Which actor playing a film's villain was wasted most?

He is chaotic, but he's also rather random. He just did whatever, and it all worked perfectly.

__________________
Thanks again, Mr Portridge.

Jim Carrey in Batman Forever
I am liked him in totally a different concept.

I was thinking about Frank Langella as Skeletor and in a sense he was wasted but more importantly carried the film. Collossal, virtually stage acting. Incredible.

One of the best (or worst?) examples for me was General Grievous; I liked the idea and design, but in Revenge of the Sith he's basically just slapped on there to sell a toy. He's much more menacing in the Clone Wars cartoon shorts that came out before the movie.

Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor in Superman Returns.

I thought he could have been as good as Gene Hackman in the 1978 Superman movie, but the movie was so bad that he never had a chance to shine.

__________________
.
If I answer a game thread correctly, just skip my turn and continue with the game.
OPEN FLOOR.

by far mathieu amalric from quantum of solace as the most unused villain in bond history its a shame really , and second is christoph waltz in spectre

Iron Man 2 was the final nail in my superhero-film coffin, in part because Rourke's character was a waste of time in every aspect, except Rourke's performance. He had nothing with which to work, despite the potential.

That's a good inclusion. Grevious had the tools to be great, but the movie made him a coward (though I haven't watched the show, but I could still see untapped potential), and he barely did anything before dying. At least his fight with Kenobi is good.

That film wastes everything, especially my time, and sanity. It's horrendous in every way.

Molina was wasted? No way. He's one of the best superhero movie villains.

The movie itself is among the best in the genre. Arguably THE best.

Ah, to each their own.

He was great in a nice homage to Hackman as well as the Reeve Superman films.

I enjoyed what he did and I think the character was a great success. That said, it's always difficult to guage how good a comic book film is when you're not immersed in that world. I loved X-Men Origins: Wolverine and then I found out about the backlash .

I could go on about bad movie villains forever, but in terms of actors I like I felt really could've pulled it off, but didn't for whatever reason are

-Jamie Foxx, Paul Giamatti, and Dane DeHaan, The Amazing Spiderman 2
-Oscar Issac, X-Men: Apocalypse
-Jesse Eisenberg, Batman V Superman (although I would put it in the bad it's good category)

Honestly, on the top of my head, that's all I've got. For whatever reason I just have superhero films on the mind for this topic, probably since the recent superhero villains on screen (save for a few) have been pretty lackluster, regardless of who they get.

Vincent D'Onofrio's Kingpin seems to have been the most successful comic book villain lately. From what I've seen his acting's tremendous.

I haven't watched any of the big live action superhero shows of recent years, so I don't have any input on if any of those are superior. I think they have a major advantage over the movies, considering superhero movies are so bloated nowadays, and they have to focus on making the heroes memorable since there's so many of them, some of the time all at once, like The Avengers, save for a TV show, where you could dedicate entire episodes to the villain if you wanted to. I think that's why the more memorable ones this decade, like Loki, for example, are so strong, because he's been in so many of them already, and has had more time to develop than the others that have significantly less time to.

Surely Loki?

Two problems there: 1) Haven't seen much of any of the films with him in; 2) Can't stand the actor .

I like Loki a lot. Hiddleston too. He's a great kind of indecipherable in High-Rise.

I don't blame you for skipping the Thor movies. New one looks cool, though.

High-Rise would be interesting to see. My first awareness of the story was finding out that the Doctor Who serial Paradise Towers was based on it, but I also really liked Ballard's Crash and I remember how well the book was written.

I wouldn't say it's intentional but I'm very rarely in the mood to watch anything these days. I tend to catch bits of things at different times, like filming out of sequence . The new Thor looks fun, and Goldblum's always worth watching.

It got a divided reception. It's very "in your face" so if you're hoping for some Snowpiercer level subtlety and subtext, you're in for the wrong movie.

Worked fine for me though, particularly because I've been under the impression that subversive messages and subtlety are not gonna cut it this time around.

We're probably in need of more movies that grab the audience and present their messages in such a fashion.