Is it in the Cards for Heath? (with Poll)

When many people think of Heath Ledger, I would gather the following words come to mind: sympathy, sadness, good actor, gay cowboy. He’s played: a patriot, a drug addict, Casanova, a surfer, a knight, and most recently a deranged psychotic. Regardless of how mediocre “The Dark Knight” was overall, he did succeed in out-shining all the other actors – although that wasn’t too hard since most of the acting in the movie was quite wooden.

The disturbing part about his role as The Joker was that it’s resulted in some kind of mania in the public’s eye that has so many people clamoring for him to get a posthumous Oscar. The problem is it wasn’t some kind of genius role, it wasn’t even anything really standout, it was just a decent execution of a somewhat extreme character. Most people who can’t act can have makeup put on their face and told to act like someone disturbed and it can be pulled off. One of the easiest kinds of characters to play is someone that’s crazy or psychotic.

Some actors have done superb jobs in such roles, such as Anthony Hopkins as Dr. Hannibal Lecter in “Silence of the Lambs”, Joe Pesci as Tommy DeVito in “Goodfellas”, or Jack Nicholson as Jack Torrance in “The Shining”.

Heath Ledger has done nothing special in his role as The Joker and the only reason it’s even being suggested that his role as The Joker deserves an Oscar is because:

  1. He’s dead
  2. He lifted the movie up from being abysmal to at least mediocre
  3. Most people are sheep
  4. The movie is making a lot of money
  5. A lot of critics forget that their role is to critique, not ass-kiss the box office

One other factor is that the role was “different” and anything “different” in Hollywood (if it’s meant ot be serious) is considered ground-breaking. For example: Viggo Mortensenhas a 5-minute nude brawl in a bath house in the movie “Easten Promises” and the next thing you know he’s being applauded. Seriously, I don’t want to be enjoying a fairly decent sober movie only to then have the equivalent of a Borat hotel scene (minus the censoring) shoved in my face. I guess in Hollywood when an actor allows his small shriveled prune-looking dangling bits to be exposed at length in a movie, it’s considered groundbreaking. “Different”? Yes. “Groundbreaking”? Um, no.

Although no shriveled bits to speak of in Heath’s role, the same concept applies.  The role is different but that doesn’t mean it’s groundbreaking or astounding.

Speaking of Borat – THAT is someone able to stay in character for a whole movie and with significantly more screen time. Should Sacha Baron Cohen have been nominated for an Oscar? If he died, would people be clamouring for that?

And now the poll:

Bookmark and Share

51 Responses to “Is it in the Cards for Heath? (with Poll)”

  1. Heath Ledger is an amazing actor and just because you stupid over-opinionated critics can get your heads out of your fart arses for long ehough to see that doesnt mean that you can critique Heath’s work.
    Who the hell are you anyway? and how the hell can you say that anyone with half a brain could do the same job as Heath? You’re probably just some nerdy fat fuck with nothing better to do than judge someone elses hard work sitting on your computer all day.
    Heath is an inspiration to all Australians. He will be remembered for his work and his daughter will always be able to say that she is proud. Thats a whole lot more than what your kids will say to you.

  2. Nicole, just wondering…

    How did the koolaid taste when you drank it?

  3. You shouldn’t have this on here, it is pretty insulting to see a piece that basically says Heath is good for nothing and it sounds like your saying his death isn’t a tragedy. Way to go.

    P.S. I like good, entertaining movies so the Kool-aid tastes great.

  4. I love TDK and I don’t mind criticisms as long as the argument is solid and backed by facts but your stated case is pathetic obviously because you’re annoyed at the whole hype about the movie and Heath Ledger snatching a posthumous Oscar. It’s easy to play a psychotic person just by applying prosthetic makeup, you claim. Compare Jack Nicholson’s Joker with Heath’s in TDK and its obvious your argument is moot. I bet you can’t even top half of Nicholson’s acting in Tim Burton’s Batman.

    This is what happens to somebody who tries to play a psychotic villian and fail miserably:

  5. It was a great movie…

    LOADS of people may be sheep, but that doesn’t change the fact it’s a great movie.. and you can’t just say “oh he likes this movie.. SHEEP!”

    You know most people arent kissing this movies ass because Heath died or because it’s a comic book movie.. but you guys are taking this the completly opposite direction and saying “THE MOVIE SUCKED!! THE ONLY REASON PEOPLE LIKED IT IS BECAUSE HEATH IS DEAD AND CRITICS WANT TO KISS BOX OFFICE ASS” which is complete bullshit..

    It was a great movie 95% of the population love this movie… so if your critics don’t have the sense to recommend this for the mass majority of the population.. well.. you guys are really shit film critics..

  6. “Who the hell are you anyway? and how the hell can you say that anyone with half a brain could do the same job as Heath?”

    Hey, moron. Movies are (supposedly) made for the viewers (even though TDK seems to have been made as a vehicle for maximum joint-advertising with phones, cable service, pizza, etc.) The writer of this blog obviously saw the movie, therefore he has every right to critique it to his heart’s content. If he has no right to critique it and should pull his head out of his “fart arse”, then by the same logic you have no right to praise it. They are both forms of feedback, and according to you one has no right to offer feedback. But that’s right, I’m sure you have never said anything negative about a movie/book/TV show/album, right? If so, you would clearly have your head up your “fart arse” according to your post.

    “You shouldn’t have this on here, it is pretty insulting”
    Here we go. Only the second post and already someone is throwing this crap around. Hey, tdksucks, you forgot that not only are you not allowed to critique the film, you ESPECIALLY can’t talk about a dead actor in anything less than a 100% positive light.

    “it sounds like your saying his death isn’t a tragedy”
    Way to put words into his mouth, you self righteous dick. Tell you what, I’ll come out and say it right now: I couldn’t care less about Heath Ledger’s death. I’m not saying that to start an argument or because I hate this movie (which I don’t), but I didn’t know the guy. I’m willing to bet you didn’t either. Just because he was rich and famous I’m supposed to give a damn? Plenty of people with lives much shittier than his die every single day, and you are worrying about Heath Ledger? I am not glad that he died, but please try and put things in perspective. Celebrity worship at its finest…

  7. Heath was really good but your right i didnt find him particularly outstanding.

  8. Are you kidding me? The Dark Knight a mediocre film?

    I’m not going to refute you by calling you stupid.

    But I am going to ask you to answer a question for me:
    How many film classes have you taken?

    If you didn’t ENJOY The Dark Knight, that is your own personal business.

    But there are universal standards by which films can be rated, and if you consider some of these, i.e.:
    1. visual elements
    2. script
    3. actor/director relationship
    4. continuity
    5. art direction,
    then you would not be able to objectively argue that the film is only mediocre.

    If YOU PERSONALLY didn’t ENJOY it, that is your prerogative. I won’t argue with that; you’re entitled.

    But could you seriously give me five educated reasons why The Dark Knight is not a well-executed film?

    Feel free to respond either here or as a comment on my own blog.


    p.s. If you have any capacity to comprehend acting at all, please explain to me the specific flaws you saw in Heath Ledger’s performance. I’m interested.

  9. Dear Evan,

    Thank you for your brilliant, inhuman post. I hope you enjoy your bad Karma because, being a horrible person, that is what you’ll get.

    It’s called respect wether you know them or not and no matter who they are. Respect for an actor. I don’t care if he bashes his acting in this film but do it respectfully and leave out disrespectful crap like,

    “Heath Ledger has done nothing special in his role as The Joker and the only reason it’s even being suggested that his role as The Joker deserves an Oscar is because:

    He’s dead “

  10. I agree, John.

    And furthermore, I’m coming to the conclusion that people shouldn’t be allowed to judge the quality of someone’s acting unless they’ve studied acting.


    It’s appalling.

    To say that there is “nothing special” about the Joker is preposterous.

    There is plenty special; just ask if you want to know, I’ll help you see.

  11. ascheide, FYI – John has posted under 2 other names in this site, with the same IP address.

    As for your “conclusion”, what if I told you I studied acting? What will your argument be then?

    There is a message in TDK that does come through, and it’s very Bush-era appropriate. It’s that in order to do the “right thing”, it would seem that bad things need to be done: abuse people’s rights, and “burn down the forrest” if it means that “the people are saved” (nevermind that they wouldn’t need to be saved in the first place if the savior wasn’t on a self-proclaimed crusade). Your statements about my not having the right to state what I have to state is of the mindset that people aren’t allowed to have dissenting opinions.

    I’m stating what a lot of people are thinking (but afraid to admit). I dont care if that’s in the minority, and I don’t care that it hurts your hopeful actress sensibilities. The second I lose my right to state what I want, is when we are in a nightmare world you would not want to live in.

  12. Ascheide, FYI, Mike (My brother) has already pointed out that we share a computer with 2 people, but like this movie, tdksucks has selective viewing.

  13. Heath Ledger was just a nobody drug addict who couldnt even manage to adjust his pills.
    He might be the best thing that came out of Australia, but then again I dont remember ANY SINGLE PERSON from that scum island who even went through college. Nobel prize winners.. no. Famous artists.. no. Authors.. no.
    Only a bunch of racist ex-cons living in the stone age.. Its sad because its so true.

  14. craft and popularity do not make a good film. a good film is far more than popular entertainment. this movie is solely and purely entertainment. it is a ride at six flags. it is brittany spears, rascal flatts, etc. it is disney painted black. it has no heart. it reveals nothing of life because it is lifeless. the only glimmer of life is seen in heath’s performance, and he stands out especially because the rest of it is so dead. this final parting shot, may enable one to understand his growing frustration with the energy and money and attention directed at the litany of pointless distractions that keep us from seeing what is.

    loving this film is, in essence, an act of worship, and so, in reality then, one is worshiping the god of corporate america. slash the wrists and feed the greed vampire sheep.

  15. does taking painting or acting classes make one a good artist/actor?
    or somehow grant one the ability to discern good? what is good anyway? the definition of good is not found in popularity or even mere craft, though for 75 million it better have good craft, film class should’ve taught you that.

    this film feels like a video game, and that genre hadn’t even gotten off the ground as anything but a basic response reaction mental distraction. yeah, the dark knight might be a good video game, it is mild entertainment, but it is not a good FILM or good ART.

  16. To ascheide–

    Well, I have a Master’s in film so I’ve taken film classes, and I’m not impressed with the movie.

    I’m basing my opinion on mainly the script (awful dialogue, convoluted storytelling, etc), the way it did *not* feel like a Batman movie to me (too much daylight, Bruce/Batman barely seeming to be in it, Gotham looking like any boring city in America, not the dark, mythic character-in-itself it’s supposed to be–in itself a continuity problem from the first movie), acting (Maggie was awful, Christian kind of going through the motions at times, Heath just not playing a Joker I could recognize as the Joker versus any old sociopath), editing (Nolan cannot direct action sequences at all, and there were numerous times I felt like a shot was cut short, or the shots were too short in general), music (the lone tone for the Joker didn’t work for me), etc.

    To go on I’d have to see the movie again, which I don’t want to do.

  17. Okay, TDK, fair enough.

    If you told me you studied acting, my next request would be for you to point out specific flaws in Heath’s performance that should keep him from winning an Oscar. Because I would be curious to know, from actor to actor.

    Furthermore I couldn’t care less where John is posting from.

    Also, let me qualify the harsh statement I made that caused you to defend your right of free speech.

    I mean to express that if you are going to publish a statement shining an actor’s performance in negative light, the reader would be more inclined to believe you were you to provide intelligent examples and reasons backed with acting philosophy, as opposed to making a mere blanket statement with no relevant details.

    Your point about the Bush-era philosophy is totally valid. And I’m glad you pointed it out, because I was personally dissatisfied with the end of the movie, where the concept of “truth” seemed to get really distorted. I didn’t agree with what the movie was saying about truth AT ALL. I think the truth is ALWAYS preferable to an illusion. Which is why I pursue acting. Seriously, that’s not a joke.

    What I’m saying is, whether or not you agree with THE MESSAGE, the FILM can still be a well-made piece of art.

    I mean, here you are, talking about the necessity of dissenting opinions, and you’re condemning a film just because you don’t agree with it?

    Do you like The Godfather (part one)? Did you agree with the message, with the outcome? See, I LOVE the film; I think it’s brilliant. But I don’t at all agree with the outcome.

    Of course, theme is a big part of a film, but to judge a FILM– what I’m saying is that you have to study the CRAFT, the CINEMATOGRAPHY, the SET-UPS, the ART DIRECTION, the acting!, the camera angles, the movement, rhythm, tone, color, and most of all, CONCEPT.

    To judge a film, one shouldn’t say “I didn’t agree therefore the movie is bad.” One should probably try to approach it more like the people who vote on Oscars approach it: “How well, how thoroughly, and how creatively did actors, directors, designers, producers, writers, editors, technicians, and all the other people involved execute the film’s credo, WHETHER WE AGREE WITH IT OR NOT?”


    I would love a satisfying answer to each of the following questions:
    1) In what way specifically was Heath’s performance bad?
    2) In what way specifically was THE FILM (not the concept!) bad?

    p.s. You haven’t hurt my hopeful actress sensibilities. You’ll have to try a lot harder than that. :)

  18. Hi ascheide,

    Thanks for the reply :)

    You asked: “If you told me you studied acting, my next request would be for you to point out specific flaws in Heath’s performance that should keep him from winning an Oscar. Because I would be curious to know, from actor to actor.”

    I was actually waiting for you to ask me that question. And here’s my answer:

    Since more actors are NOT chosen to receive (or even be nominated) Oscars than those who are, it must be stated by the people who nominate why the person DESERVES an Oscar, not why all the others do not.

    The last 10 times you watched the Oscars on TV, do you remember anyone talking about why the other 3,000+ actors that year in major motion pictures don’t deserve an Oscar? Since I don’t believe he deserves an oscar, I am stating that he did not pull off anything even remotely masturful let alone stand out enough to deserve an Oscar nomination.

    So really, it’s left for you (and so many others) to tell us why he DOES deserve and Oscar in comparing every other performance for this Oscar year. I can only say “He did better-than-average” and happened to stand out against the wooden acting from others in the movie. That’s it. Nothing stood out beyond that.

    This is the crux of the whole “This movie is a materpiece” phenomena – all the fans of it proclaim it but almost never actually describe WHAT makes it a masterpiece or even just a little better than mediocre. Almost no fan of it will go to such depths of detail, and it’s largely due to the vast viral marketing campaign so many people were entrenched in. Perhaps that’s where a big chunk of the $185 million budget went to because for the life of me I can’t discern which parts in the movie would have resulted in such a large production cost. There was almost no set design, no noticable CGI effort (save for Harvey’s face), 99% of the actors had standard clothing (no elaborate costumes), etc etc.

    But… back to Heath:

    What was it about his role that you believe cause him to DESERVE an Oscar?

    “p.s. You haven’t hurt my hopeful actress sensibilities. You’ll have to try a lot harder than that. :)

    Don’t tempt me! HAHA, j/k… I’m not a jackass…

    As to your second question about the film being bad, the reasons are plastered all over the site. In short: sloppy direction, convoluted story, unconvincing plot, terrible editing, almost no character development, missing story arcs, and (for a comic book movie) mediocre fight/action sequences. There’s more but that should be enough.

  19. notmyjoker, you’ve taken all the fun out of this.

    I wanted TDK to come up with that all by himself!

    Now the game is over. :(

  20. My comments keep getting delayed!!!

    You know, this is ping pong.

    I know that they choose Oscars based on someone standing OUT, and not just on “not blending in”. That wasn’t my point.

    I am trying to get more specific reasoning out of YOU.

    Anyway. I think more thought than you think was put into Heath’s take on the Joker. To me, it really showed, but again, I’m sitting in a different chair.

    You said he put on make up and acted “disturbed” and that that was easy. He did so much more than that.

    First of all, he worked with a coach on the voice, and the voice itself I think is noteworthy. If you heard Heath’s usual voice, it was deep, and he sort of rumbled and mumbled through interviews. But for the Joker, he tightened his voice up, raising the pitch, blasting the articulation out of the WATER: what that did was show a physical restraint of the inner demons. When he just spoke to the mobsters, or to the commissioner, or even to Batman, he had that tightness, the constriction, and any kind of strain for composure is an ideal way to insinuate that there is something more powerful, much deeper underneath it all.

    He used tightness in his voice to IMPLY all that, and he used the other side of his voice to explicitly SHOW all that. The tightness only broke four times (that I can remember distinctly). The first of which– the well-known “Why so serious?” (The shocking but enthusiastic narration of “the father”’s voice came at a time when the sick sadism was at its first peak.) The second time– the “LOOK! AT! ME!” to the Batman imposter was such a startling contrast to what had been his voice up until that point that it seemed to come from Hell itself. Another time was “Hit me… hit me… HIT ME!” which was a disturbing revelation of the Joker’s obsession and morbid fascination with pain and death. (The last time that I can recall came from one of his laughs… somewhere. There was only one that distinctly dropped into the lower register, and it scared the sh** out of me. If I went and saw the movie again I could point it out for you.)

    Basically, what he showed us from his VOCAL performance alone clearly displayed immense control and power– Heath was selective about his voice, efficient and economic– and managed to use the full range of it (the lows I referred to, the medium of the one-on-one dialogues, and the highs in his howling laugh) with startling control and consistency. Not a thing was arbitrary– all of his choices obviously had a history.

    That’s just his mastery of pitch.

    Would you like more reasons, or shall we argue this to the death first?

  21. “My comments keep getting delayed!!!”

    I have to keep comment moderation on or else this place will be flooded with fanboys posting “you fag” every other post.

    “Would you like more reasons, or shall we argue this to the death first?”

    We can battle it out over a tickle fight — but to the death seems a little extreme. Your opinion over it is totally fine, I just don’t agree, and neither do a lot of people.

    He was better in Lords of Dogtown.

  22. Ascheide, my bad, I thought that was more of an open question kind of thing, not just for tdksucks. Though I’ve said most of that elsewhere on this site.

    Also, not that you’ve asked my opinion, I’m just throwing this out here, my problems with Heath weren’t with his acting as a sociopath per se, it’s that he was playing a character that I personally view rather differently. Heath was certainly creepy. I just didn’t find him particularly stand out, either.

  23. Fair enough, fair enough you two.

    We’ll just draw the line at “opinion” and keep it there, although I encourage you to look again and contemplate the detail, laborious control, etc. of Heath’s Joker.

    TDK, tickle fights are no fair. I would lose IMMEDIATELY. And I still haven’t seen Lords of Dogtown, but I saw a snippit of it the other day and now it’s definitely on my list.

    notmyjoker, you’re a good sport. But since I’m not going to pretend I read comic books, I had no other real interpretation of the character to compare Heath to. (Except Jack Nicholson, which… I don’t know if I even want to go there.)

    Ah, well. Goodnight everybody! You’ve all been great fun.


  24. I thought his performance was the best thing about the movie. The problem isn’t the acting but the writing and directing of the character.

    The character appears fully formed and doesn’t change at all throughout the film. Also there’s no ending or resolution to his part. It is literally all left hanging at the end. It’s sort of weird and offputting with the shoehorned Gordon Family standoff part.

    You don’t know anything about the Joker’s history, fine, I would have at least liked to see him eat a pizza, walk his dog, do SOMETHING that illuminates his character besides talk about anarchy for the entire movie.

    This film has no detail of depth though.

    Well except for the Batpod. A lot of hours went into thinking about it and how it can flip around on a wall.

  25. You better pump those breaks, you about to cross a motherfuckin’ line. That man’s a national treasure. Lol jk.

    I disagree with you about the Heath stuff and his performance. It’s hard to agrue it, because you can’t compare it to the other Joker’s due to each films source material (script), if the other actor’s that played the Joker had this role – they might have been able to pull it off just as well, but it is an over simplification to give his make-up most of the credit – it helps, but he brings tons to the role. The best way to say it is – it takes a certain caliber of actor to play the role, from there it what they make of it.

    You’re dead on about a lot of the other stuff you mentioned – i.e. people being sheep (just look at all of these retard comments). But the Oscar’s don’t always go to big box office films and their stars, although they are known to give them to actor’s who make themselves “ugly”, play retarded, or a black women, who has sex with a white man.

    There was talk about Heath’s performance before he died. There was buzz (which could have just been generated by warner brothers spin machine) about it during the filming, and don’t take this the wrong way, because I’m not trying to be an asshole or bias, but because I don’t know any of you I’m left only to guess that you guys probably didn’t know that, because you guys didn’t care about this film until it started to blow up with all of the hype and Heath’s death.

  26. first: calling people “sheep” is very 1999. it’s not terribly original at this point, and as such, amusing for its irony. it’s curious that you chastise “the masses” for liking this movie, but then you’ll say ” . . . this is *my* opinion, and a lot of people agree w/ me, but they’re too afraid to admit it.” um, so group-think is bad if said group holds an opinion you disagree with, but if “a lot” of people hold the same opinion as you, well, then “there’s strength in numbers”? is that right? is there a facebook group for Dissenters? how’s that membership to Club Martyr treating you? do you guys get a booklet on how to be renegades? “when carrying your cross, make sure to look sexy” and the like?

    second: ascheide asked you if you’ve studied acting. you said: ” . . . what if I told you I studied acting? What will your argument be then?” funny, since, when criticizing two-face’s special effects, you brought up how you’ve done 3D rendering and animation. i guess that sort of knowledge doesn’t apply to acting, though? seems to me ascheide was (inadvertently) calling you out.

    third: the joker is many things, but “psychotic” is not one of them. he’s narcissistic, sadomasochistic, and psychopathic, but not “psychotic.” for someone who criticizes the movie for getting this and that wrong, one would think that maaaaaybe you’d wanna learn a thing or two about basic psychology. your assertion that “psychosis” being one of the easiest roles for an actor to pull off only underscores your ignorance of psychology. i’ve rarely seen psychosis depicted accurately in film; however, ledger embodied *psychopathy* quite aptly. the joker is fearless, lacks empathy, pathologically lies, and has a blatant disregard for social rules and norms. he is sadomasochistic, deriving pleasure from inflicting pain on others and from receiving it himself. i thought the character was well-written for the vehicle he appeared in. (also, the joker is only “somewhat extreme”? really? he’s not as EXXTREEEME as those badasses in harold & kumar, THAT i will grant you.) a case could be made that he is “anti-psychotic,” since his insights into the world and into human behavior are all verified (psychosis, my friend, as you *don’t* know, is a “break from reality”); if you remember, he did, in fact, “win” at the end of the movie. he sees batman for who he is, he sees dent/two-face for what he is, and he sees people for what they are. the reason his prisoner’s dilemma fails is because the “civilized” people on the ferry were too cowardly to carry through w/ detonation. that bald republican who wanted to blow the prisoner’s up was too chickenshit to do what he really wanted; it wasn’t, as batman so desperately wants to believe, because the “people of gotham want to believe in good.” the only person on either boat to show any real strength was tiny lister who threw the detonator out of the window. if that wasn’t a totally liberal conceit–prisoner w/ a heart of gold–i dunno what the fuck liberalism is. but of course, we’ll just cherrypick things we don’t like to fit into our contention that the dark knight is “bush era” film. yawn. the only thing more simplistic, narrow-minded, and ignorant of human behavior than a summer blockbuster movie is politics. and the truth is, the dark knight is much more complicated and multivalent than any political ideology will grant it.

    btw, idiocracy is great in concept; shoddy in execution. it could’ve been *such* a good movie, but instead is a mediocre one. and likening “ass” or “ow, my balls” to the dark knight is a bit of a stretch and somehow i suspect you know this (but anything to get those pageviews, right?). but i totally agree w/ you re: ledger in lords of dogtown. he *was* an exceptional actor and i thought of him as such ever since i saw him years ago when i was “made” to watch monster’s ball. to the commentard who said he was just a “drug addict”–pfft, bad form. drug addicts are people, too. gee, and i thought this blog was *against* mouthbreathing conservative platitudes?

  27. It’s possible for people to have multiple interests and skills. I can’t help it if that’s not in your reality.

    Thanks for the other feedback. I looked up psychopathy and you are correct that the character in the movie was more psychopathic than psychotic. However, that is semantics in the case of my points and I stand by the statement that his type of role can more easily be played by many actors just as skillfully, and his performance doesn’t have any discernable qualities which a reasonable person could consider as being Oscar-worthy.

  28. what i find baffling in all this is how other people GIVE A DAM about what other people think about a certain film?!?!? i mean come on………if these people want to say ‘yes, this film sucks, its mediocre’ then so be it………what are you gonna gain from saying ‘oh you cant say that it was an amazing film blah blah’ ive seen the film and i LOVED IT……and i thought ledger justified his hype…….why get all fussed up about it….i mean why waste time arguing with a person ure never ever going to convince to change his/her views. i thought this film was amazing, and the godfater was a bit boring, but decent at the least. i talk to a godfather maniac, and he will say its best film EVER. end of the day the film industry is ENTERTAINMENT…….Fictional Money Making Business……….There Are always going to be fan boys and always going to be critics.

  29. The point is – it’s not the movie that concerns me, it’s the absence of any reason as to why the masses treat it like it’s a gift from the heavens from god himself. The whole point of this site is to take a common mass perception and turn it on its head.

  30. The problem is, I feel bad how I enjoyed this movie, but many people are acting like it’s the greatest movie alive, and calling people “fags” or “assholes” when they express a negative opinion on it. It embarrasses me a lot, in fact.

  31. Why so serious?

    its amuses me to see alot of you being driven down to this level. ledger played the joker very well, he should be nominated for an oscar. there wont be any justice either way, let him rest in peace.

    1- he gets an oscar – people will criticise that he only got it due to him passing away

    2- he wont get it – people will criticise that he didnt get it because he passed away

    he cant win either way

  32. Heath ledger did a good preformance as the joker there’s no doubt about that , offcourse it wasn’t the greatest acting achievement of the year but it was good .

    As for this site , I’m glad that there are people who don’t just gow with the flow and are critical about things cause it brings things too a higher level.

    But this isn’t just being critical anymore ,some articles and the name of the site is just childish and its just done with the reason of provoking the “die hard fanboys” and other people who liked this movie and this results in childish discussions with a rather good amount of insulting words which leads to nothing and certainly not to bringing things to a higher level.

    Luckily there are some good articles in here too , and by making your site and getting your “lovely” hate-mail you prove that this movie is overhyped and that people easily gow with the flow , too easy.

    tdksucks is some sort of joker :d he (or she) proves the mistakes made by other people with provocation but I think there are other and better ways to prove this ;)

    Now my pizza is ready I did like the dark knight , I don’t consider myself a sheep and sorry for my bad English


  33. #
    Jenny, on July 28th, 2008 at 3:09 pm Said:

    Heath Ledger was just a nobody drug addict who couldnt even manage to adjust his pills.
    He might be the best thing that came out of Australia, but then again I dont remember ANY SINGLE PERSON from that scum island who even went through college. Nobel prize winners.. no. Famous artists.. no. Authors.. no.
    Only a bunch of racist ex-cons living in the stone age.. Its sad because its so true.

    It is quite sad that what you said is true, but wallowing in self pity for your forgetfulness/lack of knowledge on the internet won’t get much sympathy. I would recommend mental exercises to help with memory or books/documentary for the knowledge but I hear riding kangaroos with all them convicts and aborigines down under do wonders.

  34. “2- he wont get it – people will criticise that he didnt get it because he passed away”

    I doubt anyone would say he DIDNT get it because he is dead. That doesn’t make sense.

  35. Nick cave and the bad seeds , Russel crowe , ….

  36. Colleen McCullough

    Good God how much MORE famous does Jenny want an author to be?

  37. This movie sucked. Sorry, but seriously.. let’s be honest and analyze it like you have…

    …done? Yeah, it sucked.

    But that being said, Heath Ledger did a great job. He never cared about groupies, the money or fame– the kid just loved to act… period. Let’s give him the credit and not because he has passed.

  38. Here’s an interesting writeup from the LA Times:

    “Sobering up on Heath Ledger”,0,2845821.story?track=rss

    And of course a rant about it by a rabid fan on some blog:

    “Fan Rant: Ledger’s Drug Use Has No Place in Oscar Talk”

  39. “Heath is an inspiration to all Australians.”

    oh, so heroin addicts are inspirational now are they. I’m sorry, but to allow himself to become a drug addict when he had a family be there for is irresponsible and foolish. He may not have been a bad man, but he’s not an inspiration.
    He played a decent joker, but it was an easy role and he didn’t add any particular depth or subtlety to it. Characters on the extremes are easy to play because it’s about exaggeration, he did nothing remarkable in my opinion.

  40. My criteria for a great actor are as follows:

    1. Stays in a consistent character
    2. Keeps my focus and can steal scenes
    3. Makes unique choices
    4. Leaves me thinking about what they did with the role

    Heath Ledger did things with the Joker that I doubt any other individual would have incorporated. I don’t think he is the only actor who could have been a great Joker, but I think he was indeed great!

  41. Had a thought since you mentioned `Goodfellas’. That film was a completely unrealistic representation of real events (the real Henry Hill was kinda fat and ugly and was known to have worn happy pants at most family functions- according to his children’s autobiography- he was not a handsome, snappy suit wearing `ganstar’ like Ray Liota. He was just a thug.) Did you hate that movie for that reason, or did you let its inaccuracies with the truth slide for the sake of entertainment value? Just wondering.

  42. wow, whole lotta ledger hate going on here. Its great to see the usual features of a TDKsucks blog…rodger ranting about how everything is a metaphor for capitalism greed vampires and worship (is that ur default response, btw? its making money and is popular therefore CAPITALIST EVIL!! srsly, find more original replies lest YOU become the sheep), the usual incoherent babbling (and the person who thinks australians are rascist ex cons who never graduate uni, never visit australia. the fact that we are a progressive, intelegent and multi cultural society might induce a meltdown in your bigot brain) and a few sources of intelligent debate.

    im not going to jump on the oscar bandwagon just yet (while till the oscars and plenty more movies to come) but the accusation that ledgers performance was in someway pedestrian and could have been easily done is unfair. joe pesci and jack nicholson, who you mention as having played superb villians in goodfellas and the shining respectively, are no doubt superb in those roles. but so is ledger as the joker. the mannerisms, the twitches, the voice. maybe wackjobs are easier to act, but few actors fully flesh out the role like ledger did. Ledger took what could have been a pedestrian psycho role and gives us… a character. ledger fills the role the same way pesci and nicholson filled theirs. i’m not gonna make any decisions on the oscar issue, but he certainly doesn’t deserve to have his swansong slandered as though someone else could have done it. Because they couldn’t have. end of story.

  43. Hmm, I really dont like how you compare a guys privates to heath ledgers performance, maybe viggo did something embarrassing and critics called it groundbreaking(i guess according to you) but I dont remember anything strange or embarrassing that heath did as the joker to get called ground breaking. The thing is it was a genious role and it did stand out, from everybody i know after seeing the movie the first thing they talk about was how captivating the joker was, and how everytime you saw him it just made it impossible to look from the screen, and I agree. When something like that happens, someone is doing their job right. One thing to consider, heath ledger has a very deep voice with an australian accent, and he managed to radically change both the tone and accent of his voice completely for the entire movie. And sure, maybe your just giving your opinion when you say the only reason hes getting praised is because hes dead, but if i were to publish something after your mother dies saying “i think the only reason anyone thought she was a good person is because the bitch is dead” wouldnt you consider that being a bit over the top?

  44. ascheide

    I love how you think that taking courses in film makes you more qualified than other people to critique any piece of crap that comes out of hollywood.

    It just really sounds like a cop out ass pull saying “I took these courses, therefore I make more sense than you”. Like the common comic book fan who says he’s more qualified to be a fan of aqua man because he has a collection of comics from the first issues of volume 1. Do us all a favor and dig your skull out of that crusty crater you call an asshole, and come back with an argument that works.

  45. Gecko, yeah I hate it when people do that! Like one time I knew this this smart arse mechanic who said he was more qualified to tell me what was wrong with my car than me! Jerk. Or this doctor who kept trying to tell me how to `look after myself’, I’m myself and noone knows me better than me. Bloody know at alls with their `education’ and their `credentials’….

    Ah, sarcasm, my old friend. (although to be fair, I didnt like aschiede’s post either, but he probably wont be back intime for calling him out to be worth it, where as you might)

    Oh, Jenny said there’ve been no noble prize winners (or artists or authors from Australia) Azure called her out for being stupid, but just to prove the point:

    Lawrence Bragg & William Bragg, physicists received the Nobel Prize in 1915 for their work in x-ray crystallography.
    Howard Florey received the prize in 1945 along with Alexander Fleming and Ernest Chain (both British) for their work on the medicinal properties of penicillin. It was Florey who later turned penicillin into the practical drug which was to save millions of lives.
    Macfarlane Burnett received the prize in 1960 for his work on immunology.
    John Eccles received the prize in 1963 along with Andrew Huxley and Alan Hodgkin (both British) for their work on nerve cells.
    Bernard Katz – received the prize in 1970 for Physiology and Medicine.
    Patrick White received the prize in 1973 for literature (although he left aus, and kinda hates it).
    John Cornforth received the prize in 1975 for chemistry.
    John Harsanyi (Hungarian & Australian) who received the prize in 1994 for his mathematical contributions to economics.
    Peter Doherty and Rolf M. Zinkernagel (Swiss & Australian) who received the prize in 1996 for their work in immunology.
    Barry Marshall and Robin Warren received the prize in 2005 for their discovery in 1982 of the Helicobacter pylori bacterium which causes stomach ulcers and gastritis.

    Other famous australian literary authors: Colleen McCullough, Peter Carey, Nevil Shute, Bob Ellis,
    Thomas Keneally, Les Murray

    Artists: Norman Lindsay, Brett Whiteley, Arthur Streaton, Emily Kame Kngwarreye…

    Pretty much a similar % to any other western country our population size Id say.

  46. I loved the movie, especially how it portrayed the Joker. It showed the Nolans/Ledger did their homework.

    In the beginning (Detective Comics) the Joker was just a man with a scarred face who wore makeup as a disguise during his criminal activities. He was a ROBBER first and foremost. He used his gags (laughing gas, the poison he made that drew the face into a rictus as the people died, etc) to scare people to give him the money as a sort of ransom without actually killing the person or having to go through the trouble of hacking into a vault.

    Usually even if they did get the money to him, he would kill the target anyway. Same with his henchmen, either serve me or die. Usually they ended up dying anyway. It was a way for him to cover his tracks.

    This is what I saw as the foundation of the character the director and the actor created, and I loved it. It is a facet of the character you do not see often portrayed on screen. Usually we see the whole “chemical vat” origin story, which really wasn’t hardcore canon until the 80s with the Killing Joke.

    However, the crazy/murderous Joker did appear just a few decades shy of that after the Comic Book Code fell (thank the LAWD!) and it was also around that same time that all the “mobsters” went to the wayside as the Rogue Gallery took over. Although it may have happened during that time, but I was so sick of what the censors turned Batman into I gave up on reading the series created in that era, but I digress!

    This movie seems to be that time of transition. Joker was the first regular villain the Batman saga had (which is why I was royally pissed Scarecrow showed up first in this series of movies and why I giggled like a school girl at the end of it).

    Not only was I impressed with Heath’s voice, as pointed out previously, I was impressed by his body language. The man’s six foot something, but the crookedness of Joker’s mind comes out in his bent crouch. The skip over the curb as he comes out of the hospital brings out the clown. The dying, sarcastic laugh as he approaches the mobsters bringing out his feeling of superiority (a whole different class of criminal). The way he grabbed and touched people when he crashed the party at Wayne’s penthouse and telling the cop how he could see who people truly were in their last moments of life – coward versus brave – expressed his joy of the power to intimidate and manipulate people. The way he mouthed “Seven?!” is just one example where he threw in the comedian. The overly dramatic gestures are reminiscent of a magician, trying to distract people from the real thing bubbling beneath.

    In the comic Joker was always drama queen, and this definitely showed up here. Over the top explosions, the detonators wrapped up like a present, more than enough gasoline barrels to kill Dent and Rachel, the pencil trick, the video of the Batman imposter, pushing one of his goons out of the way just so HE can unmask Batman after the chase, etc. All over the top, all more than necessary to get the job done.

    An attention-grabbing in-your-face crazy drama queen. The wannabe stand-up comic. The soul of the Joker. Some might not have seen it, but it was there.

    All of this lovliness, however, is not Oscar worthy. The character was played beautifully, and from a comic-book geek’s perspective I enjoyed it immensely, but Mr. Ledger was an actor.

    That. Was. His. Job.

    I am grateful he laid out such a strong foundation for the character. With this on film I think it will not be hard to find another actor and have them copy the voice/intonation/body language. An Oscar worthy performace is something NO ONE can replicate.

    Now I will shut up because this post is lengthy as is. I just hope some of you will be able to read enough of it to rebut. :) I love people who can put up a good rebuttal.

  47. Heath Ledger is a fag who died from AIDS after fucking a cowboy.

  48. To jenny—

    what exactly do you have against australians? have you ever been to australia before?

    and to Bwarg69—

    even tdksucks, though i disagree with him on many counts, will probably agree that it isn’t cool to be as disrespectful as you are being. there is no reason to be saying things like that, to anyone. i dont care if you didnt like his acting. unless you had a personal gripe with him, which i have to doubt, then you have no reason to attack him thus.
    am i right tdksucks?

    ps— tdksucks, that survey thing you put up was a tad bit bias dont you think? you probably could have found one that would have just said i think he deserves one or i dont think he deserves one. i know you have strong opinions, but try to be a little more open to the TDK lovers out there

  49. Oscar = Death: Only a little… This Joker was really excellent, I didn’t like the movie and I’m actually enjoying this blog, but after watching this movie I thought “The Joker was worth it, This Joker rules”

  50. The 50 reasons why The dark knight sucks site is a satire joke site that pokes fun at TDK “haters”. Why post a link to a site that mocks anyone who didn’t like the movie ?

  51. The death + oscar thing is beyond stupid. Brandon Lee, Aaliyah, John Candy, River Pheonix and many others died before their last roles and didn’t even get nominated for anything. Other than Ledger only one actor has ever won an Oscar after death.

    Also another clue that should have tipped you off that “50 reasons why TDK sucks” is a joke site- the first paragraph- “This popcorn flick may have broken box office records, but let’s face it. It’s a snooze. Campy, kitsch and predictable, The Dark Knight leaves us wondering: has the magic, recently brought to the franchise by Batman & Robin, already dried up”?

Leave a Reply