The Dark Knight

[mal jeux]

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/batman_the_dark_knight/

if allyuh too cheap to pay the admission price.

[noname]

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/batman_the_dark_knight/

if allyuh too cheap to pay the admission price.

One of the few recent movies I've seen that actually entertained me from start to finish....I wont say anything that hasnt been said already but must reiterate, HL was a boss...so too Harvey Dent...

MF and MC really kept this movie grounded....Boss boss flick.

My recommendation is to spend the money and see this on a big screen....dont watch a pirated version....it will not do the cinematography justice.

[ribbit]

dis flick doing real damage at the box office. real insightful comments in this thread. haven't seen it yet, so i'll reserve comments on this film in particular.

i think it has been established that the first few batman movies did not give the batman character to develop; particularly in a "dark" direction.

how difficult is it for one actor to accomplish this change in character development? the batman mask has been worn by a few actors, so i would argue that it's been easier for bale to pull off a darker version than if it had been kilmer or clooney.

thought of two "similar" examples in the superhero genre where an actor had to take the character in a decidedly different direction: spiderman (tobey mcguire in the recent spiderman 3) and superman (christopher reeve in superman 3). i think both examples show how difficult it is to display a different aspect of character. i think it's fair to say that mcguire failed - his venom-inhabited spiderman turned into a kind of pathetic emo-spiderman. reeve on the other hand had more success (the movie premise was mess but what can you do). mho, chris nolan plays a big part in this new facet of batman.

note, the same remarks about the batman character do not apply to the joker character. nicholson's joker was personable and somewhat sympathetic. he clearly stole the show from keaton. i cannot comment on what ledger did to the role yet.

however, on this note it will be interesting to see how wolverine turns out. wolverine's backstory have some real gritty parts - jackman will have his hands full.

[Bakes]

I think this batman will break some opening weekend records.

dis flick doing real damage at the box office.

Mal Jeux ent know how prophetic he was being... Batman pull $155.3 to beat Spiderman 3's record (set last year) of 151.1 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/movies/21batm.html?ref=movies

real insightful comments in this thread. haven't seen it yet, so i'll reserve comments on this film in particular.

i think it has been established that the first few batman movies did not give the batman character to develop; particularly in a "dark" direction.

how difficult is it for one actor to accomplish this change in character development? the batman mask has been worn by a few actors, so i would argue that it's been easier for bale to pull off a darker version than if it had been kilmer or clooney.

thought of two "similar" examples in the superhero genre where an actor had to take the character in a decidedly different direction: spiderman (tobey mcguire in the recent spiderman 3) and superman (christopher reeve in superman 3). i think both examples show how difficult it is to display a different aspect of character. i think it's fair to say that mcguire failed - his venom-inhabited spiderman turned into a kind of pathetic emo-spiderman. reeve on the other hand had more success (the movie premise was mess but what can you do). mho, chris nolan plays a big part in this new facet of batman.

note, the same remarks about the batman character do not apply to the joker character. nicholson's joker was personable and somewhat sympathetic. he clearly stole the show from keaton. i cannot comment on what ledger did to the role yet.

however, on this note it will be interesting to see how wolverine turns out. wolverine's backstory have some real gritty parts - jackman will have his hands full.

Perhaps... but the Batman character is above all an archetype, so to try and differentiate the character from one of your predecessors may not be a difficult task...anybody can attempt change.  However, as it always is when you try to change an archetype... that may not always work.  Unless I'm reading your statements wrong, you actually seem to undermine your point with your example of Tobey Maguire below... he tried and failed. 

To attempt chage is one thing... to achieve it is another, and I think this is where credit to the actor (and director and writers) is due.

[Bakes]

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/batman_the_dark_knight/

if allyuh too cheap to pay the admission price.

One of the few recent movies I've seen that actually entertained me from start to finish....I wont say anything that hasnt been said already but must reiterate, HL was a boss...so too Harvey Dent...

MF and MC really kept this movie grounded....Boss boss flick.

My recommendation is to spend the money and see this on a big screen....dont watch a pirated version....it will not do the cinematography justice.

Thoroughly agreed... all the same I sent the link to mih better half, who working in the Czech for the next two weeks...she really ent care one way or another about Batman, catman or who ever, lol.  But she did enjoy Batman Begins so ah tell she she should check dis out.


but anybody who serious about this movie should really check it out in de theatre (Imax if possible...even though that wasn't an option for me).  If you have a Costco membership save yourself a couple dollars, they sell movie tickets at a discount for the Regal chain of theatres.

I'm confused by your references tuh "MF and MC" above though...who dat?

[Quags]

Micheal Cain would be one .

[capodetutticapi]

http://www.watch-movies.net/movies/batman_the_dark_knight/

if allyuh too cheap to pay the admission price.

One of the few recent movies I've seen that actually entertained me from start to finish....I wont say anything that hasnt been said already but must reiterate, HL was a boss...so too Harvey Dent...

MF and MC really kept this movie grounded....Boss boss flick.

My recommendation is to spend the money and see this on a big screen....dont watch a pirated version....it will not do the cinematography justice.

Thoroughly agreed... all the same I sent the link to mih better half, who working in the Czech for the next two weeks...she really ent care one way or another about Batman, catman or who ever, lol.  But she did enjoy Batman Begins so ah tell she she should check dis out.


but anybody who serious about this movie should really check it out in de theatre (Imax if possible...even though that wasn't an option for me).  If you have a Costco membership save yourself a couple dollars, they sell movie tickets at a discount for the Regal chain of theatres.

I'm confused by your references tuh "MF and MC" above though...who dat?

caine and freeman.....of all de batman movies this is de BEST.

[Bakes]

Micheal Cain would be one .

... and Morgan Freeman, now that I think about it (see boss mention it too).  Agree with noname... Caine did a lot with little, per usual.  Morgan Freeman, his role increased over the last movie and that was a definite positive...I really like the level of deference Bruce Wayne pays to these two men... he recognizes that there is much wisdom to be had by simply listening to them and he's anything but cocksure around them (when he is with everyone else by contrast).  They in turn impart that wisdom with nothing but humility, and gentle prodding when necessary.  Without overdosing on the saccharine, it really good writing, better directing and even more superlative acting that pulls it off...it really could come off cheesy with lesser actors. 

One actor not getting much ink in this thread is Gary Oldham... and I really can't fault him too much, or maybe I'm just hesitant to be critical because I'm such a fan.  He was a bit underwhelming, but I just don't know that he had much to work with... and even if he did a good job (which I think he did), he was just overshadowed by much better performances.  What you fellas think about his performance?

[cocoapanyol]

What a movie.  What a movie whatamoviewhatamovie.....wow!

In the interest of full disclosure I found that the movie waxed and waned in parts, so in that regard it's a bit inferior to the last installment... and Maggie Gyllenhaal is very hard (yea difficult) on the eyes.  Having thus dispensed with the formalities...

Christian Bale was good... not very good...but good.  I found the digitally altered voice (when in costume) distracting at first, I kept wanting to say "spit out the cotton and just talk dammit!"...but that's really nitpicking.  I won't divulge anything about the plot so no need to worry about spoilers.  I liked the balance of selfishness and sensitivity that was present in his last portrayal of Batman, compared to this one...not going to tip my hand and say where the balance lies here...but less is more, would be my suggestion.

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.   What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

I would be remiss if I didn't also mention the brilliant turn put in by Aaron Eckhart, particularly in the last quarter of the movie... those of you familiar enough with the progression of his character as the movie unfolds will take plenty from that...without divulging too much for the uninitiated.  Brilliant job by the costumers, make-up artists, set designers... man, it's really hard to talk about this movie without gushing.  Suffice to say that there was just the perfect marriage of plot, character development (particularly in Eckhart's case), acting, directing (with minor reservations) and lastly filmography.  I'd have to check the credits to see who the filmographer/cinematographer was... but the movie was just visually breath-taking to watch.


In closing I just have two words to say... Sky Hook!!


...lawd

that's exactly what I mean about HL.  He does not act (IMO), he INHABITS his roles or as you said..POSSESSED.

[richpy]

One actor not getting much ink in this thread is Gary Oldham... and I really can't fault him too much, or maybe I'm just hesitant to be critical because I'm such a fan.  He was a bit underwhelming, but I just don't know that he had much to work with... and even if he did a good job (which I think he did), he was just overshadowed by much better performances.  What you fellas think about his performance?

Its kinda hard to compare Oldman with say, Ledger, simply due to his much smaller part in the movie ; however, his solid, restrained performance showed his skills as an actor. Whenever I think of Oldman, I think psycho (as in the Professional).
Also, I think you mentioned somewhere before that Bale's performance was good, not great. I dunno..there really wasn't any character development for Bruce Wayne in this movie. 99% of the time, he was batman.(I'll have to re-watch the movie). I guess Ledger did such a fantastic job, that it makes the other actors seem normal.  But take away his performance and we'll see the movie was still always made for the joker.

[mal jeux]

Its kinda hard to compare Oldman with say, Ledger, simply due to his much smaller part in the movie ; however, his solid, restrained performance showed his skills as an actor. Whenever I think of Oldman, I think psycho (as in the Professional).
Also, I think you mentioned somewhere before that Bale's performance was good, not great. I dunno..there really wasn't any character development for Bruce Wayne in this movie. 99% of the time, he was batman.(I'll have to re-watch the movie). I guess Ledger did such a fantastic job, that it makes the other actors seem normal.  But take away his performance and we'll see the movie was still always made for the joker.

wanna see Oldman at his best, try Immortal Beloved.

[Bakes]

wanna see Oldman at his best, try Immortal Beloved.

...or as Drexl Spivey, de Jamaican drug dealer in True Romance, lol.  Not a great role, but very convincing, first movie I saw him in. 

Richpy, wasn't really comparing the two actors per se... but hard to imagine a quality actor as he is disappearing in a movie as he did.  I guess he recognized the limitations of the role as written and just played it to suit. 

I want to talk more about the movie, but don't want to spoil it for those who ent see it yet.  Curious to hear what others thought though.

[palos]

I haven't seen Dark Knight as yet but I saw the first Christian Bale Batman and Oldman was quite understated (for him) in his character.

Those roles you guys mentioned...the jamaican drug dealer, Beethoven, Dracula, the hit man in Léon, etc are all over the top performances.  In that first Batman, he was almost comatose by comparison.

An actor with an EXTREMELY impressive resumé tho.

One of my favourites....just slightly below my boy Tim Roth.

I love to see Roth play a villain role.  Him and Joe Pesci....for 2 totally different reasons.

[chinee boi]

All allyuh mad

Can Bale or Ledger portray these high levels of fear,angst and tenderness all in one take

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4v1hAnfy1I&feature=related

dont think soooo

dat bomb take real long tuh blow up boy lol

[Bakes]

How Many Superheroes Does It Take to Tire a Genre?



By A. O. SCOTT

“Batman has no limits,” says Bruce Wayne to his manservant, Alfred, early in “The Dark Knight,” and the accountants at Warner Brothers, which released the movie, are likely to agree. I’m not so sure.

“The Dark Knight,” praised by critics for its somber themes and grand ambitions, has proven to be a mighty box office force in a summer already dominated by superheroes of various kinds. But any comic book fan knows that a hero at the height of his powers is a few panels removed from mortal danger, and that hubris has a way of summoning new enemies out of the shadows. Are the Caped Crusader and his colleagues basking in an endless summer of triumph, or is the sun already starting to set?

The season began with “Iron Man” back in May, which anticipated “The Dark Knight” in striking many reviewers as a pleasant surprise and hordes of moviegoers as a must-see. The July Fourth weekend belonged to “Hancock,” which played with the superhero archetype by making him a grouchy, slovenly drunk rather than a brilliant scientist, a dashing billionaire or some combination of the two. In that case, the reviews were mixed, but the money flowed in anyway. Even the lackluster “Incredible Hulk,” back in June, managed a reasonably robust opening, as did “Hellboy II,” a somewhat more esoteric comic-book movie.

The commercial strength of the superhero genre is hardly news of course. Ever since Tobey Maguire was bitten by a spider back in 2002, this decade has been something of a golden age for large-scale action movies featuring guys in high-tech bodysuits battling garishly costumed, ruthless criminal masterminds. Some of them — the “Fantastic Four” pictures, most notably — are content to be entertaining pop-culture throwaways. But most aspire to be something more, to be taken as seriously as their heroes and villains take themselves.

These movies wear their allegorical hearts on their cartoon sleeves, dressing up their stories with intimations of topicality overt, like the Afghan kidnappers in “Iron Man,” and indirect, like the ruminations on due process and torture in “The Dark Knight.” They are also stuffed with first-rate actors who, rather than slumming for a paycheck as Marlon Brando did in 1978 in “Superman,” at least attempt real, fleshed-out performances.

Heath Ledger and Aaron Eckhart do some of their best work in “The Dark Knight,” as does Robert Downey Jr. in “Iron Man.” Well-regarded directors like Sam Raimi and Bryan Singer have burnished their reputations with the “Spider-Man” and “X-Men” franchises, as has Christopher Nolan, director of “The Dark Knight” and its predecessor, “Batman Begins.” These filmmakers have become bankable auteurs in the Hollywood economy, affixing their artistic signatures to projects that come with budgets in excess of $100 million dollar, built-in mass appeal and an ever-growing measure of cultural prestige.

There have been missteps and disappointments — Ang Lee’s 2003 “Hulk”; Mr. Singer’s “Superman Returns”; the third installment of the “X-Men” series, directed by Brett Ratner — but these have hardly dented the power of the genre. And its hold over the attention of studio executives and audiences is unlikely to end anytime soon. Already the studios are locking in release dates for the next rounds. Mark your calendars: The first X-Men spinoff, “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” will come along next May, and “Iron Man 2” is scheduled to hit the local multiplex on April 30, 2010, two months ahead of “The Green Hornet,” with Seth Rogen stepping into the Van Williams role from the television series.

Still, I have a hunch, and perhaps a hope, that “Iron Man,” “Hancock” and “Dark Knight” together represent a peak, by which I mean not only a previously unattained level of quality and interest, but also the beginning of a decline. In their very different ways, these films discover the limits built into the superhero genre as it currently exists.

I don’t want to start any fights with devout fans or besotted critics. I’m willing to grant that “The Dark Knight” is as good as a movie of its kind can be. But that may be damning with faint praise. There is no doubt that Batman, a staple of American popular culture for nearly 70 years, provided Mr. Nolan (and his brother and screenwriting partner Jonathan), with a platform for his artistic ambitions. You can’t set out to make a psychological thriller, or even an urban crime melodrama, and expect to command anything like the $185 million budget Mr. Nolan had at his disposal in “The Dark Knight.” And that money, in addition to paying for some dazzling set pieces and action sequences, allowed Mr. Nolan and his team to create a seamless and evocative visual atmosphere, a Gotham nightscape often experienced from the air.

But to paraphrase something the Joker says to Batman, “The Dark Knight” has rules, and they are the conventions that no movie of this kind can escape. The climax must be a fight with the villain, during which the symbiosis of good guy and bad guy, implicit throughout, must be articulated. The end must point forward to a sequel, and an aura of moral consequence must be sustained even as the killings, explosions and chases multiply. The allegorical stakes in a superhero are raised — it’s not just good guys fighting bad guys, but Righteousness against Evil, Order against Chaos — precisely to authorize a more intense level of violence. Of course every movie genre is governed by conventions, and every decent genre movie explores the zones of freedom within those iron parameters. Thus “Iron Man” loosens the reins of its plot to give Mr. Downey room to explore the kinks and idiosyncrasies of Tony Stark, the playboy billionaire engineering genius who finally grows up and builds himself a metal suit. And “Hancock” takes the conceit of a dissipated, semi-competent hero — more menace than protector — and turns it into the occasion for some sharp satirical riffing on race, celebrity and the supposedly universal likability of its star, Will Smith.

But in both cases, as soon as the main character is suited up and ready to do battle, the originality drains out of the picture, and the commercial imperatives — the big fight, the overscaled action extravaganza — take over. “The Dark Knight” has some advantages from being the second movie in a series, with less need for exposition and basic character development, and its final act is less of a letdown.

Instead the disappointment comes from the way the picture spells out lofty, serious themes and then ... spells them out again. What kind of hero do we need? Where is the line between justice and vengeance? How much autonomy should we sacrifice in the name of security? Is the taking of innocent life ever justified? These are all fascinating, even urgent questions, but stating them, as nearly every character in “The Dark Knight” does, sooner of later, is not the same as exploring them.

And yet stating such themes is as far as the current wave of superhero movies seems able or willing to go. The westerns of the 1940s and ’50s, obsessed with similar themes, were somehow able, at their best, as in John Ford’s “Searchers” and Howard Hawks’s “Rio Bravo,” to find ambiguities and tensions buried in their own rigid paradigms.

But the cowboys of old did not labor under the same burdens as their masked and caped descendants. Those poor, misunderstood crusaders must turn big profits on a global scale and satisfy an audience hungry for the thrill of novelty and the comforts of the familiar. Is it just me, or is the strain starting to show?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/24/movies/24supe.html


Some really transcendental writing here

... but that aside, it offers good insight into the superhero genre.  I hope he's wrong... I hope it hasn't peaked.

[Small Magician aka Wazza]

Well... I saw it Wednesday in MT...  for the first time my over anticipation was justified...  What a thing of beauty ... 10/10 for me...and so far thousands of others....

It was breathtaking... Christopher Nolan and his staff are living geniuses ....  Ledger was truly amazing... Bale was impressive as well....

A true Blockbuster

[Mr Fix-it]

ALL I HAVE  TO SAY IS 

[pecan]

Finally went to see the movie on 1/2 price matinée Tuesday in a mega-cinema.

Only 25% full, with only 2 idiots checking their e-mail  / text messages during the show.

I found the first 10 minute unremarkable I was beginning to think that the entire world was taken in by the pre-release hype.

Then things changed and the movie and characters began to develop.

This is an Excellent movie that is worthy of study (ad-hoc and formal).  It explores many age-old topics related to heroes, tragic heores and the more recent anti-hero (this surpassed Spider man's anti-hero attempt).  It broaches the moral dilemmas and struggles of mankind such as social rules versus anarchy.  The Ferry scene, a variation of The Prisoner's Dilemma (a two person non-zero sum example of game theory) was well done.

I have to go see it again to better absorb all its nuances.

Heath Ledger was superb although I did see flashes of Jack Nicholsan's  style in his acting.
Maggie G was unmemorable (not unlike Katie Holmes).
The other main actors were competent and solid.

One weakness . .I don't think they adequately addressed the Joker's origin and all of a sudden he becomes a high profile criminal without history.  Maybe they are saving it for the sequel.

Well Done.  Enjoyable.  Though Provoking.  Worth a second viewing on the big screen.

[Bakes]

Finally went to see the movie on 1/2 price matinée Tuesday in a mega-cinema.

Only 25% full, with only 2 idiots checking their e-mail  / text messages during the show.

I found the first 10 minute unremarkable I was beginning to think that the entire world was taken in by the pre-release hype.

Then things changed and the movie and characters began to develop.

This is an Excellent movie that is worthy of study (ad-hoc and formal).  It explores many age-old topics related to heroes, tragic heores and the more recent anti-hero (this surpassed Spider man's anti-hero attempt).  It broaches the moral dilemmas and struggles of mankind such as social rules versus anarchy.  The Ferry scene, a variation of The Prisoner's Dilemma (a two person non-zero sum example of game theory) was well done.

I have to go see it again to better absorb all its nuances.

Heath Ledger was superb although I did see flashes of Jack Nicholsan's  style in his acting.
Maggie G was unmemorable (not unlike Katie Holmes).
The other main actors were competent and solid.

One weakness . .I don't think they adequately addressed the Joker's origin and all of a sudden he becomes a high profile criminal without history.  Maybe they are saving it for the sequel.

Well Done.  Enjoyable.  Though Provoking.  Worth a second viewing on the big screen.

I have a feeling that was deliberately done.  Maybe I'm assigning too much credit to them, but from a psychological perspective we as humans tend to want to understand psychopathy.  Whenever some heinous crime is committed there's a fundamental desire to know why.  I think keeping his past a mystery makes him that much more enigmatic... where did such troubled evil come from?

I liked that they addressed the issue of Secret Rendition, Torture and Government Eavesdropping (ala Bush's nefarious 'Patriot Act').  As much as I appreciate Fox's (Morgan Freeman) criticism of he eavesdropping, I think they could also have been a bit more critical of the rendition and interrogation techniques.

but perhaps that was supposed to reveal a darker side to Batman... one not always willing to play by the rules (quite contrary to what the Joker says in the climactic scene).

[kicker]

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.  What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

Some would argue that the same factors that led to Ledger's incredible performance are the the ones that led to his death...The character ruined him.....

Is that the price that one pays for taking his job too seriously?

gift & a curse I suppose.

[Bakes]

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.  What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

Some would argue that the same factors that led to Ledger's incredible performance are the the ones that led to his death...The character ruined him.....

Is that the price that one pays for taking his job too seriously?

gift & a curse I suppose.

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

[trinindian]

Went to an IMAX for the first time to see this, and even though I was on the second row from the screen, I truly enjoyed this movie. Hand down the most entertaining movie i have seen all year. Better that hulk who has alwayes been my fav. and nice recovery for DC after that debacle that was superman returns.

[kicker]

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.  What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

Some would argue that the same factors that led to Ledger's incredible performance are the the ones that led to his death...The character ruined him.....

Is that the price that one pays for taking his job too seriously?

gift & a curse I suppose.

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

Yeah they ruled out suicide, but I think one of the medications that he was on was for depression.... and it's that depression that they link to the role- they say that he lived as the character even off the set, and it f-ed him up real bad....who knows?

[Grande]

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.  What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

Some would argue that the same factors that led to Ledger's incredible performance are the the ones that led to his death...The character ruined him.....

Is that the price that one pays for taking his job too seriously?

gift & a curse I suppose.

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

Yeah they ruled out suicide, but I think one of the medications that he was on was for depression.... and it's that depression that they link to the role- they say that he lived as the character even off the set, and it f-ed him up real bad....who knows?

I doh know but I doh buy that perspective. He eh do nothing that disturbing as the Joker that should infiltrate one's real life and make dem f-ed up. But how would I know. Is just acting and on top of that he got paid - ppl does play serial killers, mass murderers, rapist, war criminals and remain sane. Ledger just played a villain from a comic book and did it well - but I don't buy that Joker=depression argument ppl make

[dinho]

Mal Jeux and those poo-pooing Heath Ledger...let's just put it this way, Heath Ledger has killed the Joker.  If you will indulge me in a bit of hyperbole, though not by much... no one else will ever don the purple and green, or wear that evil grin quite the same again.  If ever an actor posessed a character, this was it...you really had to look hard and closely to see anything resembling Heath Ledger... and I'm not just referring to the make-up or the scarred grin.  What a sick, twisted, tortured, sadistic...evil soul, Ledger's Joker is.  Psychopathy defined.  A brilliant, albeit sad coda to a good career which, judging from this performance, was very much still nascent.

Some would argue that the same factors that led to Ledger's incredible performance are the the ones that led to his death...The character ruined him.....

Is that the price that one pays for taking his job too seriously?

gift & a curse I suppose.

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

Yeah they ruled out suicide, but I think one of the medications that he was on was for depression.... and it's that depression that they link to the role- they say that he lived as the character even off the set, and it f-ed him up real bad....who knows?

I doh know but I doh buy that perspective. He eh do nothing that disturbing as the Joker that should infiltrate one's real life and make dem f-ed up. But how would I know. Is just acting and on top of that he got paid - ppl does play serial killers, mass murderers, rapist, war criminals and remain sane. Ledger just played a villain from a comic book and did it well - but I don't buy that Joker=depression argument ppl make

when you'll get a chance to see the movie again, take a close look at Ledger's eyes at certain part of the film.

someone brought it to my attention that he look kinda drugged up and despite what a makeup artist can do, the eyes don't lie.

aside from everything said about the actual joker character, what i wonder is if he simply was taking some of them drugs to help him act the part which led to his death indirectly?

[Bakes]

I doh know but I doh buy that perspective. He eh do nothing that disturbing as the Joker that should infiltrate one's real life and make dem f-ed up. But how would I know. Is just acting and on top of that he got paid - ppl does play serial killers, mass murderers, rapist, war criminals and remain sane. Ledger just played a villain from a comic book and did it well - but I don't buy that Joker=depression argument ppl make

Agreed... the man was having romantic problems...there was a child involved all kinda thing.  I guess it's always hard to see someone so young die, especially when it seems they have the whole world ahead of them.  As such that will give rise to speculation.

Kicker ah know yuh just stating what the talk is out there... and not your own beliefs, so that not directed at you.

[mal jeux]

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

actually, days after his death, it was reported on many networks that HL was telling friends that the role was doing a severe number on him. Something that he was absorbed in the role and had problems sleeping etc.

[NYtriniwhiteboy..]

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

actually, days after his death, it was reported on many networks that HL was telling friends that the role was doing a severe number on him. Something that he was absorbed in the role and had problems sleeping etc.

exactly...and we know that he is the type of actor who truly inhabits a character. He even said someting to the tune of in gettin absorbed in the role it tormented him that there cud be such a character and said it affected his sleeping. Thus his increased use of sleeping pills

[Grande]

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

actually, days after his death, it was reported on many networks that HL was telling friends that the role was doing a severe number on him. Something that he was absorbed in the role and had problems sleeping etc.

exactly...and we know that he is the type of actor who truly inhabits a character. He even said someting to the tune of in gettin absorbed in the role it tormented him that there cud be such a character and said it affected his sleeping. Thus his increased use of sleeping pills

Joker is fictional though - and I doh think the character did anything that traumatizing in the movie.

Ploughing a man from behind in Brokeback woulda 4k me up more than playing de Joker, but dais just me

[Bakes]

I hearing that talk of late since the movie came out... people trying to link his death to the role.  From what I recall though they ruled out suicide, he just mixed medications and had a fatal interaction... apparently in such a way that they're convinced it was an accident.

actually, days after his death, it was reported on many networks that HL was telling friends that the role was doing a severe number on him. Something that he was absorbed in the role and had problems sleeping etc.

exactly...and we know that he is the type of actor who truly inhabits a character. He even said someting to the tune of in gettin absorbed in the role it tormented him that there cud be such a character and said it affected his sleeping. Thus his increased use of sleeping pills

Did he bamsee start tuh hurt him after starring in Bareback Mountain?