ITT: God tier movie antagonists

ITT: God tier movie antagonists

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4au9uzYhDik
youtube.com/watch?v=bYuZX7swc5Y
m.youtube.com/watch?v=tU4MUub9aGg
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

...

>Anton
>Antagonist

Even if you fuck with him he gives you a chance to live. Just don't take him for granted like this retard.

...

Loved him in NCFOM.

...

That is not Keyser Soze

Rewatch the film

Gus fring is Keyser Soze

...

>I'll fuck anything that moves!

what on earth did he mean by this

Wrong! You see I am Keyser Soze. Rewatch the film.

...

...

No. Seriously. Gus Fring is Keyser Soze

He hired Verbal to lie to the cops, disguised himself as a fed, and forced the Hungarian to describe Verbal's portrait to the cops

...

...

Hans Gruber

Thanks for the ride lady...thanks for the ride

...

The character is not literally expressing anything along the lines of bisexual or other deviant sexual desire with this line (apart from the play-acting we've already seen). Instead, he is simply exuberant at being in complete control of the situation, and being "on the prowl" with his squad. This is both machismo, bigging himself up in his squad's eyes, and just generally, unironically enjoying himself.

On the other hand the display can also be read as compensating for his submissive kinky side, where he sorta-wants to bottom for a woman, but his necessary machismo in his line of work (violent career criminal) doesn't square with such desires and makes such desires dangerous. So to satisfy his urges he uses a captive woman and forces her to play-act as his top while he tops from the bottom, leading to an unpleasant and unsatisfying scene where neither party receives genuine gratification.

I'm satisfied that Frank was 100% straight, given everything we ever see about the character. He just also happens to be kinky but his line of work prevents him from scratching that itch in a healthy way so he has to engineer it and compartmentalize it in an awful way and then later overcompensate his own masculinity, hence the boast.

Carl Sagan?

...

Here's a (You).
Elaborate.

This sick fuck

Tom Hanks makes them go further and further in to Hell. He is the gondalier on the river styx forcing the soldiers to go further and further for a cause they are scared of (death).

They all actually died on the beach though and they are simply trying to find themselves (scared soldier) to be at peace.

I can get with that.
But you're being cynical about a mother's pain, perhaps.

...

YEP!

...

yep

...

...

...

underrated

Overrated

Undo thyself, foul serf.

Caught this film last night, this guy makes a great antagonist.

Kino cripple villain

...

Also, Le Chiffre

...

make sure u only talk like that here, pal.

who dis?

exactly what i imagined in the book

...

Ahh yes, the walking dude. AKA vice prez in Homeland.

guys please shut the fuck up I miss my ex's pussy whenever I see this movie

...

Whiplash.

Watch it.

This is a legend, J.K Simmons, in the movie Whiplash

...

...

...

Bacon plays great bad guys, you genuinely trust him at first and then you really wanna fucking kill him later

...

...

Best monster in the past 20 years

...

>THIS
>IS
>AMAAAZZIIIINNNGGGGG

*splat*

Didn't Samuel L have to tell him to stop being a bitch and say "nigger"?

...

CRINGE THREAD?
youtube.com/watch?v=4au9uzYhDik

>GOAT villains are old white bald men
Really makes you think

isnt he technically the protagonist too

yeah probably

>You will never have a qt Tom riddle boyfriend to cuddle to.
Just kill me

The T1000 suuuuuuuuuuuucked. Nothing it did made any sense, it disappeared for an entire hour of movie, and then shows up to die stupidly.

>keep your lovin' brother happy ;)

The final duel is so fucking amazing, the music and the focus on their eyes mad is absolutely perfect, it was the first film i saw as a child that made me see film as art.

Terrible movie, but that motherfucker is brilliant.

We want what's in the motherfuckin safe....

the joke
your head

Also made a great protagonist in Oz.

"Hummel from Alcatraz. Out."

youtube.com/watch?v=bYuZX7swc5Y

wat in le fuk?!

Was pretty interesting that at the end of the movie he was a dead man walking.

>Go to try and save one mothers son
>End up getting the sons of many mothers killed.

Step the fuck up, Sup Forums

...

...

No one?

...

BITCHES LEAVE

But he was the protagonist.

not to the quality of the films

DICK JONES, IT WAS DICK JONES

Tom Riddle is not a great, or even competently written villain, though that's hardly a surprise considering he's the main antagonist of one of the dullest franchises in the history of movie franchises.

Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody?just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though
"No!"
The writing is dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs."

I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing. Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

>Engineer
>antagonist

The crew were their own antagonist.

can you give me the rundown

Right here

fucking brick top here got a bit scary in a few scenes

>that low tier bait image

I think you oughta rewatch the film my dude

Be it a rock or a grain of sand, in water they sink as the same.

...

none of the guys in this thread are in the top 3 tiers

You've clearly never seen I saw the Devil

...

COUNTHILLOR!! COUNTHILLOR!! COULD YOU BE THERE?

m.youtube.com/watch?v=tU4MUub9aGg

based thread

really makes you think

sounds about right