Honorable Mentions:
John Connor - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
I know John Connor is an easy target, what with him being one of the most hated characters in action movie history. To his credit, Edward Furlong is clearly trying throughout this film. The problem isn't his acting, but the writing. The dialogue poor Edward has to deliver has just not aged well. "Hasta la vista, baby" has only endured because of Arnold Schwarzenegger's awkward pronunciation, not its enduring social value. John Connor could have worked had only the writers worked a little bit harder.
Violet Beauregarde - Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory is one of the great family films, capturing all the magic of the cinema in one two hour package. It is a film with great characters, wonderful music, and a strong moral center. The only flaw in it is Violet Beauregarde: was Roald Dahl really concerned about gum-chewing? Is this as bad a quality for children to express as gluttony, television addiction, and brattiness? I have my trepidations. Otherwise, Beauregarde is just a snotty child who is wholly unlikable. And, unlike Veruca Salt, Violet Beauregarde is not punished for her true sin. Her being a snot is just thrown in for no clear reason.
Elle Driver - Kill Bill Vol. 2
I talked about Elle quite a bit in my Kill Bill comparison, but I just find her wholly unlikable. Villains like Budd, Gogo, and Vernita Green are all enjoyably villainous, but Elle is, pardon my French, just a b*** with a samurai sword. Her relationship with the Bride is rushed and almost forced, and we learn that she killed Pai Mei with a method as simple as poison. She's a back stabber with no grace or likability, resulting in an instantly hateable character.
Let the actual list commence.
NUMBER 10
Ariel gets a lower spot on this list due to every other critic tearing her a new one. Ariel is a feminist's nightmare, garnering praise for being the first active Disney princess while garnering scorn for being the first Disney princess to act in a wholly morally reprehensible manner. In the original fairy tale, the Little Mermaid pays in full for selling her soul for sex; in the Disney version, Ariel is rewarded, getting exactly what she wants. She never has to face the consequences for her action, relying on others to save her at every opportunity. While she does save Prince Eric once, she saves him through the most stereotypical "girlish" means possible: pulling on Ursula's hair.
So, what about Ariel aggravates me? Putting it bluntly, Ariel is little more than a whining brat. Every moment she's with her father, she adopts a tone of entitlement and ignorance. She cares for no one other than herself, hardly showing self-sacrifice. "Part of Your World" may be pretty, but it is little more than Ariel whining about wanting "more." Why would one want more when one is a princess surrounded by anything a girl could ever want? Certainly, there must be plenty of mermen eager to court King Triton's favorite daughter. What is it about Eric that makes him so special? He has no personality. Why should Ariel even care about him? For her emotional shallowness and sexist elements, Ariel wholly deserves her spot.
NUMBER 9
I, along with many others, consider The Amazing Spiderman to be a superior film to the original Sam Raimi Spiderman. While Andrew Garfield lacks the nerdiness of the Tobey Maguire Spiderman (though he retains the geekiness), he does have a charm and full control of his superhero persona. The supporting cast is a vast improvement, what with Martin Sheen and Sally Field stepping in as Uncle Ben and Aunt May. Discussing Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is almost redundant: everyone else has explained how brilliant she is. There's only one element of The Amazing Spiderman that is not better than that of the original movie: the villain.
Curt Connors is meant to be an interesting Jekyll and Hyde type villain with total control over reptilian life. He is a ferocious monster, with teeth and claws powerful enough to rip through steel. His desire to exterminate all mammalian life makes him one of the most dangerous Spiderman villains, even if he's not the most popular. However, the Lizard of The Amazing Spiderman is kind of dull. His motivations for evil are incredibly vague, as the Jekyll and Hyde persona never takes full shape. Connors actively tries to help the Lizard, as opposed to being terrified of his other half. Adding to the faults of the Lizard is his horrendous design. While he did look like a humanoid lizard, he lacked the ferocity required of the character. Is it that difficult for CGI animators to add teeth? Whenever the Lizard was on screen, all I could feel was disappointment as one of my favorite comic book villains got the shaft.
NUMBER 8
Few things irritate me more than useless female characters, female characters that serve no purpose other than being the telos of a male character. As a society, we have progressed beyond The Great Train Robbery; we deserve to have female characters that have characters. Thus, Cosette from Tom Hooper's production of Les Miserables comes across as one of the most useless female characters in recent memory. I ask one simple question: does Cosette do anything?
Really, Cosette does nothing of consequence throughout the entire musical (one of the many faults of the musical as well as the movie). She is a being acted upon rather than acting. The entire "In My Life" song is the only piece in which she is given an inkling of character development. And, even then, her main function is that of an exposition fairy: announcing the helter skelter nature of the Valjean family life to the audience. While she laments being treated like a child, she does nothing to prove that she has moved beyond this. Otherwise, she is just wall-candy. Her high notes may be pretty (well, as pretty as Amanda Seyfried can make them), but her character is non-existent.
NUMBER 7
I hope my readers are sensing a pattern here. Useless female characters are arguably the single greatest plague upon movies I like. Maybe the writers focus too much time on the male character development. Maybe there are professors deliberately trying to tell students not to pass the Bechdel test. I don't know the full details. All I know is this: characters like the Lois Lane of the original Superman movie are disgusting.
Lois Lane is the typical plucky, career-empowered woman who suddenly turns into a ball of jelly as soon as a man comes along. We see the same kinds of problem with Megara of Hercules, Padmé Amidala of the Star Wars prequels, and Princess Katey of A Kid in King Arthur's Court, to name a few. These characters are usually found in fantasy/sci-fi films, presented as an initial mentor to a character who then becomes next to useless once the main villain emerges. Lois Lane doesn't fall into all of the traps, but she does fall into an even worse category: a character who really only cares about sex. No sooner does she learn that Superman has X-ray vision than does she ask "what color is my underwear." Is this supposed to be our model of a strong career-driven woman? One who women are supposed to aspire to be? A person we are supposed to care about? To be frank, I wish this character died in the end: not only did the terrible ending of the original Superman make no sense, but it also resurrected an absolute waste of time.
NUMBER 6
The absolute worst of the Disney comic relief characters, Hugo manages to be a massive distraction to the otherwise powerful gothic atmosphere of The Hunchback of Notre Dame. All of the gargoyles are tonally dissonant from the rest of the movie in the worst way possible. They make no meaningful contribution to the plot, as Quasimodo is perfectly able to express his feelings through song as opposed to half-baked dialogue with a trio of animated statues. Granted, they do have distinct personalities, but they lack character arcs, they don't function properly as figments of Quasimoto's imagination, and, worst of all, they just aren't funny.
Hugo is the worst of the three. How dare a movie make Jason Alexander not funny? We know that Jason Alexander can be one of the most humorous men on the small screen, but he's also demonstrated great vocal chops in the Aladdin television series and sequel. In this film, he serves no purpose other than to be a gluttonous jerk. He's insensitive to Quasimoto's needs, as the "A Guy Like You" sequence really doesn't help Quasimoto's love life at all. He is indifferent to the suffering of others, as clearly shown by his roasting a hot dog over a burning Paris. Above all, he is just annoying and even somewhat creepy. I'm pointing directly to you, implied bestiality humor.
NUMBER 5
Note: I only refer to the Harry Potter film franchise. The Voldemort of the books is exonerated from this discussion. This is the only entry on this list that is wholly the fault of the actor and not the writers or directors. Putting it blunt, Ralph Fiennes should know better than this. He's a Shakesperean-trained actor; he should know better than to turn Voldemort into a chicken-dancing goose who likes to stick out his tongue. Just like Hugo, Voldemort is enraging due to his tonal dissonance; his silly behavior is utterly unbefitting the Harry Potter movies. Ever since the third Harry Potter movie, the films have adopted specific color schemes and cinematographic styles to better reflect the themes and emotions of the films. Voldemort, on the other hand, is a constant distraction, what with his bizarre strutting, awkward delivery, and overall hammy performance.
I'm not going to be dishonest in the same fashion as most people in my age group: the Harry Potter series isn't fantastic in a wholly new way. It follows roughly the same plot as every monomyth tale; the comparisons to The Lord of the Rings do not go unnoticed (especially with the very concept of Horcruxes). The only reason the Harry Potter series has endured as a lasting piece of pop culture is its allegory. It is very clear that the entire Harry Potter series is an allegory for the Holocaust (swap out "pureblood" with "Aryan" and "mudblood" with "Jew," and the parallel is uncanny). As a result, it has more intrinsic value than the thousands of other "chosen one" stories. Therefore, I find it personally infuriating that the wizard equivalent of Adolf Hitler is turned into an over-the-top idiot. How can I take the villain for a serious threat when he is this silly?
Thank goodness Helena Bonham Carter is there to counteract this performance.
NUMBER 4
Most of the other characters on this list are pretty common targets, but Mae Wynn from The Caine Mutiny is far less known. She's also the worst acted character on the entire list; I may have ragged on Ralph Fiennes's hamminess, but I'd take hamminess over monotone any day. Every second Wynn is on screen is a second wasted. She has nothing to do with the plot of the movie. She has no character. She satisfies every bad female character trait we've seen in the preceding entries (no purpose other than eye-candy, cares only about her man, has no development) while also having the dishonor of being horribly acted.
Mae Wynn (the actress has the same name as the character) is so bland, so forgettable, and so pointless that her performance is actually kind of fascinating. Her placement in the movie is forced in a way unique to movies I've seen. It feels as if someone deliberately wrote her into the movie after the main shooting had been finished. I would not be surprised if she was a relative of one of the producers who wanted to put her into the movie. Either that or... insert your own sexist joke here.
NUMBER 3
Now the list is getting offensive. As someone who loves the James Bond films for their cheesiness and mindless escapism, I am fully aware of the many, many problems with the franchise (i.e. pretty much every girl in the series). Live and Let Die may be one of the more fun entries in the Bond franchise, but it is perhaps Bond at its most culturally insensitive and despicable. One wouldn't think it is possible to get worse than the following film premise: a white, British agent is called in to save a white girl from an army of African-American, voodoo-worshipping, Afro-sporting, cocaine-dealing gangsters. But Eon Productions managed to do it by hiring Clifton James as J.W. Pepper.
J. W. Pepper is the worst of the worst, the cherry on the sundae of the many offensive characters in Live and Let Die. Pepper is a racist, foul-mouthed hick of a sheriff who follows Bond around in an attempt for the movie to have some comic relief. Now, aside from such a character's utter uselessness (Bond is already comic relief enough), Pepper manages to be annoying in every sense possible. His drawl is nearly impossible to decipher unless he is swearing. He screams and hollers at any possible moment. He continually interrupts a genuinely entertaining boat chase. He has to say the name "Billy Bob" several times, as if to hammer home the fact that he is a Southern hick. Finally, Pepper is a wholly apparent racist and is never punished for that fact. (Though, coming from Live and Let Die, I'm not very surprised.) Pepper's encounter with Bond is forced and amounts to nothing story-wise. By the end of the film, every second with Pepper is a second wasted.
That would be enough to secure Pepper a nice place at the bottom of this list. But Pepper has the gall to come back for the sequel, The Man with the Golden Gun. I don't know if the writers were hoping to make Pepper a constant presence in the series, but it was a bad idea to have James reprise this role. If it were possible, Pepper has even less to do with the plot of the movie. We only manage to run into him because he, coincidentally, happens to be on vacation in the same place as Bond's mission. Bond coincidentally uses his car for a chase, leading Pepper to make loud, obnoxious commentary throughout the entire sequence. It's quite a shame, because The Man with the Golden Gun has a far greater sense of intrigue than Live and Let Die; it ends up being an even worse movie due to Pepper's uselessness and the unnecessary camp found in the film's other elements.
I enjoy the Bond films despite their many faults; the preceding two films are arguably bad movies, but I enjoy them for their silliness, not their insensitivity. Pepper, on the other hand, is reprehensible in every conceivable way. He is annoying, racist, and repugnant. I watched these movies to see James Bond, not Jerry Springer.
NUMBER 2
I went there.
It's kind of hard to talk about Ferris Bueller's Day Off without talking about Ferris himself. For many, he's the epitome of cool, with an appropriate life philosophy for someone of his age group. Empire Online named Ferris Bueller the fifteenth greatest character in movie history. Richard Roeper, a film critic I highly respect, once called this film his absolute favorite. So, it's safe to say that Ferris Bueller is a pretty well-liked character.
So, why do I hate Ferris Bueller? Perhaps it's his utter disregard for authority of any kind. Perhaps it's his selfishness. Perhaps it's his signs of sociopathy. But, to me, none of these problems are as glaring as Ferris Bueller's hypocrisy. The clearly stated moral of Ferris Bueller's Day Off is "stop and smell the roses before they die." That is an important message for us to consider: one can busy oneself with the rat race of life, but if one never appreciates the joys of it, for what purpose has the journey been at all? The crazy antics, the care-free attitude, the potential illegality of his actions: all of this could be passed off as one creative high schooler's last hurrah.
If not for the fact Ferris has done this same act NINE TIMES!!!
Seriously, no one remembers Ferris Bueller changing his absences? It's very apparent that Ferris has been truant several times throughout the year, probably for the same silly reasons as those shown in this movie. (It's a sunny day. Seems like as good a time as any to skip school!) During that time, who knows how many parades he's sabotaged, cars he's ruined, girlfriends he's been inconsiderate to, best friends whose lives he's ruined, principals he's accidentally maimed, nervous breakdowns he's incited, classmates from whom he's extorted money? This movie shouldn't be called Ferris Bueller's Day Off; it should be called One of Ferris Bueller's Days Off. Ferris Bueller's Day Off has a positive message for high schoolers, but the film undermines the message with his lack of consideration for anyone but himself. Call me Principal Rooney, but get this child back into the classroom; after all, his grades demonstrate that the education process has not been wasted on him!
NUMBER 1
 |
| You got lucky... |
As much as I dislike Jar Jar Binks, he's not the character I hate the most from films I like. That dishonor, though, does go to a character from the Star Wars prequels, films I enjoy despite their flaws. The dishonor goes to one of the worst villains I've ever seen in a movie, a character so offensive as to make my blood boil, a character so flat as to make my critical senses go haywire out of rage, a character so useless as to bore me out of my wits. Without further ado,
THE REAL NUMBER 1
NUTE GUNRAY from the Star Wars prequels.
Dear Asian people, on behalf of George Lucas, I apologize.
Nute Gunray is... disgusting. One knows the prequel films are going to be bad when this Neimoidian slime is one of the first characters we encounter. Jar Jar may have been bad, but at least he is trying to be funny. Nute Gunray seems to be doing everything possible to be the worst villain ever created for a blockbuster film franchise. Great villains are those that we love to hate. Bad villains are either ineffective or so hateable as to have no elements to enjoy whatsoever. Gunray is the latter, a character so despicable as to offend me in every conceivable way.
Nute Gunray is a genocidal murderer. Throughout The Phantom Menace, it is heavily implied that Gunray is responsible for the murders of Lord-knows-how-many Nabooians during the main events of the film. He sets up death camps (that we never see; shame on you, Lucas) in which he and his army of boring droids can exterminate whomever they desire. All the while, Gunray is a simpering coward who has his droids do all the work for him. He hires bounty hunters to do his dirty work once the bulk of his Federation troops are put out of commission. He hides behind General Grievous and does whatever his dark masters tell him. He is a rat, first and foremost. There are plenty of genocidal murderers in fiction who are good villains (i.e. Kefka Palazzo from Final Fantasy VI, Hans Landa from Inglourious Basterds, to name a couple), but Gunray lacks any of their gleeful evil. He's just a despicable coward.
Then there's the offensive content. Actor Silas Carson approaches the role of Gunray with all the cultural tolerance of Archie Bunker; his short delivery is meant to replicate the often short phonemes of East Asian languages such as Mandarin. The make-up design highlights his eyes in a wholly racist fashion. Adding to this is the fact that Gunray leads a Trade Federation, a not-so-subtle jab at the Chinese exporting sector. George Lucas implicitly aligns all Asians or people of Asian descent with this character, presenting them, in turn, as genocidal, cowardly scumbags. Jar Jar may have made people of the Caribbean sound like retards, but at least they weren't aligned with genocide. Once again, Asian people, I apologize.
Most annoying of all is the fact that Nute Gunray sticks around for three entire movies. All the other villains in the prequels are killed off quite unceremoniously. Darth Maul, the character who first introduced a saber-staff to the Star Wars films? Cut in half. Jango Fett, the bounty hunter predecessor to Boba Fett? Decapitated. Count Dooku, a turned Jedi played by the greatest villain actor in history, Christopher Lee? Beheaded. General Grievous, an admittedly wasted villain who still enjoyed some of the best fight choreography in the series? Blown up from the inside. Nute Gunray manages to outlive all of these villains. The character with no potential to develop, no likability, no creativity, no interesting traits whatsoever lives while all these great sources of Star Wars fun die.
Nute Gunray is offensive. Nute Gunray is a genocidal maniac. Nute Gunray wastes time that should have been spent on other villains. Nute Gunray is a character so bad that even Jar Jar seems tame by comparison. I repeat: Nute Gunray makes Jar Jar Binks seem tolerable. I'll admit the sequels had flaws, but they could be seen as both fun romps and extended metaphors for the fall of the Roman Republic. They have some value to me. But Gunray is the one element I always cringe at when looking at them again. There's a reason Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith is my favorite of the prequels. It's not the better characterization, not the greater sense of atmosphere, not even the tragic deaths of the Jedi. No. It's this scene:
Here's hoping for some better characters next time around. Next upload begins something new. Something fun. Something... musical.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments posted on this blog should be framed in a civil manner. Constructive criticism is more than welcome (feel free to mock a typo here, a misreading there, a lack of understanding there). But, for sake of the written word, do try to use proper grammar.