Director: Ruben Fleischer
Writers: Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick
Producers: Gavin Polone
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 81min.
(1.5/5)The zombie phenomenon over the past year has grown to fairly large proportions. We’re seeing the subculture actually permeate the main stream and the folks are eating it up – much like the Vampire craze of the past couple of years thanks to Twilight. Enter Zombieland, a movie attempting to take the minutiae of the culture and showcase it for a regular movie going audience that maybe isn’t as familiar with the walking dead as the more “Twitchy” of us out there – yeah, those of us that actually read “The Zombie Survival Guide.”
I’m not sure a movie plot could get much simpler; not this year anyway. A college age kid is surviving in the post apocalyptic world after a massive zombie outbreak. He’s trying to get from one side of the country to the other to see if he can locate his parents. Along the way he meets another fellow traveler who seems to be just a bit edgy and just a little bit too thrilled with the idea of meeting up with some of the ghouls of the afterlife just so that he can slice ‘em and dice ‘em, so to speak. Along with a couple of tag along girls, together they travel across the country from point A to point B; avoiding or fighting zombies as they go. Though simple sounding, this is exactly the kind of mayhem and carnage, if done right, that I look forward to.
From the get-go, things look promising. The main character narrates to the audience about how and why he’s managed to survive the zombie holocaust as long as he has by adhering to a strict set of rules which he lists off in detail while flashbacks and examples flash on screen. For example: always check the back seat of a car before continuing on – and we get to see why that particular rule is important. You can imagine. It’s some good fun and the way it’s pulled off with the actual words of in the list playing a part in the action; though again remember that this author is quite well versed in zombie folklore and the very real possibility of a zombie outbreak. Therefore I started to find some of the rules obvious and not even always “correct.” Though the audience seemed to eat it up.
Once Woody Harrelson’s character comes into the picture it seems like we’re going to be in for some really fun and exciting zombie combat. Instead we’re subjected to excruciatingly lame and repetitive humor: something about seeking out the world’s last Twinkie. It’s not funny and it’s even less funny the 5th time. The driveling on and on from the main characters is tedious, needless and pointless. If the movie is supposed to be a comedy it fails miserably on that level as I can’t remember ever barely cracking a smile throughout.
The casting is terrible. Sure all (four) of the main actors and actresses are serviceable in their roles, but none of them do anything or add anything that just about any other b-list actor couldn’t do. As a fan of Eisenberg’s previous roles in Rodger Dodger, Squid and the Whale and Adventureland, I was really disappointed to see that he really seemed to be phoning this one in. Agreed, there are some good bits in the trailer but I assure you, those are the only good bits. Even Woody Harrelson as “Montana” (as he’s called) isn’t exactly the greatest role of the year. He’s clearly the showcase in this film but again, I think this is an insane enough character that a different character actor could’ve pulled it off with equal (maybe even more) amounts of flare. Maybe these are not the fault of the actor; maybe it’s a scripting problem. But either way, the characters in this movie all fell really flat and the actors didn’t provide much in the way of dramatic or humorous or even particularly quirky characters. A real shame given the potential of the material.
The excitement and combat never really gets very interesting or even all that exciting. It isn’t any more edgy or “ooo” *wince* inducing than anything else we’ve seen before. Shawn of the Dead has better kills and makes them entertaining to boot. Zombieland should only work for you if you think watching a guy get hit in the face with a shovel is funny. Again. And again.
The trailer showcases an interesting, almost satirical look at something called “Zombie Kill of the Week.” As though the people living in this world are on some sort of game show or maybe a just a YouTube like web site in which the person with the most ingenious or bloody kills is awarded with prestige or maybe a prize. The problem is, what you see in the trailer is exactly what you get. It’s an idea that’s thrown in for about thirty seconds and then never spoken of again. A clear example of “shit or get off the pot” in my book.
A major bonus here however is that the zombies do look fantastic in terms of make-up and gore effects. They’re terrifying (in a campy way) and interesting to look at and see lumber or chase around our heroes. Unfortunately zombies usually do look pretty good in these bigger budget films and I would expect nothing less. So this isn’t really a positive, it’s just something I expect at this point.
Newcomers to the genre will probably have some fun here. Those more well versed in the subject of the walking dead may find themselves yawning a bit and yearning for some old school Romero flicks or even a British parody on the matter. There are one or two long stretches of absolute tedium inserted within the film and when your movie is only 80 minutes, these bits seem to make the movie stretch on forever. All in all I think it’s a pretty boring and heartless entry in this sub-genre with one or two moments that worked well enough to keep me in the theater (a fairly big cameo being a particularly nice touch). The climax of the film isn’t all that climactic and the humor is lame. The biggest crime Zombieland commits though is the fact that it has such a great idea of a premise and an obviously talented director at the helm but just can’t seem to capitalize. Overlooking the problems in script, casting, excitment, humor, originality or depth and you might have a decent picture on your hands. As it stands now, I’d say skip it and look for other, FAR better films within the genre.
.
This discussion currently has 28 responses.
October 13, 2009
with Where the Wild Things Are and A Serious Man hitting Toronto this week, its looking likely that Zombieland has moved to my rent list instead of theater list. Even Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs is ahead of it now, but thats mostly because i’m an animation nerd.
October 13, 2009
A Serious Man is seriously fantastic. One of the best of the year. Not really smart enough to write a review for it without seeing it twice. I”m leaving it up to Kurt. Not saying he’s smarter, just a better bullshitter.
Zombieland reviews baffle me. It’s fucking boring through 75% of it. The other 25% is less boring.
October 13, 2009
I am very sorry, but i think you are sadly mistaken Andrew; for many reasons.
It seems as though you are heavy into the horror genre and a big fan of zombie flicks, hence why you refer to Shaun of the Dead and old Romero classics (never mind his newer flicks) but i think you are grossly missing the point of this ingenius film. Romero did the socio-political and socio-economic underlining themes with his earlier zombie flicks, Shuan brought us satire to the genre now Zombieland is giving us a whole new sense to the zombie genre; one of nostalgia and campy fun.
In today’s society (unfortunatly) we are so desensitized to everything (violence, sex, gore, etc) so along comes Zombieland a film which inherts a comedic and sick idea that life would be like a ride, an amusementpark a game if zombies ruled and we had to figure out a way to live with them or live to get rid of them. The film plays out like a huge Halo extravaganza and really gives audience members this adrenaline and ludacris idea that living in a world filled with zombie would be fun and wild.
Not sure about you, but i know when i went to see this film with a bunch of my friends, i really wanted to buy a gun and start shooting things. Also, i couldnt remember a time when we didnt realte any of our conversations taht night to any thing other than killing zombie and how cool and fun it would be.
To be quite honest, the film does an exceptional job of filling the void and entertaining the socks off you. From the exceptional opening credits, to its sick and twisted humor, to performances from Eisenberg, Stone, Breslin and most notebale Woody who make the film less about Zombie and more about people and their ampted-up Hollywood actions at such a time.
I agreed on the cameo, was a great touch but perhaps was not the best part of the film.
To conclude, i enjoyed the review but think you missed the point a bit, or perhaps just upset with the film being a hardcore zombie fan. But the film itself was fresh, new, exciting and appealing to a great and wide audience.
Also remember, this was a first time directors film, and to say the least, it felt confident, aware and brilliant each frame on screen.
Cheers,
Lucas
October 13, 2009
You know how when you have your favorite little indie band that no one knows about except you and ten friends? You want the band to do well and you tell everyone about them because you love them so much, but then when they finally hit the big time you’re like, “I knew about them first!” They win the best new artist of the year at the grammy’s and you’re like, “Wha!? These guys have had like four albums!” – That’s kind of how I feel about the zombie culture. You and your friends did nothing but talk about killing zombies after this movie, well, I’ve (for better or worse) been doing that for the better part of six years. So when a movie comes along and really could do wonders, it is mostly boring. I didn’t mis the point and I totally see what you’re saying, but I thought it was mostly boring.
“The film plays out like a huge Halo extravaganza and really gives audience members this adrenaline and ludacris idea that living in a world filled with zombie would be fun and wild.”
Really? A) Shawn of the Dead did this MUCH better and B) it’s hardly a “Halo extravaganza.” It’s mostly just driving around and talking about relationships and stuff. There’s actually very little action or zombie extravaganza at all in the movie. And what they talk about is not entertaining, deep or funny. It’s just stupid. I refer you to the Twinkie thing again – it was lame.
Reading the Zombie Survival Guide was much more fun than this movie. And much more thorough and entertaining.
My favorite facebook group I belong to – that I now will probably drop out of because the mainstream is there and ruining it:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2210852390&ref=ts
October 14, 2009
are you a zombie snob?
I dont really give a fuck about zombies, if its fun its fun, its just another genre. I dont know if i see any genre or subgenre as some thing/band I possess, that sounds too broad.
anyways, its funny that its only when you go against the grain of what’s popular that the lurkers show up. Sup Lucas.
October 14, 2009
@lucas, “Not sure about you, but i know when i went to see this film with a bunch of my friends, i really wanted to buy a gun and start shooting things. Also, i couldnt remember a time when we didnt realte any of our conversations taht night to any thing other than killing zombie and how cool and fun it would be.”
This sort of pandering and weird-ish wish fulfilment aspect of the movie has sort of turned me off bothering, the trailer was a lot of fun, and I just left it at that. TOo much other stuff (and not enough time!) to spend on this. I find it kinda sad that it has already made 4x Shaun of the Dead’s gross at the US box office….
October 14, 2009
Oh, and for the record, I LOATHED Max Brooks’ facile and dull wish fulfilment/fantasy/3am-bullshit-session politics of WORLD WAR Z. It’s a terrible, literal, boring novel.
I was wishing there was some artistry in the storytelling (say, like Pontypool Changes Everything…)
October 14, 2009
Kurt – I’m about halfway through World War Z and I’m about to give up on it. I agree that it’s boring and too obviosuly political for its own good.
Goon – “If it’s fun it’s fun.” Agreed (look at my love for Doomsday). Except Zombieland isn’t fun. It’s boring. It’s not even gimmicky. It’s boring. Aside from the cameo, everything good in the movie is in the trailer. If I were critiquing the trailer I would say thumbs up. I mean hell, the trailer even got my friend thinking the movie looked cool and she HATES zombie stuff and makes fun of me all the time for being “into it”.
October 14, 2009
I thought Zombieland was funny. Woody Harrelson was funny. It’s extremely mainstream, and humour is the only thing that makes it bearable. And Emma Stone was insanely attractive. And Jesse Eisenberg is great, awesome actor. I mean when I look at a guy like him, it just makes all the bullshit “Ryan Gosling is the best actor of his generation”, “Leonardo DiCaprio is the best actor of his generation” hype seem that much more ridiculous. Eisenberg is the ultimate personable person, even if he is playing an over-the-top akward guy in this, he doesn’t lose his connection with the audience. And he did Squid and the Whale which is, you know, close to a masterpiece.
Andrew, what, in your opinion, is lost in zombie culture by it becoming mainstream? I don’t think the band analogy works, because mostly there is a reason why a band all of a sudden break through, change in music or members or PR etc, but zombies? Zombies are just faceless enemies. If you think this movie didn’t treat zombies the way you wanted it to, that other movies have done it better then that is fine, but I don’t think that is the case, the zombies in this are the same as all other zombies I’ve seen. I mean, I didn’t hate Star Trek for trying to go mainstream, I just didn’t think it was that interesting, but you seem to be pissed off that all of a sudden you’re not the cool nerdy kid in school anymore, and you’re now actively seeking out something else to get into just to be different? It seems insincere. Just judge the movie, not it’s consequences.
October 14, 2009
“Aside from the cameo, everything good in the movie is in the trailer.”
I didn’t watch the trailer. I thought you didn’t watch trailers either?
October 14, 2009
Goon, I can’t imagine you would not like this film, I have to say. I think you should check it out.
October 14, 2009
“Along with a couple of tag along girls, together they travel across the country from point A to point B”
Andrew, this is not meant to critique you per se, but I have to say this is the no.1 thing I hate about reviews. You’re not giving the movie a chance with this, as much as the commercial you are ruining it for an audience. It probably takes a good 40 minutes before the girls are tagging along with anything, and there is plenty of stuff going on before they do. Wether or not you cared about it is irrelevant, you are making it sound it like it’s nothing, when it is a big part of the movie.
October 14, 2009
“but you seem to be pissed off that all of a sudden you’re not the cool nerdy kid in school anymore, and you’re now actively seeking out something else to get into just to be different? It seems insincere. Just judge the movie, not it’s consequences.”
I judge both. Your first statement there is correct. I admit it. But I also judge the movie. I didn’t find it entertaining at all. If you thought it was funny, then awesome. I thought it was terribly UNfunny. The Twinkie thing made me want to puke – but I guess if I was 14 it would’ve been humorous.
And no, this is a “point A to Point B movie”. Basically the movie starts with Eisenberg traveling to Columbus. He picks up Woody and then they keep traveling and then they pick up chick and they keep traveling and then there’s no zombie fighting, just not humorous moments in a truck and in a mansion. Then there’s a “climax” in an amusement park. Zzzzzzz.
October 14, 2009
TRAILERS:
But I agree that if you haven’t seen the trailer then the funny parts are still funny. But I bet they won’t be very funny next time and the novelty, if you can call it that, will have worn off. I do watch trailers, I just usually watch a teaser and that’s it – I don’t actively seek out as much content that I can find. I’m avoiding WTWTA promotional materials like he plague. I saw the first trailer and that’s all I need. I want to go into that movie fresh. Of course seeing as many films in the theater as we all do, trailers are unavoidable though.
October 14, 2009
“And no, this is a “point A to Point B movie”. ”
This is better known as the “road movie”. My point is you are not giving credit to the experiences along the way, you are dismissing them in your review as if they don’t happen. The girls don’t just “tag along”.
Stuff like Woody Harrelson reacting to the cameo I thought was awesome. There is alot more humor than twinkies in the film. Eisenberg asserting himself with popcorn was great.
Wether or not the movie will be funny the second time, I will have to wait to judge untill I see it a second time. But who needs to see it a second time? How is this a valid complaint, “I might not like it next time”? I don’t get it. It doesn’t make your first experience any less valid, if your second experience differs from it. With these nonsense-movies, I don’t exactly feel a need to watch them a second time, I’m perfectly happy having seen it and enjoyed it. It was harmless and didn’t take itself seriously, had great acting and was funny. Nothing major, but I don’t expect or need anything major from something called Zombieland. I gave it 4/6 in my review.
October 14, 2009
Andrew, I think you hit it in your comment about your friend thinking it looked cool even though she hates zombies – this is a zombie film you can take people who don’t like zombies to. And they’ll likely like it. It’s basically a romcom with zombies. There were a lot of talky, relationship-building parts, but that’s what set Zombieland apart from other zombie movies that are non-stop horror/action/zombies all the time. I can definitely see how people who really love zombie movies and see them all wouldn’t care for it as much, but for those of us who don’t (or are just learning to), it was really enjoyable.
Not as good as Shaun of the Dead, I’ll grant you, but I’m willing to allow more than one zombie comedy to wear the tag “enjoyable.”
Oh, and also, I thought Abigail Breslin was really good – I’m not sure I’ve seen any of her movies since Little Miss Sunshine, and I was really impressed with how she’s grown and continues to be able to project a depth beyond her years.
October 14, 2009
“had great acting and was funny.”
I guess that’s where we’ll have to disagree. Great acting? Your standards are rather low then I think.
October 14, 2009
Was the first Rom-Zom-Com actually Dead Alive (aka Braindead), or were there romantic movies with Zombies before that?
There seems to be some momentum with that post-Shaun, as in Pride&Prejudice-with-Zombies and Zombieland, The Revenant, and others….
October 14, 2009
“There were a lot of talky, relationship-building parts, but that’s what set Zombieland apart from other zombie movies that are non-stop horror/action/zombies all the time.”
Agreed. Except these “talky” parts seemed to be just thrown in there because they didn’t have anything else. They were not very well thought out and again, snooze inducing. Where the fuck were the zombies? Seriously. Not counting the final act, how much of the other 70 minutes of this movie had actual zombies in it? 15 minutes… tops?
October 14, 2009
Oh yeah. I totally gave up on “Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.” I got 1/3 of the way through and was completely bored.
I think this whole recent zombie craze just has left a bad taste in my mouth. It’s completely saturated the market and it’s pissing me off. I mean shit, we had TWO zombie pub crawls in Mpls in a two month period. Posers.
October 14, 2009
” Not counting the final act, how much of the other 70 minutes of this movie had actual zombies in it? 15 minutes… tops?”
If you started watching Zombie cinema with a stop-watch, you’d find that most entries, past and present, fit this description. The zombies in zombie movies are often a big fat macguffin for the filmmakers to say what they want to say…
October 14, 2009
Fair enough. But sorry, with what the trailer (and the first five or ten minutes) promises us, it does not deliver.
October 14, 2009
Anywho,
It seems like i have fuelled the fire and i must say, Andrew you have made some great arguments and extremley well-played moves to defend your final stance on the film.
Although i disagree with some of it, i bow down to you in great respect and honour for your firm stance on what seems to be, for myself, the best zombie movie of the year (although there where hardly any) and thus far, for me, the BEST comedy of the year!
SUP GOON! MUCH LOVE buddy!
November 3, 2009
First of all, this had a great soundtrack (Doves’s Kingdom of Rust! Hells yeah!).
Secondly, I couldn’t agree with Lucas’s comments more. I thought Woody brought a lot to his role that another actor couldn’t (I’m actually a part of the camp that thinks Woody is a pretty underrated actor, mind you) and Eisenberg also adds such subtlety to his roles. It’s not as good as Shaun of the Dead, not by a long shot, but the films don’t have the same agenda either. Andrew, you seem bitter towards this movie from the getgo and your indie band analogy just makes me shake my head, like with people who are like “OH MAN, I DISCOVERED KINGS OF LEON WAY BEFORE USE SOMEBODY WAS ON THE RADIO ALL THE TIME.” Yeah, shit, so what, I did too, why get defensive about it and all of the sudden say “Use Somebody” and Kings of Leon suck just because they are mainstream?
Anyway, the Bill Murray scene: HILARIOUS. One of the funniest scenes of the year.
I’d give the movie a 3.5/5 overall probably.
November 3, 2009
I admit I’m defensive about it in that way, but I also think that it’s just done wrong. Matty over at Filmspotting nailed it on their show. It’s just boring and pointless and nothing is earned. Did you really think the Twinkie gag was funny? If you did, so be it. I thought it was just unfunny and stupid.
Did people really like the “climactic” scene at the end? Was it fun? Was it creative? Was it intense? None of the above. I just wanted to get out.
There’s nothing edgy or new to anything in here. And the funny thing is, people keep defending it but the one sentence review from everyone seems to be, “yeah, but it’s no Shaun of the Dead.”
I just think this is the most pandering movie of the year. Pandering to a bunch of people who don’t know any better.
November 3, 2009
It is definitely no Shaun of the Dead, but Road to Perdition is no The Godfather either. Just because I say it isn’t as good as the other, I can still defend it.
The Twinkie gag was tired, I agree, but I liked the final climactic scene. Had you not been such a Negative Nancy throughout it all, maybe you would have enjoyed it to. The sacrificial antihero, the uncourageous dork breaks his survival rules, etc. I like the characters. They’re nothing new – Tallahassee could easily be the loner hero Han, and Columbus could be the awkward, naive Luke, and Wichita could be the strong, independent Leia. The plot follows simple conventions.
So yes, the movie didn’t do anything new, I agree, but a lot of movies you and I both find entertaining don’t, which is why it didn’t overstay its welcome at 88-minutes. It’s like the carnival rides at the end of the movie – fun during the ride, but it’s not going to change your life. It’s a buddy road trip comedy with zombies and for me (and it looks like the majority of critics and moviegoers) it worked. You are very unpredictable, Andrew, because I’d definitely think this would be a movie that would be up your alley.
And c’mon… the cameo!!!
November 3, 2009
I thought it would be a movie up my alley too. Another problem I think I had was expectations. That trailer built up something the movie could never have delivered. Everything good in the movie (except the cameo) is in that trailer. So if you’ve seen the trailer you’ve seen the best (and only good) parts of the movie.
November 3, 2009
I thought it was funny enough. I didn’t mind the hokey bits too much. And usually I would hate a pathetic dweeb like Columbus but there’s something about Jesse Eisenberg I really respond too. I appreciated that it was essentially plotless.
I thought the last act dragged in the usual way.