> >
> > There's a lot of cool stuff in there, but then there's stuff I'm not so sure of... and Ledger's Joker pretty much tops that list. The Joker has never really worked 100% as a character for me anyways, and I'm not convinced the extra level of grim and grittiness is going to solve that for me. I'm especially not convinced by the actor's delivery. Even by the end of the trailer, I was sick of hearing him draw out his wooorrrrrrds. It's like he started with a bad Nickelson impersonation and then just made it more generic.
> >
>
> According to wikipedia, Heath Ledger spent a month alone in a hotel room to develop his "Joker" persona, which is about the worst excess of "method acting" I've ever heard of. The character is an over the top, mass murdering clown. Its not a role that requires a lot of range.
|
That's a very glib statement and one that's completely unfounded and without merit. You're taking the "it's just comics, why give them any respect?" approach, which is ironic since you're a comic-fan. That's something I would expect to come from one of those generic mainstream reviewers who long for the silly days of "Batman and Robin" and don't understand why "comic-movies had to grow up." Not you.
If I may, you have no idea what goes into playing the Joker or what process Ledger had to go through. To boil down the role of a psychotic killer into a simple one-note performance is to damn his Joker before it even hits the screen. If Ledger wasn't trying at all and treating it like a paycheck, he's lazy and disrespectful. If he's taking the role seriously, he's excessive and self-absorbed. You just can't please internet-critics. There's always something to complain about.
If you want further proof that playing a psychopathic killer takes real acting talent, see "No Country for Old Men." If Ledger can pull out a performance half as good as the serial-killer from that movie, then you'll do an 180 on your "its not a role that requires alot of talent" statement.
> Caesar Romero did fine and he wouldn't even shave off his mustache.
Wha-Wha-What?!? Sorry, but your whole argument goes down the toilet when you make that ludicrious claim. You're either looking at the past through rose-colored glasses or have never actually picked up a Batman comic with the Joker, as he was meant to be, in it. Look, the Batman series is okay for a campy laugh, but Romero was NOT threatening or even unnerving. I'm not pissing on Romero. That Joker is great, if you want a Joker based on the awful, campy, REALLY comic-code approved Batman books from the 50's through to the mid 60's. If you want Joker as Bob Kane INTENDED him to be, (and the interpretation that creators like O'Neil and Miller brought back decades later) then Romero is NO Joker! I'm sorry, may he RIP, but you've GOT to be kidding! I think we have very different ideas on what makes a good Joker.
>Same with Mark Hamill, who will never be mistaken for Lawrence Olivier.
I did love Mark Hamill in the Batman cartoon series. But that's voice-acting. A tad easier than actually embodying the Joker wouldn't you say?
>
> > We'll see though... I've grown more fond of the last one over time, and more forgiving of its flaws. I'm looking forward to this one.
>
> The villain's master plan and subsequent death ("I won't kill you, but I don't have to save you"?!?) still bug me, but I thought they did a good job with Bats's origin and most of the supporting cast. I enjoyed it more than any of the previous Bat films and I think this one will be good too.
|
I do too. I just wish you weren't so dismissive of Ledger's Joker. Hope I didn't come off as too harsh. I'm just very excited about this film and I think the trailer is all sorts of kick ass.
