Really, Heath Ledger wasn't in that movie, it WAS the Joker. He truly portrayed the insanity of the joker. Your review covered all of my opinions other than my opinion that he deserves an Oscar for this role.

It certainly felt like a performance that could kill a man. Such a damn shame.

That said, I loved Aaron Eckhardt just as much, if not more.

You know what I've always wondered? I always wonder if, when a new version of a movie is released, if the origianl actors go to see it, and compare their own performances against the new ones. Like Jack Nicholson's "Joker" to Heath Ledger's "Joker." Jack Nicholson's was more of just that. He was "The Joker." Heath Ledger's was more of "The Fucking Psychopath." I do enjoy Heath Ledger's more, however.

Madlarkin:
I've always seen The Joker as a very acute villain, for all of his madness. However, Ledgers joker seemed to be a rambling, bumbling hobo with terrible face paint and hair style. He seemed to lack direction or purpose, which is what The Joker always had.

You might want to look at it through your scope, Larkin. (Yay for obscure references.)

Ledger's Joker did have a specific direction and purpose, and his plan to attain it was extremely acute.

-- Steve

Pie:
This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor

I agree partially.

He's certainly getting the 'dead artist' treatment by the producers, but to take away what he did with that role seems a little spiteful.

Don't blame Ledger for a great performance simply because the producers/Hollywood are, IMO, sullying his good name to turn more profit.

But seriously man, Ledger took the Joker, and all possible preconceived notions about how one may play him in a movie and blew them out of the water, and then made a pencil disappear with those notions.

I think it was one of the most riveting villain performances since Hannibal Lecter in Silence. True to character, drawing both on past performances, comics, and a lot of self injected ideas and made them all work.

I'm pretty certain that if Ledger does win the Oscar, it will be because the Academy felt he deserved it. There haven't been many post-mortem winners, but there have been a few post-mortem nominations, and most of them don't actually win.

One last thought to add on to what I've already said, I think that some pretty big credit should be given to the re-creation of the Joker character as we know it. We've always seen a certain portrayal of his character, with some noticeable differences, but certainly not nearly as subversive as we've seen in The Dark Knight. Ledger redefined the way we will think of The Joker from now on, but never truly before. Even having read The Killing Joke and a few other graphic novels of a dark nature, this was a performance that took me by surprise in his interpretation of the role.

Pie:
This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor.
It's because he is dead god damnit that everyone is kicking up a fuss. Yes it was a good movie, yes he played it rather well, no you should not quote every fucking line that he says at every given moment. This is what happens to me every day. Someone is always quoting a line he says in the movie in their bad representation of his voice. Another things is that because he is dead, his piss is liquid gold and anyone who so much doesn't bat an eye at his excellent performance will get raped by 14 different fans that have only just joined in "the batman craze" and who haven't even probably seen the first one.

That's what bugs me, yes he did a pretty good job, I enjoyed the movie, but he can't of been that fucking great. I hate to say it but, if he wins an oscar for it, it may be that it's a sympathy vote and not just the roll he plays. The way he plays the joker is good, and he does get quite in depth in the character, but if he does win, there will be SOME votes that are just because of sympathy.

Sorry for the rant, it just fucking bugs me that people think that he was the real star of batman, hell even the producers made it seem like the movie focused around him and not really batman.
It's almost at the point where the movie will be called "The Joker.... And possibly batman, but The Joker!"

Does it bug anyone else, or am I just insane?

Actually, at when I saw the movie I didn't know that Heath Ledgers was dead. I thought that there was an actor who died during the production of the movie and then Ledgers was casted to replace said actor.

Yeah, that's what I thought. But regardless, I thought his preformance was absolutely stunning and believable. At first I would think "I wouldn't mind having the Joker in my city!" but then I think "wait...nevermind" because he was so god damn good that I could believe that he would do everything he did in Gotham city in my own city.

Madlarkin:
I actually didn't like Ledgers portrayal of the joker at all, too me it was kinda like ordering sausage and mash and recieving bacon and mash.
It was close, but it really wasn't quite right.

I've always seen The Joker as a very acute villain, for all of his madness. However, Ledgers joker seemed to be a rambling, bumbling hobo with terrible face paint and hair style.
He seemed to lack direction or purpose, which is what The Joker always had.

Personally, i'd rather they went more into depth about Two face. Let the Joker remain the enigma that he has always been.

I agree with you. I watched the movie and found the Joker to be more of a creepy annoyance than the main interest. They totally messed him up. The Joker I know is a very clever con man who wanted to take revenge on both the Mob and Batman: one for snubbing him and not giving him the respect he wanted and the other for not saving him from falling in the acid. Yes, he was always a bit of a loose cannon which is why the Mob didn't want him around anymore, but he was always more with it and pulled together than Ledger's Joker. Ledger's Joker seemed like he'd already had his butt kicked severly and was limping around like a wounded animal who really didn't care about anything anymore. He was more pitiful than any Joker I've seen before.

I was more interested in what they would do with Harvey Dent/ Two-Faces' story. They might as well have left out the Joker and had some other villian, maybe even one made up just for the movie, in his place. They made up Lucius Fox for these movies, never heard of that character before Nolan started making Batman movies, so why not a made up sub-villian. Besides, wasn't it one of the mobsters that threw acid on Dent when he got convicted that turned him into Two-Face to start with? I hate it when movies change the story they are supposed to be based on like that. Other than that story change, I liked the way Aaron Ekhart played Harvey Dent. He and Bale and the guy who played Gordon and Michael Cane were fantastic. It's too bad they get almost ignored because Ledger didn't know any better than to take dangerous medicine cocktails. Reminds me of what happened to Elvis. What a waste of a fairly good actor.

If you watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight only for what they are and forget everything you ever thought you knew about the comics, they are good enough movies. I really had hopes before they started making Batman Begins that they would finally, finally follow the original comic book plots. Oh well, maybe some day. Batman gets remade and rebooted more often than just about any intellectual property I can think of. I've almost lost count of how many different series: comics, cartoons, live action, video games I've seen in my lifetime. Each is different in some way. All keep the essential core of who Batman is but none of them really have ever done a proper job of presenting Batman the way Bob Kane and Bill Finger did when they wrote the first comics of him. That's what I really want to see. How about a movie set in the 1940's back when the Mob was actually powerful and show how Bruce Wayne really began as Batman acording to his creators Kane and Finger? If I had the resources and talent to make movies, that's what I'd do.

dukethepcdr:

They made up Lucius Fox for these movies, never heard of that character before Nolan started making Batman movies, so why not a made up sub-villian.

Actually, Fox's character is pretty close to accurate. He is the CEO or president of Wayne Enterprises and he very well knows of Wayne as Batman.

The Joker's original character, from the 40's, was very close to this current iteration. He was a psychopathic mass murderer. The editors thought he was far to creepy and horrible and were going to kill him off after the 1st issue but the last panel was drawn to suggest that he escaped.(The change was made minutes before print time.)

The Joker that you are thinking of is the 1960's-70's when comic censorship was at an all time high and they had to restrain him to a prankster or risk loosing the comic all together. The Adam West Batman Joker was even further into this censorship, causing a more diluted sense of his true evil and making him seem more like a renegade clown.(There is a phrase I never thought I would say)

Kiltman

P.S. The Joker's character has gone from mass murderer to felony clown to light hearted prankster to felony clown then back to mass murdering psychopath.

You said "Never seen in live action before". Jack Nicholson.

Personally, I went into the movie sceptical about Ledger's performance. Coming out of it, I was staggered... in the words of Kevin Smith, he didn't so much give a performance as lose himself in the character. It was a staggering piece of acting, and I liked him even more than the Mark Hamill incarnation (the nerd's Joker of choice). It was always going to be his movie on that evidence, even if he were still with us. An Oscar nomination surely awaits... he had every facet of his character nailed down to a T.

sma_warrior:

Maybe your standards are too high? And just to clarify, this ISNT his last role - he was making (i think most of it was done) another film when he died.

He was. The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, directed by Terry Gilliam. He half-finished filming, and Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Farrell and someone else I think (forget the name) will complete his role. It sounds weird, but it actually works in the story of the film.

Pie:
This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor.
It's because he is dead god damnit that everyone is kicking up a fuss. Yes it was a good movie, yes he played it rather well, no you should not quote every fucking line that he says at every given moment. This is what happens to me every day. Someone is always quoting a line he says in the movie in their bad representation of his voice. Another things is that because he is dead, his piss is liquid gold and anyone who so much doesn't bat an eye at his excellent performance will get raped by 14 different fans that have only just joined in "the batman craze" and who haven't even probably seen the first one.

That's what bugs me, yes he did a pretty good job, I enjoyed the movie, but he can't of been that fucking great. I hate to say it but, if he wins an oscar for it, it may be that it's a sympathy vote and not just the roll he plays. The way he plays the joker is good, and he does get quite in depth in the character, but if he does win, there will be SOME votes that are just because of sympathy.

Sorry for the rant, it just fucking bugs me that people think that he was the real star of batman, hell even the producers made it seem like the movie focused around him and not really batman.
It's almost at the point where the movie will be called "The Joker.... And possibly batman, but The Joker!"

Does it bug anyone else, or am I just insane?

playin' devil's advocate here for a second but if you look at both movies
Batman Begins was about Batman becoming the hero that we know him for so it makes sense that the second one be less about him and more about what kind of villan can actually stand up to him (in the first few scenes of TDK it shows criminals nervous to do business at night because they were afraid of Batman) in enters The Joker

I fully enjoyed Ledgers portrayal of the Joker. He not only delivered to the fans, a Joker they love and fear, but also true life to the character. Seeing as Joker was Ledger's last roll in life, I say he went out with one hell of a bang.

Heath Ledger's performance ranks as one of the all time greats but it should not be forgotten that every great performance requires a great script.

Whenever a script writer/ director is faced with transforming a comic book villain into a screen villain, they have always stumbled upon the same problem.

The best comic book villains are pantomime characters. While they usually have a back story to create a motivation for their behaviour (take your pick from life-changing accidents, dying relatives, born with amazing power, etc,etc...), the main reason they are feared is because of their awesome single minded attitude towards destruction.

They never care who is in their way, who they have to bribe, maim or kill. They don't even care what they are destroying. It is the act itself that is all consuming.

The major problem with movie depictions of comic book heroes up until now is that they have never tried to copy this formula or even try to improve on it. The writers and directors have always felt the need to try to humanise villains in order to make them more believable and unfortunately this lessens the impact the villain has on the viewer.

Thankfully though, Christopher Nolan turned this convention on it's head and went all out. He must be a true comic book fan (or a really smart guy) to see what it was that makes the truly great comic book villains so memorable.

No ulterior motives, no reasoning, no cowardice and above all, no baggage. Nolan ripped everything human from the Joker, leaving him with only a hard-on for anarchy and a brilliantly twisted mind. We cannot fathom the kind of human mind that could do what the Joker did in the film.and this is why the character is so utterly compelling to us.

If the Joker had not been written this way, Ledger could not have pulled this performance out of the bag.

Dark Knight was a fantastically done film. As bobraj, points out, the writing was very good, and it was expertly delivered by a stellar cast. Heath Ledger was left behind and he somehow became The Joker as someone else said. Terrible shame what happened to him, just as he was really coming out of his shell and sinking his teeth into some roles.

A friend said to me when I asked how it was, "It was your typical comic book movie in the same way The Godfather is a gangster flick."

I was one of the sceptics that thought that Ledger was just getting to much praise for this movie because he was dead. Then I saw the movie, that was one of the most brilliant preformances of villian I and ever seen, the only one I could even think to rival it is Hopkins' preformance as Hannibal

I agree (with OP), his Joker was amazing.

Heath Ledger was fantastic as the Joker. I shall echo what many have said here, Ledgers performance is on par with Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs. To pull off a character that is both psychotic, unhinged, calculating and funny is a really hard feat, it will be hard to push him off the 'Best Supporting Actor' Oscar. The Dark Knight has a few decent performances, i also enjoyed Gary Oldmans portrayel of Commisionare Gordon. The Dark Knight is in my top 3 movies i've seen this year.

Simply awesome

conqueror Kenny:
Really, Heath Ledger wasn't in that movie, it WAS the Joker.

This is exactly what I've been telling everyone. Ledger's Joker was a man who just wanted to "watch the world burn", because he thought it needed to. I honestly started to forget that there was an actor behind that messy makeup- the consistency and depth of the character were some of the best I've seen in a motion picture.

The most memorable scene for me was when

I absolutely agree. Hell, while batman was flying around beating the snot out of minions, I sat there, impatiently tapping my fingers, waiting for the Joker to appear again...

I keep thinking this over and the idea of the Joker seemed to fester over the past fews years and generations of Batman into something not quite right. This iteration really brought back the original focus of the Joker and his basic evil.

Kiltman

P.S. I keep wanting them to do a movie version of "Joker's Comedy of Errors" (Batman 66) in which he pulls the"worlds greatest boner!" Remember that this is the psychopathic killer joker, not happy little prankster.

The only problem is that he completely upstaged Batman and everyone else in the movie, batman wasn't so interesting this time and I can't say it is my favourite movie for many little things but Ledger's performance saved this film from mediocrity.

I suppose my main problem with is film is as Batman becomes all serious and edgy with gore and hyper-real violence, it just appears awkward as Batman refuses to use lethal force against psychopathic terrorists shooting at him and civilians with sub-machine guns. I mean in a world where 24 and Lost all the characters have no hesitation in shooting to kill the bad guys, it seems silly how Batman insists on using his fists. How the hell is he going to strike fear into criminals if he won't do much more than slap them around; less a vigilante and more your pissed off mom.

Anybody can get guns and kill people. What really makes a man afraid is to take his power away from him. Batman has been shot, stabbed, beaten, and just about anything the mobsters throw at him. The Joker actually touches on this with his line "you have nothing to threaten me with, with all your strength."

Take a man who is used to being feared. Pit him up against a creature that flies, comes out of shadows to beat your partners to bloody pulps, is bullet proof, has single handedly stopped some of the biggest shit from happening, and tell this man that all his usual tools, tricks and weapons will not work against this creature. Slightly scarier than a man with a gun, no? Remember that the criminals do not know what we do about Batman. What they do know has been told to them by people who know even less. They very well think that he kills people or is one step away from it.

Kiltman

hmm, well Kiltman, I sense a debate!

First of all, I have yet to see Batman beat even the most reprehensible villain into a "bloody pulp" as he seems to prefer very discrete blows to disarm and disable them, then tie them up for the police to arrive. Hell, the Scarecrow looks far more annoyed that batman had tied him up yet-again than writhing in pain and fear. When Batman says "If I catch you doing this again..." he trailed off because he had no other cards to play.

Remember in X-men 2 when the machine gun wielding goons invaded the school and started kidnapping the kids and shooting people, did you expect Wolverine to unsheathe his Adamantium claws and just scratch them? No, he was a complete BADASS and sliced those child-napping bastards to pieces. Hopefully in the next Batman movie, he will grow some balls and accept that a murderous psychopath on a killing spree can be killed in the defence of the innocent.

I'm not saying Batman should get some guns and become The Punisher (he just goes too far) but a Katana sword would be useful for when the shit hits the fan. After all, Bruce Wayne used one extensively in his training in Batman Begins. How about he takes a leaf out of Bruce Lee's book of how to teach criminals a lesson with martial arts that are administered with such brutality the last one standing runs away screaming. I mean when you saw him fight, every kick was bone-shattering and every punch was pulverising. Plus, Batman with Nunchucks...

... that's what I'm talking about.

What I want is a PROPER anti-hero like James Bond, The Hulk, Wolverine, Hellboy, the Man with No Name, Jack Bauer, Vic Mackey, Lara Croft and Sam Spade just to name a few. I want a Byronic hero that makes difficult moral decisions rather than dodging them to keep his self-preserving morality, that makes him seem more like an anti-villain. I mean Batman was supposed to be the anti-hero counterpart to Superman that wasn't afraid to get his hands dirty.

Maybe Batman will always be a PG-13 character, showing that killing is never justified even when a maniac is threatening the lives of thousands or shooting at you with a sub-machine gun. Unless you're a cop, then you can do what the hell you like.

Treblaine, perhaps you're not looking for Batman. Maybe you're looking for this guy... but I'm not.

Then again, I am speaking as someone who loathes Jack Bauer with full, righteous, Constitutional passion.

-- Steve

Batman does not kill people. Period. There is nothing to debate there, it has been this way for 60+ years and will never change.

And as far as not beating people to a bloody pulp, you seem to have a slightly more liberal idea of that. It is not pounding them to the point where they resemble a pile of red jello but a figure of speech for having kicked the shit outta someone(meaning to hurt/maim/cause massive pain to). But yes, he has gone very, very far into that territory. Remember in BB when Rachel is getting off the subway/e-train? He jumps down onto a thug, and after he hits the ground is standing on top of him wailing away. That is pretty close to what you seem to be looking for.

Asking, nah expecting, Batman to start killing people in the next movie is like hoping Superman will be ripping people in half like oreo cookies, it just ain't gonna happen.

Remember his motivation; his parents were killed by a gunman, so he refuses to use them. He instead brings them to justice vs killing them.

Kiltman

P.S. I know having the threat of a giant "batman" swooping down on me in the dark be enough to keep me from doing most any crime. Except maybe indecent exposure...

I've got to admit, when I first heard Heath Ledger was going to be playing the Joker, I just thought - you've gotta be kidding, right?

There was no doubting he was a great actor before the Dark Knight, but his movies were just so...different. If years ago, after seeing 'A Knight's Tale' and '10 Things I Hate About You,' you'd told me he'd play the Joker, I'd probably just have shoke my head.
I was so sceptical about him playing the Joker, and genuinely worried he'd truly suck. What a HUGE, HUGE mistake I made.

For me, this is one if not the best performance I've ever seen by an actor. Not just because of his tragic death, I genuinely believe, if Mr.Ledger were still with us, I'd feel the exact same way. I'd be amazed if he doesn't pick up an Oscar, but having said that, Oscars aren't always based on merit. Have a look through the years, some crappy actors have won them. A brilliant performance, and a good review dude. RIP Mr. Joker.

Well let me make this clear (and I did state this before) I Don't Want Batman To Become The Punisher! The Punisher is a joke, like Rambo crossed with professional wrestling, I can admire how noble Batman is for not using guns as that comes from how his parents were killed by a gun (apparently the criminal who actually pulled the trigger held some responsibility but the gun gets most of the blame). Guns would completely jar with his serene persona. But if anything Batman should stick to blunt ninja-style weapons but if he goes up against some seriously deadly guys then he should not be afraid of wielding a blade just like Sandy Collora's acclaimed short-film "Batman: Dead End" (a.k.a. the internet viral video 'Batman vs Alien vs Predator').

I'm a real big fan of kung fu movies, even the awful ones from the 70's with terrible low budgets and bad acting. These generally follow a regular guy who must turn vigilante to fight a band of brutal gangsters or oppressive regime. But I've been kind of disappointed by how restrained Batman fought in TDK even compared to BB where Batman couldn't roundhouse kick Harvey Dent/Two-face as he flipped a coin to decide if he should execute a little girl. I mean come on!

The Joker has come a long way from the terrible 60's era of camp comic shenanigans to become really brutally scary though Batman has seemed to lack depth by comparison. And no I don't want Batman executing criminals in cold blood out of revenge or twisted justice, but if the fight is clearly deadly then Batman would be justified in returning with lethal force. It just feels like the A-Team where they never actually killed anyone to spite firing hundreds of rounds. Maybe this was because they were aiming for a younger market with the PG-13 rating so don't want Batman getting into any serious fights, oh no, got to be family friendly.

BTW; do you really think I would expect Superman to rip someone in half? Maybe The Hulk (he actually did that to Wolverine) but not the idealistic American hero. In the comic book series 'No Man's Land', where Gotham City was walled off when the place descended into anarchy after a series of disasters, Superman visited to see if he could help but eventually left on Batman's advice that he didn't know how to deal with this dirty situation.

First I'll give props to Jack Nicholson. Whatever you think of Heath Ledger, Nicholson gave a very good interpretation of The Joker, as a "bigger than life" type of evil character.

Now back to Ledger. I have to say, in a very long, long time, I haven't felt so edgy as when The Joker was on screen. And it was the character that terrified, you take Nicholson for example with his crazy antics in Batman and you'd think "Oh that Jack is sure a crazy sun of a gun". Because basically, Nicholson doesn't deviate much from his evil roles. He's the kind of guy that gives a loony aura. Now Ledger, like said so many times. He wasn't there, nowhere in the movie would you see anything that made you shout "That's Ledger alright".

And from that, I do consider this the best interpretation of The Joker. Why? Well, take the Joker card in any set of cards. What does it represent? Something funny? Rarely. That card has always represented the wild card. One that in any given card game she's accepted, turns into a game breaker, game ender or simply turns the tables around on everyone. That is what you see in Joker, he is a human wild card. Nobody can guess what he'll do when he appears and no one can guess the effects it'll have on everyone's lives.

And it's terrifying, isn't it? Have a man, take away any consistency on him and you get something that has no restrictions in his actions and thus, no softening blow on his effects.

I resent Ledger's death. I gained true respect for the actor not when I saw him creating The Joker, but when I see the number of roles he did that barely had anything to do with each other at all, showing astounding acting flexibility.

kiltmanfortywo:
Batman does not kill people. Period. There is nothing to debate there, it has been this way for 60+ years and will never change.

But in the early comics, and in both Tim Burton films, he does kill a few people.

Ledger didn't impress me any more than Nicholson did. Javier Bardem's Oscar for Best Supporting Actor was well-earned, he had an amazing performance. Ledger, THUS FAR, is the best supporting actor I've seen all year, but we have to wait for the year to finish out.

Pie:
This is what bugs me, and bugs me it does.

Themoment an actor plays in their last movie, everyone can't help but focus on said actor.
It's because he is dead god damnit that everyone is kicking up a fuss. Yes it was a good movie, yes he played it rather well, no you should not quote every fucking line that he says at every given moment. This is what happens to me every day. Someone is always quoting a line he says in the movie in their bad representation of his voice. Another things is that because he is dead, his piss is liquid gold and anyone who so much doesn't bat an eye at his excellent performance will get raped by 14 different fans that have only just joined in "the batman craze" and who haven't even probably seen the first one.

That's what bugs me, yes he did a pretty good job, I enjoyed the movie, but he can't of been that fucking great. I hate to say it but, if he wins an oscar for it, it may be that it's a sympathy vote and not just the roll he plays. The way he plays the joker is good, and he does get quite in depth in the character, but if he does win, there will be SOME votes that are just because of sympathy.

Sorry for the rant, it just fucking bugs me that people think that he was the real star of batman, hell even the producers made it seem like the movie focused around him and not really batman.
It's almost at the point where the movie will be called "The Joker.... And possibly batman, but The Joker!"

Does it bug anyone else, or am I just insane?

This is basically exactly how I feel. The Joker's lines are reminiscent of Napoleon Dynamite, in the fact they're over-quoted and in very bad amateur voices. Yeah, the performance was good, but if Ledger was still alive, hardly anyone would have said a word, and there is nothing anyone can say that will convince me otherwise, because I know that it is 100% true.