Hmm watching that "Prologue" trying to find it. I could swear I read "E. Nigma" somewhere in that scene...

EDIT:
Hmm maybe I just thought I saw it on his desk or something, because I remember a friend asking me about it after the show. Oh well. Still odd that they'd have him playing such a small character.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jul 27 2008, 5:55 am by DevliN.

Why Heath Ledger's performance was superb: Without all the hype behind the movie, you would have never guessed who the actor was. This is the same guy who played the hero in the chickflick romance "A Knight's Tale" and romance/comedy "10 Things I Hate About You". He made me believe he was his character, the Joker. That is an actor's job, and he pulled it off wonderfully.

Although the actor died, the character can continue. Ledger was in makeup for the entire movie (one brief moment without when disguised in the celebration, but he still had the lip scar makeup). Another actor could be fitted into the Joker's role with minimal impact on his look or feel. Perhaps Johnny Depp could pull it off.

One of the things I didn't like about the movie was the forced sound of Batman's voice. Yes, he needs to disguise his voice from that of Bruce Wayne, and he wants to be intimidating. That works (kinda) with short yelps of dialogue when interrogating criminals, but a two-minute conversation with Gordon in the cleared-out bank vault? Forced anger in casual conversation just makes the audience uncomfortable.

I really liked how they layered the development of one villian, Two-Face, amidst the plotline of the main villian, the Joker. Unfortunately, the transformation was a little too sudden at the tail-end of the movie for my tastes. We didn't get to see the conflicting split personality, him arguing with himself, or much support for the shift from stoic good guy to murderous bad guy. Yes, he threatened to kill one of the Joker's henchmen while personally interrogating him (how'd the Batman find him?). Yes, he just lost his wife-to-be and is suffering excruciating pain at having lost half his face (although we really don't see much physical agony expressed). Finally, yes the Joker sets Two-Face off. All this makes logical sense, but in the end I just didn't feel it. I needed to see pain and conflicting emotions expressed to truly empathize with his metamorphosis. I needed to see remnants of the original Harvy Dent fighting for control and losing. I needed to see that resorting to a coin flip, fate, was his last ditch desperate effort to preserve what was left of his sanity and morality. I needed more than the end of a movie about the Joker to really get into the Two-Face character as a villian. Such a short resolution to so much build-up is just disappointing. It didn't do the character justice.

I also really liked how realistic the physical creation of Two-Face was versus the comics or cartoon (vat o' chemicals), where in trying to untie himself he knocks over a drum and spills oil, and subsequently falls over and soaks half his face, later ignited by the proximity of the explosion due to the timing of the barely-successful rescue by Batman.

I too remember Batman shouting to Gordon that he was going to rescue the girl (whats-her-name), and I was surprised when he busted in and rescued Harvy. I didn't even consider it was an intentional mislead by the Joker until I read it here. I think the switcheroo is quite befitting of the Joker, though, but wish there was more to support this realization after the fact, within the movie, like a comment from a character, so this twist wouldn't be so obscure to the audience. What I like about the deception is that whoever Batman chooses to save, the Joker knows it'll be whoever he cares about most, and by giving opposite directions the Joker ensures the Batman will be emotionally fucked. Either way, Batman loses. So cold...

One other thing that bugged me in the back of my mind was that after the stomach bomb went off, why was the Joker the only one standing? I don't believe he's any more resistent to explosives than a normal human being, and there were people all around the Joker when it went off, so at least some people were bound to be as unscathed as he was. Maybe they were ducking behind their desks and the Joker kept standing because he knew what to expect? Who knows, but a quick shot of it would have answered that.

Other than that, the Joker definately stole the show from Batman in this movie. I just hope in future movies they don't bring in Robin or Batgirl. Bleck. The darker, grittier Batman works alone. The earlier, classic comic Batman was a comic of its times with the inclusion of a sidekick and a girl-version. I don't see that as necessary to the current Batman. Robin = Teenage angst that just leaves me ill (and the source of way too many gay jokes). Batgirl = Just ... lame. Catwoman is far more dynamic for that role niche.

Post has been edited 5 time(s), last time on Jul 27 2008, 11:35 am by Hercanic.

Fully agree on that whole rant, especially the heath ledger part, he did a good job, excellent in fact, but he IS replacable, and to cut the storyline would be doing more damage then to cut the actor...

With Two-Face, they really should have left it hanging after Harvy sees the coin in the hospital, gets a hopeful look on his face, then flips it over and realizes the truth from the burn marks. Then they could have just focused more on the Joker and left the villian metamorphosis of Two-Face to play out in another movie. That way, they could devote the time needed to do him justice, making the audience really understand, feel, and empathize with his mental struggle and transformation. That would have been epic. *sigh*

I felt that Two-Face getting his own movie would be stupid. It was fine the way it was, and you can't replace the Joker because they would do an inferior job compared to Ledger. The story-line was over, he had been captured. End.

I totally agree with Hercanic about Two-Face - he needed more development and depth.

Another thing that bothered me was the faked death of Gary Oldman - I just hate it when a character appears dead to the audience and then turns out to be alive and well (saved by body armor or what? I doubt anything one could wear in his situation would save him from a shot from such range).

Aside from those two parts, I was very sattisfied with the movie: the moral dilemmas it presents and the action.

I didn't see it yet, but I plan on trying to.

I think someone said that we wouldn't be saying that Ledger did so well if he were still alive (couldn't find the post to quote, though), but I didn't even know that it was him until at least halfway through the movie. I was about to ask who the actor was, but then I remembered a joke my friend had made when the Joker was talking about how people revealed who they really were when they were dying. "It's funny because he died on sleeping pills, what does that say about him?" Ok, so I was a little slow, but I don't care enough about celebrity gossip and shit to be expected to get something like that right away.
Dragon Skin!

I saw it with my friend and we both agreed the Joker did very well. He had no idea who Heath Ledger was and was surprised when I told him he was dead now.

I will miss Heath Ledger. Great performance.

Yeah GG.

I saw the movie twice and loved it both times. The Joker was just too much. In a good way though. He was overly funny and always was one step a head. I love how he would lick his lips every once and a while, because of his fucked up scars. Oh and the ~3 different stories of how he got those scars.

Epic!

The only thing I didn't like was how Batman would have this fake deep voice. It was kind of stupid. Other then that, 2 thumbs up.

[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2yv8aT0UFc[/urlf]
A spoof that makes fun of the batman voice. It's pretty funny.

IMO, they needn't continue the Joker plotline. They've already gotten across that he's evil and maniacal and whatever the hell else he is. It'd be beating a dead horse.


Also, Espeneo noted that "it was such a horrible movie because people can't even agree who died at the end" or something like that. That's a sign of good literary value (well, it's a movie, but still). It leaves a lot of speculation that 1. Will keep people talking about it much longer after it than if it was all wrapped up neatly and 2. It gets the person thinking about it and making theories. They're not just watching it, but partaking in the movie experience. Why do you think Lost did so well? There are loose ends and questions that aren't answered, at least right away, so people keep speculating about it.