Comments on: Jamie Foxx takes on Mike Tyson Biopic

By: ANSES - Autopista de Servicios

ANSES - Autopista de Servicios — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 10:31:24 +0000

You can definitely see your enthusiasm in the paintings you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.

By: 名牌汇，博客，幽默，恐怖，故事，惊悚，

名牌汇，博客，幽默，恐怖，故事，惊悚， — Wed, 09 Nov 2011 06:52:00 +0000

fantastic points altogether, you simply gained a new reader. What might you recommend about your put up that you simply made a few days in the past? Any positive?

By: David Lopan

David Lopan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 15:22:43 +0000

I’m still waiting for Taylor Hackford to release a special edition of Blood in Blood out on DVD.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:18:13 +0000

You said yourself that his “cartoon” performance was the quality you disliked. It is your preference that is guaging his performance.

In his time and up until Dark Knight came out Jack was considered to be the Ultimate portrayal of the Joker.

I am not saying you are not entitled to your opinion, but because you prefer a different interpretation of the character has no bearing on Jack’s performance or how well he played the character. You will find yourself in the minority to say that Nicholson didn’t do a fabulous job playing that Joker in that movie.

Jack always plays crazy very well.

By: Gigan300

Gigan300 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:50:22 +0000

“That you prefer that interpretation is irrelevant to Jack’s performance.”

So, are you saying that my OPINION that he sucked as The Joker is wrong? Do you expect me to take you seriously after that?

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:04:32 +0000

The point wasn’t your personal feelings or neglect of the source material but rather that Jack Nicholson’s performance was spot on to the source material, which you regard as him “making Joker a Cartoon” It was not “making” as much as it was a faithful adaptation for which he was praised. Jack was as the character was. He didn’t make it anything else.

If anything Ledger/Nolan made the character something more than it already was to adapt it more accurately to the feel of their film.

That you prefer that interpretation is irrelevant to Jack’s performance.

By: Gigan300

Gigan300 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:37:49 +0000

“Because up until Ledger’s Joker… even in the comics, the Joker has been a jovial prankster clown who also happens to be a sadistic murderer.”

Well, then I guess its a good thing I don’t give a fuck about comic books. It doesn’t matter how it is in the comics, this is the live action film series.

By: Rodney

Rodney — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:31:52 +0000

Because up until Ledger’s Joker… even in the comics, the Joker has been a jovial prankster clown who also happens to be a sadistic murderer.

Even Ledger went to Nicholson to get advice on how to play the character for fear he wouldn’t live up to Jack’s performance.

But now the Clown Prince of Crime can’t be a cartoon? That’s exactly what the character was recognized as for decades until Nolan’s Joker.

By: SlashBeast

SlashBeast — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:29:16 +0000

Roberto Benigni – Life is Beautiful
Al Pacino – Scent of a Woman
Jennifer Connelley – A Beautiful mind
Kim Basinger – LA Confidential
Judi Dench – Shakespeare in Love

Should I go on?

By: Gigan300

Gigan300 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:09:38 +0000

Has NOTHING to do with winning an oscar or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with him giving a shitty performance, and making The Joker a cartoon. Oh, and I wasn’t comparing him to Ledger’s performance.