Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events (2004)

 You know that feeling when you first find out that a story you really like is going to be turned into a movie?  And there's a part of you that's really excited, but another part of you remembers having seen movie adaptions of other stories that you loved, but the movie turns out to be horrible?  And so you don't know if you want to put yourself through the torment of seeing another awful adaption?

This is more or less how my siblings and I felt way back in 2004 when the 'Series Of Unfortunate Events' movie was released.  We had been going through the books together as a family.  Having started reading them when the series was in full swing (I think I started on them when Book 8: 'The Hostile Hospital' was the current release, so 2001ish) we had caught up to the current books and were eagerly awaiting the annual releases as they began ending in cliffhangers.

We had every right to be concerned.  They were squishing three books into one movie.  How were they going to handle Sunny Baudelaire, an infant who spoke only in gibberish, whose siblings could understand?  And that casting choice of Jim Carrey as Count Olaf - loved him in 'The Mask' but he's been in some real stinkers since then.

In short, we didn't see the movie right away because there was no way we thought it would work.  And by all rights it shouldn't have.  But it did.

It's not a perfect movie.  Squishing the first three books together - or rather, chopping 'The Bad Beginning' in half and inserting 'The Reptile Room' and 'The Wide Window' between the two halves, could be viewed as a mistake.  The movie is barely over an hour and a half, and it moves along at breakneck speed.  Re-watching it, I checked the time stamp and they only spend about 17 minutes on 'The Reptile Room', which is a murder mystery, and they kind of skip over the solution of the murder.  I haven't seen the new Netflix adaption of the books but as they spend two episodes per book the stories probably have more time to breathe.

As an adaption though, it is true to the spirit of the books.  The story is framed with narration from Lemony Snicket, chronicler of the many misfortunes that have befallen the Baudelaires and writer of the books.  He's every bit the character in the movie that he is in the books - a mysterious shadowy figure who's face is never clearly seen - who interrupts the story every now and then to apologies for just how woeful the tale is and to show off his vocabulary.  Fun fact: If I hadn't read the books when I was a kid there's a chance I wouldn't know the meaning of words like schism or penultimate.  When I saw the promotional material for the Netflix show and saw the character of Snicket front and center instead of lurking in the shadows I was horrified.  How could this show that was supposed to be more faithful to the books get wrong what the movie got so right?

The kids are handled well in the movie too.  Sunny's gibberish is translated with subtitles, and this solution works well.  I feel like they didn't give Klaus much to do - perhaps because of that aforementioned murder mystery element in 'The Reptile Room' that they downplayed: Klaus really shines in the climax of that book.  He does get to decode a secret message later on, (which is from the third book) so that's something.  Violet (played by Emily Browning who would go on to star in 'Suckerpunch') is like a steampunk teenage girl version of Macgyver - so I'd say they nailed her character.  It's fun to see Emily Browning in an early role and see her future promise.  She's got a very expressive face here, and so much of her character is portrayed through expressive reactions.  In the books these three are practically super-geniuses, and by relying on each other's strengths they can take on anything the world throws at them.  Some of the bits of the stories that they cut are the parts where the kids are showing off their individual talents - like a scene in 'The Wide Window' where they use a peppermint allergy to escape from a nasty situation.  There are some added scenes where they really capture this though - like the sequence where the Baudelaires are locked in a car on the railroad tracks and the train is a-coming.  They manage to escape only by using their combined talents, and this is one of my favorite sequences in the movie.

And how is Jim Carrey as Count Olaf?  He's sinister.  He's hilarious.  You love to hate him.  In short, he's just about perfect.  There may be a moment or two where he takes things a little too far - a little too Jim Carrey and not enough Count Olaf - with the silly faces and funny noises, but for the most part he's great.  And as Count Olaf is a master of disguise (well, sort of.  He'll never fool the kids, but the adults fall for it every time.)  Jim Carrey is really playing three different characters, and he makes each of them his own.  It could be argued that Count Olaf gets too much time in the spotlight, and the story is supposed to be about the Baudelaire orphans, not the villain.  But hey.  I love to see a great villain.

Things are changed around for the ending a little bit.  One thing that happens from time to time in the books is the siblings get separated and either Klaus or Violet has to pick up the slack as they are down one of the skill-sets they need to get out of a sticky situation.  The movie has that too, with Klaus tapping into Violet's talents and inventing a grappling hook to rescue Sunny.

Some of the main themes of the books are how bad things happen to good people.  That's just how the world works.  How we wish things could be are not the same as how things are.  The movie captures 'How we wish things could be' vs. 'How things really are' well in two scenes near the end.  One where Lemony Snicket says that he wishes he could end the story with 'And then they caught Count Olaf, and he was forced to endure all the hardships that he inflicted on the Orphans.'  We get a hilarious montage of Count Olaf getting run over by a train and attacked by carnivorous leeches.  And then we learn that in actuality he escaped justice and would be back once again to torment the Baudelaires.  The other is where the Orphans visit their childhood home (which had burned down in the beginning of the story) and see it as they wish to see it - in it's former glory - as the camera pans over it and the beauty fades to ashes before their eyes.  It's a beautiful and sad scene.

I'd be shirking my duties as an amateur film discussing person if I failed to mention that this movie is really gorgeous.  Seriously, it's just really nice to look at.  It's got a quirky Gothic/German Expressionistic/Steampunk type feel to it.  A bit like a Tim Burton movie, but it's not just copying Burton, it's doing it's own thing.  It doesn't quite capture the feel of Brett Helquist's illustrations from the books, but it knows what aesthetic it's going for and stays true to that aesthetic.  It's a good movie to pop in of you're in need of some creative inspiration.

The themes of family sticking together and relying on each other to get through hard times are really strong in this movie.  As a fan of the books, I don't mind that they changed things around a little bit.  They captured the spirit of the books but they weren't afraid to be their own thing.  I think I'd miss all of the scenes they added if they weren't there.  And honestly, if this were an adaption that were 100% faithful to the source material, what would the point be of making an adaption?  If a movie is identical to the book, you may as well just read the book.  This captures the feel of the books and brings something new to the table as well.

Good movie.  Check it out.

-Geekboy.

Batman Returns (1992)

One of my odd quirks is that I remember what year people were born based on movies that came out the same year.  My Grandma shares a birth year with the original 'King Kong' for example, and I have a brother who is quite proud of the fact that he was born the same year 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' was released.  Thanks to 'Batman Returns' the ol' Geekboy can also remember when HE was born.

'Batman Returns' is a follow up to Tim Burton's 1989 'Batman'.  Like the '89 Batman, this movie spends most of it's time focusing on the bad guys.  '89 Batman only has one main villain however, the Joker, whereas 'Batman Returns' has THREE villains.  Penguin, Catwoman, and a sleazy businessman named Max Shreck who is pulling all of the strings in this puppet-show.  As you may guess, Bruce Wayne/Batman once again gets a little lost in the mix, particularly since he didn't have the focus and character development he deserved the last time around.

Visually speaking this is an all-out Tim Burton movie, and the visuals are the strongest part of the movie.  Burton ditches the Noir/Gangster inspiration from the last time around in favor of Gothic/German Expressionistic style costuming and architecture.  The German influence is evident as Penguin's look is clearly modeled after the titular villain of 1920s 'The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari' AND Max Shreck is named after the actor who portrayed the Vampire Count Orlok in 1922's 'Nosferatu'.

So, let's take a look at the villains of the film.  They're clearly the characters Tim Burton was most interested in anyway.  We start off with the birth of the hideously distorted Oswald Cobblepot, an infant with a taste for any sort of raw meat he can catch.  He is quickly abandoned by his high-society parents and ends up in the sewers of Gotham where he is discovered and raised by sewer penguins.  No, I am not making this up.  Tim Burton is the one making this up, because that's not Penguin's canon comic book origin.

Two minutes on Wikipedia will tell you that Penguin was bullied as a child for his strange looks.  He was raised by a very human mother and he fixated on her pet birds.  There's nothing in there about sewer penguins.  That said, I do enjoy Burton's take on Penguin.  Burton took a villain who is rather hard to take seriously, cast comedic actor Danny DeVito to play him, and turned him into a truly terrifying figure lurking in the sewers and devouring raw fish.

It's Christmas in Gotham City, and as this is a Tim Burton movie, Christmas is the most scariest time of the year.  LAST year I actually watched this on Halloween.  It works well for either holiday.  Businessman Max Shreck is doing great humanitarian acts to schmooze up to the mayor so that the mayor will approve of the new power plant Shreck wants to build.  The power plant is important.  The power plant is what motivates Max Shreck, and Max Shreck is what - in one way or another - motivates all of the other villains in the story.

Penguin wishes to return to his rightful place in society.  He kidnaps and blackmails Max Shreck so Shreck can help Penguin with his goal.  Shreck reluctantly agrees, but he has plans to use Penguin for his own agenda.

Meanwhile Shreck's timid and mousy secretary Selina Kyle accidentally discovers Shreck's real plans for his so called 'power plant'.  He wants to build a gigantic capacitor that will steal electricity from Gotham for some sinister purpose that is never fully explained.  To shut her up Shreck pushes Selina Kyle out of a skyscraper window.  But because Selina had been shown as being nice to alley cats, the cats are in turn nice to Selina.  Selina is brought back to life by the cats, and now somehow has nine lives.  She's also rather mentally unbalanced and out for revenge on Shreck.

Just like Penguin, this portrayal of Catwoman has very little in common with her comic book  counterpart.  She's an ordinary cat-burglar in the comics.  There's nothing supernatural about Catwoman, She doesn't have nine lives, and she's one of the few sane members of Batman's rouges gallery.  These changes to Catwoman are less easy to justify than the changes to Penguin.  I personally don't think they add that much to her as a character.  I'm personally left scratching my head as to how somebody who adapted Joker's origin faithfully to the comics in the previous film would take so many liberties in the follow up movie.

I would like to point out that by the time all of the villains are introduced and their motivations are set up we are half an hour into the movie and Batman has only been in one scene and hasn't yet had a single line of dialog.

Max Shreck hatches a plan to make Penguin into a local hero.  Penguin 'rescues' the mayor's son after first faking his abduction.  Shreck then talks Penguin into running for mayor of Gotham, thinking he can use him as a puppet and get him to approve of that oh-so-important-to-the-plot power plant I mentioned earlier.  They plan to make the old mayor, the city's law enforcement, and Batman look completely incompetent in order to obtain this task.

Meanwhile Catwoman is taking her revenge on Shreck by vandalizing one of his department stores.  Rather than outright killing him, which is allegedly her motivation.  As his secretary she should know his daily routine well enough to take him out at any time.  Maybe the logic is that like a cat she's toying with her prey, so I suppose this is justifiable.  Anyway, she crosses paths with Batman, and after he bests her in battle she decides she wants revenge on him too now.

So.  Catwoman teams up with Penguin to discredit Batman even though Penguin is already clearly working with her arch nemesis Shreck.  Huh?  The two of them frame Batman for kidnapping Gotham's 'Ice Princess' a bubble-headed blond who is a big part of the Gotham City's tree lighting celebration.  While Batman is occupied with trying to rescue the Ice Princess, Penguin's henchmen hijack the Batmobile.  Penguin then frames Batman for murdering the Ice Princess - causing Penguin and Catwoman to have a falling out - and then he takes over the Batmobile by remote control.

The part where Batman is trapped in the Batmobile as Penguin is controlling it is actually my favorite part in the entire movie.  It's a very Pulpy/Cliffhanger Serial idea - careening through the streets at high speeds and trying desperately to regain control of the vehicle.  Penguin plans to kill two birds with one stone - eliminating Batman and showing him to be a reckless driver to further discredit him.

But Batman escapes and manages to turn the tables on Penguin - revealing to the general public that he is truly monstrous not only in look but in deed.  And at this point the movie falls apart structurally speaking.  The first half of the story is pretty good.  The plot to discredit Batman is interesting and well done.  But like the '89 Batman, after the bad guy's first evil plan fails the story just becomes a series of backup evil plans.

Remember Max Shreck's evil power plant that has been the driving motivation of all the characters in this story?  This plot thread goes no where.  After the plot to make Penguin the new mayor is thwarted Shreck is demoted to a really minor villain.  Even though he was the driving force of the entire story up to this point.  Now Penguin is somehow the main villain and the plot quickly degenerates from something as sophisticated as framing Batman for murder to strapping missiles to an army of remote control penguins.

My consensuses?  This is a very flawed - but still enjoyable - movie.  It takes a ton of liberties with the source material - particularly with Catwoman's character - doesn't deliver on plot threads that we are tricked into believing are really important from the very beginning of the story, and Batman is once again barely in his own movie.  But when all is said and done I actually like this movie a little better then Batman '89.  Unfortunately that only makes the weak parts of 'Batman Returns' all the more frustrating.

I may be in the minority, but I personally believe that 1995's 'Batman Forever' is the best of the pre- 'Batman Begins' Batman movie.  Next time I blog Batman you should find out why.

Merry Christmas.

- Geekboy.

Drums of Fu Manchu (1940)

It's hard to remember now, but there was a time when I thought Fu Manchu was a style of mustache.  Not to say it ISN'T a style of mustache, but it's more that that too.  It's also the name of one of the most inspirational criminal masterminds in detective fiction.  Dr. Fu Manchu was a 'Yellow Peril' villain created by British pulp writer Sax Rohmer in 1911, and is said to have had an influence on villains such as Ming the Merciless, Dr. No, Ra's al Ghul, and The Mandarin.

When I was first getting into serials I heard that 'Drums of Fu Manchu' was one of the very best.  My response to this bold claim was of course: "I thought a Fu Manchu was just a style of mustache."  A little research showed me otherwise.  I started watching the movies, 'Mask of Fu Manchu' staring Boris Karlof and the British series of movies staring Christopher Lee, and tracking down some of the books.  Eventually I got my hands on the classic serial.

Is 'Drums of Fu Manchu' the best serial ever made?  That's a matter of opinion.  Personally, I think it pales in comparison to my favorites like 'Jungle Girl', 'Manhunt of Mystery Island', and 'Perils of Nyoka'.  I can see why people hold it in such high regard, however.  'Drums' has a bit of everything, and is a good example of several different genres of serials.  The first half plays out like a crimefighting serial - the type where a government agent or masked vigilante is trying to take out a gang led by a shadowy mastermind.

There are some Science Fiction elements here as well.  Nothing as extreme as the Rocketships of 'Flash Gordon' or the Jetpacks and Robots of the 'Rocketman' serials.  But there are diabolical murder weapons such as a poison dart hidden in a microphone and triggered by sound vibration, and also a door protected by a force-field that disintegrates anyone or anything trying to pass through.

Halfway trough the serial it switches to more of a adventure serial with treasure hunting, deathtraps such as primitive lasers made from mirrors and sunlight, spear traps triggered by tripwire, deadly caves filled with dropping stalactites, and tombs that slowly fill with poison gas.

The story is a loose adaption of Sax Rohmer's novel 'Mask of Fu Manchu'.  In the serial Fu Manchu is trying to get his hands on the Scepter of Genghis Khan in order to prove himself the prophesied ruler over all Asia who was foretold to appear that year.  He is apposed by Sir Denis Nayland Smith and our young American hero Allan Parker.  Allan's father, an Archeologist, is held prisoner by Fu Manchu as he knows how to find the tomb of Genghis Kahn.  Dr. Parker is killed in the rescue attempt.

Allan doesn't seem too broken up about his father's death at the time, but he sees fit to remind us of the fact that he's out for revenge on Fu Manchu every once in a while just in case we'd forgotten.  In general he doesn't have much personalty and is as smart or as dumb as the plot sees fit.  For example in Chapter 2 he hitches a ride to Fu Manchu's hideout by grabbing onto the running-board of the bad guy's car.  THAT'S SMART.  Later on in the same chapter, he deliberately backs up until he's standing on the secret trapdoor in Fu Manchu's hideout.  THAT'S DUMB.  And hilarious.  Hilariously dumb.

Nayland Smith, the hero of all of Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu novels, is more or less demoted to sidekick.  He's the leader, and does a bit of detective work early on, but it's the less British and more square-jawed Allan who drives the action.  Still, Sir Nayland has it better than Dr. Petrie - the narrator of many of the books -  who has little to no dialog in this serial.

We also have Mary Randolf, who would be the Damsel in Distress under most circumstances, but we have Allan to play that role more often than not.

And what of Fu Manchu?  How is he in this serial?  Visually speaking, he's rather imposing.  And his sinister plots, torture devices, murder weapons, and disguises are top notch.  Unfortunately he speaks in a high pitched and nasally voice that is rather difficult to take seriously.

Allan, Nayland Smith, and company race to keep Fu Manchu from all of the clues leading to the Tomb of Genghis Khan and then race him to the tomb itself.  These chapters are all exciting, but I tend to loose interest after Chapter 11 when they finally find the scepter.  The rest of the serial is spent trying to keep the scepter away from Fu Manchu, and when that fails, stop him from using it to gain power over all the Mongolian tribes.

Standout cliffhangers include the sequence where Allan is attacked by Fu Manchu's giant octopus, the 'Pit and the Pendulum' torture device, and a bomb rigged to blow Allan up as soon as the phone rings.  Mary and Nayland Smith are given instructions to call at a certain time, unknowingly dooming their comrade.

Another great chapter ending is one in which Fu Manchu discredits our heroes in front of the friendly natives, and then tries to sacrifice a hypnotized Mary in the Temple of the Sun.

Although it's not my personal favorite, 'Drums of Fu Manchu' is a serial worth watching.  It's a mash-up of Adventure and Crime Fighting serials, and features a villain who - though largely forgotten now - had a big influence on pop culture from Superhero comics to the villains in the James Bond films.

-Geekboy.

On Villains... Part 2:

A while back I talked about some of the most influential love-to-hate-em villains of my childhood:  Murdoc from TVs MacGyver and Lord Sinister from Lego: Adventurers.

Today I'm going to cover a couple more bad guys from my formative years.  Let's take a look.

When I was a kid there were basically two kinds of people: Those who were reading Harry Potter and those who were reading A Series of Unfortunate Events.  Me and my siblings fell into the Series of Unfortunate Events camp.

In the first of thirteen books, the three Baudelaire children become the three Baudelaire orphans.  After discovering they are the heirs to an enormous fortune they are thrust into the clutches of their evil relative and legal guardian Count Olaf.

Count Olaf spends this and the next 12 books trying time and time again to steal the Baudelaire fortune through any means necessary.  Impersonation, Hypnotism, framing our heroes for murder, Sending them down a rocky mountain cliffside road in an out of control carnival wagon...

The list goes on and on.

I haven't seen much of the 1914 cliffhanger serial 'Perils of Pauline' but I imagine it's melodramatic formula had some influence on 'Series of Unfortunate Events'.  Plot synopsis?  Pauline is an heiress set to inherit a fortune.  However, she decides to travel the world before she settles down.  Mr. Koerner, who is in charge of handling all of Pauline's money, decides she should have an 'accident' while she's off adventuring.  Somehow Pauline escapes or is rescued from each trap he sets.

I wasn't really into serials yet when I was into 'Series of Unfortunate Events', but looking back on it, the cliffhanger serial was an obvious inspiration for the books as well as the 2004 movie.

Book 4, "The Miserable Mill" involves tying an individual to a sawmill, which is one of the things everyone thinks of when they think off serials an melodramas, although the only serial I can think of that uses this as a plot device is 'G-men vs the Black Dragon'.  As the book progressed, the stories began to end in cliffhangers, such as the aforementioned wagon ride from 'The Carnivorous Carnival'.

This made following the books as they were being published a lot of fun.  I remember waiting so impatiently for the next installment.

The movie adds a cliffhanger with a sequence where Count Olaf locks our heroes in a car parked on the railway tracks.  I only really started thinking about the books being patterned after 'Perils of Pauline' when I re-watched the movie awhile back.

Jim Carrey plays Count Olaf in the movie, and he has a knack for stealing the show making you cheer every time he's on screen, even though he's the bad guy.  He does the same thing as Riddler in 'Batman Forever'.  Count Olaf is an over-the-top humorous in the books, but Carrey's unusual mannerisms turn it up to eleven.

Our next villain for today is Professor Ratigan from the 1986 Disney movie 'The Great Mouse Detective'.  In this parody of Sherlock Holmes, Ratigan is less like the Moriarty of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories, and more like a cross between Snidely Whiplash and the classic Bond movie villain.  You know how in a James Bond movie the bad guy has pet Sharks, Piranhas, or Alligators?  Ratigan feeds people to a giant cat.

Ratigan has crafted an elaborate plot to usurp the mouse queen's rule over England.  But first he has to get his nemesis, the heroic Basil of Baker-street, out of the picture.  For this purpose he has crafted an elaborate Rue Goldberg machine that involves a phonograph record that triggers an elaborate deathtrap when as the song plays.  Oh, and did I mention that the song is 'Goodbye so Soon,' the best (in my humble opinion) villain song in Disney history?  Vincent Price does the voice Ratigan.  Everything is better with Vincent Price.


So, this is probably less of a 'Geekboy's Favorite Villains' post as it is a 'The Origin of Geekboy's obsession with Cliffhanger Serials' post.  Oh well.  Tell me about your favorite childhood villains in the comments.

Villain Cameos in Marvel Movies

'Captain America: Civil War' is undoubtedly a 5 star superhero movie.  They had a lot of story elements to juggle: resolution for the Winter Soldier story-line, bringing the conflict between Cap and Iron Man to a head, and introducing new characters like Black Panther and the latest version of Spiderman.  But the movie in no way feels overstuffed, and each character has a moment in the spotlight.  I loved all the stuff with Falcon, Spiderman and Antman are both hilarious, and I really want to see more of Scarlet Witch now - I wasn't crazy about her in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron'.  The main themes of the story - standing your ground on moral issues, dangers of conformity, the futility of revenge - are really strong.

But I have a problem with how they treated one of the villains.

Marvel has villain problems.  Nobody on the internet ever said that before, amiright?

But I'm not talking about the usual complaints of unmemorable villains.  I'm talking about the way Crossbones - a pretty major villain from Cap's rouges gallery - has a brief cameo and is killed off before the twenty minute mark.

I'm not saying that Crossbones should have been the main villain of this movie or anything.  I'm not saying that at all.  A story featuring conflict between Captain America and Iron Man barely has need of a main villain, and the one who is lurking behind the scenes does a fantastic job of being the mastermind and tying all of those revenge themes together.

But to take a villain like Crossbones - whom Marvel had been teasing since 'Captain America: The Winter Soldier' - and then kill him off after only one appearance in costume is disappointing to fans.  It doesn't matter if they were planning to use him more later or not.  They could have if they wanted to, but they can't now because he's dead.

"But Geekboy," you say.  "Villains die and then come back in superhero comics all the time!  Heroes too!"  And that's true. But to the casual movie audience who don't read the comics and don't already know that Crossbones is a big deal IT WOULD BE CHEATING TO BRING HIM BACK.  So it's a lose-lose situation when you turn your villain into a cameo thug and then kill him off.

I can see Marvel's point of view here.  What they're doing is trying to give all the major villains some screentime without overstuffing the movie like fans complained about in superhero movies like 'Spiderman 3' or 'Amazing Spiderman 2'.  And this is a technique that's been working well so far in the Captain America movies.

'Captain America: Winter Soldier' gives fans a scene with Batroc the Leaper in the beginning.  It doesn't feel like a waste that he hasn't appeared again, because a man in a purple costume doing French kickboxing probably couldn't carry a movie as the main villain.

Taking Arnim Zola - a goofy cyborg character from the Silver Age of comics - and turning him into an AI computer worked because fans weren't really expecting Marvel to have Zola in such a serious movie at all.

But then in 'Avengers: Age of Ultron' we have Baron Strucker - Nick Fury's nemesis, and one of the head honchos over at Hydra - who is killed off before the halfway point of the movie just like Crossbones.

And you do NOT want to engage a die hard Mandarin fan in conversation about the infamous plot twist in 'Iron Man 3'

It's puzzling to me how Marvel keeps taking villains like Baron Strucker and Crossbones and disposing of them before they have a chance to live up to the potential of the villains they are in the comics.  Especially when fans and critics alike are waiting for a villain who can give pretty-boy Loki a run for his money.  Hopefully Thanos will live up to all the hype when he finally shows up in Avengers 3 and 4.

On Villains...

 

We love to hate 'em.

I watch the show Grimm.  In the first season, Adalind Schade made my skin crawl.  By the end of season two, I was cheering every time she was on screen.  Sure she was evil, but she was also really cool and funny!  I realized that I loved to hate her.  And I loved loving to hate her.  She's one of my favorite characters now.

I've been doing lots of research on the great villains of classic British crime novels.  Ian Fleming's Ernst Stavro Blofeld, Sax Rohmer's Fu Manchu, and Sapper's Carl and Irma Peterson of James Bond, Fu Manchu, and Bulldog Drummond fame.

My fascination with villains makes sense when you think about it.  I read comics, and great Superheroes need to have great villains.  Captain America has The Red Skull, Daredevil has both Kingpin and Bullseye, and of course Batman has Joker.

But my fascination with the arch nemesis goes back further than my reading of comic books.  Here are two of the first villains I loved hating.


First we have Lord Sinister.


Created by the Lego company in 1998, Lord Sinister was the primary antagonist for Johnny Thunder, Pippin Reed and Dr. Killroy of 'The Adventurers' toys and online comics.  Lord Sinister was know by different names over the years, and also depending on the country the stories were published in (All of the characters went through name changes.  In some countries, Pippin Reed and Dr. Killroy were know  as Gail Storm and Dr. Lightning).  Lord Sinister's aliases include Baron von Barron, and Mr. Hates.  I came onboard rather late in the series, with 2003's 'Orient Expedition,' So He'll always be 'Lord Sinister' to me.

Johnny Thunder is a thrill seeking Adventurer and Treasure Hunter from Australia.  He, Dr. Killroy, and Miss Pippin Reed, a photographer for World Magazine, travel to exotic locals in search of treasure to 'Put in a museum, where everyone can see it!'  While searching for treasure they usually found ways to protect the downtrodden and right wrongs and all that good stuff.  But you can bet that Lord Sinister will be close behind, allowing our heroes to do all the hard work, just to steal the treasure out from under their noses and put in his private collection.  Or at least he'll try.  Usually he'll end up triggering some kind of booby-trap, allowing our heroes to nab the treasure.




So, Lord Sinister isn't the most evil villain in the world.  He's a Snidely Whiplash type who wouldn't be out of place in a silent melodrama.  But he was a lot of fun and will always have a special place in my heart.



The other is Murdoc, Played by Michael Des Barres, in the hit 80's TV show MacGyver.  I was pretty much MacGyver's biggest fan, ever since I was first introduced to the show somewhere between the ages of 9 and 12 all the way through my teen years.  Murdoc was introduced as a master-of-disguise assassin, working for the organization-of-evil H.I.T. who has a vendetta against Mac and his buddy Peter Thornton.  He 'dies' at the end of every episode he's in, but is always back for the next season.  He's been blown up, fallen off cliffs, submerged in underground lakes of boiling oil, and fallen into snake pits.  Usually his last words are "MAC-GYYYY-VAAAAAAAA---!" shouted at the top of his lungs.





Murdoc's character evolves quite a bit over the course of the show.  He goes from from maniac-with-a-flame-thrower in Season 3, to a tormented Phantom of the Opera type character in the Season 4 episode 'Cleo Rocks'.  He and MacGyver even call a truce and team up in Season 5's 'Halloween Knights'.

You don't want Murdoc to win and kill MacGyver, per say, but you really don't want MacGyver to ever CATCH Murdoc either.  You like that their never ending chess-match is a stalemate.  And really, that's the way it should be.