Brad Pitt did a pretty good job in The Twelve Monkeys.

Nicolas Cage;
One of my all time favorite actors.

We are getting a little OT, but Gary Oldman has played some crazy parts. Watch him in: Leon: The Professional, Bram Stokers Dracula, True Romance, Fifth Element, and you can see the evil, demented, off balanced roles he plays and plays well.

How I know Gary Oldman is a great actor:
1.) Sid and Nancy
2.) True Romance
3.) JFK
4.) Bram Stoker's Dracula.

And how could anyone forget Gary Oldman in "The Professional"?

Except that Burton didn't read comic books.

I deny that anyone listed anywhere in the credits of Mars Attacks! has any talent unless they show me some very compelling proof to make me think otherwise.

Think what you want. Mars Attacks is excellent. But then I really like many of Tim Burton films...

No, Julie Newmar all the way!

Jack Nicholson is IN "Mars Attacks!". You believe he has talent, right?

Haven't read much as to how Ledger's portrayal of Joker evolved, but what I have read suggests that he wasn't influenced by anyone. The Joker we see is a product of his own fevered imagination, and bits he cribbed from animals and mental patients. I understand that they made him read "The Killing Joke" comic however?

Romero, If you become familiar with the man, probably just gave his own spin on the character as well. Pretty big ego in that one.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

They gave him Killing Joke and Long Halloween... he said he tried to read Killing Joke, he just couldn't stop putting it down.

That's disappointing, but I guess understandable. Seems like a lot of actors aren't particularly interested in their character outside of the actual script in their hands.

As a decent if unknown stage actor, I can suggest something here. Unless you are specifically playing a person whom people can remember, whether still alive or through film or TV, it's better to NOT spend a lot of time determining what other people did with a character. It's better to make that character your own. If you don't do a good job, you didn't imagine the character well enough, you didn't spend enough time in your own head creating the backstory, creating the mannerisms, adapting the character to the world that he is intended to inhabit. If the Gotham that Dark Knight lived in was completely taken from some comic or some previously built city, then it behooved Ledger to find that Gotham and understand it. He didn't need someone else's idea of the Joker to work from. The Joker is a fictional character, so he had full freedom to build him as he thought best. Sometimes, that's harder that working off a real person! Sometimes, not.

I did a production of "On Golden Pond," as Norman Thayer, the Henry Fonda character, last fall, and the last thing I wanted to do was to see the movie or anything he did, to avoid copying his work. Especiallys since we both grew up in Nebraska, so it would have been too easy to imitate his voice. I got good reviews, so I feel justified in saying all this to you guys, who are probably wondering, "What the hell is this bozo saying?" and "Who let him in here?" Ah, well.

It sure sounds to me like Heath Ledger built a believable villain.

I heard him say that the role was influenced by Sid VIscous, among others.

- J

Ahh - That's right. I remember that now. Good choice on his part.

The Disappearing Pencil was indeed magic.

Everything I'd previously read before seeing the film touted the pencil scene as the focal point of Ledger's performance, and sure, he did admirably in a 10-second shtick that highlights the talents of the director and editors about twice as much as it does those of Ledger, which themselves are approximately one-third the talent required to envision that scene and commit it to paper (I'm really good at these sorts of comparative calculations, you'll just have to trust me.) That film is a tremendously collaborative effort is never more apparent than in snippets like the pencil thing.

Adopting speech patterns reminiscent of lunatics with horribly scarred cheeks is probably not the most difficult technical task an actor has ever had to perform, and while Ledger did it quite well, as well as such business as the hospital detonation, none of it rises (for me) to the level of mastery that I keep seeing attributed to the man. Good job, Heath, and well done, but Nicholson to my way of thinking was just as good, and--though this is not really germane--he managed to keep himself alive for MANY years after his excellent performance.

That comment is rude and insensitive.


Really? Does that have anything to do with his acting ability?

"Oops, he died early... it must mean that he's a hack."

All acting is collaborative and an actor that is able to collaborate and still have the performance work on an amazing level IS an amazing actor.

I've seen collaborated efforts that fail miserably; "Batman & Robin" for instance. Every componenet needs to work for a machine to work.

Have to disagree with you on this one, Josh. Anyone else would played it as an overblown, scenery chewing, madman. That's something you can phone in. What made Ledger so freakin'(to me) memorable was that he underplayed the part. That was the brilliance of it, and why everyone is still talking about it. I will say that Nicholson's performance was also inspired, and I felt he should have gotten an Oscar nod as well.

I disagree. This "I kill because I can" villain archetype has been around for quite a while now. It's only been a little while since we've seen it done right (No Country for Old Men).

As I was watching Dark Knight I was thinking "Do we really need another of these type villains?" but by the end of the film I willing to accept the cliche maniac one more time.

I liked Jack's Joker very much. Ledger also did a bang up job. I love them both because they're unique and distinct from each other. I think that a preference of one over the other is merely a matter of personal taste. I wouldn't say that one was better than the other. It's like two different musicians rendering their own interpretation of a piece of music. All of the essentials may be there, but there are stylistic and interpretational differences that are worth exploring and enjoying. We can love them both.

I am so glad to finally hear someone bring up the point of different Gotham's and different Batman's and even different Jokers. I think Ledger did the best job he possibly could with my least favorite Joker available. I have never liked the "anarchist" Joker generally speaking. I loved the Killing Joke, but as much for the art as the story. Jack played the vain, killer clown, the Joker Ledger played was not really established yet in 1988-1989, with source material of The Killing Joke, Arkham Asylum and The Long Halloween. I say in this case the Joker was written much different than anything Jack had a shot at trying. I liked Jack's Joker much more, but I think Ledger gave the kind of performance that you certainly have to say was fantastic in the setting he was in, but as a huge Joker nerd I just don't feel the Joker Ledger had on paper was a good definative version.

I figure the next movie we get the Riddler, but he will be a bit more like Jigsaw from the Saw movies, and people will say it was the greatest Riddler ever.

I have to say I preferred Heath Ledger's performance. I find that he went much further in his efforts to distance his character from himself.

What I mean by this is that although Jack Nicholson did a wonderful job in 'his' Batman, he was playing the same crazy Jack we knew from The Shining. He relied on that same Jack smile, that same dry Jack sarcasm and that same Jack charisma that we already loved - that could make even The Bucket List a forgivable slight.

Heath Ledger, on the other hand, conveyed the illusion of disappearing completely behind the character he was given to play. He was rendered unrecognizable by much more than the makeup he wore. The random way he moved and gestured, the wild abandon of his laughter and the sickening, haunting way he licked his lips throughout the entire movie made his performance shine brighter.

Jack Nicholson as the Joker cut the thickest, saltiest ham of his entire career.

I hated it.

In fact I thought it was so clearly and obviously awful performance that I was genuinely astonished to discover, on reading some material about the new film, that most people thought his performance was very good and that he himself was angry he hadn't been asked to reprise it. It's badness was so totally gospel to me that I'm still not entirely sure these positive reactions aren't some sort of hoax.

I've not seen TDK yet, but I can't imagine Ledger could do much worse.

I agree. My sister said the same thing.

What would be a background story to an anarchist anyway?

What is his future?

I would disagree with this statement.

It is not anger that drives the Joker. It is sheer chaotic madness. He is a man without morals of any kind and is totally apathetic toward others. This is man without feeling or regret.

It is his love of chaos and the uncertainty in everyones mind that drives him. He push people past their limits and drives them into that barbarism that lives in all of us.

It is amazing what a man without morals can do.

I've yet to see TDK, but this does not bode well for my enjoyment of this film.

The lack of backstory for the Joker was clearly intentional, and it's one of my biggest gripes with the film. Far too much screen time is devoted to ridiculous international expeditions, far too much to the genesis of Two-Face, and far too little to The Joker's rationale. Leaving the Joker alive for sequels and later exposition was probably a fine thing until Ledger OD'd. Now who's going to bust out of Arkham in a film or three from now?

I'm a long time comic nerd, and in my experience the Joker doesn't really need a backstory. Giving him the Joe Chill position in the Burton Batman movie was a neat touch, but unnecessary.

The Joker doesn't need a motivation for what he does--he just acts, often without discernible rhyme or reason. It's what makes him so scary. And Batman doesn't need motivation for trying to stop him beyond the facts that someone has to and no one else can.

I'm probably as long time a comics nerd as you. I'm 50, and have been reading Batman stories for at least 46 years. Of course the Joker doesn't need a back story--he has one. The Joe Chill stuff from the Burton film actually irritated me greatly. I, for one, did not need the cyclical device of having Joker be the one who killed the Waynes. Such liberties get taken all the time, however, and within the comics themselves origins and backstories are written in mercury-based ink on flash paper, so I've come to expect that sort of thing.

What bothered me so much in The Dark Knight was the throwaway quality to the mystery of the man. Where is the purpose in bringing up his absolute unidentifiability, and then never resolving it in any way. Just ignore it altogether. Hearing that Joker's clothing is custom-made without any labels is a challenge for the world's greatest detective...oh, hang on...that's the Batman, right? This guy can build a sonar array out of cell phones in fifteen minutes but he can't track down one ultimately hugely unique psychopath? I know, I know: It's not the focus the film wanted to take. That's fine, but it doesn't gibe at all with the capabilities of the character these films purport to depict. It's not all "here, Lucius, make me this crap" as far as I'm concerned. Batman is the most ingenious human being of all time, and he needs to be portrayed as such, not as a complete relier on Deus Ex Sonarina.

There's nothing inherently more stylish in Ra's Al Ghul's imbecilic plan to dump Scarecrow's toxins into the water supply than Joker's use of deadly cosmetic interactions. There is, however far more analysis required by Batman and complicated detective work in thwarting both of those plans than anything that showed up in Dark Knight. I want to see Batman SOLVE stuff, not just ask his R&D guy and his butler to facilitate stuff.

Oh yeah, my biggest gripe with the depiction of the Joker of them all: His absolutely brilliantly masterminded bank heist that succeeds down to the requisite timing of the bus crash is supposed to be accepted as the work of an agent of chaos who rants and raves against people with plans? Bzzzzzzt!!!!

Wait - you expected that Joker was telling the truth to Dent in that scene? You actually expected the Joker to be internally consistent in his own character and "reasoning"? Then you missed the point.

That's not the only thing that Joker engineers. He sets up the whole chase to get Dent, setting up a blockade to force them underground, setting up defenses against helicopters, etc. Think that's someone interested in chaos? Then to plan ahead to have Dent and Dawes taken to separate locations... while he's intentionally in jail...

The Joker does not state he's an "agent of chaos". He finds organized society, as it stands, to be a joke - one big sick joke. His intent is to expose the joke for what it is (at least to get everyone to see it his way) - not simply "cause random chaos and mayhem." His chaos and mayhem is all part of his own plan. And to expect that the Joker will suddenly become introspective and question his methods... well, that would be totally out of character for the Joker, no?