Oil Can Harry? Tying women to railroad tracks, come on.
In The Long Goodbye (1973 film), the gangster, Marty Augustine, threatens Phillip Marlowe by smashing in his (Marty’s) girlfriend’s face with a Coke bottle and saying: “Now, that’s someone I love! And you I don’t even like!”. Which is really over the top crazy, even for a gangster.
The comparison I’ve heard before is to a Robin’s egg, not a chicken egg. Robin eggs are 2-3 cm.
If men had two chicken eggs between their legs they’d have a hard time walking.
For over the top villians (other than comic book villains like the Joker or the Riddler), I’d nominate Hans Gruber in Die Hard. Alan Rickman chewed the scenery deliciously in that role.
I’ll counter with Alan Rickman as the Sheriff of Nottingham.
“Oh, and call off Christmas!”
Bear in mind that much of what we see of Hans Gruber is him putting on a show. He’s playing the part of a terrorist, so they (and the FBI) will believe he’s a terrorist, and respond as if he’s a terrorist, without which his entire plan falls apart.
Other than his entire plan being unrealistically elaborate, I don’t think he fits what the OP was talking about very well at all.
zOrg has to be in this list somewhere.
One thing that struck me about the two Hulk movies: the portrayal of General Ross.
Sam Elliot’s character was an antagonist, but you understood his motives, and might even sympathize.
William Hurt’s character might as well have been twirling his mustache and tying damsels to railroad tracks.
I agree. Hans tries very hard to appear to be over the top, but in the end he’s just a common thief.
He is an exceptional thief!
Well, except for that part where he dies during the heist.
And the fact that he apparently made no plans to pack and carry all those $600M in Barry Bonds. That was a lot of paper, and it got spread all over the floor in haste. They should have planned better, brought boxes or plastic locking bins. Could even have divided the loot on-site.
Even for 1988, that’s an over-evaluation of Mr. Bonds.
It was actually a mix. The drug gang that was bank rolling the local baddies had a habit of using brutality to keep people in line, but two of the main U.S. baddies were total sadists.
Wise choice. I did finish it and was wildly disappointed. Every character decayed rapidly until they were at most caricatures, who completely lost their minds and motivations or lose any agency they previously had.
I didn’t watch past Season 1 of Game of Thrones, but I’m wondering if any of those villains qualified? What put me off is there seemed a hell of a lot of torture and rape. Did it get to the point of silliness?
Not really, because everybody was villains.
Lysa Arryn might qualify for the over-the-top aspect, but she was more gross and pathetic than silly.
It could be argued Joffrey got to the point of over-the-top silliness when as king, he started bringing in prostitutes for the sole purpose of beating them, and eventually killing them with his crossbow.
And this would be cases where the character displays foolishness and stupidity but, to use the OP’s phrasing, their actions land more on the “disturbing” side.
( And yeah, the unsympathetic characters in that series, run a range from just f-ing dicks to damn outright psychos and even plain and simply monsters, but seldom are to laugh at over anything but their downfall.)
I’m glad I stopped watching after Season 1. That was enough for me.
But what you’re describing in terms of the range of villainy reminds me of why Lois McMaster Bujold does antagonists so well in her Vorkosigan Saga series. Yet even her most evil of evil villains don’t strike me as over the top, which makes me wonder what characteristics make such a villain “silly.” Is it when their actions stop making sense with regard to their apparent motivation?
Baron Ryoval in Mirror Dance, for instance, exists for the sole purpose of inflicting suffering on others. That’s what he enjoys. So it’s not particularly surprising when he comes up with new and innovative ways to inflict suffering on people. And why he got so frustrated and thrown off guard when his tortured prisoner Mark didn’t seem to be suffering enough. That, to me, is a character that makes sense, no matter the depths of his evil.
Yeah, I wouldn’t call a character who’s a rapist and serial killer “over the top.” Exceptionally evil, sure, but also that’s just… a thing that really exists. Rapists and serial killers exist, and sometimes they hold social positions where they can rape and murder and be essentially untouchable. That’s not “over the top,” that’s just depressingly realistic.
To me, an “over the top” villain is one who has clearly put a lot of thought into the theatricality of villainhood. A guy murdering someone with a butcher’s knife isn’t over the top. A guy who buys a knife that looks like it came from the cover of a third-tier fantasy novel, and gives a big monolog about “the philosophy of the blade” while flipping the knife around and occasionally licking it is over the top.
Or, as Mega Mind put it:
The Max Cady character in Scorcese’s “Cape Fear” is way over the top, especially at the end of the film, although I wonder how much of that was unintentional, because the director clearly had some fun with the portrayal. At the end, Cady’s superhuman/otherworldly attributes reminded me of a demented amalgamation of the possessed Regan in “The Exorcist,” the T-1000 flailing about in the molten metal in “Terminator 2: Judgment Day” and the Spirit baptism phenomenon of Charismatic Christians (“holy rollers,” speaking in tongues, etc.) What a creepy film.