In Theaters Sep 30 2009 @ 09:20 pm
REVIEW: Zombieland
Directed By: Ruben Fleischer
Written By: Rhett Reese/Paul Wernick
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin
Running Time: 90 minutes
Rated R Rated R for horror violence/gore and language.
There’s the usual seasonal calling for gore, off-colored humor, a cynical yet appreciative point of view, and as well, the ubiquitous cameo by a well-known, well-liked actor.
Welcome to Zombieland, where if you follow the rules laid out within the narration of the films main star — named after under-appreciated city of Columbus and played by Micheal Cera duplicate Jesse Eisenberg (there’s a metaphor in there somewhere) — you’re likely to survive. But what about rules in regard to well-balanced, well-devised scenarios amongst horror and mayhem?
It appears throughout the film, one filled with predictability and jokes that fall flat like a beheaded maniac with blood spilling from his/her mouth, that Zombieland is an overload of all things wrong with numerous renditions in regard to this particular genre.
Unlike Shaun of the Dead, which, believe it or not, consisted of a well executed plot, Zombieland focuses on the sheer shock and awe of its impressive and, disturbingly wretched makeup effects, and forgets that in order for the audience to care we must invest in the lives of its central and supporting characters.
Instead we’re thrown into what becomes a muddled, poorly crafted, and cheesy story that spoils its own value even during the opening credits. The positive, though, isWoody Harrelson — one reason this film was tolerable — as Tallahassee. His need for redemption and Twinkies becomes suitable scene-stealing fodder.
Appearances by Abigail Breslin (as “Little Rock”) and Emma Stone (as “Wichita”) provide the film with the usual balance and contrast but fail to enlighten or refresh the main character’s point of view. Simply, they seem placed in a film for the mere fact that Columbus can barely manage to free himself from his own insecurities. There’s nothing new in regard to this aspect of becoming a man.
Nonetheless, for tongue-in- cheek horror fans, Zombieland offers an escape and great makeup effects. There are a few good jokes sprinkled in, and also stunts to satisfy action buffs. So as Tallahassee would proudly put it, “It’s time to nut-up or shut up!” and see for yourself if Zombieland is worth the liters of blood spilled.
This film critic chooses to shut up.
on Oct 01 2009 @ 1:22 pm 1. Evan Derrick said …
I would have to agree with you completely, Paul. Luke and I argued in the parking lot afterwards. I maintained there was no real story, hence the film was much less than the sum of its parts (some of which were quite entertaining in and of themselves); Luke felt that the film didn’t need a story to be enjoyable.
After thinking about it a bit more, I believe it’s best to liken “Zombieland” to a twinkie, a metaphor that is apt considering Harrelson’s obsession. It’s not very filling, certainly not healthy for you, and will probably make you a worse person after consuming it, but gosh it sure does taste good for a little while.
on Oct 01 2009 @ 6:59 pm 2. Paul Hood said …
Thanks, Evan! Yeah, it’s all about the “Twinkie” defense.
on Oct 01 2009 @ 9:01 pm 3. Luke Harrington said …
I think what I meant to say was that the film didn’t really need an “outward” story (i.e., it didn’t really matter what the characters were doing) because it was about interactions among the characters. In other words, all the motion was internal. It was a coming-of-age story. Granted, it was about as deep as a puddle in that regard, but the notes that it did hit rang true, as far as I was concerned.
But regardless, this film is intended as a crowd-pleaser and nothing more, so it’s a little silly to hold it to any sort of higher standard than that. It pleased the crowds. Ergo, it did its job well.
on Oct 05 2009 @ 5:59 pm 4. Rick said …
Gotta agree with Luke on this one … I loved the movie, just for what it was: a ZOMBIE movie. Not Godard. Not Altman. Not Ozu. A zombie flick, although a post-modern one, if you will: filled with meta and irony. As for “story,” it’s basically the same as in the avatar of the genre, Romero’s “Night of the Living Dead”: people running from hordes of crazed undead bent on eating them. What more do you need?
on Oct 24 2009 @ 4:27 pm 5. Ricky Bobby said …
Iight
on Feb 01 2010 @ 8:38 pm 6. ximena said …
that´s a realy great movie if you like the zombies´s movies also you can wacht 28 dias later and the second part 28 weeks later i think there is a 3rd parte but i´m not so sure so i hope you henjoy it
on Mar 22 2010 @ 6:09 pm 7. Maurita Talerico said …
We use professional photo-scanners and filmscanners from NIKON.Resolution up to 4.000dpi.
on Mar 27 2010 @ 10:18 am 8. Zombieland1 said …
Awesome movie! I loved it.
on Mar 27 2010 @ 10:19 am 9. Zombieland1 said …
But what i hated was that naked zombie. y did they spoil the movie like that???
on Jun 01 2011 @ 2:06 am 10. Jesus Chalk said …
Those are just a females creepyest dream, i’ve been dealing with stretch marks for as long as i can remember, happy to come to the knowledge there is some hope … what took you so long !
on Nov 10 2011 @ 6:09 pm 11. IRS Audit said …
Its such as you read my mind! You seem to know so much about this, such as you wrote the e-book in it or something. I feel that you can do with a few p.c. to drive the message house a little bit, however other than that, this is fantastic blog. A great read. I’ll certainly be back.