My
review of Zombieland went live today over on (
Cult)ure as part of Horror Week. Because it's a review and not whatever it is that I do here (or don't do here, given how little I've posted in the last year), there are things I left out. Nitpicky things, naturally; some spoilery things, and you know how spoiler adverse I am. But since that's the review and this is the blog, and since the movie came out almost a month ago, let's discuss those things here, shall we? Consider this the annotated review.
- Eventually they meet up with two resourceful sisters, Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin.
Stone and Breslin are both winning as a pair of grifters, although the fact that they were grifters was so obvious from the word "go" that I was a little surprised at how stupid Eisenberg and Harrelson would have to be to fall for it. Also, because Stone is hot and approximately Eisenberg's character's age, there's a romantic interest there. Harrelson's character alternatively encourages Eisenberg or obliviously cockblocks, which is funny either way. I found it hard to believe, however, that a man who has obviously been alone and celibate for several months wouldn't even notice an attractive, prospective partner. Not that I wanted to watch an Eisenberg-Stone-Harrelson love triangle or to see Harrelson get creepy on Stone, but still, a throwaway "I'd hit it" is all I ask in the name of realism. Yes, zombies = not real, but the best of these movies put believable characters in extraordinary circumstances.
- Though the narration is oppressive early in the film -- when Eisenberg is the only character on screen
By "oppressive," I mean damn near omnipresent. In the PC round up I just published this morning (again, whoops), I link to an AV Q&A entirely because of Steven Heisler's answer. The one cliché he would do away with? "Almost all
narrators or voiceovers in films." Ah, a kindred. When you only have one character, do you really need a non-stop monologue to go with him? Do you think viewers are incapable of interpreting what they see? I recommend you watch the first seven minutes of season four of
Supernatural, which were nearly dialogue free, entertaining, and even suspenseful.
- Eisenberg's performance consists largely of his best Michael Cera impersonation.
I feel kind of bad for Eisenberg as he's older than Cera and quite possibly invented that particular comic delivery (props Madison for pinpointing who Eisenberg reminded me of), and, while there is a small novelty of seeing someone other than Cera do it, it's started to wear thin for even him. Hope he finds some other hook.
- Harrelson makes a delightfully badass roughneck.
He's the ninja version of a roughneck. It's completely silly, but it also suggests that would make an excellent action hero in the John McClane mold (more ordinary guy than super agent).
- The movie derives a surprising amount of mileage from [Harrelson's] ingenious killing techniques.
What the movie does not do is explain why each killing implement is abandoned as soon as it is used. It's always distracting in movies and on TV shows when someone uses a weapon and promptly tosses it while running away since that all but guarantees that the weapon will be needed again. Obviously that's not the case here (zombies stay dead), but it's still distracting. It could be that the zombie blood will infect Harrelson, but that's never made clear enough to know the reasoning for certain.
- It's not the performances, however, that make the movie so good.
I specifically wrote this line because my editor initially added a line about how the performance made this movie good despite the thin plot. While he was right that the initial draft needed rewriting, he was wrong about that point. The performances are good -- the movie overall is well cast -- but that's not why it's so laugh out loud funny.
- It's the off-beat "rules" Eisenberg's invented for survival and particularly the movie's illustration of said rules.
No, seriously. Not only is the soccer mom running from little girl zombies, they're little girl zombies
dressed as princesses. That shit is priceless. And, as you can see, unrelated to the performances of the main players. It's all about direction (including set and art direction) and writing here.
- First time feature director Ruben Fleischer owes a debt to Shaun of the Dead (which he sort of acknowledges)
Which he also sort of makes fun of in having Eisenberg explain not to be stingy with bullets (the double tap) by cracking that it's not a cricket bat. They had to improvise!
Nitpicky as I am, I enjoyed the hell out of this movie. It's funny as all get out, and, though I am not good with horror, I do love a good dose of
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOORE! B+
