Zombieland Reveiw

Hello all,

Apologies for not being able to see this movie sooner, but when you help run a Haunted House...well in October that kind of takes precedent.

Review of Zombieland:

You must accept, going in, that this movie is going to be ridiculous. To assume that it is a serious zombie movie or to assume that it is an "intellectual comedy" are not wise decisions. It is in essence a Zombiedy. If you go in thinking the above...you will probably be let down.

That being said, it was quite humorous. I laughed out loud at many parts, but will keep my lips closed in case there are readers who haven't seen it yet. My favorite part was when the take refuge in the LA house....

The movie also focuses on a number of rules. There are 32 rules but we only ever learn, I think, eight of them:

1. Cardio--To sustain long periods of running away from zombies
2. Double Tap--send the extra bullet into the zombie's head to ensure it stays down
3. Be weary of bathrooms--Zombies always seem to show up when we are vulnerable
4. Buckle your Seat belt--So you can slam on the breaks and you won't go flying
16? Limber Up--before you do anything so you don't pull anything
17? Don't be a hero--except when impressing Witchita
20..? Always check the back seat--A zombie or gun stockpile will always be there
32. Enjoy the Little things--Like Twinkies or "Caddyshack"

I agree with all of these, as I've memorized Max Brooks' The Zombie Survival Guide inside and out. The only one I'd caution against is the double tap...and that's based upon the amount of ammo you have. In this movie the characters sure seemed to have a lot of it....

I liked these rules and I like how they were presented by the skittish, nervous, low self-esteem main character...I would have just liked to know more of the rules, since they clearly defined his life.

The other major issue that I saw was ironically enough, the lack of zombies. There would be very long stretches where you wouldn't see any zombies. Now that's okay, you can have a movie where that happens and it still works. Take either version of Dawn of the Dead. You might not see a zombie for 20 minutes, but you know that there is a hoard of them just outside the mall. Any pull away or establishing shot will confirm this, so the fear is real. I also get that the movie takes place during the later stages of the outbreak, so most zombies would probably have been pulled to major population centers in search of more food. But even at the end, when the major conflict occurs...when it really comes down to it...there aren't that many zombies. Aren't they supposed to be in LA? That is a huge population zone. I get that the point is to have Columbus attempt to rescue the other two characters but in a zombie movie the big fear is the endless hoard.

Maybe that's not what they were going for since the tone of the movie was clearly light. If that's the case then I am willing to back off my statement. My statement is also not a "Deal Breaker" as Liz Lemmon would say, because I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie. It was just a comment tis all.

Lastly--A lot of people have been comparing as the next "Shaun of the Dead." "Zombieland" was good. It was funny. I'm going to buy it to add to my zombie collection. It would fit nicely into a Zombiedy-athon. But it doesn't even come close to the humor, horror, tediousness, complexity, and all around amazement that is encompassed with "Shaun of the Dead." I'm being very serious. I know a lot of you may think I'm jaded because I like horror, comedy, the British, and zombies so its easy to think that I'm just a fan boy spouting off a love fest for Simon Pegg and Edgar Wright.

But in all seriousness, I had to analyze "Shaun of the Dead" for a film class and I've been studying creative writing for a long time now. Everyone watch "Shaun of the Dead" again and pay close attention to the point that the movie is trying to make. The point is that humans are so entrenched in their routines that even a zombie outbreak might go unnoticed and that most humans would not noticed something was wrong until a zombie showed up on their doorstep. This is painfully obvious in the characters of Shaun and Ed as we laugh at them and their exploits. But watch the film again and only pay attention to the background. (I'm also referring to the first act of the movie before the zombies are everywhere.) Notice for how most of the movie there are sirens going off, even if they are just faintly in the background. Notice how sick the people look on the bus that Shaun rides. Notice how when Shaun is in his place of employment and he is trying to sell the TV that you can see three green army trucks rumble past the camera. Then notice that when Phillip leaves the store, those same three green army trucks rumble by him. How much of that did you notice? How much more is there that I haven't noticed yet? Isn't it creepy to think we don't notice things because we only care about our little daily routines? "Shaun of the Dead" scared me for the first them when I realized what I just pointed out and I counted driving past five ambulances with their lights flashing. That's a lot for one day. They could have been the first five outbreak patients and had it not been for "Shaun of the Dead," I never would have had that thought.

"Zombieland" although widely entertaining doesn't even come close to that level of sophistication.

Move Review: District 9

So all of the buzz circling around Distric 9 since it's release has been incredible. Tweets, status updates, blogs, and blurbs have all been raving that District 9 is the movie to beat. One said to "drop what you're doing right now and see District 9." All this being said, I went to see the movie with much anticipation.

To borrow from one of the best movies of all time, "This is Spinal Tap," if everyone is saying that this movie goes to 11, I would say that it only goes to a 10. Although the short review would have me say, Black Hawk Down with aliens.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of excellent things in this movie. This is the feature film debut of star Sharlto Copley who plays Wikus Van De Merwe (pronounced Vikus.) Sharlto turned in a wonderful performance of the mild-mannered, wanting to impress his boss and provide for his family type character only to be caught up in a movement that was larger than life. He really surprised me because when you first see him you think he's only going to be on screen for a short period of time but you soon learn that he is the main character and its a fact that makes you happy.

Additional strengths were the special effects. I mean it is Wetta, but still a sci-fi movie just always has the chance to go into "too cheesy mode." (Has anyone see the awful looking CGI for the Werewolf in the New Moon trailer?) That aside the aliens in this movie look phenomenal. The alien ship looks real. The alien weapons are amazing. District 9 is worth seeing alone for the electricity gun. ELECTRICITY GUN.

The one area of District 9 that made it so that it did not go to 11 is this: District 9 left a lot of loose ends and assumed that the audience knew as much as the characters. The point of the movie is that the aliens have been on Earth for 20 years. The movie we are watching is a documentary of how conditions and relations have evolved over the past 20 years. Therefore every character we meet within the film has 20 years of experience living with aliens on the planet Earth. That is not something we in the theater can comprehend as we have not experienced it.

However District 9 is presented as if we do have the same experience. There are so many opportunities where District 9 could have been given a little shot in the arm by explaining one or two things a little better. A little bit here and a little bit there makes for a lot of bit by the end. I'm talking about the "slice of life" moments as my one professor used to say. Example: Prawns are addicted to cat food = brilliant. More stuff like that, but there isn't a whole lot.

Let me attempt to illustrate the point by using the movie The Matrix. One of the most unique and revolutionary aspects of The Matrix is that the audience learns along with Neo. There is nothing that Neo knows that we don't (except Kung Fu.) Neo must analyze and process information about the matrix, agents, machines, sentinels, jacking in, Zion, the Oracle, etc at the same exact moment as the audience does. This is brilliant because the matrix is a foreign concept/world to the audience.

The world/concept of District 9 is even more foreign. There are aliens and it takes place in Africa. Even if you take out the aliens there is a lot about African culture and sub-culture that is just as new to most audience members but it is only lightly touched upon. I think just that a little bit of fleshing out could have helped bump this movie to 11. But this one little misstep aside, it still is a solid 10 and is definitely worth a watch.

Agree? Disagree? Let us all know by leaving a comment!

Also, after I posted my review, I found this review on Twitter....maybe I'm more qualified than I thought... http://www.filmjunk.com/2009/08/19/5-lessons-hollywood-can-learn-from-district-9/

Review: Public Enemies

Here is Haunted House Writer's review of "Public Enemies." Since this falls into the review category, there maybe some spoilers involved, so be forewarned. I will start by saying that yes of course Johnny Depp is really really good. But Johnny Depp being good does not an amazing movie make. I've identified four issues that sorta irked me about "Public Enemies."

1) The script and the director apparently did not agree with one another. "Public Enemies" suffers from two very different feels that don't really go well together. The first is that the script is very old school and by this I mean it is extremely historically accurate. You feel like you are in the 1930s. But, a majority of "Public Enemies" is shot with hand-held cameras (like "Cloverfield") which serves to disconnect the viewer from the film due to the modern feel of the hand held viewing experience.

Couple this with extremely fast editing and it becomes hard to identify the characters beyond Johnny Depp and Christian Bale. Likewise this style ensures that there is no emotional attachment to anything about "Public Enemies." The only thing that keeps you interested is what happens to Dillinger and his girlfriend, but there are so many gaps between when they are the focus of the shot that you forget about them as well. It is bad when you can find nothing to grasp a hold of as you watch the movie and given that the majority of this is about Dillinger, I personally feel that I have learned nothing about his personality. There was too much a sense of detachments.

This editing style also leads to poor transitioning. At one point your in Chicago, but then in an instant it's weeks later and they are in Indiana and people who were in Texas are now there as well...it just was frustrating. It'd go all of the place with no smooth or easy flow that felt almost uncomfortable.

2) Overall "Public Enemies" was too dark. Not in terms of tone, but in terms of actual lighting. You couldn't see half the time which made it even harder to identify who was on screen or what was happening. This point echoes some of the sentiments in the above section.

3) SPOILER ALERT!! A huge offense was how they shot Dillinger's death scene. One of the highlights of the film is its action sequences which were very realistic, crisp, and engaging. The shootout at the lodge at night is pretty fantastic.

The last 20 minutes of the "Public Enemies" is amazing. When Dillinger is wandering around the police station and watching the movie...it's very creepy and mood setting. Then he walks outside and he is being pursued by law enforcement officials who proceed to shoot him through the face. At this point though, "Public Enemies" enters into a slow-motion sequence that concludes with horrible CGI of Dillinger being shot. It's cheesy, corny, looks awful, and completely ruins the amazing sequence that was established previously. It would have been better if you saw Christian Bale light his cigar, then a single shot, then cut to the last scene with the girl in the interrogation room. The rest of the action in the movie was gritty and amazing but then when Dillinger's death is romanticized, it feels so out of place that it ruins the end of the film.

4) This isn't really that big a concern but although Christian Bale does a good job in the film and his accent is spot on, he just doesn't look Southern. His face is too rigid and angular. We all remember how out of place Tom Cruise in "Valkyrie" with his eye patch and no German accent.

Last word of advice for those who are going to see "Public Enemies." Wait a week or so. When I went, the theater was packed with Johnny Depp fan girls who got bored with the film and started texting or talking.

Review: Disney/Pixar's Up

The first thing I'd like to say is this: I am seeing a trend in Pixar Movies...they are slowly getting sadder and sadder. Wall-E made us sad as we watched this poor little robot all by himself, yet making the best of life. He was also such a willing hero to sacrifice himself for the better of the humans. The scene where he doesn't recognize Eve, is just well devastating.

That being said, before you see Up, emotionally ready yourself because at times it's devastating. By "Devastating" I mean like more than half of the movie tugs at your emotions worse than that scene in Wall-E that was mentioned above.

However, that does not mean that Up is not a phenomenal movie. It's hysterical, intriguing, sad, and well just extremely well written. The characters are well developed and realistic, especially the dogs. I never thought that "dog" could be an actual written dialect, but trust me, if dogs could talk, it would be like they do in this movie.

Up's pacing was also spot on. This movie progressed seamlessly and all of it's elements flow so well together. At one moment you are next to tears because you're sad, then suddenly you're next to tears because you can't stop laughing.

The only strange thing about the story is when Carl and Russel meet the antagonist. I don't want to spoil it, but the character that is the "bad guy," according to the time line that we seemed to be presented with, should be at least 90 years old...if not older. I don't know...it was just strange.

Lastly, don't spend the extra money on 3-D. There weren't all that many times when 3-D gave a unique perspective that made me go, "wow." Save yourself some money and get some candy instead.

Movie Review: Star Trek

Space: J. J. Abram's Final Frontier

I have two distinct points to make in my review for the new Star Trek movie.

1. Amazing.

2. Simon Pegg as Scotty = Brilliant.

Sorry if this seems like a cop out...but I'm serious...it's that good. Even if your not a fan of the franchise, it does a good job of orienting you and including you in the story and the excitement.

Review: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

***May contain spoilers*** Here is the short review: If you like the X-Men series and by this I mean the comics, not just the other three movies--and you are a fan of the mythos and lore and story, then this movie might not make you happy.

If you don't care about the X-Men series and you just want an awesome action movie with some overdone CGI that looks blatantly fake, then go ahead. You can even take your girlfriend because Hugh Jackman is pretty close to naked in the film and you can distract her with that.

Longer review:

I think this movie should have been called, X-Men Origins: Cocktease.

Here's why: This movie's most consistent attribute is that is gives you about five seconds of something you want to see and then takes it away forever. Take Gambit for example. Fans of the series have wanted to see Gambit from day one. He was rumored to be in "X2" and then again was supposed to show up in "X-Men: The Last Stand," but in both instances he was cut out. So when Gambit appears in the "Origins" trailer, I get mucho excited. But...yeah, he's in the movie for about five minutes. On top of that, most of the time we see him, he's doing some nutso flipping ninja action. Now don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of Ninja's and I know that's one of Gambit's maneuvers, but it just seem so out of place in this modern, non-comic rendition of the X-Men. I mean there is a reason why Wolverine doesn't wear the yellow polyester. Oh, how come only once in the whole movie does Gambit use his playing cards as a weapon? THAT IS WHAT DEFINES HIM. When he does it, it's so cool, but it only happens once.

Similar things can be said about John Wraith. Halfway through the film when it seems like Wolverine's on his own, he runs into John Wraith again. It seems like maybe they will be all "Army of Two," against Stryker and Sabertooth...but no...that only last for about five seconds too. It honestly seems like whenever they have something cool happening, they decide to move on. Also it seems like the filmmakers did not want to make a film that was based on the other three. Like every so often you can almost hear the director yell from off screen, "Oh crap, um, hey guys we should um make something up right now about why Wolverine can't remember anything." The ties to the other movies are so awkwardly placed that its...well..awkward.

Perhaps another title should be: X-Men: ZOMBIES!

I don't know about you all who read this, the two of you that do, but I mean what is it with the removal of heads? That is how you kill zombies right? I didn't know it was the only thing that killed X-Men. At three separate points, that I can remember, decapitation is used to indicate what is needed to kill someone. Stryker orders Weapon XI to decapitate Wolverine (as even Ademantium Bullets won't do the trick,) but then Wolverine finds that the only way to kill Weapon XI is to also go for the head. When asked how Wolverine will kill Victor Creed/Sabertooth (Wolverine's brother in this movie...) Wolverine replies, "I'm gonna cut off your God damned head. See if that works." Seriously? Okay. I guess. Why don't you just use your claws to spark a fire that catches a trail of gasoline that eventually burns all the way to a helicopter thus exploding it...or something?

There are also a lot of major loose ends that aren't tied up, which leaves one to wonder if they are planning for a X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2.

Acting is pretty good, especially Jackman. Taylor Kitsch turns in a wonderful Gambit, I just wish there was more of him. Wil.I.Am is a good John Wraith. I also never thought I'd say this either, but Ryan Reynolds in an X-Men movie (as Deadpool) was pretty fantastic. "Okay, people are dead." "Your looking nice today sir, it's the green, it brings out the seriousness in your eyes." I was a fan of Ryan Reynolds in this movie. Congratz universe. You win.

Last pet peeve. Why? Why? Why? Why in the very beginning when we first meet Logan, (played by a child) are we shown his "father" taking care of him. The "father" is played by an actor who looks just like Jackman, obviously signifying that this youngster is Logan because he will grow up to resemble his father. Right? So then why, several moments later after a disgruntled neighbor shoots and kills the father played by a Jackman look-a-like (who again...looks like Wolverine) does the neighbor...who looks nothing like Wolverine...inform little Logan that he is actually Logans father.

That was a confusing paragraph, let me try to point it out with some simpler phrasing:

Hugh Jackman look-a-like "dad" + Young Logan/Wolverine = Makes sense because Jackman also plays old Wolverine

Random Neighbor/Real Dad + Young Logan/Wolverine = No sense...because there is no actual resemblance. Why go through the fuss to get Jackman-ish to play the part if it ultimately doesn't matter and serves to confuse the audience?

Thanks to Bill Gatevackes for catching an error in my post. Nice to know someone reads! (In fact thats why I did that Bill...to see if anyone actually reads muahahahahahaha!)