As I've stated in a previous post from a couple of years back, the image of the Joker was (*ahem*) borrowed from the 1928 film classic THE MAN WHO LAUGHS, starring Conrad Veidt, and I have to say that just this still of Veidt is far more menacing and creepy than any version of the Joker yet to hit the screen:
I'm admittedly anxious to see the new film, mostly to see what is done with the Joker rather than giving a toss about what's up with Batman this time around because with him you pretty much know what to expect. That, and whatever is done with the Joker can only be a step up from the blasphemous treatment given to my all-time favorite Batman villain, Rā's al Ghūl, in the previous installment. I didn't care for BATMAN BEGINS for a number of reasons, but chief among them was taking the name of Rā's al Ghūl and nothing else of the character, and then reinventing him as a generic master assassin/terrorist who was also one of the Batman's mentors. Bullshit! Horse hockey says I, and if this new film pulls any such move — which I don't think will be the case — I will swear off the Batman franchise forever. If you ask me, all of the live-action Batman flicks have sucked to varying degrees (including the one with Adam West) and the only good Batman movie is the 1993 animated feature BATMAN: MASK OF THE PHANTASM, so I'm going into THE DARK KNIGHT with few or no expectations.Hell, if I had my way we'd be seeing an adaptation of "The Joker's Comedy of Errors" (BATMAN #66, Aug./Sept. 1951), only with the dick references multiplied a thousandfold and culminating in Batman nearly being subdued by the Joker's sinister boner.
I guess there's a reason why I'm not allowed behind the camera...
1 comment:
I've heard nothing but positive things about The Dark Knight, so I have more hope than I did a month ago. I'll see it in a few weeks after the hype has eased.
Post a Comment