Originally Posted By: Rob Kamphausen
 Originally Posted By: the G-man on 07/31/06

I can live with the idea of Heath Ledger as the Joker


"i can live with [that]" isn't exactly excitement about the casting. at best, its mediocre pre-praise of a part that turned out to be amazing. which, really, is just an extension of the mentality that something that seems out of place and destined for terrible can surprise you with the right direction, script, and performance.



 Originally Posted By: thedoctor
From what I understand, Ledger, while making run of the mill Hollywood fodder, was also well known and respected for his indy work as well. The Brothers Grimm, Monster's Ball, and Brokeback Mountain are all movies that he received great reviews and acclaim for.


monster's ball also won berry an oscar ...which didn't translate to her catwoman performance.

Thats neither here nor there, you said he was a crap actor and had only made poor films.

Jolie, has yet to do anything that she has had any real aclaim for.
Even her serious roles such as Gia, have hardly met with huge praise for her acting abilities.

You can probably pull films out of just about any good or great actors resume, that was a stinker, but this does not detract from the rest of their resume.

Look at the cast of the Nolan Bat films.
Pretty much every main actor has had critical aclaim at some point, the only exception being Holmes, and how great was she in the movie?

Oldman, Gyllenhall, Ledger, Freeman, Eckhart, Bale, Caine, Neeson and Murphy all had acclaimed roles before they appeared in a Bat flick, they also had several less acclaimed roles as well.
Now you can put b-movie actors into it, as shown with Hauer and Roberts, if you limit their involvement!

Pretty much any successful movie with Jolie in it, was highly unlikely to have been based on her talent. (obviously Tomb Raider was based on two of her talents).

Did Catwoman fail because of Berry, or did it fail because the film (and especially the story) was shit!