I’m going to be honest- when I first saw the trailer for this movie earlier on in the year, I thought it was an elaborate prank. A sequel to a movie over 10 years old? Sure, Zombieland was popular, but what would a sequel do for a story that seemed to have ended in a pleasing manner already? Thankfully, Ruben Fleischer’s directorial return in Zombieland: Double Tap, is a fun, over-the-top, and gory zom-com that doesn’t take itself too seriously and should be watched by any fan of the first movie.
The plot follows our main group and some bonus characters as they try and find Little Rock (Breslin) after she’s run off in a fit of adolescent rebellion. The story that follows is predictable for the most part and doesn’t take itself too seriously. To compensate for the lack of innovation, the movie just has fun with itself. The action scenes are bloody and entertaining. The film doubles down on the spectacle – new zombies, more deaths, and more blood. Most of the times this turns out well, and the absurdity is entertaining to watch even if it feels similar. Likewise, a lot of the comedy is based on references and parody specifically in relation to the first movie. Sometimes it comes off as forced or goes on for too long, but this is a rarer issue and didn’t derail my enjoyment too much.
For the most part the acting in this movie suits the tone and brought me back to the feeling I had in the first movie. Harrelson, Eisenberg, and Stone all come exude the characters we know and love. Harrelson still kicks ass but is a teddy bear on the inside. Eisenberg is still a nervous, awkward, rule follower trying to find stability. Stone is still smart-witted, sarcastic, and dealing with her emotions. Breslin feels less compelling as an angsty teen, but thankfully the bonus characters pick up the slack. Deutch’s portrayal of Madison stole the show for me. Almost every time her character was on screen I laughed or chuckled. Rosario Dawson also serves as a great counterbalance to Harrelson and is a fun, if somewhat gimmicky, character.
My issues from the movie stem from two places: the disjointed nature of progression, and the fact that the sequel is set 10 years later. Like I said earlier, the movie doesn’t have a lot of twists in it and feels like a rehash of story beats from the first movie. There are some changes to keep it interesting, but the progression from point to point feels forced. It almost feels like the group travels from one location to another to do a comedy bit or to have a zombie fight and then moves on. My second concern is my primary issue with the film. The ending of the original movie set in stone/pushed characters to certain developmental stages. Given that the main cast has lived with each other for 10 years, one would expect some more growth and change along these lines. Instead, the characters feel like they picked up a few months after the end of the last film. Some of their decisions, even if fun, feel lacking once put in context.
TLDR:Zombieland: Double Tap isn’t revolutionary, but what it doesn’t do in innovation, it makes up for in raunchy comedy and exciting action scenes. Some moments feel out of place from a larger narrative standpoint, but they can’t hold back the adventure at hand.
Final Rating: 7.5/10 . If you liked Zombieland, check this movie out. If you didn’t you won’t find anything here to change your mind. The movie also isn’t too scary, so if you want a fun comedy flick to watch this film more than fills the role.
“Without other people, you might as well be a zombie.” Thought one might expect a film called Zombieland, to be primarily about zombies, Ruben Fleischer’s 2009 horror-comedy movie, merely uses them as as a backdrop to the main story at hand- a story about humanity and the paradox of trust. Like Schopenhauer’s porcupine, each of the four main characters wants to trust and open up to each other, but their respective traumas and previous misgivings serve as the real antagonists of the film, and represent the real final bosses they have to overcome.
The decision to refer to each character by a code-name exemplifies this conundrum. When Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg) first meets Tallahasee (Woody Harrelson), the latter explicitly rejects formal names, instead using places that relate to their background. The names serve as the most obvious signal that people in this world no longer trust one another- in a world over run by the un- dead, unknown people could just bring you down and/or ruin your chances of survival. Their paths soon cross with Wichita (Emma Stone) and her little sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), and from there, the real story begins.
One thing the film does really well to develop the characters in lieu of names and paltry introductions is to constantly group and re-group certain characters, to help define their individual relations to their group relations and so on. These groupings help to create a more fulfilled and nuanced picture of each character ,making their personal journeys and attempts to overcome their self-defense mechanisms more fulfilling and well-deserved.
I love how the backdrop of the movie feels so much like a video-game. The opening shot does a great job of emphasizing the chaos and destruction the zombies wreak on the planet. From the early shaky cam, to the immediate on screen death, to the imploding and devastated planet- we’re all aware that the Earth has immediately gone through something graphic, but it almost feels like an intro cut scene to a game, before the player gets control of their character. The presentation of Columbus’s “rules” also helps sell the gamey feel of everything. They become part of the environment like on-screen instructions in a game.
There are also plenty of slow-motion shots used during action sequences- like when zombies run into a weapon or experience impact. These help the moments they’re used in feel more hype and comedic. All together, the elements help us enjoy the spectacle but invest into the characters and their personal struggles, creating a more rich viewing experience.
The humor in the movie was great and felt natural. A lot if it just felt like the characters expending loose emotions and felt like a transgressive laugh, in the face of an uncaring and cruel universe. Honestly, there were a lot of moments where I wanted to go and check up if the director had read any of Georges Bataille’s works given the way the characters interact with death and tension. All the effort spent in building up the characters and situations, really helps sell some of the funnier punches the movie has to offer.
My biggest issue with the movie is with one of the movie’s strengths- Jesse Eisenberg’s constant self-narration. The movie often takes the point of view of Columbus, who often monologues or reveals his insights as certain scenes progress. But a few of these revelations felt like they took away from some of the more emotional moments of the movie. I counted at least two moments, where a series of events played out on scene, and as a viewer I could “see” the point of it and emotionally resonated with the same. But then, immediately following it, I’d hear Columbus’s voice trying to explain the significance of what I saw and try and add in a funny or wise quip. It didn’t happen enough to derail the movie or its messages, but it definitely made certain scenes less effective.
TLDR:Zombieland is a beautiful character-driven movie about trust and human relations masquerading as a zombie-comedy movie. The overall aesthetic and attention to character development really help hit some great character moments and keeps the viewer engaged, despite some distracting narrative issues.
Final Rating: 8.5/10. I enjoyed the journey through Zombieland, and would highly reccomend to anyone who needs a laugh or wants their faith in humanity to heal a bit. If you like it – Zombieland: Double Tap is coming out on the 18th of this month. I don’t know why they waited 10 years for a sequel, but better late than never.