Who does the villain of the decade title go to. I believe their are 3 main contenders in The Joker, Anton Chigurgh, and Hans Landa. Have I missed anyone?
Honorable mention to Michael Myers, Alonzo Harris, and Patrick Bateman but they just simply are not on par with the above three.
Of the decade? From your list, I'd have to definitely go with Hans Landa. Christoph Waltz knocked it out of the park.
Other nominees would have to be Sergi Lopez as Cpt. Vidal from Pan's Labyrinth, Yu Ji-tae as Lee Woo-jin from Oldboy, and "Addiction", the main antagonist, from Requiem for a Dream.
I definitely agree with the Joker, Landa and Chigurgh. Loved all three of those characters/the performances/the films!
Some others that came to mind (some of their villainry is debatable):
- Gollum (The Lord of the Rings)
- Bill the Butcher (Gangs of New York)
- Daniel Plainview (There Will Be Blood)
- Commodus (Gladiator)
- Agent Smith (The Matrix films - the second two came out this past decade)
- Bill (Kill Bill)
- Vincent (Collateral)
McDiarmid wasn't flawless by any means, but he was hardly a shitty actor; given the subpar dialogue from Lucas, the man worked miracles. His performance was among the very few accolades given to the prequel trilogy.
A lot of it comes down to preference, of course, but in terms of something measurable, Palpatine wins in every conceivable arena.
The Joker's up there, but I personally have to deduct points for Nolan's wankery regarding the character: the idea that Dent actually swallowed that bullshit logic (You don't want to kill me for causing your woman's death, you wanna kill Batman and Gordon for trying like hell to save her and simply failing to do so) is utterly and completely retarded on monstrous levels. Of course, the fact that Nolan was deepthroating Ledger and his character didn't stop me from enjoying the rest of the movie, but a credible villain should be menacing or intelligent without overactive writer's fiat.
One line transforms an entire performance into a trainwreck? I don't disagree: McDiarmid's inflections in that scene and a few others from Revenge of the Sith were absolutely and utterly hammy, but I disagree that it ruins the entire portrayal.
Edit: And unless we saw two different movies, I have to say that Ledger was as hammy and as theatrical as McDiarmid.
But imo he wins massive points for actually having a fantastic delivery of the performance, a non-retarded and by all means amazing director and a brilliant actor as opposed to hammy over-acted tripe. Plus I could say the same thing about Palpatines plan only surviving becuase all the other characters were braindead. 'What! How could Palpatine, the one person benefitting from everything thats happened in all 3 movie Possibly be a Sith Lord!? That just plane re-dunkuous!' And Dent was pretty darn insane at that point. Aaaaand Joker arguably won in the end anyway, which Palpatine didn't.
So there.
Beckett's Ok, but he was kind of a dweeb.
__________________
Last edited by Nephthys on Aug 16th, 2010 at 11:42 PM
Ledger was Fan-****ing-tastic, and if I could fly to America I'd do so to slap you for putting him on the same level as Mcwhatshisface. I was merely giving an example of the terrible ham which spewed forth from betwixt his lips, just as you did about Joker.
That's not what Dent bought. Dent thought that it was pointless to kill the Joker since he(the Joker) would have been useless without the mass corruption in law enforcement. Dent went insane, you see?
But I'm not one of Ledger's estrogen brigade; I do not consider him the second coming or the greatest actor ever OMG!!1! Likewise, McDiarmid is nothing special in the grand scheme of things, either.
This thread, you see, is not about which actor is better, but which villain is better. And while performances certainly are a factor, I don't see how the Joker's pathetic track record can compare to a man of Palpatine's achievements.
You could, but it really wouldn't be valid. Palpatine was utilizing a technique that shielded his sensitivity to the Force and had spent decades crafting a cult of personality around him; it's one of the most intricate and realistic (in its depth) takeovers in cinematic history.
A far cry from the blatantly insane Joker, whom Palpatine has bested miles in terms of subtlety and patience.
Insane? No more, IMHO, than Anakin Skywalker, whose fall I'm sure you eschew.
The fact remains that the Joker's manipulation of Dent was utterly one dimensional and defied all reason and basic sense. If Dent really were insane, he would have killed the Joker and then probably went on to kill Batman and Gordon. But sparing the man who engineered the death of his beloved?
That's just crap writing.
Did we see different prequel trilogies? Palpatine won in a way that the Joker could never dream of.
From what I know about him, McDiarmid is a good stage actor. Stage actors have to be more emotive or poetic with their dialogue since they only have the stage to work with. If you have to blame anyone for him being hammy, blame Lucas.
I guess I need to watch the Dark Knight again: I was fairly certain that his motives for killing Gordon and Batman were solely out of revenge, and have a rather hard time believing otherwise. Especially since he kidnapped Gordon's kids son with the intent to kill him.
Hardly what I'd call a self-righteous systematic attempt to end the corruption in Gotham City.
As far as importance, feats, and intelligence sure Palpatine is the best. But this isn't the MVF. Palpatine simply doesn't grip you the way Joker, Landa, or Chigurgh did.
KMC Community Forums
Aug 16th, 2010 09:05 PM
