The Great Movie villains

[MrScratch 294]

By making the alien behave like an ordinary bug, the alien becomes a less intangible (less vague to comprehend) creature. He becomes a bug.

That word, intangible. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Ollie 1,059]

In Aliens they are more like ants or bees, where there is an established queen and the creatures go out and gather food/hosts for the "larvae" and protect the hive. They still function within a structered society. Granted it's presented in a more mindless action film compared to the first one, but they still hunt and gather people to become hosts for the newborns.

Alien 3 was just a single creature, that went away from gathering hosts, to one that killed for food or no reason at all. It was supposed to be a hybrid since it came from a dog. However it did not try to harm Ripley, it sensed she was carrying one of them.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Bruce was being hunted, not the other way around. The trio shot him with harpoons and attached barrels to him. That wasn't villainy, it was survival.

True, but even there, it's still the shark that comes across as the aggressor. Logically he may not be a villain, but I think he comes across as one.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

"It's a bug-hunt!"

[JoeinAR 1,949]

the Alien always struck me as more than a bug, but I'll grant in Alien it shows less intelligence than in the later films.

Later they exhibit problem solving, and understanding. That requires intelligence

In the first movie it was one Alien against a crew. Its intelligence was different. Its intelligence was a mystery. It acted less human. It didn't take the elevator. In later films the Alien was reduced to an unpersonal bug that had to be killed on mass. Honestly, I thought they were stupid. They had no class. While they were being slaughtered by the thousands, Cameron destroyed the mystery. By making them behave like ordinary bugs, they lost their intangibility. Creating an enigma, something we, the crew and the audience couldn't understand is precisely what made the first movie and its star beast so intelligent.

Alex

Class??? Thats a nonsensical comment. You may be dismissing Aliens too easily. I won't speak to the other films

Cameron didn't destroy any mystery, he took the next logical step that Ridley Scott himself had set up with Alien. There were row after row after row of eggs.

The aliens were never slaughtered by the thousands, there were never any more aliens than the number of missing colonist which was 60 to 70 families. They we're not ordinary bugs, they were working as a cooridinated group, attacking in mass. There was definately a group intelligence, granted they were less monsterous that in Alien, but that lone creature never exhibited any overt intelligence, it was a monsterous bug with an uncanny nature. The audience in Alien always understood, it was a movie with things that go bump in the night. Cameron rightfully understood he couldn't follow that with the same concept so he went in a different direction. We can debate which is a better film, most will say Alien, yet Aliens sits atop the action scifi genre, still unparalleled. By giving us their queen, Cameron gave us a monster that was both frightening, intelligent, and grotesquely beautiful to look at. To me both films are to be admired and respected.

[A24 4,339]

By making the alien behave like an ordinary bug, the alien becomes a less intangible (less vague to comprehend) creature. He becomes a bug.

That word, intangible. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tangible: Possible to understand or realize. Another word is 'elusive'.

That should be "less tangible" in the above quote, of course.

In Aliens they are more like ants or bees, where there is an established queen and the creatures go out and gather food/hosts for the "larvae" and protect the hive. They still function within a structered society. Granted it's presented in a more mindless action film compared to the first one, but they still hunt and gather people to become hosts for the newborns.

That's what I said, in Aliens, the beast is reduced to a bug and one that is easily massacred and that uses the elevator to move around. The enigma status that the creature had received from the first film is damaged.

It's far from a nonsensical comment."No class" pertains to the they way they are being wiped out like mindless bugs, how they used the elevator and how they lost their "character". The first alien was an incomprehensible individual. Scott was fascinated by the creature and its mystery and I felt his respect towards it.

Alex

[MrScratch 294]

Tangible: Possible to understand or realize. Another word is 'elusive'.

I think you are misusing that word. Tangible in the context you are trying to use it refers to quantifiable properties like tangible evidence, tangible benefits. Like I said, you can describe qualities as either tangible or intangible. But just to say the "aliens are intangible" makes no sense. The aliens themselves are tangible, they are physical beings.

[MrScratch 294]

Most critics thought it was dark, and they did so becuase it was.

What critic said it was dark? I just read two old reviews, Ebert and one from the NY Times, and neither one described it as dark. The NY Times review called the alternate 1985 a "nightmarish scene" but otherwise said the film was a whimsical fun romp, Ebert too says its fast and fun. I'm looking for more old reviews but cannot find any.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I have to agree with Alex's description of the Aliens' own menace. The Alien in the first movie was frightening on its own, due to the mystery around it, how little you saw of it and the way it behaved. The Aliens in the second movie were mostly menacing through their numbers, but essentially they were like a pack of tigers or something. The queen is a menace of a different kind, a very direct one, not the vague lethal threat the first Alien was.

[King Mark 3,631]

That's why I think the Alien from the first film is the only really scary alien and more a true movie monster than a space insect.

[MrScratch 294]

True, but even there, it's still the shark that comes across as the aggressor.

Of course he was aggressive, he was harpooned and three barrels attached to him!

Logically he may not be a villain, but I think he comes across as one.

He comes across as a monster, a natural beast - not a villain.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

Still, he's persistent in targetting the main characters and trying to kill them. Conscious or not, that puts him in the villain category for me. I think the same applies to the Alien. Not to the T-Rex or the raptors of JP though, they're more over the place and not as focused.

The Spinosaurus from 3 is another matter

[JoeinAR 1,949]

True, but even there, it's still the shark that comes across as the aggressor.

Of course he was aggressive, he was harpooned and three barrels attached to him!

Logically he may not be a villain, but I think he comes across as one.

He comes across as a monster, a natural beast - not a villain.

how can you not wrap your mind around the fact that it was not a "natural beast", it was the agressor. It had one harpoon in it, and one barrel. a normal great white would have turned and run. This one became the hunter, GW's do not do this.

time and time again with great whites, they don't attack boats as a rule, they don't destroy cages, they don't purposely jump onto a boat. yeah the do kill people, and they do occasionally consume us, but this one was more. He wasn't supernatural, and I see how you don't see him as a villian, but he was malevolent, persistant and nearly victorious.

By making the alien behave like an ordinary bug, the alien becomes a less intangible (less vague to comprehend) creature. He becomes a bug.

That word, intangible. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Tangible: Possible to understand or realize. Another word is 'elusive'.

That should be "less tangible" in the above quote, of course.

In Aliens they are more like ants or bees, where there is an established queen and the creatures go out and gather food/hosts for the "larvae" and protect the hive. They still function within a structered society. Granted it's presented in a more mindless action film compared to the first one, but they still hunt and gather people to become hosts for the newborns.

That's what I said, in Aliens, the beast is reduced to a bug and one that is easily massacred and that uses the elevator to move around. The enigma status that the creature had received from the first film is damaged.

It's far from a nonsensical comment."No class" pertains to the they way they are being wiped out like mindless bugs, how they used the elevator and how they lost their "character". The first alien was an incomprehensible individual. Scott was fascinated by the creature and its mystery and I felt his respect towards it.

Alex

using the elevator implied that the queen was intelligent, and she was. There was no enigma of the creature, it was wasn't hard to explain, and there was little to understand, it was just seldom seen, it wasn't mysterious in and of itself(its origins perhaps). It was a monster, hidious and 'bug' like from the beginning. Funny they weren't easily massacred, they proved hard to kill even with sophisticated weapons. The first alien wasn't much of a character, it was a monster, hiding in the dark. Whats funny is the both Scott and Cameron are mutually appreciative of each others Alien film, but you don't find that here.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Aliens has dated far more then Alien though.

[MrScratch 294]

how can you not wrap your mind around the fact that it was not a "natural beast", it was the agressor.

Sharks are natural beasts, look them up in the National Geographic magazines. And why can't a natural beast be an aggressor? It happens in nature, there are over aggressive animals out there.

time and time again with great whites, they don't attack boats as a rule, they don't destroy cages, they don't purposely jump onto a boat. yeah the do kill people, and they do occasionally consume us, but this one was more. He wasn't supernatural, and I see how you don't see him as a villian, but he was malevolent, persistant and nearly victorious.

He's still a freakin' shark! No matter what you say, he was a just a shark who attacked people in HIS natural habitat. Over-aggressive and malevolent are not the same thing.

Aliens has dated far more then Alien though.

Game over, man!

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Aliens has dated far more then Alien though.

No it hasn't. What's your evidence for making that claim?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It is true.

I'm not talking about special effects or anything like that, but it's mentality.

It's a child of the 1980's, complete with sleazy yuppie-scumbag (Paul Reiser) and Vietnam analogy. (the 80's were the decade of the Vietnam film). It's an 80's action flick, though a very well made one.

Alien has a far more timeless quality about it, though it was made in the 70's, the characters do not act like they are in the 70's.

[Williamsfan301 11]

How did we get to page 5 of this thread and not mention Sideshow Bob!?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Indeed!

[Williamsfan301 11]

Classic

Aliens has dated far more then Alien though.

Here's the problem with dating Alien:

http://www.adultswim.com/video/?episodeID=...090b801181984a2

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Stefan, how cute Scratch is trying to tell me about sharks, gee what are sharks?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are of course right, and Scratch is sooo wrong.

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I think ALIENS has dated, but I don't see it as any less of a film. It's still a powerhouse of a movie that's awesome, just not on the same level as ALIEN.

However, I do agree that the introduction of the aliens-as-bees concept made them less scary. The original ALIEN was great in that, even though it was based on Earthbound concepts (the tarantula hawk for example), it just seemed so, well, alien. Like you could hardly put any frame of reference to it, other than the underlying uncomfortability of its femininity and its bipedal humanoid form. It was all so well thought-out and designed and the way it was put onscreen, and as much as I love ALIENS, it did sort of turn them into cannon fodder.

[MrScratch 294]

Stefan, how cute Scratch is trying to tell me about sharks, gee what are sharks?

Well, you are the one giving the mindless shark a personality.

[Red 75]

Has anyone mentioned the Terminator?

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

I think ALIENS has dated, but I don't see it as any less of a film. It's still a powerhouse of a movie that's awesome, just not on the same level as ALIEN.

True. but somehow the minute Paul Reiser appears on the screen (and this is in fact the only thing I've seen him in), you feel like you're right in the middle of the 80s.

[Hitch 57]

Hitch's personal favourite movie villains

And....the piece de resistance...

[Charlie Brigden 7]

I think ALIENS has dated, but I don't see it as any less of a film. It's still a powerhouse of a movie that's awesome, just not on the same level as ALIEN.

True. but somehow the minute Paul Reiser appears on the screen (and this is in fact the only thing I've seen him in), you feel like you're right in the middle of the 80s.

I definitely agree. He's certainly the true villain, if only for MY TWO DADS.

[Romão 2,274]

After watching The Dark Knight for the second time, I really can't help it anymore mentioning Heath Ledger as the Joker. He is absolutely mesmerizing.

[Maglorfin 196]

Yes, Mrs Annie Wilkes was a naughty girl indeed.

To me, Robert Patrick as T-1000 in T2 was always a perfect movie vilain. An incredibly intense performance, very scary and visceral. He's really unstoppable, icy cold and deadly dedicated in this movie. If I ever saw Patrick on the street dressed as a cop, I'd certainly turn on the spot and just run for it. That's how good he was in that movie.

But of course, there are so many others, most of them already mentioned - Dr. Lecter, Mrs. Wilkes, Mr. Smith, Dr. Szell ("Is it safe?"), many 007 badasses and others. Perhaps Hopkins as Dr. Lecter fascinates me the most, it's just incredible how complex and realistic a role Hopkins created. Scary as hell, he is. Would make me run too.

Oh yeah, and how about Kevin Spacey in Se7en?

[FattyMcButterpants 1]

Reading the last page, I feel very stupid, but who or what on earth is "Bruce"??

[QMM 4]

Bruce is the name given to the shark in Jaws by the crew

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Yes, Mrs Annie Wilkes was a naughty girl indeed.

To me, Robert Patrick as T-1000 in T2 was always a perfect movie vilain. An incredibly intense performance, very scary and visceral. He's really unstoppable, icy cold and deadly dedicated in this movie. If I ever saw Patrick on the street dressed as a cop, I'd certainly turn on the spot and just run for it. That's how good he was in that movie.

But of course, there are so many others, most of them already mentioned - Dr. Lecter, Mrs. Wilkes, Mr. Smith, Dr. Szell ("Is it safe?"), many 007 badasses and others. Perhaps Hopkins as Dr. Lecter fascinates me the most, it's just incredible how complex and realistic a role Hopkins created. Scary as hell, he is. Would make me run too.

Oh yeah, and how about Kevin Spacey in Se7en?

you're a dirty bird Mr. Man

[Hitch 57]

Would you care for a good-old-fashioned hobbling?

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Bruce is the name given to the shark in Jaws by the crew

Alternatively, he's a philosopher. But I was indeed referring to the shark.

[indy4 155]

Norman Bates: The great part about him in how kind and innocent he seems. From the very second you meet him, as he stutters and jokes and acts like a real gentleman, you love this character. You don't love to hate him, you just love him. You sympathize for him as he has to clean up Mother's dirty work, as he must endure stress beyond stress as he is searched for murder and robbery at the hand of his mother. And then when you finally understand--when he runs in, with that grin that can only be described as psycho, big knife in hand, it is a moment that instigates shivers. And I love when Marion first drives up and you see Mother's silhouette pacing in front of the window.

This is due to great writing and directing, but mostly a fantastic performance.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Do you have a vacancy?

[Hitch 57]

We have 12 in fact. 12 cabins...12 vacancies.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

It is true.

I'm not talking about special effects or anything like that, but it's mentality.

It's a child of the 1980's, complete with sleazy yuppie-scumbag (Paul Reiser) and Vietnam analogy. (the 80's were the decade of the Vietnam film). It's an 80's action flick, though a very well made one.

Alien has a far more timeless quality about it, though it was made in the 70's, the characters do not act like they are in the 70's.

Nope, sorry; you're just plain wrong about this.

A movie being "dated" means that its approach -- either in technical terms, or in terms of its content -- has become obsolete or irrelevant. And this is simply not true in the case of Aliens. (Alien, either; but that's another story.)

The things you mention above -- Burke as a sleazy yuppie, the movie as a Vietnam analogy -- are debatable. I'm not sure what it is that makes Burke a "yuppie," in the '80s-movie sense of the word, but I'm fairly sure that whatever you mean, you're reading it into the character; it isn't there implicitly. Sure, that's probably how people would have seen him when the movie was released; but the movie simply paints him as an all-purpose sleazebag who is more concerned with profit than he is with morals. How is that something that's restricted to the '80s? Isn't that sort of character possible to find in other decades? It was a theme that was very present in the '80s, but it's by no means restricted to that decade, and since it therefore is not obsolete or irrelevant, it isn't dated. I'd like to also point out that the theme of corporate greed is very much present in Alien, and if that's the case and that movie hasn't dated, then how can Aliens be said to have dated on the same subject?

I'd also say that painting the movie as a Vietnam analogy -- or allegory -- is a similarly flawed reading. The only similarity is that the soldiers mostly get/got their asses handed to them; that's it. In Vietnam, the presence of the American military was considered to be unnecessary; in Aliens, contact with an entire colony has been lost, necessitating a rescue operation. And in the end, the military operation in Aliens is one of two things: it's either a partial success (since the single survivor is evacuated and the entire alien population is eliminated), or it was a loss before it even began (since the colony's population was almost entirely lost and the colony itself nuked). Either way, it's not analogous to Vietnam. The movie is, amongst other things, a cautionary tale about overconfidence in military strength, which certainly might cause one to think about Vietnam; but there's nothing in that that marks the film as being about Vietnam in a specific sense.

In any case, these themes of Aliens are extremely relevant in today's world, and will likely continue to be relevant for quite some time to come. Aliens has scarcely dated a day; if anything, it seems like a stronger film today than it did twenty years ago.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The way the role is written and the way Paul Reiser plays him, not to mention the way he looks, just screams 80's yuppy.

He could have been in Wallstreet, Robocop or American Psycho. ut in a Sci-fi film, he now looks out of place.

The Vietnam analogy was confirmed by Cameron himself.

He wanted to make an action movie that had some relevance to present day situations, unfortunatly, some of the relevance has been lost.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The way the role is written and the way Paul Reiser plays him, not to mention the way he looks, just screams 80's yuppy.

He could have been in Wallstreet, Robocop or American Psycho. ut in a Sci-fi film, he now looks out of place.

Are you kidding? I've met jerks like him this decade.

[A24 4,339]

The way the role is written and the way Paul Reiser plays him, not to mention the way he looks, just screams 80's yuppy.

He could have been in Wallstreet, Robocop or American Psycho. ut in a Sci-fi film, he now looks out of place.

The Vietnam analogy was confirmed by Cameron himself.

He wanted to make an action movie that had some relevance to present day situations, unfortunatly, some of the relevance has been lost.

Especially his looks! Carter Burke is wearing the quintessential wardrobe of the '80s. And let's not talk about that hair! I know his first scene evokes quite some giggles from the audience. His appearance is not exactly what you expect from a film that is the sequel to Alien. The macho 'Rambo' marines are also very typical of the '80s. It is this aspect that dates the movie the most for me. From a purely aesthetical point of view, the film is not really pleasing to look at either. Just compare 'the crew awakens' in Aliens with 'the crew awakens' in Alien and you'll know what I mean. Whereas Scott delivered a mainstream film that also works on artistic levels, Cameron went for cut and dry action-oriented storytelling, more in line with the summer blockbuster tradition. He did a good job at achieving what he aimed for, I think.

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

And let's not talk about that hair!

What about it?

[A24 4,339]

Don't make me post an image! There are children around!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

[Bryant Burnette 654]

The way the role is written and the way Paul Reiser plays him, not to mention the way he looks, just screams 80's yuppy.

He could have been in Wallstreet, Robocop or American Psycho. ut in a Sci-fi film, he now looks out of place.

The Vietnam analogy was confirmed by Cameron himself.

He wanted to make an action movie that had some relevance to present day situations, unfortunatly, some of the relevance has been lost.

Okay, was Cameron making a "Vietnam" movie, or was he making a movie with 1986 relevance? Because they're not the same thing; they can't be, since the Vietnam War ended in the '70s. And if Cameron's stated intention was to make a sci-fi movie with Vietnam overtones, he did a piss-poor job of it. The movie simply does not support that reading in any sense other than an extremely shallow one. However, if you get that simplistic notion out of your head and just look at the movie as being (partially) a story about overconfidence in the military . . . well, if that's not relevant in 2008, I don't know what is. So again: how is that dated?

As for Reiser, he doesn't look much more out of place than does Sigourney Weaver with her '70s hairdo in Alien. Granted, Reiser's look has a small dating effect on the movie, but if that's all that dates it, then it don't date much.

Whereas Scott delivered a mainstream film that also works on artistic levels, Cameron went for cut and dry action-oriented storytelling, more in line with the summer blockbuster tradition.

On that level, I'd say Alien is definitely the better film -- but I also think you're selling Aliens short. It's action-oriented, but it's also extremely character-oriented, like all of Cameron's movies.

[A24 4,339]

Whereas Scott delivered a mainstream film that also works on artistic levels, Cameron went for cut and dry action-oriented storytelling, more in line with the summer blockbuster tradition.

On that level, I'd say Alien is definitely the better film -- but I also think you're selling Aliens short. It's action-oriented, but it's also extremely character-oriented, like all of Cameron's movies.

Yes, but characters with summer blockbuster depth.

Damn, I can't find pictures of Carter Burke in his '80s outfit (with leather tie). It's almost as if someone made those pictures disappear from the internet. But who is powerful enough to do such a thing?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Whereas Scott delivered a mainstream film that also works on artistic levels, Cameron went for cut and dry action-oriented storytelling, more in line with the summer blockbuster tradition.

On that level, I'd say Alien is definitely the better film -- but I also think you're selling Aliens short. It's action-oriented, but it's also extremely character-oriented, like all of Cameron's movies.

Yes, but characters with summer blockbuster depth.

Maybe -- but they're more richly-drawn characters than the characters in Alien.

[A24 4,339]

But more superficial because of it (because of the way they were drawn). I saw typical marine caricatures and I feel this weakens the movie today. Even though it worked at the time, I never thought they were interesting. I always preferred the natural, candid performances in Alien. It was the fast-paced, adrenaline aspect (see also The Terminator) that made Aliens such a very good sequel. But if I'm honest, I feel very little affection for it today.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

But more superficial because of it (because of the way they were drawn). I saw typical marine caricatures and I feel this weakens the movie today. Even though it worked at the time, I never thought they were interesting. I always preferred the natural, candid performances in Alien. It was the fast-paced, adrenaline aspect (see also The Terminator) that made Aliens such a very good sequel. But if I'm honest, I feel very little affection for it today.

More superficial because they're more richly drawn?!? That's an inane comment, Alex. Cameron isn't doing anything revolutionary here, but he is putting characters on the screen as opposed to faceless people with guns. He even had the foresight to put a few female soldiers in the mix, and did so without pandering.

It's fine and good for you to say you feel little affection for the movie, but I think it's no stretch to say that you're in the minority. Aliens is an extremely well-loved film, and the fact that a couple of people on this board have lost their love for it doesn't do anything to make me agree with the misguided notion that the movie is dated.