Why Pawbert doesn't work as a villain

To all the Pawbert fans, this isn't a hate piece towards the character. In fact, I agree with y'all that he deserved better and was simply the victim of poor writing. So here's why I believe he doesn't work as a villain, let alone a "twist villain":

1. His design and voice doesn't really scream villain. I'm not saying he should've looked and sounded stereotypically evil but even twist villains who start out nice need to have an appearance that gives off their villainy. Pawbert is just too cute and friendly-looking, even for a twist villain. And I'm not overly familiar with Andy Samberg's work but I heard enough in his voice for Pawbert to know he was completely miscast. I'm not sure who I would get instead but even after Pawbert's evil was revealed Samberg's voice for him just sounds too friendly and nice to really take Pawbert seriously as a villain. Say what you want about Bellwether but she had a good enough design to feel menacing and her voice actress certainly made her sound threatening. Pawbert doesn't have any of that, and no, a split-second shot of him in darkness with his eyes glowing isn't enough.

2. There was no build-up to his villainy. People think a good twist villain means having a character who acts nice the whole time then BAM evil nasty villain, but thats not how it works. There needs to be some sort of build-up and some foreshadowing to their villainy. Going back to Bellwether, you can kinda guess that there was something suspicious about her given how she acts and how much she got involved with Nick and Judy's case. But with Pawbert, his interactions with Judy and Gary feel far too genuine for it to all be an act. If Pawbert had shown some suspicious behaviour with his interactions, his reveal would've been more natural. People compare Pawbert to Hans from Frozen and honestly its true but not in a good way. Then there's his hideout, which is filled with cat things, toys and everything. He seemed to put WAY too much effort into this "getaway hideout" for somebody who desperately wants approval from his abusive family and just for one night so he can backstab his friends the next day.

3. The way he goes crazy in the final act was borderline Looney Tunes-level and makes it harder to take him seriously. And that Shining reference just further cemented that. It feels like the writers didn't know how to make him more threatening so they decided to throw in the "Sanity Slippage" trope which again, felt forced and removed any sort of menace Pawbert had little of. Not to mention he becomes more woobie-ish as the film progresses and more of a joke. He was defeated by a frying pan to the head for crying out loud. If that doesn't tell you how needlessly wacky he became after his betrayal I don't know what will.

IMO, Pawbert would've worked better as a minor supporting character. He would definitely be the only good Lynxley who didn't approve of his family's beliefs but would be too scared to stand up to him or leave him. But as the film goes on he later plucks up the courage to turn on them and help out Judy, Nick and Gary in the climax. It may be "cliche" but so is having him be a twist villain (and a very poor one at that). But if you were to ask me "how do you fix Pawbert as a villain?" to be honest, I don't think you can. I've already stated in the first point that his voice and design isn't villain material. So honestly, the only other way to fix Pawbert other than making him a supporting character would be to just cut him out of the film entirely. Milton and the other Lynxleys work perfectly fine as threatening villains and, given how Pawbert's betrayal completely robs them of a more climactic showdown, that would probably be for the better.

You're welcome to disagree but really, I believe the writers should've planned out Pawbert's character better.