3 Thoughts on The Amazing Spider-Man

1. The Raimi films vs. the "reboot "- I don't think it is necessarily fair to compare the films, but it is inevitable.  I have fond memories of Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 (the third one doesn't exist in my world).  Before seeing Spider-Man in the theater, I didn't really pay much attention to the superhero genre.  There were some films that I enjoyed (X-Men and Batman come to mind) but not enough to consider myself a fan.  I was in awe of Spider-Man, although a lot of that awe came from the fact that I saw it in NYC, at a time when post-9/11 emotions were still running high.  I know that these emotions surely effected my thoughts on the film back then.  It was an overwhelming feeling to watch a superhero fighting to save NYC and I was simply blown away by the sheer scope of the film.  In that context, The Amazing Spider-Man clearly has no shot at being the better film, for me.  I tried my best to be impartial, but I would be lying to claim that I succeeded.  Spider-Man ignited my love for superhero films (a love that later grew even stronger with the sequel and Batman Begins), while The Amazing Spider-man is a film that was created simply to keep the franchise going and that is all it will ever be.  It's a satisfying film.  I'm even tempted to call it a good film.  Will I remember it 10 years from now the way I remember Spider-Man? Not a chance in the world. 

2. Color me confused - So, knowing that I wasn't a superhero film fan in my earlier years, you can probably guess that I never read comic books either.  Both Spider-Man and The Amazing Spider-Man are origin tales of how our hero came to be.  I expected some minor differences in the plot to keep it interesting.  However, some of the differences are just too big to ignore.  Like, which "first love" came first, Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy?  And why is there no mention of Harry Osborn (Peter Parker's best friend).  I have a ton of these type questions, but most of them are too spoilery (still not sure if that's a word, but I use it often). Which one of these versions is closest to the original comic book?  Or are there different versions of the story there, too?  It was a big distraction for me while watching the film and honestly, it was kind of annoying. 

3. The characters - Andrew Garfield was really impressive (I think Tobey Maguire was just as good).  His enthusiasm for the role was evident and his natural awkwardness (I say that it the nicest possible way - I adore awkward guys) made Peter Parker irresistible. I would only fault Garfield for the awkward one liners he shouts out while in action as Spidey.  The lines are already cheesy, but they are cringe-worthy when they are combined with a really thick, really bad NY accent (although it was really the Director, Marc Webb's choice to use those lines....sooo...).  Emma Stone, as Gwen Stacy, was as lovely as ever, but I feel like she could have been used in a smarter way.  She has perfect comedic timing and a natural dry wit that should have been displayed more. The character of Gwen Stacy is a nice representation of the "perfect girl" character, so why not focus on her smarts instead of dressing her in knee-high socks and making her all "cutesy".  I'm just saying that it would have been refreshing to see Peter Parker fall for the girl because of her brains rather than her kindness. Denis Leary, as Captain Stacy, was another distraction because he looks practically identical to Willem Dafoe (who was in Spider-Man as Norman Osborn).  Why would they do that???  Who else was in the movie?  Oh yeah, there was a villain, played by Rhys Ifans, who was terribly unmemorable. 

3 Thoughts on Brave

*very slight spoilers*

1. The comparisons to other Pixar Films - Truth be told, I'm not really a Disney-Pixar film fan.  I know, I know, that is considered blasphemy amongst film folk. I have nothing against them, but I would never rate any of them above 3 out of 5 stars.  As you may have noticed, I don't really do the whole "ratings" thing. Not only is it too difficult for me to do, but it also seems like such a definitive way to view a movie.  Reducing a film to a numerical score is a disservice to the film (and also to your own writing).  Sorry, you have to read actual words to know what my thoughts on a film are.  For me, Brave was more enjoyable than any other Pixar film before it, therefore I would "rate" it above the others, but from a critical standpoint it isn't necessarily better than any of them. 

2. The "feminist agenda" - I thought that I didn't care about the whole feminist aspect of the movie; Just because it is the first Pixar film centering around a female character didn't mean it would be a great feminist tale. The film is about Merida, voiced by the always delightful Kelly Macdonald, a princess who reaches that crucial point in her life where she must choose a husband in order to preserve the traditions of her kingdom.  I assumed it would follow along the lines of similar fairy tales (i.e - in the end she ends up marrying for love instead of what her family wants).  But in fact, there is no love story. Let me repeat that: THERE IS NO LOVE STORY!! Um.....what?! Crazy...right? Even when I think about some earlier Disney animated films that had strong female characters, like Mulan and Pocahontas, they always featured a love story in some way.   It's not surprising to me that there have been debates about Merida's sexual identity even though absolutely nothing in the movie gives reason for this debate to occur, except, of course, that she doesn't want to get married. We all know that if a woman doesn't want to conform to the marriage ideal, then she must not like men (where is that sarcasm font that everyone keeps talking about?).  Her sexuality is a moot point (a "cows opinion".  If you don't get that reference, we probably can't be "friends"). The point of the movie is that Merida is challenging tradition instead of accepting it.  As she says "Our fate lives within us.  You just have to be brave enough to see it." The film's message is to encourage people to think for themselves, come to their own conclusion and follow their own path.  In all honesty, the main character could have been male and the same story could have been told (but it has been...many times). 

3. The twist - The second half of the movie is a bit unexpected, which was a really nice surprise. That's all I can really say because I would never dream of ruining someone else's viewing experience.  I applaud the person that made the decision to not show the full plot in the trailer.

Best Films of 2011 **Updated**

I realize this is super late, but it really took me this long to see all the films that I wanted to see from 2011.  So here is my final "Best Films of 2011" list (probably...).  All of my thoughts on these films can be found on this blog. 

1. Drive
2. Super 8 
3. Melancholia
4. The Skin I Live in
5. Bridesmaids 
6. Midnight in Paris 
7. 50/50 
8. Another Earth
9. Moneyball 
10. Attack the Block 
10.5. Warrior 

Thoughts of 5 Films

1. The Artist - This was the only film left on my "must watch" list from 2011.  I was waiting to update my "best of" list until after I watched this, assuming that it would make the cut.  It totally doesn't.  The movie is enjoyable and all, but it's not remarkable in any way.  It's just one of those films that you can't really say anything bad about, which is why it earned a ridiculously high 98% on the RT TomatoMeter and therefore, must be amazing. If it didn't have the gimmick of being a silent film, I honestly don't think anyone would have noticed it.  The film is littered with all these life lessons like "beware of your pride" but it doesn't really evoke any sort of emotion.   There were a few really beautiful scenes, the acting was decent (not Oscar-worthy) and it went a little bit darker than I was expecting but overall my best assessment is that it was cute. 

2. This Means War - I can appreciate a film that tries to combine genres. Bringing together an action/adventure tale with a rom-com is a challenging concept.  McG does a satisfying job at balancing the explosions with the relationship dialogue, but the movie is a complete disaster.  The problem lies more with the script than anything else. It's offensive and disturbing on so many levels.  Two CIA operatives (Tom Hardy and the guy from Star Trek) fall in love with the same woman (Reese Witherspoon), but instead of handling it like sane adults, they decide to compete for her love in the most psychotic ways possible.  They break into her home, spy on her, and then use the information they get to pretend that they are well-rouned individuals.  The two men are opposite in nature, Hardy portrays the "nicer" one (and he's waaaaaay hotter, too.  This makes the entire plot pointless. The choice is obvious from the start: Don't pick the less attractive douchebag. Duh.).  The ending bothered me the most because it was sort of like a "fuck you" to the audience (meaning that it doesn't end how it should end).  Reese's character needs some serious therapy, not the mind-numbing advice from her best friend, played by the never funny Chelsea Handler.  I enjoy Chelsea when she interviews celebrities because she is very good at throwing them off their game, but as a comedian she is just not my idea of funny.  Conversations amongst females in movies often makes me cringe, but the ones in this film are distressing.  Women don't talk like that in real life, even the most vapid of women have more depth in their conversations than the women in this movie. 



3. Newlyweds - I'm not really a fan of Ed Burns as a writer/director; The Brothers McMullen, Sidewalks of New York and She's the One all bored me to tears.  Yet, I LOVE Ed Burns.  I love him as a New Yorker, as an actor and as a passionate filmmaker.  It is evident that he makes movies because he loves making them.  He is always true to his own style and I have nothing but respect for him.  Newlyweds was a film made for under $10,000 that was released online and marketed through social media sites like Twitter.  It was a charming little movie and is certainly my favorite of his.  The story felt very authentic.  I have never been, nor will I ever be a "newlywed", but I can still relate to the problems that relationships face once family members become involved.  I love the point of view that is given, which is that modern marriages have a shelf life and that even if a marriage is ending after 18 years it should be considered a "success".  It was refreshingly honest, only slightly contrived and a bit funnier than I was expecting. 

4. Jeff, Who Lives at Home - What a nice surprise this movie was.  I was expecting a more slapstick comedy about a guy who still lives at home and can't get his shit together. Instead, it was a film that raises the ultimate questions of destiny vs. free will.  Jeff, played to adorable perfection by Jason Segel, is a bit obsessed with following his own destiny, so much so that he is too afraid to live a productive life.  He allows for "signs" to control his actions, which at the start of the story is the name "Kevin".  His story unfolds as he follows these "signs" and it really is just about the sweetest story I've seen in a while.  I really liked Susan Sarandon (as Jeff's mom) in the film. Her story arch was a bit unrealistic (as was most of the film), but her acting was superb. 

5. New Year's Eve - I will never understand why a film like this attracts so many actors (oh yah...$$).  I admit, I went in with a bad attitude, knowing full well that I would absolutely loathe it.  I couldn't even process the thought of keeping an open mind after watching the similarly themed Valentine's Day, especially when such terrible actresses like Sarah Jessica Parker, Jessica Biel and Katherine Heigl are cast in the main story lines.  It was dreadful.  Too many plots, not enough development and cringe-worthy dialogue like "May the best vajayjay win".  I was hoping the highlight would be Lea Michele belting out a song, but for some bizarre reason her voice was considerably dialed back.  I'm hoping she gives up this "I want to be a movie star" mentality and goes back to Broadway.  The actual highlight of the film is a bit surprising and a bit embarrassing to admit, but I have to be honest: Zac Efron.  Simply adorable and held his own against Michelle Pfeiffer (who was either phoning it in or miscast, I can't decide).  Also, did anyone else notice Alyssa Milano? She had like 1/2 a line of dialogue.  Was it supposed to be a cameo or did the rest of her scenes get cut?  So awkward.  The end credits showed the cast having fun while filming their scenes. It's too bad they couldn't bring this fun to the actual movie.

Ted: 3 Reasons to Watch it; 2 Reasons to Skip it

Reasons to watch it:

1. If you laugh at "Family Guy"... - And really, I'm quite skeptical of anyone who doesn't laugh while watching Family Guy.  Even my mother calls it "stupid" and "crude", but every time I put it on at her house, she ends up in a fit of tears from laughing so hard. So, yes, Ted is stupid and crude but I laughed through the whole thing, so who the fuck cares?  It takes a special talent to make rape jokes funny and Seth MacFarlane has it.

2. Mark Wahlberg - I don't know why I enjoy him in comedies as much as I do.  I think he just has a very serious presence to him, so watching him be funny is probably more entertaining than the actual funny stuff.  I'm not sure if that makes sense, but my point is that he knocks it out of the park.  Plus, he lays it on thick with his Boston accent, which always makes me smile. 

3. Giovanni Ribisi - "I Think We're Alone Now".  One of the funniest things I have ever seen. Ever. Even if you hate everything else about this movie, it would still be worth watching just for this one scene.   

Reasons to skip it:

1. It feels long - A film like this really doesn't need to be 2 hours long.  There was about 1/2 an hour of melodramatic bullshit that could have been dropped.  Also, the whole kidnapping plot could have been cut altogether (although then we wouldn't get the Ribisi scene.....so in that case...leave it alone). 

2. It's the same old story - It's the same cliche of "bromance" vs. "romance".  It just uses a teddy bear to define itself as "original".  Mila Kunis, plays the girlfriend who suddenly decides that after 5 years in her relationship, she wants more.  She wants him to "grow up", start thinking about a career, marriage, etc. So, naturally, she gives the ultimatum: "It's me or the teddy bear".  I say dump her ass.  The obvious flaw in the plot is that if you had a talking teddy bear you would be a millionaire (problems solved!!). 

3 Thoughts on Prometheus

1. The Good vs. The Bad - I have to respect a film that not only tackles big questions, but also creates a whole other "world".  It's often advised for writers to "write what you know", but I am far more impressed by writers (and filmmakers) who imagine the "unknown".  It's a daunting and ambitious task to create a future world that still feels relevant, realistic and cohesive - some things fall through (in this case: dialogue and character development).  I don't think anyone would disagree that the film has some flaws, but overall the "good" of the film far outweighs the "bad" of the film.  As for the "plot holes" that people are claiming exist, it doesn't bother me in the least.  I think every "hole" actually has a theory behind it that is left for the audience to figure out for themselves.  There are several websites that are now explaining a lot of these "holes"; I haven't decided if I want to look at them yet because I simply don't have the desire to see if my theories are correct.  I understand that expectations were high and it left a lot of people disappointed, but I think focusing on the flaws is a mistake.  Prometheus is a film that missed being a masterpiece by a few inches.  Visually outstanding, thematically bold and cinematically intense. 

2. Technology vs. Humans - In this world that Ridley Scott created, technology has won.  We are introduced to a group of people that are embarking on possibly the greatest discovery by human-kind and yet they are all pretty fucking stupid.  So, yes, it was frustrating when one of them did something so blatantly stupid that you want to yell at the screen.  However, all of their actions can be justified if you think about how reliant we are on technology now and then imagine how reliant we will be in 80 years.  Sadly, I imagine that human instinct will be obsolete.  Common sense, problem solving and learning through observation are already diminished concepts. I am reminded of the astonishingly dumb Zooey Deschanel iPhone commercial "is that rain?" and of the people who start crossing a street because the walk sign tells them to and not because they checked to see if cars were actually coming. The film is a great commentary on just how truly stupid humans will become.  The evidence is not just in the characters actions, but also with the character of David (an android, played to perfection by Michael Fassbender).  They rely more on his expertise than their own knowledge and trust that he will be able to maintain a dialogue and understanding of the "engineers".  They become a little too trusting, not realizing that he has his own intriguing agenda.  I am disappointed that the other characters weren't as interesting, which is mostly a dialogue issue because all of the actors are proven talent (yes, even Logan Marshall-Green.  Also known as Trey Atwood from The O.C. - That's proven talent....right?).  Although, their lack of personality may have been done on purpose to show how diminished the human brain has become?  Just a theory. 

3. Creation vs. Evolution - "We want answers!!!"  ~ The human race.   The biggest "message" that I took away from Prometheus is this:  Our incessant need for answers will destroy us. It brings to light the age-old debate between creationism and evolution, but goes beyond by giving us a third option - an option that blows apart both theories, but oddly combines them as well.  The film also questions whether science and religion can, in fact, co-exist, although it seems to answer that in a very Lost-like manner (Christianity prevails).  It doesn't answer it outright, but I think it is heavily implied, while the answers to everything else are left for us to figure out (at least until the sequel, anyway). Personally, I sort of like not knowing. 

Thoughts on 4 Films

1. The Grey - Things I knew about this movie before I saw it: Liam Neeson punches a wolf. The end. So, I was pleasantly surprised that there was an actual plot and even more surprised that it was incredibly tense and suspenseful. On the surface it's about a group of guys who survived a plane crash only to face a pack of wolves in the icy cold Alaskan terrain. But, it's much deeper than that and can be felt from the very first scene with Ottway (Neeson) uttering the words "I want to see your face, feel your hands in mine, feel you against me...but I know that will never be". This, coming from an actor who dealt with the sudden loss off his wife a few years ago and has drown himself in work ever since, hit me pretty hard. The film became more about dealing with loss, fighting to survive and accepting death rather than the whole "wolf punching" bit and it was quite beautiful and poetic.


2. Coriolanus - If you are a huge fan of Ralph Fiennes and/or a huge fan of Shakespeare then you will probably enjoy this, if you're not I would say skip it. It's an impressive debut for Ralph's first time behind the camera - the modernization of the play works really beautifully and the film is visually exciting. However, I did feel like it was a bit of a vanity piece for Fiennes, overacting through it's entirety. The other actors were considerably dialed back, which, to me, felt awkward. The film could have definitely used more Gerard Butler (sexy man).  The story isn't that interesting (to me anyway),  and far from memorable.  I don't actually remember reading the Shakespeare play but I know that I did at some point.   Overall, I was left feeling a bit disappointed. 

3. Chronicle - Totally awesome superhero origin film. It's everything expected from this genre - clever, original, fun and compelling. I was skeptical of the found footage gimmick, but it is used really well and provides for some awesome shots, especially when the camera is operated via telekinesis. And that shot of the spider!! Wow. So fucking cool. The 3 young actors were also very impressive (Dane Dehaan reminds me of a young Leo - like The Basketball Diaries young). If you like the show Misfits then you will like this (and if you haven't seen the show Misfits stop everything and watch it).

4. Terri - Extremely boring. I am utterly baffled at reviews that call it "funny" because it isn't in the least bit humorous. It's really just another high school outcast tale, offering nothing new to a story that's been told a million times. The only bit of credit I can give it is for casting a realistic "outcast" actor for the part (instead of casting an adorable Michael Cera type actor). He was painfully awkward to watch, which I think was the goal. The film, however, was just painful - specifically the scene with Terri, Chad and the girl. The scene was just over-the-top ridiculous and it lasted FOREVER.

3 Thoughts on Headhunters

1.  It's better than the inevitable Hollywood remake (probably) - Sadly, the remake talks have already begun.  Is it really that hard for people to watch a film with subtitles?  I find it funny because when I watch a movie at home, I put the English subtitles on (for all movies) because it is actually easier for me to understand and absorb information through reading.  I know that is odd, but it works for me.  Anyway, if past examples are any indication (Let the Right One in), a remake is unnecessary, especially if the rumored casting of Mark Wahlberg is true.  That's just preposterous. 

2. It's extremely clever - Are there plot holes?  Probably.  Do I care?  Not in the least.  I'm sure that there are people who feel the need to dissect every inch to prove that they are in fact smarter than the movie, but I just don't find that necessary.  I just enjoy that it is a film that made me think, put the pieces together, pay attention to every detail and then blew my mind by the way it all came together. The beginning of the film is predictable, at least that is what the audience is led to believe.   For the first 30 minutes or so, I was convinced that I already knew the film - it felt like every other "heist" film that exists.  Then the story takes so many unexpected turns, that by the end I began to question if it can even be considered a "heist" movie at all.  

3. The character motivation isn't believable - The only thing I would fault the movie for is the presented reasons for the characters actions. I would almost prefer for the film to give us no motivation (leaving the audience to come to their own conclusions) than to give us ones that don't make sense. I find it hard to digest that the motivation behind Roger's actions is simply his insecurity about his height.  There has to be more to it than that....right? Although, in thinking about it, anytime someone asks me to describe the perfect guy, the first thing I say is "tall" but that is just because I assume they are trying to set me up with someone, so I just describe Cory Monteith "tall, Canadian, drummer, totally awkward but confident in his own awkwardness, former bad boy, has a passion for hockey".  I keep going until the person stops me - "wow, Michelle, that is incredibly specific".  To which I reply "yup, I'm really picky....but if you find that guy, you can totally set me up with him".  Sorry, for the tangent but my point is that "tall" doesn't actually matter.  It's weird to me that a guy would feel the need to overcompensate for that reason alone.  Also, (*spoiler ahead*) it is revealed that his wife does in fact love him (we are led to believe that she is materialistic and only with him because he buys her things), but there is no reason as to why (which in this case, we need a reason).  He spends the entire movie treating her like garbage, it would have been nice to have some sort of justification behind her love (otherwise she would need some help, psychologically).  The "villain" is a bit too one-sided, plus his actions seem a bit extreme for his motivation (which I won't give away).  He just doesn't seem human at all. 

Thoughts on 5 Films

1. In the Land of Blood and Honey - An admirable effort from writer/director, Angelina Jolie, but I can't help but feel that something was missing.  The beginning is incredibly impactful, but the rest of the film left me feeling disappointed.  Taking place during the Bosnian War, the film focuses on a love story between two people on opposite sides of the war.  It's obviously a complicated relationship, to say the least, but it is also completely unrealistic.  The chances that these two would meet not once, but twice during this violent conflict is practically impossible.  As the film progresses, their motivation comes into question - Is she using him to guarantee her survival? Is he using her to maintain a part of his humanity?  The ending is fucking brutal and intense, yet I still felt nothing for either of the characters.  On a sidenote, I absolutely love the poster - how the blood splatter creates an outline of the two characters.  It's really beautiful. 

2. Contraband - First of all, why does Kate Beckinsale have blond hair?  She's such a gorgeous woman that, of course, she still looks fantastic, but definitely a billion times better as a brunette.  Second, I can't tell you how many times I have confused Giovanni Ribisi and Ben Foster.  I love them both, but they are pretty much interchangeable in my eyes.  Good thing Ribisi did this weird, indistinguishable accent so I didn't confuse their characters (anyone have any idea what that accent was supposed to be?).  Third, this movie was fucking dumb.  Period. 




3. We Need to Talk About Kevin - Tilda Swinton is at her very best here, and that is saying a lot considering how amazing she has been in past performances.  She was absolutely mesmerizing and I just can't fathom the fact that she was snubbed for an Oscar nomination (that she probably should have won).  Ezra Miller was also fantastic (however, I met the kid before and I instantly received a very memorable, very eery and very creepy vibe from him  - so I think it was just the product of perfect casting).  Aside from the performances, the film was a bit underwhelming due in part to my extremely high expectations.  I think my problem is with the narrative.  Usually, I like when a story is non-linear, as this film was.  The film is comprised of Eva's (Swinton) memories and the audience is supposed to put the pieces together.  However, the story is pretty straightforward so there wasn't anything to put together.  Still, the film is worth watching in all of it's unsettling glory. 



4. Albert Nobbs - I didn't like this film at all.  It's an interesting story, but that's about it.  It hurts the film that the two characters that are pretending to be men are played by well known actresses (Glenn Close and Janet McTeer) because the "reveal" that they are actually women becomes pointless.  I also think that the point of the film was missing.  At least I didn't see any.  I also didn't really understand why "Albert" was trying to force Helen (played by the lovely Mia Wasikowska) into a relationship that she clearly wasn't interested in.  She was forcing her own unhappiness onto someone else, but we were still supposed to root for them?  I think? 

5. Pariah - I believe that this is the first time ever, that I felt like a film was too short.  When it ended, I actually thought there was something wrong with the DVD.  I enjoyed the film, all 87 minutes of it.  It was compelling, raw and emotional.  The performances were so on point, that the beginning could be mistaken for a documentary.  Kim Wayans, usually known for her comedic talents, was surprisingly intense as a mother struggling to come to terms with her daughter's sexuality.  As short as it was, I really liked the way it ended.  "I'm not running; I'm choosing". 

Television: The Good, The Bad and The Canceled

The Good - Television definitely took a tumble this season.  Good shows were hard to find.  Especially, new shows.  The only real "break-out" show, for me, is Revenge.  It was really the only show that captivated my interest through the entire season.  The writers were smart to push up the reveal of who was shot in the pilot to mid-season, instead of dragging it out to the finale.  The second half of the season was able to re-invent the story to prove it's longevity as a series.  A few "older" shows shined such as Fringe, which is possibly the most consistently awesome show currently on tv, Mad Men, this past season may just be it's best and Southland, even though it didn't have any "standout" moments the season was still solid.  On the comedy front, Community remains utterly brilliant.  Happy Endings, Parks & Recreation and Cougar Town all had a satisfying season.

The Bad - There are some new shows that were shockingly bad, yet still received a renewal. Specifically, Smash and Hart of Dixie.  While, Smash had a decent pilot, the rest of the episodes were downright terrible.  I fast-forwarded through the musical numbers and laughed at how ridiculously predictable the plot became.  I predict that Hart of Dixie will be the CW's new One Tree Hill (you know, the show that should have been canceled after the first episode but instead became a running joke amongst pretty much everyone and lasted a whopping 9 seasons).  It's simply terrible and the fact that it was renewed is offensive.  There were some new comedies that were sometimes entertaining like, New Girl, Suburgatory and Two Broke Girls that will live on to next season, but I'm still not sure if I will be watching. They just weren't funny enough to be "must watch tv". Also, not bad, but surprisingly mediocre, were two of my favorite shows, The Vampire Diaries and Glee.  TVD's third season devoted much of it's time to the mythology of the "original" vampires and it bored me to death, while Glee became repetitive and downright annoying.  Also, what the fuck happened with The Killing?  The first season was pretty good, but the second season barely makes sense and they still haven't figured out who the murderer is?  Way to drag things out painfully. 

The Canceled - While we said a sad "goodbye" to a few loved series like Chuck and Desperate Housewives,  I think we can all agree that their time was up.  It was another year of introducing a billion new shows and canceling 90% of them. It's a good thing that I already stopped watching most of these canceled shows (in parenthesis are the amount of episodes I made it through):  The Secret Circle (about 10 episodes), Awake (1/2 of the first episode), The River (4 episodes), Ringer (about 12 episodes), Terra Nova (6 or 7 episodes), Person of Interest (3 episodes), Alcatraz (5 episodes), Are You There, Chelsea (1 very painful episode) and Pan Am (I think I actually watched the whole thing, which is just absurd).  So, I decided that I am no longer investing my time in new shows.  It's a waste of time, really.  Better to wait it out and see what survives.