100 GREATEST MOVIE VILLAINS

Pt. 2  06-10

TOMMY DePALMA

Who's he?: Tommy DePalma was a member of Paulie Cicero's crew, a small time mafia team affiliated with the Lucchese crime family. He mostly worked with partners Jimmy "The Gent" Conway and Henry Hill.
How bad was he?: Tommy was a foul-mouthed psychopath with a hair-trigger temper who would shoot someone down on the flimsiest of excuses, and that's not even counting on the fact that he was an organised crime enforcer with his beak in extortion, money-laundering, theft, drug trafficking and a laundry list of other offenses.
What happened?: His unpredictable temper got the better of him when he murdered Billy Batts, a close friend of mafia boss John Gotti. Since Batts' murder was not sanctioned by anyone in authority (having been committed out of anger) Gotti took a dim view of Tommy's temper tantrum and he ordered the pint-sized killer executed.
Appearances: Goodfellas (1990)

DARTH VADER

Who's he?: Born Annakin Skywalker on the distant world of Tattoine, Skywalker was recruited as a Jedi Padawan by Obi-Wan Kenobi and Qui-Gon Jinn. According to a Jedi prophecy, Annakin was supposed to end the threats of the Sith and restore balance in the Force. That's not exactly what happened.
How bad was he?: Wracked by inner demons, Annakin was corrupted by Senator Palpatine, a powerful Sith Lord looking for a new apprentice. In a very short span, Annakin betrayed the Jedi order, helped Palpatine destroy the Galactic Republic and accidentally killed his own wife. A textbook example of "descent into evil".
What happened?: Vader became the Emperor's right hand man. He eventually reconnected with his family, with dire results. Eventually he was redeemed by his son, Luke, who picked up on the family business thanks to the meddlings of his old  master, Obi-Wan. He died on Endor surrounded by his son, his daughter and some Ewoks.
Appearances: Star Wars Eps. I-VI (1977-2003)

DR. VICTOR FRANKENSTEIN

Who's he?: Once a promising medical student from Ingolstadt, Switzerland, Dr Frankenstein became obsessed with creating human life from the reanimated bits of human cadavers. This did not sit well with the moral guardians of the time and so he was eventually hunted down as a criminal by the authorities.
How bad was he?: Obsession was Frankenstein's undoing. His experiments always seem to end up in disaster with loss of life and limb for anyone involved. He has resorted to murder and blackmail to carry on with his unnatural practices. Frankenstein was quite incapable of admitting to any wrongdoing, making him a shame of the medical profession.
What happened?: Frankenstein did succeed many times in creating life, yet his creatures almost always end up as braind-damaged monsters threatening anyone in sight. Some of them also attempted to kill him and his loved ones and yet Frankenstein soldiered on. He appartently disappeared in the Arctic circle at the turn of the 19th century.
Appearances: Frankenstein (1931), The Curse of Frankenstein (1957), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994), to name but a few.

DELBERT GRADY

Who's he?: In 1970, Grady became the winter caretaker of the Overlook Hotel in Colorado. So he went up there with his wife and his two daughters.
How bad was he?: Initially, Grady was a "completely normal individual" with "good references and good employment record" who nevertheless suffered a bad case of cabin fever and chopped his wife and daughters up into little bit and then blew his brains out with a shotgun.
What happened?: Grady (and his daughters) was absorbed by the malevolent entity living inside the Overlook walls. When Jack Torrance, his wife and his son moved up there as the new winter caretaker, Grady had a long talk with him and tried to have him repeat history with his own family. He was only partially succesful.
Appearances: The Shining (1980), "Stephen King's The Shining" (1997)

CALIGULA

Who's he?: His real name was Gaius Julius Caesar Germanicus Augustus. "Caligula" ("little soldier's boot" in Latin) was a nickname given to him by his father's troops. At the age of eighteen, around AD 30, he went to live with his grand-uncle Tiberius, then emperor of Rome, who adopted him and made him heir to the  imperial throne. The rest, as they say, was history (and how!).
How bad was he?: Well, Caligula became the quintessential "mad emperor", the grandfather or all bad rulers down in history. His antics and debaucheries made him an enemy of the Roman aristocracy (while remaining extremely popular with the people). Though it is difficult to say if any of what Roman historians said he did were actually true, or just the fertile imaginings of jealous rich white men. His reputation was only undone by his nephew, Nero, a couple of years later.
What happened?: Caligula realised all too late that no one is indispensible, not even an emperor. He managed to piss off one person too many, and that person was no less than the commander of his Praetorian Guard. Not the wisest of move. He was assassinated by said commander in AD 41.
Appearances: The Robe (1953), Caligula (1979), "I, Claudius" (1976)

100 GREATEST MOVIE VILLAINS

Pt. 1   01-05

Here it is folks, my little nest of villainy. You'll never find such a haven for scum in the whole cinematic universe. Those bad guys and gals are presented in no particular order. Enjoy!

DRACULA

Who's he?: Once, long ago, Dracula was called Vlad Tepes, ruler of Wallachia (part of modern Romania). He was turned into a vampire and, after 500 years or so, got tired of his homeland so he set his sight on England, where he was defeated by his arch-nemesis Dr Van Helsing. But you can't keep a Vampire lord down, can you? He's returned many times ever since.
Why is bad?: Apart from drinking your blood, turning you into his vampiric slave and threatening the whole of mankind with his shenanigans? Nothing. Why do you ask?
What happened?: What hasn't happened is more apt. Dracula returns at more or less regular interval, sometimes by design, sometimes by accident (i.e. idiots who stumble upon Ol' Drac's resting place and wake him up, happens wayyyy more often than you think).
Appearances: Too many to list, most notably in Dracula (1931), Horror of Dracula (1958), Bram Stoker's Dracula (1993) and many many others.

DAMIEN THORN

Who's he?: Damien is the adoptive son of Robert Thorn, the US ambassador to Great Britain. In reality, his real father is none other than Satan himself. Mr Thorn's real son was killed and Damien was substituted in his place. Now in a rich and powerful family, Damien can begin his rise to power and fulfill his father's destiny and plunge the world into chaos. Hey, don't take my word for it, it's in the Bible folks!
Why is he bad?: He's the Antichrist, need I say more?
What happened?: Let's just say that Damien has...powerful friends...working for him. After dispatching his adoptive parents, Damien also dispatched his uncle and aunt. In fact, Damien pretty much dispatched anyone standing in his way. And sometimes he didn't have to do it himself. When you have the Devil as your father, life can be a pretty easy ride. He eventually rose to become United States Senator, his power unchallenged, until defeated by Jesus Christ Himself. (We needed a helping hand against that bastard!)
Appearances: The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978), Omen III: The Final Conflict (1980)

ALEX

Who's he?: In a nightmarish, dystopian future England, Alex is a juvenile delinquent going on night rides with his pals up to some "ultraviolence" all the while listening to Beethoven and drinking drugged milk.
Why is he bad?: What's the part of "juvenile delinquent" do you not understand? Alex is most unrepentant in his criminal activities, and we'll not mention that he is one lying, conniving and manipulative son of a bitch if you don't.
What happened?: Well, the Law finally catches up with him and he is sent to prison. Inside, he volunteers for some sort of psychological conditioning technique supposed to let him out of prison in no time. Unfortunately Alex realises all too late that he's not the only morally bankrupt thing around.
Appearance: A Clockwork Orange (1971)

MICHAEL CORLEONE

Who's he?: Michael is the third and youngest son of Vito Corleone, a sicilian immigrant who rose to become the head of a powerful organised crime family. Initially, Michael didn't want to have anything to do with that, however gangland politics forced his hand and he came to the fore, first to protect his father and then to make the Corleone family's business legitimate.
Why is he bad?: He never managed to make anything legitimate and, as the forties gave way to the fifties, became "just another mafia hood" (his wife's words, not mine) by killing, bribing and blackmailing anyone in sight. In many ways Michael became even worse than his father ever was.
What happened?: In the late seventies, a somewhat repentant Michael made one last play at legitimacy but they kept pulling him back in. He bequeathed his power to his nephew Vincent. This cost him the life of his daughter. He died some time later, alone and broken.
Appearances: The Godfather (1972), The Godfather, Part II (1974), The Godfather, Part III (1990)

KHAN NOONIEN SINGH

Who's he?:  Well, back in the 1990s a bunch of genetic supermen took over the world, and Mr Singh apparently controlled India and most of Southeast Asia. They were eventually defeated somewhere in 1994 and put on a spaceship for God knows where. The ship (the SS Botany Bay) was eventually found by the USS Enterprise commanded by one James T. Kirk. He and his cohort tried to take over the ship and were marooned on some planet named Ceti Alpha V. Things went downhill from here. 15 years later Khan escaped and, for one reason or another, had some bone to pick with Admiral Kirk. 

Why is he bad?: Let's see...Khan is twice as strong and intelligent as your average human being. Superior abilities breed superior ambitions apparently. In the 1990s Khan was a ruthless dictator, in the more peaceful world of the 23d century he was now a menace, with a HUGE chip on his shoulders. Plus, he's not alone as he was put on ice with about fifty other "Napoleons". 

What happened?: He went for a second round with James T. Kirk, that's what. It didn't go down well the first time, second time was an uphill battle from the start. Still, he did manage to indirectly kill Spock and Scotty's nephew. Not bad for a comeback.

Appearances: "Space Seed" (1967), Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982)

THE FINAL TIME TEAM

The Doctor and Ace discuss future career opportunities

Mel leaves with Sabalom Glitz at the end of Dragonfire. So, it's just the Doctor and Ace for a final couple of adventures.

Sylvester McCoy (The Doctor)

Sophie Aldred (Ace)

Active from November 23, 1987 to December 6, 1989





Adventures:

1. Dragonfire
2. Remembrance of the Daleks
3. The Happiness Patrol
4. Silver Nemesis
5. The Greatest Show in the Galaxy
6. Battlefield
7. Ghost Light
8. The Curse of Fenric
9. Survival

Mel: "Finally, you're wearing normal clothes again!"

THE TWENTY-THIRD TIME TEAM

Out with the sixth Doctor and in with the sevenht. Mel is still with us, however.

Sylvester McCoy (The Doctor)
Bonnie Langford (Mel)

Active from September 7 to Dember 7, 1987.

Adventures:

1. Time and the Rani
2. Paradise Towers
3. Delta & the Bannermen
4. Dragonfire



Mel: "I'm still not sure on how and when we actually met for the first time,

Doctor?"

The Doctor: "I guess we'll just have to wait and read Spiral Scratch when it

comes out, then!"

THE TWENTY-SECOND TIME TEAM

Peri is killed/marries King Yrcanos in Mindwarp. The Doctor is introduced to Mel, a companion he hasn't even met yet.

Colin Baker (The Doctor)
Bonnie Langford (Mel)

Active from November 1 to December 26, 1986

Adventures:

1. Terror of the Vervoids
2. The Ultimate Foe

Peri, seen here travelling through time and space with a garish, tasteless
Christmas tree.

THE TWENTY-FIRST TIME TEAM

The Doctor regenerates (again) and its off to new adventures.

Colin Baker (The Doctor)
Nicola Bryant (Peri)

Active from March 22, 1984 to October 25, 1986.

Adventures:

1. The Twin Dilemma
2. Attack of the Cybermen
3. Vengeance on Varos
4. The Mark of the Rani
5. The Two Doctors
6. Timelash
7. Revelation of the Daleks
8. The Mysterious Planet
9. Mindwarp

CAN YOU PATCH ME THROUGH ROOM 237, PLEASE

Room 237 is a documentary by Rodney Ascher released in January 2012. The film is a discussion of Stanley Kubrick's The Shining. The film basically offers several perspectives on Kubrick's film that may have eluded previous criticism. As a fan of the film, it was obvious I would become interested in this and got myself a copy once it came out. I've seen it twice so far, so I thought I'd give you my impressions.

The film is built on a series of film clips (mostly taken from Kubrick's work, and others), along with relevant clips of the film in question with off-camera comments by the participants. In turn, each of these participants offer their own interpretations and observations based on relevant study of the work in question. Nevertheless, in many ways, the film goes off the deep end and somewhat fails as a piece of serious cinematic criticism. The main reason is that, while theories are presented left, right and center, very few serious evidence of what these people say make it on screen. Except, of course, for the most serious and previously documented ones. Others are plainly ludicrous.

Particularly Jay Weidner's assertions that Kubrick used The Shining as a soapbox to denounce his involvement in faking the Apollo XI moon landing in 1969 (made with full backing of the US government, of course, while he was busy with 2001), peppering the film with references to that effect. I do hope there will come a time when conspiracy theories such as this will go the way of the dinosaurs (note to self : don't hold your breath, kiddo!) and I have long ceased to find them interesting, fascinating or even plausible. Debating the very point on the very day of Neil Armstrong's death left me with a bad taste in the mouth, so you can guess how bad I feel about this (For the record I do not believe in a nanosecond that disbelieving a conspiracy theory is proof that such a conspiracy exist. Not in the very least).

Other points of view are more insteresting yet very little in actual evidence are presented on screen. For instance, Geoffrey Cocks maintains that The Shining is littered with references to the Holocaust. Unfortunately, all he can offer is a German typewriter. German typewriters do not a Holocaust make. This is sad, because it is true that Kubrick has always been fascinated by that particular event, and in the 1990s he attempted to bring his own vision of the Holocaust in the aborted Aryan Papers project (he abandoned it following the release of Schindler's List. His widow, Christiane Kubrick, said he was actually relieved as the project left him totally depressed. Wonder why?). The spectres of Germany's past have certainly found their way in many of his films, and Shining certainly must contain some references to it, yet all Cocks can offer us is that typewriter. He also makes a references that the baggages the Torrances bring too many bagages the Overlook, recalling concentration camp victims bringing their belongings at their « new home ». I wish Cocks could have elaborated on this a bit more substantially.

Bill Blakemore's theories that the film makes constant references to the extermination of the Native Americans by European settlers has been well documented elsewhere, most importantly on his own website and Kubrick does indeed offers Native American motifs throughout the film (that and the fact that the Overlook was built on an Indian burial ground, a detail not found in King's novel).

For me, however, the most fascinating aspects are in the technical details. Juli Kearns, for instances, takes us around the Overlook and we realise that the set designs are a cornucopia of false corridors, false hallways and false doors (something Rod Ager also does on his website, though he's not in the movie) and, more to the point, that notorious false window in Ullman's office. Both Kearns and Ager maintains that this was done deliberately to confuse viewers, because (and this is something that permeates all comments in Room 237) Kubrick was too much of a control-freak, spent too much time preparing his movies to the tiniest of details that he was incapable of making such obvious mistakes.

Let's see. Do I believe that the bizarre Overlook sets were done deliberately? Why, yes I do. Obviously. Do I believe it was done specifically to confuse viewers and give the impression that the Overlook is a dark, mysterious place full of twists and turns? Not necessarily.

See Stanley Kubrick and his production designer Roy Walker made a film set, not an actual hotel where real people could live in. The strange spatial arrangements, in my opinion, are merely there to convey space and give the impression that the Torrances are actually living in a large, spatious hotel. And, yes, the interior designs doesn't really match the exterior of the hotel (filmed at a real one, the Timberline Lodge), but see Kubrick, despite his stature, never had unlimited money and unlimited time to make his films, so yes, even for him some corners had to be cut. On the other hand, Kubrick could chose which corners to cut making it all the more interesting for amateur critics like ourselves (it still doesn't explain Ullman's fake window, however).

Finally, even more fascinating are John Fell Ryan's analyses. What he did is play the film simultaneously backwards and forwards, surimposed. Many scenes seem to match one another in a most surreal fashion. For instance, the scene where Jack and Grady talk in the men's room, perfectly match a scene of Danny, wide eyed and visibly unnerved giving the impression that he « shines » about this particular encounter. If you watch the film this way, it gives even more power to Danny's ESP as he is literally able to « shine » the entire film before it happens.Wow!

So, would I recommend Room 237 for your approval? Well, yes, sure. It is well-made, some of the points are interesting and the whole thing is certainly a labour of love for anyone involved, however as a serious piece of criticism of a major modern filmmaker it fails because it focuses too much on the pet theories of the participants rather than an ecompassing work on a much misunderstood film. If we use Occam's Rasor, it is clear that Kubrick's intentions was to make a horror film because A) he'd never made one before, B) he needed a commercial commodity for his next project following the box office failure of Barry Lyndon and C) he wanted to put his own stamp on a well known genre much like he did with war movies and science-fiction ones. On that, we can all agree he succeeded admirably.