ZOMBIELAND Analysis

„ZOMBIELAND” ANALYSIS

Woody Harrelson is resurrected to the A list as a zombie hunter, alongside the newly “educated Charlie Banks”, Little Miss Sunshine and that really hot “Superbad” chick

A Raging Aquarius Review

What’s really interesting is how a subgenre once declared demeaning manages to rise above its level and influence mainstream Hollywood cinema decades after it was lost in the oblivion of exploitation cinema. That’s right – I’m talking about zombie films.
First off, let’s rewind a bit and remember George A. Romero’s classic zombie flick ‘Night of the Living Dead’ – destroyed by popular film critic Roger Ebert upon its wide release, it managed to gain a strong cult following later on. Even though it didn’t lack artistic merits and heavily influenced the horror cinema later on, “Night of the Living Dead” also gave the green light for innumerable B flicks, rip-offs and follow-ups. Apart from the rest of Romero’s work (“Dawn of the Dead”, “Day of the Dead” and others), we also have D’Amato’s “Porno Holocaust”, “Burial Ground: The Nights of Terror”, “Re-animator” and the so-called best Nazi-zombie exploitation film up-to-date – “Shock Waves” (not that it’s a good thing). The subgenre also gathered some critical praise because of the work of underestimated director Lucio Fulci (with “Zombie Flesh Eaters”). The style was buried completely and the general public never really became aware of its existence or the trademarks that define it.
Even so, in 2004 all of that was about to change – as talented independent British filmmaker Edgar Wright took the risky shot of making ‘Shaun of the Dead’. His movie was so innovative in highlighting the genre’s trademarks and combining it with comedy and appealing, original situations, that there was no way in a million years somebody could not enjoy it. Afterwards, Hollywood producers, desperately looking for new things in the shadows to rip off, finally saw the commercial success such films can bring. In 2007, Will Smith and Francis Lawrence teamed up to give the style a whole new look and reinvent the entire zombie genre, although it was clearly inspired from Danny Boyle’s ‘28 Days Later’, which itself became a powerful franchise.
Now, after the style was revived for mainstream audiences and added a little disgusting, yet irresistible humour, Hollywood is at ease and will not need to rip off anything else for their horror productions for quite some time. ‘Zombieland’ manages to impress the viewer and offer some crazy, seriously f*cked-up moments that you can’t possibly resist it. Of course, after you’ve seen ‘Shaun of the Dead’, you’re sitting there thinking right before the screening of ‘Zombielands’ – “There is no way this is gonna impress me!” Well, you would be partially right if that were the case – it’s nowhere near the quality of Wright’s 2004 initiation to film authorship, yet it is entertaining and simply loads of fun!
Clearly this is not an auteur film – I’ve never even heard of Ruben Fleischer. Regardless of his little-known reputation, he managed to do a great job – the action scenes are brilliant, the camera work is simply marvellous, making up for the lack of an actual plot (!) and offering a breathtaking show with both thrills and comic relief. The only problem I have is with the soundtrack which is kind of useless – we already got a lot of crazy sh*t going on the silver screen, we don’t need anything else to keep our adrenaline levels sky-high! Of course, I’m not sure how much control this guy had over the final cut, so I’m just gonna give it a three star score at the directorial aspect.
One thing this movie has is romance. Here’s a spoiler for cheap-kitschy-lame-ass arousal seekers – there is no sex in this film. Yeah, Eisenberg’s character is pretty nerdy and obviously a virgin, but there are no sex scenes! Instead, we get romantic tension and a bunch of static scenes that just are not in accordance with the rest of brain-blowing, blood-splattering action sequences. It works fine for me, although it kind of steals from the main plot for a film with such a short length.
Wait… Did I say plot? Ok… What is the plot? Wait… There is no plot in the entire film! The dudes and their female counterparts are just running around and smashing zombies. There is no solution, no intrigue, no clear setting, not even an outcome that promises anything – it’s just… I dunno, trying to get a glance at its characters and not even that does it manage to do clearly. Eisenberg’s character, the main protagonist and narrator, is just telling the obvious and making a list of rules to survive in “Zombieland”; then he just adds moments from his life during flashbacks and random stuff he imagines. Another thing – “Zombieland”?! That’s the title and name for the actual place?! What the f*ck?! People complain about ‘Zombie Flesh Eaters’, but ‘Zombieland’ sounds ok for them – sure it’s a mainstream 25 million dollar budget production – might as well throw in a title even retarded cousin Vinny would remember! Anyhow, the film lacks three things – character analysis, original situations to create tension and a message – by the end of the film it all seems pointless. It’s more a bildungsroman, a coming of age film, an experience for the protagonist – although he’s not that original and we can’t connect with him too greatly either. So what is the point of this whole thing in the end? Uhm… nothing… Just one star out of four for plot…
Even so, I don’t think you’ll be too disappointed when leaving the theatre, regardless of how much a cinephile snob you are, because you’ll get loads of fun and a few moments of laughter – especially when Bill Murray makes his cameo. It’s like a rollercoaster – you get on it, have some fun, get dizzy, maybe throw up and then you get off and carry on with the rest of your life. That’s what this movie is – ironically enough, there is a rollercoaster during the climax in this thing! Maximum stars for entertainment.
Now, since Woody Harrelson hasn’t made anything memorable for some time now (“No Country for Old Men” and “Nanking”), people would expect a lot from him, especially since he’s playing his hillbilly persona again! Well, the dude does a great role but the character is just missing something that you simply can’t take him seriously, while Jesse Eisenberg seems away the entire film, maybe missing Wes Craven too much. The little annoying Abigal Breslin actually does a great role, suitable for her, alongside Emma Stone who plays a seductive and rebellious character, with a share of negative traits as well. Overall, I’d give it a three star score for acting.
Even with all the obvious flaws and lack of too much originality or a clear message the movies is appealing to a wide group of audience. It has action, extreme violence, romance, thrills and spectacular, impressive moments that highlight the director’s talent and maybe a promising career ahead of him. I would strongly recommend it for an overall silly, yet extremely pleasing movie experience.

DIRECTION: ****
PLOT: *
PERFORMANCE: ***
ENTERTAINMENT: ****
APPEAL: ***

OVERALL: 2.8 - *** out of four
WORTHY OF BIG SCREEN VIEWING – MATINEE PRICE
WORTHY OF YOUR COLLECTION – NOT A MUST-HAVE (unknown DVD release date)