You can't judge based on the atmosphere of the movie, because that is shaped by the cinematic era the movie was made in. We are in a dark gritty superhero peroid, where movies are supposed to be dramatic and edgy and angsty, whereas old superhero movies were trying to be fun and exciting while appealing to comic fans wish for fantastic surrealism. So obviously Eckhart will seem better by that standard because he fits better to what modern culture says is good. However, as a character, Eckhart is not a good representation of Two Face from the comic. Two Face is supposed to be dependant on his coin due to his mental instability, and firmly believes in chance being the sole determinant of justice. Jones in his movie was tricked in the end because he couldn't kill someone without flipping a coin first, consistent with Two Face. However, Eckhart cheats his own rule in Dark Knight. When he corners that one crime boss in his car, he loses his coin toss, so he should have let him live. However, he decides to worm out of this by flipping to kill the driver, killing his victim in the process. This is not due to fairness or luck, but because Eckharts Dent wanted his victim dead and wouldnt stand for the fact that he lost the coin toss. This is not how Two Face works. He doesn't just flip his coin as a gimmick, he has a psychological dependency on it to make descisions, and thus he must adhere to the fate of luck absolutely. Despite his lunacy, Dent was honorable, at least to his own code, and that carried over to Two Face. Despite his disapproval, he shouldn't have killed the Crime Boss. Jones may have been over the top, but that is just fitting with the style of film that Batman was going for, and he still was a more accurate depiction of Two Face.
Obviously Dark Knight destroys the 1995 film but Aaron Eckhart's tow fax dis not even in the same realm as Tommy's, people are going off of the script and what was written for them and not off of the acting. Obviously if Tommy Lee Jones was reading the dark knight script ( a more serious take on the film ) and acted more serious then transformed into two face then it would be more obvious. But we are talking about strictly who did a better acting job not who's script was more realistic or which movie was better that is already obvious. Tommy's two face is solo underrated its ridiculous. This man literally put out a heath ledger type preformance with his crazy laughing and just wild mannerisms enjoying himself years before heath even did which is not as good as heath but I bet your butt heath watched tommy's performance too and took a little something from it as well as other things elsewhere. No question even arguing who's better. Watch the movie again and watch tommy lees amazing acting when he realizes batman is not dead when he falls into his trap. Him shooting his own henchmen without care just to try to kill batman in the chopper almost seems like scene where heath is shooting crazy at cars. Like i said verrryy underrated.
Tommy Lee Jones wins for me simply because he at least attempts to incorporate more of the elements from the comics, like his obsession with the number two, duality and his multiple personalities (if perhaps in the wrong way), but TDK doesn't even try to take in some of these more outlandish psychological elements of Two-Face, whereas Batman Forever, whilst otherwise lacking, makes Two-Face's duality practically a central concept of the movie as a parallel to Batman's dual identity, and that's why this portrayal of Two-Face earns more of my respect.
The reason I chose tommy lee jones was because he was in one of my favorite batman movies and he really brings out the REAL two-face. Aron Eckhart was good but he didn't really bring out the REAL two-face. Also Aron Eckhart did not even have the right hair. I mean he was missing half his hair. The real two-face doesn't relly lose any hair. Also two-face got half of his head and also his hand. Not half his whole body.
Batman Forever, all in all, was not a good movie, especially compared to the first two classics in Burton's Batman series.
THAT SAID, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:
In Forever, Harvey Dent himself gets about 10 seconds onscreen in the form of a flashback. Most of the movie focuses on the Two-Face side (pun intended).
Whereas in TDK, the opposite is true. The film focuses on the valiant Harvey Dent, the White Knight of Gotham.
However, despite this being a pretty bad movie, it does a better job developing Two-Face himself as a character.
I like both actors, especially how they both portray the insane Harvey Dent (Billy Dee Williams played in the first one with Michael Keaton) but I go by what I think is scary and what isn't.
Granted, two face is supposed to be scary, but I don't like being TOO scared and Aaron's half a face, seeing the bone and muscles and whatnot scares the hell out of me.
And, at least Tommy's Harvey/Two Face story makes sense. If you spill hot coffee or whatever on a piece of paper and it lands on your face somehow, you'd burn yourself
The version with Harvey made no sense and if it were real, he'd die in an instant. I don't care how much gauge or whatever you put on there. One is more realistic
I have to consider Nolan's trilogy as a new kind of satire: realism satire. Trying to make a fantasy like Batman realistic is kind of interesting, but silly if taken too seriously. His take Two-Face was ridiculously too dark. (Couldn't he have been disfigured & gone nuts from that blue flower poison?) Jones was closer & more enjoyable, and more plausible.
Jones is seriously winning!?!? Aaron Eckhart was the quintessential Two-Face!! I think because so few actors have played Harvey, we take Aaron for granted, but he captures Two-Face perfectly. Anyone who says Jones is the better representation shouldn't call themselves a fan, and need to read a post-70s comic book. Two-Face is not a joke. I like Jones as an actor and admittedly even enjoyed Batman Forever, but the movie does Riddler a lot more justice than it does Two-Face.
The Dark Knight was a better movie, and Aaron was very much into his character and not just "showing up" per se. No offense to Tommy Lee Jones but still the fact remains, Aaron was all around brilliant and if you ask me, highly underrated given the daunting task of sharing screen time with Heath Ledger.
I believe that the last Batman trilogy is some of the best film making we have seen. I felt like Aaron Eckhart made the better Two-Face. I think the film that features Aaron Eckhart stands above the Tommy Lee Jones film, in every facet, it's simply better story telling and cinematography all the way around.
Tommy was a ripoff of the Joker, and he doesn't listen to the coin like Two-Face does in the comics. Aaron listened to the coin no matter what and he was a serious and more tragic villain and actually had a motivation. I'm guessing it was Schumacher's fault for making Tommy's Two-Face terrible, and I think if Tim Burton had directed Billy Dee Williams and Tommy Lee Jones for it, he would've been a lot better
The Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face has very limited sophistication. Lee Jones may be a great actor (see The Fugitive, Lincoln, Bugsy, No Country for Old Men), but Two-Face is not the epitome of his career. Eckhart's Two-Face had depth, witty dialogue, a proper character arc, and was a legitimately imposing villain. Batman Forever cannot stand up to The Dark Knight.
Aaron was more realistic. His makeup on the evil side of his face was completely better. Plus, Aaron was a more believable choice for Harvey than Tommy was. I don't think it should be that hard to agree that Aaron was better. After all, most people think Batman Forever was just terrible.