Is it bad that I think because it was his last role before his untimely demise that's what's prevented us from looking at Leger's Joker with a critical eye (along with all the hipster fanboys who would worship Anarky if they read the comics)?
Six years after? No. No, it isn’t. And to think it even then wouldn’t be bad either; it led to so much hyperbole that no one thought straight. It didn’t help that no one saw a movie with such pretense of maturity coming either. People of all ages got distracted from it’s flaws because of the bombastic nature of this movie. I think it’s a fine film, but not such a masterpiece as people made it out to be. (Though initially I fully agreed with them. Then again, I was fifteen when I saw it in cinema. I’ve grown a little since then.)
People to this day keep saying that Heath was the shit and people STILL say that no one will be able to play Joker better than he did. But to be honest, I think they had Joker just serve a purpose in regards to threat level, not to play a character. That would require that we get enough time to just see Joker be himself instead of always serving the plot. To me he seems like a random terrorist more than anything else. Nolan’s/Ledger’s portrayal has some of Joker’s cruelty baked into it, but he strikes me more as a guy who’d be one of the Joker’s more trusted agents than the man himself.
