Send in 3 Proofs of Purchase and Receive Your Very Own Emmy in 3-6 Weeks! (Caution: Sarcasm Even More Biting Than Usual)

I'm fed up with awards shows. As though it wasn't bad enough last week when Kanye (the most egotistical jerk on the face of this or any other planet) went after Taylor Swift (the nicest, sweetest human being to ever walk the Earth). Before I get to my main point, if I ever do, I'd like to point out that I have declared a moratorium on Kanye songs. I don't ever want to hear one again. If someone nearby is playing a Kanye song and they refuse to switch it off, I will react as though they are Kanye himself and I will lay them to waste. Sure, I'm scrawny and I probably couldn't beat Taylor Swift in a fight let alone her attacker. However, my superior intellect will allow me to go all Lex Luthor on any remaining Kanye fans (so, Kanye).

Somewhat related point: how is Beyonce's video containing three people dancing in front of a blank background the video of the year? I've seen more creative variety than that on Scooby Doo.

Anyway, that's just a frustration over a fake awards show that no one would've cared about if it didn't contain purity being attacked by pure evil (noun vs. oxymoron cage match). A real awards show, the Oscars, was also quite disappointing much earlier this year. Why? Because I hadn't heard of half of the nominated films and performances until they were nominated. And I'd like to point out that I spend half of my life reading about upcoming films on the internet (the other half watching said films). Anyone who knows me, has met me, or just seen my t-shirts as I walk across campus must know that I was PISSED when The Dark Knight didn't even get a nomination. So, for a while now I've been planning the perfect Batman film (as far as the Oscars are concerned, it would actually suck horribly and destroy 70 years of comic book history, but I really want that award).

The name of the film: 13atman (I wish I had come up with this, thanks to my good friend Brad who was equally as upset over the Oscars). The title invokes: it's like Batman, but not really. He's having an identity crisis. Is he a Bat? Or is he just another number in a sea of people, with not much separating him from 12atman and 14atman? That's actually pretty good, I'm awesome. But, the point is, Indie-lovers would read into the title so much that the pre-Oscar buzz portion of my revenge will be complete. The next step: instead of having Bruce Wayne's fortune come from his family estate, why not make him a poor kid in India who wins a million dollars by getting Mr. Mxyzptlk to say his name backwards? (gotta get some nerds interested too) Then, he can become a wonderful member of society, only to be shot at by a bigot who thinks that he and Robin are a little too dynamic of a duo (if you know what I mean. It pains me to even write the words, but if you want an award for Batman, this is what it takes). Throw Kate Winslet's nipples in there and you've got Oscar gold.

Wow, remember when my blog was fun for the whole family? I guess I'm looking to win an award and I'm taking a trick out of HBO's book to do it.

Think I'm crazy? Well, so do I. Sadly, some Indie filmmaker will probably read this after waking up from an acid trip and think it's brilliant. The facts are these: the winners are either chosen by a riveting game of Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock or the Academy just wants to force people to watch movies they'd never go to see by showering them with awards. The Emmys, it would seem, are no different. Although I did very much enjoy the hosting talent of Neil Patrick Harris (he's the man) and it was overall an entertaining show, I couldn't help but notice that the Emmys are starting to look more and more like the Oscars every year (not just in statuette color tone).

The show that has won these past two years is Mad Men. A show which is, in fact, one of about 7 shows I don't watch (there are two kinds of shows I don't watch: Grey's Anatomy and crap that reminds me of Grey's Anatomy). No matter how many people tell me to watch Mad Men, and how much I want to be interested in it, I'm not at all. If period pieces are so interesting then why doesn't Hallmark Channel have an Emmy monopoly? When I looked up the show on Wikipedia and checked under "themes" (for a real show like Lost, listings would be: life and death, moral gray area, destiny and fate, etc.) all I saw was: "Mad Men depicts parts of American society and culture of the early 1960s, highlighting cigarette smoking, drinking, sexism, adultery, homophobia, antisemitism, and racism as examples of how that era was (here's the kicker) so much different from the present."

Umm, yeah... because I had to look up half of those words on Urban Dictionary due to the fact that they don't exist anymore in our utopian society. So people on the show smoke, and this makes it the Emmy winner? (note for 13atman, make Batman a smoker) I'm sure there's more to the show than that, like love triangles and unexpected pregnancies in season finales (things which would be unheard of on any other show...if this was 1963. Maybe they're giving awards to the show as though it were released in the 60s too). And unless I'm mistaken (I just checked and as usual, I am not) there were only two shows from network television nominated for Dramatic Series. TWO! I love both shows and I'm glad they were nominated, but come on people. Comedy fared much better, although one of the nominees was Family Guy which tells me that the people in charge of nominations were either 12 years old or Seth McFarlane's relatives. Two of the cable nominations were Weeds and Entourage, two shows which I love dearly. However, neither the fourth season of the former nor the fifth season of the latter was deserving of a nomination. Great shows, not their best seasons. And I watch 39 shows that are currently running in some way, shape, or form so don't tell me I don't know what I'm talking about.

So I began to wonder, why doesn't an excellent show like Dollhouse ever get a nomination? Too weird, that's why. Forget that the writing manages to be more real and more clever than anything HBO has come up with since The Sopranos went off the air, while still managing to be a crazy awesome sci-fi show that nerds like me love. In fact, if we're looking for shows with the most artistry and creativity, it's rarely going to be a realistic one. And if it has to be, then why not give Dexter some love? It's on cable, and it's incredible (and Michael C. Hall freaking needs to win for that performance!). It gets nominated each year, sure. But that makes it hurt even more when it loses. The conclusion I've come to is similar to the Oscar conclusion. They give awards to shows that not as many people watch so that more people will pay the extra money to watch those shows. Or, the 12-year-old nominator hypothesis is correct and shows that get to say more naughty words are nominated, because swearing is cool. (note: in 13atman replace Biff! and Zing! with &*%#! and @*^$!)

But no, instead Glenn Close won yet another award, because she really needed one. She received it for playing a tough-as-nails lawyer who can take control of any situation just as well as any man (so, every other role she's ever played except this time it's a lawyer. She's basically going through all of the costumes Barbie's ever had on and making them more respectable). Not that I was familiar with any of the other performances, but I would've liked Elisabeth Moss to win (even though she was from Mad Men, my new nemesis) simply because her character on The West Wing was adorable (and yet also tough in many ways, so more diverse than any of Glenn Close's roles). And Jim Parsons, who masterfully plays the neurotic Sheldon Cooper on The Big Bang Theory (one of the funniest shows currently on TV, especially because of the nerd references) lost out to Alec Baldwin: a man who has gone largely unnoticed in the entertainment industry. A man who is not at all the Kanye West of Hollywood. A man who would never dream of winning money on Celebrity Who Wants to be a Millionaire? and giving it to retired circus animals (true story, check the tapes). The whole thing just makes you nauseous (although I do enjoy his character on 30 Rock, but he basically plays a Bizarro version of himself).

There was a small glimmer of hope: Michael Emerson finally won for his portrayal of my #3 favorite villain of all time: Benjamin Linus. That made me happy, because he's deserved it for a very long time. Other than that, my question remains, when will the deserving pieces of fiction be the ones that win? When will Quentin Tarantino, easily one of the greatest directors of our time, receive the Oscar he so deserves? When will the Academy that likes to talk about giving awards to movies that inspire people, stop nominating movies that make people want to jump off a bridge? When will Emmys be given to writers who do more than put a cigarette in a character's mouth or drop the f-bomb? I'll tell you exactly when: when I accept the award for 13atman. My speech will dismantle the whole industry, cracking the mask to reveal the rot underneath. And if I can somehow draw a connection between the Academy, the Postal Service, and orthodontists, then I can destroy all of my enemies in one fell swoop.

But first, I'm going after Kanye.

Cryogenically Frozen 80-Year-Olds Who Can Bench 500

Before I get into it, let me apologize (a rare occurrence, better take this in) for being gone for so long. I was on vacation, during which point I was at Busch Gardens for a bit. In addition to taking away a lot of wonderful things over the years, they've now added something awful. It's still the best theme park, in my opinion (and thus irrevocably true). However, they now have the "Forest of Fun," which is a section of the park devoted to Sesame Street (the air still lacks its former sweetness, in case you were wondering). The section is nice in that it's where all the little kids congregate, but it's also quite out of place. The whole park is set up to be like Europe. Each section is a different country. Now, maybe my European History is a little off, but I'm pretty sure that Elmo wasn't sticking his/her commie head into the picture when they were excavating the remains of Pompeii. Does that thing have to be everywhere? They replaced the Pirates 4-D show, starring Leslie Nielsen, with a 4-D Elmo show. 2 Ds of Elmo is plenty. Double that would be grounds for insanity. But I got a sweet Godfather painting at the park, so it's all good.

Or is it? The painting still hasn't arrived, and it was shipped by UPS, the only mail carrier I trust. (Interlude: the USPS stole my idea that they should have one flat rate for everything. Nice to know they read the blog/my mind, but would getting a royalty check be so much to ask? I got DHL out of the picture for them, and yet still they sent me season 2 of a show I just started watching before sending season 1. They think I'm kidding when I say I'll destroy their industry.) If UPS fails in bringing me my Godfather painting, which is actually cool enough to fill the empty space in my soul/apartment left by my fish tank, then there won't be any mail carriers left. Let's hope that doesn't happen, but we'll talk about that later. For now, I invite you to this special, deluxe-y edition of the blog (or at least it felt like it when I wrote it) that's extra rant-esque, probably even less coherent than usual, and that still manages to make more sense than the so-called "studies" that are so fond of "saying" things. So let's take a walk down memory lane.

And what lanes my memories more than Disney? Don't tell me that you don't feel a tingling sensation every time you hear "When You Wish Upon A Star," especially when it's the wonderful 15-second instrumental version that was the prelude to your childhood memories. It reminds us of a simpler time, those sunshine days when animals could sing, heroes weren't conflicted alcoholics, and Cookie Monster ate cookies. A time when we didn't say anything if we couldn't say anything nice (even me). And now they want to ruin those days for us too. They just couldn't let it go.

Recently there's been a lot of talk concerning Disney's possibly nefarious influence on children. Such as the naughty hidden message in Aladdin, which happens when you play it backwards, or play it at a certain frequency, or play it while intoxicated (one of those). My question is, who spends their time doing that? How bored do you have to be to say to yourself, "well, I've rewatched all the old episodes of Hawaii Five-O so now what? Well it's a few months before the next season of Magnum P.I. comes out, so I guess I'll watch all of the Disney movies at a high frequency and see if strange voices tell me to do bad things." There's plenty of other examples that I won't get into (hard as this may be to believe, I actually hold back a TON on my blog, just ask my roommates: two people who have heard the real internal workings of the greatest mind alive today and have curiously not had me taken away by the men in white coats) but suffice it to say that 99.9% of people won't notice these things unless it was revealed to them by people who have the uncanny ability to be that much of a jerk.

But it doesn't stop at the subliminal and the certain-angular, there's also plenty of talk concerning the overall themes of the films, artwork, etc. Because it wasn't enough to tell us that George Washington may or may not have cut down the cherry tree and that if Santa does exist, he's probably Canadian. They have to attack Disney too, because it's something that's not harming you until someone tells you it is, like global warming and engrams. Well, it was all revealed to us in Sociology 101. And now we know the truth: that Disney is an evil organization whose rise to power began with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves, the first feature-length animated film (this was in 1937, about the time Hitler was starting to take over, coincidence? That's what they wanted you to believe). Its seemingly innocent plot must be seen for what it is: a movie about a floozie who lived with seven different men, taking advantage of their poor self-image that was due to small stature and cutesy nicknames. Then when the heroic (likely German) woman tried to poison this awful spinstress, while simultaneously being clever by symbolizing Snow's consumption of the forbidden fruit, the stupid WASP prince comes and saves her. Those pesky Allies huh?

Well, though the video we watched was obviously nowhere near this ridiculous, I bet (nay, I declare as truth) that there are plenty of people out there who see the movie that way. What the documentary did have was a bunch of little kids reading cue cards, trying to make us feel guilty for subjecting them to Disney movies. There were plenty of racial controversies that the documentary pointed out, but I won't get into those (although I will say that the documentary was a bit like a Michael Moore movie: it made a handful of interesting points, but threw so much ridiculous crap in there with it that the whole thing seems ridiculous). Then there are the hidden images that have since been taken off of the shelves which I also won't discuss (because it was probably just some intern or an executive in a mid-life crisis that sneaked them by the censors). However, what I will speak about is the large portion of the documentary that was devoted to the idea that the characters in the films aren't portrayed like real people.

(GASP), (startled pause), and if I may add, (stunned silence). You mean to tell me that characters that are painted and drawn and can only move when pieces of paper are flipped really quickly don't look exactly like real human beings? That perhaps they look more like human ideals, much like the personalities that inhabit said bodies? See, apparently (I wish I was making this up) when kids watch a cartoon movie, which is obviously fake because it's...umm...a cartoon, they think that real people look like the people in the cartoon. Because instead of thinking that all the real people that they know in real life look like real people, they're going to think that real people actually look like the girl who was a mermaid at the beginning of the movie. I know I've spent the past 21 years saying to myself as I walk through the store, where are all the real people? Of course, they only tended to point out certain faults with the films, vis-à-vis the women (not sure if that's how you use the phrase, but I'm feeling daring today). And this is further proof of the Caucasia Syndrome (side note: firefox doesn't recognize the word: "Caucasia." I'd find this insulting, but I see that it also doesn't recognize the word: "firefox"). See, the documentary points out that none of the Disney princesses look like real women (let me again stress, could it be the fact that they were created by pencils?) and this contributes to the societal problem that standards for women to be skinny are too high, the women are submissive, so on and so forth. Well that's all well and good, and I think they have a point with regards to society as a whole (although they take it a bit far, I'd be the first one to tell you, and I usually am, how many stupid people are out there. However, very few of them are so impressionable as to base their entire body image on Belle or Sleeping Beauty). But what no one on the documentary seemed to recognize is the fact that: how many old guys do you know that look like Poseidon? Here's a man who is clearly ancient(he's been around since the beginning of time within this context) and yet he has all of his hair, his arms look like a gorilla's, and his chest is the size of my ego.

I know what you're thinking: "but Domenic! He's a Greek god! He's supposed to look like that!" You would, of course, be quite correct. But if a kid is impressionable enough to think that cartoons are representations of real life, then it's a bit odd that a thought process would go through their minds along the lines of: "Well, Poseidon looks incredible for his age, which is atypical of most human males, could it be perhaps because he is of the line of Cronos? The human representation of his persona must ergo reflect his divine lineage, concordantly his pectorals remain in tact." And Greek gods aside, no guys look like the Disney princes anyway. They're all slender like me, except they also have muscles somehow. Because they all manage to carry the princess away with no trouble. And no, I'm not calling the princesses fat. I'm saying that even if they all weighed eighty pounds, there's no way the princes could carry them off with so much ease (especially after combating a dragon or another such creature). And of course, the princes are masculine enough to have the fighting skills to kill any opposition. They're also sensitive enough to sing "Once Upon a Dream" in a meadow, in perfect harmony. They have those perfect teeth, that perfect skin tone, and usually an awesome horse that may or may not speak. And they're rich. What guy can compete with that exactly?

So, let's reiterate what we've learned so far: Disney creates impossibly high standards for each gender. And yet somehow society trudges on and people still get married and have children (despite the fact that they have to "settle" for people who aren't quite as good as the "real" people from cartoons). Conclusion: people don't take the films quite that seriously. Could it be perhaps that they all view fiction for what it is? (a clue: the answer is fiction. Synonyms include: "Non-non-fiction" and "stories that include magic spells and stuff.") In fact, the only problem with society that I see as related to Disney movies is that no one seems to care about the men. We all grew up watching any number of characters we could never become. BUT: something everyone seems to forget is that we try to be like them when we can. They're positive role models. And not just the cartoon ones, all of them. Sure, we'd all be lucky to complete even one of Hercules' 12 tasks and I'm not sure how many people can evade the palace guards while singing "One Jump Ahead" and feeding poor kids. But I would argue that every time a guy finds a full wallet and returns it to its rightful owner, helps carry something for an injured or elderly person, or any number of everyday activities that are minor acts of heroism, somewhere in the back of their mind (consciously or otherwise) they're thinking: "this might be the closest I'll ever come to being Superman." So we shouldn't criticize cartoons for setting impossibly high standards for children, that's what they're supposed to do. If they get even some of it right, they'll be in good shape.

Instead, we have a whole generation of kids who are kind to the earth and recycle, but who are incredibly rude to people. We have a generation of boys who are trying to live out their heroic fantasies through video games, but are told that if they play them too much they'll end up shooting people. We have a generation of girls who have one camp of women telling them that they need to be pretty, and another camp telling them that doing so would be "submitting to the patriarchal society." In addition, if their heart's desire is to stay at home with the kids then they're being submissive, and if they're working then they're ignoring their kids and being bad mothers. And of course, if a guy feels like staying at home with the kids then he's labeled as either not masculine or a bum for not making money for his family. When did things get so freaking complicated? How about this: let people do what they feel like (I'd go on with this point, but I already did in my blog about male nurses). And if you're so concerned that Disney isn't portraying the image you want, then make your own frigging Disney movie with the personalities you feel are best. I'm sure they'll leap at the positive PR. Then the kids can pick which one they like better. Or better yet, how about accepting the fact that kids are a lot smarter than the morons making the documentaries. They know that it's fake, they recognize the "morality tales" aspect of the films, they sing along with the catchy tunes, and that's it.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go fight a dragon on horseback and make out with a comatose princess.

The Mere Mention of Christian Bale's Name Would Send George Clooney Back to the ER for a Few Seasons

And now at last, we reach the reason why for eight years Batman was thought to be gone from the movies forever. A movie that is perhaps so bad that we should be thankful. After all, they wouldn't have had to reboot the whole series by bringing us Christopher Nolan's modern masterpieces if this movie wasn't so incredibly awful. I'm talking, of course, about Batman & Robin. Whereas the rest of the early Batman movies had at least some shred of quality, this movie has none (apart from the five seconds where Mr. Freeze sheds a single tear and it freezes on his face, that was pretty good). I believe my high school English teacher said it best: "If you're four years old and you've never seen a movie before, Batman & Robin is pretty much the greatest movie ever." And with that, this is the epic finale of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."

I'd like to rip on the plot of this movie, but unfortunately I can't. The reason being that I can't remember it. Because it was stupid. Really stupid. Something about Mr. Freeze wanting to freeze the whole city for reasons unknown. In addition, Batgirl joins the crew for reasons unknown. I've never been a big fan of Batgirl as a character. Because although the idea of a female Batman is certainly pretty hot (in the spirit of female Jack Bauer on the past season of 24) the character is quite superfluous. Whereas Robin is supposed to represent Batman's redemption, (because if Bruce can raise him without hatred and fear, maybe he'll end up differently than Batman did) Batgirl basically represents the fact that the comics writers wanted to bring in a female audience. And that Joel Schumacher wanted to put Alicia Silverstone in a tight-fitting Batgirl outfit, something I'm not entirely against. However, and this is sure to upset the ladies in my audience, she's not really in any kind of shape to be fighting crime. She's by no earthly means overweight, but the same goes for any number of people who aren't capable of jumping around rooftops and beating up bad guys. Not that Clooney (as much as I like him in basically every other movie he's in) looks like he could beat up anybody either. (But that's the whole point of my dismay isn't it?) And on top of not being in good enough shape to be Batgirl, she also somehow manages to save both Batman and Robin at the end of the movie. Yeah, because some schoolgirl fresh from the classroom has the skills to save the world's greatest gymnast/martial artist and his sidekick, all because she found a costume in a drawer.

Now then, let's focus on the villains in the movie (and I use that term loosely, especially in wake of my 5 favorite villains series, where the word was used to describe very in-depth and interesting characters). Poison Ivy is, without a doubt, a fairly minor villain. But she's moderately interesting in that she's an environmentalist gone crazy (before that was the cool thing to do) and that she's a temptress who is able to seduce any man she comes across (except Batman of course. Scratch that, except Batman when the story is done correctly of course). Because of this, she's supposed to be a woman who is literally so attractive that the thought process going through every guy's head should be: "I know that if I kiss her I will either die or become one of her minions, but I don't particularly care." And who do they cast to play this Helen of Troy-esque woman? Uma Thurman. And with creepy plastic eyebrows no less. Now, I think Uma is a great actress, and I don't think she's unattractive. But a woman so attractive that I'd sacrifice everything just to be around her? I think not. They probably realized this when filming and for this reason wrote in a perfume she wears that does the job for her. I can buy that I guess, but she really shouldn't need a perfume. I'm not sure who I would have cast as her back then, but today I'd say they should cast Annie Wersching (the aforementioned female Jack Bauer from this past season of 24, I watched the whole season over the weekend). And why is she teaming up with a man who wants to freeze the whole city? I'll have to check with my mom later to make sure, but I'm fairly certain that plants die when hit by a freeze-ray (or a similar, naturally-occurring phenomenon).

Which brings us to Mr. Freeze. He's another one of my favorite villains from the animated series. In fact, the first episode to feature him, "Heart of Ice," won an emmy. And rightfully so, because it's really freaking good. In 20 minutes it examines a tragic man who was trying to save his dying wife and ended up being condemned to a sub-zero environment. Michael Ansara's voice on the show is just perfect: powerful yet weary. He is frightening one moment and mournful the next. The episode not only set the standard for Batman, but in many ways, it set the standard for a whole decade of excellent animated television. And what do we get from this character who was so well-developed in a mere 20 minutes when he appears on the big screen?

"FREEEEEEEEEZE! CHILLLLLLLL OUT!"

Holy crap could they have screwed up the character any more? I'm a fan of Arnold's many action movies, much like any guy, but this was just terrible. At least they kept the storyline about his dying wife, but the delivery is just terrible. Mr. Freeze is supposed to be a character whose sorrow was so great over the loss of his wife that his physical body became as frigid as his emotional state. Which is even more interesting when considering that this is not so different from what made Batman who he is. But instead of exacting his vengeance on those who wronged him, he decides it would be just as fulfilling having ice-skating henchmen that help him rob banks as he exclaims stupid one-liners that exhaust Roget's "cold" section. The fact that the Adam West TV show was so hokey that it was cancelled in a time of hokey television should be some indication that crap like that doesn't fly with people. And once again, his villainous plan is moustache-twirling at its worst. It would've been right at home in one of Roger Moore's Bond films or perhaps, Spy Kids 4: Not Child's Play Anymore. We sadly will never see Freeze done correctly, as he's too unrealistic for the new Batman films (which I'm fine with, so maybe I'll make some of my own someday).

And now, let's rip on Clooney's Batman. Oh wait, not just yet, I forgot about Bane! Probably because he's in the movie for about 27 seconds. Bane is certainly without much of a personality or backstory in any medium he's been depicted in, but he's very formidable. In the comics, he broke Batman's back. A new Batman had to step in for a while, and there was some question as to whether the real Batman would ever be back to peak efficiency again. On the cartoon, Batman almost got himself squeezed into a piece of origami by Bane. The only way to stop him is to cut off his supply of the venom that gives him his extraordinary strength. And even though he is literally in the movie for under five minutes, (no hyperbole this time, or whatever the opposite of hyperbole is...hypobole?) that's all it takes for Joel Schumacher to screw him up. Robin and Batgirl are pinned up against the wall by Bane, and they give a wimpy kick and knock his venom off of his head. The end. Every other time we see Bane anywhere, it takes a well-placed batarang to cut that thing loose. On the cartoon, Batman had to freaking stab that thing in order to survive. But in Joel Schumacher's vision, a kick that is flirting with being a spasm is all it takes to defeat Batman's strongest foe. My rule for formidable villains is: if neither I nor my eight-year-old cousin could defeat him, he's probably formidable. Bane fails, on every level.

Right then, now let's talk about Clooney. He has basically the complete opposite of Kilmer's problem. He's Bruce Wayne all the time. As such, he does a pretty good job as Bruce Wayne (at least on face value, the character implications are wrong). But his Batman is just goofy to the point that I thought the actual villain in the movie was the Mad Hatter, who had given Batman some sort of mind-control device that made him think he was a Power Ranger. His motivation for being Batman seems to be comparable to mine, when I was four: he drives a cool car and has cool gadgets. So forget the fact that Batman is obsessed with the death of his parents, for Clooney he's just a rich playboy with a very expensive taste for adventure. In fact, in a behind-the-scenes interview Clooney said, "why would someone play Batman in a dark way? I mean, the guy is a multi-billionaire, he dates supermodels, and he drives an awesome car. Who would be sad about all of that?"

HE MISSED THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT!

Clooney's Batman apparently woke up one day in his teens and said, "you know, it really doesn't hurt so much anymore. I mean, mom and dad wouldn't let me stay up to watch Laugh-In and they made me eat brussel sprouts. I'm gonna go give Brooke Shields a call." So he plays the character like a thrill-seeking billionaire. As such, the fight scenes are ridiculously silly, with no sense of danger whatsoever. Clooney not only lacks intimidation, but deliberately tries to not be intimidating. Everything about his performance, the city, and the story is fake. It's stylized to the point of being a parody of itself. And once again, this was written by the man who brought us Constantine, a film where the cancer-ridden hero saves the day by killing himself and using the devil's ego against him, conning him into stopping the apocalypse. How is it even possible that the man who wrote that also wrote: "Hey Freeze, the heat is on!" If the rumors are true and Clooney will indeed be playing the Lone Ranger, I think that would be excellent as long as he does the exact opposite of what he did in this movie.

Well there you have it, though I would certainly love to go scene-by-scene with each Batman film, talking about what I love and what I intensely dislike, (only love for the new ones, mostly dislike for the old ones) that will have to wait for my book. But I think my point is across. The films went in a very interesting progression. Tim Burton's first got a lot of things right, but it also got a lot wrong (including all of the Prince songs). His second film actually made the villains too dark and barely had any scenes with Batman (it's also a bit long). Schumacher's first outing had some pretty good scenes with Batman reflecting on his past, and Robin is done some small bit of justice, but the villains are way too stupid. Then Schumacher's second try just tosses everything out the window. If you took Clooney's Bruce Wayne, Kilmer's Batman, Tim Burton's directing, and the screenwriter of the last two in Constantine mode, you'd have a pretty good Batman movie. But thankfully, in 2005 we no longer needed to fantasize about how to Frankenstein a good Batman film into existence, because they finally got it right. And who knows? Maybe the people behind Batman Begins wouldn't have been quite so motivated to make the movie they did without a lot of the mistakes that came beforehand. And truth be told, it's much more fun to talk about how bad something is than how great it is. So I suppose I should thank Mr. Schumacher, because he unintentionally brought me some good times through his really, really bad movie.

Val Kilmer Thinks He's Hot Stuff, But Christian Bale Has Two Top Guns And They're Attached To His Torso

Riddle me this: where do I even begin to insult Batman Forever? It fails on just about every level possible. Let's start off with a few positives: Robin is actually done fairly well and Chris O'Donnell did a pretty good job playing him. Michael Gough does a good job as Alfred, which is why he is the only actor that stars in all four of the original movies. Nicole Kidman is in it, and she's pretty attractive. The end. That's it. Now let's rip it apart! This is part two of my unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."

Okay, let's deal with the giant mammarian chiroptera-shaped elephant in the room: bat-nipples. Even director Joel Schumacher has lowered his head in shame over the thought of these atrocities (and if he hasn't, he should). And they're slapped on verifiable Halloween costumes with enough fake abs to make even me appear to be capable of fighting crime. They're the physical representation of why the movie is bad: instead of Tim Burton's mistake, which was to capture the overall tone of the comics while tossing a lot of important things out the window, this movie (along with Batman & Robin) simply brings back the impossibly incorrect tone of the Adam West days and gives it a budget. The fight scenes are highly stylized and very silly, the film is rife with awful one-liners, and the city itself looks like an arcade game background on crack.

But I can forgive all of that, really. Because there are still the characters to deal with. Too bad they were butchered too. To begin with: The Riddler. I can't say as I'm a big Jim Carrey fan anyway (or a fan at all really) but at least when he's usually being annoying he's not annihilating one of my favorite villains in the process. Though some may perceive the character as a somewhat offbeat villain, and certainly silly given that the only exposure people have had to him was this performance, I always loved the character. If I turned evil, I would be The Riddler. Basically, he's a super genius who likes to flaunt his superiority so much that he leaves clues behind, both to enhance his narcissism by showing how smart he is and to see if anyone is worthy of deciphering his clues. He's not goofy. He's not imposing either. Basically he's a spindly geek who could never beat anyone in a fight, and usually doesn't even try because he lets his brain do the fighting for him (actually that sounds exactly like me, I should complete the transformation by wearing an all-green suit around). When Batman goes up against him, it's a battle of wits. He truly puts Batman's deductive reasoning and profiling skills to the test. And that incredible character, who is done so perfectly on the animated series, was turned into something even sillier than the Joker. He's a nutjob outfitted with neon lights who leaves clues that an eight-year-old could solve and yells "joygasm!" at one point. The sentence I'm currently writing was written twelve minutes after the previous one because I just fainted and hit my head. The character was reduced to a stereotypical "let's blow stuff up for the sole reason that I'm evil" mustache-twirling villain who just happens to wear a question mark.

Though I'm not like him in any way (at least hopefully not) Two-Face is another of my favorite villains, possibly my favorite Batman villain actually. Thank God they FINALLY did him justice in The Dark Knight with Aaron Eckhart's phenomenal, and largely under-appreciated, performance. The scene where he delivers what's probably my favorite line in the movie exemplifies everything they did correctly, and everything Forever got wrong: "In a cruel world, the only morality is chance." That line fully captures Two-Face's entire character flaw. Think about how distorted your mind would have to be to see no difference between killing someone and letting them live. He's a broken man, and he literally can't decide between holding onto the hero that he was, or the villain that he's become. So he flips a coin. That's powerful stuff, but Forever treats it like a gimmick. As much as I ordinarily love Tommy Lee Jones, and it was probably mostly the script's fault, his delivery is completely wrong. He flips the coin in a fashion that screams, "the script says I'm supposed to do this." In fact, at one point he keeps flipping until he gets the result he wants. That makes absolutely no sense, and it diminishes what has become one of the most well-known and interesting comic book villains of all time. And why pair him with The Riddler? This showcases the filmmaker's complete lack of understanding for the characters. The Riddler, narcissist that he is, would never work with anyone, let alone someone whose ability to make simple choices is determined by a coin. That's the complete opposite of The Riddler. They really made me feel as though they put all the villains who hadn't been done into a hat and pulled their names out. And much like the other costumes in the film, Two-Face's is way over-the-top. And whereas Christopher Nolan's description of how Two-Face should look for The Dark Knight was, "he should make people want to throw up if they saw him on the street" Joel Schumacher's was seemingly, "he should look like he just came from a kid's birthday party where they had face painting and he had to leave when the job was only half done because The Riddler needed him to wreak havoc on Gotham City."

All of that aside, the important question is, how was Batman? Well, truth be told, Val Kilmer's Batman is actually not too bad. His voice is appropriately gruff, and there are even one or two scenes related to Bruce's childhood that were probably remnants of a former, superior script. If they didn't give him lines and a plot that were so terrible, he actually would've been a pretty good Batman. But once again, the problem with Val (who I think is ordinarily a great actor, especially as Doc Holliday in Tombstone) is the same as Keaton in that Bruce Wayne is totally wrong. Whereas Keaton's Wayne was a misanthropic loner, Kilmer's takes it a step further. His Bruce Wayne voice is almost the same as his Batman voice. And at one point in the film he looks at an ink blot on the wall and says quite clearly in his Batman voice, "That looks like a bat." This is a step farther from the neon sign above Keaton's head, the one above Kilmer's head states:

NOT ONLY AM I OBVIOUSLY BATMAN, IF YOU CAN'T TELL THEN YOU'RE A MORON!

At least Keaton made an effort to hide his identity. Kilmer walks around in his expensive suit for the whole movie saying things such as:

"Man it's dark out tonight, just like my soul."

"My arm really hurts today, probably because I punched twelve drug dealers in the face last night."

"The death of my parents signified the death of Bruce Wayne, I became an expert at every fighting style and returned to Gotham City to don a cape as my alter ego, oh whoops, thought I was alone..."

As always, some slight hyperbole was involved with those quotes. BUT, he might as well be that obvious because if Jim Carrey can figure out you're Batman, so can the rest of the world. And whereas the action in the first two films was fairly well done, if not a bit cheesy simply because of the time period it was made during, the action in this film is incredibly campy. A big part of the Batman performance is how he handles himself during a fight. Christian Bale knocks people around tactically and quickly, crunching a lot of bones in the process. Kilmer (and once again, not entirely his fault) fights like he's in a stage play. Perhaps as though it's all happening live and he has to make sure not to actually hurt his fellow actors. They might as well have thrown in a few "biff" and "pows" because then it could've been an homage at least, instead of just plain stupid.

What's especially strange about this film is that there are a fair few good actors in it, the director has done some good work over the years, and the screenwriter also wrote Constantine, Cinderella Man, and has recently joined the writing staff of Fringe. So you'd think he would have come up with something good. Sadly, Batman Forever instead lives on as a movie with infinite potential that leaves the audience feeling like they've been doped by some of the Scarecrow's fear toxin. What's especially sad is that they made yet another Batman movie...and it's the worst of them all. Something so terrifyingly bad that it's taken years off of my life from stress. And I'll be discussing it in a future blog entry, same bat-URL, different bat-title.

Christian Bale Sweats More Testosterone Than Michael Keaton Has In His Whole Body

I mean, come on. Here's a thought process for you: who would be a great actor to play Batman, the intense avenger of the night? I know, how about Mr. Mom! Almost all of the Batman casting was terrible in the first four Batman films (along with everything else about them). Since that time, the only film casting that has been that level of bad came when they cast Ben Affleck in every movie that Ben Affleck has been in. But it wasn't just the casting, almost everything was bad. Until Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan came along and reminded us that Batman is and will always be the greatest hero of all time. But I'm not here to talk about how great Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are, because they speak for themselves. I'm here to rip on all of those guys that screwed up from 1989-1997. This is the first installment in the unofficially titled trilogy: "Why the First Four Batman Movies Suck."

To begin with, I actually think the first Batman film is pretty good (but I can't include that in the unofficial title, it just wouldn't work). Obviously its quality decreased by half the very second the teaser trailer for Batman Begins came out (more like the casting news) but it still retains a lot of quality. Jack Nicholson's Joker still holds up really well in light of Heath Ledger's unparalleled performance. It's different, but it's quite well done and certainly the best part of the movie. Tim Burton is a great director, and there are some excellent scenes in the film, especially when the Batplane is silhouetted against the moon. In addition, Danny Elfman's score for the first two films is truly incredible, and the Batman Theme remains one of my favorite pieces of music. But they royally screwed up a lot of stuff too. And Batman Returns has no Jack Nicholson, and thus no redeeming value. I'd like to tell you all about both films in painstaking detail, but sadly that will have to wait for the book version. Instead, I'll just harp on some key points.

First off, they broke Batman's only rule. Batman kills people in these movies. But, as Tim Burton said in one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries: "Why do everything the way that it's done in the comics? Why not do your own thing?" Exactly! Why remain faithful to something that's been around for fifty years? (now seventy) Why go with the tried and true? Instead of following the guidelines of something that will be remembered long after the dust has left the bones of Michael Keaton's great-great-great-great grandchildren, why not just make up some stuff? Like this whole killing thing. Instead of having Batman refuse to become as bad as the man who murdered his parents, let's just forget that he has a psychosis so strong that it caused him to dress up like an overgrown mammal and beat up criminals on a nightly basis. And when he kills people, he shouldn't feel remorse. He should just smirk, as if to say, "Heh, I'm cool like Stallone. I just blew up that guy! Being Batman is sweet!"

Nightmares. It gives me nightmares that Batman kills people in those movies. If there's one rule you don't break, that's the rule.

And they let Kim Basinger into the Batcave. How did she weasel her way into that one? Probably not with her acting talent. Now, if they truly developed the Catwoman character (as in the total opposite of either Pfeiffer or Berry's performances) then I could probably buy that he would eventually let her into the Batcave. Because they have a lot in common, and he might someday trust her with his secret identity. But instead, they let Vicky Vale in. And why? Basically because she's blonde and hot (though I never liked her much). Scratch that, Alfred let her in, because I guess he thought if Batman had a ladyfriend in the Batcave then maybe he wouldn't be so upset anymore. Of course, then Batman might cease to exist, allowing the Joker, the Penguin, and even relative unknowns like Calendar Man to overthrow the city. But, the Batcave could use some redecorating so I guess none of that matters.

Interlude: I can't get a whole paragraph out of this, but the Batsuit looks like it's made of plastic. Which it probably was. Better than the bat-nipples, but still.

And as much as I love Tim Burton, his stuff isn't really "dark." It's kind of fake dark. Funhouse dark, if you will. Meaning that yes it's a dark story, but it's also very stylized and tough to take seriously. Which really works for Edward Scissorhands, The Nightmare Before Christmas, and even Sweeney Todd. But not for the character of Batman. I feel like Mr. Burton really doesn't understand the character. Because he figures, "oh he has a silly costume, and he lives in a fake city. So obviously it's not supposed to be taken seriously." Well sure, back when pot-bellied Adam West was hamming it up and Batman in the comics was beating up communist vampire aliens. But by the time the 80's rolled around, Batman had changed. The writers really started to examine the character psychologically. He no longer even resembles Bruce Wayne, he's completely consumed by Batman. He was formed by childhood trauma, festering rage, and fear. He's a truly dark character, who is in many ways every bit as mentally distorted as the supervillains he hunts down. Now that's a dark story, and it should be taken seriously. Instead, they chose to have one guy in a silly costume hunt down another guy in a silly costume, toss in some special effects, cast a blonde chick, and gave themselves a summer blockbuster.

But it didn't make 158 million dollars on its first weekend, not even with inflation!

Ahem, anyway, let's move on to the second of Tim Burton's outings: the incredibly inferior Batman Returns. First off, I hate when movies have "returns" in the title. That's pretty much like saying, "We wanted to call the movie Batman but that title was already taken by the first movie we made." A major problem with this movie is that Batman is barely in it. It's mostly about Catwoman and the Penguin. So, in addition to being non-creative, the movie isn't even aptly titled. Instead of Batman Returns, it should be called Penguin and Catwoman Arrive. Well, okay, but at least do the characters correctly! The Penguin is supposed to be a guy who would be a part of high society if not for his distorted appearance. Which means that he takes out his rage on aristocrats by stealing their artwork and statues and stuff. Not by dropping their children into toxic soup! That's ridiculous! Even the Joker wouldn't go that far. And he also outsmarts Batman at one point by putting a device on the Batmobile that allows him to control it. The only person that could ever outsmart Batman would be a clone of Batman (even then maybe not). And Catwoman is an environmentalist who takes things a little too far. She's certainly not a dominatrix chick. And she's also not supernaturally born, as she is in this movie where she falls from the top floor of a building and is revived by cats purring around her. Apparently we've been doing it incorrectly for years, instead of using medicine to treat people we should just get a bunch of cats to frigging purr around them.

As though that wasn't enough, Catwoman fries Christopher Walken by kissing him with an electric cable in her mouth. He's burnt to a crisp, but she comes back in the final scene. Because cats have nine lives! Get it? HA! It's funny! Man that was terrible. And for the little bit of time that Batman is in the movie, he's strapping bombs to bad guys, using corny one-liners, and yes, using an admittedly sweet Batmobile. His costume is better, but still bad. And all the stuff that was wrong with the first one is wrong with this one.

Which brings me to the main point: Michael Keaton. He's easily my second favorite Batman after Christian Bale, but that's because George Clooney's performance is only slightly above what Carrot Top's might have been. Keaton isn't a terrible Batman, he doesn't carry much intensity (the costume doesn't help) but he's not exactly silly either. And he doesn't really have too many muscles (certainly more muscles than me, but the Taco Bell chihuahua can make the same claim). Really he's just kind of there. Very stoic, kind of emotionless. So, his Batman performance is quite mediocre. The music is really what makes the character, without it the performance is almost wooden. But like I said, it was pretty good until Christian Bale came along. What I really have a problem with is his portrayal of Bruce Wayne. And this isn't entirely his fault, it's also the fault of the screenwriter (Sam Hamm I believe his name was, I'm sure he's a nice guy, but come on Sammy, you're killing me) and Mr. Burton. These people all thought that Bruce Wayne should be very misanthropic and uncomfortable at parties. They figured he should be hiding in the shadows at all times, and seem indifferent toward his guests. So basically, he plays a billionaire who hates crowds and humanity in general, who likes to be in the shadows, who collects weaponry, and who has a mysterious/nonexistent social life.

HE MIGHT AS WELL HANG A NEON SIGN ABOVE HIS HEAD THAT READS: I'M FREAKING BATMAN!

Bruce Wayne IS the secret identity. It took so long for anyone in Hollywood to realize what the fans knew all along. Bruce Wayne is the act, a persona who died in the alley with his parents. Bruce is everything Batman would have been: a womanizing socialite who's more interested in buying half the town than reading about the crime rate, let alone lowering it. That way, no one suspects that he's really the polar opposite. So when Keaton is walking around with a confused look on his face as Vicky Vale talks to him, and when he acts alone in a crowded room, he's doing everything exactly wrong.

I realize that people have an emotional attachment to the first film, because it was the best one for a long time. I have an attachment to it for the same reason, even if I didn't see it in theaters. I have fond memories of watching it with my dad, and I still enjoy a lot of aspects of it, especially Danny Elfman's immortal Batman Theme. But after years of really watching and analyzing the animated series (still the best representation of all of the characters), reading some of the major comics from over the years, and especially after Christopher Nolan's two films, it's really not a great adaptation. Not bad, but not great. And if I was around at that time (or around and not an infant I should say) and the only Batman in the media until that point was Adam West, I would've welcomed it as a breath of fresh air too. Batman Returns just straight up sucks though. Seriously, it's like Superman III bad.

Beyonce: I Would've Let Dr. Evil Have Her

Before we get started, yes I realize her name has an accent mark. I can't figure out how to do that on the computer I'm using (stupid PCs). Anyway, it's not just Beyonce I'm upset with, or more like her fans (if I was her I'd be doing the same thing, it's the response that gets me). There's a whole wave of talentless hacks out there who simply warble repeated phrases with synthesized voices. Now, I realize these people are attractive, but that's no excuse. Back in the day when you were talentless and hot you starred in an action movie, but now I've got to hear you on the radio all day instead (exception: Jessica Alba). True, there are a scarce few people who (though the style of music might not be my favorite) can actually sing, and are also good looking (Taylor Swift if you're reading this, I'm single! I'm also single if you're not reading this).

To begin with, all Beyonce does in her songs is repeat phrases. I counted in the car today, and in the song "Halo" she says the word "halo" 33 times (the things I do for my blog). That's ridiculous. And who was paid to write that song? They paid this person to write a few lines of a song, and then pull a random word out of a hat for the purpose of being repeated. It's the same thing with her song "Single Ladies" where she says "single ladies" 14 times and "if you like it you shoulda put a ring on it" 9 times. That's pretty much the whole song right there! The monotony is almost enough to hypnotize one into buying her CDs (a plausible explanation). And it's not just her, any number of artists today blare out a single word or phrase and just hit the repeat button on their larynx. Not that it hasn't always been that way to an extent, but I hate things that are about nothing. Unless it knows it's about nothing, in which case it's awesome (such as Seinfeld or "Stacy's Mom").

I also find Beyonce's songs to be obnoxious. She purports to be some sort of "strong female" in the media, but she's really just a sex symbol like anybody else. The real lyrics to one of her songs should be, "If I were a boy, I'd still have no talent, but I'd be working at McDonald's." She's made her way on her physical appearance, which is the way it works so that's fine, but don't pretend that people like you for your personality (which she severely lacks). The lynchpin of this was a song she had way back when she was still part of a group, a shout out to independent women. The song's about women who make their own way in the world, who don't need a man to support them, etc. Well that's all well and good, if you're actually one of those people (a clue: she is not). Not to say that she didn't work hard on her singing to become famous, but at the end of the day, celebrities are what we make them. She wouldn't be making any money if she didn't have the classic "women want to be her, men want to be with her" dynamic. There's no rhyme or reason to why the public latches onto certain people over others. You could have someone like Andy Warhol who continues to bring in bazillions of dollars with his painted toilet and his Campbell's soup cans, and on the other hand you've got comic books artists with actual talent who probably have to moonlight as telephone cleaners just to pay the electric bill.

Beyonce, Fergie, (who not only repeats her words, but spells them) and others like them are the poster children for a much larger societal problem. And just so I can get a shot in at the show I hate, let's call it the "Grey's Anatomy" phenomenon. Basically, people don't want any depth anymore. Even back when I was a kid, being "shallow" was a bad thing. Nowadays that's all anyone is, with rare exception. I remember a few years ago I was hearing a song recorded for babies by either Kathy Lee Gifford or Kathy Griffin (not sure which one, you can see how I'd mix them up in my mind, though they're about as similar as Mekhi Phifer and Michelle Pfeiffer) and it went like this, ahem, "Wooji wooji woo, wooji wooji woo...wooji wooji woo" for several minutes, not that they played the whole thing thankfully. Now, that was a song for babies and infants because they like repeated phrases and sounds, because it's simple enough for them to understand. But tell me, is there such a vast difference between "Wooji wooji woo" and "Shake shake, a shake shake, a shake it?" (even more ridiculous when written out isn't it?) This means that we as a society really advance very little beyond our infantile minds. As I pointed out before, everyone either loves songs that are about nothing (such as my new nemesis, "That's Not My Name") or songs that are about nothing but use big words to pretend like they're about something (30+ years of Springsteen).

Now why did I use Grey's Anatomy as an example? I will tell you exactly why. Because I hate it with a passion. Last Valentine's Day, my valentine was my hatred for Grey's Anatomy. At first I just hated it because it delayed the last five episodes of Boston Legal season 1. Then I hated it because it was narrowly beating CSI (a far superior show, superior the way Michael Jordan is better than a platypus at basketball) every week. Now I hate it because it's devolving television. Just when things were starting to look good and fiction was starting to require its viewers to think a little bit. Just when Harry Potter swooped in on his broomstick and helped to save some children from illiteracy. Just when there was some hope, stupid Grey's Anatomy comes in and gives its viewers mindless trash every week.

Although it remains a moderate hit in its own right, Lost is far and away the best show on television (I've watched tens of thousands of episodes of TV at this point, I think I know what I'm talking about). And yet, only X amount of people will remain with it to the end, because it requires you to actually use your brain. Now, as much as I love American Idol, it's really just mindless entertainment (and it is quite entertaining, not to downplay that at all). Thankfully, CSI exists. It's a show that both rewards continued viewership/attention to detail and remains accessible to people who have never seen it before. But it's the exception, because for every great show like CSI or Dollhouse (which thankfully got renewed, they must have read the blog) there are five shows that are terrible. I'm treated to this crap on every commercial break:

"Oh my god I cannot believe you slept with him!"

"Oh my god I cannot believe you slept with her!"

"Oh my god some guy is injured!"

DRAMATIC BOOM......Grey's Anatomy.

And it was all bad enough, until the newest and worst of them all came along: Lady Gaga. The fourth horseman of entertainment's apocalypse (the first three being Beyonce, Fergie, and whatever jerk invented Grey's Anatomy). At least Beyonce seems like a nice person, aside from her stupid songs that I hear over and over, I feel like if I met her in real life she'd be really nice and easy to be around. Fergie not so much, but at least her songs are nice enough at their core (obvious exception: "London Bridge"). Lady Gaga on the other hand, sings about promiscuity and drunkenness. Like there's not enough of that already. In my future book of why I need to take over the world (I am currently accepting applications for positions in my Empire) I can't decide whether I want to call it "Australian Dessert" or "Just Dance." Because that song is the epitome of our feelings today: sure there are lots of problems that need fixing, but why don't we just get drunk and dance? Because then everything will be okay.

Sigh...well, this is what happened to the Roman Empire. They started to focus more on entertainment and personal gratification than security and national interests, and we see where that got them. People need to read more, use their brains a bit, and watch some good TV. Wait for the DVD of HBO and Showtime shows if you're financially constrained, or rent them, or illegally download them for all I care! Just watch them and help save America! Because as Stephen King's immortal gunslinger phrased more eloquently than I could, "To learn what was most important to a society, first learn how they dreamed." This leaves us with some hope as the biggest movies at the box office are superhero films, but turn on the radio and this leaves us less than excited for the future. Because if our ideals are personified by the likes of Lady Gaga and Beyonce, well let's just say we might not be prepared when the Visigoths come calling.

My 5 Favorite Villains Ever: Volume 5

Ah so, here we are at the villain who should top everyone's villain list. Before we get to that, I should mention that I've written these after I read an article in Entertainment Weekly about their top 20 heroes and top 20 villains. I thought the lists were crap. James Bond, as much as I love him, is not really a hero (certainly not number 1). Action hero? Yes. Number 1 on the list of awesome characters? Definitely. But he's an assassin, who's more interested in beating down some bad guys and sleeping with exotic women than saving the day (he saves the day because it's his job). My list of heroes will come in future posts. And their number one villain? The Wicked Witch of the West. Please. Iconic? Definitely. Scary? Not for me, but apparently for others yes. Well-developed? Hardly, all she does is cackle. She certainly has a place on the list because of her importance to film history, but when you're talking villains in terms of how iconic, well-developed, and awesome they are, there's only one man that comes to mind (although he's more machine now, than man).

1. Darth Vader from Star Wars. And for the record, I am referring to the series as a whole. I will never in my life refer to Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope as Star Wars, because George Lucas initially intended it to be Episode IV but didn't want to throw off audiences. Refer to it as Star Wars in my presence and I'll react as though you said that How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days is on the same level as The Dark Knight. Anyway, back to Vader. First off, admittedly it's an incredibly nostalgic character for me. The original trilogy was sadly before my time, so I couldn't experience it for the first time in theaters. But when my mom decided it was time for me to watch the trilogy, man I thought they were incredible. I thought they were pretty much the greatest things I'd ever seen. And when Vader's humanity shines through at the end of Episode VI, it was the first time I really felt the power of a film. To this day it still makes me cry and I've probably seen it at least 20 times. That moment is what solidifies Vader as the best villain, because in the end he wasn't a villain at all.

A lot of people hate the prequel trilogy, but I think they're excellent. Sure they're cheesy (much like the original trilogy), sure young Anakin is annoying (just like young Luke), and yeah there's Jar-jar (no excuse for that one). But you know what? The overall plot is better than the original trilogy, and the original movies are overall more charming and have a better flow, therefore I regard all six as pretty much equal (at least in how much I love them). The main point of the new movies is to showcase the fact that the whole thing is really about Vader. He, along with Obi-Wan, R2D2, and C-3PO, are the only characters in all six movies. And as the robots are comic relief and Obi-Wan is the guide, really it's about Vader's descent and subsequent salvation. In addition, there are a lot of great musical moments in the prequels which foreshadow the birth of Vader (and yes I can tell you every time Vader's Theme is played in the prequels). In fact, my love for film music really erupted when I saw Episode II, it was during the scene after Anakin kills those responsible for his mother's death. When he says, "I slaughtered them like animals, I hate them!" it blares out Vader's Theme, and man I just wanted to jump up in the theater and scream, "Did you guys hear that? That was the freaking coolest thing ever!"

Right then, enough harping on the films themselves. Vader's villainy stems from the most human of all dilemmas: love. He made a deal with the devil to save the one he loved. He always did have a bit of an ego, as in Episode II it's slightly inferred that he thinks if he ran the whole intergalactic political scene, things would be better (this is something I can understand). But he really just wanted to be with Padmé, and when that connection was threatened he took action. Aside from Hannibal (who's really just messed up in the head, although he lacks a certain human connection too even if it's never explored in the films), every other villain I've discussed suffers from this same dilemma. Michael Corleone entered the family business out of love for his father, Lex Luthor and Ben Linus were cast aside by their fathers and they try to force others to fill that gap in their lives. Anakin didn't really have a father, so his connection to his mother was strong. His first step toward the dark side was when his mother was killed. And when he thought it was all happening again with Padmé, he had to do whatever was necessary to secure her safety.

If you notice, Anakin doesn't take pleasure in carrying out his first orders from the Emperor. He convinces himself that he's getting rid of the Jedi because they're dangerous, and that he'll overthrow the Emperor later and run things properly in his place, but he really just wants to save Padmé and his unborn children. Everything else was just a lie he told himself so that he could aid in the committing of mass murder. After killing the Separatist leaders, there's a single tear on Anakin's face. He was ashamed of what he had become, but in his mind there was no other choice. However, things start to go downhill when Padmé confronts him on Mustafar (a planet that aptly looks like Hell). She sees him as the monster he's become, and he begins to choke her out of anger because he feels that she's betrayed him. In his broken mind, he had sacrificed everything for her and she was turning her back on him. He then proceeds to fight the only father he's ever had: Obi-Wan. In the aftermath of the battle, Anakin is nothing but a broken shell of a man.

Enter Lord Vader. In order to survive, Anakin is placed inside a mechanical suit, outside of which he cannot survive for long. At this point, he has become the physical representation of everything inhuman and cold. Like all great villains, his distorted soul irrevocably altered his appearance. When he arises from the operating table, the Emperor informs him that in his anger he murdered Padmé. This is of course untrue, but Vader believes him. His self-image is the single most important facet of his character. What kind of a monster murders his own wife and unborn children? Since he sees himself in this way, he has no other choice but to stand at the Emperor's side. He has nowhere else to go. Everyone needs something that keeps them going (or a quantum of solace if you will). For Bond, it's his job. For Batman, it's revenge for the death of his parents. For Vader, it was Padmé. But in the wake of her death, he had nothing left but service to the Emperor. He told himself that he couldn't be saved. So he became Darth Vader, the scourge of the galaxy. A quote from Alan Moore's Watchmen phrased a similar situation more poetically than I could, "I am a horror, amongst horrors must I dwell."

Once Episode IV hits, it's been 17 or 19 years or something. By this time, Vader has been crushing the resistance for years. Anything that was once human in him is supposedly gone at this point. He proceeds to kill his father-figure Obi-Wan in a somewhat appropriately low-key battle (appropriate since Vader doesn't view the conflict as emotionally as their conflict in Episode III. Still, the fact that Vader's Theme never plays in IV really does bother me). It would seem that his villainy is irreversible, as the machine side of him has taken over. However, in V's finale, when Vader is revealed to be Luke's father (still the coolest scene ever) we see some of that humanity start to come out. In his own way, he's reaching out to his son, trying to save him from the Empire's wrath by having him join it. He's still searching for that familial connection that he lost all those years ago in the desert when his mother died. In some ways, the connection he lost when he left his mother to become a Jedi. By the time the series has reached Episode VI, Luke is starting to get a bit darker. In addition, Vader seems more conflicted. Though he says, "It is too late for me, son" he doesn't sound too sure of himself. More than that, he sounds sad.

And then, in the finale of VI we see what are easily some of my favorite scenes ever committed to film. Vader is still trying to turn Luke to the dark side, perhaps for the aforementioned connection, perhaps because he's still following orders, or perhaps to justify his own actions years earlier. However, when Luke lays down his lightsaber upon defeating his father in battle, without the film really telling you to, you can instinctually feel the change in Vader. Then when the Emperor starts to torture Luke with the intent to kill him, Vader finally realizes that the humanity he thought had long been washed away by years of killing had still been inside of him the whole time. He picks up the Emperor and flings him right into oblivion. This action, and the previous fight, causes Vader's hybrid body to shut down. But he dies a once and future hero, and not the machine that had enslaved the galaxy for years. This transition is solidified in a controversial addition to the end of the movie, where Anakin's ghost appears as his younger self, played by Hayden Christensen. I think this is excellent, because he lives on in the afterlife in his full glory, not as the shell of his former self.

If the prequel trilogy is about doom, the original is about redemption. Luke is what his father should have been, and he thus saves the soul of his father. Love is what turned Vader, and it's what brought him back. The father saved the son from physical death because the son saved the father from spiritual death. That's beautiful. On the surface, Vader is the best villain because he has the best theme music, cool force powers, and probably the greatest voice of all time. But underneath it all, we must remember that the best villains are the ones that show us a reflection of ourselves. And Vader's story is not just recognizable in a scary way. It's also recognizable in a good way. He shows us that no matter how far you travel down the dark path, you can always turn back. Even in the most cruel villain, a shred of humanity remains. No one is truly beyond redemption, and if we can alter our opinions about ourselves we can change for the better too. If Dr. Phil or somebody says that, it sounds really cheesy and stupid. But the way it is shown throughout six movies of Star Wars is truly powerful, and it's the reason they remain some of my favorite movies of all time, and why Darth Vader remains the greatest villain of all time.

My 5 Favorite Villains Ever: Volume 4

Truth be told, I was strongly considering listing this villain as number 1, but the nostalgia of my number 1 is just too powerful. So anyway, adding onto what I was saying in my last villain post, I think television is a great opportunity to heavily change a character over time. This becomes especially interesting with a well-developed villain. We are able to see him on every step of his descent, and we are saddened when we see his humanity shine through, because his fall into darkness is inevitable. I would really like to do an almost episode-by-episode analysis of the character (maybe I will someday) but I’ll do my best to condense it into a few paragraphs here.

2. Lex Luthor from Smallville. I know, crazy right? Domenic’s number 2 villain of all time is on a WB/CW show? The same network that brought you such teenagery (should be a word) trash as Gossip Girl and One Tree Hill? That network? Yes indeed, I kid you not. While the show is mainly about Clark Kent becoming Superman, and I love that, the best part of the show for me was always the Lex story. Because we know why Superman does what he does, he’s Superman! He’s everything we want to be, but Lex in many ways is everything that we are. What could drive a man to attack Earth’s savior? As Chloe herself stated on the show, “Lack of love Clark, some say that’s the definition of true evil.”

Lex is a man who envies. As I’ve stated before, I like when a show or a movie tells you everything you need to know about a character with just one shot. This moment for Lex came on a relatively generic first season episode of the show, something about a hostage situation and Clark and Lex were stuck inside, I don’t quite remember. Anyway, when they’re rescued at the end, Clark is embraced by his parents while Lex looks on from afar. Even though his friendship with Clark wouldn’t end for another few seasons, and he wouldn’t ultimately become a villain for a few seasons after that, it is in this moment that we completely understand why he ends up on the path of the adversary. He wants everything that Clark has, especially a loving family. Lex’s mother died when he was young, and his father is a twisted and evil man. Much like Benjamin Linus, Lex is an unwanted child. He was made bald at nine years old by the meteor shower that brought Clark to Earth. Thus, his father Lionel Luthor saw him as a crippled and imperfect son; hardly the worthy successor to the Luthor empire. In addition, Lex’s little brother (the good son that Lionel had lost in Lex) died as a baby and Lex was blamed for it, further placing the mark of Cain upon his forehead in Lionel’s eyes.

This distorted upbringing is especially sad when considering that Clark is who he is because of his parents. If the two boys had been raised by the opposite families, perhaps Lex would be saving the world from Clark. Without getting into too much detail, as it would take a long time (well, seven seasons) to fully explain Lex’s transformation, suffice it to say that everyone he cared about turned their backs on him. Above and beyond, Lex wanted to be a hero. To gain the love and admiration of the Earth, in order to make up for the love he didn’t receive from his family or his friends. And yet it seems that the Earth doesn’t want him. In other incarnations of the character, once Clark is Superman, he’s the hero Earth wants. Lex sees himself as the savior of mankind, and he sees Clark as a threat to humanity. This started to come out near the end of the seventh season, when Lex tries to kill Clark in order to save the world. Which is a valid complaint when you think about it, if Superman was anything but the nicest guy of all time, he would be a monumental threat. And what’s stopping him from becoming selfish or vengeful? Maybe not much; as the Joker reminds us, all it takes is a little push.

Of course, many of the major steps on his journey toward villainy could only happen within a sci-fi setting. However, they point to very human desires and issues. There are quite a few of these but I'll highlight a couple of key moments. In season 4 the two sides of his personality are split into two different people. We all have these two sides of ourselves, and we all fear that the wrong one will win out in the end. As Lionel tells Lex at the end of the episode, “A man can’t deny his true nature Lex. We’re Luthors, son. We’re Luthors.” Lex’s knowledge of this side of himself is part of what makes him give in to that side. In the sixth season, he is married to Lana Lang for a brief time. She marries him partially because she is pregnant with his child. In what seemed on the surface like a silly, soap opera-esque plot twist, it turns out she wasn’t really pregnant and it was all a trick to get her to marry him. Upon thinking on this further, haven’t we all done things to try to secure the love of another? Not as crazy and sci-fi as what Lex did, but similar things. He really did love her, and he was afraid she wouldn’t love him in return so he tried to give her a reason to be closer to him. Who among us can’t understand loneliness?

Like many good villains, Lex sees himself as the hero. But he feels that he must do extreme or even harmful things to accomplish his goal of saving the world. His final descent comes near the end of season seven, and it is when (a slightly reformed) Lionel stands in the way of Lex’s goal. Lex murders him. Lionel was an evil man, who had murdered his own parents to start his empire. And yet, Lex’s similar actions make him even worse than Lionel ever was, as we see in other versions of the Superman mythos. Though it’s sad and hard to watch at times, this is my favorite episode of the series. The opening scene between Lex and Lionel that ends with the tragic patricide is incredibly well done and is the unavoidable conclusion of the entire series’ conflict between the two. Sure, you could say that Lionel held back the key to Lex’s quest to save mankind, and that’s why he killed him. But the real reason is that Lex had wanted to kill his father for a long time, because his father didn’t love him. Is it really such a crime to desire a father’s love or a friend’s support? Lex has been left behind by everyone he ever cared about and it made him a cold man. Can any of us really say we’d act differently in his position? The transformation is solidified in the episode when Lex’s inner child appears to him in a dreamlike sequence, representing his last shred of humanity. Lex drags the boy into the fireplace and thrusts him into the fire, while exclaiming “you make me weak.” With all the things he did, he could still have turned back. But he destroyed himself and any chance at redemption he might have once had. The saddest part is, in his mind he did it in order to help people. He thinks he has to be a monster to fight monsters.

There is a common misconception of the comic book genre, as well as the sci-fi genre. Yes, on the surface the Batman series is about a guy who dresses up in a silly costume and beats up other people in silly costumes. But it’s really a deeply psychological tale about a man who’s still just a scared little boy in an alley, crying over his parents dead bodies. He never really left that alley. And you could say that the Star Trek series is just a bunch of silliness about flying around in space. But the people are really just looking for themselves out on that final frontier. They’re in a crucible the size of the universe itself. So even though Lex’s descent is marked by clones, aliens, and superpowers, the real story is about a little boy who grew up unwanted by even his own father. A boy who wants to save the world, but the world wants someone else. A boy who would be more than content to live and die on a farm in Smallville, Kansas, but has sadly been exiled from any such hopes or dreams. Lex’s story is one that we all must heed, because we could become him; and more importantly, we could create him.

Shakespeare: A Poor Player who Should Have Strut and Fret his Hour on Stage Before Being Heard no More

Yeah you read me correctly. Much like the infamous "tree burning" incident, the fires of my wrath (the furies of both Hell and a woman scorned pale in comparison) are woven by the opinions of others. And what they leave behind is a man who has always felt that he missed out on drinking the Bard's Kool-Aid, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. That'd be me (the man and not the Kool-Aid). Because much like alcohol, strategy games, and U2, I really don't see the appeal. Unlike those things, there is a lot that Shakespeare wrote that is deserving of praise. Just like Dirty Harry is deserving of praise. It's well-written and well-delivered. But you wouldn't give it Best Picture, just like you wouldn't give Best Picture to Spider-Man 2, The Matrix, or Sin City. All of these are some of my favorite films (and certainly better than some of the stuff that's been nominated in recent years, I'm looking at you Crouching Tiger!) but that doesn't mean I'm going to go overboard and say, "OH MY GOD THESE ARE BETTER THAN ANY MOVIES THAT EVER HAVE BEEN OR EVER WILL BE" because that's just preposterous. This is how I feel about Shakespeare. Do I enjoy some of his plays? Absolutely. Do I think they're the best things ever written? Heavens no. (not that I can name what the best ones are, but you only have to be a doctor to find a cure, not recognize an illness)

As an example, let's use Dan Brown. I highly enjoyed reading The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons but not because they're particularly well-written. The stories are really enjoyable and well-crafted, but the writing needs a bit of work. And that's okay! But this is how I feel about Shakespeare, yes he writes very eloquently (sometimes too eloquently) but all of his comedies are pretty much the same (gender crises and marriage mishaps abound) and quite a few of his tragedies are taken from other stories. And his biggest admirers readily admit this. So they know for a fact he used someone else's idea and they still give him all the credit? (try that today, rewrite a John Grisham novel with better language and see who the judge favors) As many know, I'm an avid Lord of the Rings fan, I think it'd be tough to find better films (more like impossible) but go ahead and ask director Peter Jackson if he deserves more credit than J.R.R. Tolkien, the author of the original books. Peter adapted the stories incredibly well and made them beyond visually amazing, but he wouldn't have had anything to work with if Tolkien's books didn't exist. So give Shakespeare the credit for the words he uses, but let's not pretend that he came up with too many original thoughts.

My first real exposure to Shakespeare was Romeo and Juliet. Contrary to some popular belief (or popular to some contrary belief, if you will) I was actually going into it with an open mind. That open mind was slammed shut when in the beginning of the play the audience is told that the two lovers are doomed. They ruined the ending! Now, I appreciate irony and foreshadowing. I love the Star Wars prequels because they answer the question: why did Darth Vader become a monster? We know how the story ends, but there are answers that we need. But the opening to Romeo doesn't function like this at all, instead it's just a spoiler. Instead of telling us: "why did Darth Vader turn evil?" it tells us: "Darth Vader is evil, turns good in the end, and then dies" before we've even watched A New Hope! Still, this could have been saved by a riveting story about a couple who knew they were flying too close to the sun but decided their love was too important. Instead, the whole thing reads like something on the CW. It feels like Romeo refuses to give up his relationship with Juliet because she's hot and his hormones won't let him. Where's the poetry in that? In addition, my Creative Writing teacher told me that when everybody dies in the end it means that the author wrote himself into a wall and didn't know what to do. West Side Story does it way better if you ask me, the story may well be just as silly, but at least it's got some great dance numbers to distract from this fact.

Interlude: did you know that Shakespeare didn't actually say that "woman scorned" quote? It was some other guy. Funny how anything relatively profound from that time period is attributed to Shakespeare huh?

As I mentioned in my Bob Dylan post, I think a lot of people are expecting Shakespeare to be excellent because everyone else says so, and when they read it and just see a bunch of overly hyperbolized (strangely not a word) jargon with more adjectives than plot progression, they just assume it must be over their heads. I luckily don't have this problem, because with rare exception I value most people's opinions on about the level of one of Jane Goodall's pupils. In addition, although I do find plays like Macbeth, Richard III, and parts of Julius Caesar to be quite good (I like Hamlet, but it's the most overrated of all. In modern day terms, it's a two-hour movie living in the skin of a four-hour movie.) that doesn't mean that everything the man did was brilliant. People try to find every excuse for why something is good, and refuse to see the truth. Even I can do this with things I love, watch:

I love the whole Matrix trilogy, but good Lord what is up with that four minute rave scene in Reloaded? It serves absolutely no purpose.

I love the Harry Potter books but you know what? That confrontation with Voldemort at the end was anti-climactic. The one at the end of the first book was better.

I love The Dark Knight but (brace yourself) I would actually change four seconds of it. Because I hate that during the beginning of the motorcycle chase, little kids are making shooting noises and motions with their fingers right before cars explode. It removes you from the moment, and I don't like it. Thankfully the other 131 minutes and 56 seconds are great.

So as you can see, even though these are some of my favorite and most nostalgic things, I can admit that there are parts that aren't perfect. And why? Because they were written by human beings. Shakespeare had writing deadlines the same as everyone else, and he had a mortgage to pay I'm sure. So if something feels like a rushed ending, it probably is. And The Winter's Tale is just bad, can't we all agree that his good stuff is still good and also admit that a lot of it is bad too? The fabric of the universe won't unravel, he'll still be a great writer. Why does he have to be so untouchable among other writers? I personally find Dante to be ten times the writer that Shakespeare was, and he took a bunch of ideas from other people too (unless he was the sole author of Christianity, Greek Mythology, and History itself).

To me, you could have the greatest visual film of all time, but if there's no story then it's enjoyable but not really very good. At the same time, you could have an incredible script in the hands of a great director, but a mediocre cast. It's not every day that Casablanca or Ben-Hur shows up. Which is why they're so rightfully praised. However, I feel like Shakespeare is one of those guys with nothing to say, but also a lot of nice ways to say nothing (he should've been in politics). All of his plays are filled with long soliloquiys, some of which are excellent and rightfully famous such as "All Our Yesterdays" from Macbeth or "Friends, Romans, Countrymen, Lend Me Your Ears!" from Julius Caesar. However, one must remember that there are also a ton of soliloquiys that no one remembers from each play because they're not particularly interesting. For some modern day examples, in the movie 300, after you see it the first time or two, the first half an hour isn't as interesting and you're kind of waiting for the good stuff. And when it gets good, it gets really good (as it's a surprisingly moving, heroic, and inspiring film). But that doesn't mean every scene in the film is equally as good as everything else. Whereas in V for Vendetta (I got tired of using LOTR all the time, although it's really all one needs) if the scene isn't a fascinating philisophical conversation, it's a well-done fight scene or (ironically) a well-placed quote from Shakespeare that aligns perfectly with the character's revenge. The scenes are all different, but they're all excellent. I don't know that any author has achieved this, probably not, but that doesn't mean we have to pretend that Shakespeare is like that. He's more like 300, there's good stuff, but you find yourself waiting for it through some of the other fluff.

Who'd have thought even I would compare Shakespeare to 300? Ah well, better than a friend of mine's teacher who said, "Shakespeare is like global warming." Try wrapping your head around that one.

So do I really hate Shakespeare all that much? No, much like many of the other things I complain about, I mostly dislike the response to him. And since everyone wants to "hear my opinion" in class and "there are no stupid comments" it's surprising how often I have to keep my mouth shut. Because telling the truth about Shakespeare just isn't worth getting stoned to death by an angry mob of beatniks and starving actors. (They'll probably find me anyway, between the postal service, the orthocons, and everyone else that's after me there are probably a few Shakespeare fans.) If there was any justice in the world, I could badmouth Titus Andronicus while sitting by the fish tank in my apartment and watching a documentary entitled "Pluto, the ninth and best planet." Sadly, I must confine my ideas to this blog, in hopes that I can preserve them before the pod people find me and Ipcress a love for Shakespeare right into my brain.

My 5 Favorite Villains Ever: Volume 3

While favorite villains number 5 and 4 are both excellent, now we can finally move into the field of television for the next two. I found it shocking during a Pop-Up Trivia for a Seinfeld episode that its numbers were mediocre back then, but would be in the top five today. Why are fewer people watching TV? Back when Seinfeld started, the only good shows on were Star Trek: The Next Generation and, well, Seinfeld. Nowadays, you have comedies of modern genius like The Office and 30 Rock, and there are dramas of unparalleled quality like Lost and 24. And fewer people are watching TV than back in the days when a character would break their leg one week and be running after a baddie the next? It's all wrong...ah well, this little pre-rant went on a little long, let's get to the good stuff.

3. Benjamin Linus from Lost. Television as a medium gives the writers an opportunity to develop characters over many years, which is why in many ways I've come to love TV more than movies (though there's still no better way to spend your time than a Lord of the Rings-athon). Ben Linus is an excellent example. He's a sick, twisted man in a lot of ways. But he's my favorite character, no contest. In addition to having a richly tragic background, he's also darkly funny quite often and maniacally brilliant. I find myself cheering for him more often than not (which I should probably seek psychiatric help for, I wonder if Dr. Melfi is available). At first, Ben just creeps you out. However, after you get a little background on him, you start to feel for the poor guy (and I am warning you now, CRAZY HUGE SPOILERS AHEAD).

Ben is an unwanted child, he's really just a guy who's willing to do terrible things in order to find his place in the world. His mother died in childbirth and his father hated him for it. He frequently forgets Ben's birthday and often beats his own son. So once he reaches the Island as a pre-teen, he gains a new father-figure in the form of Richard (the leader of a group of "Others" on the Island who oppose the Dharma Initiative, which is the group that brought Ben and his father to the Island. We're still unsure of how "good" Dharma really was, to further thrust Ben's backstory into grey area). Young Ben sides with Richard, and when he gets older he has the entire Dharma Initiative killed by poisonous gas, and he gasses his father personally (this was appropriately on his birthday, as he was born into being "Leader of the Others" and also because he lost both of his parents on his birthday). However, he can't force himself to look at his father when all of this takes place. He had to look at the situation tactically and remove himself from it emotionally. He is an extreme, but conflicted man.

The episode where we receive this background information is one of my favorites and is appropriately titled "The Man Behind the Curtain." Not only do I love pop culture references, but the title also has a brilliant double meaning. It can refer to the fact that in this episode we are somewhat introduced to Jacob, the mysterious actual leader of the Others. It can also refer to the fact that we are introduced to the man behind the monster when we see that Ben is just a frightened, abused little boy who never really grew up.

But even his position with the Others is not set in stone. When the new leader John Locke emerges Ben attempts to kill him several times (and succeeds once). This seemingly came out of nowhere when I first saw it in the aforementioned episode, but then I realized that Locke was taking from him the only thing he really had: his position as Leader of the Others. Eventually, Ben makes (from his standing point) the ultimate sacrifice for the one thing that matters most to him. In the season 4 finale Ben essentially saves the Island, and in doing so must exile himself from it. It's a truly heartbreaking scene in a lot of ways, no matter how distorted the man may be. To add to this extended tragedy, he makes his way back to the Island in season 5, and in the finale he is once again rejected, this time by Jacob. He then proceeds to stab Jacob to death, and cause some major problems for season 6 (January 2010 can't come soon enough!). But can we really blame him? He did absolutely everything that was asked of him and in the end, the man whom he served treated him like a stray dog.

But Ben's not all monster, we see his humanity come out in very select and interesting circumstances. For instance, he has an adopted daughter, Alex, who he truly does seem to love as his own. He was sent to kill her birth mother when Alex was still a baby. He couldn't bring himself to do it, and he took Alex as his own. For years, she kept some semblance of his humanity in check. This all falls apart in another great episode, "The Shape of Things to Come" when she is killed by a former leader of the Others. It is at this point that Ben swears revenge on this man, Charles Widmore, by vowing to kill Widmore's daughter Penelope. However, this is where the story gets really interesting. In a recent episode, Ben got his chance to kill Penelope, but he couldn't bring himself to do it when he saw she had a son. A man who seemingly has no heart is unable to kill mothers (as seen by this situation and by letting Alex's mother live). In addition, he took Alex in for many of the same reasons that Batman adopts Robin in the wake of his parents' death, he thinks that if he can save her (or him in Batman's case) then he can save himself. Maybe if she received a proper, loving upbringing, she wouldn't end up the same as him and then he can change. Sadly, he is not granted this luxury (villains rarely catch a break).

Ben is an expert liar, brilliant manipulator, and all-around creepy guy. However, he's also been screwed in a lot of ways, so maybe in the beginning he felt that he had to manipulate in order to have things go his way (before just plain enjoying his power over others, which is kinda messed up). And one must respect his skills, however evil they may be. I'd like to think that even though he'll likely be the subject of some kind of retribution in the final season for the crimes he's committed over the course of the show, he might find some measure of peace after his long struggle for acceptance. And that's the whole meaning of the show, the people aren't just Lost from society, they're Lost from themselves. And Ben wants to find his way back just as much as anybody.