Pontypool (2008) vs. Dead Air (2009)


Pontypool
Director: Bruce McDonald

Starring: Stephen McHattie and Lisa Houle

Dead Air

Director: Corbin Bernsen

Starring: Bill Moseley, Patricia Tallman


Sometimes 2 movies come out around the same time that are so similar that even if there's a big difference between them, it's never enough to avoid comparison. What's worth note is that neither of the similar movies are ever a ripoff of the other. It's just simply a case of 2 similar ideas at the same time.

So I've decided to switch things up here. In addition to reviewing these two movies I'll compare and contrast their similarities and differences and pick which one I think is the better movie.

So here's the plot of both films more or less: Grant Mazzy (Stephen McHatty)/Logan (Bill Moseley) is a shock jock DJ in the small town/big city of Pontypool, Ontario/LA, California. One night/morning a virus spread by the English language/a chemical agent placed by terrorists turns all the people nearby into ravenous monsters. Grant/Logan opts to stay on the air and cover the situation as it happens with the help of his crew and his sassy female producer Syndey (Lisa Houle)/Lucy (Patricia Tallman) and the eyewitness reports of the traffic reporter/frequent on-air caller who eventually gets infected.

So yeah, the plot of these two movies works like a fucking mad lib, they're so alike. In fact here it is if you ever want to write a zombie movie in a radio station:

"__Person's Name__ is a shock jock DJ in the __adjective__ of __Place__ . One __time of day__ a virus spread by the __Half-baked movie mcguffin__ turns all the people nearby into ravenous monsters. __Person's name__ opts to stay on the air and cover the situation as it happens with the help of his crew and his sassy female producer __Woman's name (make it sound sassy)__ and the eyewitness reports of __somebody who talks to shock jock DJs. (Like playmates or racists.)__ who eventually becomes infected."

ACTING:

Pontypool:
All of the actors here are immaterial except Stephen McHattie. While everybody seems to do a good job, McHattie's (of "Watchmen" and "Shoot 'Em Up") Grant Mazzy is a cocky bastard who just seems to fit the controversial DJ template to a tee.

McHattie commands the screen, which is good, because he's onscreen for almost the entire duration of the film. It also speaks to how underrated an actor Stephen McHattie is when he's able to carry an entire movie where almost nothing happens squarely on his shoulders.

Dead Air:
The only performance of note other than Bill Moseley's is of his on-air sidekick Gil played by David Moscow who looks distractingly like Kirk Cameron and acts distractingly like shit.

Otherwise it's all about Bill Moseley. While Moseley certainly commands the screen and arguably plays a shock jock flawlessly (which is helped by his trademark voice.) But I don't think Moseley could carry this movie on his shoulders the way McHattie did with "Pontypool." It is however worth note that Logan does more than Grant Mazzy.

WINNER: "Pontypool"


STORYLINE

Pontypool:
"Pontypool" is based on the novel "Pontypool Changes Everything" by Tony Burgess (Not to be confused with "A Clockwork Orange" writer Anthony Burgess) In this story our zombie virus is transmitted through human speech, only English in the movies, but it's implied it could spread to others as a Spanish speaking character seems to be getting the virus as well. It mainly targets terms of endearment.

As such, the zombies in this movie aren't really zombies at all. They're human beings whose speech has become muddled and made them so frustrated that they've been driven into a homicidal rage just because they can't express themselves.

It's a solid concept at first glance but the more you think of it the more problems it has. For one, it sounds kind of half-baked when it's revealed that our zombies are killing and eating people out of sheer frustration. Then of course there are the obvious questions of how a virus could transmit by airwaves rather than biological means. Also, why are some words more infected than others? And why only English?

The other big coffin nail of this movie is that it's understated. It prides itself in being minimalist, telling a story rather than concerning itself with being epic. Focusing on a claustrophobic area to create a scarier environment for the viewer. However, it goes a bit too far, we see nothing except a handful of zombies and even then we only actually SEE one. The movie has practically no onscreen violence. Now while I'm a fan of subtle horror, you do have to offer the viewer something to chew on and this movie just doesn't offer enough.

When people read or watch zombie apocalypse stories they want to see the parent that travels cross-country facing all odds to rescue their child, or the group of survivors roaming and looking for a safe haven. What they don't want to see is the person hiding under a pool table cowering like they would be in that situation.

To be honest, not a lot happens in "Pontypool" and that's the problem. It feels like a chapter of a much larger story and we're not given enough action or explanation make it whole.

Dead Air:
In "Dead Air" a virus is set loose in several major cities all over the country. The virus is set loose by a sleeper cell of Muslim radicals. Unfortunately this sleeper cell is easily the worst group of terrorists of all time and they manage to ruin everything.

The chemical causes the zombies be incredibly violent and makes them nigh-unkillable. On top of this a scratch or a bite will cause the victim to become infected. The zombies in this movie are also unique in that they attack primarily with their fingernails rather than their teeth.

While the Muslim terrorism plot is cliche and kind of dumb, the way the virus is played out is quite effective and gives a more realistic scenario for a zombie plaque and why anyone, even a terrorists would be willing to release it with great personal danger to their people as well.

"Dead Air" is also comfortable to venture beyond the walls of the radio station which does take away from the sense of claustrophobia but delivers a much more satisfying narrative. The radio station is right near ground zero for the virus and a lot of important events happen in or around the radio station. We're also given TV news reports to go along with what's happening that offer further depictions of the events outdoors. It's not as subtle but it doesn't go over the top so I found this take much more satisfying.

WINNER: "Dead Air"


Both films have their triumphs and their faults. "Pontypool" certainly uses an original idea that could have been explored further, but I feel that overall "Dead Air" is just a more effective and ,more importantly, entertaining.

I give "Pontypool" a 4 out of 5 and "Dead Air a 4 out of 5. Both are worth a rent, but "Dead Air" is slightly better.

WINNER: "Dead Air"

Antichrist (2009)


Directed by: Lar von Trier

Starring: Willem DeFoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg

Plot: A wife and husband in a cabin in a woods go on a magical violence-filled journey up Lars von Trier's ass.


You know what I hate about arty films? Most of them don't make sense, they're so wrapped up in symbolism (some of which makes no sense no matter how you look at it) and random bits that are inserted just for the purpose of looking arty. Then when the director is questioned on why his coming-of-age comedy features a scene with a CGI scorpion throwing a trashcan full of a hot dogs at a naked and bound five-year-old girl he can simply go "I'm an artist! It's not my fault you can't interpret such high art!" and I'm expected to get "emperor's new clothes syndrome" where I start pretending I understand the symbolism.

But what's worse than random bullshit that's supposed to mean something that clearly doesn't (*cough*Eraserhead*cough*) is a very straight-forward movie so stuck up its own ass that everybody who sees it misses the point entirely.

This brings us to "Antichrist" a film that's been labeled as a romanticism of misogny, a representation of the director's fear of vaginae, and a feminist victory anthem (whoever holds this opinion should seek help soon.) The thing is the plot, the symbolism, and the meaning behind the title are rather clear cut and self-explanatory and peoples' interpretations have really served less as an idea of the intentions of the movie and more as a Rorschach test showing how most of these people think.

Why does that guy's mask have a picture of a vagina shooting fire on it?

So the characters are He (Willem Defoe) and She (Charlotte Gainsbourg) a married couple who come under friction when their son stage dives out their fourth story window whilst they're busy having over-passionate indie-film sex.

She gets really fucked in the head so He takes her out to a cabin in the woods in an area called Eden (I smell allegory!) where She and their son had stayed for a long time before he become intimately acquainted with a sidewalk.

She's very troubled, but fortunately He is a psychiatrist and does what he can to fix her mentally. She slowly begins to be making progress and then is suddenly better, naturally he's skeptic as she went from fucking crazy to suddenly okay.

She regresses and begins raving how she and all women are evil and that all the horrible atrocities visted upon women throughout history were done by men that knew that women were evil. Then when she's confronted with an autopsy report showing that their son's feet were deformed and several pictures of him with his shoes on backwards she goes nuts and does things I won't refer to by name. They also hatefuck each other a whole bunch of times.


Now here's the clear cut part and there's some slight spoilers here but you'll live. The movie nowhere says that all women are evil, only that She is evil. She clearly suffers from a terrible case of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, a cry for attention that often involves hurting others, particularly children, for the person's benefit.

Early in the movie She says He hasn't been spending enough time with her and if you watch closely the baby gate is unlocked, the window is unlatched, and the baby moniter is turned to mute. Of course later on we also find out she was watching as the baby swan dove out the window (for reasons I simply don't understand.)

She is not the literal Antichrist, but this is how She sees herself and by proxy, other women. This too is a cry for attention, seeing how she's getting nothing more from Him, she decides that to be reviled is better than nothing. Then of course her horrible "Misery" moment toward the end is the last step in keeping him around in much the same way deforming her son's feet was..

Now of course where shit gets complicated is the appearance of 3 animals that represent 3 parts of dealing with death. A fox, a bird, and a deer. He sees all 3 of these, and the fox famously says "Chaos Reigns" at the end of Act 2. Many interpreted this and the weird as fuck epilogue as supernatural but I took it as Him going crazy. He watched his son die too and it wasn't just Her who was under severe mental strain (one would argue that she wasn't under any as she was crazy to begin with.)

He even sees these animals represented as star constellations at the end of the movie and says "There are no such constellations." As such, there are no animals, they're extensions of His mind helping him to figure things out and understand how messed up She really is. Some may see the ending as misogniystic but honestly She really leaves Him no choice. But ultimately this is a self-contained story having to do with one woman and one man, not all men and all women.

She is evil, She is the "Antichrist" in her eyes and she wants Him who She sees as good to kill what is evil. Of course all the extra artsy crap is what muddles this message and it seems to be what everybody is getting hung up on. They can't seem to see the forest for all the trees.

"Antichrist's" pretentiousness is really its own worst enemy but I kind of think that's what von Trier was going for. The infamous is almost always vastly more popular than the famous and to be reviled gets a lot more attention.

Now don't get me wrong, this is a beautifully shot, well acted movie. But between the violence, the nudity, the explicit sex, and everything else at its heart "Antichrist" is just a 70s exploitation movie with delusions of grandeur.

I myself can't deny that it's not a "bad" movie but there's really nothing special about it other than the shocking and grotesque, and that makes it more of a novelty than a film.


It seems deep but it's really just a disguise for how shallow it is and once the shock of what you've just seen wears off it's just like any other violent "people in the woods" movie. I don't dislike it but ultimately I have no desire to ever see it again.

I give "Antichirst" a 3 out of 5. Worst kung fu move EVER!

Pandorum (2009)


Directed by: Christian Alvart

Starring: Ben Foster, Dennis Quaid

Other Actors of Note: Norman Reedus

Plot: Two astronauts awaken in a hyper-sleep chamber aboard a seemingly abandoned spacecraft. It's pitch black, they are disoriented, and the only sound is a low rumble and creak from the belly of the ship. They can't remember anything: Who are they? What is their mission? With Lt. Payton staying behind to guide him via radio transmitter, Cpl. Bower ventures deep into the ship and begins to uncover a terrifying reality. Slowly the spacecraft's shocking, deadly secrets are revealed...and the astronauts find their own survival is more important than they could ever have imagined. Taken from www.imdb.com.


If there's one sub-genre of horror I like more than period-horror (That's horror that takes place in the past, not horror involving menstruation) it's a good old claustrophobic space horror that isn't a sequel to a series of horror movies that previously took place not in space. (I firmly think that after they turned "Ginger Snaps" into period horror with "Ginger Snaps Back" they should make one in space and called it "Ginger Snaps Back to the Future")

Examples of these movies are "Alien", "Event Horizon", and the good part of "Doom" (I think there was a good part, for some reason when I think about that movie in-depth I begin sobbing uncontrollably and forget who I am for a month) so while I was stoked for "Pandorum" due to its cast and its premise I waited until it came to the dollar theaters because I've been hurt before and if I'm going to pay to be fucked by a cheap dirty whore of a movie, I'd at least like to spend less money for it.

"Pandorum" can best be explained as "Event Horizon" meets "The Descent" with a little bit of "Sphere" thrown in there for good measure. Our hero, Corporal Bower (Ben Foster) wakes up from hyper-sleep aboard a giant space ship, its 500-year mission: to boldy get the fuck away from a dying Earth and form a colony on an Earth-like planet several hundred years away.

Judging by the fact that Bower is alone, the power is frequently flickering, and the reactor seems close to meltdown then the people in charge of that probably did their jobs rather piss-poorly. Shortly after Bower wakes up, he's greeted by another officer: Lieutenant Payton (Dennis Quaid). It seems that both suffer from horrible memory loss from being in hyper sleep for God knows how long. So Payton sends Bower up into the ducts to figure out what's wrong and fix it.

But soon Bower comes upon a group of savage humanoid monsters that seem to gut and eat whatever human they come upon. They're fast, strong, and incredibly savage with no explanation as to what they are. Shortly thereafter Bower hooks up with some stereotypes and they all head off to the reactor to unfuck the ship and not get killed and eaten before everything assplodes.

Meanwhile, Payton gets visited by Gallo, another crew member from the bridge who seems to have a bad case of Pandorum (a case of wicked-bad "Ren and Stimpy" style Space Madness) a disorder which caused the officer on the bridge of a similar vessel to jettison the entire crew into space.


Ben Foster is one of the best and most under-rated actors working today and most of the reason why I give Shia LaBeouf a break for making "Eagle Eye." While the premise of "Pandorum" was interesting, it was Foster's name on the post that got my ass in the theater to actually see the movie.

Gladly Foster doesn't disappoint and delivers a believable and solid performance, it's just a shame the script doesn't give him much to do with is character. Bower gets kind of undercut as a character while Payton gets a shit-ton of depth. It's a solid role but I wish they would've given Ben Foster a bit more to chew on to make Corporal Bower a truly great and memorable character. As it is he's the most spectacular bland 2 an a half dimensional character in a world of 2-dimensional characters.

Dennis Quaid on the other hand doesn't quite fill the shoes of his character. Quaid gives a good performance but there's a lot more he could've done with Payton that it feels like he didn't. Payton undergoes a change midway through the movie and I felt that Quaid could have and should have handled the change better than he did. He doesn't come across in the way he should at that point. I really can't elaborate on it further without giving too much away, just trust me that you'll know it when you see it.


Early in the movie "Pandorum" ties into a lot of primal fears in much the same way that "The Descent" did. It ties into the fear of waking up in a strange place with no idea where you are or what's going on, the fear of the dark (the shadows seem to be a living thing, actively trying to keep us from the seeing more than a couple feet around the characters), fear of being completely alone, and an early scene involving Bower climbing through a ventilation shaft full of hydraulic hoses and getting stuck had my non-claustrophobic self squirming uncomfortably.

Unfortunately halfway into the movie all that shit gets thrown out the window. Bower hooks up with 3 stereotypes, gets in spacious well-lit areas, gets all his memory back, and even his stupid fist gun that didn't work against the monster before starts magically working. This is when the movie tries to scramble to get the terror back and starts playing up the monsters which aren't scary anymore now that you've seen them in plain view several times and moving forward some sort of half-baked mindfuck angle.

Unfortunately neither of these things are even slightly scary and managed to be less creepy than "Ghosts of Mars" in my eyes. It also seems to try and make us think that the monsters are all hallucinations and results of Pandorum but that idea has more plot holes than the plot of "High Tension" which is probably why it doesn't try very hard to convince us and ultimately just gives up altogether. Then we're treated to some kind of "Twilight Zone" meets "Planet of the Apes" reveal and the movie ends.

I'm told that "Pandorum" is part one of a trilogy but I really don't understand how that could happen unless they want to pull a "Chronicles of Riddick." Which, given the name of said trick, should signify that that's a terrible idea.

Of note is the fact that Paul W.S. Anderson (director of both "Event Horizon" and "Doom") appears in the credits as a producer. So anything wrong with this movie can probably be blamed on him (even if it's not actually his fault. He still owes us for "Doom.")

One final thing. I don't know who the sound editor for this movie is, but he deserves to be fired. So many times during the movie the ship's rumbling noises or the rave-metal soundtrack were louder than the voice track and you couldn't hear what the characters were saying. This might have been less annoying if it didn't seem to happen only when crucial plot points were being discussed. It was extremely sloppy, especially for a movie that, aside from the script, was very well put together.


"Pandorum" is by no means a perfect movie, it's certainly not as good as "Alien" or "Event Horizon" but it's better than "Doom." The sound design and the execution of the second half of the movie hurt things for sure, but they don't ruin what is a mostly effective horror movie.

I give "Pandorum" a 4 out of 5. It worth paying to see, just don't get your hopes up too high.

Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant (2009)


Directed by: Paul Weitz

Starring: Chris Massoglia, Josh Hutcherson, John C. Reilly, Ray Stevenson
Other Actors of Note: Orlando Jones, Salma Hayek

Plot: A young boy named Darren Shan meets a mysterious man at a freak show who turns out to be a Vampire. After a series of events Darren must leave his normal life and go on the road with the Cirque Du Freak and become a Vampire. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Movies based on young adult books! Movies based on vampire fiction! Movies based on vampire fiction involving friendship, romance, and life lessons! Sweet Jesus, why don't I just put a gun barrel in my mouth now!

I was lured into "Cirque du Freak" on 3 levels of trickery: 1) John C. Reilly in a role that didn't look retarded, B) An effective trailer that made it look like a cross between "Little Monsters" and "Nightbreed" and III) I didn't know it was based on a series of books made for angsty tweens.

Now mind you when I found out the third fact it didn't bother me because it still looked better than "Twilight" and I actually sat through that. Also at least author Darren Shan had the balls to admit that his book was nothing more than fantasy role-playing with himself as the main character.

It's about Darren Shan (Hey, that's the author's name!) played by Chris Massoglia and his horribly convoluted journey from nobody to... nobody with fangs! So he and his rebel-without-a-cause best friend Steve (played by the ludicrously douchey and terribly untalented actor Josh Hutcherson) do some angsty teen shit, Darren gets in trouble so his parents make him promise to stop being friends with Steve, he agrees but continues to be friends anyway.

Steve gets very upset about this for reasons unexplained (perhaps he was planning to ask for Darren's father's blessing to marry his son, or perhaps he was just getting the menstrual cramps real hard) and makes constant snide remarks about being Darren's "secret" best friend. (Editor's Note: Guys don't care about this! Especially not teenagers!) Suddenly an elaborately creepy limo comes out of an inexplicable cloud of fog and drops an invitation at their feet. The invitation is to a freak show called Cirque du Freak. (Hey, that's the name of this movie!)

So they go to the freak show and we're treated to a bunch of mystifying acts of freakdom which is followed by the final act of vampire Larten Crepsley (John C. Reilly) and his amazing CGI spider that looks like the one that bit Spider-Man. We're now treated to an arbitrary flashback/monologue that explains how spiders make Darren tingle in his awkward teenage boy parts. He immediately falls in love with the spider and decides, naturally, to steal it.

As Darren goes to steal the spider he is almost caught by Crepsley, but hides behind a curtain and watches as Willem Defoe, playing some character that isn't important but does prove that he's a shoe-in for Gomez Addams if they ever want to make another "Addams Family" movie, enters followed by Steve.

Steve throws some generic whiny CW bullshit about and spills out enough angst to fill the mosh pit at a "My Chemical Romance" concert 3 times over. It seems he saw a picture of Crepsley in his "vampire book" and he wants to be a vampire because his mother is pregnant with cancer and his father beats him with a garden hose full of bees or some shit.

Naturally Crepsley denies, because Jesus there are enough whiny immortal losers running around sodomizing underage girls in the world. So Steve marches off in a huff, threatening to kill Crepsley. It is then that Darren makes some noise and runs outside where the scary limo from earlier pulls up and a creepy looking fat man urges him to get in.

Now being a wimpy white boy alone and defenseless in a shitty part of town he decides to hop in the care and meets Mr. Tiny (Michael Cerveris) and Murlaugh (Ray Stevenson) who probably has siblings named Murcry, and Murmaider. Some shit happens that really isn't important.

So Darren is keeping this spider in his locker and it gets loose, so naturally Steve tries to kill it in an inexplicably angry moment that seems to combine retard strength and shaken baby syndrome into some sort of mutant freak of acting. Naturally Steve gets bit, unfortunately the spider is like uber poisonous (and that's uber with an umlaut, not a regular u, that means it's hard core) and rather than giving Steve the power to do whatever a spider can, it gives him the power to die super hard core like that old guy in "Arachnaphobia."

So Darren comes to get the antidote from Crepsley. Crepsley agrees to do it on the one condition that Darren must now become a vampire because... that's never really explained. Darren agrees, he dies, comes back, and joins a freakshow.

But see, vampires are good folk that only take small amounts of blood from humans while the monstrous vampanese (a moniker that really only sounds increasingly more racist each time it's spoken aloud: I'm sure this was the least offensive name Shan came up with after his editor shot down his original choices of "Vietnampanese", "Vampanegros", and "Dirty Vampire Jews") appear to suck blood the old fashion way. Naturally Mr. Tiny makes Steve a Vampanese as well and it leads up to a climax that promises to be as extreme as at least 5 bags of Cool Ranch Doritos. (Maybe even 6!)


Chris Massoglia gives a bland soul-less performance only slightly more emotive than Zooey Deschanel's Stepford-Actress performance from "The Happening." It doesn't really help that Darren is kind of a dickhead and more than a little bit of a bigot. It would be really hard to like this guy if he was played by a good actor. As it stands, Massoglia just makes him suck all that much more.

Of course Massoglia deserves a big burlap sack filled with SAG awards compared to Josh Hutcherson. Massoglia's bad performance can at least be chalked up to that he's been in like 5 things in his career, but Hutcherson's been acting for a while and not only has a sub-par child actor matured into a major douchebag, he's matured into one that couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. While Massoglia gives a dull dispassionate performance, Hutcherson seems to actively go out of his way to suck.

Ray Stevenson chews the scenery here in ways you could never imagine. Seeing normally quiet and scary Stevenson play an over-the-top campy vampire lord is about as jarring as coming home to see a large man sitting at the table wearing your mother's flayed face for a mask and pretending that everything is normal. Though maybe that's the point, maybe the uncomfortable feeling you get from watching Stevenson ham it up is intentional and even campy he does a brilliant job (certainly better than he did in "Punisher: War Zone")

The big surprise, and the sole redeeming grace of this movie, is John C. Reilly. Reilly plays a character that is sarcastic, witty, deep, and sympathetic with the sort of grace that you never could have imagined an actor like John C. Reilly pulling off. He certainly proves that he's capable of pulling off serious roles even if this role suffers from Dennis Hopper syndrome (Great performance by an awesome actor playing a shitty role in a godawful movie.)


A brief nod to special effects here: Michael Cerveris' fat suit is so well done that I literally had no clue he wasn't really morbidly obese till I saw he was the same guy from "Fringe." I salute you, make-up department.

Now as you can tell by this review so far that's been dripping with thick greasy sarcasm, the plot is contrived, mostly pointless, and pretty fucking stupid. Not only is the friction between Darren and Steve unrealistic, it's played out with all the grace of an episode of "Degrassi."

Honestly, the big weak link her is the storyline. Instead of concentrating on the story of a newly-born vampire and his trials and tribulations with evil vampires the movie would have been far more interesting if it covered the members of the freakshow being set upon by the forces of evil. Of course, the screenwriter couldn't change the books but still. (Though I do understand an early script for "The Vampire's Apprentice" was about a 20-something loser joining a guild of elite assassins that get their orders from a magical loom that's translated by a swearing Morgan Freeman. Don't know what happened to that.)

Though if you absolutely have to keep the vampires (and the "Twilight" crowd seems to dictate that you do) then the freak show is immaterial. Honestly it's a meaningless talisman in the plot and really has nothing to do with the rest of the movie. The author and screenwriter should've just picked a side and stuck with it.

Of course, who am I to judge "Cirque du Freak" as the piece of shit I saw it as. Clearly this movie wasn't "for" me, it's for young adults (meaning 15-17 year olds, and immature 18-30 year olds) so naturally it's poorly written crap with only the vaguest hint of a plot and characters that could only mystify an audience that made "The Hills" a hit TV show.


In short, "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" is a bad movie that is not without its charms (John C. Reilly and Ray Stevenson) that just barely seem to redeem its flaws (bad writing, barely-there-plot, terrible young leads) so while it's not utter shit, it's far from a good movie.

I give "Cirque du Freak: The Vampire's Assistant" a 3 out of 5. John C. Reilly's performance manages to keep it out of the 2 out of 5 range by a hair. Plus hey, it's better than "Twilight", and that counts for something, dammit!

But hey, if you like this angsty vampire shit then you're probably already started furiously rubbing your damp crotch while your limited addition Edward Cullen vibrating butt-plug brings you to slow gothic nirvana. And hey, it's cool if you enjoy a bad movie, everybody enjoys at least one. Besides, if you're embarrassed then maybe it can just be your secret best movie.

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)


Directed by: Spike Jonze

Starring: Max Records, James Gandolfini

Other Actors of Note: Mark Ruffalo, Forest Whitaker, Catherine O'Hara, Chris Cooper

Plot: An adaptation of Maurice Sendak's classic children's story, where Max, a disobedient little boy sent to bed without his supper, creates his own world--a forest inhabited by ferocious wild creatures that crown Max as their ruler. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Maurice Sendak's book "Where the Wild Things Are" is easily one of the best known and beloved children's books of all time. However the book is only about 10 pages long with most of those 10 pages being made up of pictures. So it was certainly a question of how one could take such a bare bones simple story like "Where the Wild Things Are" and turn it into a full-length movie.

We know how it starts, Max is a kid with some serious anger issues and behaves in a crazed manner whilst dressed in his wolf costume/pajamas. But instead of being sent to this room this time he runs away from home and climbs aboard a sailboat he finds and goes to a faraway island in the middle of the ocean where he meets the "wild things."


Max Records is a great little actor. I don't think any child star I've ever seen has ever been able to capture the feeling of what it's like to be a child like Max has in this movie. He captures the simple joys, the fear, the anger, the sadness, and the frustration of being a child and puts it out there for all to see. He really is perfect for this role and the scene where he comes stomping down the stairs in his wolf costume with his arms crossed it looks as though he's just walked right out of the book.

I've long said that it's hard to judge a voice actor's performance. Voice acting is honestly acting stripped down to its barest form. As long as you're a halfway decent actor you'll do fine and only truly masterful actors like Mark Hammil and Patrick Warburton ever seem to do anything spectacular with it.

That said, James Gandolfini gives a performance that easily earns the man an Oscar nod and makes you go. Tony who? If Gandolfini ever needed a performance to show people that he could play more than just a hotheaded mob boss or a hired goon, this was it. Gandolfini is alternately sweet, sad, whimsical, and even scary. Sometimes several at once. Max is a great character, but it's Gandolfini's Carol that really drives Max's character along.


You'll be pleased to know that the wild things are done perfectly. The perfect marriage of CG and classic puppeteer you never feel that Max is interacting with a CG model. The wild things feel like real breathing creatures and that's part of what helps make things so real. The film wouldn't have had the impact it does if the monsters were done strictly with computer animation.

The world of the wild things seems both desolate and beautific, like a world built on the ruins of another. It always seems the wild things are interlopers in a land that once belonged to a long forgotten race of people, or perhaps they're the last of a species of creatures having forgotten what they once were and where they come from.

It's clear that the wild things are very alone on their island, save for a raccoon named Richard, two squawking owls named Bob and Terry, and a giant dog that roams the desert. None of these new additions are given any explanation and remain as out of place and random as the wild things themselves.

For the most part the wild things seem content to be alone but at the same time they seem very sad. Only KW ever seems to be somewhat happy with her station in life and it seems she's more mature than the others; especially the unruly Carol whose tantrums and anger issues mirror and even overwhelm Max's own.

Each wild thing seems to represent its own mental stigma. Carol is anger, Alexander is never paid attention to by the other wild things, Ira is modest to the point of low self-esteem, Judith is jealousy, Douglas is shy and though he's the voice of reason he never seems to speak up soon enough, the only one that doesn't fit this mold is The Bull who doesn't even talk to the very end or have a proper name.

Perhaps the wild things are parts of Max's personality, though KW's representation of a child growing up while still trying to hold onto childish things in many way mirrors Max's sister from earlier in the film.

A lot is left to interpretation but the theme of the book (kid is bad, kid goes to magical faraway land, kid deals with monsters that are worse then he is, kid learns lesson and goes home) is intact, even if it's stretched so thin you can see through it.

What struck me is that "Where the Wild Things Are" is not a movie for kids. They will be either bored, depressed, or terrified. Of course maybe it's a bit forward of me and all of us to think this is a children's movie just simply because it's based on a children's book and rated PG is jumping to conclusions. After all, most of the kids who grew up with this book are adults now. Maybe this is simply just a film to hearken back to kid in all of us. And I must admit, watching this, I felt 6-years-old again.

However there are some pacing issues. The movie is slow and seems to take a little long to get where it's going. This wasn't issue for most of the movie, but certain parts seemed to be drawn out.


It's a long, slow, and painfully emotional movie that is absolutely not recommended for children. But it's still a beautifully shot movie with a lot of heart that will appeal the child inside.

I give "Where the Wild Things Are" a 4 out of 5. You have to see it at least once.

Paranormal Activity (2009)


Directed by: Oren Peli

Starring: Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat

Plot: After moving into a suburban home, a couple becomes increasingly disturbed by a nightly demonic presence. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Remember the "Blair Witch Project?" Remember how that found footage look was played as real and the makers went so far as to use the actors' real names for their characters and even made a documentary about the 3 kids that got lost in the woods?

Remember how the movie was a lot of buildup followed by 40 minutes of two out of three characters running apeshit through the woods screaming "JOOOOOOOOSH!" at the top of their lungs and shaking the camera around so much that we couldn't see anything but blurry treelimbs followed by a creepy but dissatisfying ending?

"Paranormal Activity" is not that movie. It only pretends to be real in the context of the movie (there's beginning and end caps that talk about the disappearances and the characters' names are the names of the actors) and the promotional campaign was composed of a website where people could request it to be played in their area.

Sure the hype was built up, but not near as much as with "Blair Witch" which is why I think more people enjoy it than they did with the former.

"Paranormal Activity" is the story of a funky-fresh young demon with a crush on a girl he's been watching all her life. When disaster strikes and she hooks up with a douchebag who decides to film said demon and mock his true love for her. So he decides to kill him. Picture "Whatever It Takes" only Shane West is an invisible demon.


So Katie Featherston plays the victim of a "haunting" that's followed her around since she was eight years old. Since she was a little girl some invisible thing which she assumes to be a ghost has been following her around. Unfortunately a psychic who desperately wants to be Tom Noonan tells her it is in fact a demon and that it probably wants her.

So naturally her boyfriend Micah sees this as a golden opportunity to get video footage of all kinds of supernatural shit. He guilts her into letting him do this and basically just pisses off the demon any chance he gets.

Now you'll notice I'm not talking about acting right now which you've probably figured out at this junction is what I do between picture 3 and 4. The thing is that Micah and Katie don't seem like they're acting. They're entirely convincing as a real couple really experiencing these things.

The only time you ever really get your suspension of disbelief challenged is through Micah's insistence on bringing the camera during moments where it doesn't really seem appropriate. This is pretty much explained away as he's kind of a dick and is far more interested in capturing cool supernatural shit than protecting his girlfriend. Still doesn't mesh as well as "[REC]'s" explanation of need to film/source of light or "Diary of the Dead's" crazy film-maker but it's passable I suppose.


This movie is all about immersion. For those of you not familiar with immersion, it's when you turn the TV off after watching "Poltergeist." For some horror movies immersion just enhances your experience, but for "Paranormal Activity" it is essential.

If you don't get into this movie you're going to be that fuckhead that sits there and whispers "that's not scary" at all to whoever cares to listen and ruins the movie for everyone. It is at this point where I will turn around and break a knife off in your ear because YOU ALWAYS FUCKING SIT BEHIND ME YOU CHATTY FUCKING COCK IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MOVIE THEN FUCKING LEAVE THE THEATER OR I WILL TURN ALL THE RAGE I HAVE AT THE TEXTING TWEENS ON YOU!!!!!

You should also get immersed because it won't be scary otherwise... but mostly just because I'll stab you. I've killed for less.

Now I'll be straight up with you, for the scares portion of the film this is a one-shot deal. You will only jump out of your seat at this movie once, so if that's your thing then really get into it. That part of the movie will be over with you.

However, there's more than shocks and jump scares to this movie. What "Paranormal Activity" does far better than "The Blair Witch Project" is makes an atmosphere that is tense and seems like it could explode at any minute.

"Blair Witch's" inescapable forest was kind of scary but the thought of something you can't escape no matter where you go seems to really twist the knife into that base part of your spine that makes you squirm uncomfortably.

In addition it's the creepy moments in the movie that stick with you long after the initial terror of the shock has passed on. Sure the door slamming on its own makes you jump but it's the sound of heavy footsteps coming up the stairs and the shadow that lingers on the door that really bury themselves deep down in the fear receptors of your mind.

Many say that this movie has no re-watch value, and if you're just in it to be scared out of your seat it doesn't. But only watching the movie for the jumps is like getting a nice well-cooked steak and then dousing it in ketchup.

This movie is more than cheap scares, it goes right down to the root of your fears. It attacks the viewer where they feel the safest, at home. It's a home invasion movie that manages to go even deeper than a stranger in your home: it's a stranger you can't see, hear, or feel unless it wants you to. The stranger is always watching no matter where you go or what you do. The stranger doesn't sleep, eat, or do anything other than torment you for the rest of your life and the more you try to get rid of it the harder it comes after you.

I fully look forward to watching this again alone in a dark room of my home.


"Paranormal Activity" is a movie that's very bogged down by its hype, but that shouldn't take away from the fact that this is a very chilling movie that's more than just cats jumping out of cupboards and doors slamming. Ignore the hype, see the movie!

I give "Paranormal Activity" a 5 out of 5.

Doghouse (2009)


Directed by: Jake West

Starring: Danny Dyer, Stephen Graham, Noel Clarke, and Emil Marwa

Plot: A group of men head to a remote village to help one of their friends get over his divorce; when they get there, though, they discover that all the women have been infected with a virus that makes them man-hating cannibals. Taken from www.imdb.com.


As I said in my review of "The Cottage" there's a new type of movie coming out of Britian. Movies such as "Severance", "Evil Aliens", and "The Cottage" that are filled with dark humor, usually set the film up as a genre other than horror (in this case some sort of drunken sex comedy), and involve rougher treatment of the heroes (often bodily mutilation) that's not typical to the genre.

Of this sub-genre of film I think "Doghouse" is easily the best of all. Jake West, director of "Evil Aliens", has made the slightly larger budgeted and much better acted progression of his alien horror comedy and "Doghouse" truly is everything "Evil Aliens" was and wasn't.

It's about Neil (Danny Dyer), Vince (Stephen Graham), Mikey (Noel Clarke), Matt (Lee Ingleby), Patrick (Keith-Lee Castle), Graham (Emil Marwa), and Banksy (Neil Maskell) a group of childhood friends who have gotten together for a weekend of drinking and womanizing in a remote town in Great Britian.

Unfortunately this town has become the home of an airborne virus that infects only women and turns them into murderous mutant creatures that kill and devour men. Hijinks ensue!


There's a lot of people in this movie but only 3 of them matter, let's talk about them! First up we have Noel Clarke, who you will probably remember as Mickey from the new "Doctor Who" series. Noel is important and does a good job but not important enough to talk about further!

Stephen Graham, best known as Tommy from "Snatch", is the closest thing this movie has to a main character. Vince is the victim of a nasty divorce and a beat down broken man as a result of it. The entire weekend excursion is for Vince's benefit and its his growth as a character that the movie follows. Unfortunately Vince's growth is given a sidebar a lot in favor of a few more unnecessary characters that seem to be there for the sole purpose of becoming dead.

Of course Graham is overshadowed by the always brilliant Danny Dyer as Neil, a womanizing hard drinking chauvanist who's just too awesome to not love. He plays essentially the same character he played in "Severance" and gets treated even worse in this one. Dyer is most of the reason to watch this movie and he steals every scene he's in.


This is one of those dodgy films that has a cheap thrills premise and a surprisingly deeper meaning. Of course tons of people are going to file it as straight up misogyny as they seem to have with "Antichrist" (more on that later when that film stops haunting my nightmares). The movie even seems to make fun of this with a line between Graham and Vince where Graham is mourning the infection of their female bus driver, Vince goes "This is no time to stop objectifying women."

But at its core the message here is about friendship and that you don't have to be a beaten animal to be sensitive and fair to the opposite sex. Admittedly, this sub-plot is only for people who insist on over-analyzing movies like myself and if you don't notice this lesson it shouldn't hurt your enjoyment.

"Doghouse" truly is a big messy gore-fest that's rife with juvenile humor and rude jokes. If that's not your thing then why in fucking hell are you reading this you stupid cockbag? (Go back to Canada!)
It starts out a bit like a zombie movie but partway through the women go into "phase 2" which causes them to mutate and become faster, stronger, and smarter (and inexplicably get spikes on their shoulders.)

As far as plot goes... eh... As I said, all the non-Vince characters with the possible exception of Graham and a few others are there to simply die or become horribly injured. There is some effort to explain the epidemic in the form of some weapons testing involving bogus laundry detergent and a politician named Meg Nut. Of course we're only given the very basic knowledge of this and never really find out what Meg Nut has to do with any of it. Perhaps it's foreshadowing a sequel, but I really don't see how.

These gripes are all rather small however as if you're looking at plot and meaning then you're really looking at this movie too close and should start your own shitty blog where you curse and berate whatever random strangers stumble in looking for a webcomic about indie-rock enthusiasts.


It's a brutal, gory, and very fun movie that is worth wasting the hour and a half on for cheap entertainment value. You can get something more out of "Doghouse" than just gooey enjoyment but there's really no need to.

I give "Doghouse" a 5 out of 5. Buy it. (unless you're American, then you have to either get a region free DVD player or wait for someone to release it stateside.)

What's that? Torrents? Why those are illegal! That would be wrong.

And remember kids...

The Cottage (2008)


Directed by: Paul Andrew Williams

Starring: Andy Serkis, Reece Shearsmith, Jennifer Ellison, Steven O'Donnell

Plot: In a remote part of the countryside, a bungled kidnapping turns into a living nightmare for four central characters when they cross paths with a psychopathic farmer and all hell breaks loose. Taken from www.imdb.com


I watched the movie "From Dusk Till Dawn" when I was far too young to see it. I was in 3rd grade and my brother's friend brought it over to watch. The deal made to me was that I could stay up and watch it with them if I didn't tell Mom and Dad and I sat quietly and watched.

Of course, knowing absolutely nothing of this movie, I didn't know it was a movie about vampires. I thought I was watching a movie about 2 criminals on the road to Mexico. So when the vampires came into this movie my mind was blown. I gained a greater appreciation for the movie than those going in expecting vampires.

The bait-and-switch method used in "From Dusk Till Dawn" has now become popular in British horror comedies with an offbeat sense of dark humor known for the characteristics of offering up a story that doesn't start out as horror, mutilating its leading characters, and ending on ambiguous or downbeat terms.

This is, in my mind, the true British comedy-horror movie as "Shaun of the Dead" was using a style pioneered by American director Sam Raimi and later utilized by New Zealand director Peter Jackson.

"The Cottage" is a movie where you'll wonder if what you're watching is even a horror movie. At first it just seems like a dark crime comedy that will involve the main characters/kidnappers David (Andy Serkis) and his wimpy younger brother Peter (Reece Shearsmith) taking on a couple of Asiain hitmen in the woods. This setup leads you to believe you are about to watch utter shit.

Of course, that's where the twist comes in. About halfway through the movie Andy Serkis' character takes a trip into town to use a phone and is accosted by local townsfolk telling him to stay indoors and not go outside for any reason. This is where things take a turn for the weird as all the characters become accosted by a giant deformed man in a flannel shirt and that's when the movie becomes brilliant.


Reece Shearsmith is what passes for the main character of this piece. A wimpy whiny imbecilic man who is married to a giant horrible woman, has an abusive sibling, and spends most of the movie getting his ass beat by a girl. Peter is an endearing but horribly annoying character and while I understand the comedic reasons why they chose Peter to shoulder most of the story I would of much rather followed David, and speaking of David...

Most people only know Andy Serkis as Gollum from the "Lord of the Rings" movies and as the motion capture guy behind the giant monkey in "King Kong." Those people will also be surprised to find that Serkis is actually a rather large and reasonably intimidating man and a damn good actor to boot. David is the best character in this movie by far and doesn't get near enough screen time.

Jennifer Ellison plays Tracey, the kidnappee in Peter and David's extortion plan. Tracey is a horrible shrewd harpy woman who you can't wait to die. Of course that's the point, but even still she's hard to stomach.


The plot-twist in "The Cottage" and where it takes the film are the best part but the lead up is a bit weak. As I said, up until the twist I was watching just out of sheer dedication to see the end credits and the first half of the movie is pretty sparse and lackluster.

Of course I'm biased about the twist as, just like "From Dusk Till Dawn" those many years ago I didn't know a damn thing about the movie and the twist came as a huge surprise to me. But due to the padded prologue, the finale feels incredibly rushed. I was watching the seconds tick away and was wondering how in the hell they planned to resolve the movie in the time they had left.

As such the ending seems incredibly rushed and as such I found that to be the worst part of the movie as things seem unfinished and hurried along. Though the ending just before the credits hit is great even if you do see it coming.


Of the "dumb Englishmen getting assaulted by thing in the woods" horror comedy (of which there are a lot more than you think) "The Cottage" isn't as good as "Severance" and the opening is tedious to say the least. But the second half of the film, though rushed, makes up for the shortcomings of the first.

I give "The Cottage" a 4 out of 5.

Extract (2009)


Directed by: Mike Judge
Starring: Jason Bateman, Mila Kunis, Kristen Wiig, Ben Affleck

Other Actors of Note: J.K. Simmons, Clifton Collins Jr., David Koechner, Gene Simmons, Beth Grant

Plot: Joel, the owner of an extract manufacturing plant, constantly finds himself in precarious situations that steadily worsen by the minute. First, his soon-to-be floor manager acquires a serious injury in a machine malfunctioning accident that subsequently endangers the wellbeing of his company. Second, his personal life doesn't fair much better when he takes the advice of his bartending friend Dean during a drug-induced brainstorming session on how to test his wife's faithfulness. Finally, compounding these catastrophes is new employee Cindy, who happens to be a scam artist intent on milking the company for all its worth. Now, Joel must attempt to piece his company and his marriage back together all while trying to figure out what he's really after in life. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Mike Judge is a masterfully clever writer who has made an impact on the comedy world with MTV's "Beavis and Butthead" and his animated dramady about life in Texas "King of the Hill", but no Mike Judge project has ever recieved the same amount of love as the 1999 sleeper hit "Office Space." This clever satire of an office environment starring Rob Livingston, Jennifer Anniston, and Gary Cole is a beloved comedy classic 10 years later.

After Judge's good but lackluster "Idiocracy" people were waiting for the next big thing from the man behind "Office Space." Soon trailers for "Extract" came out and posters appearing with the proclamation that Mike Judge was "going back to work." Everything that "Extract" had to offer seemed to be an "Office Space"-style send-up of the factory-warehouse industry. An industry just as, if not moreso, deserving of a satire as office work.

Unfortunately, "Extract" is not that movie. It's about Joel (Jason Bateman) a married man who has brought his vanilla extract business up from the ground. Joel is having problems with his increasingly more passionless wife Suzie(Kristen Wiig).

Joel finds out from his second in command Brian (J.K. Simmons) that General Mills is interested in buying the company. But problems start when employee "Step" (Clifton Collins Jr.) loses one of his testicles in an accident.

Con-woman and oppurtunist Cindy (Mila Kunis) befriends Step and convinces him to sue the company with the help of an ambulance-chasing lawyer Joe Adler. (Gene Simmons in a send-up of Texas attorney and very angry man Jim Adler: The Texas Hammer.)

As Joel deals with the threat of losing his company he has to deal with a mess of his own creation, as in a drunken moment of weakness he hired a gigolo (Dustin Milligan) to seduce his wife so that he could cheat on her guilt-free.


Have you seen "Arrested Development?" Well then you'll be glad to know that Michael Bluth has now moved to Texas and started an artificial flavoring company. Jason Bateman literally plays the same character that put him on the map (no, not "Teen Wolf", dumbass) and while this isn't necessarily a bad thing it's not that great either.

Bateman does have a talent for making the shitty things that Joel does seem excusable and you really do feel like he's a victim of circumstance rather than a jerk. At times this movie is painful to watch just because you know there's no good way for to make it out of this movie.

Mila Kunis is boring as the con-woman Cindy, still managing to nudge herself slightly ahead of Kristin Wiig's bad Jennifer Anniston impersonation. While neither actress is entirely important to the story they both could have done more with their characters.

Clifton Collins Jr. does a truly understated performance as Step, the self-important redneck that you've worked with in any warehouse/factory industry job you've ever done. Collins plays white trash so well that anyone not familiar with him can't even tell he's Latino. (Which considering he's played some of the most atypical Latino characters in film that's pretty impressive.) Beth Grant, J.K. Simmons, Javier Gutierrez, and T.J. Miller all give perfect performances as other industry-specific archetypes (The racist old lady with horrible fashion sense, the manager who can't remember anyone's name, the quiet Mexican who does his job but gets blamed for everything, and the dumb ass forklift driver respectively.)

Ben Affleck shows why he was never meant for leading man material as Dean, easily the best performance he's done in years as the drug-dealing man-pimp/bartender and Joel's best friend. Affleck has several great memorable lines and is out of the way enough to make his screen time enjoyable.

Of course, the real scene stealer in the movie is David Koechner (AKA that guy who's in, like, every movie) as Joel's neighbor Nathan. Nathan is "that guy" who won't shut the hell up, bothers you constantly, and never seems to take the hint that you don't like him. Koechner plays this role so pitch-perfectly that all his scenes are brilliantly hilarious.

Dustin Milligan plays a stereotypical stupid man-whore. That's really all that needs to be said about that.

Now as I said above, this is NOT "Office Space" in a factory. While there is some great satire of the industry, the job is a very small and unimportant part of the movie. The movie is more a satire of life in general with several wonderful archetypes played perfectly.

In many ways "Extract" is an extended episode of "King of the Hill" where the entire world is satire and the story is playing as a series of unfortunate events happening to the main character. But more than anything, "Extract" feels like Mike Judge doing The Coen Brothers.

The situation shows Joel as the great things in his life have started to pique and he's heading in a downward acr into a series of increasingly more horrible situations. By midway through the movie you're wondering if Joel is even going to survive the movie at all. But then just as you second-guess things the narrative takes a turn and everything starts to go good again.

If you fell for it, don't fell bad, even though Judge is famous for this bait-and-switch method in almost every episode of "King of the Hill" it took me by surprise as well. Perhaps it was the Coen-lite feel of the movie that threw me off, but I honestly expected the movie to end with him being hit by a bus. This just shows that Judge's take on mankind is decidedly more optimistic than Joel and Ethan Coen's.

The movie has some great bits and is ultimately satisfying but those of you coming to see something of "Office Space" caliber will be disappointed.


"Extract" is a good movie, certainly better than Judge's previous directoral effort "Idiocracy", but still a far cry from the comedic magic he captured with "Office Space." Still, Mike Judge is on the way back up and I look forward to seeing more.

I give "Extract" a 4 out of 5. It's good, not great, give it a rent.

Zombieland (2009)


Directed by: Ruben Fleisher

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, Abigail Breslin

Other Actors of Note: Amber Heard, Bill Murray

Plot: In the horror comedy Zombieland focuses on two men who have found a way to survive a world overrun by zombies. Columbus is a big wuss -- but when you're afraid of being eaten by zombies, fear can keep you alive. Tallahassee is an AK-toting, zombie-slaying' bad ass whose single determination is to get the last Twinkie on earth. As they join forces with Wichita and Little Rock, who have also found unique ways to survive the zombie mayhem, they will have to determine which is worse: relying on each other or succumbing to the zombies. Taken from www.imdb.com.


Any time a movie that features zombies (or anything vaguely resembling zombies for that matter) it's always met with a review of "like 'Shaun of the Dead'." This invariably leads to disappointment as nothing is ever like "Shaun of the Dead."

Now, even more cringe-worthy for horror fans than the above is when it's called the American equivalent to "Shaun of the Dead" as American humor and British humor are nothing even vaguely similar to each other so such a thing is impossible.

However, "Zombieland" is the American equivalent to "Shaun of the Dead." Grand in scope yet focusing on a very small group of survivors, a romantic comedy that deals with friendship and trust, and a plot involving a safe haven that is tied more to nostalgia than any sort of logical belief that it will be even moderately safe.

Of course, many people will be dissatisfied with this movie on that comparison as they don't realize what that comparison means. "Zombieland" is a toned down zombie apocalypse that implies a lot more than it shows and shows just enough to be passable to the average horror fan but palatable to the average moviegoer as well. As such, there isn't really a lot of "horror" in "Zombieland."

It's a movie that's been sweetened up and toned down so that it will be likeable by a mass audience. Now STOP! Quit your fucking crying, you wanted this and we're going to talk about why what I just said isn't necessarily a bad thing. Hell, "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" was rated PG with nary a drop of blood present and it still managed to be one of the creepiest things I've ever seen.

So anyway our hero is Columbus (all the characters are named after their destinations rather than their actual names according to Harrelson's Tallahasse so that they wont get too attached) a 20-something dork who has managed to survive due to the rules he has set out.

Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) is a loner which was part of how he's survived so well this long, but he's beginning to miss people and is on his way to Columbus, Ohio to try and find his family. It is on his road to home that he meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). A shit-kicking badass with a love of twinkies, killing zombies in elaborate manners, and painting Dale Earnhardt's number on the door of every vehicle he drives.

The two meet up with Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock ("Little Miss Sunshine's" Abigail Breslin) who promptly rob them blind and leave them for dead. Naturally they meet again and become fast friends and Wichita and Columbus fall in love.


Jesse Eisenberg plays our hero Columbus who's quiet, shy, and not particularly confident. I know Eisenerg invented the whole "shy cute dorky guy" thing but there are times that he seems to be channeling Michael Cera, although briefly. Eisenberg is a likeable "everyman" type of hero that is an exaggerated play on the theme of losers and nobodies becoming heroes in a post-zombie world. He's a capable protagonist and helps move some of the sweeter side-plots along.

Woody Harrelson is the show stealer as anyone can imagine. Tallahassee is like a kid in a grown man's body with a love of destruction and loud noises. He has a very childish sense of humor and plays nicely off of Eisenberg's reserved seriousness. However, there's a moment toward the midway point where we learn something about Tallahassee that adds a degree of depth to his character which Harrelson pulls off flawlessly.

Wishing no offense to Emma Stone, any actress could have played her part, or at least played it as well. Wichita is the least fleshed out of our four leads and at teams is actually rather unlikeable as a selfish person with trust issues who takes advantage of everyone except her kid sister. I feel that the writers could have crafted a better romantic interest for Columbus, as it stands "romantic interest" is the only actual purpose that Wichita seems to serve.

Abigail Breslin's Little Rock is no more necessary to the plot than Wichita but having a much more talented actress behind the wheel serves to make her endlessly more endearing. Little Rock is essentially the 12-year-old version of Wichita but Breslin manages to make this character traits funny where Emma Stone only makes them seem ugly and mean-spirited. One particular scene involving Little Rock explaining "Hannah Montana" to Tallahassee is particularly hilarious.


As I stated above, I feel one of the biggest flaws with this movie is that the two female leads feel tacked on and unnecessary. I understand they needed a romantic subplot but I felt the movie would have worked better as a road movie with Eisenberg and Harrison, bringing in Stone and Breslin midway through the second act rather than at the beginning of the first.

However once you get used to Little Rock and Wichita's malicious personalities they fit in fairly well and you can enjoy the rest of the movie which really doesn't go much of anywhere. There's a great scene with Bill Murray but it's at the very end of the second act and there's very little that happens before it.

This brings me to my next problem, the zombies at most times feel like little more than mild annoyances and after the opening of the movie there's only one other scene (the action-packed finale) where any of the characters seem to be in any real amount of danger. It builds up a sense of security that is not included in zombie movies because it makes things duller.

Of course this movie, much like "Shaun of the Dead", focuses on the romantic comedy angle first and foremost with the zombies as a backdrop. So don't be disappointed when the gore for the most part is just lots of blood and everything seems more funny than scary. This film is more of a dark comedy than horror.

However, while these things are not optimal, unless you're just too stuck up your own ass to enjoy yourself none of these problems are insurmountable. It's a fun, sweet, thoughtful, and funny movie that may not be as hardcore or as laugh out loud as you would like. But it is good.

Originally "Zombieland" was created to be a TV show and that shows with the sparce finality of the movie which plays more like a pilot than anything. Fortunately this thing grossed a shit-ton of money so it's all but confirmed for a sequel. And with a little fine tuning I feel that the flaws with this movie can be overcome in a second outing.


You may be disappointed in the reality of what "Shaun of the Dead" would look like as an American movie, in which case you should go watch "Fido" (which is also great) and let the rest of us enjoy a movie that you'll sadly never get.

I give "Zombieland" a 4 out of 5. Not a perfect movie or a must-own, but a damn good movie that deserves the love it's gotten.