Editor’s Pick
NOVEMBER 9, 2010 3:30PM
Even Zombie Haters Seem to Like The Walking Dead
The first episode, called "Days Gone Bye," was a great example of perfect storytelling. It certainly helped to have Frank Darabont (who gave us The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, The Mist) as one of the writers of the series and as the director of the pilot. (Other episodes in the first season were directed by Michelle Maxwell MacLaren, Gwyneth Horder-Payton, Johan Renck, Ernest R. Dickerson, and Guy Ferland.)
The pacing, the dialogue, the action, the cinematography, the performances, all added up to a captivating debut. The best part was how the story unfolded in a gripping visual style. Some of the greatest moments were during the silent scenes when no words at all were spoken, with the images on the screen so artistically composed that they burned into my mind, hard to forget even hours later.
Tales of a zombie apocalypse are a dime a dozen, and ever since George Romero set the standard not too many people have been able to offer anything really fresh to the genre, in my opinion. Although I enjoyed movies like 28 Days Later and books like World War Z, how many times can you really endure stories about trying to survive a plague of undead flesh-eaters? Yet, The Walking Dead, based on the comic book by writer Robert Kirkman and artists Charlie Adlard and Tony Moore, manages to provide surprises at almost every turn, with real emotion, making the absurd zombie premise quite human and believable.
The talented cast brings it all to life (no pun intended). Andrew Lincoln is a strong lead, playing the part of Rick Grimes, a sheriff injured in the line of duty who wakes up to a hellish new world. Lennie James, memorable from his solid role in Jericho, had some wonderful and powerful moments in the first episode as Morgan Jones, trying to protect his son and dealing with the loss of his wife. Appearances by Jon Bernthal as Rick's friend, deputy Shane, and Sarah Wayne Callies (from Prison Break) as Lori, promise even more good things to come. Even the many actors who portray the nameless monsters have their chances to shine, each bringing something unique to their specific cursed zombie, making them all much more than just a faceless mob of freaks.
The series airs on American Movie Classics. According to DarkHorizons.com, "AMC has officially announced a thirteen-episode, second season renewal...Debuting on Halloween, the Frank Darabont-produced series has broken ratings records and pulled in more adults in the key 18-49 demographic than any other show in the history of cable television. The series premiere scored 5.3 million total viewers with 3.6 million viewers in the key demo. The second episode saw only a small drop."
It is good to know that the series will continue into another season. If the great visual style, excellent performances, and good storytelling keep up, we might have a long-term classic on our hands.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Samantha Wheeler
Heidi Banerjee
CHERYL CHE
Yvonne Johnson
Mark Fornale
Donegal Descendant
Salon.com
Comments
r.
I will give this show a try.
rated with thanks
and congrats on making the cover of Big Salon
28 is fully explainable: the gov't's unleashed a rage virus to make better soldiers and the populace has, by happenstance and stupidity, become infected with it. The "charm" of the Dead movies is that the cause of the fantastical rise of the dead is never explained.
The only thing 28 and the Dead movies share is that both inhabit the SF sub-genre of Apocalyptic Horror that Romero single-handedly created with Dawn of the Dead and, to a lesser extent, the Crazies .
Sure there are stinkers in ANY genre, but Zombie movies when handled by a skilled director transcend horror as a genre. The gross out factor is not important nor is the horror. If you want to see a scary movie see a Japanese ghost movie, Zombie movies when done right go for more than scares or gore.
beyond:"Sure there are stinkers in ANY genre, but Zombie movies when handled by a skilled director transcend horror as a genre. The gross out factor is not important nor is the horror. If you want to see a scary movie see a Japanese ghost movie, Zombie movies when done right go for more than scares or gore."
Exactly, Beyond. Night's sub-texts re race and the national unrest of the sixties were just two of the things to recommend it but, at bottom, it was a horror film, albeit one of the greatest horror films--and movies, period--of all time. Yes, it did set a template that showed that zombies could be much, much more than catatonic walkers but the genre really came into its sociological own with Dawn of the Dead. The sense of dread that movie engendered was not so much because of the gore and the undead ghoulies but the pervading feeling that gov't--and just about any existing mid-t0-late 20th century institution--, in the face of an apocalypse, was as useless as wet toilet paper. For me, the Dead Movies, Dawn and, later, the unjustly maligned Day of the Dead, were scarier, more forbidding and much more infused with a sense of hopelessness than the Nuclear Apocalyptic films like On the Beach, the Day After and Testament.
I saw Dawn when it first came out and I remember saying, some several year later, that, along with Blade Runner and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, I had immediately recognised its first fifteen minutes were the most powerful filmic commentaries on race I'd ever seen.
I quickly scanned down to your handle without reading your contents (I think alot of others do the same thing). Go get a website or something.
Regarding 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later, yes, of course, you are correct. But the SYMPTOMS of the infected in those movies are certainly zombie-like, and it does fit into the "zombie apocalypse" style genre. It's frenetic, high energy style is a nice, fresh take on thezombie monster cliche. If true undead zombie stories are considered horror/fantasy, then I would label 28 Days Later as a "science fiction" take on zombie lore.
Right, Bob....I guess what distinguishes "Dawn" from Matheson's film incarnation, for me, is that the former shows the apocalypse happening while "last Man" etc., show the aftermath. It was fascinating to see as most--hell, nearly all--horror films up to that time show the "unspeakable horror" being vanquished by the hero, whether he or she lives or dies, and/or limning post apocalyptic scenarios (one of the things which most recommended Zack's Dawn as a worthy homage to the master, but more, was his panoramic view of civilisation collapsing with skyscraper funeral pyres, careening cars and exploding gas stations) . That fascination begins with George R. showing degenerating housing projects, panic stricken "voices of authority" and equally devolving police forces.
And, there is no turning back. The undead hordes will win. You get that sense from the beginning: it's come down to a simple matter of survival. That puts the frosting on Dawn and distinguishes it from, say, a similar tableaux in a Godzilla movie.
And, need I say, unlike most--with a few notable exceptions-- of the later movie versions of Shelley's memorable monster, there is the element of poignancy mixed with the horror of the undead that ratchets up the dread in these movies: they are us--with a few bad breaks, of course.
Throw in the fact that the Dead movies somehow seem the perfect vehicles for social commentary and observations of the human condition and you have one helluva ongoing classic genre.
I hearya , Nick.