Discussion
Personally I realy can't see where all the love comes from for The Dark Knight, is it because one of the lead actors has died? I too prefer Burtons Batman with Joker. While Nolans films are both OK, I don't think they are very well paced and I found myself bored through bits of them, not what you want from a Batman movie. Characterisation was very good but Nolan can't direct action for sh*t.
Guvernator said:
Personally I realy can't see where all the love comes from for The Dark Knight, is it because one of the lead actors has died? I too prefer Burtons Batman with Joker. While Nolans films are both OK, I don't think they are very well paced and I found myself bored through bits of them, not what you want from a Batman movie. Characterisation was very good but Nolan can't direct action for sh*t.
I think it's all too easy to think that the success of Dark Knight came because of the publicity from Heath Ledgers dead but I don't think it's the case.The 1989 Batman was ok, but I felt it was a movie version of the 60's TV show with some of the campness turned down, plus a good as Jack Nicolson was physically he didn't look the part and Keaton was worse, neither looked like they would stand much chance in the sort of action the characters did, plus he just played Jack Nicolson in paint, with his usual mannerisms and delivery.
Heath Ledger really became the joker, the way is moved, and especially the way he licked his lips etc was as much of the performance has the dialog. Plus without going OTT his appearence matched the action.
P-Jay said:
I think it's all too easy to think that the success of Dark Knight came because of the publicity from Heath Ledgers dead but I don't think it's the case.
The 1989 Batman was ok, but I felt it was a movie version of the 60's TV show with some of the campness turned down, plus a good as Jack Nicolson was physically he didn't look the part and Keaton was worse, neither looked like they would stand much chance in the sort of action the characters did, plus he just played Jack Nicolson in paint, with his usual mannerisms and delivery.
Heath Ledger really became the joker, the way is moved, and especially the way he licked his lips etc was as much of the performance has the dialog. Plus without going OTT his appearence matched the action.
While I will take nothing away from Ledger's performance as the joker as I thought it was outstanding and IMO he got the character spot on, I just thought on the whole both Nolan films were rather dry, flat whatever you want to call it when it came to the action.The 1989 Batman was ok, but I felt it was a movie version of the 60's TV show with some of the campness turned down, plus a good as Jack Nicolson was physically he didn't look the part and Keaton was worse, neither looked like they would stand much chance in the sort of action the characters did, plus he just played Jack Nicolson in paint, with his usual mannerisms and delivery.
Heath Ledger really became the joker, the way is moved, and especially the way he licked his lips etc was as much of the performance has the dialog. Plus without going OTT his appearence matched the action.
Sheets Tabuer said:
LOL, is that the one where he scares of the some man eating sharks with some handy "Shark Repellant" which he just luckily happens to have in his utility belt for just such emergencies?
ajprice said:
My take on the Heath Ledger Joker licking his lips was that he did would have originally done it because of his scarred mouth, and it had become a habit. Is licking lips a part of the Joker's character with other films/TV/comics?
Not from the ones I have read which is a fair few and the Joker is my favourite character. I also found that HL's Joker wasn't actually psychotic enough. He was crazy and to a large degree calculating but not actually delusional enough.
kelk said:
+1
It's very easy to be Batman - minimal dialogue, little acting, mainly action sequences. Whereas being Bruce Wayne - no mask, all acting start to finish IYGWIM. Keaton's interpretation of Wayne was very good, especially when he is talking to the Joker in Vicki Vale's appartment.
Have to disagree thereIt's very easy to be Batman - minimal dialogue, little acting, mainly action sequences. Whereas being Bruce Wayne - no mask, all acting start to finish IYGWIM. Keaton's interpretation of Wayne was very good, especially when he is talking to the Joker in Vicki Vale's appartment.
Keaton looked like he took a wrong turn from the set of a rom-com for most of Batman.
I much prefer Bale as Batman.
shakotan said:
Well, Clark Kent got away with a pair of glasses, at least Batman has a mask...
As I understand it the director had much the same problem. It wasn't difficult to find someone to play Superman. It was the turning around and not being Superman that was hard. Reeves did a decent job, Keaton did it better with Batman.DJRC said:
We are talking thinking HL got the psychotic aspect of the Joker spot on and not Keaton???
Watch Keaton again and watch his eyes. Keaton gets the psychotic aspect of the Wayne/Batman character absolutely perfect and he does it all in the eyes.
Well put sir.Watch Keaton again and watch his eyes. Keaton gets the psychotic aspect of the Wayne/Batman character absolutely perfect and he does it all in the eyes.
The Joker has always been the counterpoint to Batman. The Joker is the very reason why Batman doesn't go too far. The Joker can even be quoted in one comic as saying that wiothout him, Batman couldn't fight crime and remain on the right side. I.e. the Joker is good for Gotham for as long as he exists Batman will be the antithesis of evil.
Hence Keaton's ability to walk the line and act as a psycho whilst being the little boy lost. This was done brilliantly when Alfred brought him the soup in the bat cave in the original Keaton film.
Very underrated in that role.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff