Peter Lorre; best bad guy ever?


He was so creepy and slimy, i thought it was brillient. Def one of hitchcock's best villans. What does anyone else think?


Brody: You're gonna need a bigger boat.

reply

I'm not entirely sure I'd say, "best ever" but Lorre was absolutely amazing in everything he ever did.

What surprised me the most was to find that he didn't even speak English at the time. That alone is proof of his abilities. Had I not known in advance, I would have bet millions that he already was an English speaker in that film.

reply

A Great Villain.

reply

Yeah, not sure about "best ever", but he really was awesome. He managed to make horrible characters likable, but also believable.

--------------------------------
Oh you mad cuz I'm stylin on you

reply

Did he ever play anyone but psychopaths and/or homos?



"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

reply

Go see him in Double Indemity, and for the icing, My Three Sons Fred McMurray as the villan, foolguy, sap.

reply

Late answer but he wasnt in Double Indemnity.

reply

He was always a great bad guy in movie

reply

He gave his character an essence which can only be felt and not heard, an essence of calmness mixed with brutal actions if needed. This is what made the character a good villian.

"I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not".

reply

I wonder how he would have liked Ronald Lacey's homage to him in Raiders of the Lost Ark?

reply

Peter Lorre was a great villain. He had that unique fearful whingeing quality that belied the usual film bad guy. He comes second to Robert Walker as my favourite Hitchcock villain. The role of Bruno in Strangers On A Train is really chilling. Thinking about it with a bit of a re-write Hitchcock could have used Peter Lorre in that part.

reply

He and Hitchcock were both in America so I'm surprised Hitchcock never used Lorre after Secret Agent. John Huston certainly made a lot of use of Peter Lorre.

reply

That guy freaked the hell out of me. The tone of the film was so cold especially with the lack of music.

reply