The New Weenie Enema Mission.

TV Shows.
1. Cody (from Step by Step)

I can't really tell if Cody is capable of violence or pure evil, but he's a habitual pot user and doesn't have a conception of boundaries. And although I haven't seen this show since the TGIF golden years, I recall that he was a 20-something unemployed loon who lived in a trailer in the backyard or something. People without money who barge into their wealthier neighbors' kitchens all the time are a COPS episode away from becoming registered sex offenders. How do you think Joey Buttafuoco got started?

2. Ryan O'Reily (from Oz)

This was a really hard decision, because EVERYONE on Oz deserves to be on this list, except for the guy in the wheelchair. However, Ryan O'Reily is the only one who (so far; I'm only on Season 3) has actually developed an unhealthy fixation on someone else. Alright, that's not true. There is more anal penetration on this show than in Andy Dick's house, but I don't get legit stalker vibes from those people - just sexually frustrated inmates letting off some steam. Ryan O'Reily has his retarded brother kill the husband of his doctor crush. Sickness.

3. Oliver Trask (from The O.C.)

I'm not sure this counts, because he may have actually gotten a restraining order on the show for being completely psychotic and pulling a gun on Marissa. But really, who DIDN'T want to aim a pistol at Marissa? What assures Oliver's place on the list is the fact that he's not only mentally unstable, but he KNOWS it, so he makes an extra effort to hide it and manipulate people. He also tried to kill Ryan with a golf cart.

4. Milhouse Van Houten (from The Simpsons)

There may be more dangerous characters in Springfield - Snakes the perpetual robber of the Quickie-Mart comes to mind, as do Mr. Burns, Barney and Maggie. However, Milhouse has some real issues. He clearly has a social disorder derived from intense inadequacy issues, and he's shown a queer obsession in multiple episodes with Lisa Simpson. It's always the little social misfits with thick glasses that end up terrorizing a quiet town later on in life.

5. Byron Sully (from Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman)

Those hands have seen blood.
Sully was never portrayed in a negative light during the five years this show was on the air. However, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances that point to the potential for murder, stalking, indecent exposure, and animal mutilation. Number one, he was raised by a wild tribe of Indians in the Colorado wilderness - he doesn't live in civilization until he starts boning Dr. Quinn. He also has a weird bond with wild animals, one suggests because he himself is one. There is absolutely no reason for Sully to develop a legitimate loyalty to any non-dog on the show, and if Dr. Quinn had been on longer, he most assuredly would have butchered the entire family. Did I mention he knows how to throw a tomahawk?

Books.
1. Roger (from Lord of the Flies)

Before claiming that it was inevitable, that a group of boys living on an island without adults HAD to become a horde of barbarian murderers, let's remember who started that shit. Philip and Piggy got "it." They understand the importance of civilization and a structural system of governmentation - Roger understood that too, but only to the point where it benefited him and thrust him into power. I hold him personally responsible for the death of Piggy, the greatest character literature has ever known.

2. James Gatz/Jay Gatsby (from The Great Gatsby)

I think people tend to forget that, behind those amazing parties and debonair Roaring Twenties vibe, Gatsby was hardcore messed up. He had a sole fixation for years, accumulating massive amounts of wealth (illegally, I might add) to attract the attention of a girl he had been dating before being shipped off to war. So you've got a guy who FOLLOWED a girl to Long Island, who changed his name, who tries to break up a marriage, and has absolutely no conception of reality. Creepy.

3. Napoleon (from Animal Farm)

This book scared the living shizzle out of me. Evil people, I can deal with, but evil animals? Not so much. Maybe it's just that image at the end of the book where the piggies are dressed in human clothing and walking around on their hind legs that sends chills down my spine. If a pig dressed in breeches was chasing after me, I would literally die. I considered including Snowball in this entry, but Snowball was overthrown by Napoleon after teaching the other animals how to read and proposing the idea of building a windmill to ease the workload on the farm. I heart literate animals.

4. Boo Radley (from To Kill A Mockingbird)

I was really torn between Boo and Bob Ewell, who spits in Atticus' face and tries to kill Jem in the woods on Halloween. Mr. Ewell is an obvious physical threat, but it's such a blatant violence embedded in stupidity - as long as you didn't join the NAACP, he wasn't going to do anything to you. However, Boo is legitimately crazy. There's a reason why he never leaves his house, except to give creepy gifts to Scout in the tree. Lest we forget that he has a history of stabbing family members with scissors, and there's no evidence in any part of the book that they've fixed whatever's wrong with him, even if he does peacefully hold hands with Scout on the porch swing. For Christ sake, he was HIDING behind Jem's door when she found him.

5. Cathy/Kate (from East of Eden)

In the book, she's 10 times more evil. Steinbeck even insinuates that she's legitimately (I'm not sure how legitimate you can be about something like this) the Devil's spawn. She totally might be. I don't want the offspring of Satan anywhere near me. Among her many items of accomplishment, she drugs Adam Trask so she can sleep with his brother, shoots Adam Trask and leaves him to raise their children, bites Samuel like a rabid animal, and kills a madam, takes over her whore house and starts a business involving a razer and nethers.

Since I found this subject incredibly interesting, I polled the world about it and received some fascinating responses.

Morgan Grod: Lord Voldemort (from Harry Potter)
Ricky Raccoon: Oedipus (from Oedipus Rex)
Anthony Salazar: Hannibal Lecter (from Hannibal)
Maulik Sharma: He-Man
Inna Rudman: the guy who killed Patrick Swayze in Ghost (we do not know if she meant the actual guy or the one who orchestrated the murder so he could bonk Demi)
Nicole Thomas: the Mad Hatter (from Alice in Wonderland) and Sting (from "Every Breath You Take")
Ingrid Stenquist: Archie Andrews (from Archie comics)
Charlie Quiroz: Miss Jai Alexander (from America's Next Top Model)
Emily "Swooodog" Sworen: Pee-Wee Herman (from Pee-Wee's Playhouse)
Katie Coleman: an Oompa Loompa (from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory)
Laine Whitcomb: Uriah Heep (from David Copperfield)

Alana Gans, who found this question a little TOO fun, literally submitted a pile of Post-Its for her response. That's the sort of thing that makes me want to include her as an entry above, but she is not fictional. Besides, I actually think her choices are pretty good. They include:
Donnie Darko (from Donnie Darko)
The Shark (from Jaws)
Alex (from A Clockwork Orange)

If you feel the need to express your opinion on the matter, comment away.

Friday, September 22, 2006

If Sean Penn Hadn't Decided To Save Katrina Refugees By Piling Them All Into His Dinky Rowboat, I Would Vote For Him in a Lousiana Gubernatorial Race.

2.5 stars.
Oscar bait is a funny thing. At some point in the movie-making process, between the time when the idea of the movie is conceived and when it's actually released in theaters, someone decides that the material they're dealing with deserves recognition. It's a very presumptious action - the movie hasn't even been seen by anyone unconnected to the production. Often though, they get it right. They have a great idea, a great script, a great cast, and every element clicks and they release it in the late fall and get their accolades. However, sometimes it doesn't work out. Maybe what seemed to click on paper didn't click on film. Maybe the heralded actor didn't bring it this time. Whatever the reason, every year, you have a movie that screams, "I want an Oscar!" and it doesn't get it. Maybe it gets a nomination or two, but it's not the colossal Academy Award juggarnaut it thought it was.

Such is the case with "All the King's Men." They had an idea - remake a movie that won Best Picture over 50 years ago. It's material that has proven to be successful once before, so why not go for it again? The problem was that they got greedy. They were handed an award-winning concept on a silver platter, and they suddenly found themselves with a plethora of proven, capable actors and lost their way.

I have never seen the original movie or read the book. I'm sure they're both very good. The only thing that I had some idea about going into this movie was that it was based on the life of Huey Long, the corrupt Louisiana governor from earlier in the last century. Idealistic populists who slowly but surely sink into the pits of political corruption are fascinating characters, and the fictionalized version of Long in the guise of Willy Stark is no exception.

Why doesn't the movie want to focus on me?

I heart Sean Penn. I think he just secured himself another nomination and possible win with this. The only review I've read of this was a scathing, nasty critique by the New York Post, but I have no doubt that they won't be the last publication to claim Penn was "hamming it." Bull. It's an absolutely unfair dig to make, especially since the entire character is over the top and practically combusting with energy - hell, it's the qualities that get the guy elected in the first place. I have a not-so-sneaking suspicion that Sean Penn is a LOT like Willy Stark when he gets his own personally molded pulpit to preach from, but so what? Even in scenes where Stark is quietly fuming at the world, glaring at potential detracters and becoming increasingly eccentric and paranoid, it's the same energy he's delivering the stump speeches with all over again. However, Sean Penn is the only good thing in this movie. There really is nothing else to go see this for. The fatal flaw in this movie (and I could probably point to several) is that they decided to tell this story from the point of view of Jude Law's character, a wholly unimpressive beat reporter with a one-dimensional personality.

Tell me about it.

As an aside, and I know this is the definition of beating a dead horse, but when did everyone decide Jude Law was a legitimate actor? He's the male version of Jessica Alba, but for some reason, everyone wants to pretend that he's not or that he'll somehow develop an as-yet unseen acting ability if you keep giving him juicy parts. No. That's not how this works. If you had cast Jessica Alba as the lead in Titanic, the ship would have gone down days before it went near an iceberg. There isn't an ounce of talent in that girl, but the differentiator is that EVERYONE KNOWS THAT. She's not cast in movies because she's going to strengthen the acting - she's eye candy and nothing more, and I can't imagine that even she doesn't know that. And because of that universal knowledge, she gets handed roles in shit movies that don't rely on acting to make money, i.e., Sin City or Fantastic Four. In this way, Jessica Alba's inability to pretend to be someone not named Jessica Alba doesn't even have the CHANCE of infecting a potential Oscar-caliber movie. Not so with Jude, and that's what makes him so dangerous.

Insert joke about the dog being the better actor.

Jude Law's character gets entangled with Willie Stark while he's covering the story of his political ascent for the local newspaper. Through his eyes, we watch Stark rise from a complete unknown in a small town to a corrupt governor on the take. There is absolutely no need whatsoever to have Jude Law's character in this movie. None. You don't need him to tell this story. Stark's sheer presence automatically eliminates the need to have his rise and fall dictated by another character that's not as strong. To make matters worse, there's a ridiculous, needless subplot with Kate Winslet. Now, I love Kate. I can't think of anyone with a better fake American accent on the planet besides Hugh Laurie. But this is (or at least SHOULD) be a story about Willy Stark, not some ridiculous love interest that Jude Law had years before that does nothing but divert attention away from the plot at hand.

Eat your heart out, Jessica Alba.

Anthony Hopkins also made his way into this movie. The entire production is teaming with British actors playing Southerners. Unlike Kate and Jude, who has a sucky American accent but at least puts forth some semblance of effort, Hopkins apparently decided that he's such a Welsh badass that he doesn't even NEED the Southern accent. I suppose in the long run, accents in a movie aren't as important as the other elements, but come ON. You're playing the former governor of Louisiana. He doesn't have an English accent, regardless of whether you live in a stately mansion along the bayou.

I'm too important of an actor to ACT.

The only other character besides Willy Stark that was mildly interesting was Mark Ruffalo's character, the son of the former governor who's brought into some pseudo, for-the-public-good hospital operation so that Willy Stark can be associated with his famous father. It would have been yet another pointless extension of an already long movie, but at least with this guy, you can see a) a direct contrast to what Willy has become and that idealism that he left behind and b) an actual, personal victim of what Stark inflicts on the state. Do they follow up on that? Not really. He's barely in the movie, submerged by the needlessness that is Jude Law and a slew of actors who didn't need to be in this.

The bottom line is that this movie suffers when it doesn't have Sean Penn. Because of the infinite number of subplots that have no real bearing on his character, the audience doesn't get a real sense of HOW Willy Stark morphed into the cynical, influential bureaucrat. We see a few scenes of him as the idealistic, naive country hick who's taken advantage of by more experienced politicos, but then it just shoots ahead a few years and doesn't show us what happened. One suspects that Stark actually tried to accomplish something positive and noble when he first came into office, but we never see that. We never see what happens when Stark's first efforts as governor are stifled and he has to turn to nefarious schemes to get what he wants accomplished - we just hear second-person accounts by Jude Law, who almost literally was taking a fork and knife, cutting the scenery into little pieces and chewing on it. The world would benefit greatly if they ignored everything in this movie except what it should have been about.