- Banned
- #301
Just saw it for a second time. I've never seen a movie twice in the cinemas before but just really had to go watch Ledger's performance again to see if my initial reaction was justified.
I can unquestionably say yes. He really was just that brilliant.
The movie is top notch, probably the best flick I've seen in a long time, and certainly the best Superhero movie, by a very long way.
I found you really pick up on the themes of the movie a second time through. Batman is basically the ultimate fascist, he puts the city and his own morality ahead of everything - right to the end, he even sacrifices himself, just to the people can be lied to about Harvey Dent - his overall motivation is that of good, but the methods he uses to achieve or inspire good are questionable bordering on evil. Joker on the other hand represents a rabid libertarian, trying to bring down society not for any personal gain or even interest, but simply because society is so flawed and so fake - he just doesn't see a need for any of it. He represents neither good nor evil, just a force of unflinching anarchy. Its best summed up in his dialogue at the end "So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..."
They're essentially two sides of the same coin - and that's where Two-Face's character quite literally comes into it. On the one side there's the man who takes his pain and tries to make ti mean something (Batman/Wayne) and on the other the man who takes his and users it to prove that everything is worthless. By corrupting Dent into Two Face, The Joker shows that it just takes a certain level of pain and fear for someone, anyone, to be taken right down to the level of anarchy and apathy for society, and reality, The Joker represents.
As someone previously said, the dialogue is near perfect, my only real gripe with the acting is that towards the end Bale's "Batman Voice" sounded a bit ridiculous, and the Rachel Dawes character is just painful to watch. The love triangle angle definitely needed to be in the film though, but perhaps an extra half hour to flesh it out wouldn't have hurt.
A few people reckon the Two Face angle should have been carried over to the next film, but I disagree. It's absolutely vital to the closure of The Joker, that we see what becomes of Harvey Dent. If The Joker was just defeated at the end, and had nothing to throw back at Batman regarding Dent's fate, and what the people would now think of him - then the climax really would have suffered.
Really looking forward to seeing where they take it for the third one now. Sounds like Penguin/Catwoman are definitely out, and surely they wouldn't go with Mr Freeze, and it appears Two-Face isn't an option.
I really can't see the Riddler working either. But personally I just don't like that character so that might just be my own bias.
Oh and as for Ledger's chances at an award, I'd give him Best Actor in a heartbeat at this stage. Anthony Hopkins won it for Hannibal Lector, and he was only on the screen for like 21 minutes of Silence of The Lambs, no reason Ledger couldn't snare it for this role. I see people whining about how Warner is trying to pump up the performance, but I see very few people offering an alternative choice for best actor. And I see even less people with a genuine criticism of Ledger's performance.
I can unquestionably say yes. He really was just that brilliant.
The movie is top notch, probably the best flick I've seen in a long time, and certainly the best Superhero movie, by a very long way.
I found you really pick up on the themes of the movie a second time through. Batman is basically the ultimate fascist, he puts the city and his own morality ahead of everything - right to the end, he even sacrifices himself, just to the people can be lied to about Harvey Dent - his overall motivation is that of good, but the methods he uses to achieve or inspire good are questionable bordering on evil. Joker on the other hand represents a rabid libertarian, trying to bring down society not for any personal gain or even interest, but simply because society is so flawed and so fake - he just doesn't see a need for any of it. He represents neither good nor evil, just a force of unflinching anarchy. Its best summed up in his dialogue at the end "So this is what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object..."
They're essentially two sides of the same coin - and that's where Two-Face's character quite literally comes into it. On the one side there's the man who takes his pain and tries to make ti mean something (Batman/Wayne) and on the other the man who takes his and users it to prove that everything is worthless. By corrupting Dent into Two Face, The Joker shows that it just takes a certain level of pain and fear for someone, anyone, to be taken right down to the level of anarchy and apathy for society, and reality, The Joker represents.
As someone previously said, the dialogue is near perfect, my only real gripe with the acting is that towards the end Bale's "Batman Voice" sounded a bit ridiculous, and the Rachel Dawes character is just painful to watch. The love triangle angle definitely needed to be in the film though, but perhaps an extra half hour to flesh it out wouldn't have hurt.
A few people reckon the Two Face angle should have been carried over to the next film, but I disagree. It's absolutely vital to the closure of The Joker, that we see what becomes of Harvey Dent. If The Joker was just defeated at the end, and had nothing to throw back at Batman regarding Dent's fate, and what the people would now think of him - then the climax really would have suffered.
Really looking forward to seeing where they take it for the third one now. Sounds like Penguin/Catwoman are definitely out, and surely they wouldn't go with Mr Freeze, and it appears Two-Face isn't an option.
I really can't see the Riddler working either. But personally I just don't like that character so that might just be my own bias.
Oh and as for Ledger's chances at an award, I'd give him Best Actor in a heartbeat at this stage. Anthony Hopkins won it for Hannibal Lector, and he was only on the screen for like 21 minutes of Silence of The Lambs, no reason Ledger couldn't snare it for this role. I see people whining about how Warner is trying to pump up the performance, but I see very few people offering an alternative choice for best actor. And I see even less people with a genuine criticism of Ledger's performance.
