Sunday, October 4, 2009

A Night At the Living Opera

I know what you're thinking: "Oliver, you can't review Zombieland. You were in it! That's a conflict of interest!". But I assure you, that's Woody Harrelson in the movie, not me. And let me say, if I were to have anyone play me in a movie, Woody Harrelson is right up there with Ronald Reagan and Chewbacca.

Normally, though, I would not appreciate having my likeness put in a zombie movie. For many years zombie movies have been lazily chewing on the independent horror mold, trying my patience and giving me plenty of reason to ignore them. Zombies have to be the most boring antagonists. They lumber around and gnaw on things. Oh, no, don't shuffle in my direction, Mr. Zombie, I'll never be able to out-walk you! Second, for whatever reason (possibly that the zombie film was essentially invented as a tool for independent filmmakers when George A. Romero released Night of the Living Dead), zombie films have been like a playground for boring young filmmakers. In recent years, only Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead remake, Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later... and Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead have been worth watching.

And now Ruben Fleischer's Zombieland. Here's the gist of the movie: take Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg, give them a population of zombies and try to make it the most fun movie possible. And isn't that almost a novel concept? To just make a movie as fun as possible? No heavy-handed sub-plots, no Shia LaBeouf in robot heaven, Channing Tatum begging the mind-control device puppeteering his long-lost love to let her go. Just two funny guys with guns, a list of awesome ways to kill zombies and a burning desire for the world's last Twinkie.

In fact, this may be the most purely enjoyable movie I've seen all year. It's the sort of movie you go to a midnight showing for and no one gets mad when you yell at the screen.

It's the sort of movie that makes going to the movies feel like an event and makes you wonder why you don't do it more often. Every time the audience erupted in laughter or simultaneously reeled at the gore on screen, I realized that going to a horror film isn't about seeing a movie, it's about the atmosphere. If my mind were weaker, I would compare it to gladiatorial games with its atmosphere of bloodlust, only missing the live children being eaten by live lions for the metaphor to be complete.

Let's discuss the technical aspects before I waste all your patience on ill-conceived metaphors. The performances are essentially flawless. Despite their differences in age, stature, background, style and character, Woody Harrelson and Jesse Eisenberg have a marvelous, easy chemistry that makes every scene that much easier to have fun with. Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin are given considerably less to do, but Breslin stands out in a few key scenes. Ruben Fleischer's direction calls to mind Edgar Wright's manic comic tone, but with more visual flair and fewer sight gags (if that makes sense). He maintains a zany, kinetic tone where everybody seems to be having a great time.

That said, it doesn't break the mold. It's not the best movie of the year, but it is a marvelous counterpoint to all the idiotic summer blockbusters with ten hour running times and budgets large enough to make third-world countries weep. Michael Bay can blow $300 million on the most boring movie of the year, but I'll take Ruben Fleischer's $25 million mini-masterpiece any day.

8/10

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

I also liked the movie it was fun to watch and Harrelson was a funny badass. I love the cameo by Bill Murray that was halarious.