Zombieland (spoilers, of course)

[ThatNickGuy]

This movie should be ashamed to call itself a zombie movie. Sure, it was a fun action/buddy/roadtrip movie, but man, Shaun of the Dead still holds up as the best zombie/comedy movie. Let's run through the list.

1) For a post-apocalyptic zombie-filled world...where the hell were they for most of the movie? Even in big cities like LOS FUCKING ANGELES, there were less than half a dozen seen. They should've been up to their eyeballs in zombies. I swear, the movie had maybe, MAYBE a dozen zombies throughout the movie until the finale.

2) The moron girls trashed their only way of escape? How the hell did they survive this long before? I'll forgive that they turned on all the rides, because you know, that's exactly what any survivor would do. But then they escape to a ride that goes up and down, up and down?

3) What was the point of the funhouse part? The only zombies following him were all behind him. Why not, I don't know, do THE EXACT SAME RUNNING GAG AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE?!

4) The movie was padded so fucking much with roadtrips and Bill Murray (no matter how funny those parts were). I kept thinking "Where are the fucking zombies in this fucking zombie movie!?"

5) Nothing like an American movie to have the one and only place that's majorly trashed...be a Native American shop. Wow. That's about as American as you can get, aside from the giant roadtrip across America. Or the constant product placements. Or, and this was the big one to me:

6) RUNNING. FUCKING. ZOMBIES. Soon as I saw the first one running, I thought "COME ON!" Which, of course, added next to nothing in the finale, because you had Harleson locked in a cage and the girls in a glorified zombie dunk tank.

7) Too much Michael Cera and the typical "awkward teenager around girls" crap.

Don't get me wrong. I still thought it was one hilarious movie. The rules were hilarious and in my opinion, not used enough, especially through the middle part of the movie. I liked how they kept popping up in not-so-subtle ways, like the dumb American audience needed reminding.

Unfortunately, Shaun of the Dead still reigns supreme as both a great zombie comedy and a great zombie movie in general. It had actual SUBTLETY. Like, Shaun's friend listing their plans, such as a Bloody Mary, and sure enough, that's the exact sequence of the whole movie. Or "Ash" being sick that day.

But that's a good example of British vs. American movies. Smart and subtle vs. big, loud, obnoxious and in your face. God bless America. :usa2::finger:

 

[Shawn]

Michael Cera was in this movie?

Nothing wrong with running zombies. Far scarier than the "I can walk around them with my eyes closed" kind. I agree that it's not much of a "zombie" film though. There is quite a lack of actual zombies. Shaun of the Dead is still superior as far as zombies and levels of comedy are concerned but Zombieland did entertain and I walked out knowing I'd have to get that one on DVD.

 

[Shannow]

This movie should be ashamed to call itself a zombie movie. Sure, it was a fun action/buddy/roadtrip movie, but man, Shaun of the Dead still holds up as the best zombie/comedy movie. Let's run through the list.

1) For a post-apocalyptic zombie-filled world...where the hell were they for most of the movie? Even in big cities like LOS FUCKING ANGELES, there were less than half a dozen seen. They should've been up to their eyeballs in zombies. I swear, the movie had maybe, MAYBE a dozen zombies throughout the movie until the finale.

2) The moron girls trashed their only way of escape? How the hell did they survive this long before? I'll forgive that they turned on all the rides, because you know, that's exactly what any survivor would do. But then they escape to a ride that goes up and down, up and down?

3) What was the point of the funhouse part? The only zombies following him were all behind him. Why not, I don't know, do THE EXACT SAME RUNNING GAG AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE?!

4) The movie was padded so fucking much with roadtrips and Bill Murray (no matter how funny those parts were). I kept thinking "Where are the fucking zombies in this fucking zombie movie!?"

5) Nothing like an American movie to have the one and only place that's majorly trashed...be a Native American shop. Wow. That's about as American as you can get, aside from the giant roadtrip across America. Or the constant product placements. Or, and this was the big one to me:

6) RUNNING. FUCKING. ZOMBIES. Soon as I saw the first one running, I thought "COME ON!" Which, of course, added next to nothing in the finale, because you had Harleson locked in a cage and the girls in a glorified zombie dunk tank.

7) Too much Michael Cera and the typical "awkward teenager around girls" crap.

Don't get me wrong. I still thought it was one hilarious movie. The rules were hilarious and in my opinion, not used enough, especially through the middle part of the movie. I liked how they kept popping up in not-so-subtle ways, like the dumb American audience needed reminding.

Unfortunately, Shaun of the Dead still reigns supreme as both a great zombie comedy and a great zombie movie in general. It had actual SUBTLETY. Like, Shaun's friend listing their plans, such as a Bloody Mary, and sure enough, that's the exact sequence of the whole movie. Or "Ash" being sick that day.

But that's a good example of British vs. American movies. Smart and subtle vs. big, loud, obnoxious and in your face. God bless America. :usa2::finger:

Fuck you, it was great through and through. I hate the running zombie argument.

 

[Frank]

Yeah, I really couldn't disagree more with you TNG. The movie wasn't about the God damn zombies. It was supposed to be more about the relationships between different people. It was also supposed to be funny as all fuck and if I had one nitpick about the flick it would be that the movie did not do a good job getting us to take any of the serious shit seriously. For example:

Spoiler

Tallahasse's dog turning out to be his son.

I just didn't really care. Other than that, the type in motion during the opening credits and throughout the movie gave the failed designer in me a boner to go along with how hard I was laughing.

 

[Shannow]

Sorry about the reply, the anti-running zombie is a pet peeve for me.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

That... wasn't Michael Cera at all.

?????

 

[ThatNickGuy]

The hell? It wasn't? *checks IMDB* Huh, then I swear, they cloned him or something because the guy was basically the exact same.

And I'm sorry, but there is no need for running zombies. They're NOT scarier, especially when all you need to do is, say, get fifty to a hundred more extras (or thousands if it's in a city area) and bam. It's not what one zombie can do, it's what sheer numbers of them can do. Fuck running zombies.

Like I said, I was still entertained by the movie, but it's got no right to call itself a zombie movie. Shaun of the Dead is still VASTLY superior.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

I would also like to make mention that you have missed the entire point about this movie. You were so invested in the zombies that you missed a pretty good film about people.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

The movie was called ZOMBIEland, not Peopleland or RoadTripLand or BillMurrayLand. I expect to see zombies in a movie called Zombieland.

Like I said, though, I still enjoyed the movie.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

The movie was called ZOMBIEland, not Peopleland or RoadTripLand or BillMurrayLand. I expect to see zombies in a movie called Zombieland.

Like I said, though, I still enjoyed the movie.

So you would prefer it as a run-of-the-mill, zombie movie as opposed to the character-driven piece the movie turned out to be? What's this about American movies lacking subtlety? Dude, you *missed* the subtlety.

 

[Shannow]

The movie was called ZOMBIEland, not Peopleland or RoadTripLand or BillMurrayLand. I expect to see zombies in a movie called Zombieland.

Like I said, though, I still enjoyed the movie.

So you would prefer it as a run-of-the-mill, zombie movie as opposed to the character-driven piece the movie turned out to be? What's this about American movies lacking subtlety? Dude, you *missed* the subtlety.[/QUOTE]


Shhhhhhhh, he wants to be:

so let him.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

What subtlety? That it was a very character driven action movie with barely any zombies in it until the end? There's nothing subtle about that, it's exactly what it is: a character driven action movie. The only subtle part about it was a group of Americans destroying something Native American.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good movie or that the characters or story weren't entertaining, but cripes, you can't call it a zombie movie with only a dozen zombies filtered throughout the movie. I swear, there was at least a half hour gone by at points where there wasn't even one in it. Why not, say, have hundreds of them surrounding the gates of Murray's mansion? Have them moaning and groaning outside while all this paper-thin character development is going on?

---------- Post added at 03:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:40 PM ----------

No, Shannow, that would be if I was calling it the worst zombie movie ever or worst movie ever or something. That prize belongs to the Day of the Dead remake.

This is being critical of a movie that people have been gushing about and calling it the best zombie movie ever when it's anything but.

 

[Shannow]

Who has said it was the best zombie movie ever?


And fuck, sorry it didnt have zombies everywhere for you. jesus. it didnt need it. As was saidf, that was the fucking point. Characters given the fucking backdrop of zombie apocolypse.

And, for the record, i find fast zombie much "scarier" than slow ones. Not to say i do not like the latter, but at this point, watching slow ones, I see it as a "shit, fuck it, how the fuck these things take over again. this only serves to fuel a survialist fantasy where the targets are easy."

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Dunno, but I've been hearing people say it's better than Shaun of the Dead and wow, that's just wrong on so many levels.

They take over for one simple reason, one that World War Z points out perfectly:

Sheer. Fucking. Numbers. Every single person that's killed comes back, so we might take out some of them, but anybody WE lose becomes one of them.

They don't stop coming and they're everywhere. That's the point of zombies. Not what one can do but what sheer numbers of them can do. Sure, you can outrun them or even just walk fast around them, but it doesn't matter because there will be others in your way somewhere else. Eventually, you'll get tired because you still need to stop to rest or eat or sleep and they don't. Sure, you can shoot a couple in the head, but you'll run out of bullets. Sure, you can kill them with a sword or an axe, but eventually, your arms will get tired. Sure, you can try driving away, but soon, you'll run out of gas.

The entire world is overpopulated with them so you can't escape them, no matter where you go. If you find somewhere that has only a few, then by the nighttime, you're overwhelmed, anyway, because the loud noises or smells with attract others. And again, sure, you can barricade yourself in somewhere, but while your food supply runs out, they'll keep coming.

So, to reiterate: how fast they move is irrelevant because they keep going, anyway, while you will eventually grow exhausted.

 

[Singularity.EXE]

What subtlety? That it was a very character driven action movie with barely any zombies in it until the end? There's nothing subtle about that, it's exactly what it is: a character driven action movie. The only subtle part about it was a group of Americans destroying something Native American.

I'm not saying that it wasn't a good movie or that the characters or story weren't entertaining, but cripes, you can't call it a zombie movie with only a dozen zombies filtered throughout the movie. I swear, there was at least a half hour gone by at points where there wasn't even one in it. Why not, say, have hundreds of them surrounding the gates of Murray's mansion? Have them moaning and groaning outside while all this paper-thin character development is going on?

Alright, here we go. The reason that the movie didn't have many zombies in it is the same reason why we only saw five survivors. Isolation. Sure, you could have mobs of zombies moaning outside Bill Murray's mansion, but what's the point? Just to make the environment meshes with your concept of zombie movies? Or maybe make a point about how each of these characters are removed from the world?

Secondly, their names as the places they were going. Brilliant. I could go with the obvious point of furthering their isolation, but its more about goal fulfillment. It embodies the ideal that none of them are content in their current station, and are striving to improving it.

But no, you're right. There shouldn't be any innovation or difference in zombie movies. They should all have hordes of slow zombies, everyone should have a zombie plans, and every survivor should just find a place to bunker down into. Because that's what zombie movies are really about.

 

[Shannow]

Eh, and yes, i have read that damn book, and listened to it on audio too (DO THAT, holy shit, all the actors in it are awesome! real ones too, Like Heny Rollins, Mark Hamill, and a shit ton more)

And really, yes,the inevitable tide, etc..but again, watching it for horror, once more, comes down to "Meh, not that bad." And it really isnt, after initial part. So, again...meh.

A part that really sums that up was the remake of Night of the living dead in the 90s. When the final survior jsut leaves. Crying, hysterical, she walks out, and gets away jsut dodging the dead. that simple.

But this silly debate is pointless.

 

[fade]

I haven't seen it, but I can say the trailer looked pretty stupid. And yes, I find running zombies annoying. It just takes definition away from them. The plodding is so much scarier to me. Just inevitable onslaught of death. Even evasion of straggling slow ones is part of the symbolism of death. Making them fast takes the death and, well, the zombieness away from them. It worked perfectly for 28 Days Later, because it was a disease. They were still alive. But with zombies, they just don't feel dead. Why bother with diseasy make-up? Why not just make them indistinguishable until they're right up on you? Might make for a jump-scare, but it wouldn't be a zombie.

 

[Shannow]

Opinions differ on this topic, I know. More i think on it, and every time its argued, I realize the argument is essentially pointless, as its not based on anything at all but taste and opinion from either side.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Honestly, running zombies to me makes about as much sense as vampires that sparkle in the daytime.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Zombies are a metaphor for change and fear, in the 1960s it was the slow creep of Communism across the world. Now they're metaphors for terrorism and fear of violent radical change, deal with it, or keep jerking off to Max Brooks' books.

The movie was really funny, the REVEAL was way out of tone with the rest of the movie. It was also completely forgettable and I doubt I'll ever even think of watching it again.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

Actually, Romero's zombies, at least as far as Dawn of the Dead is concerned, had more to do with consumerism and how we're all zombies to it. And our unending need to consume. Hence the mall setting.

Sure, you can interpret today's running zombies as how society needs things faster and faster. Hell, that could be a continuing metaphor for how our voracious appetite to consume is growing, to the point that we need things now now NOW. Which I could buy into, if that was the point of the Dawn of the Dead remake. But it wasn't. It was just the director thinking slow zombies aren't scary.

 

[Shannow]

Honestly, running zombies to me makes about as much sense as vampires that sparkle in the daytime.

You are right. The dead walking makes complete sense otherwise.

 

[@Li3n]

Honestly, running zombies to me makes about as much sense as vampires that sparkle in the daytime.

If they couldn't run then how would they get my groceries back on time?! - your creepy local witch doctor...

 

[Chippy]

One of your major complaints is that they trashed a Native American shop?

 

[Cajungal]

I don't care about the running/walking thing as much as some would like me to. I thought it made for a lot of good gags in the movie. For example, the first example of why cardio is important. I loved when the kid had to circle the parking lot to get back to his keys. I think that either kind of zombie can work. I think I've preferred more books/movies with slow ones, but that didn't ruin the movie for me at all.

And yeah, it's called Zombieland because that's what the kid named if after he ended up alone and had to come up with survival guidelines. It's not called "buddyland" or whatever else because that wouldn't have made sense in his situation. He finds himself surrounded by zombie-like people and renames his home. A title doesn't have to be so transparent.

I liked it a lot. I don't really care to compare it to other zombie movies.

 

[HowDroll]

Dunno, but I've been hearing people say it's better than Shaun of the Dead and wow, that's just wrong on so many levels.

They take over for one simple reason, one that World War Z points out perfectly:

Sheer. Fucking. Numbers. Every single person that's killed comes back, so we might take out some of them, but anybody WE lose becomes one of them.

They don't stop coming and they're everywhere. That's the point of zombies. Not what one can do but what sheer numbers of them can do. Sure, you can outrun them or even just walk fast around them, but it doesn't matter because there will be others in your way somewhere else. Eventually, you'll get tired because you still need to stop to rest or eat or sleep and they don't. Sure, you can shoot a couple in the head, but you'll run out of bullets. Sure, you can kill them with a sword or an axe, but eventually, your arms will get tired. Sure, you can try driving away, but soon, you'll run out of gas.

The entire world is overpopulated with them so you can't escape them, no matter where you go. If you find somewhere that has only a few, then by the nighttime, you're overwhelmed, anyway, because the loud noises or smells with attract others. And again, sure, you can barricade yourself in somewhere, but while your food supply runs out, they'll keep coming.

So, to reiterate: how fast they move is irrelevant because they keep going, anyway, while you will eventually grow exhausted.

Well said.

The best thing about slow zombies is that--theoretically at least--anyone has a chance for survival. Fast zombies? I'm fucked immediately. I've never been a particularly fast runner, even when I was in great shape. But surviving slow zombies is all about strategy, man.

I liked Zombieland overall; I'd give it at least a 7/10. That being said, there were a few things that really, really bothered me about it as well:

1) TNG is absoutely right about there not being enough zombies in the middle of the movie. Worse, though, is that the characters seemed to barely be afraid of them a good deal of the time. A two-minute scene in which they boarded up Bill Murray's house would have proved to the audience that they weren't a group of morons. Seriously, any zombie could have just wandered in there. And on that tangent...

2) What the fuck are they doing getting drunk/high in an unfortified house? I would think that if the risk of zombies showing up at any time was present and your life depended on your ability to nail them in the skull with a gun, you would avoid getting inebriated unless you were ABSOLUTELY SURE a group of undead would not be crashing your party.

3) How the hell did those girls last as long as they did if they're retarded enough to turn on the lights at an amusement park? Seriously, you might as well go and tap the zombies on the shoulder to politely ask them to eat your face off.

But the thing that bothered me most is...

WHY OH GOD WHY DID THEY NOT WEAR ZOMBIE MAKEUP AFTER TALKING TO BILL MURRAY?!?!? That right there almost ruined the whole movie for me. If some simple costume makeup makes the zombies leave you alone, why the FUCK did they not immediately go raid their nearest Walgreens?


Did I like the movie? Yep. Did I wonder how the hell these people managed to survive when pretty much everyone else had died? Hell yes. Is Shaun of the Dead a vastly superior movie? Absolutely.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

and you people say I nitpick movies

 

[Frank]

The anger over not following 50 year old zombie tropes is mystifying.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

One of your major complaints is that they trashed a Native American shop?

Yep. Because if that isn't symbolism to how Americans have treated Native Americans (not only trashing the shop, but all the jokes poking fun at them), then I don't know what is.

But besides that, if the world is going to be called Zombieland, then they should be up to their eyeballs in the undead. That's driving through cities, on the highways, surrounding Bill Murray's place. Of course they're going to get drunk and high when you don't even SEE a zombie during that entire period in the movie.

 

[Fun Size]

Meh. Fast. Slow. Whatever. I really think saying that them moving fast somehow ruins the idea of dead people getting up and eating other people sort of fails to notice that the story involved dead people getting up and eating other people. Similarly I don't give a damn if they make movies about sparkling vampires. Vampires witten by Ann Rice differ from those written by Bram Stoker, which differ from those written by Joss Whedon. At the end of the day, it's still a made up monster, and I figure the writers can adjust the beasts to their tales as they see fit. So long as the story is entertaining, I think we might be stressing details a smidge too much and forgetting we're there to have fun for an hour or so. I understand if the story didn't move you the way it should have, but it seems a shame to let something like that get to you.

Perhaps I'll feel differently in two years when I actually see it, as I'm still a little behind in my movie watching. Should that be the case, I will dutifully retract.

My $.02.

 

[Frank]

They got high because that scene was meant to be a 5 second gag while in BM's house. That's all it was.

 

[Enresshou]

The anger over not following 50 year old zombie tropes is mystifying.

Exactly. Any time I see someone ranting about fast zombies (I don't mind if you don't like them, but outright raging about them), I imagine their arguments transplanted back into the 1960's when George A Romero changed the zombie paradigm.

"What!? Zombies are NOT caused by radioactive fallout/viruses/mysterious causes, they're the reanimated servants of witch doctors! How dare he rip off "I Am Legend!" You can't have thousands of zombies! You can't kill a zombie by shooting it through the head, they're indestructible! That's the whole point of having a reanimated servant!"

That being said, I loved the movie: and yes, it replaced Shaun of the Dead as my favorite zombie movie. I rarely laugh out loud at movies, but Zombieland had me in stitches the whole time, and I thought it was a nice touch that they included why Tallahassee was so gung-ho about slaughtering zombies.

 

[fade]

Part of the problem is that the writers are relying on your collective knowledge of the concept of zombie as established over the past 40 years, but then they proceed to change it. If you're trying to fit into a mythos, and you're relying on the mythos to help tell your story for you, it doesn't pay to break the rules for little reason. If you were making an end of days film, you could make Jesus come back as a 70s disco dancer, and though you may be avant garde, the breaking of the image would set your film back in most people's eyes.

For the record, I haven't seen anyone here angry or raving about it.

 

[Chippy]

One of your major complaints is that they trashed a Native American shop?

Yep. Because if that isn't symbolism to how Americans have treated Native Americans (not only trashing the shop, but all the jokes poking fun at them), then I don't know what is.[/QUOTE]

 

[Shawn]

I've always felt that running zombies make more sense in a medical sense anyway. If there has ever been a consistent factor in zombie movies it's that they can tear flesh with a single bite, or rip a person to bits simply by grabbing an appendage and pulling. If you have to explain this scientifically you might theorize that zombies have an overactive adrenaline system that allow them to perform feats of superhuman strength. As your ability to run is based on the strength in your legs it makes sense to assume that zombies who can tear you apart can probably run after you too.