Doubled-down false advertisement. Even with original movie it was clear, that Arthur was unlikely to be the Joker, but even if we assumed, that he would be, it was more of interpretation of the character, if character was, indeed, victim of circumstances and/or society. The first movie showed us a sad man, who had anger building up in him from all the stress he was experiencing everywhere, and, at least, it made sense. The stakes were being raised with every scene, and dynamics of the movie showed that well. Kind of open ending was not perfect, perhaps, but worked fine for the story.
Guess money-mongers wanted more money, and decided to create a sequel, that not many even wanted. Or at least, definitely not the one like this. The fact that movie starts we sort of a recap of the first movie's ending already shows, that creators knew, that people won't remember it that well. I certainly barely remember what was in the movie, aside from the meme moments and general feel. But that's fine, as long as the rest of the new movie delivers properly, right?
Well, it does not. It's a hot mess with dynamics all over the place, and it's mostly just boring. Think of TV show Suits, but if all the fast-pacing, smart-assery and drama were removed from it. If all 7 or whatever season of it were in 2-3 rooms with little to no progress on 1 singular case, let alone meaningful relationships' development. That's Joker 2 for you. There were only a couple of scenes that were able to deliver glimpses of a proper atmosphere, that one would expect from a Joker character, and they can't save the movie.
I mean, it was doomed when they decided to make it a musical. Ok, that may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it still has a lot of singing, which do not fit the story, let alone the atmosphere. 2 dream sequences (both extremely long) were ok, since they were completely in Arthur's head. Him singing during an interview with a guy from TV - also fine, although it could have been filmed to deliver more sense of unease, potentially. The rest... Just why? Things were not in Arthur's head, or at least they were not shown as if they were, so that did not fit a movie that is supposed to be kind of a thriller or, at least, a psychological drama. Which could have worked with music being an important theme for the character, something that both helps and destroys him.
But as I said, this is not the Joker. Never was, and we were intentionally deceived just to grab our attention. The authors knew that they are completely missing the mark on the character (even characters, since "Harley" does not match the character either), that's why they did not only add a "real Joker reveal" in the end of the movie (trust me, this does not spoil anything, and you may even see the movie with different eyes now that you know), but even started claiming BS like "oh, we never said it was the Joker, that's why we did not use the in the title". Like, really?
If that was true, if it was not trying to be tied-into DC Universe, maybe some people could enjoy it. Maybe some would see some unique artistic vision here. But ads for both movies, all the marketing, the interviews before release, and all that - everything was saying that this is the origin of the Joker. Let alone that names in the movies suggested the same. So, no surprise that people were disappointed.
Is the movie "realistic"? I guess. If you accept the kind of relationship shown between Lee and Arthur as believable. But it's not as deep as 1st movie, and definitely not as gritty, intentional and meaningful as The Batman with Pattison. It's just... Boring and a waste of time. I would recommend you do not make the same mistake as I did.
