In a totally “scientific” poll (conducted solely by reading your letters), it seems one of the more polarizing entertainment figures today is Charlie Sheen.
Most of you dislike him immensely. Yet others were not bothered by last year's apparent meltdown (or cleverly conceived publicity stunts), and were looking forward to his new show, “Anger Management,” on FX.
Reading deeper, I'm not sure if it is so much a case of liking Charlie Sheen as disliking what has happened to “Two and a Half Men” since he left. One of you compared the revamped show to “bilge water.” (I had to look that one up. For the record, it's not a complimentary term.)
You also said, “Ashton Kutcher couldn't act his way out of a wet paper sack.” I beg to differ. I'm pretty sure he could act his way out of a paper sack. Getting you to believe in, or care about, a character he's playing is another story entirely.
Surely, Ashton and Charlie are more well-known for their off-screen antics than their mediocre (at best) acting skills. Sheen is best remembered for playing an obnoxious ladies man; Kutcher, a not-so-bright slacker from the '70s. Wow, there's a stretch. They are full of something, but it isn't necessarily talent. Themselves, maybe?
Can a reality show be far behind where the two of them live together, a la “The Odd Couple?” Think of the hilarity that would ensue when their respective exes stop by for a surprise visit. Throw in Martin Sheen and Bruce Willis, and you could have a knock-down, drag-out dysfunctional family reunion.
I can't believe we are discussing the acting merits of Charlie Sheen vs. Ashton Kutcher. That's kind of like debating who would make a better brain surgeon — Gilligan or the Skipper.