BEST MOVIE VILLAIN: Hans Gruber vs Hans Landa

[Darth Knox]

So, I thought I would do something a little different. Rather than have people pick their top 11 choices in a certain category, I thought why not create a match-up discussion. And, I think I have picked two great choices to go head-to-head for this first debate.

*PLEASE NOTE*
This discussion is purely about these two characters, so if possible, try not to introduce other movie villains into the discussion.

******************************************

We all love a good movie villain and when they are done well, their portrayal leaves an impression on moviegoers for years. Two of the best loved villains just happen to share the same name.

Hans Gruber in Die Hard was the movie that introduced the world to the acting brilliance of Alan Rickman (RIP). He is one of the reasons Die Hard is considered one of the best action movies of all time.

Hans Landa in Inglorious Basterds was the movie that introduced the general movie going audience to Christoph Waltz. From the opening farmhouse scene, he dominates every frame of the movie in which he appears.

So, I leave it to the group to decide: Who is the best movie villain.

[Jev Moldara]

I like them both, but Gruber wins out because of Rickman's understated performance.

[Darth Knox]

You didn't find Christoph's performance understated? (except the OTT gleeful part at the end of the movie).

[Jev Moldara]

You didn't find Christoph's performance understated? (except the OTT gleeful part at the end of the movie).

Landa came off as a Card Carrying Villain while Gruber was more composed and professional.

[Darth Knox]

Landa came off as a Card Carrying Villain while Gruber was more composed and professional.

Gruber never had a scene as great as the farm house opener or the cafe scene with the strudel.

Yes Gruber was more composed/professional, however having a villain who is almost gleeful about being evil (like Loki to some respect) then it makes it very engaging.

I'm not saying I don't agree with you, just playing devil's advocate at the moment.

Here's a question: Would either movie work just as well if you took the character out?

In my opinion, Gruber shares the lead with John McLane. Landa is just a huge presence in the movie, even when he's not on screen. I love both actors/characters/films.

[Hansrad]

Hans Landa gets my vote. He's so polite and just evil. Those two things together make for a very interesting character.

[scifidude79]

Hm, well I've seen Die Hard way more than I've seen Inglourious Basterds, though I did just pick that up on Blu-ray recently.  (haven't watched it yet, though)  Hans vs Hans.  Hm, that's a tough one.  Both are fantastic roles played by brilliant actors.  Their styles couldn't be more different, in terms of how they played those roles.  Christoph Waltz brought that exuberance that he brings to all of his roles, a gusto that's uniquely him and speaks for his style.  Meanwhile, Alan Rickman (RIP) was more cool, calm and calculating.  He went in with a well laid out plan and would have succeeded, if not for a certain NYPD detective in the wrong place at the right time.  Acting wise, you really can't find a fault with either.  So, you have to go straight to the characters.  Both were entirely out for their own ends, and both viewed any means they had to go to as necessary means.  Now, I think it's probably true that Landa enjoyed killing more so than Gruber.  Gruber approached killing in a very cold and detached manner, it was the means to an end.  With Landa, hunting and killing Jews was more of a thrill.  Sure, you saw some possible remorse from him in the later stages of the film, but was it true remorse?  I think he was sad that the end of the war was coming and he wasn't going to keep killing with impunity.  I think he didn't feel bad about anything he did, he was more worried about looking remorseful so that he could survive the end of the war.  Hans Gruber was only out for money, that's all.  So, as far as being all out bad guys go, I think you have to give it to Landa.  He killed and killed with glee, he relished in it and was sad that it was all coming to an end.  Gruber was just out for money and only killed to get his money.  Sure, he had been a terrorist, but was he was excommunicated from his terrorist group, and seemed more to be using that more to further his plan of making the FBI think the attack on the tower was an act of terrorism.

So, Hans Landa for me, if I have to pick a winner.  However, both are incredibly complex characters who were played masterfully by superb actors.

Here's a question: Would either movie work just as well if you took the character out?

No.  Both villains and the actors who played them helped make both movies great.

[Darth Knox]

Hm, well I've seen Die Hard way more than I've seen Inglourious Basterds, though I did just pick that up on Blu-ray recently.  (haven't watched it yet, though)  Hans vs Hans.  Hm, that's a tough one.  Both are fantastic roles played by brilliant actors.  Their styles couldn't be more different, in terms of how they played those roles.  Christoph Waltz brought that exuberance that he brings to all of his roles, a gusto that's uniquely him and speaks for his style.  Meanwhile, Alan Rickman (RIP) was more cool, calm and calculating.  He went in with a well laid out plan and would have succeeded, if not for a certain NYPD detective in the wrong place at the right time.  Acting wise, you really can't find a fault with either.  So, you have to go straight to the characters.  Both were entirely out for their own ends, and both viewed any means they had to go to as necessary means.  Now, I think it's probably true that Landa enjoyed killing more so than Gruber.  Gruber approached killing in a very cold and detached manner, it was the means to an end.  With Landa, hunting and killing Jews was more of a thrill.  Sure, you saw some possible remorse from him in the later stages of the film, but was it true remorse?  I think he was sad that the end of the war was coming and he wasn't going to keep killing with impunity.  I think he didn't feel bad about anything he did, he was more worried about looking remorseful so that he could survive the end of the war.  Hans Gruber was only out for money, that's all.  So, as far as being all out bad guys go, I think you have to give it to Landa.  He killed and killed with glee, he relished in it and was sad that it was all coming to an end.  Gruber was just out for money and only killed to get his money.  Sure, he had been a terrorist, but was he was excommunicated from his terrorist group, and seemed more to be using that more to further his plan of making the FBI think the attack on the tower was an act of terrorism.

So, Hans Landa for me, if I have to pick a winner.  However, both are incredibly complex characters who were played masterfully by superb actors.

Point for a really well thought out and articulated response.

[scifidude79]

Well, I didn't want to just pick one, so I gave it some actual thought.

[Darth Knox]

Well, I didn't want to just pick one, so I gave it some actual thought.

Thinking can be so important (sometimes ).

[Darth Tepes]

Have to go with Landa.  Not much more I can add to it that Scifidude didn't cover as it pretty much mirrors my own opinion.