The funniest thing about Zombieland was the conversation I had with my friend after watching the movie. First, a bit of an embarassing admission: As much as I enjoy movies, I am often not very good at remembering actors and actresses names and faces. In fact, for the longest time I thought Laura Linney and Frances McDormand were the same person.
So with that in mind, as we were leaving the theatre, my friend said, "You could tell that the studio really wanted Michael Cera for that role [of Columbus]."
"That name sounds familiar," I replied. "Who is Michael Cera?"
"You know, the guy from Juno and Superbad."
I gave him a puzzled look, "Huh? We didn't just watch him for 90 minutes?"
"Uhhh..No, that was some guy pretending to be Michael Cera."
At that point I had one of those face-palm moments where I realized once again I watched an entire movie thinking the primary actor was someone else. In my defense, my friend was right. It was as if the studio had designed the role exclusively for Cera, had not been able to get him, and had found his closest doppelganger and forced him to watch every Michael Cera movie to emulate his speech and mannerisms. So my suggestion to anyone who hasn't seen the movie yet is to just be oblivious like me and pretend it really is Cera playing Columbus.
As far as the movie itself goes, I think it qualifies as 2-for-2 in my movie disappointment scorecard this year. District 9 - the last movie I went to with high expectations based on word-of-mouth and critic's reviews - also failed to deliver. And both left an equally disappointing feeling afterwards.
To be fair, Zombieland had some good moments. But it certainly was not that funny, or that campy, or that clever. The movie didn't really have any plot other than some cheesy climax of people learning to be happy with what you have and "love the one you're with." So you had to be content with random zombie encounters and their inevitable gory slaying. Those, plus an extended Bill Murray cameo.
My favorite part was the survival "rules" that Columbus had, and which they kept displaying at any opportune moment. But at the same time they felt like a gimmick that has been used before in other movies (I've been struggling to verify this and have come up empty, so maybe I'm mistaken here). Also the Woody Harrelson (Tallahasee) and Michael Cera want-to-be pairing was great. My favorite scene was when Columbus sprays Tallahassee with perfume, tries to stammer an apology, and Tallahasee tells him, "I've kicked major ass for a lot less than that. I'm gonna give you about 45% power," then delivers a punch.
To sum it up, I would say to go see Zombieland if you want some mindless (pun intended) entertainment for an hour and a half. It might get you in the Halloween spirit a little, and give you some escapism, but don't go in expecting to laugh hysterically or be caught in suspense.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Friday, August 21, 2009
District 9
I love sci-fi movies. I am one of the only people I know who liked A.I., the Steven Spielberg/Stanley Kubrick clunker. So I wanted to see District 9 as soon as I saw the previews, and was excited when it got pretty good reviews and popularity the first week after release. But I must say I was rather disappointed after seeing it yesterday.
Overall, District 9 is not a horrible film. Peter Jackson uses an interesting technique where he tells the story almost as a documentary. This throws you off at first when the movie starts, but once you get used to the style it feels natural. I also think he used this technique in a desperate attempt to smooth over a lot of glaring plot holes (see below). There are no "named" actors in the movie, which is both good and bad. Even the lead actor is a no-name (Sharlto Copley), but he plays the lead role of the bumbling son-in-law of the evil corporate CEO surprisingly well, and is probably the best part of the movie.
My biggest issue with the movie, without giving too much away, is the huge plot holes. For instance, the aliens are far more advanced than humans and are capable of creating superior weapons out of junk. In fact, this is the central theme of the movie: power-hungry humans are trying to get these awesome alien weapons. But the ponderous part is that these more advanced aliens are either too stupid or too lethargic to use any of their own weapons to break out of their "concentration camp." To buy into the central plot, you have to believe that the aliens are not capable of an idea a 3-year old human would conceive; yet you also must believe that they can swiftly create a powerful alien bomb in 2 seconds by throwing together a few junked parts. Hard to swallow.
My other issue with the movie is the one-dimensional human characters (except for the lead character). For instance, the evil CEO is so bent on obtaining the alien technology that he would lie to his daughter and kill anyone. 95% of the humans in the film are depicted as being mono-maniacal in that all they care about is alien weapons. I guess that is supposed to drive home the take-home point of the movie that human nature can often be the worse thing in the universe. But it seems like this could have been shown a little more sophisticated. I mean human nature isn't that one-dimensional.
Overall, I would rate it on par with I, Robot. Another sci-fi movie that I liked for the sci-fi aspects, but that's about it. See it if you're a science-fiction fan, wait for video if you're not.
Overall, District 9 is not a horrible film. Peter Jackson uses an interesting technique where he tells the story almost as a documentary. This throws you off at first when the movie starts, but once you get used to the style it feels natural. I also think he used this technique in a desperate attempt to smooth over a lot of glaring plot holes (see below). There are no "named" actors in the movie, which is both good and bad. Even the lead actor is a no-name (Sharlto Copley), but he plays the lead role of the bumbling son-in-law of the evil corporate CEO surprisingly well, and is probably the best part of the movie.
My biggest issue with the movie, without giving too much away, is the huge plot holes. For instance, the aliens are far more advanced than humans and are capable of creating superior weapons out of junk. In fact, this is the central theme of the movie: power-hungry humans are trying to get these awesome alien weapons. But the ponderous part is that these more advanced aliens are either too stupid or too lethargic to use any of their own weapons to break out of their "concentration camp." To buy into the central plot, you have to believe that the aliens are not capable of an idea a 3-year old human would conceive; yet you also must believe that they can swiftly create a powerful alien bomb in 2 seconds by throwing together a few junked parts. Hard to swallow.
My other issue with the movie is the one-dimensional human characters (except for the lead character). For instance, the evil CEO is so bent on obtaining the alien technology that he would lie to his daughter and kill anyone. 95% of the humans in the film are depicted as being mono-maniacal in that all they care about is alien weapons. I guess that is supposed to drive home the take-home point of the movie that human nature can often be the worse thing in the universe. But it seems like this could have been shown a little more sophisticated. I mean human nature isn't that one-dimensional.
Overall, I would rate it on par with I, Robot. Another sci-fi movie that I liked for the sci-fi aspects, but that's about it. See it if you're a science-fiction fan, wait for video if you're not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)