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.

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.

Zombieland Preview

Getting back to the roots today--a preview of a horror film. Well actually it's more of a "Zomb-edy." Thanks to friend, screen-writer, and fellow blogger John Rocks (yes that's his real name) for the tip on this movie. His blog can be found here: http://www.johnwritesforthescreen.com/

I will post the "Zombieland" trailer a little further down for your viewing convenience. Some points to consider about this movie:

1) "Zombieland" has fast zombies, much like the "Dawn of the Dead" remake and "28 Days Later" (though I know that they aren't zombies.) Fast zombies usually ramp up the horror factor at the risk of deviating from the usual characteristic slow and shambling hoard. Always a difficult choice to be made when stating up your zombies.

2) The star of "Zombieland" is Woody Harrelson. Given his appearance, yet distinctive voice it almost gives the impression that the hero will be a strange blend of Cheers bartender Woody Boyd and Crocodile Dundee. Not sure how Harrelson will be as the star of an action/horror/comedy such as "Zombieland," but time will only tell.

3) Reminiscent of "Shaun of the Dead?" The trailer clearly marks "Zombieland" as being a comedy. There doesn't seem to be a whole lot of dark tones or panic stricken survivors but rather almost a "game show" like feel to the plague of undead. They even compete for the best "zombie kill of the week." A lot of people will compare "Zombieland" to "Shaun of the Dead" but from simply the trailer I think there will be a huge difference.


Although "Shaun of the Dead" is also a hysterical movie, it is extremely dark and moving film. "Shaun of the Dead" does make light of the zombie genre in the first two acts, but by the third, when they are in the Winchester, the film becomes so dark and serious, you forget how much you laughed earlier in the movie. "Shaun of the Dead" is very underrated and is quite possible one of the best movies ever made, technically speaking. There are so many subtle nuances and make the movie extremely creepy as to denote that people wouldn't notice a zombie uprising until it was too late. If anyone wants more on this, let me know in the form of a comment.


But in "Zombieland" the characters seem to be more lighthearted. They are swirling around an amusement park, make many quick quips, and other quirky things. I'm not saying that these will make for a bad movie, just it will be different in tone than "Shaun of Dead" and actually might let some people down who are anticipating something similar.


Overall, "Zombieland" will be funny, entertaining, light-hearted, and will poke fun at the zombie genre. However, if you are looking for the next zombie thriller that is more traditional...well you might have to wait until "World War Z" gets closer to completion. But please do not forget that this is all comming from soley the trailer. Trailers can sometimes decieve...if you want to know ask me what I think about the movie "Freedomland."

Agree with me? What do you think? Watch the trailer then leave some comments please.

Movie Etiquette

Went to see "Up" again the other day. Still amazing. But due to the string of good movies that come out, I've been to the theater a lot recently and I have to say this:

If you are at a movie....and you have a cell phone...and you think about texting...


DON'T!

I will find you...I will hurt you.

The theater asks you specifically not to do it, yet seconds later there are always bright glows that are horribly distracting. Perhaps that's the most offensive thing: that people are so inconsiderate as to ignore a simple request, that affects everyone else.

Like seriously, if someone turned around and threw their soda on you, you would be annoyed, but I don't go around doing that...yet...but it would be equally as distracting and equally as inconsiderate.

So here is your warning: You start texting-----I start throwing

People who are talking are just as inconsiderate....but the two jerks who sat behind me already know what I think of them.

The Corruption of Culture

Occasionally we have a theatrical experience that allows us to get caught up in the phenomenon associated with a particular show. When we are sitting in the seats and sharing in the emotion put forth by a live actor, combined with the setting and lights, sometimes the music, and the laughter, sobs, or gasps that we make as a collective audience, we know we are caught up in something bigger than ourselves.

The same cannot always be said about movies. That's not to say movies can not be wonderful, because some are. That's not to say that we can't be moved by a movie, because we can. But there is just something about seeing a live person actually practice his or her craft, knowing that they have to nail it on this try. There is no director yelling "cut," there are no "multiple takes." The excitement that can be brought forth by a well produced live show can be an unforgettable experience. Granted theater is not for everyone, but if you give yourself to it, and allow the story that is being presented consume you, you can experience catharsis.

So you'll indulge me while I consider what film has done for theater. Most film adaptations of stage plays must often times take dramatic license, which is ironic to me, because a film is not always considered a drama, but rather...a film. Scenes are mixed and mashed, added or deleted, to make a better "movie," while sometimes sacrificing the heart and soul of the original script. This is not always so, but it happens. It's just the way things are.

Take Rent. Rent the musical, by Jonathon Larson is...well I don't have to mince words about how amazing a show it is. I shall simply call it amazing. To see it live is a heartwarming, life altering experience. Yet when translated to the screen it loses something. Even though most of the principle actors starred in both the show and the film, there is a difference. There's a lack of energy or urgency. In the film, "Christmas Bells," has been cut, which is perhaps the best song, that hits you so hard when you are in the theater, you need a moment to catch your breath. Angel's death does not seem quite as moving or...angelic. The movie is still pretty good all things considered, but it doesn't hit you like it does when done right on the stage.

Then take Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by Stephen Sondheim and Hugh Wheeler. A musical about a barber so bent on revenge he kills people while his accomplice uses their dead bodies to make meat pies. It's phenomenal; perhaps the best musical ever written. Even the Tim Burton film can attribute to it's greatness, even though during the song "God That's Good," the words "God That's Good," have been cut. Even Johnny Depp, who admits to having little professional vocal training turns in a wonderful performance.

But here is where all this starts to come together. Johnny Depp, through no fault of his own, has created a stigma now associated with this show. When you ask people, "have you ever seen Sweeney Todd?" They respond, "yeah, that was a great movie." Or, "yeah it was a good story, but why did they have to have songs?" Or "oh my God I love Johnny Depp." If you type "Sweeney Todd" into google, the first hit to come up is the film's official site.

So gone are most intellectual discussions of who was the better Sweeney: Len Cariou, George Hearn, or Michael Cerveris? Which Mrs. Lovett would you like if you casted the show: Angela Lansbury or Patti LuPone? If all of these names are foreign to you, please look them up.

So you'll understand my frustration, when on Valentine's Day, I went to see Broadway's Traveling League's performance of the Revival of Sweeney Todd, and lo what was that before my eyes? Young girls who looked too young to have known about the show through a natural exposure to theater. Perhaps...because it's they think this is musical based on the Johnny Depp movie.

And perhaps one of the two most sickening sites to befall my eyes...a girl...who looked abouts the age of twelve...with an i-phone (what does a 12 year old need an i-phone for?) waiting for the doors to open holding a copy of Twilight. This single image almost made me want to rip out my eyes and cry out, "oh the horrors theses walls have seen."

A quick aside...nobody should ever ever ever read the Twilight series. It is sloppy over indulgent dribble that does the same for literature and vampires that Hayden Christensen did for "Star Wars." My friend and fellow blogger, Jeff Stolarcyk, has written a great review of the whole Twilight thing on his blog http://www.conditionalaxe.com/ that can be viewed here: http://www.conditionalaxe.com/tag/twilight/

So a theater full of fan girls who love Twilight. Okay...I could only confirm that one of them loved Twilight...but still...I can guarantee that there were a lot more there. The other horrifying sight? A girl who could have been no older than six.

Now I need to point out something about this show for those of you who don't know.

1) This show has gruesome murder, rape, pedophilia, abuse, corruption, swearing, revenge, and a plot so in depth that there is a reason the movie version was rated R. How many other movies about Broadway musicals can boast that claim?

2) This is the revival we are talking about here. There aren't lavish sets, or a full orchestra. There is a single set, with minimal props, a lot of pantomiming, and all of the actors also play their instruments while on stage, and while acting. All of the major action still happens but is often times represented...for instance when the first murder occurs, the lights go red, and one of the actors pours a bucket of blood into another bucket.

It sounds odd, but the point is this: rather than seeing the story acted out as it's happening, you're actually seeing it being portrayed through all of the inmates in the asylum that Toby is eventually locked up in, through his memory. So the murders aren't actually happening anyways, hence the representation. It sounds strange but it's creepy as hell to watch a stage full of actors with white faces, bloody lab coats, playing the haunting score while singing the final "Ballad of Sweeney Todd."

Now, you expect a six year old to get all that? Let me tell you, she ended up sitting two rows behind me, and she didn't. I know for a fact because after every line she would ask her grandma what just happened. And her grandma would tell her. Like...when Judge Turpin realizes that he'd like to have sex with the girl that he's been raising like his own daughter, and the male actor reaches down and grabs the female actors breasts, and the six year old goes, "whats going on gram-ma?" and the grandma says, "well honey, he wants to do naughty things with her."

Or perhaps the most disturbing moment of the whole ordeal: At the end of the show, after the final murder, the grandmother excitedly and almost as frenzied as Sweeney himself, grabbed her little granddaughter, squeezed her tightly against her chest and says, (loud enough for all to hear mind you,) "That's six of 'em he's got honey." What the hell kind of parenting is that? This show messes with me, and this is what I do for a living. A six year old? To disturb the whole theater?

So on top of that annoyance, you'll also imagine my simultaneous despair and glee that all of these people who would say, "I'm so glad that they finally brought that show here, I mean the movie was awesome, so let's go see stage version," who just didn't get it. Some people didn't like it. They wanted lavish sets. They wanted the blood to spray from the necks. They wanted the chair that sends people into the bake house. (Granted the chair is really cool, but just wouldn't fit in this rendition.) It wasn't as grandiose as the film.

But that's the whole point of this post. I saw the same show they did, and I was blown away. The only misstep for me was that the actress playing Johanna wasn't blonde. I was silently pleading for the final song to last longer than in normally does, hoping that the actors would hold that final note just a few seconds longer. I did not want it to end.

What has happened to our culture and the world of theater when we can't use our imaginations to fill in the all of the subjective stuff that can't be shown on stage because it's impossible, or because the actors are too busy playing a Sondheim score? The film has all the gory details, but a film can. But is that what we want? I like horror as much as the next guy, but I don't actually have to see the throats being slit in such gruesome detail. So when I see Johnny Depp killing the people, it's so realistic I look away. Isn't it a bad thing when you look away from a movie screen?

Also, isn't the beauty of true horror when we are still scared even though we don't actually see it? Like in The Dark Knight, we don't see the Joker kill Gambol, but we know that he did. We also don't see the thugs use the splintered pool stick to fight each other to the death as per The Joker's wishes, but they did. Let your imagination scare you, rather than being shown, because oftentimes we are disappointed. You're always more disturbed by what you don't see.

It pains me to know that some people who saw Sweeney Todd with me tonight could not appreciate the show because it was "weird." But if you can't appreciate actors singing these difficult songs, while moving all of their own props, while also playing their own music, while still acting, and in some cases changing instruments with people while in the middle of a song, without missing a beat, all with out a conductor, while still turning out a wonderful performance, then what can you appreciate? That's true art. That's true theater.

And when this can no longer be appreciated because it wasn't like "the movie," or because they didn't "show everything," then it's clearly marked just how corrupt culture has become. We can't appreciate art in it's true form. The ancient Greeks had less, and yet the had festivals dedicated to this sort of thing. Entire cities would shut down so they could go be entertained. I know theater has lost some of it's appeal, but if a show like this can not be appreciated, much less tolerated by those who enjoy the story and music, so long as it's in a different medium, well that's just sad.

Apologies for getting on the soap box, but sometimes you just feel strongly about things.

This post supported by Theatre Ticket Suppliers