Terrell

Jason Vorhess. Nothing more than a second-rate, Michael Myers ripoff in a bunch of godawful horror movies that weren't even the least bit frightening. Not one decent film amongst the whole lot of films.

I'd have to agree Sauron. He does nothing, he is nothing but a flaming eyeball that looks around. Saruman was far better, but even he wasn't given much to do.

There is no accounting for taste.

bballing

agreed.

Rockmjd23

Denzel in Training Day, Bill from Kill Bill, Castor Troy, Ghostface from Scream, Sy Parrish from One Hour Photo.

Rad14

Michael Myers - Not Scary

Jason - Not Scary

Leatherface - Not Scary

and any of the other endless parade of so-called slasher villains who repeatedly seem to find a handful of youths and kill 'em off one at a time!

SINGLE104

I totally disagree! Jack Nicholson (The Joker) character completely stole the movie from Batman. Without The Joker, the movie would have been a big commercial disappointment, and boring. Jack Nicholson's villianous performance made Batman more interesting to watch, while Michael Keaton's character was very weak, lame, and not powerful enough to withheld the movie on his own accord. To this present day, the only reason why I repeatedly watch this version of Batman is because of The Joker, a phenomenal performance from Jack Nicholson, an overall, legendary, superb actor.

mr_jbloggs

Hulk's Dad (Nik Nolte), sorry the character was so bad I can't remember the character's name.

grunter

Alan Rickman's "Sheriff of Nottingham" in "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves"

Completely out of character with the rest of the film.

bigsoos

Yeah, he's actually a good actor

DodgingCars

Some of you seem to not understand what the word "overrated" means.

uberjoe

Whaa?? Maybe you've just missed all the fan Web sites dedicated to Nick Nolte's character in the Hulk movie.

fumanstan

Vader himself.

Fok

Only in Ep3 right?

devilshalo

I'll just put my stamp here and we'll see in 2007.




































Venom.

SINGLE104

It was fake. The shark was mechanically constructed, and operated.

Joe Molotov

I'm pretty sure he won an Oscar for Best Villian too.

Johnny Boy

How? His antics were truly ruthless and devious. He had the twisted charm of the devil. How could he have made a better villain?

Dark Lord Sauron - I think Return of the King is okay, but certain things bug me about it. How was the Dark Lord taken down so easily?? After all of the build up and all of his seemingly vast power, he's taken down by a lady sticking a sword in his face. Great.

WallyOPD

That wasn't Sauron, that was the Witch-King. Sauron was just the Eye.

Johnny Boy

Oops, then I mean the Witch-King. You can tell how much I know about LOTR.

MOSHUN

I view slasher movies as deep comedy now but I still give Freddy credit cause its an awesome idea. the other villians you might be able to get away but damn you cant escape Freddy you gotta sleep sometime

Kudama

I agree with the comments you make on the character of Batman in this film, so at least we can meet mid-way.

The Joker in the cartoon is scarier than this one. Did you ever read the first Dark Knight miniseries? That was the Joker. I do like Jack Nicholson when he’s given a challenge (like a new character), but this was just “Hey Jack! Just think Cuckoo’s Nest and Shining with paint on your face. It’ll knock ‘em dead!”. But, hey. You pegged Batman. Maybe I missed something.

For me the most overrated movie villain is The Lord of Darkness in Legend. He looked killer-weak-sweet when they first showed him (in silhouette with glowing green eyes if I recall correctly, never watched that one again) but after that he took a nosedive along with the rest of the movie (movie’s overrated, too). I mean c’mon! “Look out Tom Cruise! I’m about to gore you with my giant horns. Here I come. Fuck. I missed because the tips are too far apart and I came at you with my forehead. Oh shit, mirrors!” (dead.)

wow.

caligulathegod

Adolf Hitler got taken out by a little glass ampule of poison and a
bullet to the head.

I realize a movie shouldn't depend upon extraneous sources to be
understood, but even the books require knowledge outside of the covers
to fully appreciate what it all means. They just can't have that in a
movie without spending hours and hours on just exposition. Indeed, much
of the book literalists (who call themselves "purists") who hated the
movie did so because there wasn't enough exposition for their tastes.
I've seen many WWII movies, but rarely do they get into why we were
fighting the Germans. We just were. They had to assume the audience
was aware of the backstory so they don't have to explain it over and
over again. LOTR was already 12 hours long. They just had to
streamline and hint at the exposition.

Lord of the Rings has suprisingly little "Magic" in it. What there is
isn't quite as omnipotent as one would expect. Even the immortals can
be killed, as long as they are in a physical form. The Nazguls primary
power was to evoke fear and they were controlled afar by an unseen
enemy dictator. During the War of the Ring, the Witch King was imbued
with extra powers but he was still subject to prophecy. "No living man"
would be able to kill him. He didn't count on being killed by a Hobbit
and a Woman (Didn't hurt that they had special swords made by the
Numenoreans, e.i., Aragorn's ancesters.). This sounds like a cop out,
but it's actually a major theme in the story. Tolkien had written this
long history of Elves and Men and their wars with the Dark Lord called
the Silmarillion and it is like your typical history.
The Lord of the Rings is about how the overlooked and
underestimated stepped up and changed the world. There's
a running gag though the books and touched upon in the movies that no
one has ever heard of Hobbits or, if they had, they had no tales about
them. They kept to themselves until the events of the movie. Also, an
exiled Ranger stepped up to his lineage and earned his Kingship.

Anyway, concerning Sauron and his great Eye. That was, in the book, a
metaphorical representation. He never actually appears as a character
in the book except at the moment of his demise. Tolkien has indicated
in other sources that Sauron did indeed have a physical form at this
time, but like all dictators, he chose to work through his armies rather
than with his own hands. We're so used to seeing President Bush or
whatever world leader on TV all the time so they almost seem like
family. Once upon a time, leaders were remote unseen figures. There
might be a newpaper article or a newsreel, but most people had no real
idea of their own leader, let alone a foreign leader. The EYE just
meant that he was watching everything and controlling from afar. He was
still powerfully influential, but had placed a great deal of his own
native power into the One Ring. The threat was more that he would get
it back and become nearly all-powerful in what was then a
weakened world (the Elves' great armies had all either been slain or
left for the West, never to return and Men were just now beginning to
take their place in the world) rather than that he was all-powerful
now. Men had to defeat this great evil to be worthy of being in charge
of the world.

Sauron was never meant to be a Darkness (from Legend), or Darth Vader,
or Jason Vorhees, or Ernst Blofeld, or even Dr. Evil. He was more the
idea of a demonized, dehumanized enemy who was the embodiment of
the evil in ourselves. War is one of the most dehumanizing experiences
of man. Instead of our brothers, were are fighting demons controlled
afar by a greater demon. Check out WWI/II propaganda posters and their
monstrous depictions of Germans and Japanese. Tolkien used those themes
and depicted them literally with his Orcs and Trolls. The Orcs were
originally Elves (that is, brothers of the good guys) who were corrupted
by evil leaders and became monsters. Once the evil leadership was
defeated, the Orcs ceased to be threats. They had no purpose and
eventually assimilated.

So, it's not really fair to call Sauron an overrated villain because he
isn't depicted in the film as being a real threat. It's like saying
Hitler wasn't much of a villain because all he did was shout a lot.
Sauron, like Hitler, was in charge of all the evil done by his troops
and minions. It's just somewhat unfortunate that PJ was unable to find a suitable visual metaphor for Sauron rather than the literal presentation he gave us. It could have been worse. Originally, Aragorn was going to fight Sauron in his Annatar Lord of Gifts guise he used to trick the Elves into making the Rings in the first place. He should be praised for sticking as close to the books as he did without resorting to such cheap tricks (supposed extended endings or not.)

Terrell

Bite your tongue. Vader was badass, especially his look, and Jame Earl's voice made him him doubly badass. Plus the combination of Earl's voice performance and Prowse's non-verbal performance, was great.

Kudama

That entire post rings clear. Just like Johnny Mnemonic, Running Man :little face puking:, or Blade Runner, the book was the book.

Sauron was Sauron before Peter Jackson exposed it to the mundanes.

Another overrated movie villain: The Queen Alien. Stan Whatsis'name didn't give credit to Giger for the design. Lawsuits, etc.

Mr. Winston earned my disrepect on that one.

Rockmjd23

SINGLE104

Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker was more of a sinister type of character that inflicted evil deeds, rather than a scary, monsterous, bloodcurdling villian that are depicted in horror movies. Nicholson maintained a certain amount of terror in his performance, without completely overshadowing The Joker personna.