Really? While I agree Jason Isaacs is underrated, the writing for his character was one-dimensional and bland. No background or motivation for his hatred of American revolutionists that goes to higher levels than any other Brit in the movie. Another "I'm the bad guy because somebody needs to be the bad guy" type characters. Kind of like Brendan Gleeson's character in Kingdom of Heaven.



This post was edited by CarsV on Nov 15 2018 01:42pm

I think that just spawns the debate of "does evil exist by itself?"

if the answer is no, and all evil is just the result of abuse or rare brain disorders, then i agree, motivation is paramount for justifying a truly wicked villain.

if the answer is yes, then i feel the villains with a lack of motivation may be the best ones.

Take heath ledger's Joker, he gives a few different conflicting stories about "how he got these scars", all of which by themselves would be a great backstory for how he became a villain. but since he gives conflicting accounts there's a chance they're all lies, and he's just a wicked evil character. chaos personified.

in the case of Patriot, any villain willing to burn a whole town alive to smoke out the protagonist is starting off pretty good in my book. the actor just takes it to the next level, his ability to convey a smug, snarky, better than everyone villain really appeals to me.

also consider how it can hurt a villain if their backstory isn't sufficient. that's how i felt with Thanos. his world died due to overpopulation, then he spent a long time all over the galaxy. he shouldn't have been able to keep that fury through the years of seeing different planets, and he seems like an OK guy personally. it just didnt quite click for me, but i know lots of the comic book characters u have to suspend belief with. its just marvel has done a good job tweaking other characters for the screen like Nolan did for batman source material.

I have not watched Kingdom of heaven, but i will after watching that!

This post was edited by thesnipa on Nov 15 2018 01:44pm

Make sure you watch the Director's Cut then, it's a slightly better telling of the story. Just remember to take the movie with a grain of salt. While Ridley Scott is phenomenal at creating visuals, sets, and atmospheres for his films, he has a poor track record for historical authenticity and KoH is no exception. I think my biggest gripe with the movie is the end, where the Christians and other various peoples were allowed to leave as free people with Saladin's word, later showing Saladin respectfully pick up a cross to put it on a table. How politically correct lol. In reality, many of the people in the city were enslaved and only those who were able to buy their freedom, such as wealthy nobles, were allowed to leave.

This post was edited by CarsV on Nov 15 2018 02:08pm

ahh thanks for the heads up, i'll bring the salt!

i do love a ridley scott movie, i seem to be able to suspend disbelief and not go at them too much for historical accuracy, he does paint a great picture.

They wouldn't even be allowed to make a movie like KoH in today's leftist hollywood

black panther 2 trailer soon™

Actually KoH is a prime example of today's Hollywood revisionism. You've fallen behind mate.

I'd argue that its still not far enough to the left. Christians cant be portrayed as good people

and they surely would have to force the black, latino, female, gay and transgender quotas even in the film's historical setting in lily-white, puritan 18th century america.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Nov 15 2018 03:09pm