Disclaimer on Apple TV+ delivers a gripping psychological thriller, blending mystery with moral complexity. Created by acclaimed director Alfonso Cuarón, this series is based on the novel by Renée Knight, and stars Cate Blanchett as Catherine Ravenscroft, a successful documentary filmmaker whose life is upended when a disturbing novel appears, revealing her darkest secrets.

The series centers around Catherine, who stumbles upon a novel that eerily mirrors events from her past that she believed were long buried. As the book’s existence begins to unravel her personal and professional life, she must confront disturbing truths about herself. What makes Disclaimer intriguing is its delicate balance between psychological suspense and character-driven drama, allowing the viewers to feel empathy, even for morally ambiguous characters.

Cate Blanchett’s performance is nothing short of mesmerizing. She portrays Catherine as having a complex mix of strength, vulnerability, and guilt. Kevin Kline, who plays her estranged husband, adds further depth to the story, making their fractured relationship a compelling subplot.

Alfonso Cuarón’s direction is both atmospheric and tense. The series often uses flashbacks, slow reveals, and intricate camera work to keep the audience on edge. The mood is constantly one of unease, leaving you questioning what’s real and what’s imagined.

The disclaimer explores themes of guilt, memory, and the consequences of the past. It dives into the gray areas of moral responsibility, showing how events can be perceived differently by those involved. The series also delves into issues of privacy and identity in the digital age, where our pasts are never truly erased.

Visually, Disclaimer excels in creating a sense of looming dread. From its dark, muted color palette to its sharp contrasts in lighting, every frame adds to the psychological tension. The soundtrack complements the eerie mood, with haunting melodies that amplify the sense of paranoia.

Disclaimer is a masterclass in slow-burn suspense, elevated by outstanding performances and a director who knows how to manipulate tension. It may not be a show for those who prefer fast-paced thrillers, but if you enjoy character-driven narratives that challenge your perception of truth, this is a must-watch.

Final Rating: 4.5/5

Spoilers hidden in clown makeup! 

Called “The Madness of two”, the love story of Joker and Lee, is set against the backdrop of the murder trial of Arthur Fleck, imprisoned in Arkham, in 1980’s Gotham City. 

It’s almost impossible to believe that the film’s director and writers would do this to a character they professed to come to love by the end of the first, admittedly divisive, Joker film. But it happened, and it’s up there for us the audience to be, let’s be real here, tortured with. You’ve been warned. 

They turned Arthur Fleck, the downtrodden character who took back his own power at the end of the first film, back into what he began this whole journey as – a victim. Even his Joker persona won’t save him from being objectified at his trial, for his lawyer keeps insisting he’s sick in the head and this “Joker” is the result, and the legion of fans out there clamoring for more are more aimless fan-atics and less revolutionaries. Though one person, a shiny little tarnished pearl set among the crazies at Arkham, stands out for Arthur in a very strong way. 

The single bright spot in the whole film, ‘cuz it sure is not the skeleton-thin Joaquin Phoenix trudging about Arkham like a cowed scarecrow, is inevitably Lady Gaga as the reimagined Harley Quinn, or Lee, as she introduces herself to Arthur. They meet, inevitably enough, at music class. And suddenly, Arthur’s heart finds song again! Lee loves Arthur, or rather Joker, with an intensity that actually shocks him awake for a short while. And we see small, short flashes of our beloved madman in his iconic makeup, as he madly pirouettes his way through representing himself at his own trial, defiant in his sharp-angled clown look, his voice flitting effortlessly between entertaining characters, accompanied by musical numbers straight from Jokers cerebral cortex, fully imagined and surreal, joyous and loud, impossible to deny or ignore. Which, remember from the first film, was the whole point folks. Gaga carries in every single musical number, and there is always a just barely-there sense of her singing being just the tiniest bit off, like you know that note and that note was wrong, but she did that on purpose to demonstrate Lee’s own version of reciprocating madness. It’s genius ya’ll, but rather than being any kind of uplifting, the duets especially that Lee does with Joker are a musical dive further into madness. Lee wants Arthur to split and for Joker to explode and entertain and be alive, and nothing will stand in her way. Even enduring an, I kid you not so be prepared for it, totally awkward sex scene. 

It turns out, the villain of the film is actually Lee herself. Her carefully crafted fan-cast ways are quite believable, a testament to Mother Monsters excellent acting abilities, but in fact it’s all wrong. In what is arguably DC’s most legendary abusive relationship, Joker is the villain and Harley Quinn is his, however willing, victim. Definitely not the other way around, which is what is presented here in Folie au Deux. And while I applaud a Harley Quinn offered to us as a calculating femme fatale finally, this reduces our formerly powerful Joker to a shell of even Arthur Fleck. This is not what we, the audience, are here for. 

The amount of abuse Arthur suffers throughout the film is appalling, and made more so because there is no delicious payoff like in the first film. Joker does not snap and go on a killing spree, or give a joyously psychotic rant, no, he confesses. Traces of the Joker makeup he wore so defiantly in court still remain, but our clever mastermind clown prince of crime, or what he could have been, is reduced to this blubbering, maniacally laughing, apologetic thing on his last stand. 

After the trials inevitable conclusion, the torture doesn’t end for poor Arthur, oh no. Lee is gone, the music in his head has ceased, and things at Arkham with everyone’s favorite singing guard Jackie Sullivan (Brendan Gleeson) is about to take a turn for the seriously worse. 

The movie has a well-earned R rating and though it isn’t graphic per se, no one in the audience wanted to share head-space with the strongly implied image of Brendan Gleeson having to act out raping Joaquin Phoenix, broken and beaten and lost, utterly powerless. 

Also, tell me in a movie that we’re set in the 1980’s without telling me we’re in the 80’s – damn near every single last character is smoking. Like, constantly. Throughout most of the musical numbers too. Hell, the first thing Arthur Fleck says of any note in the movie, is to ask his interviewer for a cigarette. Likely even unconsciously divisive with the audience, the smoking emphasizes the melancholia of most of the characters and indeed, the very grungy atmosphere of 80’s Gotham City. 

The director already said that this version of the Joker isn’t the “real one”, which harkens back to the time of the TV show Gotham, who gave credence to the notion that Joker ideals and madness could be spread like a plague and therefore anyone could in theory be Joker, and this theory holds at the very end of the film and what the assassin does to himself in the blurred, blood-soaked background. Which, hey, I’m fine with the idea of these Joker films being one-offs in a separate but attached DC-verse, but it only makes one pity poor Arthur Fleck even more. Not even the real madman, just a depressed little would-be clown, betrayed by everyone, totally alone. All Arthur ever wanted was to entertain people, and surely the sequel does that idea up big, with larger-than-life musical numbers, dancing and costumes and a love story for two very widely known characters, but in the most grim-dark depressingly bleak manner possible. It mostly really is all in Arthur’s head, after all. None of the truly beautiful parts are real. And that thought is truly depressing, for it’s as close to real life as one is going to get inside the DC-verse. It’s kind of like we the audience are betraying Arthur too, because we’re watching his life unraveling as a form of consumer entertainment. And I don’t watch films for a guilt trip, thank you. 

One could say that no matter what strong opinions one has about the movie – and there are many, the Press section in my theater when I saw the film was absolutely abuzz with mostly strongly negative emotions – harkens back to the old thought of, it doesn’t matter if the conversation is positive or negative, you’re still talking about me. Even so, with the film hitting theaters recently and opinions pouring in, scales are leaning more and more towards, “I don’t like it.” Giant do-ups of grandly realized musical numbers, arguably a pair of the biggest stars in the artist world today in the titular roles, and a whopping you-wouldn’t-believe-how-much budget can’t save the Joker sequel from the folly of its own aspirations of … I’m not even sure what. See the film, and you tell me what you think is being presented here. 

Listen in for the tears of a clown in Joker Folie au Deux in theaters now! 

Cobweb had limited theatrical release in July 2023 where it was immediately swallowed up by the cultural juggernaut that was the summer of ‘Barbenheimer’. Released onto Netflix in September 2024, presumably in preparation for spooky season. It is an interesting watch. 

Cobweb weaves its creepy tale around Peter (Woody Norman) a reserved eight year old boy. Peter lives with his mum; Carol (Lizzy Caplan), and his dad; Mark (Antony Starr), in a decrepit house. Peter is kept awake by strange knockings on his bedroom wall during the night. Both his parents dismiss this as Peter’s overactive imagination yet Mark enlists Peter’s help to put down poison for suspected rats. 

Peter is quiet at school with no friends which inevitably attracts bullies. We see that Peter’s problems fitting in at school could be attributed to the odd behaviour of his parents. Despite being set in the modern era their house lacks a TV or seemingly any technology bar a landline phone in the kitchen. 

The knocking on Peter’s bedroom wall turns into a female child’s voice asking for help then claiming to be his sister whom his parents have locked away, her name is Sarah. The disembodied voice claims the parents are “evil”. The parents bizarre behaviour turns to abusive when they lock Peter in the basement for drawing the attention of his teacher to their home. 

Peter’s sister in the wall eventually tricks Peter into poisoning his parents with the rat poison and setting her free. Sarah turns out to be an evil spider-like monstrous being. She gleefully rips through people with her elongated nails while taunting Peter. Peter is eventually rescued by his teacher Ms Devine (clearly from the Charles Dickens school of character naming) and Sarah is locked back into her cage in the basement. Sarah warns Peter that the night will haunt him forever and that they are “family”.

But is all as it seems with this twisted tale? The outlandish ending left many scratching their  heads at what began as a pretty grounded movie. Fans and critics alike took to social media to share their theories and thoughts on this underrated horror. 

I enjoyed the story. The acting was superb, particularly Norman who sold his role as an anxious child who slowly begins to understand his own strength and resilience. Special mention of course goes to Antony Starr. His wide smile and Patrick Bateman-esque eyes upped the creepy factor significantly. When Sarah crawled out of her prison behind the wall while talking to Peter in her death rattle,  I had to mute the film because I was so creeped out! 

Many viewers commented that the third act is vastly different from the rest of the movie. Was this simply a rushed production deadline or COVID related problems? Or was the film alluding to something different altogether? There are many fan theories scurrying around the interweb regarding the origin and meaning behind Peter’s, apparently, demonic sibling. 

Here are a few of my favourites:

Sarah is Just a Figment

Throughout the narrative we are reminded that Peter has a big imagination. He’s also lonely,  he has no friends at school and spends recess helping the teacher. It also becomes clear that Peter is being abused by his parents, their behaviour becoming increasingly more erratic. Seeing a young child being locked in a basement is far more terrifying to me than any ghost or ghoul. When he’s finally allowed out of the basement his mum brings him a tray of cupcakes to celebrate his freedom and bathes him. In typical abuser fashion Peter is made to apologise for his behaviour. Is it any wonder this little boy conjured himself an imaginary friend? Maybe even one with a familial bond? He would at least have one family member who doesn’t abuse him.

The majority of the story takes place at the family home. Its very noticeable that the outside of the house doesn’t exactly match the layout of the interior (and not just because one is a sound stage). Every shot is so beautiful that we have to believe this was deliberate. Despite the house being colonial in design, the inside is spacious with the use of wide shots. Everything feels so big, is this because we are seeing through a small child’s eyes? In this large, sometimes scary house maybe Peter’s damaged mind build up a fantasy around the sounds of actual rats scratching the walls. Imagining a sister he could run away with and start a new life.

This theory is supported by the almost nonchalant way Peter’s parents treat the whole situation. They have sealed their daughter in the walls of their house, did they not ever think she would maybe try to communicate with their son? Carol doesn’t even seem particularly alarmed when Peter starts talking about hearing sounds coming from inside the walls. 

Maybe an abused little boy would fantasise about his magical imaginary sister tearing his bullies limb from limb. Not only that but his favourite teacher arrives in time to rescue him from the massacre. 

Did Peter invent a fantastical scenario to escape his abusive parents?

Sarah is Peter’s Subconscious 

This is related to the first theory. A Redditor pointed out that in the style of Jungian psychology there are many dream-like ‘hooks’ in the movie. A hook in a dream is something non-sensical to let the dreamer know they are dreaming. There are many of these in Cobweb. The family inexplicably have a beautiful pumpkin patch in their backyard. Very atmospheric but why? Are they selling these pumpkins? They don’t like Halloween. Some viewers think the soup the family ate (every night) was pumpkin soup but looked to me to be the wrong color. Not just the patch but there is a child’s swing hanging from a tree right in the middle. Why would you encourage a child to play in the middle of delicate fruit he could tread on? Or if we lean into the dream theory; the swing in the pumpkin patch could represent Peter’s life from his perspective. Trying to play and be a normal child but with one wrong move he could destroy everything and anger his parents.

Keeping with the narrative Sarah becomes Peter’s subconscious or shadow self, all the repressed thoughts and feelings that are not acknowledged in daylight. The walls of Peter’s bedroom are covered in pictures and drawings except the wall through which he talks to Sarah, which is completely bare. 

Sarah encourages Peter to stand up for himself against his bullies and the next day he pushes one down the stairs injuring the bully. Sarah eventually convinces Peter to poison his parents, she warns him they want to kill him. Even Sarah’s appearance; starts off initially creepy with Sadako’s spiderlike movements, long matted hair filled with spiders, and long lethal nails. When we finally see her face the CGI is admittedly awful. The rest of the film has seemed so deliberate with every shot is the CGI deliberately phony looking? Sarah has a too-wide mouth with sharp teeth and shining eyes, basically how a child would draw a ‘scary face’. Sarah taunts Peter, Evil Dead style, from beneath the grate in the basement saying he is just like her. So are they one in the same? Peter seemingly rejects his shadow self,  leaving her to rot in her cell. But is that enough after he killed his parents? Is cute little Peter a burgeoning psychopath and this is his origin story?

And They Were Demons!

This is a fun one. While Sarah is locked in her cell she pleads with Peter saying that “it is in our blood”. What exactly does that mean? Sarah is not a normal girl if the walking up walls didn’t give you a clue. How could these outwardly normal-looking parents have birthed such a monster? Unless they are monsters too. It would explain Mark’s sinister attributes. During Peter’s nightmare, his mother has shining white eyes just like his sister. 

So is Peter some kind of demonic being? During the movie, Peter shows no outward supernatural abilities. Some have argued he shows super strength when pulling Sarah by her hair or it may just be plot convenience. However, eight-year-old Peter thinks to use the rat poison to poison his parent’s dinner. He even thinks about cutting the phone line so they can’t call 911. That’s extremely evil behaviour to put it mildly. Is this Peter’s demonic genes?

This theory also explains why Peter’s parents are so strict with him. Why did they overreact when Peter pushed the bully down the stairs? They knew what happened with Sarah, she almost got them found out.

Will Peter start to mutate like his sister? Ideas for a sequel maybe?

Even without these theories, Cobweb was a fun ride while it lasted. For an hour-and-a-half film, I personally fell into a virtual world of critiques and fan theories. Perhaps it is best to think of it like a modern fairytale, certainly more Grimm than Hitchcock!