Cinema's Unlikable Movie Characters?

[CupofJoe]

Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...

 

[Ian Fortytwo]

Funny I didn't like any character that Tom Hanks played, until I watched The Bridge of Spies and Sully.

 

[Boneman]

Every single character in The Perfect Storm. I know it was 'based' on a true story, but the way they were portrayed just made me want them dead much quicker. (And I think the relatives wanted to sue the film makers for such inaccurate portrayals...?)

 

[Vareor]

Every character played by Shia LaBeouf. Ok, I just don't like the actor.

 

[BAYLOR]

Every character played by Shia LaBeouf. Ok, I just don't like the actor.

I liked in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crytal Skull and Fury . But not much else.

 

[BAYLOR]

Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...

He was very good in The Majestic. I also liked him in The Truman Show and the character that he played . This to is one of his best roles.

Given the sudden resurgence of Disaster movies , I would like to have seen him do Fire Marshall Bill The Movie.

 

[CupofJoe]

He was very good in The Majestic. I also liked him in The Truman Show and the character that he played . This to is one of his best roles.
Given the sudden resurgence of Disaster movies , I would like to have seen him do Fire Marshall Bill The Movie.

Okay I will give you that Jim Carrey wasn't bad in The Truman Show. but I was never a fan of TTS. Pleasantville came out at about the same time and I think did the whole - Are we living a real life? - thing a whole lot better. It was nowhere near as successful but I liked it more.
Having just looked up a clip of YouTube, I would pay money NOT to see any more Fire Marshall Bill

 

[Vareor]

I liked in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crytal Skull and Fury . But not much else.

Oh, I totally forgot he played in Fury. You're right, that was a great movie. Perhaps, being among such a good cast just forced him to elevate his own acting.
I wrote my initial message thinking about his performance in the Transformers series. I guess for me, he's one of those persons you just don't like for reasons even you don't understand.

 

[Narkalui]

What was the one he was in about the moonshiners?

 

[Vareor]

You mean Lawless?

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

Jar Jar Binks

Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so hated. I can certainly think of a number of characters across the SW movies that deserve to be mentioned here...Jar Jar wouldn't exactly be one of the ones at the top of my list.

 

[BAYLOR]

Mr Potter in the film . It's Wonderful Life . Greedy , grasping , Miserly. mean spirited , deceitful and cruel. An Absolutely Irredeemable and evil man.

 

[BAYLOR]

Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so hated.

Because Jar Jar is an idiotic, annoying and otherwise useless character that Lucas should have scrapped.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

How, primarily, did you find him annoying?

 

[Star-child]

Can I ask what everybody so dislikes about this character? I've heard of his unpopularity all over the place, and I've seen the movie several times, but I still don't get why he's so hated. I can certainly think of a number of characters across the SW movies that deserve to be mentioned here...Jar Jar wouldn't exactly be one of the ones at the top of my list.

He's like featuring Scooby Doo in The French Connection. Doesn't fit the story, atmosphere or asthetic of the series. And Jar Jar would grate even in an appropriately child oriented film with his "Mammy" pidgeon English.

 

[Dave]

Just about any character played by Jim Carrey... The only exception is The Majestic [2001]. I liked him in that...
Otherwise, he makes my skin crawl and not in the fun way...

No way! Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is his best film and he isn't funny in anything else. He is just someone who can successfully gurn.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

Because Jar Jar is an idiotic, annoying and otherwise useless character that Lucas should have scrapped.

I can agree with useless, I think, except that that implies he's taking up more space than his role in the story deserves....and I guess I just didn't get that feeling. He was never that big of a character for me to begin with--I always saw him as more of a foil for all the other characters. Almost a bit of the environment (which just happened to more-or-less speak) that they all had to navigate while getting the main business of the plot done. A "pathetic life form" that never tried to be, and was never intended to be, anything more than that within the story.

He's like featuring Scooby Doo in The French Connection. Doesn't fit the story, atmosphere or asthetic of the series. And Jar Jar would grate even in an appropriately child oriented film with his "Mammy" pidgeon English.

Now that's actually sparked an interesting thought in my head...because The Phantom Menace actually featured a very young child main character. And I first watched and enjoyed the movie as a child myself. The character of Jar Jar might not have fit in the original three (more adult) movies, but (setting aside the argument of whether he would even fit in something aimed at children) now I wonder if The Phantom Menace was intended to be aimed more at kids. Could that be why someone with qualities like Jar Jar's was included? It doesn't justify the character, if the character really didn't work...but it does provide something of an explanation for his presence there. I'm wondering if one of the problems is that many people who loved the first three films (probably most of them adults by the time 1999 rolled around) were not expecting a children-oriented film, and thus elements like impulsive-Anakin, and Jar Jar really jarred, if you'll excuse the expression. It would have been like expecting to sit down and finding somebody pulled the chair out from under you. Or, which is probably a closer analogy, paying for a story you expect to be like Lord of the Rings and finding out it's more like a Jane Austen. That can be annoying, and if the story was by an author proven to write stories like Tolkien's--in the same series as this one, no less--then the new Jane-Austen-y elements can definitely feel like they ruined the story.

Does that sound like it could be a plausible, or at least contributing, reason for why Jar Jar is so widely disliked above many SW characters?

 

[BAYLOR]

I can agree with useless, I think, except that that implies he's taking up more space than his role in the story deserves....and I guess I just didn't get that feeling. He was never that big of a character for me to begin with--I always saw him as more of a foil for all the other characters. Almost a bit of the environment (which just happened to more-or-less speak) that they all had to navigate while getting the main business of the plot done. A "pathetic life form" that never tried to be, and was never intended to be, anything more than that within the story.



Now that's actually sparked an interesting thought in my head...because The Phantom Menace actually featured a very young child main character. And I first watched and enjoyed the movie as a child myself. The character of Jar Jar might not have fit in the original three (more adult) movies, but (setting aside the argument of whether he would even fit in something aimed at children) now I wonder if The Phantom Menace was intended to be aimed more at kids. Could that be why someone with qualities like Jar Jar's was included? It doesn't justify the character, if the character really didn't work...but it does provide something of an explanation for his presence there. I'm wondering if one of the problems is that many people who loved the first three films (probably most of them adults by the time 1999 rolled around) were not expecting a children-oriented film, and thus elements like impulsive-Anakin, and Jar Jar really jarred, if you'll excuse the expression. It would have been like expecting to sit down and finding somebody pulled the chair out from under you. Or, which is probably a closer analogy, paying for a story you expect to be like Lord of the Rings and finding out it's more like a Jane Austen. That can be annoying, and if the story was by an author proven to write stories like Tolkien's--in the same series as this one, no less--then the new Jane-Austen-y elements can definitely feel like they ruined the story.

Does that sound like it could be a plausible, or at least contributing, reason for why Jar Jar is so widely disliked above many SW characters?

I liked the first three stars wars films .As for the prequels, I have absolutely no use for them at all. I was so glad when Lucas sold th right to Disney and I like the Abrams films, I like Rogue One and I like Solo.

 

[Star-child]

Does that sound like it could be a plausible, or at least contributing, reason for why Jar Jar is so widely disliked above many SW characters?

All the Star Wars original films were loved by children - I was five when the first came out. So unless Harry Potter would be better with Barney, your thesis doesn't work.

 

[Margaret Note Spelling]

All the Star Wars original films were loved by children - I was five when the first came out. So unless Harry Potter would be better with Barney, your thesis doesn't work.

Actually, I'm making a distinction between a film that is widely enjoyed by kids, and a film that is aimed at kids. Just because kids like the first Star Wars doesn't mean the producers were actually aiming specifically to appeal to kids. If they were, that does change things for the theory. But whether kids like a film or not, the fact is different decisions are made depending on the audience the producers are hoping to snag.

In any case, I'm not even suggesting anything along the lines of The Phantom Menace being better with the addition of Jar Jar Binks. I'm not particularly enamored of the character myself. I'm just a little confused by the chorus of dislike for this one (as far as I'm concerned) more-or-less harmless character. Also, I agree Harry Potter would probably not benefit significantly from the addition of a magical purple dinosaur who sings songs and teaches basic schoolyard rules to children under six years old. If only because none of the characters would listen.

Come to that, I think the theory's really only strengthened by the Barney analogy. Barney himself isn't a particularly bad character--in his place. But to put him in Harry Potter and expect people to take him as seriously as everything else, that's a mistake. I agree it would be a similar mistake with Jar Jar.

I'm just not sure that he was intended to be taken as seriously as everything else in the story.

That's just the way it came across to me when I watched it; I'm honestly not defending the character, or suggesting anyone should actually like him. I suspect he's too far gone for that! I'm just wondering about the existence of an additional reason for all the hatred, another ingredient in the chemical disaster known as Jar Jar Binks. Switchbacked expectations make up an equally valid reason for disliking the character. But I simply don't have a lot of context for identifying how much they overall played into Jar Jar's epic fandom-downfall.