Zombieland - What did you think

funkyjebus

Just saw Zombieland. Wow, its so good. I haven't laughed this much since superbad (not that it is as laugh a minute as superbad).

Woody and Jesse are on fire. I was really looking forward to it and knew it would be good, but didn't expect this.

It will no doubt be compared to Shaun of the dead, but shouldn't. Although if you like Shaun, you should love this.

Check it out, this years sleeper hit.

'Poor fat ba$tard!!'

chin_grin

Nah, it's not a patch on Shaun of the Dead. Same genre, but the Americans have a tendency to just pump retarded joke after retarded scene at us when they try comedies.

Also I think it was missing a decent plot. It just felt like it was made up as they went along.

Terrible plot, annoying characters. Some chuckle moments and not enough zombies.

5/10

liah

I was pretty disappointed tbh, everyone said it was amazing when really it was pretty mediocre at best.

Didn't see what was so fantastic about it. Just your average Apatow/Cody-generation style flick.

funkyjebus

liah wrote: »

I was pretty disappointed tbh, everyone said it was amazing when really it was pretty mediocre at best.

Didn't see what was so fantastic about it. Just your average Apatow/Cody-generation style flick.

Well my take was that i expected to be dissappointed but, was suprised, I suppose its the build up you get personally.

Don't agree with it being average apatow/cody flick. Average cody is Jennifers body, and that a bad movie. And must we really give cody her own genre and lump her in with Apatow? Granted apatow produces alot, but a director his movies are great. 40 YOV and Knocked up are two of the best comedies of recent times. So to say this is average apatow is a complement in many peoples eyes.

My point is not that this is a 10/10, but a real plesent suprise and a sleeper hit. I'd give it a 7.5/10. Its a buddy road movie with zombies!!

BopNiblets

I thought it was great, Harrelson and the cameo ( ) especially.

Not sure about Jesse Eisenberg though, he just seems like Michael Cera 2.0.

Galvasean

chin_grin wrote: »

Also I think it was missing a decent plot. It just felt like it was made up as they went along.

Interesting that you say that. Apparently it started out as a pilot for a TV show.

funkyjebus

BopNiblets wrote: »

Not sure about Jesse Eisenberg though, he just seems like Michael Cera 2.0.

Correction, Cera is Jesse 2.0. Check out rodger doger, this is before arrested development existed. But even Cera didn't quite have it down to a tee in AD, it wasn't until later AD and clark and michael that he got his line delivery down. But Jesse was rockeing it up in The Squid and The Whale back in 2005.

I must admit that I find them both very funny. Cera was the only reason that year one wasn't the worst comedy of all time.

'She's really making that banana last' - brilliant

Acacia

Spoilers ahead, obviously!

I went to see it today without reading about it or knowing anything about it, so I guess I wasn't really disappointed. I was sufficiently entertained, but overall it was kinda 'meh'.

I just felt it tried way too hard, with the 'wackiness' and wise-cracking. Definetely suffering from "OMG, that's so random, LOL!" syndrome. The whole

Bill Murray

thing got old very fast and just,well, wasn't that funny. It seems like the thing with Woody Harrelson's character and

Twinkies was just tacked on so we could go, "Jaysus, he's a mad fella altogether, he loves Twinkies, golly gosh..." Instead of actually making the character interesting, they just threw this in to make him seem like a mad scone.

I won't even get into the how Micheal Cera Average Nerdy Guy Designed to be Relatable to Every Dude in the Audience somehow manages to find the only girl on the planet who isn't a zombie and guess what? She's super-hot and

falls in love with him!

But she's no bimbo, she can like shoot zombies, and stuff! I read the director described her as a ''classic, hot, bad-ass chick". Yawn. In other words, another cookie-cutter hot-yet-attainable- action- babe. How fcuking boring and predictable.

This is basically "Superbad'' with zombies. But less funnier. And I'm sure there's a huge market for that kind of stuff (judging by the laughter in the cinema audience) but it didn't do much for me.

Valmont

Acacia wrote: »

This is basically "Superbad'' with zombies.

Basically, it isn't.

It's Shaun of the Dead in America at least. Relatable to every guy in the audience? Are you trying to be patronising? He was the funny nerd character, that's it. No need to denigrate the characters based on your own cynicism.

If you didn't find the Bill Murray cameo hilarious then I truly pity your funny bone. But I guess all of us average nerdy guys who found solace and identification in the movie would probably say that anyway, huh?

Twinkies was just tacked on so we could go, "Jaysus, he's a mad fella altogether, he loves Twinkies, golly gosh..." Instead of actually making the character interesting, they just threw this in to make him seem like a mad scone.

Incisive. You should probably call the Chicago times, Roger Ebert is definitely out of a job now.

Lamper.sffc

I liked it. Didnt love it

Acacia

Valmont wrote: »

Basically, it isn't.

It's Shaun of the Dead in America at least. Relatable to every guy in the audience? Are you trying to be patronising? He was the funny nerd character, that's it. No need to denigrate the characters based on your own cynicism.

Jesus, do you get your knickers in twist this much about everyone who doesn't like a film you like? Lighten up, ffs.

I'm not trying to be patronising , but you're doing a fairly good job of it. The Jesse Eisenberg character was, imo, relatable to a lot of guys I know . That's not necessarily a negative thing. He was shy, nerdy, sort of Everyman type of character that I assume would be relatable to the target audience (twenty-something guys.) I really don't see how my description of him is 'denigrating'- if you don't like people discussing movie characters maybe you shouldn't read movie reviews?

I found it similar to ''Superbad'' with the type of humor and characters, though it obviously owes a lot to ''Shaun of the Dead''- hence why I said, " 'Superbad' with zombies". You may not agree, I don't particurlay care, though why you took such offense to my opinions, I really don't know.

Valmont wrote: »

If you didn't find the Bill Murray cameo hilarious then I truly pity your funny bone. But I guess all of us average nerdy guys who found solace and identification in the movie would probably say that anyway, huh?

You can ''pity my funny bone'' all you like. Humor is subjective and just because I didn't find it hilarious, it doesn't mean I think there's something wrong with people who did.

If you did find ''solace and identification'' in the movie then I don't really care either, nor do I think there's anything wrong with that.

Valmont wrote: »

Twinkies was just tacked on so we could go, "Jaysus, he's a mad fella altogether, he loves Twinkies, golly gosh..." Instead of actually making the character interesting, they just threw this in to make him seem like a mad scone.

Incisive. You should probably call the Chicago times, Roger Ebert is definitely out of a job now.

And you're calling me patronising and cyncial?

Seriously, wtf? I wasn't writing a critical essay on the fcukin' film, I was giving my opinion on it in a light-hearted way.

Galvasean

Cool it, both of you.

Valmont, calm down. Acacia posted a critique of a film and is entitled to do so. You can argue the points made in said critique, but keep it polite.

Acacia wrote: »

Grow up, ffs.

Your response was sufficient without this last bit.

Acacia

Sorry, Galvasean, I'll remove it.

ooPabsoo

I thought it was an awesome film:D

krudler

I loved it, and now Watchmen has a challenger for the best opening credit sequence of 2009

Valmont

krudler wrote: »

I loved it, and now Watchmen has a challenger for the best opening credit sequence of 2009

Watchmen was pretty amazing with the Bob Dylan and everything! The opening sequence for Zombieland was made by the

fat guy being chased in the football field and how the fatties were the first to go. The guy sitting beside me in the cinema was huge so it made it even funnier because I was trying not to laugh too much

Sasquatch76

Saw it on Friday evening, and found it to be an enjoyable popcorn experience, no more no less. Essentially, it's just good fun.

Necronomicon

I loved it. I'd put this ahead of Shaun of the Dead, which I thought got a bit bogged down with trying to be serious. This is just pure fun from start to finish.

Bill Murray

is a ****ing hero

krudler

Loved "the rules", they make total sense in a zombie apocalypse, buts its the stuff you'd never think of I'm glad they didnt go down the outbreak route, its nice to just jump straight into a world thats been overrun

Really enjoyed it. Harrelson is the best comedic actor working today and every scene with him was a joy.

Mensch

I thought this was a lot of fun! I really enjoyed it.
The only negative, for me, was that there weren't enough zombie scenes. That said, when the zombies were doing there thing it was hilarious so it kind of made up for the lack of 'em.

All in all if you're into zombie films this is a goody

This years second best opening scene.

Just a fantastic piece of music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNwl4XPOtj8

Karl Hungus

I really enjoyed it. It is essentially a culmination of everything zombie-related in popular culture for the last 10 years, right down to the Max Brooks-like survival rules.

However, what I disliked about the film was Jesse Eisenberg's cut-out nerd character. I feel that Shaun of the Dead was a far superior film, simply because I found Shaun a much more real, relatable and likeable character, and towards the end of the film, really felt for;

the scene where Shaun discovers his mum had been bitten effected me more emotionally than anything in any other zombie film, serious or not

. 'Columbus' in Zombieland just felt like tired nerd cliche after cliche, like the scene where he points out that pengiuns don't live on the north pole. I just hated the character.

Still, I loved everything else about the film. Especially the

you look like Eddie Van Halen

line.

I really dont see the constant comparison to Shaun of the Dead. Granted both dead with a Zombie pandemic utilising a mixture of horror and comedy but bar that they are entirely different films. Shaun of the Dead has a far more emotionally driven script and the scenes about his mom already mentioned make the film what it is.

My only real complaint about Zombieland is that

Harrelson's character didn't die during his last stand,. It would have been a far more satisfying conclusion.

Eirebear

Deleted User wrote: »

My only real complaint about Zombieland is that

Harrelson's character didn't die during his last stand,. It would have been a far more satisfying conclusion.

It almost felt like the director really thought about

letting them ALL die at that point

.
I dont think it really effected the film too much though.

It took me a little while to warm to the film, the first ten minute or so Columbus really annoyed me, but i think he eventually grew on me because of his relationship with the rest of the characters.
When it boiled down to it, it was a simple "road movie" and more often than not in my experience the characters in that type of film are overblown cliches anyway.

Comparisons with Shaun of the Dead are a little bit unfair too, it has nowhere near the depth of emotion, or satirical edge that Shaun had. But i dont think it was really aiming for that anyway.

Valmont

Its similarities with Shaun of the Dead are simply that they're both zomcoms (c, valmont) otherwise both films took different routes and were funny for different reasons.

KerranJast

I thought it was great.
- Loads of laughs and some killer lines
- Some ingenious zombie kills

banjo to the face

- Great chemistry between cast
- Loved the cameo, the sweding of his most famous film and the "exit"
- Willie Nelson vs Hannah Montana
- The soundtrack. Anyone using Metallica as an intro is a hero in my book
- The rules or rather you subconsciously thinking of them once they stopped popping up
- Genuinely fearing for some of the characters lives at certain points
- For a low budget film, the effects were top notch as was the backdrop (crashed jet, carnage outside the White House etc)
- Some surprising like gripping & emotional moments like

Columbus realising his family are all gone, although a scam that initial OMG feeling when you think Little Rock is infected (I thought it was going to be dragged out over the course of the film for a moment but quickly twigged the trick) and of course that gutpunch when the true nature of Tallahassee's puppy is revealed

- Emma Stone. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

robby^5

Great film, didnt buy into the hype before hand and this stayed relatively off my radar so it was a nice suprise to see such a well-made truly funny film, funniest film of the year so far for me. The story was crap though, but it's simplicity allowed for the fun of the random zombie killing scenarios. If there is a sequel the story needs to get a little more focused.

I'm also a huge Bill Murray fan (like huge, I dont think there is a film of his I dont own) and I heard about the cameo beforehand, but I was very underwhelmed by it tbh, not Murrays fault though. I cringed when they reenacted ghostbusters.

ScumLord

I'd just like to point out these aren't zombies. They even say so in the film they're

infected with a human version of mad cow but are all very much still alive.

.


They're just called zombies by the characters for want of a better word. They don't even act like the dictionary definition of zombies in any way.

Valmont

Yes, I believe the movie was supposed to be called "People-infected-with-a-sort-of-mad-cow-type-disease-land" but someone messed up with the posters. A minor gripe to be honest.

Kiith

I really enjoyed it. Wasnt a classic by any means, but it kept me entertained for the whole film. Like the cast, and loved some of the Zombie scenes. Harrelson was excellent in it.

BlitzKrieg

Galvasean wrote: »

Interesting that you say that. Apparently it started out as a pilot for a TV show.

really?

When it finished that was the first thing that struck me, that it felt more like a pilot to a tv series then a full film in its own right. Considering how few zombies there were in most scenes and how the plot progressed I dont get the impression much was changed between pitches.


Also thanks Darko, that ending credits song was bugging the hell out of me when I was in the theatre.

BlitzKrieg

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Also thanks Darko, that ending credits song was bugging the hell out of me when I was in the theatre.

You're most welcome, it's a fantastic piece of music and is currently playing as I type. Well the scene it accompanies is playing. God damn but it's just a thoroughly enjoyable 2 minutes of cinema.

Here are my thoughts on the film. I'll more than likely rewrite it later on tonight .

TobyZiegler

Had heard nothing about this film and as I took my seat in the cinema I was still wondering why I was even at it when I have no interest whatsoever in Zombie movies. But found it very enjoyable.

Very funny, likeable characters, good cameo (off topic but much better than the cameo in the Hangover I thought) Not much of a storyline but didnt mind really.

BlitzKrieg

completely off topic

everytime I see the title I always put on the following voice when saying *welcome to zombieland*

http://www.zombo.com/

i'm weird.

Bubs101

Thought this was top class and alot better than Shawn of the Dead. Always felt that that went out of it's way to present witty dialogue sacrificing fun for the sake of it (like Spaced). Always felt with those two that I never really enjoyed them that much while watching them but got a more of a retrospective enjoyment remembering some of the lines. My favourite bit of dialogue from both films is when Little Rock is explaining Hannah Montana to Tallahasee

Tusky

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd just like to point out these aren't zombies. They even say so in the film they're

infected with a human version of mad cow but are all very much still alive.

.


They're just called zombies by the characters for want of a better word. They don't even act like the dictionary definition of zombies in any way.

Oh for ****s sake. Of course they are zombies.

MikeC101

Tusky wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake. Of course they are zombies.

Guess you didn't get the "all zombies must be exactly like Romero zombies" memo!

I sometimes wonder if when "Night of the Living Dead" came out, there were people complaining that the zombies weren't zombies because they weren't undead summoned and under the control of a powerful Haitian Voodoo sorceror.

I got sick of this around the time 28 Days Later came out, and there were hordes of shambling undead, sorry, infected telling me it wasn't a zombie movie, because apparently zombie movies are solely defined by the causes of the infection, and all the other tropes and conventions mean nothing. Zombies must be reanimated dead! But only the way Romero done said it :rolleyes:

Edit: And aren't Russo zombies caused by a virus?

Handsome Bob

Really enjoyed this film and amazingly I didn't have any prior knowledge of it. I'm a regular cinema goer and I must have seen the trailer for Pandorum close to 10 times, but not one for Zombieland. FFS even the really shit looking Triangle got more trailer time in my local cinema than it deserved.

I couldn't help but be endeared by the whole thing, from the characters to the comedic style, I genuinely laughed out loud and that is a rariety for me.

Woody Harrelson as usual was comedy gold, and

Bill Murray's

cameo was brilliant (and I haven't found him interesting for years).

Oh and one of the best opening credits sequence ever!

MikeC101

MikeC101 wrote: »

Guess you didn't get the "all zombies must be exactly like Romero zombies" memo!

You could argue that Romero's are'nt zombies and are in fact Ghouls.

MikeC101

Deleted User wrote: »

You could argue that Romero's are'nt zombies and are in fact Ghouls.

I'd be too scared to!

Fysh

Deleted User wrote: »

You could argue that Romero's are'nt zombies and are in fact Ghouls.

It's much more fun to draw comparisons between Romero's shambling undead and the anally-retentive twits who appear to suffer fits of bowel-churning apoplexy when faced with the notion that a fictional concept used as a maguffin across various media can be interpreted in more than one way....

Really enjoyed Zombieland; for a film that stuck so rigidly to the buddy/road-movie action comedy template I thought it worked very well, the rules and their presentation were a great device to get you past the blatantly two-dimensional nature of Columbus. The emotional moments aren't great, apart from The Cameo, but the film doesn't dwell on them, and even the couple of instances of Plot-Driven Stupidity I recall were to allow a glorious final set piece that was great fun and had some hilarious moments.

Would that more action films had the presentation skills & entertainment-value of Zombieland.

darkestlord

Deleted User wrote: »

You're most welcome, it's a fantastic piece of music and is currently playing as I type. Well the scene it accompanies is playing. God damn but it's just a thoroughly enjoyable 2 minutes of cinema.

Here are my thoughts on the film. I'll more than likely rewrite it later on tonight .

Gotta say a big thanks. I've been trawling the net for this song. Great last scene and this music...bleeding perfect.
I thought it was a great film.Just read the first draft of the zombieland script. Originally they went to Patrick Swayze house. I thought it was a better idea than the film but the ending is far better in the movie than the first draft. well worth the read.

Valmont

darkestlord wrote: »

Originally they went to Patrick Swayze house.

That would have been terrible. Bill Murray is a much funnier man and since it was a comedy, good choice.

allanb49

i liked it the cameo was great, the humor held up and the banjo in the supermarket.
It entertained and thats the main thing

ScumLord

Tusky wrote: »

Oh for ****s sake. Of course they are zombies.

MikeC101 wrote: »

Guess you didn't get the "all zombies must be exactly like Romero zombies" memo!

I sometimes wonder if when "Night of the Living Dead" came out, there were people complaining that the zombies weren't zombies because they weren't undead summoned and under the control of a powerful Haitian Voodoo sorceror.

I got sick of this around the time 28 Days Later came out, and there were hordes of shambling undead, sorry, infected telling me it wasn't a zombie movie, because apparently zombie movies are solely defined by the causes of the infection, and all the other tropes and conventions mean nothing. Zombies must be reanimated dead! But only the way Romero done said it :rolleyes:

Edit: And aren't Russo zombies caused by a virus?

The word zombie is clearly defined http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zombie. One of the main characteristics of zombies is that their dead. Why not just call them vampires or warewolfs? Maybe I'm a stick in the mud but if I'm told a word has a particular meaning I like to stick to that meaning.

By todays standards all the horror films of the 90s featured zombies. Jason was a zombie.

Eirebear

ScumLord wrote: »

The word zombie is clearly defined http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zombie. One of the main characteristics of zombies is that their dead. Why not just call them vampires or warewolfs? Maybe I'm a stick in the mud but if I'm told a word has a particular meaning I like to stick to that meaning.

By todays standards all the horror films of the 90s featured zombies. Jason was a zombie.

Where in the film was their reference to them NOT being dead though?

The only time we witness any change, from human to zombie, is the girl at the start.
She had been bitten, in general zombie terms you are bitten, you die, you wake up as a zombie.

The film doesnt ever say that this isnt the case.

ScumLord

Eirebear wrote: »

Where in the film was their reference to them NOT being dead though?

The only time we witness any change, from human to zombie, is the girl at the start.
She had been bitten, in general zombie terms you are bitten, you die, you wake up as a zombie.

The film doesnt ever say that this isnt the case.

He says they're just infected with a human version of mad cow disease. They never at any stage say their dead either.

Eirebear

ScumLord wrote: »

He says they're just infected with a human version of mad cow disease. They never at any stage say their dead either.

No, but its a very fair assumption to make.

You seem to be sure of the fact that they arent dead however, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why.

BlitzKrieg

Why not just call them vampires or warewolfs?

vampire: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/vampire

a preternatural being, commonly believed to be a reanimated corpse, that is said to suck the blood of sleeping persons at night.
2. (in Eastern European folklore) a corpse, animated by an undeparted soul or demon, that periodically leaves the grave and disturbs the living, until it is exhumed and impaled or burned.

there is a reason we call them all the UNDEAD!

ScumLord

Eirebear wrote: »

No, but its a very fair assumption to make.

You seem to be sure of the fact that they arent dead however, and i cannot for the life of me figure out why.

It's only a fair assumption to make because the film is called zombieland so you expect to be dealing with zombies in it. They do say though that the zombies are people infected with mad human disease. It doesn't really matter, it's a Hollywood action/comedy. It never really at any point explains itself or how they ended up that way (although I missed the last bit of the film).

They don't fit the definition of zombies, they might as well have called them vampires because they're similar in allot of ways. Really they're just combining one popular film with something that's popular on the internet to make a film they know will sell. In the end it works, it's a good film. But damnit their not zombies! :pac: