The Great Movie villains

[Williamsfan301 11]

The TRUE villian, then, is of Aliens is 1980's fashion.

[Hitch 57]

"This is so...nuts. I mean, listen...listen to what you're saying. It's paranoid delusion. How...It's really sad. It's pathetic".

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Careful, Burke!

[JoeinAR 1,949]

"This is so...nuts. I mean, listen...listen to what you're saying. It's paranoid delusion. How...It's really sad. It's pathetic".

actually his hair is pretty good, now adays its all fomo's and hold gels, Im so glad I'm bald. Nothing looks more stupid that guys with highlights.

yeah the characters in Alien were richly drawn, .

Kotto was unlikable, and he was black, so you knew he was going to die, it couldn't have been more obvious if he'd been wearing a red shirt on Star Trek.

Stanton was greasy and the stupid side kick, at least he didn't scream as he died, avenge me, avenge me. Neither of their names stand out

Cartwright, I can criticize her, I love her in everything, she's a great underused character actress.

Holms was probably the most defined character in the film other than Weaver, who by the way only earned around $30000.00 for Alien, but over a $1,000,000.00 for Aliens, you go girl.

Dallas was pretty weak, course he was the first to die, or be caccooned after the birth scene.

Hurt was likable, he had to be or the impact of the scene is lessened.

Mother was a Hal wannabee

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Ever thought about getting a Shatner do, Joe?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Joe, you don't like metrosexual?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Ever thought about getting a Shatner do, Joe?

bald=lots of sex

[A24 4,338]

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.

More superficial because they are drawn like caricatures, BB. When you say "more richly drawn", I say "caricatures". 'Caricatures' as opposed to 'natural, unposed and realism' in Alien.

Isn't it strange that Carter Burke in his '80s outfit is deleted from the internet? Why are the fans ashamed?

[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.

More superficial because they are drawn like caricatures, BB. When you say "more richly drawn", I say "caricatures". 'Caricatures' as opposed to 'natural, unposed and realism' in Alien.

Isn't it strange that Carter Burke in his '80s outfit is deleted from the internet? Why are the fans ashamed?

Yeah, but they're really not drawn like caricatures in Aliens. Caricatures of what? Real Marines? You're praising the "realism" of Alien, and failing to see the same qualities at work in its sequel, with the added bonus of character development.

All of the major Marine characters have character arcs, and they almost all end up in surprisingly different positions than they began the film in. These are better characters than what Alien has to offer, and I'm just not sure I can see how anybody could think anything else. This is no value judgment against Alien; after all, that movie is after more esoteric goals, and the characters Scott and his writers put into play were very well-suited to achieving those goals.

[Hitch 57]

Which brings us nicely to ALIEN3

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Which brings us nicely to ALIEN3

A movie I like quite a bit . . . it's not in the same league with the first two films in the series, but I think it's got its own dark charms. I know I'm in the minority on that one, though.

[A24 4,338]

Yeah, but they're really not drawn like caricatures in Aliens. Caricatures of what? Real Marines? You're praising the "realism" of Alien, and failing to see the same qualities at work in its sequel, with the added bonus of character development.

All of the major Marine characters have character arcs, and they almost all end up in surprisingly different positions than they began the film in. These are better characters than what Alien has to offer, and I'm just not sure I can see how anybody could think anything else. This is no value judgment against Alien; after all, that movie is after more esoteric goals, and the characters Scott and his writers put into play were very well-suited to achieving those goals.

Yes, of marines but also caricatures of people. Who knows, maybe we are so used to Hollywood caricatures that they have become our reality. But it's here that Alien shows us the difference. The difference has to do with the treatment of the characters. In Aliens, they feel literally 'written' and typical of Hollywood (Cameron makes use of familiar theatrics to hold the public's attention). In Alien the crew feels spontanious, candid, unposed and natural, as if we are watching real and almost unimportant people in a documentary. Their dimension lies in their 'unHollywoodian' realism.

BTW, I see conventional character development in Alien too (Ripley, a woman in a man's world, becoming more and more the person who is in charge - a theme Cameron has adapted in many of his films).

Alex

Which brings us nicely to ALIEN3

The theatrics in Alien3 are so over-the-top enlarged and full of misplaced self-importance that I simply cannot watch this film.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Yeah, but they're really not drawn like caricatures in Aliens. Caricatures of what? Real Marines? You're praising the "realism" of Alien, and failing to see the same qualities at work in its sequel, with the added bonus of character development.

All of the major Marine characters have character arcs, and they almost all end up in surprisingly different positions than they began the film in. These are better characters than what Alien has to offer, and I'm just not sure I can see how anybody could think anything else. This is no value judgment against Alien; after all, that movie is after more esoteric goals, and the characters Scott and his writers put into play were very well-suited to achieving those goals.

Yes, of marines but also caricatures of people. Who knows, maybe we are so used to Hollywood caricatures that they have become our reality. But it's here that Alien shows us the difference. The difference has to do with the treatment of the characters. In Aliens, they feel literally 'written' and typical of Hollywood (Cameron makes use of familiar theatrics to hold the public's attention). In Alien the crew feels spontanious, candid, unposed and natural, as if we are watching real and almost unimportant people in a documentary. Their dimension lies in their 'unHollywoodian' realism.

BTW, I see conventional character development in Alien too (Ripley, a woman in a man's world, becoming more and more the person who is in charge - a theme Cameron has adapted in many of his films).

Alex

The characters in Alien feel less "written" than the characters in Aliens, yes; because they are less written. They seem like people in a documentary -- "real and almost unimportant" -- because Scott had no interest in allowing (or forcing, if you prefer that viewpoint on character) us to get to know the people. That allows us, I suppose, to see ourselves in those characters, and makes for a scarier film than Aliens. So what? Aliens has a different agenda, one that is pursued just as vigorously and successfully as the agenda Scott pursued in Alien.

Incidentally, thanks for accidentally agreeing with me that the characters in Aliens are better-drawn than the characters in Alien. I'm not sure you meant to, but you certainly did.

Which brings us nicely to ALIEN3

The theatrics in Alien3 are so over-the-top enlarged and full of misplaced self-importance that I simply cannot watch this film.

"Misplaced self-importance"? Like all horror movies, the original Alien is partially a parable about illness and suffering and death, and Alien 3 merely follows that film's lead. It doesn't do it as well, I'll grant you, but what you're reading as "self-importance" can also be seen as something integral to the genre from which the movie -- and the series -- comes from. I'm not sure what's "misplaced" about that.

But I can understand not liking this movie. My father, a devout fan of Aliens (and a former Marine), was so angered by Alien 3 that I think he would have cheerfully choked David Fincher to death if he'd been standing in the theatre lobby on the way out of the movie. And I think that was a typical reaction. It's not a well-liked movie at all. But it does have its fans, and I'm one of them. Not one that feels the need to mount an impassioned defense of the movie, though; for some reason, I like being one of the few people who appreciates that movie, and feel little need to try and change people's minds about it.

[A24 4,338]

Yes, that's right, we identify with the crew of the Nostromo because they possess natural, candid qualities. A unique and refreshing approach compared to the usual theatrical tactics. Now we're getting somewhere, Bryant.

Yes, Alien3 is not universally liked but the extended cut seem to be a vast improvement to a lot of people. Well, more story doesn't repair what I think is fundamentally wrong with this film. My strong disliking of Alien3 has to do with style, direction or vision. Fincher's bloated style, the swollen theatrics and its sense of self-importance does not serve the film he's making. His conceited style disconnects me from the film and makes me reluctant to accept anything I see. Why you think this is inherent to the genre is beyond me. I find the first film to be artistically beautiful and darkly poetic but in a subdued way. Granted, Alien Resurrection suffers from the same 'problems'. It tries an even more bloated approach ... or is it meant to be frivolous? I can't tell.

Alex

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Yes, that's right, we identify with the crew of the Nostromo because they possess natural, candid qualities. A unique and refreshing approach compared to the usual theatrical tactics. Now we're getting somewhere, Bryant.

Yes, Alien3 is not universally liked but the extended cut seem to be a vast improvement to a lot of people. Well, more story doesn't repair what I think is fundamentally wrong with this film. My strong disliking of Alien3 has to do with style, direction or vision. Fincher's bloated style, the swollen theatrics and its sense of self-importance does not serve the film he's making. His conceited style disconnects me from the film and makes me reluctant to accept anything I see. Why you think this is inherent to the genre is beyond me. I find the first film to be artistically beautiful and darkly poetic but in a subdued way. Granted, Alien Resurrection suffers from the same 'problems'. It tries an even more bloated approach ... or is it meant to be frivolous? I can't tell.

Alex

Alex, you're just not making any sense here.

For one thing, you're trying to pretend that the cardboard-thin "characters" in Alien possess more virtue as characters than do the more fleshed-out characters in Aliens, simply because those in Alien are in a movie with a filmmaking approach that you prefer. If you prefer Alien to Aliens, it's fine, a lot of people do, (myself included, for the most part). But the things you're saying are irrelevant in terms of what we're actually talking about.

As for Alien 3, maybe I misunderstood what you meant by "self-importance." You refer to its "bloated" style and its "swollen" theatrics; I'm not sure I see what that means either. Exaggeration of some sort? I don't recall the movie being terribly exaggerated, but maybe I'm not remembering it well.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I can agree with Alex. The characters in Aliens are archetypes, the slimy, heartless yup, the butch women, the cocky young soldier, the strong silent type, the weak commander etc...etc...

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

[Red 75]

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

They also feel more real.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

True.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I can agree with Alex. The characters in Aliens are archetypes, the slimy, heartless yup, the butch women, the cocky young soldier, the strong silent type, the weak commander etc...etc...

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

Said another way, that would read "we know nothing about the characters in Alien because they're vague and non-distinct."

It's funny how you and Alex are focusing on Burke and on the Marines; you don't mention Ripley. Ripley, who in Alien we know nothing about except that she looks good in her underwear, likes cats, and is enough of a bad-ass to survive while eveyone else is dropping dead. In Aliens, however, she's a woman who has experienced a profound loss, and is so tormented by fear that she is willing to be plunged into horror in order to purge herself of those fears.

As for the rest of the characters, I don't buy the argument that you can pin them down in five seconds. Maybe you can with Burke, but Paul Reiser was very good in that movie, and to my ears, he still sounds convincing when he says they're going in as a simple rescue operation. Obviously, Burke is a guy who has gotten by quite well on his charm, but as soon as he's found out, that charm -- and his confidence -- disappears. Reiser is really good at playing that, also. Just in Burke, we have a more detailed character arc than anyone has in Alien except for Ash.

What about Hudson? Like Burke, he's extremely confident when we meet him; swaggering, boisterous, gung-ho, very much the stereotypical Marine. He doesn't end the movie that way. As soon as the s--t hits the fan, he turns into a frightened, whimpering guy who is almost a disgrace. What makes Hudson a good character is that he only turns into the fearful version of himself when there is time for it; when the aliens are actually attacking, his training takes over, and he's able to be what he needs to be.

Sure, some of the rest of the Marines -- Hicks, Vasquez, Apone -- are mostly devoid of their own character arcs, but this is Ripley's movie, and they're just there to support her. Not so with Gorman, whose cowardliness is ultimately vanquished; that provides the movie with one of its best moments, when he and Vasquez set off the grenade together. Sure, it's not exactly Hamlet, but it's a more satisfying character arc than almost anybody in Alien has.

What about Bishop? I think Cameron was counting on people remembering Ash from the first movie and hoping that they would assume that Bishop, too, would turn out to be evil; the casting of Lance Henriksen, who has a face that sorta shouts evil, makes that seem likely. Also, we're seeing things from Ripley's perspective, and she is openly distrustful of him, right up until he gets impaled. Thus, Bishop gets a very satisfying character arc: he goes from being suspected of being a traitor to being as heroic as heroes can get. By the way, for first-time viewers, there is a possible side-effect to thinking that Bishop is going to turn out to be a bad guy: it makes Burke a more interesting character, because if you're focusing on Bishop as a villain, you're probably not thinking of Burke that way, and that makes Burke's unmasking more surprising and satisfying.

Again, I really just don't see how anyone can make the claim that Alien has better characters than Aliens has. Really, it's not even close.

[MSM 126]

Arnold Vosloo - Imhotep

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You already said that, and it is ridiculous!

[Ollie 1,059]

I can agree with Alex. The characters in Aliens are archetypes, the slimy, heartless yup, the butch women, the cocky young soldier, the strong silent type, the weak commander etc...etc...

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

Said another way, that would read "we know nothing about the characters in Alien because they're vague and non-distinct."

It's funny how you and Alex are focusing on Burke and on the Marines; you don't mention Ripley. Ripley, who in Alien we know nothing about except that she looks good in her underwear, likes cats, and is enough of a bad-ass to survive while eveyone else is dropping dead. In Aliens, however, she's a woman who has experienced a profound loss, and is so tormented by fear that she is willing to be plunged into horror in order to purge herself of those fears.

As for the rest of the characters, I don't buy the argument that you can pin them down in five seconds. Maybe you can with Burke, but Paul Reiser was very good in that movie, and to my ears, he still sounds convincing when he says they're going in as a simple rescue operation. Obviously, Burke is a guy who has gotten by quite well on his charm, but as soon as he's found out, that charm -- and his confidence -- disappears. Reiser is really good at playing that, also. Just in Burke, we have a more detailed character arc than anyone has in Alien except for Ash.

What about Hudson? Like Burke, he's extremely confident when we meet him; swaggering, boisterous, gung-ho, very much the stereotypical Marine. He doesn't end the movie that way. As soon as the s--t hits the fan, he turns into a frightened, whimpering guy who is almost a disgrace. What makes Hudson a good character is that he only turns into the fearful version of himself when there is time for it; when the aliens are actually attacking, his training takes over, and he's able to be what he needs to be.

Sure, some of the rest of the Marines -- Hicks, Vasquez, Apone -- are mostly devoid of their own character arcs, but this is Ripley's movie, and they're just there to support her. Not so with Gorman, whose cowardliness is ultimately vanquished; that provides the movie with one of its best moments, when he and Vasquez set off the grenade together. Sure, it's not exactly Hamlet, but it's a more satisfying character arc than almost anybody in Alien has.

What about Bishop? I think Cameron was counting on people remembering Ash from the first movie and hoping that they would assume that Bishop, too, would turn out to be evil; the casting of Lance Henriksen, who has a face that sorta shouts evil, makes that seem likely. Also, we're seeing things from Ripley's perspective, and she is openly distrustful of him, right up until he gets impaled. Thus, Bishop gets a very satisfying character arc: he goes from being suspected of being a traitor to being as heroic as heroes can get. By the way, for first-time viewers, there is a possible side-effect to thinking that Bishop is going to turn out to be a bad guy: it makes Burke a more interesting character, because if you're focusing on Bishop as a villain, you're probably not thinking of Burke that way, and that makes Burke's unmasking more surprising and satisfying.

Again, I really just don't see how anyone can make the claim that Alien has better characters than Aliens has. Really, it's not even close.

That was well said.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

No.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

I can agree with Alex. The characters in Aliens are archetypes, the slimy, heartless yup, the butch women, the cocky young soldier, the strong silent type, the weak commander etc...etc...

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

Said another way, that would read "we know nothing about the characters in Alien because they're vague and non-distinct."

It's funny how you and Alex are focusing on Burke and on the Marines; you don't mention Ripley. Ripley, who in Alien we know nothing about except that she looks good in her underwear, likes cats, and is enough of a bad-ass to survive while eveyone else is dropping dead. In Aliens, however, she's a woman who has experienced a profound loss, and is so tormented by fear that she is willing to be plunged into horror in order to purge herself of those fears.

As for the rest of the characters, I don't buy the argument that you can pin them down in five seconds. Maybe you can with Burke, but Paul Reiser was very good in that movie, and to my ears, he still sounds convincing when he says they're going in as a simple rescue operation. Obviously, Burke is a guy who has gotten by quite well on his charm, but as soon as he's found out, that charm -- and his confidence -- disappears. Reiser is really good at playing that, also. Just in Burke, we have a more detailed character arc than anyone has in Alien except for Ash.

What about Hudson? Like Burke, he's extremely confident when we meet him; swaggering, boisterous, gung-ho, very much the stereotypical Marine. He doesn't end the movie that way. As soon as the s--t hits the fan, he turns into a frightened, whimpering guy who is almost a disgrace. What makes Hudson a good character is that he only turns into the fearful version of himself when there is time for it; when the aliens are actually attacking, his training takes over, and he's able to be what he needs to be.

Sure, some of the rest of the Marines -- Hicks, Vasquez, Apone -- are mostly devoid of their own character arcs, but this is Ripley's movie, and they're just there to support her. Not so with Gorman, whose cowardliness is ultimately vanquished; that provides the movie with one of its best moments, when he and Vasquez set off the grenade together. Sure, it's not exactly Hamlet, but it's a more satisfying character arc than almost anybody in Alien has.

What about Bishop? I think Cameron was counting on people remembering Ash from the first movie and hoping that they would assume that Bishop, too, would turn out to be evil; the casting of Lance Henriksen, who has a face that sorta shouts evil, makes that seem likely. Also, we're seeing things from Ripley's perspective, and she is openly distrustful of him, right up until he gets impaled. Thus, Bishop gets a very satisfying character arc: he goes from being suspected of being a traitor to being as heroic as heroes can get. By the way, for first-time viewers, there is a possible side-effect to thinking that Bishop is going to turn out to be a bad guy: it makes Burke a more interesting character, because if you're focusing on Bishop as a villain, you're probably not thinking of Burke that way, and that makes Burke's unmasking more surprising and satisfying.

Again, I really just don't see how anyone can make the claim that Alien has better characters than Aliens has. Really, it's not even close.

That was well said.

Thanks. Happily, Aliens is a movie I remember pretty well. Most of the time, my memory for specifics is no good at all.

[Hitch 57]

Which brings me nicely onto DENTURES, the 1976 Jonah T. Gumbell movie starring Rip Torn and Shelley Winters and featuring a subtle harmonica score by Toots Thieleman

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I can agree with Alex. The characters in Aliens are archetypes, the slimy, heartless yup, the butch women, the cocky young soldier, the strong silent type, the weak commander etc...etc...

The characters in Alien are drawn less distinctfully, a bit more vague. You can't pin them down in 5 seconds, like you can the characters in Aliens.

Said another way, that would read "we know nothing about the characters in Alien because they're vague and non-distinct."

It's funny how you and Alex are focusing on Burke and on the Marines; you don't mention Ripley. Ripley, who in Alien we know nothing about except that she looks good in her underwear, likes cats, and is enough of a bad-ass to survive while eveyone else is dropping dead. In Aliens, however, she's a woman who has experienced a profound loss, and is so tormented by fear that she is willing to be plunged into horror in order to purge herself of those fears.

As for the rest of the characters, I don't buy the argument that you can pin them down in five seconds. Maybe you can with Burke, but Paul Reiser was very good in that movie, and to my ears, he still sounds convincing when he says they're going in as a simple rescue operation. Obviously, Burke is a guy who has gotten by quite well on his charm, but as soon as he's found out, that charm -- and his confidence -- disappears. Reiser is really good at playing that, also. Just in Burke, we have a more detailed character arc than anyone has in Alien except for Ash.

What about Hudson? Like Burke, he's extremely confident when we meet him; swaggering, boisterous, gung-ho, very much the stereotypical Marine. He doesn't end the movie that way. As soon as the s--t hits the fan, he turns into a frightened, whimpering guy who is almost a disgrace. What makes Hudson a good character is that he only turns into the fearful version of himself when there is time for it; when the aliens are actually attacking, his training takes over, and he's able to be what he needs to be.

Sure, some of the rest of the Marines -- Hicks, Vasquez, Apone -- are mostly devoid of their own character arcs, but this is Ripley's movie, and they're just there to support her. Not so with Gorman, whose cowardliness is ultimately vanquished; that provides the movie with one of its best moments, when he and Vasquez set off the grenade together. Sure, it's not exactly Hamlet, but it's a more satisfying character arc than almost anybody in Alien has.

What about Bishop? I think Cameron was counting on people remembering Ash from the first movie and hoping that they would assume that Bishop, too, would turn out to be evil; the casting of Lance Henriksen, who has a face that sorta shouts evil, makes that seem likely. Also, we're seeing things from Ripley's perspective, and she is openly distrustful of him, right up until he gets impaled. Thus, Bishop gets a very satisfying character arc: he goes from being suspected of being a traitor to being as heroic as heroes can get. By the way, for first-time viewers, there is a possible side-effect to thinking that Bishop is going to turn out to be a bad guy: it makes Burke a more interesting character, because if you're focusing on Bishop as a villain, you're probably not thinking of Burke that way, and that makes Burke's unmasking more surprising and satisfying.

Again, I really just don't see how anyone can make the claim that Alien has better characters than Aliens has. Really, it's not even close.

we know nothing about them because they are meat, meat for slaughter, thats one of the weaknesses of this film. We don't really care about several of them, so their deaths become numbers rather than something to mourn.

[MSM 126]

You already said that, and it is ridiculous!

I have to repeat it, because people don't listen.

[Hitch 57]

Que?

[Wojo 2,453]

As much as I think the sidebar about Alien and Aliens could drag on and on, I'm going to pay some attention to the lil guy in the corner waving for his mummy .

Arnold Vosloo's Mummy is not a great villain, he's barely even a good villain. He's just an almost-invincible monster in a scary adventure movie. He's also somehow sympathetic, too, because he is a victim in the whole mess. He fell in love with the wrong woman, but his enemies killed him for it and placed a terrible curse on him. As what normally happens with immortal sleeping beings, he is awakened, and so after going on a killing spree to stock up on body parts, he tries to bring back his love so he can then go conquer the earth. It's not because he really wants to rule the world, it's just that he's immortal, has super powers and a band of loyal brainwashed followers, and thus has nothing else to do with his free time. I'm sure if any of us were immortal, jaw dropping, sandstorm manipulating superbeings with a 3000 year old morning wood, we'd all do the same.

As for The Mummy II, Vosloo's Mummy is just along for the ride as some people this time around try to awaken another great evil, The Rock's Scorpion King, and The Mummy is just the immortal superbeing they think can kill the King for them. This makes The Mummy a mere patsy.

[A24 4,338]

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Alien has the best characters. And without the caricatural clichés. I feel that the people in Alien were real. The crew in Aliens felt like movie people.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

especially Ian Holm's character.

[MSM 126]

As much as I think the sidebar about Alien and Aliens could drag on and on, I'm going to pay some attention to the lil guy in the corner waving for his mummy .

Arnold Vosloo's Mummy is not a great villain, he's barely even a good villain. He's just an almost-invincible monster in a scary adventure movie. He's also somehow sympathetic, too, because he is a victim in the whole mess. He fell in love with the wrong woman, but his enemies killed him for it and placed a terrible curse on him. As what normally happens with immortal sleeping beings, he is awakened, and so after going on a killing spree to stock up on body parts, he tries to bring back his love so he can then go conquer the earth. It's not because he really wants to rule the world, it's just that he's immortal, has super powers and a band of loyal brainwashed followers, and thus has nothing else to do with his free time. I'm sure if any of us were immortal, jaw dropping, sandstorm manipulating superbeings with a 3000 year old morning wood, we'd all do the same.

As for The Mummy II, Vosloo's Mummy is just along for the ride as some people this time around try to awaken another great evil, The Rock's Scorpion King, and The Mummy is just the immortal superbeing they think can kill the King for them. This makes The Mummy a mere patsy.

Maybe you're right, but his role (call it type-casting if you want) was impressive. Everytime I see pictures of Arnold Vosloo, be it at the Oscar ceremonies or wherever, I see Imhotep, who every moment could do some evil things. I think it means he really played the part well.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Much as I like the "Alien" films (most of them, anyways), I believe we should return to the topic at hand. One of my favorite villians was Richard Dawson in "The Running Man". He is the kind of villain who deserves what he gets. He is rather quotable, as well.

Schwarzenegger - "I'll be back."

Dawson - "Only in re-runs."

I also liked Jack Nicholson as The Joker (Heath Ledger did not appeal to me as much.) He has all the qualtites of a wonderful villian: great humor, a frayed mind, and love for "Prince" music. Also, he is the kind of villain who does not have to lift a finger to do damage (his cronies do that).

[A24 4,338]

11 posts and you're already telling us what we must do? Hm, interesting.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

The amounts of posts I make is irrelevant.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

The amounts of posts I make is irrelevant.

As are Alex's thoughts about the characters in the Alien franchise, hee-hee, ho-ho.

And Nick, I'll type about what I want to type about until my fingers fall off and get eaten by my many overweight cats, and you'll have not a dad-gum thing to say to me about it. On the other hand, I'm with you regarding Richard Dawson in The Running Man. The movie is a blight on the novel by Stephen King (my favorite author by far), but it's so different that I don't mind. It's trashy fun, and not totally brainless (only mostly), and yes indeed, Richard Dawson did make a fine villain.

Alex, I still think you're wrong, but since we can agree on loving Alien, I guess it's not the end of the world. You just obviously have a different idea of what a character is than I do.

[A24 4,338]

Well, you being a writer and all, you probably base yourself more on that what is written and less on that what is seen.

[Bryant Burnette 654]

Well, you being a writer and all, you probably base yourself more on that what is written and less on that what is seen.

Just because I can write don't make me a writer, baby . . . I'm a projectionist. Or an assistant manager, which sounds a lot less cool. (Incidentally, it's that which is written/seen, not "what.")

But you're correct, that is indeed what I am (mostly) basing it on. I'm guessing you're basing it mostly on performance and on tone. And I'll admit that Alien trumps Aliens there.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

I believe the English phrase is as follows: "If you cannot beat them, join them." On that note, I must be in a certain mood to watch the first "Alien" film. I do think that the characters in it are more believable than its sequels, and certainly more than that sequel's sequels.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

giving in so soon is a sign of weakness. Be strong, funny few seem to remember the names from Alien, but they do from Aliens, which is a sign of who is more memorable.

[Wojo 2,453]

"If you cannot beat them, join them." I believe this tactic was used by the English army when they constructed a giant wooden rabbit to infiltrate the French castle and wreak mad havoc on the countryside.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Was it now? Interesting: does that aforementioned tactic pertain to a variation of the phrase that I have heard: "If you cannot beat them, join them. Then beat them."?

[indy4 155]

"If you cannot beat them, join them." I believe this tactic was used by the English army when they constructed a giant wooden rabbit to infiltrate the French castle and wreak mad havoc on the countryside.

"Well, say we build a giant badger..."

[Bryant Burnette 654]

giving in so soon is a sign of weakness. Be strong, funny few seem to remember the names from Alien, but they do from Aliens, which is a sign of who is more memorable.

Joey makes an excellent point here. I have a terrible memory for names, and yet I could remember all of the major characters' names from Aliens with no effort, whereas the only ones I could remember from Alien were Ripley and Dallas. Heck, I can even remember some minor characters' names from Aliens: Wierzbowski, Dietrich, and . . . nope, looks like it's just those two.

Still, I adore both movies, and it pleases me greatly that they are very different from each other, and yet still feel like they occur in the same universe.

Moving things back to the discussion of Great Movie Villains, here's one: Walter Pidgeon as Dr. Morbius in Forbidden Planet. I love that movie (possibly the best sci-fi movie of its decade), and Morbius is a terrific antagonist. I love how distracted he sometimes seems, and he's also got a wonderfully understated sense of superiority to these military-type men who have invaded his homeworld.

Of course, whether or not Morbius really is an antagonist is open to interpretation. He's a fine character either way.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

You don't remember Kane, Parker, Ash, Lambert, Brett, Mother and Jonesy?

[Bryant Burnette 654]

You don't remember Kane, Parker, Ash, Lambert, Brett, Mother and Jonesy?

No, I did remember them. That's why I said I didn't.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Tsk tsk tsk.

[Marian Schedenig 8,200]

Other way round for me, I think. Of course, they all have been mentioned here multiple times, so I'm slightly biased, but I could remember most names from Alien and few from Aliens.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

You don't remember Kane, Parker, Ash, Lambert, Brett, Mother and Jonesy?

No I don't know who is who? I have both Alien and Aliens on DVD, both the wonderful supposed director's editions.

But I can't remember the character's names in Alien, like I said they aren't well defined they are just raw meat.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Another villain I really like is Danny Devito in... well, in any villainous role he performs (he is a wonderfully hilarious "sleazeball" in "Matilda"), but "Batman Returns", specifically. I love how he does all these all these horrendous acts, and yet, ultimately, you feel sorrow for him when he dies (I did, anyways).