It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Sean Connery in a film-noir you say? Might have to give it a watch.
I definitely recommend it!
"Rushed" explains WB's entire approach to building their universe. WB most certainly tinkered with the film, but Ayer wants to keep working so he has to bow his head and take the blame for what they did to him. I have never believed the cut we got was what he wanted the film to be, but it doesn't matter now. It was a garbage script anyway, as pitting a bunch of mortals against metahumans stretched even the bent logic of the superhero world right down the middle.
With an attention to real character building and a smarter use of film conventions with a more grounded story, it could've been interesting.
I'm perfectly aware why I like the Nolan films so much, even the TDKR is looking good up against this.
I'm not a comic book fan and the more fantastical they get I just tune out, the ending at times looked like they were trying to rip off the climax of Ghostbusters (the original).
That being said even if you are a fan of these films and as some have already said there is no coherence to the plot and it just feels like a number of scenes put together hastily.
I've heard it said the critics were unfair on this, they weren't they were on the nose it's a complete mess and the dialogue is utterly unmemorable and at times atrotious.
Also the one aspect the film was always going to struggle with was The Joker, I don't care that Leto's snappily dressed green haired pimp is closer to the comics.
Heath Ledger gave a performance that has set the bar not just in comic book villains but blockbusters villains full stop. With exception of Chris Waltz's Hans Landa I don't see anyone challenging him, especially Leto's unmemorable effort here. Regardless of them not using what he shot, I don't feel the danger or the charisma that dripped from the late Ledger's every scene.
Also it was like listening to someone's ipod on shuffle for the soundtrack.
The minute I found out that they were writing Joker and Harley to actually be in love, I knew we were headed for trouble.
It also seemed like he was trying to flat out impersonate Heath Ledger. The relationship between Joker and Harley also bothered me, and what seems to bother me even more, is that it seems to have become a thing for the teens to idolize. Kids are wanting for a relationship like Joker and Harley, but they're only going by this movie. Even the Batman Animated Series never shyd away from showing the abuse.
I don't really know the comic book Joker its just what I gathered from people who said they did.
I find those most likely to criticise Ledger's take it's because diverts too much from the comic book version, that and I think they got sick of everyone going rightly ga ga over it.
I can't see how anyone could have a problem with Ledger, that performance is like a force of nature.
The amount of flack Nolan got for casting him, it was only when we saw it up on screen we knew he'd seen something that a good number of ignorant people hadn't.
Ledger totally emerged himself in the character, I think its so much better when an actor doesn't have such a huge personality is cast in such a role.
With Nicholson I just saw Jack in make up not The Joker. Strangely though an actor as huge in personality as Al Pacino managed to totally submerge himself in the role of Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy, sometimes I even forget it is Pacino playing him.
Much more successful than Nicholson's version and Dick Tracy is so much more satisfying for me than Batman 89, a truly underated film.
I did get the feeling though that Ledger was trying not to do a Ledger impression but seemed too concious of that version and in the end couldn't help but echo it but without the power that Ledger bought to it, a cheap and nasty knock off of a truly masterful performance.
Ledger's is actually far, far closer to the comic version, actually, and in many ways is the closest yet, despite being more grounded. He's my favorite kind of Joker, basically a philosophizer who acts to show people how false and hilariously pathetic the codes and rules they live their lives by are. He's muddled about his past, having multiple histories for himself, and is the human embodiment of chaos and unpredictability, unable to kill Batman for the kick the hero gives him.
I get what you mean when you talk about Leto doing a Ledger impression. While I don't think this is the case for much of it, there are times where the way Leto speaks sounds very similar to Ledger, in that very heavy, slightly mumbling kind of way. And they tried to make Joker a crazy, unpredictable psycho but failed because there wasn't the wealth of character like in Ledger's take. With Ledger's Joker, I feel bad for rooting for him, whereas I couldn't wait for Leto's prison/mobster/gangster Joker to leave.
Network are releasing in on blu-ray and separate DVD this coming Monday. Very tempted to purchase the BD.
In terms of Nicholson, even then he didn't quite capture the essence of the comic Joker. Of the three he is the one closest to the look of the character, and on paper probably the best actor to have played the part, but his portrayal was incredibly goofy. He had some of those moments where he could be really vicious, and I loved the origin story for him, but I got a sort of "prankster" vibe off him. I was hoping Leto would be the best of both worlds tbh.
Nicholson redid Romero more than the 'comic book Joker', if one actually exists. Ledger portrayed a post-9/11 anarchist, the closest thing to a madman Nolan would allow in his naturalistic vision of Batman. Leto was severely underused and got the short end of the stick; I'm confident his Joker had potential.
You're reading the wrong comics.
Very much agreed, @DarthDimi. I think Nolan was clearly inspired by the Joker of The Killing Joke for Ledger, and his overall character arc in the film of proving a point through his mad acts. Batman finds out over time that he isn't just an insane man, there's a method to that madness that is scary. Like in The Long Halloween Joker also gets involved in the crime underworld and shakes things up in a big way, and overall in relation to Batman Joker has a "can't live without you" kind of vibe as in The Dark Knight Returns.
In short, he's an amalgam of a lot of great interpretations on the character, from his philosophy, mercurial nature, sadism and dark humor, along with some of Ledger's own ticks and twists like the intonations and lip licking.
I think Nicholson was almost a bit too theatrical at times in a Romero way, but that's what the film called for. His work is unfortunately undervalued by the arc of his character and the past he has with Bruce. Fun to watch, but not a third as captivating as Heath.
Leto's Joker doesn't even need to be talked about. A Joker that actually loves Harley, wears a bunch of meta tattoos, a grill and walks around with a robe and short shorts? Give me a break.
It's a good one, despite the flaws I see in it. Batman has never been more gothic and atmospheric on screen, and we might not see that level of world building again. Even with a lot of the same sets under use, those films felt like they were in Gotham City, and Burton's bent and slightly bizarre style really suited it.
It does have a lot of flaws in it. Of coarse subjectively speaking there are plenty of superhero movies that are better, and TDK for me stands as the ultimate example of what a superhero could be. But I really love the 1989 film. Anton Furst deserves a huge round of applause for the sets in this film, it's too bad he commuted suicide not long after the film was completed. The sets for Batman Returns, while still being visually appealing, didn't look as good as they in the first.
I have an issue with how Batman is portrayed, as I think they went too far, but everything beyond that is a nitpick. The film has to be respected for truly making superhero films a viable option in the future, as Donner's Superman had shown in maybe a less urgent way before. It's fitting that Superman and Batman were the two heroes to almost create the genre we know of today, just as they did in comics decades before.
I can't really compare Batman 89 with Returns in my head at the moment, but I never felt like it wasn't the same city as before, and it's clear that the sequel benefitted from having more resources and wider sets. Returns still carries that mood of Gotham City for me, and at the end as Batman approaches Penguin in the snow, I get chills. For all the zaniness, quirky characters and penguins shooting missiles from their backs, there's also shots like that of a devilish, horned Batman wafting through a charred battleground to show you that the film means business.
Also when the 89 film was made, I don't really think that there was that respect for the character of Batman as a pop culture icon like there is now.
Mod edit; please use the EDIT button and avoid double posts.
As for Suicide Squad, I don't think I'd compare it to Batman & Robin, as that's too harsh. It was poorly cobbled together, but it didn't seem like it was taking the piss at every second either and it's usage of characters wasn't that criminal. The problem with the film in style was that they tried to go with a sort of garage punk aesthetic, but didn't really back up that unique style with a lot of character or personality. If you watch the film, we get flashing two second bios of the characters on the screen, then their histories are never delved into again. We know a bit about Harley, Deadshot and Joker because those three actors were the big stars, but nobody else gets anything interesting done with their character.
The Guardians of the Galaxy argument could be made, and why that film worked and this one failed is because the former had characters that were all fleshed out and given moments to shine, whereas in the latter you forget what the hell is going on most of the time because it gives you nothing to work with. I can't believe that film was allowed to release like that; it blows my mind. Squad was also trying to inject music into the film like Guardians did, but went way overboard. In Guardians the songs commented on the actual moment they were played over, and in many ways became character anthems to tell us who the characters were over time. Squad feels like someone just threw a Top 40 list from the 70s, 80s and 90s at the post-production team and said, "Throw some of those in." There's a lack of coherent design, which is inevitable for a film that had so many cooks in its kitchen with various edits of it swimming around.