Wolverine as a stand-in, since his
Logan (2017) was really one of the weightier superhero movies ever, rich with meaning, though, and artistry. Stuff the Deadpool movies generally lack, they're just fun rides (although I really did enjoy
Deadpool 2 [2018], I think there's a lot going on there), but they wallow in irreverence, compared to
Logan and Wolverine as a character. But it also contrasts with the MCU, which is built upon a lot of big stories that actually matter (okay, fine, they don't, but they do pretend to!).
It made me think of Nathan Fielder's Rehearsal that just wrapped up. Is it possible to create comedy that inspires change? Where is that line? Can you make something silly that is also imbued with enough thematic resonance to actually matter? That is really at the heart of Deadpool & Wolverine. Does it stick the landing? Well, not really, but that final scene is pretty cool. Matter and anti-matter joined together in a climactic sacrifice.
Staying on that point, there were a few things I liked - one, that they didn't show Hugh Jackman's ripped physique until that moment, which seemed like definitely a way to not force him to work out and be shirtless for most of the movie. Again, there's meaning in that joke, though! It works for the theme, giving something goofy the big payoff. I also noted that they kept the mask on him for that, I really wonder if he was CGI...
Also I really hated the mask, a lot of people loved it, I don't think it worked on screen and there was a reason why they kept it off him for 24 years. Whatever, it definitely makes CGI Wolverine a lot easier. But the claws punching the machine was pretty much perfect.
Of course, though, this whole plot makes no sense, like, why was Deadpool rescued by the TVA, only to kill him later as some part of some other plot? It doesn't hold up, none of the TVA stuff really makes sense, you have to squint a lot. The first watch tumbles through on the strength of jokes and excitement. It melts pretty hard on the second watch.
I'll give Hugh Jackman a ton of credit for crafting a pretty different Wolverine than the one in Logan, but still one of the better, richer portrayals. I would have preferred a stronger background for his melancholy, like something out of Old Man Logan where he was tricked into killing the X-Men by Mysterio, but maybe that was too dark? I also noted just how much he said "fuck" in this movie. It's crazy. They really went for it.
Let's get into the rest - I think the whole 'nsync "Bye Bye Bye" gag of cool, violent guy ironically doing stereotypical gay shit is played out beyond played out by now. I feel like Deadpool is ending anyway, which is fine. There's unfortunately not a ton of evolution to be had once you've made that meta commentary. You can't just keep making it, the point is already there. I also found the ending love letter to the Fox-era Marvel movies to be laughable. I literally just ranked these on an unrelated jag and they're all terrible. What are we pining for here? X2: X-Men United (2003)? I mean, that movie's great, but it's not like this nostalgic era. And again, I don't think Deadpool totally earned the right to be sentimental. Deadpool just gets weird when he gets serious.
Okay, so why am I throwing Joker 2 into all this? Well, I really found these to be absolute polar opposite movies. D&W is really built on fan service. You're giving Wolverine the costume and the mask, you have him fight Sabretooth, oooh look it's Pyro! oooh look it's Elektra! oooh look...Gambit... Blake Lively as Ladypool! Like, all this stuff, layer upon layer. Wolverine on the cross, Age of Apocalypse, it's as if it was Leo Pointing at the Screen the Movie. Again, first time around, it largely works out of audacity, and there is some nice throughlines tying it together.
Actually, sidebar, I found it extremely ironic that at some point the plot was just that of Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023), where they completely remove a notably smaller grounded story and put it in a weird alternate world where they spend most of the run time. That's totally just what this movie did. Amazing what cameos can do you for you.
Joker 2 does none of this. Like, blatantly none of this. It's mind-blowing. I approached this with a certain disdain for the first Joker (2019). I really think Todd Philips can write and shoot a movie. The Hangover: Part II (2009) is an absolute gorgeous looking film that everyone ignores because it's The Hangover: Part II. Rich film stock, depth of field, high contrast, lights, shadows, a green yellow haze over the film that matches setting to theme and feeling that lifts when they reach their goal. It's really good. So I approached it with curious optimism, but found a disjointed film that wanted to be King of Comedy (1982) but couldn't be and whose plot beats didn't quite add up, and whose intent appeared ugly and was also taken out of context by pretty much everyone.
Joker 2 made me understand Joker, though. Because I finally got it - I don't think Todd Philips gave a rat's ass about making a Joker movie or a comedy movie. He wanted to make a weird introspective gritty 80s movie. But he couldn't, so he did it through DC and made a billion dollars. Then for some reason they let him do whatever he wanted, so he made an even more introspective film about choosing your identity, social pressures, and accidental inspiration, which happens constantly in this.
I am a firm believe that so many more people would have enjoyed this film if they didn't tie it to the Joker. Like, if it was just about a dude named Arthur Fleck, I think most people would be perfectly fine. But since it has to be an intellectual property, which is how these kinds of films are ever going to get made, people put their own expectations on to what should happen. However, I felt less like my expectations were being poured into this than I did for Deadpool & Wolverine! I literally just gave you a slight rewrite a few paragraphs ago. I was just along for this ride.
The first line in the Wikipedia entry under "Themes and Analysis" says "Critics noted that the film was a work of metafiction designed to intentionally antagonize audiences who were fans of the first film." I disagree, I think intentional antagonization is a strong word. I think that's a reaction you have when you are so put back that you must assume it's intentional. It made a lot of sense to me watching it. Joker only works as the Joker when he is remorseless for his crimes. Joker 2 makes him not the Joker by giving him some humanity. He's a beta male who is tempted with alpha male-ness but then realizes what kind of monster that's making him and then owns up to his mistakes and experiences real growth as a human being. It's an astounding high wire act to pull off. GaGa is there totally wanting him to be Joker and he just refuses because that is all she wants from him. It's stunning.
Could you read GaGa as an audience surrogate, or his fans as audience surrogates? Sure, I guess. But I don't think it's extremely telegraphed that way. It feels more part of the story and authentic then a cheap ploy like that, like it's just a gut reaction. And what would that motivation be? To prank a billion dollars worth of fans of the first film?
I will admit, it's hard to see why Philips went in this direction. It seems like a direction that no one really liked, except maybe GaGa and Joaquin Phoenix. And me. It does feel a bit like a really expensive prank, but if so, I don't know why Philips wouldn't have owned it (like Fleck!) and instead supposedly spent opening weekend on his isolated ranch with the phone unplugged. It's confounding. Like, it was so brave to make this movie the way he did, and then he kind of slunk away in shame.
I can't think of a better commentary on our current culture. Deadpool & Wolverine went for cheap (well, probably not so cheap) cameos, hauling out 90-year old Hugh Jackman, and made fan service the movie and made all the money in the world. I'm not going to totally knock it, but it seems to me like it will struggle to have staying power. Joker Folie A Deux could have done that. They could have gone for big hammers and hyenas, and Batman, and whatever else. Instead, they just bucked fan service at every turn and made Joker into an actual human being and was one of the biggest flops of all time. Yay.
At the end, it does appear as if Fleck inspires the actual, possible Heath Ledger-esque Joker and that's a fun out. But I could live without it. I just keep thinking about how good this thing looks. And why the hell anyone would ever sit through a 2 hr and 18 minute courtroom drama about maybe one of the biggest character misrepresentations since Taskmaster. Why didn't it piss me off, though? Maybe because the Joker is an awful character. I mean, literally, like an awful person, maybe one of the worst people in fiction (but American, dammit!), so if you're going to make him your protagonist, you need to do something interesting with him? Or make him sympathetic in some way? I think it might be as simple as it's just well-constructed, well-shot, and well-acted movie, and those three big things are going to win me over every time.
So, listen, you probably read all the non-sense and wrote off Joker 2, I suggest you go see it. It's the least fan service movie of all time, and I really think that's more in service of crafting a good narrative rather than purposeful antagonization, which is supposedly what we all want. If you're fed up with recycled garbage (Robert Downey Jr. as Doctor Doom! Superman again! Jurassic World: Afterbirth!), maybe check this thing out, I thought it was cool, and bold, and if it truly was just a massive career ending Todd Philips studio prank, well, I'm down for that, too.