Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Nov 1, 2019
I ended up enjoying this film
I really enjoyed the 2009 Horror/Comedy ZOMBIELAND - a truly unique and original film that blends the trendy (at the time) Zombie genre with really smart comedy populated by some truly charismatic comedic performers and a GREAT surprise cameo.
So...I greeted the news that there would be a sequel - 10 years later - with a shrug. Why would they want to revisit this tired (at this time) genre with performers that have (for the most part) gone on to "bigger and better" things (including a few Oscar nominations and 1 Oscar win). But...I enjoyed the first, so I figured I'd check it out. And...for the first 20 minutes or so of this film, I sat there with my arms folded across my chest thinking "they are just trying too hard to replicate the first film". And then an interesting thing happened...
I chuckled to myself. Then I chuckled some more, and then I started laughing out loud and at about the 1 hour mark, I realized, "I'm really enjoying myself".
Credit, I think, has to go the charm, charisma and chemistry between the 4 returning leads - Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin and Woody Harrelson. It was like running into 4 old friends and old, comfortable, patterns re-emerge (kind of liking eating comfort food). These are ably assisted by good, fun turns by the likes of Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch. Special mention has to be made of Zoey Deutsch's turn as blonde air-head, Madison. This could have easily been a one-note, annoyance. but she brings something more to role that makes her endearing, not cloying.
The original creative team - Director Ruben Fleischer and Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick - are back as well, so the style and humor are similar to the first film - not really bringing much new to the proceedings, but not just "getting a paycheck" either.
This film is "nothing new", but I enjoyed it anyway - so if you liked the first Zombieland, you'll like this one as well. ONE NOTE - there is a "credits scene" as well as a "button scene" at the end of the credits that are MUST WATCH. So stick around for those, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...I greeted the news that there would be a sequel - 10 years later - with a shrug. Why would they want to revisit this tired (at this time) genre with performers that have (for the most part) gone on to "bigger and better" things (including a few Oscar nominations and 1 Oscar win). But...I enjoyed the first, so I figured I'd check it out. And...for the first 20 minutes or so of this film, I sat there with my arms folded across my chest thinking "they are just trying too hard to replicate the first film". And then an interesting thing happened...
I chuckled to myself. Then I chuckled some more, and then I started laughing out loud and at about the 1 hour mark, I realized, "I'm really enjoying myself".
Credit, I think, has to go the charm, charisma and chemistry between the 4 returning leads - Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Abigail Breslin and Woody Harrelson. It was like running into 4 old friends and old, comfortable, patterns re-emerge (kind of liking eating comfort food). These are ably assisted by good, fun turns by the likes of Rosario Dawson, Luke Wilson and Thomas Middleditch. Special mention has to be made of Zoey Deutsch's turn as blonde air-head, Madison. This could have easily been a one-note, annoyance. but she brings something more to role that makes her endearing, not cloying.
The original creative team - Director Ruben Fleischer and Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick - are back as well, so the style and humor are similar to the first film - not really bringing much new to the proceedings, but not just "getting a paycheck" either.
This film is "nothing new", but I enjoyed it anyway - so if you liked the first Zombieland, you'll like this one as well. ONE NOTE - there is a "credits scene" as well as a "button scene" at the end of the credits that are MUST WATCH. So stick around for those, you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Zombieland (2009) in Movies
Nov 12, 2019
Great Cast Makes For the Perfect Movie
Four strangers have to learn to survive together during a zombie apocalypse. Talk about a movie that checks all the boxes, Zombieland does just that! It’s got a little something for everyone.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes is a perfect setup for what you can expect throughout the movie. This isn’t your typical zombie-survival romp and I thought writer Rhett Reese did an amazing job of establishing that early. You meet and fall in love with the main character as he tries to survive a simple trip to the bathroom. You also learn how his “rules” have kept him alive so long.
Characters: 10
His name is Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg. He’s such an unlikely hero that you can’t help but root for the poor guy as he moves from one scene to the next. Many of the scenes would have played out much differently if it weren’t for his quirky personality.
The other three mains, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) add their own flare to the film as well. Tallahassee is a badass to the point where it gets extremely comical. His character motivation of searching for a Twinkie (literally!) is priceless. The ladies share a fun backstory that make them an intriguing pair. You throw all four together and you have a perfect combination.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
This apocalyptic adventure is a blast across the board from beginning to end. Even the backstories are exciting to watch. The characters help drive the story as you can somehow manage to get on board with each of their motivations for survival. The action is a blast and the slower moments are underrated gems.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Zombie movies have been done over…and over…and over…It’s a rare treat when they get it right and try to think outside of the box. I love that the film manages to take a familiar theme and make it fresh. Not only is the movie original, but it harbors some of the most memorable scenes in film.
Resolution: 10
Always nice when a movie doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. Zombieland ties up its story in tidy fashion, ending with a heartfelt bang. It immediately makes you want to watch it again.
Overall: 100
I have the utmost respect for the sheer creativity in Zombieland. Sometimes movies try too hard while others don’t try hard enough. This movie never feels forced and always feels in control of its own destiny. Even the small scenes are impactful, like the night scene where they are taking turns driving and getting to know each other in the car. Zombieland is a cinematic treat.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The first ten minutes is a perfect setup for what you can expect throughout the movie. This isn’t your typical zombie-survival romp and I thought writer Rhett Reese did an amazing job of establishing that early. You meet and fall in love with the main character as he tries to survive a simple trip to the bathroom. You also learn how his “rules” have kept him alive so long.
Characters: 10
His name is Columbus, played by Jesse Eisenberg. He’s such an unlikely hero that you can’t help but root for the poor guy as he moves from one scene to the next. Many of the scenes would have played out much differently if it weren’t for his quirky personality.
The other three mains, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), Wichita (Emma Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) add their own flare to the film as well. Tallahassee is a badass to the point where it gets extremely comical. His character motivation of searching for a Twinkie (literally!) is priceless. The ladies share a fun backstory that make them an intriguing pair. You throw all four together and you have a perfect combination.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
This apocalyptic adventure is a blast across the board from beginning to end. Even the backstories are exciting to watch. The characters help drive the story as you can somehow manage to get on board with each of their motivations for survival. The action is a blast and the slower moments are underrated gems.
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Zombie movies have been done over…and over…and over…It’s a rare treat when they get it right and try to think outside of the box. I love that the film manages to take a familiar theme and make it fresh. Not only is the movie original, but it harbors some of the most memorable scenes in film.
Resolution: 10
Always nice when a movie doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. Zombieland ties up its story in tidy fashion, ending with a heartfelt bang. It immediately makes you want to watch it again.
Overall: 100
I have the utmost respect for the sheer creativity in Zombieland. Sometimes movies try too hard while others don’t try hard enough. This movie never feels forced and always feels in control of its own destiny. Even the small scenes are impactful, like the night scene where they are taking turns driving and getting to know each other in the car. Zombieland is a cinematic treat.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated 6 Underground (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
It’s a Michael Bay film. It’s going to have so many car crashes, explosions, stunts and more of the same. Seriously. It’s Michael Bay…AND Ryan Reynolds. With the script by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick, who both have worked on Zombieland, Deadpool 1 & 2. Just to clarify, this IS an action movie. It surprises me that it was released at this time of year. I would have thought the typical release would head off the summer blockbuster season. However, Netflix has been sending out an eclectic group of movies to premiere in theaters prior to its streaming release.
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
The premise that we are set up for: super rich billionaire, Number One (Ryan Reynolds) has curated a team with members that each have a specific set of skills. The small team of specialists are all ghosts in the real world. The work that they do requires the anonymity of nonexistence. Each member of the six -person team have been chosen by Number One. Number Two (Melanie Laurent) is a former CIA Operative, Number Three (Manuel Garcia Rulfo) the very talented assassin, Number Four (Adria Arjona) is the Doctor. She is the one who can remove a bullet while the car is dodging through the traffic at breakneck speed. Number five (Ben Hardy, last seen in Bohemian Rhapsody as Roger Taylor) who is the parkour king. Rounding out the team is Number Six (Dave Franco) the Driver.
To say some parts of the film was subdued would have some people raise their collective eyebrows. However, the characters (Numbers Two to Six), have taken on the witty quips that we, as an audience have long associated with Ryan Reynolds. The writers have dispersed the wit and sarcasm to the other team members. This also helps to provide the comradery and establish the “family” concept that bonds the disparate backgrounds of each member. We are privy to a little bit of information of each team member, but I would have liked to see a little bit more history of each to fill in the personal motivation.
I enjoyed all the car chases, explosions, stunts and the international sites. It’s definitely not the typical fare of the holiday season in the theaters, but it is a very fun action movie that shoots the viewer through the story. The pacing is steady, the humor is a little sarcastic with a side of gentle familial teasing.
If you have had enough of the warm and fuzzies that the season provides in plentitude, Six Underground is a welcomed palate cleanser in this time of Yule. I certainly hope we get to see more of this team in a sequel.
4 out of 5 stars
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spiderhead (2022) in Movies
Jun 26, 2022
Weak Script Sinks This Flick
The history of cinema is littered with tales of the Mad Scientist who gets too caught up in their own experiments to the detriment of all. Once the human cost of the experiment is revealed to this seemingly sane inventor, he (it usually is a he) turns with a wild-eyed look and justifies the human expense in the name of science.
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with the Netflix Original movie SPIDERHEAD with Chris Hemsworth as the mad scientist in this scenario and Miles Teller and Jurnee Smollett as 2 of the prisoners who trade in their life sentences to be used as guinea pigs in his experiment.
It’s an interesting enough premise - one that is not new - so it is always the execution of this concept that makes (or breaks) this type of film.
Unfortunately for SPIDERHEAD, Writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are unable to elevate the premise (based on a short story by George Saunders) into anything new, unique or interesting.
Director Joseph Kosinski (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) does a yeoman’s job trying to elevate this material to something better than it is. But…kind of like trying to get me to be a Prima Ballerina…Kosinski just cannot make something out of raw material that is fundamentally flawed. He uses a few interesting camera moves and draws out suspense in enough areas to catch the audience’s interests…but not much else.
He is helped by the casting of some top notch talent. Chris Hemsworth is engaging and charismatic (initially) as the Elon Musk/Steve Jobs-esque new age inventor who is trying out some new medical serums on prisoner/volunteers. The problem with Hemsworth - who I think is a pretty good actor - is that once you start seeing the cracks in his character’s façade (and those cracks appear early on), Hemsworth’s performance turns fairly one-dimensional and he becomes a caricature of the “crazed scientist”.
The surprises to me here are the performances of Miles Teller (TOP GUN: MAVERICK) and Jurnee Smollett (LOVECRAFT COUNTRY). These are 2 performers who I’ve always felt were good but not great, but they are intriguing to watch in this. They have strong chemistry with each other and they are 2 protagonists that are easy to root for against crazed antagonist Hemsworth.
In look and feel and tone, this film reminded my of the 2014 Alex Garland marvel EX MACHINA, but where that film easily was lifted by a tremendously strong script and ideas by Garland (check it out if you haven’t seen it - it is well worth your time), SPIDERHEAD, ultimately, sinks into the chasm of a weak script with no real strong ideas/themes behind it.
Letter Grade B+ (for the Direction of Kosinksi and the performances of Teller and Smollett)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
May 18, 2018
More of the same - and that's just fine with me
Did you like the first Deadpool film? Was the humor right up your alley? Did you chuckle at the inappropriateness and the pop culture referential humor?
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you did, then you're gonna like DEADPOOL 2 - which pretty much gives your more of the same.
I have to admit that I wasn't laughing uproariously at the first 1/2 hour of Deadpool 2. I thought the filmmakers and Ryan Reynolds were trying just a bit too hard to capture the flavor and flair of the first film and so the jokes - whilst funny - gave me grins, but not guffaws. I was, if I'm honest with myself, beginning to get a little bored with the humor.
And then came the X-FORCE.
If memory serves, it was just about at the 1/2 hour mark when I had my first outloud guffaw in this theater going experience, and then the next one came just minutes later and then there was another one and another one and another one...
Credit for this must go to the writers of both Deadpool films - Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick. They, wisely, decided to add the X FORCE into this film to take the burden of the humor of this film off of the back of Reynolds and spreads it out a bit to these characters.
Not that Reynolds needed the help. He is completely comfortable in Deadpool's skin and his natural charm shines through brightly and brings us a character that is one that we like vs. one that annoys us. Speaking of annoying, TJ Miller reprises his role as Deadpool's best pal, Weasel. I have stated earlier that I find Miller annoying. But...to be fair to him...he is not in this film. Maybe that is because he is not around all that much.
Also returning from the first film is Morena Baccarin as Vanessa, Deadpool's girlfriend, Leslie Uggams as "Blind Al" and Karan Soni as Dopinder, the cab driver. It is a testament to this film that at the end, I wanted more of each of these characters (well...maybe not Weasel), but - especially - I really wanted to see more of Baccarin.
But I can't really complain because the "Big Bad" in this film, Josh Brolin, scores another triumph as CABLE. I won't give away too much about this character, but Brolin - much like his work as Thanos in INFINITY WAR - brings layers of humanity to his character and Cable is much more than just a "Bad Guy bent on destroying things."
As far as the X-Force. The less I say about them the better, but they are a highlight of this film. Terry Crews, Bill Skarsgard, a "Mystery A List Actor", Rob Delaney and, especially, Zazie Beetz are terrific as the band of misfits that Deadpool brings together to help battle Cable.
Also joining in - from the first film - are "lesser" X-Men Negasonic Teenage Warhead (Brianna Hildebrand) and Colossus (voiced by Stefan Kapcic). It was good to see them - and to see this film answer the question about "where are the other X-Men"?
Director David Leitch (ATOMIC BLONDE) keeps the action - and comedy - coming at a rip-roaring pace, not lingering on a joke or an action scene too long. Helming a nicely paced and nicely entertaining film.
As with all things Marvel, stay for the first 5 minutes of the credits for the "extra scene", it is well worth it. There is a humorous song at the end of the credits that is, quite frankly not really worth staying for.
I'm going to chalk up my experience with the first 1/2 hour of this film to me needing to get my mind on the right track for the type of movie that this is. Once I did that, I enjoyed myself quite nicely.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Life after Gravity.
Mankind is on the verge of a major milestone. The “Pilgrim” probe is returning from Mars containing soil samples that might spell the discovery of the first palpable evidence of life beyond earth. Proving that earth scientists are not completely incompetent, the probe is being returned not to earth but to a lab on the International Space Station where strict quarantine can be maintained. This key mission requirement is the responsibility of Miranda North (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation”). Supporting her is an international crew including fellow doctor David Harris (Jake Gyllenhaal, “Source Code”), professional astronaut Rory Adams (Ryan Reynolds, “Deadpool”) and Hugh Derry (Ariyon Bakare), the lead scientist studying the samples. Needless to say, the soil samples yield more promise than Derry could have ever hoped for (or North could have feared). A crisis of growth and death ensues in a manner that fans of “Alien” will be suitably familiar with. Can the crew survive against all the odds?
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.
Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favourite actors with a raft of quality films in his CV such as “Nightcrawler” and last year’s hugely underrated (and almost Oscar-ignored) “Nocturnal Animals”. Rebecca Ferguson is also a class act and one of my favourite actresses of the moment. Here they are starring together for the first time and they don’t disappoint. Whilst neither gets enough quality screentime to really hammer their roles home, both connect to the audience in different ways: Harris is heading for an ISS endurance record, and starting to mentally disconnect from earthly connections as his body also starts to atrophy. North, with a clear attraction to him, tries to hold both him and everything together with steely determination, while carrying more knowledge of the mission directives than anyone else has.
The supporting ensemble cast also work well, portraying a real mixture of nationalities from the cock-sure American played by Reynolds to the sultry Russian commander Golovkina, played by the lovely Olga Dihovichnaya. A special note should also be added in the margin for one of the most surprising portrayals of a disabled character in a recent film.
Unfortunately the material the actors get to deliver, by Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick (co-writers of “Deadpool” and “Zombieland”) doesn’t match their ability. The first 30 minutes or so of the film I found to be totally gripping, but even here some of the dialogue is sufficiently clunky to distract you from the ongoing narrative. Some of the rest of the dialogue becomes head-in-the-hands awful in places: a scene during a de-pressurization episode being particularly painful.
Some dodgy dialogue might be forgivable in an action movie if supported by a strong story. Unfortunately, while the premise of the film is sound (if not original), the story leaps from inconsistency to inconsistency from beginning to end. The writers never seem to settle on whether the ‘being’ needs oxygen, likes oxygen, likes hot, likes cold, etc. and this lack of credibility distracts from the whole film. While the screenplay delivers some seriously suspenseful moments, and some decent jump scares, this is not satisfactory enough to serve up a cohesive movie meal.
This is not helped by ‘bad science’. As I have commented upon before, I’m a physicist by training and unscientific scenes annoy me to distraction. I’ve had to learn to live with the basics of explosions and other ‘noise’ in space (something “Star Wars” started 40 years ago, damn those TIE fighters). But there is a scene in “Life” involving an airlock breach that just completely beggers belief, acted out as if it’s a stiff breeze on the front at Skegness! It’s almost – (almost) – as bonkers as the ‘reactor venting’ scene with Chris Pratt in “Passengers“.
However, the film has its strong points too. Like “Gravity”, this is another special effects triumph with the scenes outside the ISS being gorgeously rendered. “Gravity” was a clear 10/10; this is probably at least a 7, and a reason for seeing the film on the big screen. A key question though is why there wasn’t a 3D version of the film released? Heaven knows I’m no fan of 3D, but “Gravity” was one of the few films that was genuinely enhanced by the format: in fact it is currently the only 3D Blu-ray that I own!
In general, the whole film seems a little half-cocked and lacking in its own conviction. You wonder whether the production company (Skydance) got rather cold-feet about the film in releasing it when it did. Yes, “Deadpool” did very well with its February release, but this is a much more suitable film for a summer audience than a release in this post-Oscars doldrums.
In summary, its a moderately entertaining watch, but at heart just another retelling of the old ‘something nasty in the woodshed’ yarn that we’ve seen played out countless times before. Here though the swanky setting and special effects are diminished by a lack of credibility and consistency in the storytelling. Redemption was on hand though, for while it was heading for a middling 3-Fad rating, it managed to salvage another half Fad in the final 60 seconds: a memorable movie ending that might prove hard to beat during 2017.