Newsletter Subscribe
Enter your email address below and subscribe to our newsletter
Where film meets life
ByEwnek
Why Everyone’s Talking About the New Joker Movie and Its Impact on Superhero Films
So I was scrolling through my social media feed the other day, and it seemed like every other post was about the upcoming Joker sequel....
Share your love
So I was scrolling through my social media feed the other day, and it seemed like every other post was about the upcoming Joker sequel. You know the one – “Joker: Folie à Deux” with Joaquin Phoenix returning as Arthur Fleck and Lady Gaga joining as Harley Quinn. What’s really got people buzzing isn’t just the casting though – it’s the fact that they’re making this a full-blown musical.
I remember when the first Joker movie came out in 2019. There was this weird divide where some people thought it was this deep character study, while others worried it might glorify violence. I went to see it with my friend Sarah, and we ended up sitting in the parking lot for like an hour afterward just talking about it. That’s the kind of movie that sticks with you.
Now with this sequel, director Todd Phillips is taking a huge swing by making it a musical. At first I thought “wait, really?” but then I remembered how much singing and dancing was in the first film – not as performances, but as expressions of Arthur’s mental state. That scene where he’s dancing down those concrete stairs in Brooklyn became so iconic that tourists actually go there to take photos now.
What’s interesting is how this fits into the larger trend of superhero movies getting weirder and more experimental. For years, we’ve had this very standardized Marvel formula – introduce hero, give them powers, big CGI battle at the end. It worked, but you could feel audiences getting a bit tired of it. Then along comes something like Joker that completely breaks the mold, and it makes over a billion dollars worldwide.
The casting of Lady Gaga is particularly smart when you think about it. She’s not just a pop star – she’s a legitimately great actress, as she showed in “A Star Is Born.” And her whole persona has always had this theatrical, slightly unhinged quality that could work perfectly for Harley Quinn. I’m curious to see if they’ll go with her being a psychiatrist at Arkham Asylum who falls for Arthur, like in the comics, or if they’ll do something completely different.
My cousin works in the film industry, and he was telling me that the production design team has been recreating parts of Arkham Asylum on soundstages. They’re apparently going for this exaggerated, almost dream-like version of the asylum that would make sense for musical numbers. That makes me think the musical aspects might be happening in the characters’ minds rather than as literal performances.
This trend toward darker, more psychological superhero adjacent films isn’t just happening with DC either. Look at what Marvel’s doing with their upcoming “Blade” reboot – they’ve hired Mia Goth as the villain, and from what I’ve heard through industry friends, they’re going for a much darker, horror-inspired tone than typical Marvel films.
What’s really fascinating to me is how audiences have changed. Ten years ago, a dark psychological musical sequel to a comic book movie would have been considered box office poison. Now, it’s one of the most anticipated films of 2024. I think the success of films like “Everything Everywhere All At Once” showed studios that audiences are hungry for weirder, more personal stories, even if they’re wrapped in genre packaging.
The timing of this film is interesting too. We’re in this post-pandemic era where people are still figuring out what kinds of stories resonate. There’s been this noticeable shift away from pure escapism toward films that grapple with mental health, societal breakdown, and the nature of reality itself. The first Joker tapped into that pre-pandemic anxiety, and I’m curious to see how the sequel will reflect where we are now.
I was talking to my friend who’s a film studies professor, and she made a good point about how the Joker character has always reflected whatever society fears at the moment. In the 60s, he was a campy prankster. In the 80s, he became this agent of chaos. Now, he’s this symbol of societal neglect and mental health crisis. It’s kind of amazing how one character can transform to mean different things to different generations.
The musical aspect might seem like a weird choice, but when you think about it, some of the most memorable scenes in recent cinema have been musical moments in non-musical films. Remember that sudden dance sequence in “Ex Machina”? Or the way “Babylon” used musical numbers to show the transition from silent films to talkies? There’s something about music and dance that can express emotions in ways dialogue can’t.
What I’m most excited about is seeing how they handle the relationship between Joker and Harley. The animated series from the 90s did this brilliant job of showing how toxic and destructive their relationship was, while still making you understand why Harley would fall for him. Then the “Suicide Squad” movies went in a more comedic direction. This feels like it could be the first live-action version that really digs into the psychological complexity of their dynamic.
At the end of the day, what makes the Joker such an enduring character is that he represents this freedom from societal rules. There’s something terrifying but also weirdly compelling about that, especially in a world that feels increasingly structured and controlled. The first film showed us how someone could break under the weight of society’s indifference. This sequel seems to be exploring what happens after that break, and how love or obsession might fit into that fractured psyche.
I’ve already got a group chat with friends where we’re planning to see this opening weekend. There’s this excitement around films that feel like events again, where you want to talk about them immediately after. In an age of streaming and watching things alone at home, that collective experience feels more special than ever.
The success or failure of “Joker: Folie à Deux” could really shape what kinds of comic book movies we get in the future. If it works, we might see more studios taking big creative swings with established characters. If it doesn’t, they might retreat back to safer formulas. Either way, it’s refreshing to see a major studio betting on something this bold and unconventional.
I finally got around to watching Christopher Nolan’s *Oppenheimer* a few nights ago, and honestly, I’m still thinking about it. It’s one of those films that just sits with you, heavy in your chest, long after the credits roll. I went in knowing it was about the father of the atomic bomb, but I wasn’t prepared for the intense, three-hour psychological dive into the man’s soul. It’s less a traditional biopic and more a horror film dressed up as a historical drama. The horror isn’t in jump scares, but in the quiet, dawning realization of what has been unleashed upon the world.
Let’s talk about Cillian Murphy for a second. I’ve always liked him, but this performance is on another level. He *is* J. Robert Oppenheimer. It’s in the way he carries himself—the gaunt frame, the piercing blue eyes that seem to see right through you, filled with both immense intelligence and a deep, profound sadness. The film rests entirely on his shoulders, and he doesn’t just carry it; he makes it soar. There’s a specific scene, after the successful Trinity test, where he’s giving a speech to a cheering crowd in a gymnasium. The noise becomes muffled, and we see a close-up of his face. He’s smiling, but his eyes are wide with terror. He’s seeing a vision of the auditorium cracking, people’s skin peeling from a flash. It’s a masterclass in acting without words. You feel his triumph, his guilt, and his horror all at once. That image has been burned into my brain.
And the supporting cast? It’s ridiculous how good everyone is. Robert Downey Jr. as Lewis Strauss is a revelation. For the first half of the movie, you think he’s just this slightly petty, bureaucratic figure. But as the film shifts into its final act, which is essentially a tense political hearing, Downey Jr. peels back the layers to reveal a man consumed by envy and bitterness. It’s his best work in years, maybe ever. Then you have Emily Blunt as Kitty Oppenheimer, who absolutely steals every scene she’s in. She’s not just the long-suffering wife; she’s sharp, acerbic, and fiercely intelligent. In one of the film’s most satisfying moments, during Oppenheimer’s security clearance hearing, she completely dismantles the prosecutor with a few cold, calculated sentences. I actually cheered a little in my seat.
The technical aspects are, as expected from Nolan, flawless. But it’s not the bombastic IMAX spectacle I thought it would be. Sure, the Trinity test sequence is one of the most nerve-wracking and terrifyingly beautiful things I’ve ever seen on film. The build-up is almost unbearable—the rain, the fear of igniting the atmosphere, the sheer tension. And then the blast itself. It’s mostly practical, I’ve read, and you can feel it. The blinding light, the delayed sound, the shockwave. It’s awe-inspiring and horrifying in equal measure. But the real genius of Ludwig Göransson’s score and the sound design is in the quieter moments. The constant, rhythmic stomping of feet that builds during Oppenheimer’s moments of anxiety, the subtle violin strings that underscore his moral dilemmas—it all gets under your skin.
What hit me the hardest, though, and this is something I’ve been turning over in my mind, is the film’s final act. The movie isn’t really about the bomb dropping on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We don’t see those events depicted. The real fallout, the film argues, happens *after*, in the halls of power and in the shattered conscience of the man who made it possible. The security clearance hearing is a brutal takedown, a political assassination meant to silence him. Watching this brilliant man be systematically broken by the very system he served is gut-wrenching. The final conversation with Albert Einstein, by the pond, brings the entire film’s theme into a devastating focus. It’s about the chain reaction of their actions, not in atoms, but in geopolitics, and how they have potentially set the world on a path to its own destruction.
*Oppenheimer* is a challenging, dense, and demanding film. It’s three hours of people talking in rooms, and yet it feels more intense than any superhero battle. It forces you to sit with uncomfortable questions about genius, responsibility, and the price of creation. It’s not a fun, easy watch, but it’s an essential one. I left the theater feeling drained, a bit numb, and completely in awe of what cinema can achieve. It’s a monumental achievement, and I have a feeling we’ll be talking about it for a very long time.
Oh man, this article just put words to a feeling I’ve been wrestling with for years. That moment you described—revisiting a movie you loved and feeling that weird disconnect—it’s almost like an emotional rug pull. I had the exact same thing happen with a film I adored as a teen. It was this action-comedy that felt like the coolest thing ever back then. I must’ve watched it a dozen times. But when I threw it on last year during a lazy Sunday, I found myself cringing halfway through.
It’s not just that the effects looked cheap or the pacing felt off—it was something deeper. The humor that used to make me cry-laugh now felt mean-spirited in places I never noticed. Characters I remembered as quirky and charming came off as just plain annoying. And it’s strange, because it’s not like the movie changed. It’s the same exact frames, the same edits. So that means *I’m* the one who changed. And that’s the part that’s kind of unsettling, you know?
I think a big part of it is that when we’re younger, especially as kids or teenagers, we aren’t just watching a movie for what it is. We’re watching it through this filter of our own experiences. That comedy isn’t just a comedy; it’s the movie you watched at your best friend’s sleepover, where you both quoted the lines for weeks. That cheesy romance is tied to your first crush. The movie itself is almost secondary to the emotional context we’ve wrapped around it. It’s like a time capsule for a specific feeling. When we rewatch it years later, we’re just seeing the movie—the bare bones of it—without all that protective, nostalgic padding. And yeah, sometimes the bones are just… not that strong.
It also makes me think about how our taste develops. When you’re young, you haven’t seen as much. A plot twist might seem mind-blowing because it’s the first time you’ve encountered that concept. But after you’ve watched hundreds of movies, read dozens of books, you start to see the patterns. You recognize the clichés, the lazy writing, the tropes. It’s not that you’re trying to be a critic; it’s that your brain has been trained to see the scaffolding holding the story up. You can’t unsee it. The magic trick loses its wonder once you know how it’s done.
And then there’s the whole social context thing. You mentioned the early 2000s, and that’s a perfect example. A lot of the humor from that era, especially in comedies, just wouldn’t fly today. Jokes that were just considered “edgy” or “silly” back then can now feel genuinely offensive or just painfully awkward. It’s not always that we’ve become overly sensitive; it’s that we’ve collectively grown and learned to spot lazy, hurtful stereotypes masquerading as humor. Rewatching those scenes isn’t just a letdown—it’s almost embarrassing. You think, “Did I really not see that? Did I laugh at that?” It’s a direct record of your own personal growth, and that can be an uncomfortable thing to confront.
But here’s a thought I had while reading your piece—does this *always* have to be a bad thing? I’ve had a few experiences where the opposite happened. I revisited a movie I thought was just “okay” or even boring when I was younger, and now, with more life experience, it completely wrecked me in the best way. A film about parental relationships that went over my head as a kid suddenly hits me right in the gut now that I’m older and my own parents are aging. The movie didn’t change; my capacity to understand it did. So this process of re-evaluation isn’t just about losing old loves. Sometimes it’s about finding new depth in things you previously overlooked.
It’s a bittersweet cycle, I guess. Letting go of that perfect, untouchable memory of a film can feel like a small loss. It’s like admitting that a part of your past wasn’t as perfect as you remembered. But it’s also proof that you’re not the same person you were back then. You’ve learned, you’ve grown, your perspective has widened. And in a way, that’s a good thing, even if it means your favorite teen comedy doesn’t hold up. The memory of how it made you *feel* is still real, even if the movie itself can’t recreate that for the present-day you. Maybe the value isn’t in the artifact itself, but in what it represented at a specific moment in your life. And that’s something a rewatch can never truly take away.
哇，这篇文章简直解决了我生活中一个长期存在的困扰。我家里经常出现吃了一半的薯片，开封后放个两三天就软掉了，每次看到都觉得特别可惜，但又不知道该怎么办，最后只能不情不愿地扔掉。看到这个微波炉妙招，我第一反应是“这真的能行吗”，因为在我的认知里，微波炉通常是把东西加热得更加湿润，比如热馒头包子都会变得湿漉漉的，怎么可能反而让受潮的零食变脆呢？
不过文章里解释的那个原理倒是让我有点信服了。确实，零食变软不就是因为吸收了空气中的水分嘛。如果微波炉的短时加热能够把这些多余的水分蒸发掉，而不是让食物本身继续吸水，那理论上确实是说得通的。我特别喜欢作者提到她是在食品科学论坛上看到这个方法的，这让我感觉不是随便哪个生活小窍门，而是有点科学依据的尝试。
我决定立刻试一试这个方法，因为刚好家里有一包打开了两天的薯片，已经明显不脆了。按照文章说的，我把薯片平铺在盘子上，然后放进微波炉。这里我稍微调整了一下，因为我的微波炉功率比较大，所以我只加热了20秒左右。打开微波炉的那一刻，我真的很惊讶——那些原本软塌塌的薯片居然真的恢复了脆度！虽然不是像刚开封时那么完美，但至少不再是让人失望的口感了。
不过我也发现这个方法有个小缺点。有些比较薄的薯片在微波后边缘会有点焦，可能是我加热时间稍微长了一点点。所以我觉得这个“短时 bursts”真的很关键，最好是15秒、15秒地试，每次打开看看效果，避免过热。而且这个方法似乎对厚一点的零食效果更好，比如玉米片就比普通薯片效果更明显。
我在想，这个方法是不是对所有类型的零食都有效？比如那些表面有调味粉的零食，微波之后会不会让调味粉融化或者分布不均匀？我还没试过，但感觉可能需要更小心一些。还有特别薄的零食，比如虾片之类的，可能对时间控制要求更高。
这个发现真的让我很兴奋，因为它不仅仅是解决了一个小问题，更重要的是改变了我的消费习惯。以前我总是急着在零食开封后一两天内吃完，就怕它们变软，现在知道有这个补救方法，心理压力小多了。而且从减少食物浪费的角度来看，这真的是个很棒的方法。想想每年有多少开封后没吃完的零食被扔掉，如果大家都能用这个方法让它们“复活”，那该多好。
我打算把这个方法推荐给我妈妈，她总是抱怨买的饼干开封后容易受潮。不过我在想，微波炉加热会不会改变食物的营养价值？虽然只是短时间加热，但高温会不会破坏某些营养成分？这点文章里没有提到，可能值得进一步了解。
还有一个我好奇的点是，用烤箱是不是也能达到类似效果？我猜可能可以，但微波炉的优势在于快速和方便，毕竟只需要几十秒，而烤箱需要预热，时间更长。对于急着想吃零食的人来说，微波炉确实是最便捷的选择。
总的来说，我觉得这个方法值得一试，特别是当你面对一包变软的零食，在扔掉和勉强吃掉之间犹豫不决的时候。它可能不是百分百完美，但至少给了这些零食第二次机会。我现在甚至在想，能不能用类似的方法来复活其他受潮的干货，比如受潮的坚果或者油炸食品？这可能需要一些实验，但至少有了新的思路。
唯一需要注意的是，这个方法可能对已经严重变质或者发霉的食物不适用，毕竟它只是解决受潮问题，不能逆转真正的变质。但针对普通的、只是放软了的零食，这确实是个简单有效的小技巧。我已经决定以后都要保留这篇文章的方法，说不定哪天就能拯救我的一包零食呢！
哇，这篇文章简直解决了我生活中一个长期存在的困扰。我家里经常出现吃了一半的薯片，开封后放个两三天就软掉了，每次看到都觉得特别可惜，但又不知道该怎么办，最后只能不情不愿地扔掉。看到这个微波炉妙招，我第一反应是“这真的能行吗”，因为在我的认知里，微波炉通常是把东西加热得更加湿润，比如热馒头包子都会变得湿漉漉的，怎么可能反而让受潮的零食变脆呢？
不过文章里解释的那个原理倒是让我有点信服了。确实，零食变软不就是因为吸收了空气中的水分嘛。如果微波炉的短时加热能够把这些多余的水分蒸发掉，而不是让食物本身继续吸水，那理论上确实是说得通的。我特别喜欢作者提到她是在食品科学论坛上看到这个方法的，这让我感觉不是随便哪个生活小窍门，而是有点科学依据的尝试。
我决定立刻试一试这个方法，因为刚好家里有一包打开了两天的薯片，已经明显不脆了。按照文章说的，我把薯片平铺在盘子上，然后放进微波炉。这里我稍微调整了一下，因为我的微波炉功率比较大，所以我只加热了20秒左右。打开微波炉的那一刻，我真的很惊讶——那些原本软塌塌的薯片居然真的恢复了脆度！虽然不是像刚开封时那么完美，但至少不再是让人失望的口感了。
不过我也发现这个方法有个小缺点。有些比较薄的薯片在微波后边缘会有点焦，可能是我加热时间稍微长了一点点。所以我觉得这个“短时 bursts”真的很关键，最好是15秒、15秒地试，每次打开看看效果，避免过热。而且这个方法似乎对厚一点的零食效果更好，比如玉米片就比普通薯片效果更明显。
我在想，这个方法是不是对所有类型的零食都有效？比如那些表面有调味粉的零食，微波之后会不会让调味粉融化或者分布不均匀？我还没试过，但感觉可能需要更小心一些。还有特别薄的零食，比如虾片之类的，可能对时间控制要求更高。
这个发现真的让我很兴奋，因为它不仅仅是解决了一个小问题，更重要的是改变了我的消费习惯。以前我总是急着在零食开封后一两天内吃完，就怕它们变软，现在知道有这个补救方法，心理压力小多了。而且从减少食物浪费的角度来看，这真的是个很棒的方法。想想每年有多少开封后没吃完的零食被扔掉，如果大家都能用这个方法让它们“复活”，那该多好。
我打算把这个方法推荐给我妈妈，她总是抱怨买的饼干开封后容易受潮。不过我在想，微波炉加热会不会改变食物的营养价值？虽然只是短时间加热，但高温会不会破坏某些营养成分？这点文章里没有提到，可能值得进一步了解。
还有一个我好奇的点是，用烤箱是不是也能达到类似效果？我猜可能可以，但微波炉的优势在于快速和方便，毕竟只需要几十秒，而烤箱需要预热，时间更长。对于急着想吃零食的人来说，微波炉确实是最便捷的选择。
总的来说，我觉得这个方法值得一试，特别是当你面对一包变软的零食，在扔掉和勉强吃掉之间犹豫不决的时候。它可能不是百分百完美，但至少给了这些零食第二次机会。我现在甚至在想，能不能用类似的方法来复活其他受潮的干货，比如受潮的坚果或者油炸食品？这可能需要一些实验，但至少有了新的思路。
唯一需要注意的是，这个方法可能对已经严重变质或者发霉的食物不适用，毕竟它只是解决受潮问题，不能逆转真正的变质。但针对普通的、只是放软了的零食，这确实是个简单有效的小技巧。我已经决定以后都要保留这篇文章的方法，说不定哪天就能拯救我的一包零食呢！
天啊，这篇文章简直就是在描述我上周看完电影的状态！我完全懂作者说的那种感觉，就是走出影院后脑子里还在不断回放那个转折的场景。我男朋友当时还问我为什么一直不说话，其实我是真的被震撼到不知道该说什么好。
那个关于伊娃船长的转折真的太出乎意料了。说实话，在看电影的前半部分，我完全没怀疑过她的动机。导演真的太会铺垫了，那些看似英勇的举动现在回想起来都带着完全不同的意味。我记得有个场景是她坚持要独自进入时间裂缝，当时觉得她好勇敢，现在才明白那其实是在为后面的反转埋下伏笔。
不过我觉得这个转折最厉害的地方在于，它不只是为了制造惊喜而存在的。它真的让整部电影的主题都升华了。原本以为就是个普通的拯救世界的故事，结果突然就变成了关于身份认同和自我救赎的深刻探讨。我特别喜欢那个细节，当她摘下面具露出真实身份的时候，背景音乐突然变得特别轻柔，就像是在暗示这才是她真实的自我。
但是说实话，我有个朋友对这个转折持不同看法。她觉得这个设定有点太突然了，前面缺乏足够的铺垫。我们为此还争论了好久。我的观点是，其实细想的话，电影里到处都是线索，比如她总是避开谈论自己的过去，还有她对时间异常现象似乎过于熟悉。这些细节第一次看的时候可能不会特别注意，但回过头来看就觉得特别合理。
我特别同意作者说的，现在网上关于这个转折的讨论真的超级多。我在Reddit上看到一个帖子，有人逐帧分析电影里的每个细节，找出那些暗示最终反转的线索。最让我惊讶的是，原来在电影开场的前五分钟就已经有提示了 – 当时背景里有个一闪而过的新闻播报，提到时间管理局最优秀的特工失踪了，现在想来那说的就是她吧？
不过我觉得这个转折最大的成功之处在于，它让观众开始思考什么是真正的英雄主义。当我们得知伊娃船长的真实身份后，她之前那些看似矛盾的行为突然都有了合理的解释。她不是在背叛，而是在完成一个更宏大的使命。这个设定真的让我思考了很久，有时候表面上的“反派”可能只是在用不同的方式守护着某些东西。
说到表演，安娜·彼得洛娃的演技真的太绝了。她在展现角色双重身份时的微妙表情变化，特别是那个著名的转折场景里，她的眼神从坚定到脆弱再到决绝的转变，简直让人起鸡皮疙瘩。我后来特意去查了关于她的采访，她说为了准备这个角色，她特意研究了双重间谍的心理状态，这种专业精神真的值得敬佩。
但我也必须承认，这个转折虽然很出色，但可能不是对每个观众都有效。我妈妈看完后就觉得有点困惑，她说她更喜欢简单明了的故事线。这让我意识到，可能这种复杂的叙事结构更适合经常看科幻片的观众。对于普通观众来说，理解起来可能会有些困难。
不过总的来说，我认为这个转折是近年来最成功的剧情反转之一。它不仅仅是为了让人惊讶，而是真正服务于故事主题的。它让我们思考身份、忠诚和牺牲这些深刻的话题，这在现在的商业大片中真的很难得。我已经计划这周末再去二刷了，相信带着已知的结局重新观看，一定能发现更多有趣的细节。
说实话，现在很少有电影能让我在看完后还持续思考这么久。《时空裂痕》的这个转折不仅让我震惊，更让我对电影叙事可能性有了新的认识。希望以后能看到更多这样既有娱乐性又有深度的作品。