The Dark Knight — Page 8

I really liked TDK, I wasn't bored at all and I enjoyed it for what it was: an action movie, a dark comic book on screen.

I did however find Batman's peanut butter laced Clint Eastwood meets Marlon Brando with bad bridge work voice rather laughable. But I thought Christian Bale made for a very smooth Bruce Wayne.

As for Heath Ledger's performance, "brilliant" and "genius" is going a bit overboard imo. "Very entertaining" will suffice. I think those who call it "genius" are the same type of people who call Johnny Depp in POTC "genius". All too often, fans confuse charisma with acting talent. And perhaps I'm being unfair (or even a snob), but I think when we're talking about performances like Ledger's Joker or Depp's Jack Sparrow we're not talking about the *real* acting I've come to know and appreciate. Not that what they do is any less valid for entertainment purposes, but we're not talking Al Pacino or Geraldine Page here. When I can see the work, the cool/flashy/interesting for the sake of being interesting choices, quirks, and ticks... it all seems so empty to me and reminds me of pretty boy high school actors whose first priority in a performance is to look cool. I guess this is what seperates the movie stars from the true actors, and keeps the ladies with untrained eyes filling theatre seats. At any rate, I DID enjoy the film, but I'll say Ledger was "cool" and "fun" as The Joker, not "genius".

Updated On: 8/6/08 at 07:14 PM

"I think when we're talking about performances like Ledger's Joker or Depp's Jack Sparrow we're not talking about the *real* acting I've come to know and appreciate.'

I can't agree with that statement at all. People always think dramatic performances are more difficult, when comedic performances are usually more so.

---

"I'm talking about fully realized performances by trained actors versus performances by "movie stars" (whose careers were in large part built on their looks) who think a bunch of flashy choices can carry a performance."

Heath Ledger may have been very good-looking, and that probably helped him win early roles, yes. But the reason why he STAYED so popular and won so much acclaim during his lifetime was because he was incredibly talented.

What has Orlando Bloom (Who slightly resembles Ledger if you think about it) done lately aside from PIRATES sequels? Nothing.

Plus, the Joker wasn't really what I would call a "comedic" performance in the true sense. He was humorous, but in a more funny-strange way rather than in a funny-ha-ha way. The Joker's humor was the personification of the joke about the shark attack victim who was told by his doctor that they had to amputate his legs but were able to save his shoes.

"I don't think any brilliant perforance is 'less than' just because the person isn't considered a true actor."

Which brings us back to my original point, I don't think the performance was "brilliant". Don't get me wrong, I know trained actors who suck, that's not my prerequisite for being a "true actor". All I'm saying is that being quirky and mashing together neat little idiosyncrasies is not acting at its full potential.

Cruel Sandwich, I also wouldn't call Ledger's Joker a comedic performance, and I don't think that's what jrb meant either. I don't want to put words in your mouth jrb, but I think you were speaking more to realistic versus OTT comic book characters.

I like Heath Ledger, but I will say that I think I've enjoyed him more in his frothier roles, like in Casanova or even A Knight's Tale. What I saw was a poised, charming young man at ease, and I think he was very good at that. In TDK, Brokeback, Monster's Ball, I saw "the work"... I saw a good looking guy who was working very hard to create something, something that would perhaps make us forget his looks and accent if only for a moment, and see a fine chameleon of an actor up there. Maybe it's just me, and I would like to see all of his films. But for those I've mentioned, it's like what Katherine Hepburn said about Meryl Streep, I can hear the "click, click, click" of the wheels in his head turning.

I finally saw this film tonight.

I am probably the only person on the planet who didn't think it was that great. Certainly not worthy of the praise it's getting.

Ledger was good, but the only reason people are mentioning an Oscar nomination is because he's unfortunately passed away.

Batman Begins was much better.

"Ledger's performance is a great performance. No exceptions. Or clauses. Or sidenotes."

In your humble opinion.

I think this is one of the few times Jerby and I actually agree on a movie. Awesome.

In any case, it's a PHENOMENON. I don't think there has been a movie this huge since...I guess...Titanic?

When I can see the work, the cool/flashy/interesting for the sake of being interesting choices, quirks, and ticks... it all seems so empty to me and reminds me of pretty boy high school actors whose first priority in a performance is to look cool. I guess this is what seperates the movie stars from the true actors, and keeps the ladies with untrained eyes filling theatre seats.

Okay, well, as an actor with a trained eye, I couldn't disagree more.

---

Updated On: 1/15/09 at 12:56 AM

Updated On: 1/15/09 at 01:25 AM

Updated On: 1/22/09 at 01:33 AM

I'm not qualifying my earlier comments either. I think Heath's performance is worthy of Oscar recognition, and I thought he was brilliant.

It has nothing to do with him being a movie star... although star quality, or the ability to carry a film, isn't something you learn in an acting class, or by performing Shakespeare in the park. "You either got it, or you ain't." And Heath's got it.

My opinion of his performance also has nothing to do with his death. It has to do with taking a role that isn't all that interesting or particularly "new" on paper, and turning it into startling and memorable performance. The work is excellent.

I also won't qualify my opinion of the film as a whole... which I still feel is an endlessly boring, muddled, insignificant mess, only made interesting by Ledger's work. The rest was resoundingly and painfully mediocre.

It's funny that people say things like, "I must be the only one on the planet who thinks this movie isn't very good."

Wrong. You are not alone, not even in this thread, let alone the rest of the country or world. Read a little bit. While the majority clearly thinks it's successful (on all counts), there is a small but vocal group, including me, who thinks this is a crappy film. Sorry to take away your "unique" opinion. But it's not all that unique.

---

Updated On: 8/7/08 at 10:45 AM