Who (or what) are your favorite movie villains of all-time?

[ijustposthere]

Oh you are all in on this, no escape. He dropped his cup to go arrest Soze. Soze will spend the rest of his, what I'm sure will be a very short life, on the run. But that was Sozes plan from the start, I guess he is a freedom hating un-American despicable.

Soze was the clear winner in that movie. I honestly can't see why this is even an argument. I'm pretty sure he could become a ghost just as easily as he had before.

 

[Monster]

Trump... movie to be made later.

 

[Scoot26]

Trump... movie to be made later.

Can't disagree with you. The movie will be Bigly.

 

[ijustposthere]

Trump... movie to be made later.

I think that's the first villain mentioned from a comedy.

 

[number51]

Take a deep breath and re-read my post, it was a reply to Remy's post I agreed with you.

And why get political in a movie thread?

Re-read my post, I agree with you, I was having fun. Relax man.

 

[number51]

Soze was the clear winner in that movie. I honestly can't see why this is even an argument. I'm pretty sure he could become a ghost just as easily as he had before.

Before? At the start of the movie he was walking around New York with no problem, that is gone. He was running his business from hiding, but he had his freedom, at the end of the movie he is a fugitive. Winning?

 

[number51]

Again I will ask you a simple question. What legal evidence do you have Soze exists?

4. Soze was given immunity by the Feds not the Customs dude.

You answered your own simple question.

 

[remydat]

Vader, as Anakin, would not have been prosecuted. Who would have been there to prosecute him? Luke? Wasn't happening. From the moment he turned, everyone that realized he was Anakin tried to turn him back to the light. Like I said though, no matter how you slice it, evil Vader lost. Redemption is basically the moral there. Darth Vader lost because Anakin Skywalker won out. I mean, yeah, they're the same person, but they aren't in the realm of the SW universe because of the Force. It's kind of why they change names when turning to the Sith.



That isn't why Batman retired. He quit because Alfred never gave him her letter explaining to him that he wasn't her choice. That was revealed in the 3rd movie. Joker even tells Batman that he is going to make him break his one rule. Joker's goal is always to get Batman to kill him. On top of that, he fails with the whole boat scene when he tries to prove that "civilized people will eat each other." It's why he was incredible disappointed that Batman saved him. It's the reason he loves Batman, because they will never kill each other. In the movie, he also used Harvey, which never made it to the light of day, until the city had already been taken over and Batman had at that point been defeated by Bane and the League of Shadows. Joker had minimal to no impact on the third story line.

Also, the Joker's goal wasn't to get 3 lives, it was to show Gotham would lose control and eat each other alive. It was a battle for Gotham. It was a battle to make Batman so enraged he kills the Joker. He says and demonstrates so in his final scene. He lost that battle.

So your argument is that he wouldn't be prosecuted because his son wouldn't allow it? That doesn't support your argument that he is a different person. That just means he would be benefiting from nepotism. Legally in any context he is responsible for his choices. He wasn't brainwashed. He made a conscious decision. In any event, they are one in the same for me and we both seem to agree Anakin won so we'll just chalk up our difference of opinion here on our differing ideas of identity and responsibility.

As for Joker, he doesn't have just one goal. His goal was to corrupt Gotham and he succeeds in doing so with Dent and to Gordon. He is perhaps less successful with Batman but 2 out of 3 ain't bad as Meatloaf would say. Dent was the city's hope. Even Batman believed that so I would say that perhaps The Joker lost the individual battle with Batman but I think he won the larger war because the corruption of Dent and the cover up by Gordon corrupts the ideals that all involved were striving for. They were striving for a world where a masked vigilante operating outside the law wasn't needed. Dent represented that ideal not Batman. I will concede that the Rachel letter was a large motivation but Rachel is dead because of the Joker is she not so the credit still goes to him that Bruce is heartboken over her death since he caused it.

 

[ijustposthere]

So your argument is that he wouldn't be prosecuted because his son wouldn't allow it? That doesn't support your argument that he is a different person. That just means he would be benefiting from nepotism. Legally in any context he is responsible for his choices. He wasn't brainwashed. He made a conscious decision. In any event, they are one in the same for me and we both seem to agree Anakin won so we'll just chalk up our difference of opinion here on our differing ideas of identity and responsibility.

No, that wasn't my argument at all. My argument is that there is no one to prosecute him. Regardless, my point stands that the bad guy DID NOT win in Star Wars. The good guy won. Luke turned Vader back to Anakin, who then sacrificed himself to defeat Palpatine. He redeemed himself by saving the ones he loved, which was the original reason he turned to the dark side.

As for Joker, he doesn't have just one goal. His goal was to corrupt Gotham and he succeeds in doing so with Dent and to Gordon. He is perhaps less successful with Batman but 2 out of 3 ain't bad as Meatloaf would say. Dent was the city's hope. Even Batman believed that so I would say that perhaps The Joker lost the individual battle with Batman but I think he won the larger war because the corruption of Dent and the cover up by Gordon corrupts the ideals that all involved were striving for. They were striving for a world where a masked vigilante operating outside the law wasn't needed. Dent represented that ideal not Batman. I will concede that the Rachel letter was a large motivation but Rachel is dead because of the Joker is she not so the credit still goes to him that Bruce is heartboken over her death since he caused it.

Meh, he certainly corrupted Dent, but Gotham was saved. I don't even think he corrupted Gordon. Gordon was more hurt that Batman took the blame over anything else. Honestly, with all the criminals that were locked up because of the Dent rule, and the peace experienced until the League of Shadows, I'd say it's clear cut that Joker lost. The world they wanted actually happened until that point. Remember, Bane and Talia were there to finish Ras Al Ghul's work. Joker had zero to do with that. Like I said, I'd consider it a draw because he turned Dent and they had to resort to a cover up, but by the time anyone found out about that, Bane had already broken Batman's back and took control of Gotham. What Joker hoped to achieve never actually came to fruition. Batman even admits that covering it up is the only way to defeat the Joker, which is why he takes that blame. Watch the last scene again, they lay it out how covering it up defeats the Joker.

 

[remydat]

No, that wasn't my argument at all. My argument is that there is no one to prosecute him. Regardless, my point stands that the bad guy DID NOT win in Star Wars. The good guy won. Luke turned Vader back to Anakin, who then sacrificed himself to defeat Palpatine. He redeemed himself by saving the ones he loved, which was the original reason he turned to the dark side.

There are several good and bad guys and them winning and losing are not mutually exclusive. Darth Vader/Anakin won in the end because he defeated the dark side. Overcoming one's inner demons and inner evil is a classic theme of fiction as it speaks to the heart of the duality of man. Trying to separate Vader and Anakin as if they are separate people runs counter to that duality. We are all capable of good and evil and the part of Vader that was good ultimately defeated the part of Vader that was evil. That is a win in my point and doesn't preclude Luke from also winning.

Meh, he certainly corrupted Dent, but Gotham was saved. I don't even think he corrupted Gordon. Gordon was more hurt that Batman took the blame over anything else. Honestly, with all the criminals that were locked up because of the Dent rule, and the peace experienced until the League of Shadows, I'd say it's clear cut that Joker lost. The world they wanted actually happened until that point. Remember, Bane and Talia were there to finish Ras Al Ghul's work. Joker had zero to do with that. Like I said, I'd consider it a draw because he turned Dent and they had to resort to a cover up, but by the time anyone found out about that, Bane had already broken Batman's back and took control of Gotham. What Joker hoped to achieve never actually came to fruition. Batman even admits that covering it up is the only way to defeat the Joker, which is why he takes that blame. Watch the last scene again, they lay it out how covering it up defeats the Joker.

They lay out how covering up defeats the Joker but they don't actually believe it hence why Gordon eventually writes a letter confessing his guilt and Batman becomes a recluse. If none of that had been shown in Dark Knight Rises, I would agree with you but the whole point is this peace Gordon and Batman achieved by covering things up ultimately is what causes it to fall apart because that peace is founded on a bedrock of corruption and lies. That is why the writers had Bane end up finding out about Gordon's letter admitting to the Dent cover up. That whole plot point is to show they were wrong to try to build peace on a lie.

This is also precisely why Selina Kyle says, "There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us." This line has a double meaning in that she is speaking about the disparity between the rich and poor but also in more a of meta moment speaking of how the heroes each other's crimes while simultaneously taking the alleged criminals to theirs. Afterall the audience knows this is Catwoman talking to Batman even if the character doesn't know that themselves.

 

[remydat]

Even though everyone remembers the scene as being the Joker and Batman, Gordon played a very important part to setting it up and allowing this interrogation to happen. And then as he is watching from the sideline, he sees the exact point where this is going too far. He knows Batman well enough to observe this, to recognize it. He tries to get in, but Batman has locked the door. And what we get to lead to, by the end of the scene, when he’s just pounding on the Joker, I think Heath managed to find the exact essence of the threat of the Joker and who he is: He’s being pounded in the face and he’s laughing and loving it. There’s nothing you can do. As he tells Batman, “You have nothing to do with all of your strength.” There’s this sort of impotence of the strong and the armored and the very muscular Batman; he’s very powerful, but there’s no useful way for this power to be exercised in this scene. He has to confront that.

Originally, at the end of that scene, once the Joker reveals his information, Christian dropped him and then, almost as an afterthought, he kicked him in the head as he walked out of the room. We wound up removing that bit. It seemed a little too petulant for Batman in a way. And really, more than that, what it was is that I liked how Christian played it: When he drops the Joker, he has realized the futility of what he’s done. You see it in his eyes. How do you fight someone who thrives on conflict? It’s a very loose end to be left with.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncategorized/christopher-n-1/

This is from Chris Nolan the director. So sure he stops short of killing him but the fact is the Joker is reveling in the fact that he has pushed Batman to the brink. Sure he would have loved for Batman to go over the edge completely or to kill him but the fact he's brought him to the edge and Batman looks into the abyss and realizes the futility of it all is the moment of victory.

This is borne out by the fact that even after beating the crap out of the Joker to reveal where Rachel and Dent are, Batman still fails. The Joker still manages to send Batman after the wrong person as Batman thinks he's going after Rachel but instead the Joker sent him after Dent. In the end Rachel dies without him there to save her and Dent is horribly scarred and becomes the villain Two Face.

So if this is the pivotal scene of the movie as the Director notes, Batman has lost. He has lost because while he doesn't go over the edge in killing the Joker, the end result of this scene is he loses the woman he loves and he loses the guy he had hoped would be the true savior of Gotham. The fact that the Joker is caught afterwards is no great triumph because in the end the damage is already done.

I mean if you think of this in simple terms. The Joker is more happy in prison secure in the knowledge of having taken away the things Batman cares about than Batman is living free.

 

[Tater]

Re-read my post, I agree with you, I was having fun. Relax man.

My bad then. It was late at night and ...

 

[Spunky Porkstacker]

Even though everyone remembers the scene as being the Joker and Batman, Gordon played a very important part to setting it up and allowing this interrogation to happen. And then as he is watching from the sideline, he sees the exact point where this is going too far. He knows Batman well enough to observe this, to recognize it. He tries to get in, but Batman has locked the door. And what we get to lead to, by the end of the scene, when he’s just pounding on the Joker, I think Heath managed to find the exact essence of the threat of the Joker and who he is: He’s being pounded in the face and he’s laughing and loving it. There’s nothing you can do. As he tells Batman, “You have nothing to do with all of your strength.” There’s this sort of impotence of the strong and the armored and the very muscular Batman; he’s very powerful, but there’s no useful way for this power to be exercised in this scene. He has to confront that.

Originally, at the end of that scene, once the Joker reveals his information, Christian dropped him and then, almost as an afterthought, he kicked him in the head as he walked out of the room. We wound up removing that bit. It seemed a little too petulant for Batman in a way. And really, more than that, what it was is that I liked how Christian played it: When he drops the Joker, he has realized the futility of what he’s done. You see it in his eyes. How do you fight someone who thrives on conflict? It’s a very loose end to be left with.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/uncategorized/christopher-n-1/

This is from Chris Nolan the director. So sure he stops short of killing him but the fact is the Joker is reveling in the fact that he has pushed Batman to the brink. Sure he would have loved for Batman to go over the edge completely or to kill him but the fact he's brought him to the edge and Batman looks into the abyss and realizes the futility of it all is the moment of victory.

This is borne out by the fact that even after beating the crap out of the Joker to reveal where Rachel and Dent are, Batman still fails. The Joker still manages to send Batman after the wrong person as Batman thinks he's going after Rachel but instead the Joker sent him after Dent. In the end Rachel dies without him there to save her and Dent is horribly scarred and becomes the villain Two Face.

So if this is the pivotal scene of the movie as the Director notes, Batman has lost. He has lost because while he doesn't go over the edge in killing the Joker, the end result of this scene is he loses the woman he loves and he loses the guy he had hoped would be the true savior of Gotham. The fact that the Joker is caught afterwards is no great triumph because in the end the damage is already done.

I mean if you think of this in simple terms. The Joker is more happy in prison secure in the knowledge of having taken away the things Batman cares about than Batman is living free.

Holy analysis Batman

 

[ijustposthere]

They lay out how covering up defeats the Joker but they don't actually believe it hence why Gordon eventually writes a letter confessing his guilt and Batman becomes a recluse. If none of that had been shown in Dark Knight Rises, I would agree with you but the whole point is this peace Gordon and Batman achieved by covering things up ultimately is what causes it to fall apart because that peace is founded on a bedrock of corruption and lies. That is why the writers had Bane end up finding out about Gordon's letter admitting to the Dent cover up. That whole plot point is to show they were wrong to try to build peace on a lie.

This is also precisely why Selina Kyle says, "There's a storm coming, Mr. Wayne. You and your friends better batten down the hatches, because when it hits, you're all gonna wonder how you ever thought you could live so large and leave so little for the rest of us." This line has a double meaning in that she is speaking about the disparity between the rich and poor but also in more a of meta moment speaking of how the heroes each other's crimes while simultaneously taking the alleged criminals to theirs. Afterall the audience knows this is Catwoman talking to Batman even if the character doesn't know that themselves.

When Bane fights Batman he tells him "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." And Bane actually knows what went down at this point. They lay it out as clear as day that Batman defeated the Joker.

 

[remydat]

When Bane fights Batman he tells him "Peace has cost you your strength. Victory has defeated you." And Bane actually knows what went down at this point. They lay it out as clear as day that Batman defeated the Joker.

No Victory has defeated him because the peace is corrupt. It's a Pyrrhic Victory that came at the expense of the women he loves and the ideals he was fighting for as represented by Dent's corruption and Gordon's cover up.

That line perfectly illustrates that his so called victory is an illusion.

 

[Wintermute]

Ummm...pick any 5.

 

[Crystallas]

Adding another to the list.

Krank from The City of Lost Children. IMO best part about that whole adaptation.

Richard Dawson is so under-rated outside of the gameshow universe.

 

[NCChiFan]

Dark Helmet!

 

[Sculpt]

I LoLed so hard at that line.

I may never be able to watch that movie again now.

You have very fair assessments of the movies themselves. I was going mostly by the performances I enjoyed the most.

Coppala's script was too long and clunky, but I really like Oldman's creepy accent and overall job with the charcter.

The 79 version is pretty bad, but I still thought Langella was pretty awesome.

(till now)

And I love the Hammer films...so I am biased.

I know Roger Ebert liked Dracula 1979 and Langella. I'm kinda just being funny. I don't want to watch Dracula 79 again, so I'm just going by my very old memory of it. There were Dracula drama's shown on TV in the early 80's (I see there was a BBC one), and I remember not liking any of them, so there could be a little bleed with Drac 79.


In regards to Hammer films, I've seen 70% of them, certainly the most famous ones. Without Hammer films, basically there would have been a big hole in Horror films from 1950 to 1969 (especially with carrying on the big Universal monsters). Generally speaking, the Hammer films were beautifully colored with excellent set designs. Beyond that, they tended to be gothic and stage-play-like, and fairly shallow. I'm just not a big fan of that type of Horror film. I think the best thing from Hammer films was Peter Cushing's portrayal of Dr. Victor Von Frankenstein, which I think was tour de force, played way beyond the limitations of the scripts.

These days, with the possible exception of Comedy, I don't really want to waste my time watching films without a meaningful message. Generally speaking, I don't think the Hammer films had any.

 

[Wintermute]

I LoLed so hard at that line.

I may never be able to watch that movie again now.

You have very fair assessments of the movies themselves. I was going mostly by the performances I enjoyed the most.

Coppala's script was too long and clunky, but I really like Oldman's creepy accent and overall job with the charcter.

The 79 version is pretty bad, but I still thought Langella was pretty awesome.

(till now)

And I love the Hammer films...so I am biased.

+1 for Herzog's Nosferatu.

Too bad Captain Kronos Vampire Hunter didn't take off liked they wanted. One of my favorites.


And because I am enjoying this thread, here's a few more:

One of the only bright spots in the hot garbage that was Episodes I-III: