Zombieland Double Tap (2019)

Zombieland: Double Tap (2019)

Director: Ruben Fleisher

Cast: Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg and Abigail Breslin, Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson, Bill Murray

Zombie films have proven to be cyclical. Like the undead beings they portray, the zombie genre is resurrected and disposed of according to the public’s interest or the success of one particular film. Back in the 70’s, thanks to the success of George Romero’s Dawn of the Dead (1978), zombie films made a resurgence. They grew in popularity thanks to all the Italian knock offs that came as a result of Romero’s seminal film. I speak of films like Lucio Fulci’s Zombie (1979) and The Beyond (1983) and a whole slew of Italian zombie films that were released during the 80’s. In America, we saw films like Return of the Living Dead (1985), Day of the Dead (1985), Re-Animator (1985) and Night of the Creeps (1986). In a few years, zombie movies died again and disappeared. During the 90’s, few of them were released in theaters and the ones that did get released were not box office giants. But time passed and in 2002 that all changed, zombie movies were back at the box office and they came back strong! Thanks to box office hits like 28 Days Later (2002), Dawn of the Dead (2004), Shaun of the Dead (2004) and Resident Evil (2002), zombie movies were back in a big way! Zombies even infested our tv screens with shows like the ever popular The Walking Dead, which is still shambling around.

Zombieland (2009) was released around the time when people were still obsessed with zombies. It was a moderate hit, which should have meant a quick sequel. Instead, for whatever the reason, they waited a decade to make it. So now here comes the sequel, a whole decade late. I can definitely say it couldn’t have come at a worse time, because at this point,  people are zombied out. This zombie wave is reaching its end …zombie fatigue is definitely here and it is felt in the lackluster box office performance of Zombieland Double Tap (2019) Yes my friends, my take on Zombieland Double Tap is that it’s a sequel that came about ten years too late. And you know how that goes when you wait too long to do a sequel, people stop caring. If you don’t believe me just see Dumb and Dumber 2 (2014), Zoolander 2 (2016) or any other sequel that waited too damn long to be made. The moment has passed, the magic is gone. I say it’s always a mistake to wait that long. Unless your film is a sequel to a beloved franchise that people can’t get enough off, chances are your long gestating sequel will die a quick death at the box office. 

Why make Zombieland 2 now? When people have had their fill of zombies for years? Apparently the filmmakers have their faiths set on the cast, who at this point are all Oscar nominees or winners. Or they think they have an important enough story that it simply has to be told! But quite honestly it doesn’t feel that way at all. In fact, it’s a very silly movie that exists only to make us laugh and giggle, the story is just an excuse for the comedy antics which is fine by me, the only problem for me is that I feel they could have made it funnier. I’m sure a lot of people will find it an unnecessary film. As it is, it's simply a watchable film. 

It’s great seeing Harrelson, Eisenberg, Stone and Breslin together again. They still have the chemistry, which is really what saves this movie. It's the script that's weak. And that's a sad story too because apparently they waited this long because they were waiting for the right script or it wasn't going to happen. Let's see how this story goes..it’s been more than ten years since we last saw them and the zombie apocalypse is still going strong with a (wait for it) new strand of zombie that has evolved and become stronger and faster. The team has decided to find their “forever home” and it’s the abandoned white house. The story revolves around rescuing Abigail Breslin’s character, who has decided to run off with a hippy who doesn’t believe in violence. And they decided to go to Graceland, Elvis's home. So off they go to rescue her, along the way they meet a couple of funny characters. 

But honestly there’s nothing here you haven’t seen before in other zombie movies. An evolved strand of zombies? Check. The zombie free haven they have to get to by the end of the movie? Check. They even have an entire scene that we’d already seen before in Resident Evil Extinction (2007), so this one doesn’t get any bonus points for originality in terms of zombie antics. I did laugh a few times, but I feel that if the filmmakers knew that they were not bringing anything new to the table in terms of zombie mayhem, then they should have at least amped up the comedy and made it a full on super comedy. I mean, I did like the ditzy dumb blonde girl…and the Tallahassee and Columbus clones…but we needed more slapstick, silly stuff. Problem is that the actors on this film aren’t comedians, they are actors who are in a movie that’s supposed to be funny. The film could have benefited from casting actual comedians in the main roles. Why is it that Hollywood keeps making comedies without comedians? I don’t get that. 

It’s not all bad, while this movie does feel a tad unnecessary, it does have a few things that keep it from being a total waste of your time, like for example, there’s the opening sequence that imitates the opening sequence from the first film. If you remember correctly, the first film opened to slow motion zombie mayhem to the tune of Metallica’s ‘For Whom the Bell Tolls’, on this one they do the same slow motion zombie mayhem thing, but to the tune of Metallica’s ‘Master of Puppets’ which is just perfect,  loved that opening credits sequence.  There’s an after credits scene involving Bill Murray killing zombies, make sure you stay for that. There’s a scene that involves Rosario Dawson driving a monster truck that was pretty freaking sweet. But that’s about it. A fun movie my friends, but nothing you’ll remember after you walk out of the theater. It’s got zombies, but nothing we haven’t seen before. It’s funny, but not super funny. So it’s a very been there done that kind of film, very so-so. I guess the correct word for this one is ‘bland’ and that’s not a good thing for a zombie film to be. So in a way, Zombieland Double Tap has dug its own grave. Bottom line is, we are witnessing the last throes of this cinematic zombie wave. I am currently waiting for Zack Snyder’s Army of the Dead to be released, which to be honest has my full attention, my curiosity is peaked. It looks like that will be the film to determine if we’ll see any more theatrically released zombie films in the coming years. Let’s see where this goes.

 Rating: 3 out of 5

Birdman (2014)

Birdman: Or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance (2014)

Director: Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu

Cast: Michael Keaton, Emma Stone, Zach Galifianakis, Naomi Watts, Edward Norton

I enjoy Alejandro Gonzalez Iñarritu films because of the level of realism they have, they have immediacy to them that attracts me to them, they feel like real life and not like many of today's color filtered, fake looking films. If you don’t believe me go rent Amores Perros (2000), a film that tells five stories that are all connected by one catastrophic car accident, an idea that Paul Haggis borrowed heavily from for his film Crash (2004). Amores Perros is shot in this hyper realistic documentary style that just blows me away every time I see it, actually all of Iñarritu’s films are shot this way which is what I like about them. So anyways, I always look forward to Iñarritu’s films, because he is one of those few directors with a pitch perfect record, he hardly ever makes a disappointing film. The only time I wasn’t blown away by one of his films was with Babel (2006), and even that film has its merits. Iñarritu’s the kind of director that even when he makes a “bad” film, it’s still good. When I heard about Birdman I was immediately attracted to it because of its premise, I thought it was a novel idea, but I have to admit I was more than a bit curious as to what Iñarritu was going to say with this film. What would it be about? 

Birdman is all about Riggan, an aging actor trying to gain the respect of an audience that has forgotten all about him. You see, at one point in his life Riggan was the biggest star on the planet when he starred in a series of comic book films called Birdman; a series of films about a super hero with wings, which by the way is a pretty cool looking character. Point is Riggan stopped making Birdman movies and is now fading away from the spotlight. His plan to regain the audiences approval and attention is putting on a play called ‘What we talk about when we talk about love’.  When the movie begins, the play is days away from premiering in a theater in New York City and he is all kinds of nervous looking for a new actor to take the lead role. Will he get to premiere his play successfully? Does he still have what it takes? Will the audience accept him once again?

Various elements make Birdman one of the best films of 2014, but let’s start with its obvious technical prowess. Here’s a film shot in a way that makes it look like its one long continuous shot, and though this might fly undetected by the common moviegoer, those with a more keen sense of observation will realize just how difficult it is to make a film this way. The big problem is that when an actor messes up a line, you have to start filming the shot all over again. Also, shooting a film with long continuous shots proves difficult in the editing room, because through editing you can establish certain beats in the rhyme of the visuals and the storytelling, you can even add comedy through editing, but if it’s all one continuous shot, things become just a little more demanding. Performances and shots have to be incredibly well choreographed and timed in order for this technique to work well, so this is why I applaud Iñarritu for achieving this technique so well.  Alfonso Cuaron also used this technique effectively in Gravity (2013). And it’s not that they don’t ever cut, they do, but the cuts are placed in a way that you hardly notice them, and they are very few. Entire sequences will go on and on and on without cutting, it’s quite amusing for those interested in filmmaking. It certainly makes things more demanding for everyone involved. Some shots are amazing, keep your eyes peeled for them, there’s quite a few of them.

Iñarritu directs a scene

Another area in which this film excels is in its themes, you see this is one of those films that’s about film. It’s not unlike Hugo (2011), The Big Picture (1989) or Shadow of the Vampire (2000), which are films that explore the nature of filmmaking both from the filmmakers view point and from the actors view point. On Birdman filmmaking is explored from the point of view of the actors, it’s all about the never changing fact that “Hollywood takes you in, chews you up and then spits you out”. There’s a reason why that saying hasn’t faded away and it’s because it still remains true. Hollywood caters to the young, the beautiful, the ‘now’, what’s in and what’s hot is what matters. You get old, suddenly you’re not getting as many roles as you used to. The movie addresses this idea that in Hollywood, unless you become a raging icon to the masses, you are more than likely going to fade away, quietly into the night. And sometimes that “fading away” ain’t a pretty sight because it’s hard for actors to let go of the fame and the spotlight. The film focuses on that frustrating moment when the actor simply doesn’t like the fact that he or she is no longer “popular”. What makes things even more interesting is the fact that Michael Keaton used to play a comic book character himself, same as the character in Birdman. It’s no wonder Keaton’s performance rings so true, I’m sure a lot of his own frustrations were channeled into his performance, because while Keaton has never stopped working, he isn’t as popular as he was when he made Batman (1989) or Bettlejuice (1988). There’s this amazing moment when Riggan is locked out of the theater by mistake and he’s in his underwear, the scene comments on how acting is a very vulnerable profession, you expose your soul to others through your performance, so I loved the metaphor there, an actor desperately baring his naked soul to his audience, humanity, the masses. You can expect a real heartfelt performance from Keaton. Could the critical success of Birdman spell a comeback for Keaton? It certainly feels like it, from what I hear, he’s gonna be reuniting with Tim Burton for Beetlejuice 2 next! It will be interesting to see how they make that one work after so many years have passed.   

The film also speaks about how aging actors have to adjust to the changing of the times, and the way things are marketed nowadays. For example, there’s a moment when a video of Riggan becomes popular on You Tube and is ‘trending’ and his daughter shows him how many people have viewed it and tells him “this is power”, a fact that Riggan is completely clueless about. The film also talks about how a lot of Hollywood films are aimed at a young audience and that what the masses love is action, blood, explosions and special effects. Which is true, just ask Michael Bay and Roland Emmerich. The masses don’t want “philosophical bullshit” and the filmmakers behind Birdman are obviously frustrated by this.  I agree with them to a certain extent, because while I enjoy big fx spectacles, I also love brainy, artistic films. In my book there’s space for both types of films; the escapist summer movies as well as the more philosophical, story driven films. But of course, what the masses like, which is to say what the grand majority likes is brainless action and effects like the next Transformers movie, this in turn speaks volumes about the kind of people that make up the majority, which in turns is a sad state of affairs. When we get down to it, I think what the filmmakers behind Birdman are really frustrated with is the level of education of the majority, in other words, if we’re to read between the lines, there’s a genuine frustration with how many brainless zombies exist in the world. So yes my friends, we have an amazing film here, certainly deserving of being called one f the best of the year and one that I’m sure will garner Michael Keaton an Oscar nod, and quite possibly an Oscar win, here’s hoping.

Rating: 5 out of 5 

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Title: The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Director: Marc Webb

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Sally Field, Paul Giamatti

The Amazing Spiderman 2 was a great way to kick start the 2014 Summer Blockbuster Season; the season that many film buffs such as myself look forward to because it’s that time of the year when the biggest most bombastic films are unleashed. These films are meant to wow us, they are meant to be huge spectacles, and I have to say that The Amazing Spiderman 2 certainly falls into that category. Many moments during the film had me saying “amazing!”  out loud; so I think it’s safe to say the movie delivers where it’s supposed to deliver. What was so good about The Amazing Spiderman 2? And where did it fail?

This time around, Spiderman is having a great time being Spidey, saving the world, helping kids fight bullies, saving the world from rampaging villains, but he still has one dilemma, his promise to Gwen Stacy’s father before he died. If you remember correctly, fearing for his daughter’s life, Captain Stacy made Peter Parker promise him that he would leave Gwen Stacy out of his life.  So anyways, Spiderman tries to leave Gwen alone, but their attraction is too strong. At the same time, two villains are born: Electro and The Green Goblin, both of whom want Spidey dead, for their own respective reasons. Can Spider-Man be a hero and be in love at the same time?

I didn’t exactly love the first Amazing Spiderman movie. My big problem with it was the cgi; I didn’t really dig it. It made characters look too much like a cartoon, not real enough. This problem was especially evident whenever The Lizard appeared. I felt I was looking at some crappy cartoon. Not convincing in my book. The problem with a lot of these Spiderman movies has always been the CGI, which in my book has always been spotty. I was watching Spider-Man 3 (2007) the other day and boy, the CGI on that one was so obviously CGI, and when that happens, the film loses its grip on reality and falls apart in my book. And this is where this second film got things right, the CGI was excellent. When we follow Spidey as he swings through the city, well, he looks real enough in my book, you can see the ripples in his freaking suit, you hear the wind. An effort is made to make things convincing.

I was worried about the amount of villains, because not every director can handle a lot of villains properly, sometimes the end result is a Batman & Robin (1997) type of deal, where we have a bunch of villains and none of them are developed properly or treated with any dignity, the end result is a bunch of paper thin villains that aren’t brought to life in a satisfying way. The best example I can think of is Bane in Batman and Robin, and Venom in Spider-Man 3; both terrible renditions of important villains because both films where cluttered with way too many villains. Thankfully this doesn’t happen in The Amazing Spider-Man 2. For all intents and purposes this is Electro’s film and he looks and sounds kick ass. I loved the visual with all the blue fluorescent lightning bolts, it just looked freaking sweet. Mix that with the electric bass sound they put whenever Electro appears and we have a perfect marriage of sight and sound, the visuals and the sounds mixed like magic. The Green Goblins transformation was awesome…but I’m not entirely sure I love his overall look. In my book he still needs to be more monstrous, more demonic, like in the comics. Then we have The Rhino, but thankfully he is only used as a tease for the next film, which apparently will feature The Sinister Six, an amalgamation of some of Spidey’s deadliest villains.

The film did a fine balancing act between story, romance, kick ass action and mind blowing effects. In some ways it reminded me a bit of Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) because it had that thing where it went from romance, to action, then back to romance, then back to action again and so forth. Final words are that I can’t really bring myself to say anything bad about this movie. The only thing I can say didn’t really fit into the film was the tacked on “extra ending” with a scene that leads into X-men: Days of Future Past (2014), which will be premiering in the next couple of months. My problem with that scene was that it wasn’t even that good; it wasn’t a real grabber. And on top of that, it had absolutely nothing to do with The Amazing Spider-Man films. I would have preferred an extra ending that connected with The Amazing Spider-Man 3. But alas, it felt like a cheap way to promote X-Men: Days of Future Past. So yeah, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was a step up from the first film, I recommend it if you want to start the 2014 Summer Season with a blast!

Rating: 4 out of 5 

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012)

Title: The Amazing Spider Man (2012) 

Director: Marc Webb 

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Martin Sheen, Sally Field 

Many are saying that this new Spider-Man reboot has come to soon, that it’s too early for a reboot of the series, but you know what? Personally I don’t really care, this whole “too soon for reboot” theory is total boloney in my book, I’m happy to see a new Spider-Man film, happy to see an entirely different creative team behind it. Comic books do this all the time, they change creative teams, new writers and new artists mean a different take on the character. This offers us something refreshing and different, which is way better then getting same-o same-o all over again. So yes, I’m happy that Raimi isn’t directing and that it’s not Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst in the roles of Peter and Mary Jane. What this film offers us is a refreshing, new take on Spidey’s origin story. Whenever a new creative team is introduced the question is always “will they make it work?” What made this new Spidey film different? Were director Marc Webb, and actors Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone able to successfully bring these characters to life? Did they make a good Spider-Man film? 

Though the origin story is familiar, somethings are different this time around. For example, story wise we get to see Spidey’s origin all over again; we go through the beats that Spidey’s origin has to go through in order to get Peter Parker swinging from his webs through New York City, but this time around the beats are slightly different. This means we see him going to Oscorp and getting bitten by a radioactive spider, Uncle Ben’s death is what impulses him to become the hero, and we see Parker training to master the art of wall crawling and web slinging. Sure, we’ve seen all these things before in the old spidey movies, but on this one these events happen in slightly different ways; for example, Parker doesn’t end up going to a wrestling match. What makes this origin story a bit different is that they actually reference Peter’s parents in a way that involves them in the story. In Raimi’s Spiderman films his parents aren’t mentioned and we simply take for granted that Parker’s an orphan living with his aunt and uncle; on this one there’s some mystery behind Peter’s parents. Also, we get a new villain with ‘The Lizard’, a scientist who’s missing his left arm and therefore experiments with the DNA of lizards, to see if he can grow his lost arm back, same as a lizard grows its tail. 

Same as in the comic books, Spideys first girlfriend is Gwen Stacy, something that Raimi’s films overlooked and then tried to fix by introducing Stacy on the third film. On this one we start on the right track, with Peter and Stacy becoming romantically involved and hints of ominous events in their possible future together. The relationship angle between Peter and Stacy was not so schmaltzy; it felt a bit more real. I’m sure a lot of that has to do with Webb’s previous experience directing (500) Days of Summer (2009), a film that focused on relationships between young people. In this sense, choosing Marc Webb as this films director worked. He can handle performances and drama in a more realistic fashion than Raimi ever could, so that worked in this films favor. What worried me about Webb as a director was the fact that he’d never made a film with lots of action or effects before this one, but this all went surprisingly well. The action and effects were actually great, I had nothing to worry about. This film is surprisingly good when we take in consideration that this is Webb’s sophomore effort as a director. 

The portrayal of Peter Parker this time around is far superior to Tobey Maguire’s overtly sentimental Peter Parker in previous Spiderman films. You don’t feel as if Peter’s a weak cry baby; so congrats go out to Marc Webb and Andrew Garfield for making this Spidey more intelligent and more of a scientist which is the way he was in the comics in the first place. Also, I liked the fact that he was more sure of himself, just because Peter’s a brainy geeky type doesn’t mean he has to come off as a whimpy cry baby. There’s this dinner scene in which Parker has a discrepancy with Gwen Stacy’s dad, they are discussing Spiderman and Mr. Stacy says Spidey’s a vigilante, while Parker defends Spiderman. I liked how Parker was standing up for himself in that scene, defending his point of view. He wasn’t afraid of being defiant. In my opinion, Raimi’s mistake in his Spidey films was making the character just a bit too sentimental. On this film Spidey is inexperienced and still a geek, but his not a whino. I also loved the great supporting cast! Martin Sheen is incredibly likable as Uncle Ben, Sally Field's great as Aunt May, Denis Leary as Mr. Stacy, such a well rounded cast makes for a better acted film in my opinion.    

The visual effects are great on this film; the sequences in which Spiderman is swinging through the city were very effective because the action doesn’t happen so fast that we don’t understand what the hell is happening. Webb slows things down and speeds things up just right. The visual effects dealing with Spiderman were great in my book. The weak link in the film for me was the villain; I personally don’t enjoy characters that are entirely computer generated, so I didn’t really enjoy the way the lizard looked. It’s not horrendously bad, but it wasn’t great. Rhys Ifan’s the actor who portrays Dr. Connors, was nothing to write home about either, he didn’t steal the show, like say Jack Nicholson in Burtons Batman (1989). Whatever happened to those bigger than life villains in comic book movies? They tried portraying Dr. Connors as a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde type of character, hearing interior monologues and the such which by the way was a technique used with The Green Goblin character in the first batch of Spidey films; but the performance of the character itself wasn’t all that special. Spider-Man 2 (2002) remains the best Spider-Man film ever made, and not only that, one of the best superhero films ever made period; still, this new Spidey film is really damn good. I’m looking forward to what this new creative team has in store for future films. By the way, stay seated after the credits, there’s one of those extra ending things that hints at the inevitable sequel! 

Rating: 3 out of 5

Zombieland (2009)

Title: Zombieland (2009)

Director: Ruben Fleischer

Comments:

So anyone out there who personally knows me, knows how much of a zombie head I am. Im actually working on my second zombie/comedy film called Cannabis Cannibal Exodus! So naturally when I heard about this new zombie movie that was in the works and that it took place inside of an amusement park, I was instantly pulled towards it. A tractor beam pulled me towards the theater, I was powerless. Did Zombieland blow me away and become a memorable zombie flick, demonstrating that the zombie film is far from dead? The answer to that question is a very resounding yes! Zombieland was a welcome addition to the zombie genre!

Story goes something like this: zombies have overtaken the world. Humans are almost extinct. Theres only a few humans scattered around the world, this zombie filled world where humanity has almost entirely dissapeared is all we get. Which is great cause it gives the film that extra feeling of dread. That extra edge. Four strangers band together to try and survive in this cruel post apocalyptic world.

Let me put it in simple words, this movie was awesome! It rocked the house! It proves zombie films are NOT dead, but alive and kicking and thirsting for more human blood! So where do I begin? First off, who the fuck is this Ruben Fleischer guy? The director of this zombie opus? I was incredibly impressed with the direction on this film. Its Fleischers directorial debut, but wow, what a way to start! From the opening sequence alone you get the feeling that this movie is going to be something special. Its all in slow motion, with zombies going after their victims. It was extremely entertaining. It shows the ferociousness of the zombies in this film. What I loved the most was the special moments in that opening montage, for example, the blood splattering on the screen in slow motion, naked zombie strippers with their tits bouncing on screen in slow motion as the run for some poor helpless dude, and best of all? Its all done to the beat of Metallica's For Whom the Bell Tolls! Its your basic opening sequence which establishes that the world has been overrun by zombies. It's a bit obvious that it was more then a little bit influenced by Zack Snyders Dawn of the Dead (2004) but who the hell cares, it was fun as hell! Loved the opening sequence!

We also get great characters to follow around. Since usually there are not many human beings in a post apocalyptic zombie movie, it always helps if your main characters are fleshed out and likable. This movie achieved this to perfection. Woody Harrelson was such a bonus on this movie! He is the quintesential kick ass dude. You know, kind of like Ash from the Evil Dead movies or Snake Plissken in Carpenters Escape from New York. The dude you dont wanna mess with. He goes by the name of Tallahassee. He has all the necessary things to make him a kick ass dude: snake skin jacket, guns, cool hat, attitude and bankable catch phrase. In this case, the catch phrase is "Nut up or Shut Up!" which he repeats quite a few times through out the film. Aside from that we get Jesse Eisenberg playing the straight guy to Harrelson's Tallahasse. He plays your basic nerdy, anti-social, video game playing guy who hasnt got a clue how to deal with girls. He has these rules he is living by which have allowed him to survive the zombie holocaust. The rules appear on screen every time he puts them to use which was a funny touch. The hot babe in the film is Emma Stone whom some of you might remember from Superbad or The Rocker. I liked her character because she goes against the usual helpless damsel in distress. Actually, in this movie you might start up hating her character cause she's so weary of giving others her trust, she hides behind this mean persona. Then theres Abigail Breslin, yeah, Little Miss Sunshine herself killing zombies left and right. In todays self righteous world, some might find it wrong or offensive to show a 12 year old shooting guns, but fuck it, its the end of the world, its the apocalypse, I say give the girl her gun! So, we have an excellent cast to back up this zombie epic.

What about the zombies and the gore? Well, the zombies portrayed in Zombieland are very 28 Days Later/Dawn of the Dead ('04) like. They are the viscious, fast paced, jerky, running type of zombies, which makes them all the scarier, all the more menacing. The make up effects was excellent top of the line stuff. The gore was fantastic as well. I loved the fact that this film didnt pussy out in the gore department. Thank the movie gods that this film is rated R cause we get gore and we get lots of it. We get violence, and its viscious violence! One scene has Tallahassee kicking the shit out of a fat zombie with a bat! To my amazement, they didnt cut not once, you actually see the bat repeatedly hitting the zombie on the head and the blood splattering about...freaking cool! I was like, damn, this movie has some balls! So gore fans should be plenty pleased.

This movie does what all good zombie movies do: make the film about the humans. This movie has zombies, and action and gore, but at its core its about four humans looking for warmth and family in the middle of all the craziness. Same reason why I loved 28 Days Later so much. My favorite moments in 28 Days Later are those in which the four survivors are just hanging out, laughing, falling in love, giving each other love in the middle of the madness, which is what happens in this film at certain point when they decide to hide inside of a Beverly Hills Mansion. Which reminds me, this movie holds a very special surprise in store. A friend of mine told me "wait till you see who shows up in the film!" and I was like "Bruce Campbell?" and he said "better!" and I was like "better then Bruce Campbell? Robert Deniro?" turns out my friend was right, the surprise in this film was awesome. A great choice. Not gonna spoil it. Just watch it for yourself.

One thing I thought was strange about the film was that it waits to get to the amusement park all the way down on its third half. I was thinking most of the film was going to take place inside of the amusement park and that this was going to be Dawn of the Dead but instead the humans hiding inside of a mall, they were going to hide inside of an Amusement Park. Turns out I was wrong. They only arrive at the amusement park during the films last act, which was fine with me since I was having so much fun with the rest of the film. I didnt really care, I was having so much fun out of the amusement park. Though I will say this: once they finally reach the amusement park, theres lots of cool amusement park gags in store! Including one demonic looking zombie clown which rocked the house! So all in all, Zombieland was a very satasfying zombie flick. It was a great comedy, it was an over all great film. I really cant think of anything bad to say about. So take that for what its worth! If you want to see one good horror comedy this halloween, make it Zombieland, its a rocking good time.

Rating: 4 out of 5