Top 15 Films of 2011

Finally.

Yes, people. I made it through about one fourth of the jillion films that came out in 2011--and I feel like one fourth of a jillion is enough to scrounge a top 15 out of. I didn't do this last year, but before we get on with the list, I want to say a few things about 2011 as a whole.

By the fact that I upped my number from 10 to 15, it's fair to say that a high volume of good movies came out last year. But, while this may be true, the number of GREAT films released in 2011 was surprisingly low. All of the films on this list are good, but I'd argue that only one or two were truly great. For clarification, a great film is one that stays with me. I enjoy it long after seeing it and entertain the idea of watching it many, many more times in the future. 2011, while full of good movies, contained very few that I'd be interested in watching again.

Now, with that downer out of the way, here we go: my top 15 films of 2011!

15. ANOTHER EARTH
A film that explores the devastating consequences that just one mistake can make in someone's life. After Rhoda (newcomer Brit Marling) accidentally kills a mother and child while driving drunk, she tries her best to improve the crumbling life of the man most affected by that accident--the father. Throw in a subplot about the discovery of a planet identical to Earth floating in space, and you have one of the most original and effective films of 2011.

14. BRIDESMAIDS
This film about a woman who implodes after her best friend gets engaged received a lot of attention in 2011--and rightfully so. It's hilarious and, surprisingly, full of heart. While I think there are definite highs and lows to Bridesmaids (a very slow start...doesn't get hilarious until Melissa McCarthy shows up), the relationship between Kristen Wiig's character and Chris O'Dowd in this is so adorable it hurts (in a good way). So much attention was paid to the gags and the pooping in the sink that I think a lot of people missed that.

13. A DANGEROUS METHOD
An intense, sexy, and oftentimes disturbing look at the psychological world during the rise of legends Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud. The acting from all the leads (Michael Fassbender, Viggo Mortensen, and Keira Knightly) leave nothing to be desired, and although the ending loses a bit of the momentum and fizzles out, it's still one of the most interesting and intense films of 2011.

12. THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO
I had high expectations for this film, and as someone who's read the novel by Steig Larsson, I have to say--Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo perfectly captures the tone of the original work. Unfortunately, much like the novel, the plotting is inconsistent. I chose not to blame the film, though, which beautifully executes the big moments in a way that left me completely satisfied. And the acting...just wow. Rooney Mara is definitely here to stay. Her potrayal of the damaged Lisbeth Salander paired with Fincher's distinctive style as a director gave us the most compelling slow-burn thriller of the year.

11. HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PT. 2
A satisfying end to a mostly bumpy series of 8 films. While I have my personal objections to how faithful this movie was to the book (I am a nerd, after all), as a film it was an acheivement all around. It's one of the most action-packed, heart-wrenching movies of 2011...silly epilogue aside.

10. MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Woody Allen's biggest hit in years that embraces the whimsy and beauty of Paris. I knew nothing about the plot going into this--and honestly, I think that's the best way to enter this film. It takes you places you don't expect to go, and for lovers of perfect writing, English Lit, and beautiful sets, Midnight in Paris is one you don't want to miss. As opposed to the several psychological thrillers included on this list, if you're looking for a lighthearted movie that will just make you feel good, I'd point you to this one.

9. SUPER 8
A big-budget action film that doesn't skimp out on heart or characterization for the sake of explosions. Super 8 was dismissed by a lot of critics as just another alien blockbuster, but at the center of this film is a story about young love, friendship, family, and J.J. Abram's adoration of filmmaking.

8. WAR HORSE
A lot of people have accused this film of over-sentimentality and falling into melodramatic cliches we've seen over and over again. And you know what? They're right. At the same time, if a formula works, it works, and the formula definitely worked for War Horse. I knew as a viewer that I was being manipulated by the dramatic score and the emotional monologues, but I honestly didn't care much. I loved that horse, dammit, and that's why this earns a spot in my top 15 films of 2011. Also, if you're not interested in the story, PLEASE watch this for the beautiful visuals. The last scene of this film is stunning.

7. DRIVE
Drive was 2011's sleekest and just coolest film of the year. From the beautiful look of the film, the minimal dialogue, the masterclass acting (Gosling, Brooks, and the oft overlooked performance by Bryan Cranston), the realistic violence, and the awesome soundtrack, Drive delivered on almost every level.

6. THE HELP
I've noticed that The Help is a film generally loved by the average viewer and criticized by your average film buff. I've seen this film criticized for its cliches and emotional manipulation (much like War Horse), but you know what? Just like War Horse, it works, so who cares? Yes, The Help is uplifting, and it's not unlike a few stories of the same nature that've already been told before, but, manipulated or not, I left this film teary-eyed and deeply invested in all of the characters. It's also a visually beautiful film with perfect acting across the board, specifically from Octavia Spencer and Viola Davis, who might both walk away with a golden statue later this month.

5. TAKE SHELTER
This film puts you in the head of its lead, played to perfection by Michael Shannon, and presents you with a question you will struggle to answer throughout the whole movie: is this man crazy or not? Curtis (Shannon, who deserved at least a Best Actor nod), keeps having violent dreams about an approaching storm. He hears and sees things that no one else can see. Frightened by this, he begins obsessively working on a tornado shelter for his family. Should you root for him or not? Should he continue funneling his struggling family's money into this shelter, or should he just declare himself cuckoobananacrazy and ship himself off to a clinic? We don't know, and that's what makes Take Shelter so fascinating.

4. X MEN: FIRST CLASS
Roll your eyes all you want: a superhero movie was one of the best films of 2011. With fully-realized characters and able acting from the whole cast (notably Fassbender, who blew me away with his portrayal of the personally divided Magneto), X Men: First Class is not about special effects or even these characters' abilities. It's about how these individuals, so outcast and so feared by the rest of society, deal with this rejection. Do you embrace your differences, or do you just try your best to fit in with everyone else? These are universal questions that everyone at some point in their lives are faced with, and that's why X Men: First Class is much more than a film about blue hairy dudes and chicks made out of diamonds.

3. BEGINNERS
You will only hear this film mentioned at the Oscars for one thing--Christopher Plummer's performance. While he was amazing and WILL win for his portrayal of a 75 year-old gay man just coming out after 44 years of marriage, there's a lot more to appreciate about Beginners. It's a story about love, death, friendship, and the overwhelming fear Ewan McGregor's character has of those three things. Also, I can't think of a movie that's made me wish I was in a relationship more. I mean, Ewan McGregor and Melanie Laurent in this? TOO CUTE FOR WORDS. Not to mention the dog. Cute overload, guys.

2. ATTACK THE BLOCK
This film flew through my local theater in the summer of 2011, and while I had heard some minimal buzz about it, I figured another alien movie wasn't worth the price of admission. Man, was I wrong. After seeing Attack the Block placed on so many Top 10 and Best of the Year lists, I finally shelled out the money to rent it--and discovered one of the most creative and well-executed films of the year. Like Super 8, Attack the Block elevated itself above the status of 'alien movie'. It has real characters, a handful of amazing young talent, and the best-designed movie creature I've seen in a long time. It also does more with its small-scale sets than the more expansive Super 8 did. For these reasons, Attack the Block edges out Super 8 as the best alien movie of 2011.

1. THE ARTIST
I know I've already gone on and on about how great this film is in a previous review, so I'll try to keep it brief. While the story going on in The Artist isn't very complex or even original (female on the rise, male on the way out, or vice versa), the way it's told makes this a film you will remember. You may hear people claiming that the only reason this film is receiving so much hype is because it's silent and stylized, but basically...you need to slap those people in the face. The stylization and beauty of this film are defintely plusses, but at the end of the day The Artist succeeds because its characters are fully-established and its actors are absolutely commited. It's one of the most touching love stories I've seen in a long time, and it's one I'll come back to long after it presumably wins the big award come Oscar night. It's also the best film of 2011.


HONORABLE MENTIONS:

JANE EYRE
A slow-moving but ultimately fulfilling adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's classic novel. If you aren't interested in period pieces or romance, check this film out for Michael Fassbender's performance--the one that started off his series of great performances in 2011.

MARTHA MARCY MAY MARLENE
A nerve-grating, intense psychological thriller about a young woman's attempt to reenter normal society after escaping a dangerous cult. It's one of the most uncomfortable films of 2011 to watch, but it's also one of the most compelling. I am honestly shocked neither John Hawkes or Elizabeth Olsen received an Oscar nomination for their roles in this film. For shame!

SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS
A fun, loud, brilliantly-acted action movie starring mega babes Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. An improvement over the first film in the series as well.

CRAZY STUPID LOVE
Unexpectedly funny and heartfelt. Also, I think this is where we might be able to pinpoint the beginning of the OMG SHIRTLESS RYAN GOSLING madness.

THOR
Despite the painfully-forced romance between Thor and Natalie Portman, it was still another solid Marvel film. Loki, played by Tom Hiddleston, might also be the most captivating of all the Marvel villains.

THE DESCENDANTS
While this film is extremely overhyped and has a good chance of winning some awards it doesn't deserve come Oscar night, it's still a good film with a wonderful performance by George Clooney.

MONEYBALL
A smart, funny script and talented actors made a film about baseball interesting to me. It's a miracle.

RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES
The movie that everyone expected to be awful actually turned out to be pretty great, huh? Rise of the Planet of the Apes was this close to landing on my list--it was just barely beat out by everything else. Because of a commitment from all the actors, including the outrageously snubbed Andy Serkis as Caesar, Apes wasn't campy or cheesy at all. It was one of the best films of the summer.

WHAT YOU EXPECTED TO SEE BUT DIDN'T:

THE TREE OF LIFE
Just don't even get me started, okay? Pretentious crap that's being lauded for it's attempt at breaking film boundaries and being grandiose. I'm sorry--an attempt is just an attempt. And The Tree of Life failed.

TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY
I wanted to love this movie so much, but despite my efforts, I could not care. At all. The film makes no effort to connect you to its characters or its spy plot. It simply plods along with no regard for the audience whatsoever.

WHAT I MISSED:

MELANCHOLIA, HUGO, SHAME and YOUNG ADULT. All of these films are stuck in that terrible limbo between their theater run and DVD release. I hope to see all of these as soon as humanly possible and will alter my top 15 if necessary.

IN CONCLUSION, my Oscar predictions:
BEST PICTURE: The Artist
BEST ACTOR: Jean Dujardin
BEST ACTRESS: Viola Davis
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Christopher Plummer
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Octavia Spencer
BEST DIRECTOR: Martin Scorsese (for Hugo, which I haven't seen)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian (Moneyball)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Michel Hazanavicius (The Artist)

When did decent movies start winning Oscars?

THE DESCENDANTS IS THE BEST MOVIE OF THE YEAR!!!!!!!1

...that's what we've been hearing ever since this movie showed up in theaters a few months ago. Usually when a film gets such a generous amount of praise, I remember it. I tell myself, "Self, you've got to watch this movie before awards season so you know what's going on, okay? You don't want to be the only loser come Oscar night who hasn't seen The Descendants."

But then I watched the trailer, and I thought...meh. This just looks like your standard "family drama". So weeks and weeks passed, and I kept pushing it off in favor of other films that looked to be more up my alley.

Then, finally, I went to see The Descendants last night. And I'll tell you what--it might just be the most decent film of 2011.

That's right. Decent. There's nothing terribly wrong with this film, but at the same time there's nothing to write home about either. The Descendants is about a man, played by George Clooney, whose wife falls into a coma after knocking her head in a jet-skiing accident. For the "juicy drama" part, we find out the wife was cheating on him before the accident. After hearing this news, Clooney, with his two rebellious daughters in tow (and some random stoner character I assume we're supposed to find endearing), go on a mission to find this man and...well...he's not entirely sure what he's going to do after he does. It's a situation rife for drama, and The Descendants capitalizes on it completely. The performances are about as good as can be, particularly Clooney, and it brings into question the fragility of family relationships.

Is there anything special about The Descendants? No. It's a well-executed take on a story that's been told many many times before (not necessarily the coma part, but the 'omg my spouse is cheating on me' part). So why does this film have such good odds of winning the Oscar later this month? Is it because Hollywood is so scared of recognizing genre films (Drive and Super 8, for example, which I would argue were much better than The Descendants) that they'd rather fill up their queue with completely ordinary films?(*) Or are they just so far up George Clooney's ass now that anything he's in automatically gets placed in the Best Picture pool? (hint: the answers are yes and yes)

[*Not that there's anything wrong with ordinary films. If we're describing ordinary films as non-genre or non-stylized movies, than The Help falls into the category of ordinary films--and The Help, too, was far better than The Descendants.]

I think the question Hollywood needs to ask itself is what are they giving out awards for: films that push boundaries and do something different, or films that do the same thing we've been seeing for decades now really, really well? Well folks--if The Descendants wins Best Picture this year, I think we have our answer.

4/5

The Artist: A Rare Case In Which Hype Is Deserved

There's a distinct moment in The Artist where I stopped just liking the film and decided that I loved it.

I won't spoil what happens, but when that something does happen, the soundtrack borrows a bit from Bernard Hermann--and the moment that familiar score started, my heart basically melted and I fell completely in love with this movie.

The Artist is Exhibit A of how far talented actors and a great story can get you. Sure, it's stylized, but while this film gained a lot from it's silent film format, it also lost some things. Particularly, it lost a lot of things modern films rely on. For example, we take for granted how much an actor's voice can elevate a scene. If a character's distressed, the extra tremor or melodramatic crack in their voice automatically effects us and let's us know that "things just got real". The sound of crying, also, is a great aid in dramatic scenes. We don't really know how important these things are in a film until they're gone.

And yes, these things are certainly gone in The Artist. But did the film suffer? Absolutely not.

Back to my point about talented actors and good stories. Jean Dujardin, who I SINCERELY hope is the next Javiar Bardem (non-American actor who breaks into Hollywood), can tell us everything we need to know just with his facial expressions. When he breaks, we don't need any dramatic howling or loud sobs--all his pain is conveyed to us just by the look on his face. And that, my friends, is talent. The same goes for Bérénice Bejo. The both of them together in this film leave nothing to be desired; I never MISSED the spoken-word dialogue for one second because I didn't need it. I don't know about you, but I can't think of very many actors who could carry a film like this.

The Artist, while it has its plot about the transition from silent film to talkies and the way this radically changed Hollywood and blah blah blah, is above all a love story. We have two magnetic characters meant for each other going down these two separate paths, both effected differently by this change in the industry. The movie isn't about the change, though--it's about them. It's always about them, and I think that's why The Artist has so much heart. For example, by the time the film is halfway over, I think it's impossible not to care about George Valentin (Jean Dujardin). When the climax begins (and that sweeping Bernard Hermann score takes over), I was a nervous wreck--and you know why? Because I cared. And really, when I think about it, I rarely care anymore when I go to the movies.

It's nice to care.

Before watching this movie, I felt wary about all the insane, seemingly out-of-left-field buzz. One minute we were all talking about War Horse, and then out of nowhere this unknown film is sweeping up award after award at the Golden Globes. I went into The Artist with this same attitude, ready to pffft at it heartily and deem it overrated. I figured that all the people raving about the film were only doing so because it was different, and like, you can look super intellectual if your favorite movie of the year was black, white, and silent.

Thankfully, that's not the case. The Artist deserves every last iota of hype it's received this awards season, and I honestly can't think of a film (or a pair of leads) more deserving of an Oscar--specifically Jean Dujardin, who is extremely talented and attactive. I feel like I haven't stressed this enough. I mean, he makes me want to learn French.

RATING: 5/5

Unwatchable.

It should be pretty clear to most of you all that I like movies. I like to watch them, I like to talk about them, and I like to write about them. Usually, even if the movie's bad, I can appreciate something about it--some stinkers have good acting, for example, or some movies are so bad that they're ridiculously entertaining.

But what do you do when a movie is SO bad and SO devoid of anything worthwhile whatsoever? Well...you turn it off.

Which is what I did with The Tree of Life. I just want to say that this is NOT something I normally do. I've struggled through an endless number of 'meh' movies just because there was a *slight* chance of something interesting happening. I knew within 10 minutes of this thing that that just wasn't going to happen. There just wasn't anything worth waiting for.

What's so bad about The Tree of Life, you ask? Everything.

Very soon after popping this DVD in, a word appeared in my mind and started flashing over and over again in pink neon lights.

**PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS. PRETENTIOUS.**

Oh hai, my name is Terrence Malik, and I'm a pretty well known director. My movies are ART, and if you don't understand them, you just don't appreciate ART. Now look at this 4 minute-long shot of lava coming out of a volcano.

To say that there is a story to this movie is beyond a stretch. In the 40 minutes that I suffered through this turd, this is what was clearly communicated: Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are a married couple raising children in what looked like the late 60's or early 70's. One of their children dies, and they're devastated. We don't know HOW the child died--we just see the mother character open a letter and start sobbing. Keep in mind there's VERY minimal dialogue in all of this. I guess spoken-word is a little too mainstream? Most of the speaking is done in the narration, which skips between a female and a male voice. Had I not had the movie on subtitles, I wouldn't have known that [MOM'S VOICE] was the female and [SON'S VOICE] was the male. There's a great big monologue about how there are 2 types of people in the world: nature vs. grace. It's all very existential and "deep".

While I enjoyed none of this part, at least it was something resembling a movie. Then it all just went to hell.

The next part skips ahead in time to Sean Penn's character, who is one of the sons we saw in the first part. You know how I know this? Because I read the synopsis. The movie does not communicate this to you AT ALL. He says nothing in the whole ten minutes of this segment. We see him wake up, walk around his house, walk around at work, and look distressed. WAIT--he did say something! One of his coworkers looks at him strangely and he mumbles something about "this day". That's all that's said, and I GUESS this is implying that it's the anniversary of his brother's death? I'm sorry, but this is where the movie became unwatchable for me. Nothing is happening! What is going on? I don't know--nobody knows!

*cough cough* I MEAN...I guess I just don't understand the "art".

The next 10 minutes completely convinced me to eject the disc. Seriously, from that point on, it was nature shots. Ten minutes of NATURE SHOTS. Lava emerging from the dome of a volcano. Water rushing over a bed of pebbles. Some swirling nebula in space.

DINOSAURS TROTTING NEAR A BABBLING BROOK.

What. The. Hell. Is. This. <--- (that's what I said)

I'm sorry, but cool graphics alone aren't gonna cut it. Sue me, but when I walk into a movie, I expect established characters, DIALOGUE, and a plot that makes sense. It's not asking for much, really. I'm not even asking it be done well! The Tree of Life attempts to do none of these things because it's "art", and like...if you don't like it, you just don't get it, okay?

If you had a different experience with this movie, go ahead and share it with me, although it's hard for me to believe that this movie is watchable without lots and lots of drugs. For me, I have to agree with a reviewer who said on Amazon that this movie was, quote: "A reinvention of the screensaver". That just sums it up perfectly.

Y U NO HAVE TOP 10 YET?

This short post is directed to the ENDLESS NUMBER OF PEOPLE (no one) demanding to see my Top 10 of 2011 list. I mean, I had my Top 10 of 2010 ready at the beginning of January last year--what's the hold up this time?

I'll tell you what the hold up is: about a jillion movies came out in 2011.

For the first time that I can remember, there's not really a clear sense of what movies/actors are going to win what awards. This time last year, the list of award-winning movies was pretty clear and straightforward. We knew the race for Best Picture was going to be between The Social Network, The King's Speech, and The Fighter. Can I say that for this year? Absolutely not.

I have no idea what's going to be nominated, let alone what's going to win. You might say, "Leah, didn't you watch the Golden Globes?" Well, yeah, but I really don't think that served as an indicator this year. There is no way that THE DESCENDANTS is the best movie of the year--and there is no way that it's going to win Best Picture at the Oscars. You can quote me.

You might also be saying, "Leah, who cares what's going to win awards? It's YOUR top 10 list, just make it already!"--and to that, I respond with: how am I supposed to know what to watch? Generally, I get a sense of what movies are worth watching based on critics' feedback. So many movies were reviewed positively this year, and without a narrower list of well-received movies, I've basically got to watch them all. Which is what I've been trying to do.

There are a number of movies that I feel like I have to see before I can make a top 10 list. Some of these I unfortunately won't have a chance to because I missed their run in theaters and they won't be coming out on DVD until long after the Oscars have aired. MELANCHOLIA, for example. Other movies will either be coming to theaters near me soon (THE ARTIST) or will be coming out on DVD soon (DRIVE, 50/50).

Basically what I'm trying to say is that I'm going to watch the most movies I can before the Oscars and write my top 10 list at that point. Okay? Now will you all stop BUGGING ME!? (no one cares, Leah...)

Breaking Wind

First of all, let me say first and foremost that I didn't actually expect this movie to be good, okay?

In recent years, most notably with the popularization of famous trainwreck 'The Room', bad movies have gotten a lot of attention. When we watch movies, if we want to have a good experience, we have two choices: we can see something legitimately good, or we can go laugh at something terrible. You can empathize with poor King George the VI and his awful stutter, or you can crack up at the masterclass dialogue in The Room ("avry body betray me i fed up with this wurld!"). Both are fun to do.

When I stupidly shelled out 10 bucks to see The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, I was expecting the latter. I more or less received that experience when I went to see the first three Twilight movies, so why wouldn't the fourth installment be just as laughably bad? I mean, there had to be gratuitous teen shirtless-ness, awful dialogue, awful acting, putrid melodrama, stupid plot devices, sparkly goodness, etc. etc. etc. Right? (*)

After three consistently bad movies, Breaking Dawn was bad as well--but in a totally different way. Gone were the belly laughs brought about by the 80th monologue about how gorgeous Edward is. Above all, Breaking Dawn is BORING.

I mean, this is a snoozer. I'd rather watch 5 hours of a congressional hearing than this piece of smelly fecal matter ever again. Of course, like I said, it's bad. But it's not fun bad. It's just bad bad.

Where do I start? The movie just plunges into the thing the fangirls have been ooing and awing over for years--OMG THE WEDDING! It's over quicker than Taylor Lautner's career after Twilight. It's over quicker than Justin Beiber's time as a father. Not that I was particularly looking forward to it, but just as a human familiar with plot pacing...come on! And nothing ridiculous happened at all. Just a wedding. With cheesy speeches. No sparkly vamps jumping out of the trees, no burst of sunlight on Beautiful Edward's Granite-like Chest. Just a wedding. Snooze.

Then the honeymoon. I will admit, I lol'd at some of that stuff, but it wasn't nearly as ridiculous as it could've been. The trailer ruined the whole 'omg he broke the bed' thing. Anyway, again, boring. Boring, boring, boring.

One morning after crazy PG-rated vamp sex, Bella makes some chicken, feels weird, and throws up. VERDICTS IN SHE'S PREGNANT. But how?! How can--how can this be?! W...what are we gonna do?!

After this point in the movie, which I'd say was probably the 30-minute mark, almost nothing happened. Let's see. Bella went back to the Cullens and chilled until the baby was ready to pop (which wasn't until the last 15 minutes?). We got to see progressively deathly-looking makeup on her and CGI'd puniness because the monster baby was eating all her food or something. That was such a huge majority of the movie--Kristen Stewart looking worse and Edward telling her to get rid of the baby. But inexplicably, Bella's in love with it. I'm not getting into the pro-choice vs. pro-life thing here, but a character who's been stale and stupid for 3 movies suddenly wants to be a mom more than anything in the world? Even when everyone is telling her it's more than likely going to kill her? And when everyone says it's a monster?

Whatever. Anyway, that discussion might've been appropriate if it accounted for 10-20 minutes. Not over and over again for an hour and a half. Oh yeah, and Taylor Lautner's in the movie too. The wolves want to kill Bella and the baby because they think it'll be a monster and that it'll be a danger or something. This never comes to anything until the end of the movie when Bella's giving birth. An entire movie of build up for a fight that lasts for 3 minutes before being shut down because Jacob IMPRINTED on Bella's child. Don't ask me what imprinting means. I mean, I know what it makes me think of, but that's inappropriate.

Anyway, what I'm saying is that this film is boring. In an effort to suck all the money possible from Twilight fans and stupid sacks like me, they've split the last book into two movies. Also, because Harry Potter did it (even though Harry Potter actually NEEDED two movies). If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn because you're genuinely into the movies, more power to you I guess, although I don't know why you'd be reading this movie blog. If you plan on seeing Breaking Dawn for yuks, like me, I say pass it up. At least wait until it's on video. Because, above all, this film is BORING. I can not stress this enough.

No more campy dialogue, no more cheesy romance. Just snoozes. If you want a REALLY bad movie, go see Jack and Jill. Or Tower Heist. Or In Time. Or (cont'd)....

*Well, actually all of these things were in there, but not in the campy, fun way that they were before. There's too little story stretched out over too much time, and so much of that time is spent saying the same things over and over. You're too zoned out on boredom to appreciate the occasional hilariously-bad scene.

The Walking Dead - "What Lies Ahead": Hopefully Something Better

So, I just decided right now that I'm going to start reviewing television shows on this blog as well. Why? Because I can. Also? Nobody reads this anyway, so I have total freedom. Woot?

I'm beginning my TV-reviewing career with the long-awaited premiere of The Walking Dead's second season. Again, why? This show is hugely popular, and I will say that it's better than most of the tripe on television. But is it deserving of its massive popularity? Is it popular because the story it's telling is captivating--its characters richly-drawn? Or are audiences just falling for the premise of a zombie apocalypse and awesome special effects/makeup?

That's debatable. The Walking Dead, throughout season 1 and "What Lies Ahead" as well, had its moments. For example, the freeway scene with our characters hiding beneath cars and dead bodies was expertly paced and truly scary. The Walking Dead doesn't go the route of your typical horror movie--there's no hysterical people running around screaming at the top of their lungs. Instead, we have the much scarier alternative of people with their hands over their mouths, watching in silence as a herd of flesh-eating zombies stagger by just inches away. Also, the dynamics that exist between several of the characters are interesting. Key word being DYNAMICS. Is Shane by himself a compelling or necessarily memorable character? What about Rick? Lori? I'd venture to say not really, but the story that exists among the three of them is ripe for plenty of drama.

In season 1, the character most brought-to-life was Darryl, but it seems as though the risk everyone put themselves in by being around such a loose cannon in season 1 has been totally forgotten by the start of season 2. I suppose the event at the CDC placed him firmly on the team--that, or the writers were tired of writing him that way. Which is a shame. Darryl existed in season 1 as the only truly memorable, or even different, character. Now, all our survivors seem to bleed into one another. Lori's the concerned loving mother. Well, her and the other concerned loving mother. But she has short hair. Rick is the leader who makes hard decisions. Well, Shane does that, too, but he doesn't wear a hat.

These characters only shine in relation to one another, and I don't think that's a good thing for a show. I believe season 1 succeeded in establishing the Shane/Lori/Rick triangle in a way that made us care about it. The near-rape at the CDC showed us just how obsessive Shane has grown over Lori, and how conflicted he really is about Rick's return. This element of the story will probably continue for as long as The Walking Dead runs. But when this element isn't touched upon in the narrative, what are we left with? Shane, when not dealing with the love triangle plot, is a totally unremarkable character. Rick on his own is only good for overwrought monologues and conflicted heroics. If you could describe Rick with three words, what would they be?

Uh...brave...heroic...uhhh...hat?

See? It's hard. And it shouldn't be. Look at AMC's other hit shows like Mad Men(*) or Breaking Bad. These characters are so richly-drawn, it's like we know them all personally. Don Draper is a cocky, womanizing ad man with a compelling and secretive past. Walter White is a man who just wants to provide for his family, slowly seduced by the dark underbelly of the drug trade. Rick is...a sheriff dad who is a good leader and stuff? Andrea is the depressed one because her sister died (and man, none of those other characters have ANY idea what it's like to lose somebody, amirite)? It doesn't make for compelling television, or at least as compelling as Mad Men or Breaking Bad can be. Look what those shows accomplish just with their characters. The Walking Dead, without it's special effects and fanboy zombie gore, is an empty show about half-established characters. The television equivalent of a shrug.

*Some of Mad Men's most minor characters are more fully-fleshed than TWD's main protagonist. Sal? Harry? Francine? Carla the maid? I know them all better than Sheriff Rick.

It's certainly not too late for the writers of the Walking Dead to place more importance on character development, but I have a feeling most of their concern is on plot and special effects. And really, I don't blame them for being stuck on the plot--how one writes an entire season of people running from zombies is a mystery to me. Once they figure this out, though, can't we get some characterization? You can create the coolest plot in the world, but if I don't care about the people stuck in these situations, why should I care at all?

All of this said, The Walking Dead is still one of the best shows on television (then again, Two and a Half Men is on television). There's so much potential here for a great show, but until the writers realize how short-lived the shock is going to be for audiences after they've see a zombie getting hacked in the face for the 250th time, The Walking Dead will be continue to be just 'okay'.

That's all I've got to say about that. Thoughts?