Topic: Zombieland (Read 49380 times)

0bsessions · « **Reply #50 on:** 16 Oct 2009, 06:25 »

Hey guys, instead of feeding into Khar's general hatred of everything, how about we talk about Zombieland for a couple of minutes instead?

This movie was, simply put, god damn funny. No offense Khar, but I'm pretty sure the point went about ten feet over your head. It's a fucking satire and an obviously intentionally shallow one at that. They cast Woody fucking Harrelson as a lead role, for fuck's sake, man. This was not a movie you were supposed to go into expecting a tight plot and insightful dialogue, it was an obvious exercise in blowing shit up and laughing one's tits off. I'm pretty sure I'd have given this movie a fucking Oscar if it were in my power.

I'm not a fan of random for the sake of random. I can sympathize that stuff like Scrubs and Family Guy are both absolute shit, but very little in this movie was random and yes, I'll give that much of it was predictable, but everything is predictable and formulaic these days and the difference lies in whether they play the payoff well, which this movie did. The hallmark of a truly enjoyable comedy is that you can see what may be coming but it still elicits a laugh. If something had to shock and surprise you to entertain you, then what would be the point of repeat viewings? Formulaic does not automatically equal shit.

I'm also getting really bored of all the Shaun of the Dead comparison. Two vastly different flicks. Hell, I think it draws more parallels to Hot Fuzz than anything: over the top action playing to as many cliched conventions as possible to hilarious result.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #51 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 09:30 »

What was it a satire of exactly?

KharBevNor · « **Reply #52 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 09:31 »

I can accept it as being maybe a pastiche but that's a different thing.

EDIT: Maybe the problem is that I'm not American. I have no idea who Woody Harrelson is, and I didn't pick up on anything to suggest that the extremely mawkish sentimental scenes were meant to be anything but that. That's the main thing that made me make a scrubs comparison, that and the main character and his narration.

Alex C · « **Reply #53 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 10:08 »

I think it depends on how strictly you interpret the word satire. Zombieland is a pastiche of the road trip comedy and zombie horror genres in much the way Shaun of the Dead is a pastiche of the romantic comedy and zombie horror genres, and in both cases the unorthodox combination adds a satirical edge to things almost by default. Quite simply, both movies throw a spotlight on the fact that well, zombies (and the vast majority of zombie films by extension) aren't terribly interesting in and of themselves. In both cases the zombies really just act as a catalyst that force characters out of their respective ruts and into situations where they have to deal with their interpersonal baggage rather than just keep slouching through their lives. Neither movie is really about zombies or even fear when it comes right down to it.

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #54 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 11:19 »

I've had a terrible week this and this film was my highlight by miles. I fucking loved it.

The slow mo bits were fantastic, I thought it wasn't over used and meant that the action was really watchable, unlike a lot of modern action where it just moves so fast you can't enjoy it. (Spiderman 3 thanks for ruining Venom for me you cunts.)

I thought the Characters were likable and established quickly, I loved the cut away scenes, which weren't OMG RANDOM LITERALLY at all in my eyes, they were just funny.

The Family bit was Laboured, but I will will forgive them all for the Slow Mo Stripper & THE FUCKING CAMEO.

the_pied_piper · « **Reply #55 on:** 17 Oct 2009, 17:11 »

Just got back from seeing this film and i absolutely loved it. I don't know if i would call it a satire but as a comedy in general it was fantastic. Great acting, a good plot, a good script and no overabundance of special effects that often ruin these kinds of films.

Definitely one of my favourite films in a long while.

Alex C · « **Reply #56 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 12:39 »

Quote from: tender on 18 Oct 2009, 12:04

Shaun of the Dead was much better; you're right not to compare the two movies.

I'd say that depends on what conclusion you come to. Making the comparison isn't wrong in and of itself.

StaedlerMars · « **Reply #57 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 15:14 »

This movie was great.

Seriously, if anyone went in expecting more than the trailers advertised, than that's pretty silly of them.

This movie was mental dials set to nil, enjoy.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #58 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 18:07 »

I always think about the films I watch, and I still liked it. I really dislike that defence of a film when it gets criticised, just saying "you're not meant to think about it, stop thinking about it you're spoiling the fun with your thoughts". If a film ever did require you to force yourself into some kind of stupor to enjoy it then it would be beneath contempt.

Quote from: 0bsessions on 16 Oct 2009, 06:25

I'll give that much of it was predictable, but everything is predictable and formulaic these days and the difference lies in whether they play the payoff well, which this movie did. The hallmark of a truly enjoyable comedy is that you can see what may be coming but it still elicits a laugh. If something had to shock and surprise you to entertain you, then what would be the point of repeat viewings? Formulaic does not automatically equal shit.

If you think everything is predictable and formulaic then you need to watch better films, because that just isn't true. As for surprising not being necessary, it really is one of the cornerstones of comedy: doing the unexpected and surprising in order to create a humourous juxtaposition. I've seen only a tiny number of comedies that improved with repeat viewings, and hardly any of those were films so that isn't much of a defence either. I mean, I totally agree with you that it's a thoroughly entertaining film but it's also not a film where I have a hard time seeing why people wouldn't like it, and not without good reasons or because they missed the point either.

pilsner · « **Reply #59 on:** 18 Oct 2009, 20:21 »

Do you have any regrets?

KharBevNor · « **Reply #60 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 10:57 »

Man, thanks Wolves, it is nice sometimes not to be judged insane or stupid for not liking something.

Joseph · « **Reply #61 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 10:59 »

Quote from: a pack of wolves on 18 Oct 2009, 18:07

I really dislike that defence of a film when it gets criticised, just saying "you're not meant to think about it, stop thinking about it you're spoiling the fun with your thoughts". If a film ever did require you to force yourself into some kind of stupor to enjoy it then it would be beneath contempt.

Can you suggest ways to convince my '300' loving friends that this is the case?

Alex C · « **Reply #62 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 15:36 »

I can't really blame someone for not liking Zombieland either. First off, it's pretty low comedy. It's not interested in subtlety, so physical humor and a couple of cheap laughs better be something you enjoy. The romantic subplot led to some dull scenes and was harder for me to buy into than the zombie apocalypse conceit. Spoiler incoming: I mean, honestly now, she robbed the guy twice at gunpoint! By pretending to need help! And he basically decides that he wants to be around her immediately after this. Hell, he didn't even really forgive her or need to be convinced or anything; it's basically like he never really minded in the first place because she's cute. What the hell?

0bsessions · « **Reply #63 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:16 »

It should probably be noted that he's heavily implied to be a virgin and humanity is close to extinct. I can see some people being rather forgiving under those circumstances.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #64 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:20 »

Quote from: Joseph on 19 Oct 2009, 10:59

Can you suggest ways to convince my '300' loving friends that this is the case?

Replace their DVDs of the film with the specially edited version where you read an essay entitled Safe Harbour For Masculinity: The Imagined Past And Traditional Gender Roles In Contemporary Cinema over the top. It could convince them of the joys to be had from criticism or more likely get you punched for wrecking their DVDs, but you never know.

Quote from: pilsner on 18 Oct 2009, 20:21

Do you have any regrets?

The baggy trousers I wore in the early 2000s were pretty inadvisable.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #65 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:41 »

Define baggy. If you mean falling off your hips, okay. If you mean cargo pants, fight you.

a pack of wolves · « **Reply #66 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:47 »

Let's just say I wouldn't have been kicked out of a nu-metal band for dress code violations.

Alex C · « **Reply #67 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:54 »

Quote from: 0bsessions on 19 Oct 2009, 16:16

It should probably be noted that he's heavily implied to be a virgin and humanity is close to extinct. I can see some people being rather forgiving under those circumstances.

I could buy into it if he had any misgivings whatsoever about it, but he was basically moon-eyed over her from the start and it never really flagged for even an instant.

Reed · « **Reply #68 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 16:59 »

Have you ever met a guy like that? I had a friend just like him back when I first went to college, and I could absolutely believe him not having any reservations. Guys like that tend to over romanticize everything, and want a relationship so badly that they will overlook just about anything for the "right girl".

Alex C · « **Reply #69 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 17:10 »

I had a friend who was like that, but he hit his limit when she stole from him.

The girl in this movie stole from him. Twice. With guns. And she did it by appealing to his better instincts.

I'm not saying it ruined the whole movie for me. I enjoyed myself. But I did think it was honestly a pretty damn weak subplot.

0bsessions · « **Reply #70 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 17:54 »

I agree that the subplot wasn't particularly captivating, but I'd say it's pretty low on the totem of unlikely character decisions in movies. I can name a handful of people I know personally off the top of my head that probably would've done the same thing. Shit, there was a point in my life where I honestly wouldn't be surprised to have found myself doing so.

Reed · « **Reply #71 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 17:57 »

The guy I was thinking of never had his girlfriend/eventual wife steal from him. However, he did believe her when she told him that she wasn't cheating on him, she just got in a "hickey war" with her neighbor.

FIXDIX · « **Reply #72 on:** 19 Oct 2009, 23:10 »

I would not risk my life against death by zombies just to get my fuck on.

Well, any kind of death for that matter.

Yeah, they had a kind of semi established relationship by that point but still that is a pretty weak excuse to save someone in that situation. The whole rule #shitload-but-we'll-only-show-four of Don't Be A Hero being turned into Be A Hero at the very last instant was pretty shit as well.

pilsner · « **Reply #73 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 20:49 »

Quote from: Alex C on 19 Oct 2009, 17:10

I had a friend who was like that, but he hit his limit when she stole from him.

The girl in this movie stole from him. Twice. With guns. And she did it by appealing to his better instincts.

I'm not saying it ruined the whole movie for me. I enjoyed myself. But I did think it was honestly a pretty damn weak subplot.

If you want a psychological foray into the zombie apocalypse that strives for realism, I recommend Max Brook's World War Z, which has probably been optioned for a movie by now. Zombieland was a comedy. So yes, people might not have acted like you would expect them to. Comedy.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #74 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 20:53 »

Quote from: pilsner on 22 Oct 2009, 20:49

If you want a psychological foray into the zombie apocalypse that strives for realism

Ahahahahahahahah hahahahaha. Haha.

I guess maybe it does strive for realism on second thought, it might just completely fail in its attempt.

Ozymandias · « **Reply #75 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:00 »

Really? You're dissing on World War Z?

No. Get out.

Just get out.

pilsner · « **Reply #76 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:08 »

I'm not proud of it, but there are parts of that book that make me tear up a bit every time I read them. Especially the bit about the pilot who parachutes out of her plane and has to hike to safety. Something about the ending of that chapter....

Oh yeah, and the interview with the feral kid.

Nodaisho · « **Reply #77 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:16 »

Quote from: Ozymandias on 22 Oct 2009, 21:00

Really? You're dissing on World War Z?

No. Get out.

Just get out.

Soon as Max Brooks stops trying to pretend he knows anything related to the military or firearms, sure.

Alex C · « **Reply #78 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:43 »

Quote from: pilsner on 22 Oct 2009, 20:49

Zombieland was a comedy. So yes, people might not have acted like you would expect them to. Comedy.

You can take the condescension and shove it.

I'm just talking about verisimilitude or if you're a Colbert fan, truthiness. A movie can be balls out ridiculous but still somehow ring true a bit. For example, Nolan's Batman films are by no means realistic, but most people (including myself) don't really notice or particularly care that there's plotholes you could drive the batmobile through. That's because the movie is very consistent about characterization and is very dedicated to its tone. As Hitchcock once said, a good movie should play the audience like a piano. But with Zombieland, they just couldn't quite cover the bases well enough to get me to buy into the sentimental "We're a family now!" moments, and that's why I can sympathize a bit when Khar says that he thought the mawkish stuff was tough to appreciate, particularly since I'm basically incapable of relating to a protagonist who would act like that.

pilsner · « **Reply #79 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:56 »

When Bill Murray pretended to be a zombie, it lacked verisimilitude.

The world was barren. And here is this man playing golf and pretending to be zombie.

"Show more verisimilitude!" I cried.

But Bill Murray could not hear me.

Because he was dead.

Alex C · « **Reply #80 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 21:58 »

Yeah, but see, here's the thing: it didn't really have to be particularly true to a character, and more to the point, it was funny and was the sort of thing you expected to happen with Bill Murray being involved. The sentimental parts? Not so much, and if anything these scenes were undermined by the fact that the rest of the movie was markedly different. It is about tone. Trying to have your cake and eat it too is a tricky business. Again, I liked Zombieland. I just think that the sentimental bits were rather shabbily bolted onto a movie that made me laugh a few times.

pilsner · « **Reply #81 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 22:16 »

I have never understood that expression. It is easy to have your cake and eat it too. I myself frequently procure and consume cakes. What is difficult is not having your cake and then eating it. This means you are eating someone else's cake. You are a cake thief, and deserve to be shunned.

Or perhaps the expression refers to one's desire to own a cake and simultaneously eat a cake. With the boundary supposition that one may only have one cake at a time, then certainly eating a whole cake would deprive one of the cake. With cake ownership set to C and cake consumption set to K, then C + K = 0. So indeed as one consumes a cake, one simultaneously deprives oneself of cake ownership.

Happily I live in Canada, where cakes are both cheap and plentiful. I also know a number of bakers, both amateur and semi-professional, who can be induced to supply me with frequent cakes. I can therefore maintain a lifestyle allowing me to simultaneously own and indulge in cakes whenever my whim requires.

What I'm trying to say is that we are perhaps overanalyzing the movie. You are of course entitled to your opinion, but in my eyes the dramatic bits are the bits that glue the comedic bits together in a non-slapstick zombie comedy. Pointing to a recurring gag (the girls driving away with the boys' stuff) and complaining about how that rendered the dramatic moments implausible seems to me like missing the point. Shaun of the Dead also suffered from an implausible romantic relationship but that didn't stop it from being an awesome movie because it demonstrated how much fun it can be to play video games with your zombie buddy.

Alex C · « **Reply #82 on:** 22 Oct 2009, 22:21 »

The problem I have is that I had all these thoughts while I was actually watching the movie. Ideally, I should be too entertained to do that.

elizaknowswhatshesfor · « **Reply #83 on:** 23 Oct 2009, 06:00 »

My sister studied Media & film as her degree (I'm going somewhere with this...) She was really into the technical side of things, the way shots worked & what they were called. WHilst this was really interesting when watching Star wars for the twelvetyith time, when watching a new film it SUCKED. & I mean SUCKED all the fun out of it.

That is over analysing to the point of it not being fun any more, questioning a movie whilst watching it is GOOD (Maybe not for the movie.) It is what people who like films do, otherwise we should all just switch off & go watch Epic movie & Idiocracy would be even more real than it is.

A truly great film that sweeps you up & takes you away somewhere else & has you invest your emotions into made up characters (Or sometimes real ones if it's a doc.) is a rare & beautiful thing.

Zombieland made me forget that I'm having a shitty time at the moment & I can't get the image of the slo-mo stripper out of my head, but not talking about it afterwards, whether that was waiting for my bus home with the person I went to see it with, or on here or anywhere else defies the point of going to see a film, sharing the experience, good or bad is integral to my enjoyment.

ViolentDove · « **Reply #84 on:** 03 Dec 2009, 15:08 »

Quote from: pilsner on 22 Oct 2009, 22:16

With cake ownership set to C and cake consumption set to K, then C + K = 0. So indeed as one consumes a cake, one simultaneously deprives oneself of cake ownership.

Sigg'ed.

I will probably see this movie. It sounds pretty entertaining.

Newbia · « **Reply #85 on:** 25 Dec 2009, 18:29 »

A note on Versimilitude: I think a better word is "consistency". Dr. Seuss once said something like this: if he wrote a book about a magical animal called a Zaboomaloot with two heads, people would accept that without a second thought. But if someone noticed that the Zaboomaloot's closet had sweaters in it that only had one neck each, they would say, "Hey, that's not realistic!" Now, why are people willing to accept that a magical two-headed animal exists, but they won't accept a tiny break in continuity? It's because every story needs to have internal logical consistency according to its own rules. The lesson from this is that even a totally silly comedy needs to follow the rules it set up for its own world.

That being said: honestly I didn't think Zombieland was laugh-out-loud funny, it was just awesome. The action scenes were wildly entertaining. In short: every scene in Zombieland that involved killin' zombies was kick-ass. Every scene that did not involve killin' zombies was kick-ass.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: Zombieland (Read 49380 times)