Best Villains

[BrandtPileggi]

Perhaps not but wouldn't you consider anyone bent on killing inocent kittens for 50 years to be evil? Smurfs are just as helpless regardless of how inept he is. God forbid Gargemel to ever discover pesticide. It'd be genocide! The end.

By Brandt Pileggi

[Mr. Tweedy]

Perhaps not but wouldn't you consider anyone bent on killing inocent kittens for 50 years to be evil? Smurfs are just as helpless regardless of how inept he is. God forbid Gargemel to ever discover pesticide. It'd be genocide! and genocide is evil and wrong unless it's against spikey penis fish. Those things serve no purpose and must die! and mosquitos. The end.

By Brandt Pileggi

I think the "spiky penis fish" can also attack people who lack penises.  Better to call them "the fish of ultimate suffering" or something else androgynous.   

---------------

I saw "Harry Potter" over the weekend, and I must amend my villains list, because Delores Umbridge is far more evil than the rest of them combined.  I'm booting off "Johnny Dread" and replacing him with this pink-clad, sweet-voiced, kitten-loving sadist.

[ClintMemo]

I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!


not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

[DKT]

I am sorry to report that Dreamworks has announced that there will be a Ring 3. 

 

Well, judging from what you two are saying, there's nowhere for them to go but up.   I hope.

[DKT]

I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!


not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

I totally agree.  She made me very happy (in a very sick way), even though she looked a lot different from what I had in my mind.  And the supporting cast in these movies are amazing.  It's a testament that people like Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Waters, David Thewelis, and Jason Isaacs continue to appear for bit parts even though I'm sure there's ways they could've wormed out of their contracts.

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon).  But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

[ClintMemo]

I saw it Friday night.
She was great.
The kittens were hysterical!


not to sound to fanboyish, but I think that series has done one of the best casting jobs ever.

I totally agree.  She made me very happy (in a very sick way), even though she looked a lot different from what I had in my mind.  And the supporting cast in these movies are amazing.  It's a testament that people like Emma Thompson, Brendan Gleeson, Julie Waters, David Thewelis, and Jason Isaacs continue to appear for bit parts even though I'm sure there's ways they could've wormed out of their contracts.

...and Alan Rickman. I remember reading the first book and thinking "that has GOT to be Alan Rickman in the movie."

I read last year the Jason Isaacs was pleading with JK Rowling to write Lucius Malfoy into the last book so he could play him again.

[DKT]

Oh, yeah.  Alan Rickman is Severus Snape.  I love every frame of the movies he's in.  I'll be sad if Lucius is completely left out of the final book.  It was awesome to see Sirius punch him in the face in OotP, though. 

[ClintMemo]

  It was awesome to see Sirius punch him in the face in OotP, though. 

I think everyone in the audience wanted to do that!
People actually cheered.  You don't see that too often.

[Listener]

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon).  But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

I found Richard Harris to be quite good as Dumbledore, but Michael Gambon... eh.  He's a good actor, but he's not good for that role... especially as in the fourth film, when Harry's name is pulled, they go into the anteroom, and he manhandles (wizardhandles) Harry.  What was up with that?

I'm hoping they get Patrick Stewart to take a role in the 6th or 7th film.

Of the Harry Potter villains, I still put Lucius Malfoy at #1.  Voldemort is evil, but in that sort of master-bad-guy way.  Malfoy is more insidious.

[ClintMemo]

The only casting job I'm not 100% sold on is Dumbledore (played by Harris or Gambon).  But to be fair, I think after seeing Lord of the Rings, it will be hard for me to ever see anyone else playing the wise wizard after Ian McKellan's Gandalf.

Right, I guess that's a bit off-topic...

I found Richard Harris to be quite good as Dumbledore, but Michael Gambon... eh.  He's a good actor, but he's not good for that role... especially as in the fourth film, when Harry's name is pulled, they go into the anteroom, and he manhandles (wizardhandles) Harry.  What was up with that?

I'm hoping they get Patrick Stewart to take a role in the 6th or 7th film.

Of the Harry Potter villains, I still put Lucius Malfoy at #1.  Voldemort is evil, but in that sort of master-bad-guy way.  Malfoy is more insidious.

I did like Richard Harris better. Michael Gambon is OK. He's better in three and five than he was in four.  Four is my least favorite of the series.  Three is my favorite.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Four is my least favorite of the series.  Three is my favorite.

Same here.  I liked 3 for it's tight focus, intense story and great look.  None of the others were so "together."

But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries.  During one of Umbridge's lessons, my wife learned over and whispered "It's just like real school."  And it is.  (That comment coming from someone who was still in high school five years ago.)  I love when fantasy tackles real issues.

[DKT]

Richard Harris was cool but he just seemed so...frail.  I like that Gambon brings that edge with him but sometimes it doesn't work so well, like in the 4th movie.  I thought he did a great job in 3. 

I don't think I want them to recast the roll, personally.  Not with the rest of the cast being so consistent.

I actually enjoyed the 4th film for the most part.  I watched it again last night and it might have some pacing issues, but the parts about teen angst/love (the Yule Ball) worked really well for me.  And I thought the kid who they cast as Cederic was great. 

I'm not sure which is my favorite of the movies, at this point, I think I'd say either 3 or 5.

[ClintMemo]

But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries.

You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

[Mr. Tweedy]

But I also really liked 5 for its unsubtle social and political commentaries.

You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

I do.  I might could have written most of those words, although the reviewer's evident bias leads him to make a few statements that are inaccurate and nonsensical.  Voldemort does where wizard robes.  (Hello!)  And while a correlation between Voldemort and Osama B. might be apt, it makes zero sense next to an insinuation that Fudge represents the chief executive of the US.  Bush critics claim that he inflates the threat posed by Al Qaeda in order to justify his own excesses.  Fudge (in contrast) is intent on pretending Voldemort does not exist.

Of course, I don't think the movie is intended as a one to one allegory of anything: It's broader than that, broad enough to be timeless, I think.  I doubt that Rowling intended any HP character as an allegory for any specific real person.  I'm just saying that the correlations of Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge do not make sense sitting next to each other.

[ClintMemo]

You might enjoy this review
http://www.flickfilosopher.com/blog/2007/07/harry_potter_and_the_order_of.html

I do.  I might could have written most of those words, although the reviewer's evident bias leads him to make a few statements that are inaccurate and nonsensical.

He's a she.

 Voldemort does where wizard robes.  (Hello!)  And while a correlation between Voldemort and Osama B. might be apt, it makes zero sense next to an insinuation that Fudge represents the chief executive of the US.  Bush critics claim that he inflates the threat posed by Al Qaeda in order to justify his own excesses.  Fudge (in contrast) is intent on pretending Voldemort does not exist.

Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

Of course, I don't think the movie is intended as a one to one allegory of anything: It's broader than that, broad enough to be timeless, I think.  I doubt that Rowling intended any HP character as an allegory for any specific real person.  I'm just saying that the correlations of Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge do not make sense sitting next to each other.

The Bush=Fudge correlation is not as far off as you say.  Yes, they are acting from opposite opinions, but Fudge was doing what Bush is accused of doing - trying to set up a totalitarian state.  In that sense, there is a definite similarity.


I read a lot of her reviews. I don't always agree with her opinions but I think she's a good writer. She absolutely has her own POV and she's not shy about saying what that is.  I frequently go and check her opinion on her "2007 movies ranked" page to see of she liked or hated particular movies.  I always enjoy reading her reviews of movies that she liked (Grindhouse) that I expected her to hate (anything by Quentin Tarentino) or vice-versa.

I think I posted it before, but if you get time, dig up her review of Tomb Raider - that's particularly funny.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

He wears a suit when Harry is hallucinating.  When we actually see him, he's wearing robes.  I took the suit to be a symbol of Harry's paranoia: Seeing Volemort everywhere, lurking in every shadow, every stranger possibly being Voldemort in disguise.  Seeing it as a metaphor for "corporate malice" is quite a stretch, I think.

Fudge was doing what Bush is accused of doing - trying to set up a totalitarian state.

Bush is trying to set up a totalitarian state...  Um, right, okay, and Bush also sacrifices a changeling child on an obsidian alter every second Tuesday of the month in order to channel the spirit of Hitler.  Cheney draws the necessary pentagrams with stolen crude oil.

But I don't think Fudge was trying to set up a totalitarian state, or set up anything, really.  His sin is not his desire to dominate, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the facts.  His intentions are good: He wants to preserve the freedom and safety of the wizarding world, but he is too fearful and weak to take the necessary steps to get that done.  He'd rather pretend that everything is fine and hope that Voldemort will just go away if everyone avoids looking at him.  When Fudge gets nasty is when other people refuse to accept his delusion.  Because it is a delusion, it cannot withstand criticism, and hence criticism becomes a crime.  That is certainly an important theme in the HP series: Wrong ideas cannot bear criticism, and so, reason being against them, those who cling to delusions must resort to force.

Anyway, what I said was that Voldemort=Osama and Bush=Fudge are not compatible analogies.  If you say Bush=Fudge, then Voldermort has got to be somebody else.  But I doubt Rowling meant to comment on any particular person in her writings.  I don't think she was going for allegory.

[Russell Nash]

  His sin is not his desire to dominate, but rather his refusal to acknowledge the facts.  His intentions are good: He wants to preserve the freedom and safety of the wizarding world, but he is too fearful and weak to take the necessary steps to get that done.  He'd rather pretend that everything is fine and hope that Voldemort will just go away if everyone avoids looking at him.  When Fudge gets nasty is when other people refuse to accept his delusion.  Because it is a delusion, it cannot withstand criticism, and hence criticism becomes a crime.  That is certainly an important theme in the HP series: Wrong ideas cannot bear criticism, and so, reason being against them, those who cling to delusions must resort to force.

I was with you until this.  I don't think Rowling was going for any comparision (in the books, I haven't seen the movie and probsbly won't until I can borrow the DVD off of a friend (I haven't liked the movies at all)).

However if we go back to Bush's comments of how he is a "War time commander" and how you can't criticize him because of it.  Or we look at Cheney's (and others) comments that ,"anyone who criticizes this president is unamerican", We can definately see a direct parallel to how you described Fudge.

Again, I don't think Rowling was trying to do this.  Maybe the director of the movie was.  The last time I heard Rowling talk about the movies she said they make the movies and she hopes people like them.  At that time (I don't know if it has changed or not) she was in no way involved in the films.

[ClintMemo]

Voldemort is shown in a business suit in at least one scene.

He wears a suit when Harry is hallucinating.  When we actually see him, he's wearing robes.  I took the suit to be a symbol of Harry's paranoia: Seeing Volemort everywhere, lurking in every shadow, every stranger possibly being Voldemort in disguise.  Seeing it as a metaphor for "corporate malice" is quite a stretch, I think.

maybe, but I could see either way. Yes, Harry was seeing Voldomort everywhere, from paranoia (and other reasons), but why in a business suit?  Why not a conductor's uniform?  I think that image was carefully chosen.

Bush is trying to set up a totalitarian state...  Um, right, okay, and Bush also sacrifices a changeling child on an obsidian alter every second Tuesday of the month in order to channel the spirit of Hitler.  Cheney draws the necessary pentagrams with stolen crude oil.

Whether Bush is or is not trying to set up a totalitarian state is a side issue that I won't get into, but Bush has definitely been accused of it.  I seem to remember some totalitarian imagery in the ministry of magic - especially the big giant portrait of Fodge. Their motivations (Bush and Fudge) may have been different, but there is a similarity.  I don't remember that bing in the book, so I suspect it was added by the director.

[Mr. Tweedy]

My final comment about Bush: Bush has been accused of absolutely everything.  You name the vile deed, character flaw or ill intention, and someone has publicly accused him of it.  I regularly listen to a podcast called "Blast the Right" (therationalradical.com/podcast.html), just to keep up on what's being said, and Bush is blamed, personally, for every problem that exists in the world.  He's a busy man, it seems.

-----------------------

I'm curious, Russell, why haven't you liked the movies?  You're the very first person I've heard say that they liked the books but not the movies.

I liked how the Ministry of Magic was portrayed, and I thought the giant Fudge banner was an especially nice touch.  It's funny because Fudge is such a lumpy, unimposing figure.  It looks like you could knock him down with a firm poke, but there he is, 100 feet tall, trying to look like some charismatic dictator.  It's scary and absurd at the same time.

[DKT]

Again, I don't think Rowling was trying to do this.  Maybe the director of the movie was.  The last time I heard Rowling talk about the movies she said they make the movies and she hopes people like them.  At that time (I don't know if it has changed or not) she was in no way involved in the films.

I know Rowling is involved in the movies.  She may not be involved as much as a director or some of the producers, but she definitely has some kind of script approval.  I heard in a recent interview that in the OotP movie she'd read the script and realized one of the characters had been cut (not a first, obviously) but this time she said, "You might want to rethink that.  That character has an important role in the 7th book."  So the character was written back into the script.   

[Russell Nash]

I'm curious, Russell, why haven't you liked the movies?  You're the very first person I've heard say that they liked the books but not the movies.

To start with the kids can't act.  The first two were just Home Alone with wands.  Hermione's actress (forgot her name) has learned how to act a little bit, but I don't think the set up of the films would really let any of them be spectacular.

The series just comes across as re-enactments of selected scenes.  If you didn't read the book, you can't really follow them.  When they change something from the books, they gut the wonder and intention of the scene. 

In #3 (I think) Hermione has this whole part about how a werewolve is different from a real wolf, but when we see the werewolve he looks more like a furry Golum then a wolf.

I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it with this.  The books are mostly good story telling and the movies are just mediocre spectical.

[Mr. Tweedy]

Ha!  Wow!  I guess tastes really differ.  The girl who plays Hermione is the only member of the cast who I think isn't very good.  She seems too forced and deliberate, like she's obviously trying to remember lines.  I've thought so since the first movie.  And I think Harry is really good, good enough that I'm already curious what kind of stuff he'll do post-Harry.  Go figure.

[Russell Nash]

Ha!  Wow!  I guess tastes really differ.  The girl who plays Hermione is the only member of the cast who I think isn't very good.  She seems too forced and deliberate, like she's obviously trying to remember lines.  I've thought so since the first movie.  And I think Harry is really good, good enough that I'm already curious what kind of stuff he'll do post-Harry.  Go figure.

I said she can act a little. He can't act at all.  After these movies are over, they'll both embarrass themselves in a couple of awful things and then do B-movies the rest of their careers.  I hope their parents invested their money well.

He at least is doing some stage acting and such.  That's a good way to learn.

[ClintMemo]

I thought I saw somewhere that he got really good reviews for his performance in Equus.

Whatever they do professionally, I just hope they don't end up as tabloid fodder.  There are so many stories here in the US of child actors growing up to be adult trainwrecks, I'd really hate to see that happen to them.

[Russell Nash]

I thought I saw somewhere that he got really good reviews for his performance in Equus.

Whatever they do professionally, I just hope they don't end up as tabloid fodder.  There are so many stories here in the US of child actors growing up to be adult trainwrecks, I'd really hate to see that happen to them.

Whether or not they turn into trainwrecks, the tabloids will write that they did.