FinkPish

If you are asking this question, you have missed the joke.

[Homer has been thrown out of an all-you-can-eat restaurant for eating too much]
Lionel Hutz: This is the most blatant case of false advertising since my suit against the movie The Neverending Story.
Homer: So, do you think I have a case?
Lionel Hutz: Mr. Simpson, I don't use the word 'hero' lightly, but you are the greatest hero in American history.
Homer: Woohoo!

lukewarmwater

I thought he was as good as DDL was in there will be blood. And for both actors I was completly shocked considering how they look and act normally.

But I think a lot of it has to do with the writing and directing and getting an actor who can take it to the next level and they all sort of complement each other, like depp in pirates. I dont think the other actors were bad, but Ledger had the opportunity and steped up and hit it out of the park.

I can't think of another supporting actor who was as good as he was any movies that came out this year.

Mr. Cinema

I think Ledger would get an Oscar nomination no matter what. First, he did an excellent job. Secondly, the ratings for the Oscars are horrible, so this sort of recognition may actually get people to watch. Third, they nominated Johnny Depp for BEST ACTOR for playing a pirate. I think Ledger can get chosen for being a clown in a much smaller, SUPPORTING role.

This type of performance has a much better shot at getting in for Supporting Actor. But there are lots of movies that aren't even released yet and it's never a good idea to predict Oscar happenings in July...

Michael Corvin

You know, for some reason I was thinking Best Actor all this time where there is zero chance of a nomination. Supporting though? I can maybe see it happening for the reasons Mr. Cinema posted.

Sticky Bomb

Enough with the Aaron Eckhart was better than heath ledger
Here is the order of quality performances in the movie.
1. Heath ledger
2 Gary Oldman-I still think Drexel in True Romance should have been nominated for Best supporting Actor
3. Christian Bale
4. Aaron Echhart

And Heath ledger should and will be nominated for Best actor. And he will and deserves to win. Alive or dead.

B5Erik

I wish I didn't have to wait 2 weeks to see this movie so that I could start trashing Ledger's performance now.

eXcentris

Why wait, we should go on IMDB, trash the film and give it a '1' just for spite.

MartinBlank

It's either Matt Dillon-Something about Mary teeth OR gnarly British teeth

Mr. Cinema

It's July and you're predicting not only will they put him in the Best Actor category, the one usually with the toughest competition, but that he's going to win.

3 things:

1. How many years have you followed the Oscars?

2. You realize there are additional films coming out later this year?

3. The movie is called "The Dark Knight", meaning Christian Bale is actually the lead character. Ledger is strictly in a supporting role. If it was called "The Joker Movie", then I could see Ledger in the lead role.

The Antipodean

I've always thought the supporting role/leading role thing was rather odd -- for instance Anthony Hopkins won leading actor in "Silence of the Lambs' but really he was more of a supporting role time-wise. Is it chosen by the studios or the academy which category an actor is submitted for?

Either way, Ledger deserves a supporting actor nod -- too early to say if he should/could win, but he was NEARLY as good as he was in Brokeback, which he really should've won for. (And everyone knows, the Academy loves to ignore the actor for the role they deserve, and give it to them later for one not as good, i.e. Russell Crowe for Gladiator over Insider or Al Pacino for, ergh, Scent of A Woman instead of pretty much anything else....)

kefrank

i believe it's chosen by the nominating party and not the academy.

GatorDeb

I get the sense that he became the Joker so much that it contributed to an altered state of mind/his death.

PopcornTreeCt

I think that's kinda ridiculous.

GatorDeb

DDL is a character actor as much as one can become a character actor and has been credited with saying that he doesn't do as many roles as other actors because it takes a lot out of him and he has to space them out. Same thing.

Some DDL quotes:

(on playing Jack Slevin in The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005)) I was, as always, wary of taking on the role. This was a man whose soul was torn, and once you've adopted that kind of internal conflict, it's difficult to quiet.

On disengaging from a character after filming: "There's a terrible sadness. The last day of shooting is surreal. Your mind, your body, your spirit are not in any way prepared to accept that this experience is coming to an end. In the months that follow the finish of a film, you feel profound emptiness. You've devoted so much of your time to unleashing, in an unconscious way, some sort of spiritual turmoil, and even if it's uncomfortable, no part of you wishes to leave that character behind. The sense of bereavement is such that it can take years before you can put it to rest.

Before I start a film, there is always a period where I think, I'm not sure I can do this again. I remember that before I was going to start There Will Be Blood (2007), I wondered why I had said yes. When Martin Scorsese told me about Bill the Butcher in Gangs of New York (2002), I wanted to change places with that man. But even then, I did not say yes right away. I kept thinking, I'm not sure I can do this again.

The Antipodean

I disagree. It's called "acting," I don't think he ran off to be a gay cowboy after Brokeback Mountain.

From The Independent, a good feature
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...er-868722.html


Batting for Ledger too is Batman himself. Happily, Bale is an actor for whom off-screen publicity, even glory, is more bane than boon. So there is no jealousy if Ledger-mania seems to be hijacking his newest film. Instead, the Welsh-born Bale is on the interview circuit knocking down the canard of trying to tie Ledger's death to the stresses of exploring evil and anarchy. It may have been an all-engrossing experience as an actor, but he remained just that – an actor. He still left the set as Ledger.

"I find it to be a complete lack of understanding of acting," Bale said on NBC's Today Show. "I also found it very rude to try to create some kind of a sound bite for such a tragedy. The man was a complex man, he's a good man. I saw him as having nothing but the best time playing the Joker." He went on: "He was somebody who immersed himself completely in his role – absolutely, as do I. But at the end of the day, he was having a wonderful time making this movie."

Oldman also warns fans off trying to find an explanation for Ledger's death in the film. "People want a dark story. You know, 'He was so obsessed with character', 'He was contaminated by the Joker', 'He couldn't sleep', that sort of thing. But, in between takes, he would sit on the kerbside, smoke a cigarette and have a laugh and talk about his daughter Matilda. I thought he was just a beautiful kid."

DeltaSigChi4

There were no "gay cowboys" in Brokeback Mountain. Maybe that is why he didn't run off to become a "gay cowboy".

E

Lara Means

This bullshit needs to stop. The studio did such an incredible job hyping this movie and taking advantage of Heath Ledger's death. I have never heard so much nonsense for a single performace before in my life. Yes, Ledger's Joker is very good, but all this talk of Oscar buzz (generated by the studio) or even "one of the greatest performances of all time" is complete shit. There is no way in hell this talk would be happening if Heath didn't kill himself.

Derrich

1)Im pretty sure there were gay cowboys in Brokeback Mountain.

2)I never heard of Cesar Romero getting in so deep that he went around squirting people with trick flowers.


D

PopcornTreeCt

Why so serious?

lordzeppelin

This is exactly what I said when I walked out of the movie tonight. I'm one who is pretty skeptical of hype, and both the film and ledger lived up to it, IMO. And I also have to agree with the performance of Gary O...he was phenomenal as well. There's something to be said when a great story, great script, great direction, great production, and great acting all come together.

Comparisons of Keaton-Bale and Nicholson-Ledger are just way off too...the supporting cast on these films have been far far better than the Burton films (despite Jack Palance...). It's a different interpretation of the same characters.

jmu878

All I'm saying is this, it was the best performance I've seen since DDL in There Will Be Blood, and judging by whats coming out for the rest of this year, I think hes a shoe in. I was literally blown away by his Joker as was everyone I've talked to about it. Dead or alive, it was fucking fantastic.

B5Erik

Man, talk about a one-note performance, that was it! Cesar Romero had more shades of gray in HIS portrayal of the Joker than Ledger did (and Romero's was intended as camp)! Sure, Ledger was a lot scarier, but so what? There was no there there - no depth. He wasn't a real person, just always an angry nutjob. What's the big deal about that performance? He just found a note and stuck with it (with the possible exception of the scenes when the Joker's in the interrogation room). It was good, but not worth getting giddy over (like a lot of the fanboys seem to have done). Sorry, I just don't see a great performance. A good one? Yes, but not a great one.

Maxflier

Having now seen the movie, I think you are spot on.

NoirFan

Get your limited edition Heath Ledger trading card today!

theflicker

I pretty much agree with this assessment. I can't really speak to Romero though as I haven't viewed much of the original TV show. I think that Ledger's Joker was very good, but good in the way of Depp's (Oscar nominated) Jack Sparrow and Hoffman's (Oscar winning) Charlie Babbitt.

I admit that every year the Oscars are interesting talking point, but I gave up a long time ago using them as a barometer for my personal tastes. I only list the Oscar info as fact and not as part of my argument.

Are these good, entertaining performances? I think so, but I wouldn't classify them as being among the greatest performances of all time.

I see DDL's Daniel Plainview brought up and I do consider that to be a great performance that could've been greater if Anderson went all out and made a 6 hour epic or something. Anyway, I define the line between good and great as the difference between DDL's Bill Cutting and his Daniel Plainview. Both entertaining, but Plainview has a little extra . . . something. Humanity maybe.