It was very good. Very funny. Very demented. I'm going to flip that question on you. How was it great?
You know he wasn't even credited according to imdb.com. He was my favorite on Boston Public. It seems like I always watch some terrible B movie on tv and he is always plays a role like "thug #2" or "guy on train." I be like "Damn, there's Harry Senate with tattoos and nose rings!"
Hint for next villain: Spoiler The dialogue between Bale and Freeman regarding whether the suit would hold up against dogs. Freeman's one liner to end that scene is a POTENTIAL hint at the next villain.
I did. I thought it was good. Nothing hit me as spectacular. The character wasn't developed. You didn't know why he was like he was. Your turn.
Spoiler its very possible 2 face is still alive. If you remember there is a scene earlier where batman drops a guy from the same height and they talked about how that height wouldn't kill him. I also wouldn't be shocked if the joker returns as a different actor. They did it with rachel.
People are defending this movie like it's their first born. WHAT! WATCHING THIS MOVIE WASN'T THE GREATEST MOMENT OF YOUR LIFE! F-YOU MOFOS!!!
^ LOL! Good one... Well... dang, even Whoopi got nominated and won... and the people asking for all this Oscar stuff are probably the same people who thought Denzel was going to win one for 'Gangster' and he didn't even get nominated...
I hadn't stepped foot in this thread until this morning because I saw the movie yesterday, and I got jumped immediately. Damn.
Half of your reasoning would not be valid because it's not the actor's job to write a backstory into the script, but if I take that and run with it, I would ask if you thought Javier Bardem deserved to win when there was no back story to Anton Chigurh? Did we know why Hannibal Lecter was the way he was in Silence of the Lambs? It took a whole new crappy movie to explain his origin.
A hypothetical question: Spoiler Had one of the two boats pressed the button, would it have blown up the other like the Joker claimed? Or would they have blown up themselves?
Spoiler I'm willing to be that it would have done just as Joker said, because he was trying to create chaos. If they had both been blown up it would have easily been written off as him doing it. If they'd blown up themselves, the other boat would know they DIDN'T do it. By having it go just as he said, those people on the boat would be victims of living. As to Joker not being developed... Spoiler What did you want them to do? They wanted you to understand that there was no simple "explanation" for him being the way he was. That's what the scene between Bruce and Alfred was trying to relay to the audience. Bruce thinks all criminals are simple and have a reason, something they want. Alfred explains that some just want to see the world burn. This was consistent throughout the film. The changing reason for his scars was supposed to show you that this wasn't some sympathetic character who was abused as a child and is now crazy, etc. He was just evil.
We'll never know, but I like to think yes because the Joker lied to pretty much everybody in this movie.
Spoiler I think it would have blown up the other boat as he (the Joker) was trying to prove a certain point to Batman which he laid out in that interrogation scene. The Joker said in this little piece of dialogue: They (the people of Gotham) are only as good as the world allows them to be. I'll show you when the chips are down...these uhh...these civilized people.... they will eat each other.
He was developed....you just weren't given background. You knew what and who he was...you just don't know how. Because that's the way life goes. Because life is messy like that. Because people can lie to themselves and others for the umpteen reasons they behave the way they behave. At his core, he was a liar. That was really the point.
There was back story to Anton Chigurh. As much as their needed to be. No County for Old Men was about the chaos and where the world was heading. Why do people do these things was constantly asked through the movie and even more so through the book. Bardem's performance was flawless. Can't say the same for Ledger. I know he didn't write any scripts, but I don't really think the scripts were to blame because I thought the movie was really good. Ledger was as good as the movie was. I just don't think that this was a role to push comic book movies into the Oscar category. I also don't think this talk would be going on if homeboy wasn't dead. Watch out. People are getting really defensive. Even when you say the movie was good they get angry.
Nolan's own words on the lack of an origin story for the Joker: Source: http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1575671/20071203/story.jhtml and Source: http://movies.ign.com/articles/839/839933p2.html
Your defense of Chigurh applies to Joker though. He was developed as he needed to be. Nolan said all along he didn't want Joker to be one of those "this guy had this happen to him" type of villain. He wasn't Ras who was doing evil for his own perceived greater good. He was what Alfred said he was in that conversation with Bruce.
I don't care what he says. I know who the Joker is as well. It just seemed he had no purpose. Maybe that was the point. I wasn't even referring to an origin story in my original post. A lot of movies don't have origin stories at the beginning of movies but you know who the character is at the end. Didn't completely know who he was. I'm not trying to burst you little nerd bubbles. Don't be defensive because ya'll are finally getting good comic book movies this summer. And I still said his performance was good!
