Guest MaxPower27 Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Atticus Finch was a great choice for #1, IMO. I didn't like the movie as much as I LOVED the book To Kill a Mockingbird.
Guest newblood03 Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 so who was the #1 of each i jsut missed it
LaParkaYourCar Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 #1 Villain: Hannibal Lechter #1 Hero: Atticus Finch from To Kill a Mockingbird
Guest Lil Naitch Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 can somebody tell me how To Kill a Mocking Bird ended? I haven't seen/read it in a month
Guest godthedog Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 in order for someone to be overrated, they have to get high praise by the majority. the more people praise her, the more overrated she is (according to my personal taste, anyway). By that logic, if one person thought something was great that would make it the greatest thing ever and if everybody thought something was great then it would be the most overrated thing ever, regardless of rather that was true or not. no, you misread me. being praised by the majority is A requirement for being overrated, it is not THE ONLY requirement. there must also be a standard to measure how praiseworthy it is: a standard OUTSIDE the gauge of how many people praise it.
Guest WrestlingDeacon Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Well, that I can understand a little better then. And certainly the masses have been fooled into praising something needlessly before. In this day and age it's all about the sizzle and not the steak.
Guest godthedog Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 can somebody tell me how To Kill a Mocking Bird ended? I haven't seen/read it in a month you forgot it after a month? it must be a bitch keeping up with all the movies you want to remember the endings to, having to watch them periodically...
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 I would of picked Will Kane from High Noon. I love that character. He's such a reluctant hero. Not having the support of the town's people. He faces the men who want to kill him.
Guest JHawk Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 I feel rather gipped. The opening montage showed the Ghostbusters at least two or three times, and with them talking to Sigourney Weaver throughout the thing, it made them appear to be a shoo-in. Then they get taken out for Erin fucking Brockovich... UGH!
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 WHAT???? Maybe it is because I love Wizard of Oz, but I defiently don't think she is overrated. The Character goes beyond laughing she's really a smartass. She has some great lines, and is very cynical.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 I'm suprised John McClaine didn't make the list. He was really the only character in action movies with personality and a real human quality about him.
Guest Ravenbomb Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 ok, I'm glad horror movies were well represented, but I think if they were going to pick any of the big 3 slashers, it should've been Michael Myers. And Krug Stillo wasn't even in the 400 that were considered and wtf was with Travis Bickle being so low on the list?
Guest Jack Tunney Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Anyone else think Mr. Blonde from "Reservoir Dogs" should've been one of the villains? They picked the guy who shot Bambi's Mom but not a guy who killed a 20 year old girl, (and maybe some other people) cut off a cops ear, and tried to burn him alive? Sorry if someone mentioned him but I didnt read the whole thread.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 ok, I'm glad horror movies were well represented, but I think if they were going to pick any of the big 3 slashers, it should've been Michael Myers. And Krug Stillo wasn't even in the 400 that were considered and wtf was with Travis Bickle being so low on the list? I think they where looking for more depth in the characters they picked. Freddy always had a quick pun before he killed someone.
Guest Ravenbomb Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 there's a difference between charisma and depth. Besides, I always thought Michael was way scarier than Freddy. BTW, this always bugged me. If the girl burning her arm on the pipe in her dream woke her up, why didn't getting cut up wake that blonde girl up? One would think that would hurt more than a burn...
Guest NoCalMike Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 there's a difference between charisma and depth. Besides, I always thought Michael was way scarier than Freddy. BTW, this always bugged me. If the girl burning her arm on the pipe in her dream woke her up, why didn't getting cut up wake that blonde girl up? One would think that would hurt more than a burn... best I can say is umm, maybe since Nancy burning herself was a self-inflicted injury with the purpose of getting herself out of the dream, to where as the blonde chick was technically dead after the first (four claws) to the stomach and the whole scene with her being thrown around the room was for shock and awe effect.
Guest Vern Gagne Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 there's a difference between charisma and depth. Besides, I always thought Michael was way scarier than Freddy. BTW, this always bugged me. If the girl burning her arm on the pipe in her dream woke her up, why didn't getting cut up wake that blonde girl up? One would think that would hurt more than a burn... ...the jury obviously thought Freddy had more charisma, they probably saw Micheal Myers and Jason has 2 psychos who wear masks and kill people.
Guest Big McLargeHuge Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Jason and Meyers probably cancelled eachother out.
Guest notJames Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Anybody got the full list? It should be on this page, but it's not loading at the moment. I'm sure they'll fix it eventually. BTW, last night, while watching the show wind down to the final numbers, my wife and I bet on who the top two villains would be and in what order. We both knew Norman Bates and Hannibal Lechter would be the top dogs, but I thought Bates, being the older character, would get the nod. Seeing as how AFI tends to favour the classics more than modern cinema, I thought that was the way to go. Silly me. Now dear wifey gets to sleep in this weekend while I get up at the crack of dawn to attend to our almost-2-year-old, who invariably wakes up too damn early. This is what I get for following conventional wisdom. (sigh)
Guest Grand Slam Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Most of the time, I watch these lists, wonder why so-and-so didn't place higher, but basically go "OK, I can see that." This time though, I am annoyed. Hannibal Freakin' Lechter?? No way he is the greatest villain in American movie history. Hell, in my book Hans Gruber (way down on the list) is a better pure "villain" than Hannibal. And what's with Obi-Wan Kenobi and Han Solo getting love on the hero side, but Luke Skywalker (you know, main character, saves the galaxy, redeems the #3 villian) is no where on the list? Please. And any list of greatest movie villains that honors the Martians as a group (even going so far as to show footage from the marginal "Mars Attacks") but doesn't have the greatest movie villians in American movies listed (The Nazis) needs some thought. It was nice to see Freddy Kruger on the list though, giving movies that most of us out here in smartmarks land love a little shout-out.
Guest notJames Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Well, they did list Amon Goeth in Schindler's List… … however, I think not listing the Nazis was just a notion of practicality. Martians, for all intents and purposes, are fictional characters. Nazis, however, are real, and what's more, carry a strong connotation that most likely would have ticked off quite a number of sensitive people. Besides, if you include the Nazis, do you mention other political/military bodies that happened to appear in movies, like the Viet Cong? Or the Russians during the Cold War? I understand your point, but it would have probably caused some kind of a minor headache for AFI if they did it.
Guest Grand Slam Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 I see your point. I'm sure the AFI would have gotten no end of crap for including the Nazis on the list, and there are any number of "opposing forces" that were (and are) great villains, but nobody has the aura of the Nazis (as movie villains). But, as I said, I see your point, and it is a good one. I'll give them a pass on the Nazis... but my other problems with the list (among others) still stand.
Guest notJames Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Lechter over Gruber is an easy choice simply because of the movies involved. Die Hard is an action movie, albeit a very good one. Silence of the Lambs, however, is a suspense/drama, which more often than not will get the nod when quantifying films. Think of the Oscars… how many pure action films even make the final five in any of the big categories? I'm not justifying it at all, just pointing out how genre greatly affects the final outcome of things like this. Besides, more people on the street will know the name "Hannibal Lechter" over "Hans Gruber". The AFI lists are as much popularity contests as they are barometers of true merit, just like any governing body of the arts. On a personal note, I found Gruber more cartoon-sadistic than the fleshed-out, complex and psychotic Lechter. Plus there's something about a character who takes a more "hands-on" approach to killing his victims that tends to make me appreciate them more. Sure, guns are guns, but cannibalism wins the kewpie doll every time. And yes, I too was surprised Skywalker was left off the list. Perhaps AFI has a thing for rogues (Han Solo) over your prototypical goody-goodies. But then, why include the Eternal Boy Scout, Superman? Meh. Or perhaps they have a hard-on for Harrison Ford. He got on as Solo and Indiana Jones. I don't remember if Dr. Richard Kimble made the cut.
Guest El Satanico Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 BTW, this always bugged me. If the girl burning her arm on the pipe in her dream woke her up, why didn't getting cut up wake that blonde girl up? One would think that would hurt more than a burn... I'd disagree with that. I'd say getting burnt would hurt more than being cut 90% of the time. Unless you get cut on something jagged or dull it doesn't hurt all that much when it happens.
Guest godthedog Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 And what's with Obi-Wan Kenobi and Han Solo getting love on the hero side, but Luke Skywalker (you know, main character, saves the galaxy, redeems the #3 villian) is no where on the list? Please. luke skywalker is a pretty damn mediocre hero. he's got none of the charisma or coolness of han solo, none of the sagacity of kenobi. a lot of it has to do with screen presence: harrison ford & alec guiness just blow away mark hamill on the screen, who doesn't seem dynamic at all compared to them.
Guest notJames Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 Yeah, that whole pouty whine about getting some power converters in Episode IV probably sealed the coffin on Skywalker's bid for big hero status. You'd think surviving a car accident and wrecking his face like that would have hardened him somewhat for Empire, but alas…
Guest Grand Slam Posted June 4, 2003 Report Posted June 4, 2003 I disagree with Luke Skywalker being a mediocre hero. It was his story, so if the Original Trilogy is good, it is because we care about Luke Skywalker and what he wants to accomplish. Luke is the surrogate "us" in the movie, a normal kid who wants to be something better than what he is. I just can't believe that Han Solo, who is a supporting character, is a better hero than the main character.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now