The expected disclaimer that “this program contains
graphic violence” and might not be suitable for all viewers precedes
episodes of “The Walking Dead,” AMC’s new zombie drama. The warning
might seem a little redundant, as the show is called “The Walking Dead”
and is about zombies.
But this disclaimer means it: “The Walking Dead” is
probably the most gory thing that’s ever aired been produced for
commercial TV, and aside from maybe “True Blood” and “Spartacus: Blood
and Sand,” “Walking Dead” doesn’t have a lot of pay-cable rivals for
gruesome violence (“Dexter” has a lot of blood, but next to “The
Walking Dead,” it looks like a pinprick).
For some, that will be the good news: What’s a
zombie show without ickiness? And “The Walking Dead” has plenty of it —
blood gushing from heads, bodies trailing entrails, and one especially
memorable bit of ax-chopping in the second episode.
Most of the carnage happens to the zombies, the
victims of some mysterious virus that has turned them into the walking
dead, which often makes them sitting ducks for the running, gun-toting
living (a shot in the head stops a zombie in its tracks).
Get the zombies in a group, though, and it becomes
tough for the living to escape the mob. (Fans of fast-moving zombies
should check out the darkly satirical miniseries “Dead Set,” in which
zombies invade the set of a “Big Brother”-style reality show; IFC is
airing all five episodes in a marathon beginning at
As most people who have been salivating in
anticipation of “The Walking Dead” know, the series is based on a
series of comic books by
best-known as the director of “The Shawshank Redemption.” That movie
alone made Darabont a notable director, but nobody ever accused his
work of being fast-paced, and Sunday’s Darabont-directed premiere of
“The Walking Dead,” which fills a 90-minute time slot, is longer and
slower than it needs to be (although it does have a great climax).
AMC sent two episodes for review, and the second one — directed by
whose many TV credits include several episodes of AMC’s “Breaking Bad”
— picks up the pace considerably, especially with the aforementioned
chopping scene.
In certain ways, “The Walking Dead” has some of the
hallmarks of AMC’s critical darlings “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad,”
especially in its terrific cinematography (by
book, with striking shots such as a lone horse-rider going up an empty
freeway toward
In a
story last week, Darabont said that this is really a human story being
told, and you could infer from that remark that “The Walking Dead” will
have similarities to “Mad Men” and “Breaking Bad,” series about men
trying to break free of their pasts and hiding big secrets.
In its early episodes, at least, “The Walking Dead”
is a lot more straightforward than either of those shows. It’s about
people trying to find their loved ones in a post-apocalyptic world
and/or trying to survive without being eaten, and some characters stand
out more quickly than others, especially the ones played by such
familiar faces as “Love, Actually’s”
The question for AMC is whether “Mad Men” fans, some
of whom no doubt turned away from “The Walking Dead’s” more graphic
promos, will find “Walking Dead’s” human drama amid all the bloodshed
and screaming. According to the Times story, the network is airing six
initial episodes and seeing what the reaction is like before saying yes
to more.
The reaction among zombie-lore fans is likely to be
huge, and it should bring AMC some new viewers. Whether those new
viewers will latch on to the network’s other shows, or whether fans of
those shows will dip into this, is pretty doubtful.
But if you’re a zombie fan, you should definitely tune in.
———
THE WALKING DEAD
AMC
———
(c) 2010, Fort Worth Star-Telegram.
Visit the
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.
