A Walk Among the Tombstones: The latest Liam Neeson thriller may not be the breath of fresh air I expected

Today, I look at the latest thriller film starring Liam Neeson.

A Walk Among the Tombstones:
In 1991, alcoholic New York City cop Matthew Scudder takes down some thieves who shoot up a bar. 8 years later, he has now quit drinking and is working as a private detective. He is hired by a man to find his missing wife, but as the plot thickens, Scudder discovers there's more to this seemingly run-of-the-mill kidnapping than he was expecting.
       Now, despite being a relatively cliche thriller, I actually was very pleased with this film. Liam Neeson's whole "unstoppable bad-ass" persona is toned down pretty significantly in this movie, and he barely ever gets into shootouts or fist-fights, which was refreshing. The cast, made up mostly of people known for either TV roles or bit parts, does a pretty solid job. Dan Stevens of Downton Abbey, Boyd Holbrook, and Sebastian Roche are all very good supporting actors, and the child actor Brian "Astro" Bradley may have a pretty cliched role, but I didn't find him annoying at any point and actually cared about he and Neeson's relationship. The villains, played by David Harbour and Adam David Thompson, are very cheesy villains who are just a little too over-the-top for my tastes, but ultimately, they weren't enough to make me dislike the movie.
       The music by Carlos Rafael Rivera was a little bland for me and some of the choices for what music to set to some scenes felt a little off (especially the final shot), but ultimately it wasn't so much that it detracted from the overall story. The ending showdown at the cemetery was a really good way to end the film (only it technically didn't end there) and I liked that they actually built tension to the final fight rather than just have the whole movie be a string of constant fights and shootings.
      Although the ending dragged on for a bit and started to test my suspension of disbelief, it ultimately felt like a good way to end the movie. I also felt the mystery of the film was intriguing until about half-way through when you basically find out what the killers' motive is. There's also some unresolved questions and plot-holes, but unlike in some movies where that adds another layer of mystery which makes the movie more fun to analyze, in this it just feels like lazy writing and maybe some bad directorial and editing decisions.
      Overall, A Walk Among the Tombstones doesn't feel as fresh or exhilarating as Taken, but it also doesn't feel as stupid as Unknown. It's got a lot of thriller movie cliches and tropes, but it also does try to do some new things and provides Liam Neeson with an actual three-dimensional character to play and not just a one-dimensional caricature like in Taken 2 or Non-Stop. It's a nice little thriller and I definitely would recommend it to fans of slower action stories or fans of Neeson, and who isn't these days? 3.5/5 stars.

 (Image: Wikipedia)

Top 5 Horror Movies of the 1920s: Cinema's Silent Era At It's Best

Today, I look at what I consider the top 5 best horror films of the 1920's, the decade that really kick-started the movie industry and really defined the genres of action-adventure, comedy, horror, and sci-fi/fantasy.

Criteria:
Must have been made between the years of 1920 and 1929
Must be a horror film, or contain horroresque elements

But first, a little background...
     At the turn of the century, movies were beginning to gain a lot of traction, and replacing older art forms, such as vaudeville theater. Because of this, filmmakers began expanding their ideas, making them bigger and more fantastical. Movies went from five or ten-minute shorts to full-length features, with actual stories and characters. The movie star was born, with Lon Chaney Sr., Great Garbo, Rudolph Valentino, Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, Douglas Fairbanks, and Harold Lloyd becoming the subjects of immense public interest. Chaney is the one I'm going to focus in on, as he's most important in the topic of horror films.
     Chaney was born to two deaf parents, and thus had to learn to express himself through sign language and exaggerated facial expressions. These skills lent themselves to his career as a silent film actor, and he became a star of horror films, due to his penchant for playing freakish people who are tragically misunderstood by society, and his talent for applying his own gruesome makeup. He can be considered the man who made horror films a big thing in the U.S., but over in Europe, filmmakers were a bit ahead of him.
    In Germany, in particular, surreal horror was thriving. German expressionist cinema was a perfect platform for Gothic horror- weird characters, dream-like atmosphere, and imaginative sets and costumes are all components of both expressionist cinema and classic horror. Filmmakers such as F.W. Murnau and actors like Max Schreck and Conrad Veidt were terrifying European and American audiences alike, and they can be considered the true creators of the horror movie.

The List:

5. Haxan (1922): This Eastern-European masterpiece from Benjamin Christensen tells a tale of withcraft and devil worship, and although it was beloved in it's native Denmark, and is now considered a classic of silent cinema, at the time it was banned in several countries (including the U.S.) due to what was considered controversial depictions of torture, sex, or satanic worship.



4. The Golem (1920): This prequel to the 1915 film tells the original story of The Golem, a Jewish folklore monster, a creature made of clay who kills. With it's striking visuals and interesting background in ancient Hebrew lore, it's hard not to enjoy The Golem on some level.



3. The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920): This German expressionist film is basically a surreal retelling of the Frankenstein story, with a nightmarish quality that looks like the visuals of artists such as Salvador Dali and Van Gough, as well as Tim Burton's black-on-white color scheme. It brought so many innovations to the world of movies: it introduced the idea of a scary movie, as well as perhaps having the first twist ending.



2. The Phantom of the Opera (1925): The only American film to make the list is undoubtedly Lon Chaney, Sr.'s best and most iconic performance. Adapting Gaston Leroux's eerie novel, the film tells the tragic and dark story of the lonely and possibly insane "Phantom" named Erik, who falls in love with an opera singer and intends to win her over, albeit in his own twisted way. Rare for American horror at the time, the monster is portrayed in a mostly sympathetic way that challenged many audience members. Not to mention Chaney's impressive and physically taxing self-made makeup job that still manages to creep under the skin today. When his character is first unmasked, audience members were said to have screamed in horror or simply fainted.



1. Nosferatu (1922): Undoubtedly the scariest film of the 1920's, this unofficial adaptation of Bram Stoker's novel Dracula was almost destroyed when Stoker's widow sued director F.W. Murnau for copyright infringement. The cinematography and Gothic look of the film are already impressive, but add in Max Schreck's eerie performance as the bat-like Count Orlok, whose inhuman appearance still sends shivers down the spine of moviegoers, and it's no wonder why this film is still heralded as one of the best vampire films ever made.

   (Images: Wikipedia)

Runner-ups: Faust, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, London After Midnight (lost film), The Cat and the Canary, The Bat.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Not as bad as "Transformers", but not great...at all

Last weekend, I got the chance to see the Michael Bay-produced TMNT reboot. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles:

In New York City, crime is at an all-time high with an urban terrorist group known as the Foot Clan on the loose. A young reporter named April O'Neill is trying to be taken seriously by her coworkers and decides to try and get some exclusive knowledge on the Foot. But she accidentally stumbles across a group of, well, teenage mutant ninja turtles, who try to protect her from the Foot and their fearsome leader The Shredder. 

    This reboot is able to be both mildly entertaining and absolutely laughable. It doesn't have the so-bad-it's-funny vibe as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles III, or the simplistic, nostalgic charm of the first two Jim Henson films from the 90's, so it just sort of falls in the middle. 

   The acting is pretty bad. Megan Fox is not the slightest bit believable as April, and she is just wooden, and she tries to be a strong character, and just fails miserably. Will Artnett brought comic relief as Vern Fenwick, April's partner. Johnny Knoxville is slightly miscast as Leonardo, but he's able to pull it off. Alan Ritchson is actually really great as Raphael. Noel Fisher is rather annoying as Michelangelo, who's supposed to come off as charming and funny, but here he's about as funny as Jar Jar Binks. Jeremy Howard does a great job as the nerdy Donatello. Danny Woodburn mo-caps Splinter, who is voiced by a surprisingly good Tony Shaloub, despite lacking a Japanese accent. I preferred Mako from the 2007 CG film, but Shaloub is fine. William Fichtner was supposed to be Shredder, but he's not. He plays a lackluster villain named Eric Sacks, who I suspected to turn out to be like Krang or something at the end, but nope, he's just some guy. Whoopi Goldberg is just sort of there as April's boss Bernadette Thompson. Tohoro Masamune plays Shredder, who is just awful in this movie; seriously. Taran Killam cameos as a newsroom employee, and K. Todd Freeman has a very brief cameo as fan favorite character Baxter Stockman. 

   I was surprised by Jonathan Liebesman's directing. He went from god-awful (Darkness Falls, Battle: LA, Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning) to generally mediocre (this film). Michael Bay is actually not as involved in the film as I thought he'd be, which is a plus.

   The action sequences are pretty well-done, with the exception of the bland and disappointing ending showdown with Shredder. However, the climactic snowy mountain chase was fun and exciting. 

    The writing can be very clunky, filled to the brim with forced sentimentality, plot holes, bad jokes, and scenes where characters blatantly state things the audience could figure out themselves. There's also an awful lot of blatant product placement, although not as bad as Transformers. There are a few clever jokes for people who know the history of the franchise (including a jab about a terrible hip hop Christmas VHS special featuring the Turtles released in the early 90's, and another about the rumors that the Turtles would be aliens in this reboot). 

    This isn't so much a complaint about the film itself, but my theater experience. Because it's a Nickelodeon-produced film, I had to sit through a plethora of previews for terrible kid's films, including the awful-looking Spongebob Squarepants sequel. There was also a kid in my particular theater, who I'm pretty sure was one of two things- mentally handicapped, or he was just fucking around, because he was making a good deal of noise the entire time, and he was at least 9 or 10, and at one point the characters say that they are "heroes in a half-shell", and he couldn't help but say, completely out loud, "Turtle Power!" 

   There's also a very irritating and unnecessary rap number at the end of the film that plays over the credits which I thought was just awful. Not to mention the completely unnecessary and strange changes to the lore, like turning(Spoiler Alert, like it even matters) the Turtles and Splinter into April's childhood pets, or making Eric Sacks, this random made-up character, Shredder's apprentice and adopted son. 

  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles doesn't have enough charm or action to constitute second viewings or even a sequel, but it's harmless. Better than either Liebesman or Bay's previous efforts (at least Bay's recent ones), but not so much that it blows expectations away, I'd say maybe take your kids or younger siblings to it if they want to, but otherwise, just stick with the originals. 2.5/5 stars.

 (Image: Wikipedia)

Boyhood: Richard Linklater's unique drama film

Last week, I had the opportunity to see the new film from director Richard Linklater (Dazed and Confused, A Scanner Darkly, School of Rock).

Boyhood:
Made over the course of 12 years, the film follows the journey of a young boy from age six to age eighteen, and see his evolution from boy to man.
    Despite dragging on a bit too long and being a bit too self-indulgent, Linklater's landmark effort is something I recommend most people see.
    Ellar Coltrane does a satisfactory job as the lead character Mason. Linklater's daughter Lorelei does a fair job as Mason's sister Samantha. The stand-outs are Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke as the parents, Olivia and Mason Sr., respectively.
    The cinematography in the film is exceptional, and the soundtrack is pretty great as well. My main complaints are the sometimes clunky writing and rather annoying and pretentious main character. My other complaint is that there are key scenes in the film that feel like they're setting up for something (two key scenes are a scene where the main character and his friends are drinking and goofing around; and a scene where the character's on his phone while driving) and lead nowhere, which was very disappointing. There's also a running theme that Mason Sr. is very politically opinionated and that could have an affect on how his kids view the world, and I thought that would go somewhere, but it never did, it was just sort of there. In fact, certain segments of the film could have been scrapped entirely and would have benefited the film immensely, as it wouldn't feel so bloated. This isn't just me, many people I spoke to agreed they were expecting something catastrophic to happen in those sequences that would have actually made things more interesting.
    There's also the issue that the title isn't actually that relevant. Sure, we do see the main kid grow up on screen, but there's not a lot of life lessons in this film, which I would expect from a movie claiming to be about a boy's developmental years. Overall, the "made over 12 years" thing is pretty amazing, but ultimately, at least to me, came off as a William Castle-esque gimmick more than anything, because the more I thought about it, the actual story isn't particularly impressive.
    Overall, Boyhood (like a good portion of Linklater's work) is obscenely overrated, but it is something I would say is worth a watch. Modern classic? No. (Despite many critics disagreeing with me.) Entertaining? Yes. 3.5/5 stars.

Great review (SPOILERS): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lampOM4AhAk

 (Image: Wikipedia)

R.I.P. Joan Rivers

Today, the world lost one of the icons of modern comedy, and one of the most influential comediennes of all time. Joan Rivers may have been as equally famous for her extensive plastic surgeries, but she undoubtedly had an immense effect on modern pop culture. Funny enough, I always confused her for Phyllis Diller (another famous comedienne who passed away in 2012). Her tragic death during a complicated surgery today leaves her daughter Melissa Rivers without a mother, so I give her my condolences. We will never forget her signature comedy style, sharp wit, and even her jabs at herself.

                                                                    Joan Rivers
                                                              1933-2014 (age: 81)
         
                                                        (Image: Wikipedia)

Sin City Movies: Frank Miller's groundbreaking graphic novels get worthy adaptations

With the release of the second installment last weekend, I figured I'd take a look at the acclaimed first film as well.

Sin City:
In Basin "Sin" City, a hellish and corrupt cesspool in the middle of a desert, three stories unfold: Marv, a slightly deranged hulk of an ex-con, seeks vengeance after a prostitute who treated him kindly and gave him the best sex he's ever had, is murdered and he is framed for it, and Marv ends up uncovering a giant web of corruption. Dwight, a troubled criminal who has recently undergone extensive facial reconstruction, hunts down his friend-with-benefits' abusive and crazy boyfriend, but then he gets in over his head when this hunt sparks a turf war between two criminal organizations. And finally, John Hartigan, one of the few honest detectives in Sin City, who is nearing retirement, decides to save a little girl named Nancy from a sadistic and manipulative serial rapist/killer who preys on young girls. The catch: the killer always gets away with it because he's the son of a powerful and ruthless senator named Roarke. Hartigan decides to not kill the child murderer, but mutilate him by blowing off his ear, genitals, and hand with his pistol. Hartigan is gunned down and imprisoned for eight years for this, before he is finally lured out when he thinks that the now-grown up Nancy is in danger from a yellow-skinned assassin hired by the Roarke family as payback.
     This movie may sound a little weird on paper, but it's a feast for the eyes and an entertaining and stylized comic book noir thriller. Some people might not dig the over-stylized look and violence, or not get that some parts of the film are supposed to be intentionally tongue-in-cheek, but I think the unique visuals and well-written stories will be enough to captivate most people.
    The cast is huge for a two-hour film, and it's filled to the brim with stars: Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Clive Owen, Jessica Alba, Benicio del Toro, Rosario Dawson, Elijah Wood, Michael Clarke Duncan, Jaime King, Brittany Murphy, Carla Gugino, Josh Hartnett, Michael Madsen, Nick Offerman, Marley Shelton, Nick Stahl, Powers Boothe, Rutger Hauer, Devon Aoki, and Alexis Bledel. Frank Miller (who serves as writer and co-director) cameos as a priest. The stand-out is Rourke, who embodies the essence of the character Marv, and goes through a complete physical transformation.
    The movie has amazing special effects, having adapted the comic book word for word, panel for panel (although this sometimes creates some clunky-sounding dialogue), and Robert Rodriguez certainly has an eye for detail and a certain visual flair to his work. Quentin Tarantino "guest-directs" one scene, which is by far one of the best scenes in the second segment, and is actually kind of eerie.
    Rodriguez also scored the movie, and it has a sound that perfectly fits the tone and look of the movie. Rodriguez also edited the film himself, which I have to respect.
    Sin City deserves the acclaim: it's probably the most faithful comic book adaptation of all time, and is well-written, perfectly cast (for the most part), and has memorable and unique visuals that show how much you can do with digital film-making. 4.5/5 stars.




Sin City, A Dame to Kill For:
(SPOILERS FOR FIRST FILM AHEAD)
This installment has three more yarns from Sin City: Dwight, angrier and pre-plastic surgery, is lured back into a relationship with the manipulative femme fatale Ava Lord, Dwight's ex-lover, who tells him she needs saving from her abusive husband and his towering manservant Manute, an articulate and polite but brutally violent enforcer, but Dwight soon finds out there's more to this damsel-in-distress story than he knows. Johnny, an exceptionally lucky young gambler, has just rolled into town and challenges several of the city's key figures to an underground poker match, including corrupt police Commissioner Liebowitz (Jude Ciccolella, returning from the first film) and Senator Roarke, and Johnny learns a harrowing lesson in power. And lastly, Nancy, having become depressed since Hartigan's suicide at the end of his story, is an alcoholic wreck who plans her revenge of Roarke, while Hartigan's ghost helplessly watches from the side.
    I was honestly a little disappointed with this one. After almost a decade of waiting, I expected a little more from this movie. The latter two stories aren't based on any comics, despite the abundance of Sin City stories out there, and were written for the movie, and Johnny is an original character. The "Dame to Kill For" segment took up most of the run time, being the main story, but was not the best executed or even most interesting. The best one by far was also the shortest and darkest: the Johnny story, and that one had the saddest yet most satisfying ending, and the success was partially due to both Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Powers Boothe's performances. The Nancy story was by far the worst, and you can tell it was just sort of shoved in there to tie to the first film.
    The cast is still impressive, featuring Mickey Rourke, Jessica Alba, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Powers Boothe, Bruce Willis, Eva Green, Christopher Meloni, Rosario Dawson, Jaime King, Stacy Keach, Juno Temple, Ray Liotta, Julia Garner, Christopher Lloyd, and Marton Csokas. Some replacement actors include Jeremy Piven, who replaces Michael Madsen, despite the fact that they look nothing alike; Dennis Haysbert, replacing Michael Clarke Duncan because he passed away a few years back, and his character was too big to scrap; and, of course, Josh Brolin, who replaces Clive Owen as Dwight because the character hasn't had facial reconstruction surgery yet. Rodriguez and Miller both make cameos on TV, Lady Gaga and Alexa Vega also have brief cameos. and  Eva Green was a bit bad, I thought, because she over-acted a lot in this movie.
    The visuals aren't as fresh as they used to be, and they seemed like they just sort of rushed this movie. The last story is sort of bland and uninteresting and the way it ends the film is awful. Even the end credits seem slightly half-assed.
   Sin City: A Dame to Kill Form is worth checking out, but if you expect something on the level of the first film, you'll probably be disappointed. You can definitely see the lack in interest in making this one because the first film was a box office hit, while this one was #8 at the box office in it's opening Weekend. I just hope, on the off-chance they make a third film, or a TV shows or something, it will be better. 3/5 stars.

                                (Images: Wikipedia)

YourMoviesSucks' funny and brief review: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrtUi1a9qhY&list=UUSc16oMxxlcJSb9SXkjwMjA

Top 50 Television Shows: Volume 1 (REDUX)

I know I did a Top 20 TV Shows back in December 2013, but I feel differently now. I still stick by my original choices at the time and you'll see most if not all of them appear on this list. However, since then I've started watching many other TV shows, and I had so much fun going through my favorite movies and putting that list together I though I'd give this one another go. Also: I think I'll be updating this one every once in a while if I discover another TV show.

Criteria:
Personal opinion
No television movies or miniseries (that means no Band of Brothers, Generation Kill, The Pacific, Mildred Pierce, IT, or Parade's End, so sorry. But I might make a list of those, too.)
I can have two series in a slot as a tie
Can be an ongoing series (FYI: has not ended yet)
All networks are fair game, including premium (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Encore, Starz)
No web series or specials (with the exception of Netflix's streaming service, which is basically a premium movie channel at this point)

Here is my original list in two parts:
http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2013/12/top-20-television-shows-part-one-my.html
http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2013/12/top-20-television-shows-part-two-top.html

The new list:

50. The Big Bang Theory: Despite this show being extremely overrated, I still find it enjoyable and a fun watch from time to time. The cast particularly Jim Parsons and Kaley Cuoco, are great and funny and charismatic...in an awkward, geeky way. Even though the humor is repetitive and formulaic (jokes about how nerdy/geeky/awkward/smart the characters are, juxtaposed with sex talk or relationship issues), it's still a good show, with an awesome, but short, opening sequence and theme song.



49. Penn & Teller: Bullshit!: Despite much of the humor in this show being too immature, ham-fisted, and over-the-top for my tastes, it is actually a great documentary series. Following ex-magicians and professional skeptics Penn and Teller, the series dissects urban myths and idiotic beliefs (the "bullshit" of the title) that many people in the world take as fact. These topics range from "organic food is healthier", "exercise trumps genetics", and "all fast food is unhealthy even in moderation" to "vaccines cause autism and other disorders", "sensitivity training is great and productive", and "violent video games breed serial killers and school shooters". The duo dissect these topics not just using the....interesting (yeah, we'll go with that)...humor but also actual facts and figures and quotes from specialists, as well as poking fun at the idiots and con men who spread these ridiculous beliefs and stories. The reasons I watch the show is for the latter, as it's fascinating to see how many things you've been told all your life are true, turn out to be just...well, bullshit.



48. Summer Heights High: This short-lived series from Australia is hilarious, and, towards the end, kind of heartwarming and uplifting. Although it only lasted one season, it spawned two spin-offs on HBO after it was more successful there. Chris Lilley, the comedian who created, wrote, directed, and starred in this series, is a fucking genius. He plays the three main characters: Jonah, a Tongan punk kid who is failing in school and enjoys break dancing; Mr. G, the, for lack of a better word, dramatic drama teacher who thinks his department is more important than any other; and Ja'mie, a self-centered exchange student from a private school who is going to the titular school for a semester. He deserves the critical praise, as he is so good in each of these unique roles that you forget it's the same guy, and you also forget that Ja'mie is not an actual bitchy teenage girl, and that Jonah is not really a troubled teenage boy. I would recommend this series to any fan of British or Australian comedy, because it's great.



47. Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Joss Whedon's cult classic horror-comedy-action series has some clever (sometimes a little too clever) writing and fan favorite actors like Sarah Michelle Gellar, James Marsters, Alyson Hannigan, Charisma Carpenter, and Anthony Stewart Head. With a charismatic lead cast and some good moments of both comedy and horror (see the episode "Hush" for a great example of the latter), Buffy is definitely worth a watch. (Not to mention the cool opening theme.)



46. Criminal Minds: This dark and violent crime drama is like Law & Order and CSI on speed. Although it has great guest stars and an exceptional cast, this show shines with the writing for the villains, who all are great examples of creepy TV characters but also all have real psychological disorders. The stand-outs of the main cast are Mandy Pantikin (always a great actor), Matthew Gray Gubler, Kristen Vangness, Shemar Moore, and Joe Mantegna. Despite the writing being typical for TV (and some bad guest actors/child actors), it's exceptional when you look at the current line-up of police procedural shows. It also has some pretty great guest stars such as Tim Curry, Aaron Paul, Brad Dourif, Jane Lynch, Tony Todd, Amber Heard, Jamie Kennedy, Will Wheaton, Mark Hamill, James Remar, Jason Alexander, James Van Der Beek, C. Thomas Howell, Michael Rooker, John Billingsley, D.B. Sweeney, and Anton Yelchin, to name a few.



45. The Leftovers: This show hasn't even wrapped up it's first season and I know it's something special. Despite being too grim and depressing for most people, I found this new HBO series to be a unique TV experience, and a great addition to the already great HBO family of shows like Game of Thrones, The Wire, The Sopranos, and Oz. Based on Tom Perrotta's relatively unknown horror/satire novel of the same name, this series takes an even more bleak and dark approach to the material than the original novel, which has an aura of black humor/scathing satire to it. Here, it's just straightforward and blunt, which may alienate some viewers. Even with dark shows like Game of Thrones or Breaking Bad, I can at least look forward to the possibility of something good happening. Here, I sometimes had to force myself to sit through the hour-long episode. While this may sound negative, I'm actually complimenting the series on achieving it's goal: to make the viewer feel as empty and unpleasant as possible. While it's definitely not for everyone, and some people may outright avoid the show because of it's co-creator Damon Lindelof's infamous avoidance of answering his viewers' questions, I personally am really enjoying the show, and appreciate it's nihilistic tone and world view.


44. The Walking Dead: Now, while this show has faded into mediocrity over the years (especially after those shits at AMC fired Frank Darabont, the shows' creator and creative force), I just have to put it on, at least because that first season, while it had faults, was exceptional. Second season...not so much. Third and fourth have devolved into fan-pandering and plots that are either overly complicated or too simple, which people confuse for complex and surprising. I will give it this: some of the main actors are good (Andrew Lincoln, for example, or David Morrisey), the make-up effects are great, and some of the action scenes are exciting. However, that does not make up for the obvious pandering (like the fact that Daryl has way too much screen time in newer seasons, and the fact that he's never going to die), bad acting, forced character plots, and the obvious cash-grabbing. What do I mean? The fact that AMC stretches each season to 16 episodes, and fills it with, well, filler, and then claim that it's "slow and suspenseful" when it's really just boring and repetitive. And I know the point of the show is to focus on the human journey during an apocalypse, and I liked that aspect of the first season, but lately they haven't even done that well. The "characters" such as Carl and Beth are poorly written and are only there to fill up screen time, and the actors portraying them have the personalities of bricks. Another thing is people always say "They're so edgy, they kill off all these characters", well I looked back, and there's only been a handful of main character deaths, the rest of been characters that were obvious zombie fodder. People also think it's edgy because kids die. So? Game of Thrones kills children constantly, and has killed dozens of fan favorite characters. Do you know why? Because that show is actually edgy and unpredictable, and it has a staff of writers who give a shit. You can tell I've been growing tired of this show because originally this was in my top ten shows, now it's in the 40's. Also: if you bring any of these valid points up to fans, they gang up on you and claim "You just don't get it", or "But Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad get boring, too" (they also seem to confusing shows that are well-paced and build real tension with boring). I know I sound like this is all negative, but this is just me venting my complaints. The first season is quality TV, the second season's shit (with the exception of one or two scenes), and the third and fourth seasons are okay. Just try to think critically. The only reason it makes the list is because of that first seasons, and the few times it gets something right in the later seasons.



43. Law & Order- Special Victims Unit and CSI: Despite being just as formulaic and plot-hole ridden has any other police procedural on prime-time TV, these two are actually pretty well done for what they are. The former is the longest-running and best-written series in the Law & Order franchise, even outliving the original series by a few years. It features some underrated actors such as Christopher Meloni, Mariska Hargitay (who won the first Emmy for any L&O regular in 2006), Tamara Tunie, B.D. Wong, and Richard Belzer (whose character Munch has made appearances and many police procedural series, indicating that all of Dick Wolf's crime shows exist in the same universe). While the acting may be bad from some guest stars and some of the writing is very ham-fisted, overall it's pretty great considering all the shitty police procedural dramas out there.
The latter is the first series in the long-running CSI: Crime Scene Investigation franchise. It was sort of the "Law & Order on crack" of it's time, having darker stories and more blood and gore than it's predecessors. It has a great lead cast, including veteran actors Lauren Fishburne and William Petersen, as well as a bad-ass theme song in the form of classic rock song "Who Are You" by The Who. The Who's music has become a staple of the franchise's opening title sequences. With some memorable villains, most notably The Miniature Killer and The Blue Paint Killer, and cool crime-scene reconstructions (complete with "flash-backs" to the crime, which is supposed to illustrate how the detectives think it played out), CSI will continue to be one of the better-reviewed crime procedurals.

     

42. House, M.D.: Despite being medically inaccurate in many cases, this show still manages to be thoroughly entertaining, mainly due to Hugh Laurie's deadpan performance as sarcastic and narcissistic but ultimately brilliant Dr. Gregory House. Laurie pulls off the character extremely well, managing to be funny and investing. The supporting cast, featuring Lisa Edelstein, Omar Epps, Olivia Wilde, Kal Penn, Robert Sean Leonard, Peter Jacobsen, Jesse Spencer, and Amber Tamblyn, is also excellent and have great chemistry, and all their characters share both a respect and disdain for their boss, House. With some interesting (but medically questionable) stories and a cool yet eerie opening title sequence and theme music (which they changed for whatever reason in later seasons), and (again) a charismatic lead character, House, for me, is a great watch, despite the inaccuracies.



41. True Blood: Despite me being skeptical of this series, thinking it was made for Twilight fans, I was eventually convinced to give it a try, and I was pleasantly surprised. Despite being primarily targeted to a female audience, and seemingly like a weird vampire softcore porno, the show had well-executed dark humor, as well as moments of drama and some small scenes of real horror. Despite the CG being slightly sub-par for HBO, and some of the actors being a little over-the-top, I couldn't help but like this series. I'm still in the early parts of it, and so far the stand-outs have been Stephen Moyer, Alexandar Skaarsgard, Sam Tramell, Rutina Wesley, and Nelsan Ellis. Moyer plays the conflicted and actually kind of intimidating antihero vampire Bill Compton. Ellis plays the series' most entertaining and well-written character: Lafayette Reynolds, a chef at the restaurant where the main characters works called Merlotte's, who is funny, witty, and bold, and who isn't ashamed of his sexual orientation, despite living in a bigoted redneck town in Louisiana. I'm glad to see Ellis get more work in films due to his success on the series. Despite having some faults, particularly with some supporting actors and some bad CG in certain scenes, True Blood is actually not that bad of a show, and manages to appeal to horror fans and Twihards alike (despite Twilight being nothing like this show, which is a compliment for this series).

                  (Images: Wikipedia)

Runner-ups: Lost in Space, The Outer Limits, Family Guy, American Dad!, Merlin, Northern Exposure, Bored to Death, Masters of Horror.