How good is Heath Ledger in the Dark Knight

intodeep wrote:

No. not at all. no where near it. Would never come into the conversation of best in performance in history.


His performace was very good though and he really nailed it.

Edit- also i would add Christian Bale plays Batman/Bruce Wayne perfectly. He plays his charctor probably just as good as Ledger plays the Joker but Bale is not getting any of the love from critics about his job.

I will give him some love. I hated every previous Batman. None of the movies had the character of the Dark Knight comics. I saw Christian Bale in Batman Begins, and he made the movie for me. He is Batman. I have also seen him in other films, and I have liked his performances. There was one movie, I can't remember the names, something to do with Equilibrium, where he was great.

...and one of the medications he was taking was illegally obtained oxycontin, which is like heroin in a pill.

Kinda have to wonder if his stellar performance didn't have something to do with the fact that he was loaded on pharmaceutical heroin the whole time.

If Ledger gets a nomination and wins then it won't be because he died, it'll be because he really is THAT good in the film.

Was anyone else creeped out by the way he kept licking the inside of his cheeks, where his scars were? It made a horrible sound and just creeped the hell out of me.

Also, Bale is the definitive Bruce Wayne/Batman. He changes from billionaire playboy to vigilante so perfetly, nailing both characters. He also conveys the conflicted feelings better than any other superhero performance on screen. Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney have nothing on Christian Bale.

I'm almost sure to be in the minority here, but I thought Dark Knight was really just OK, and I may have even liked Batman Begins a little more.

The problem, IMO, was just too much plot. I don't know why they try to shoehorn two villains into these movies, especially this one - the Joker was rich enough that there didn't even need to be a second threat, and Two-Face just seemed tacked on and rushed. Didn't like how they handled him at all.

Add to that the diversion to Hong Kong, the Wayne Enterprises accountant who figures out Batman's secret, the crooked cops, the stuff about invasion of privacy...it was all just too much. The whole movie just felt frenetic and overloaded even at two and half hours.

Part of the problem may be the hype too, which is not the film's fault at all, but I heard it was incredible and went in expecting to be blown away, and I really just wasn't. I didn't hate it, it was better than most films...but I'd grade it really no higher than a solid B.

sponger wrote:

Yes, because he was so fucking brilliant. Drugs can have that effect on some people. For others, it just makes them stupid. But history has shown that there are certain personalities who benefit in certain ways by drug use. Sigmund Freud and Jimi Hendrix are just a couple of examples.

Do I wonder the same about other actors? Were they found dead from opioid overdoses? That's the thing about speculation. It has to in some way be based partly in fact.

History has not shown that Jimi Hendrix benefited from his drug use. Your argument can be used the other way too by saying he could have been even better if drugs were not involved. I don't know this and neither do you. Same goes for Ledger.

Pj_Gurl wrote:

History has not shown that Jimi Hendrix benefited from his drug use. Your argument can be used the other way too by saying he could have been even better if drugs were not involved. I don't know this and neither do you. Same goes for Ledger.

OK...if you want to believe that JH could've just as well written Purple Haze or better while sober, then I can see why you might have a tough time with accepting my viewpoint. Meanwhile, the obvious dictates...

Heath Ledger gave the performance of his career, which in some respects could rival that of film making's greatest performances, and it's just a coincidence that he was using heavy opiates at the time?

sponger wrote:

Purple Haze

Cool song. Unbelievable riff. Jimi Hendrix. Greatest guitarist ever. enough said....
and on the rest, i'll agree to disagree

anyways, back on topic..

"You won't kill me out of some misplaced sense of self righteousness and I won't kill you because...You're just too much fun. We are destinated to do this forever"..

pure awesomeness.

sponger wrote:

Heath Ledger gave the performance of his career, which in some respects could rival that of film making's greatest performances, and it's just a coincidence that he was using heavy opiates at the time?

That's such a tenuous link, nobody can say for sure either way how drugs affected his performance - the fact it was the high point of his career has more to do with the fact that it's the most challenging and interesting character of his career. I think he was every bit as believable in the others roles I've seen him play, it just so happens that they weren't necessarily the most interesting to watch.

It's well established that he went days on end without sleeping. Anyone who abuses oxycontin knows that if you take enough of it, it actually starts to work like speed and will keep you from sleeping.

As much as you respect and admire Ledger, it's hard to overlook the possibility that the heavy drug use probably allowed him to detach from himself to the point where he could take on a whole new personality. After all, witnesses did say that he "became" the joker when he was off the set. That's probably because he was too high to know the difference.

_outlaw wrote:

People say the same thing about many actors, like Daniel Day-Lewis. you don't have to be on drugs to be a great actor.

Daniel Day Lewis can make a Jack in the Box commercial mesmerizing. The same can't be said about Ledger.