The Rockford Files. The Greatest American Hero. Hunter. Hardcastle and McCormick. The A-Team. Riptide. Wiseguy. 21 Jump Street. The Commish.
These were all TV shows that helped form my childhood and my young adulthood. Stephen J. Cannell had a hand in all of them.
Stephen Cannell died yesterday from complications from melanoma. He was 69.
Rest in peace. And thanks for all the memories.
So, a piece of news is making the rounds today. Nancy King, a State Senator in Maryland, sent around a flyer to her constituents, seen above co-opted from Bleeding Cool, which seems to indicate that if she is not elected, teachers in Maryland will be laid off and the students will become booger-eating, comic book reading morons.
Of course, this has outraged a lot of people in the comic book community, notably Dean Trippe and Peter David. And it has irked me a bit, so I felt the need to comment.
I don't know why I'm so upset. This is just a boneheaded politician doing a boneheaded advertising campaign. Looking at pictures of Ms. King, I'm pretty sure the chances of her every reading a comic book are very remote. Just looking at the choice of reading material the kids have their hands on shows how out of touch they are. I'm sure the campaign took $5 out of petty cash to go buy a boatload of comic at the local comic shop only to find that $5 really won't get you much. That Superman comic cost $5 on its own (well, $4.99). The other two "comics" are a free preview issue for an upcoming X-Men arc dealing with vampires, so that didn't cost anything. The other "comic"? That's Marvel Previews, Marvel's catalog. It isn't even a comic. It is a list of all the comics Marvel is offering three months from now. And while it is priced at $1.25, many comic shops give it away for free. I mean, when it comes to King's purposes, it serves its purpose because it kinda looks like a comic book. But still.
But the idea that comic books are only read by uneducated buffoons is a stereotype I thought we had grown out of. In the 50s, this image of an adult comic book fan was prevalent. However, over time, an image of a more intelligent, if socially awkward, comic reader has taken its place (see: The Big Bang Theory).
Regardless, critics have come to appreciate the literary content of comic books. Time named Watchmen, a comic book, as one of the 100 Greatest Novels of the last 100 years. Colleges offer graphic novels as part of their curriculum. I have been assigned Maus and Persepolis as part of my college readings. Some states even have initiatives where they use comic books to promote literacy. States like, say, King's home state of Maryland.
But a look at the interior of the flyer might indictate King had something different in mind:
See? Maybe the point she was trying to make was that when the teachers are laid off, the kids will be left unattended in a school room! The real studious ones will be reading comics!
And is it just me, or are there a wide variety of ages in this classroom. Maybe one room schoolhouses never went out of style in Maryland! Yes, just like on Little House on the Prairie, kids from different grades side on one room to undergo some book learnin' after all their chorin' is done!
Anyway, as a Deomocrat myself, I, like Peter David, would be forced to vote Republican if Ms. King survived this primary round. I wonder if the comic fan vote is really all that important?
I can trace my love of movies to two things, my mom, who passed her love of film down to me with weekly excursions to the local cineplex, and also to Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert as they appeared on At the Movies.
I started watching the show when I was still a teenager, it must have been around the mid 1980s. I'll be the first to admit that At the Movies, even at that time, probably wasn't a show that catered to the teenage demographic. I mean, there were not that many students at my high school wearing Siskel and Ebert T-shirts.
But I was captivated. As a burgeoning film buff, I couldn't have a better example as to what loving movies was all about than these two.
When they both loved a film, I wanted to rush out and see it then and there. When they both hated it, I knew enough to stay away, but a part of me wanted to see it anyway to see if I hated it as much as they did.
But when they disagreed, you kind of got the feeling that one would launch the other off of the balcony. It would seem that there was a very good chance that a punch going to be thrown. Later, it was revealed that it all was an act, that the rancor was played up for the audiences at home. Well, you could have fooled me.
But no matter where they stood on the week's films, the show was always entertaining. These guys loved films and loved exposing great films to new audiences. I lived in a small town in Pennsylvania and foreign or indie films never really graced my local theaters. But Siskel and Ebert exposed me to these films and thankfully the local video stores were much better. I have seen many movies I would have never sought out otherwise.
In 1999, Gene Siskel passed away due to complications from surgery to remove a brain tumor. After a period of time of other critics getting a chance to sit across from Roger, Ebert was paired with Richard Roeper. It wasn't the same, but, then again, it never could be. But Ebert and Roeper created their own dynamic. It always seemed like it was more of a "master and student" kind of relationship than a meeting as equals. But they still had some spirited discussions and had a good chemistry.
Ebert was diagnosed with thyroid cancer in 2002 and was struck with complications in 2006. He would never return to the show. Roeper was paired with a number of guest co-hosts for an extended period of time, but in 2008 Ebert and Roeper ended their association with the company that syndicated the program and a new direction was in store.
I kind of lost touch with the show a little while before this. I think it was a mix of a constantly shifting schedule, my life taking on outher priorities and maybe a little due to Ebert's abscenses. I wasn't a religious viewer of the program anymore, but I tried to catch it whenever I could.
I caught some episodes of the new direction, the critically lambasted one with Ben Lyons and Ben Mankiewicz. Yeah. All the criticism that goes around with this version is pretty much right. I was never a fan of Lyons. I always found him a bit unctous when he was a celebrity interviewer on E!, and here he seemed less like a film critic than a frat boy spouting off on something he didn't know all that much about.
Mankiewicz came off a little better, at least a little more knowledgeable. However, he didn't really have that much charisma and chemistry with Lyons. I get the feeling the matching of these two was some executive's grand idea of matching a hip young guy to get the younger demographic with an older seasoned guy who could keep the show's loyal fans. It didn't work.
Neither man was a critic (although Lyons was the son of one. But genetics really doesn't count). Neither man worked for a newspaper. Neither man seemed to have the passion for films that Ebert and Roeper did, let alone Ebert and Siskel did. If you are looking to point fingers over the demise of this show, point to whoever came up with this edition of the program.
Last year, the double Bens were replaced by A.O. Scott of the New York Times and Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune. This is when I started becoming a regular viewer again. It was this version of the show that seemed to best recapture the Siskel and Ebert glory days.
These guys were experienced critics. Both had acted as fill-ins during the period of time when Ebert was out. Both seemed that they at the very least liked films very much.
And the pair had chemistry with one another. They could get argumentative, but could also be on the same page. But either way, what they said and how they said it was interesting. Their opinions might not have always matched with mine, but they were always presented in an intelligent and witty fashion.
It seems that when it was announced in March that the show would be cancelled, a lot of people seem to mourn the Siskel and Ebert version. I also mourn the present one as well. If Disney kept this on a little longer, it still might have not caught on. But at least it ends on a good note.
This weekend will be the airing of the last episode of At the Movies. The day is long in coming, but apparently could not be averted. My DVR will be down one recording each week, and the world of serious film criticism will be losing another of its best examples. Rest in peace, At the Movies. I'll miss you.
It's around that time again. Time for Fantasy Football to start. I have been meaning to run a blog post like this for a few yearn, and finally have found the time.
These are some tips from my many years of playing fantasy football. I have been playing for, gosh, it must be close to 15 years now. Maybe more, maybe less.
Now, this post won't tell you what RB is the best one for you to pick up or when you should draft your starting QB. This is more general purpose post. I hope that you find this useful.
1. It is better to be lucky than good: Many people sweat too much over their drafts when a lot is left up to fate. In 2008, after he had his career year, Tom Brady was drafted in the top five of every draft I was in. He gets hurt in the first game and is out for the season. In 2007, Adrian Peterson was drafted as an afterthought in the later rounds. He won many an owner a championship.
So, just realize, that while you can research all you want, get angry with friends for steal a guy you wanted, don't go overboard. A lot of this game is not in your hands at all. Try to keep good karma so luck will be on your side.
2. What Fantasy Football Magazines Should You Buy?: There are certainly a lot out there that you can choose from. Everyone has something to offer. Lord knows I've read just about all of them. But my three picks would be Fantasy Football Index, Fantasy Football Pro Forecast, and ESPN Fantasy Football magazine. FFI is a well rounded report on all the players, FFPF is great with statistics, and ESPN covers a wide number of players.
Of course, there many websites you can visit that would give you the same info for free, so you could just not buy any magazine at all. But I am a magazine guy, what can I say?
3. Should You Go RB/RB with Your First Two Picks? Check Your Scoring System.: The accepted rule is that you should pick two running backs with your first two picks. This would work if you can find two guaranteed starters in the two rounds that you could like. But Running Back By Committee has slowly become the rule and not the exception, and there are a whole lot more valuable RB's out there. But if QB's and WR's get the same amount per Touchdowns as RB's do, it would make sense to pick one of them up. A second tier QB usually passes for 20-30 TD's a year, a first tier even more. The second tier RB scores 7-10. In my opinion, it makes sense to take the points.
4. You Can Draft With Your Heart, But Sparingly: I recently was in a draft where a Cowboys fan drafted Tony Romo in the first round. I wanted to send him a fruit basket to thank him.
Yes, be a fan, but be realistic. Romo might be the best Cowboy, but he's not worth going #6 overall. He would have totally been their in later rounds.
But , hey, if you are a Bengals fan and want to draft Carson Palmer as your backup QB, go right ahead. But go with your head first instead of your heart.
5. Be Prepare, Be Ready, Be Considerate: The league I'm in every year doesn't really follow with an enforce time limit with draft picks. So every year, usually during the later rounds, there's always one owner who furiously flips through his draft magazine looking for a backup RB, holding up the whole draft in the processes.
Thing is, he should have known what he would be going for with that pick when he made his last one. Or, at the very least, narrowed it down to three positions he would need to fill. He should have been picking about three players for each position he had his eye on (or 9 if he was dead set on one position) and do a mental ranking of which of the 9 he would pick first.
Because it really irks me that I have to wait because some guy is less prepared than I am. You have a year between drafts. You have plenty of time to construct draft rankings for every player in the league, either formally or informally. You should never be caught by that much surprise when a player you wanted is taken prior to your pick.
I have an unhealthy admiration for Christopher Nolan. I have been a fan of his since Memento, somehow missed Insomnia (and still haven't seen it) but love the Batman films he did. And I love the Prestige too. I have yet seen him do any wrong.
I also love the fact that he has written he has written the thinking man's summer blockbuster. His films usually come out during the time of year when "mindless fun" rules, yet still his smart films seems to bring people in.
To call Inception a complex movie, would be quite the understatement. The film demands that you pay attention. Its twists and turns have twists and turns. But everything you need to know is there on screen.
The plot involves a crew led by Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio). who involves in a special kind of industrial espionage--they steal secrets from people's minds. The crew is about to attempt the impossible. They are going to implant an idea into someone's head. This is incredibly difficult and incredibly dangerous. But dark dealings from Cobb's past jeopardize not only the job, but the lives of the whole crew.
The window dressing is that this film is a caper movie, and it works well in this aspect. The crime goes down in a way that matches up with the best of Steven Soderburgh's Ocean films, only times three. It is on the edge or your seat exciting.
But the film is really about loss of loved ones and how we shape reality to deal with it. It is one of those films where you might thing the action points are the main driving points of the plot, but actually it's the quieter, flashback moments.
There is a lot of talk about the ending and how people are confused by it, but the steps leading up to that ending are all in the film. Not to spoil anything, but anytime you think you caught a continuity error or a plot element doesn't make sense, don't simply assume it was a mistake. They are merely clues.
Inception is simply brilliant. It is so well coordinated that it is a sterling example of the best that film has to offer. I imagine we'll be seeing more of this around Oscar time.
...and everything seemed to be working out. My daughter goes down for her nap right before the sale was supposed to start, I am seated in front of computer 10 minutes before 12 p.m., just waiting for the site to allow me to purchase the item. About 4 minutes of 12, I refresh my screen and get this:
It's a hold screen. The site is down because of too much traffic. This screen is a constantly rerunning 5 second countdown. It went off for one second, I clicked "add item to cart", and this screen came back again. I love it when companies do this. It's like they have no clue what to expect and get caught unawares. Of course, they SHOULD have known and made sure their servers could handle the influx.
So, will I ever get my Plastic Man figure? Will I get it before my daughter wakes up? Will there be a sternly worded letter written to Mattel? I think the answers will be: probably not, probably not, and definitely.
Didio noted that most of the people that reacted positively to this story had small children of their own, meaning the writers "touched a real nerve" which was a good job and not a bad job.--Dan DiDio at Thursday's DC Nation panel about the events in Arsenal's life.
Really, Dan? Who are these parents? I want to see them. I want to be sure they exist. Because I am the parent of a small child, and I think that killing off Lian, the 5 year-old daughter of Roy Harper, is disgusting, cheap and reprehensible. Especially since teh result is a poorly written, laughable series.
And you think that making comic fans think of what would happen if their small child was killed is a "good thing"? That's a nerve I just do not want touched.
Man, this statement really infuriates me.
Toy Story 3 isn't just an animated sequel. It's a prison escape film. It's a story about growing up. It's a story about friendship. It's a thriller more thrilling than any others that come to mind in the last few years. It's a comedy with more laugh-out loud moments than any comedy I've seen in years. It has more heartwarming moments than any tearjerker I've ever seen.
It is the best film I've seen all year, which isn't surprising. Pixar rarely strikes out.
I believe Pixar films do not get the proper respect they deserve simply because they are CGI animated. This is one of the great shames of American cinema today. Because there is no company, no producer, no director that can match Pixar for quality films, great writing, and awesome characters.
In this films, the toy's owner, Andy, is about to go to college. His room is about to be taken over by his sister. Something must be done about the toys. A mistake results in the gang being sent to a local day care center, which is more like a prison run buy a big cuddly bear. They spend the film trying to improve their situation.
The plot, as most Pixar films are, is more complex than your typical kid flick. But everything simply works. If you do not cry at the end of the movie, then there is something seriously wrong with your emotional well being.
The film is almost criticism proof. Sure, you can make a comment about it being an advertisement for certain brand-name toys, but any "Toy Story" without name toy in it would be illogical.
Great film. See it in a theater,
The reason why Iron Man 2 is any good at all is due to two things--the directing of Jon Favreau and the acting of the stellar cast. Because there are many facepalm moments.
This is one busy movie. There are a lot of characters on screen, which is usually the death knell in comic book films but here seems to work well. Certain characters get a shafted--Rhodey, Black Widow, but they get enough good scenes to make an impression.
It is also busy plotwise. Tony Stark has to deal with an angry Russian out to kill him, a rival industrialist jealous of his fame and celebrity, a Senator looking to appropriate the suit for the U.S. Government, the spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D. breathing down his neck, daddy issues, and, if all this wasn't enough, a degenerative disease that is slowly killing him. I'm surprised they didn't give a psycho ex-girlfriend and a newspaper editor out to get huim as well.
Favreau really has grown as a director. He has become quite adept at chosing his scenes carefully, buliding tension, and letting the picture tell the story.
The acting is top notch. The scenes with Gwyneth Paltrow and Robert Downey, Jr. are some of the least action oriented scenes but yet are some of the most exciting. They are totally in tune with each other and with their character. I would also say that this is some of the best acting that Scarlett Johansson has ever done. Her part isn't all that big, but she plays the dual nature of her role well. Sam Rockwell is his usually excellent petulant child self, and Mickey Rourke, Sam Jackson and Don Cheadle turn in their typical solid performances.
The dialogue has the feel of being improvised. When it works, it pops. When it doesn't, it thuds. There is also a good deal of humor here, quite a good deal of it double entendre stuff, but that also works.
However, there are quite a bit of stupid parts as well. Nick Fury is basically a plot contrivance to nudge Tony towards his third act life-changing discovery. Rourke's character gains control of a piece of technology that he really shouldn't have been able to. And the final battle features Iron Man rushing off to "protect the people " in the immediate area, by flying off through a skylight in a glass roof in an auditorium, which is shot out by the bad guys allowing glass to rain down on the people in the audience and flying in front of a big glass window of an observation tower to allow the people inside to be strafed by machine gun fire.
All in all, the good parts outweight the bad points. I liked it, but wonder how it will hold up to repeat viewings.
The Losers is a old fashioned, late 70s--early 80s action film given a modern upgrade. Yes, it is based on a comic book that is not even ten years old, but it is an action movie based on the old time tradition of the shoot-em-up.
The plot revolves a special forces group who have been double crossed by their handler. Presumed dead, they take up a mysterious woman on her offer of bankrolling their vengeance. Gun play and explosions ensue.
Their have been some changes from the comics to the screen, including the race and nationality of some of the characters. But some of the best scenes from the comic make it to the screen, including Jensen's corporate office get away and the hijack of Army helicopter.
There is a lot of backstabbing and people not being who are not who they say they are. There are a lot of people being in the right place at the right time and people showing remarkable resilience to getting shot.
But all in all, it is a great mindless action film. The acting is great from top to bottom with each actor cast perfectly for their roles. It's might not be the most faithful adaptation of the comic, but it is one fun popcorn summer film.
The title might have scared some people away or given the idea that this film might have been completely brainless. That's a shame because while this is a raunchfest and a grossout comedy, it has a lot of wit to it.
An suicide attempt by Lou (Rob Corddry) reunites him with two of his estranged friends, Adam (John Cusack) and Nick (Craig Robinson). They decide to try to get Lou's character's mind of things by taking him, and Adam's tag along nephew, Jacob (Clark Duke) to a ski resort where they had some of their best times. They find that the resort has gone to seed, but they also find a hot tub which mystically will allow them to travell back to their glory days of 1986.
Any time travel comedy had to at least name drop Back to the Future and this one does, once by a character calling Lou "McFly" and the other by a standout performance by Crispin Glover. But that's where the similarities end. This is a story about the rediscover of friendship and taking opportunities that are given to them.
The typical "don't do anything to mess up the future" card is played, but fate almost compels the characters to change their own past. The film plays with duality as well. Not only do Adam, Nick, and Rob play adults in their own younger bodies, but also Chevy Chase plays a maitenence man who my be an all-knowing seer or just a guy who tells it like it is.
There is plety of sex, nudity and vomit scenes to choose from, but there are also a lot of laughs. Great performances by the leads, who make it almost impossible to see the roles played by anyone else.
It's a great comedy with a better than average cast and a lot of wit and a little bit of heart. I liked it a lot.
I have to say that I am a huge Martin McDonagh fan. I haven't seen all of his plays, but I've at least read most. Therefore, it was a no brainer that the wife and I would get a babysitter and go in to see his latest play, "A Behanding in Spokane" on Broadway.
How was it? Well, it was good, but it was far from being McDonagh's best.
The plot involves a man by the name of Carmichael (played by Christopher Walken) who has had his left hand cut of by a group of toughs at a very young age. He has searched for the hand for 47 years, and thinks he has finally found it. Marilyn (Zoe Kazan) and Toby (Anthony Mackie) claim to have the man's missing hand and are willing to sell it to him for $500. When the hand turns out to be a fake, big trouble starts.
The play is a pitch black comedy farce. It holds back no punches and doesn't even bothering with the pretense of trying to be politically correct. Run without an intermission, it races from beginning to end and is never boring.
The acting performances are good, although Walken is basically being Walken throughout the play. There is little along the lines of new characterization from him, as he lets his own recognizable tics take over. Sam Rockwell is excellent, given a tough character to get a handle on, makes it his own. Anthony Mackie is strong as the overly sensitive scammer. If the cast had a weak link, it would have to be Zoe Kazan. She plays a ditz well, but sometimes gets overpowered by other actors on stage and has lines lost due to too soft delivery.
There are some questionable choices made by McDonagh. Rockwell's character comes out in the middle of the play and addresses the audience. It gives his character background, but is rather unnecessary. It's the kind of bit that would run to hide a scene change, but this was a one-set piece. This interruption could have been added into the main flow of the show and it would have been more effective.
Another questionable scene is an extended phone call between Walken's character and his mother. The bit is necessary to set up the ending, but ran longer than it needed to. It reeked of being filler.
But all in all, it was a really good show. The style is not for anyone, but if you are strong of heart and stomach, you'll find plenty of laugh out loud moments.
Every year, I make a point of watching the Academy Awards. It goes back to when my mother was alive and we used to watch them together. It was always our tradition, and one I've carried out long after she passed. I missed most of them last year because my friends came up to the city to celebrate their birthday, but it looks like I'm going to miss them again this year. No, not another birthday celebration. No, I'm not going to be able to watch them because of a pissing contest between my local cable company, Cablevision, and ABC. Over an hour ago, ABC has pulled their signal from the air.
The issue basically is that ABC wants Cablevision to pay for the right to air the network on its cable systems. Cablevision is saying that ABC is free through the air and they should have to pay for it (even though they charge for subscribers for it as part of their Basic cable package).
Do I have a horse in this race? Yes, ABC. Because Cablevision is the most annoying, cheapest cable system I have ever dealt with.
The cable system just got done with a lengthy battle with HGTV and the Food Network over their request for a rate increase. That battle last three weeks and the networks were off the air during that whole time.
Cablevision not wanting to pay for networks is an old story with the company. The outlet services most of the area surrounding New York City, but we don't get the NFL Network. I've sent e-mails to them requesting it, but they haven't added it. Because it's too expensive for them. My friends back in Pennsylvania all have the network, and the area they live in is way smaller than where I live. Funny how those cable companies were able to swing the costs but one servicing one of the biggest metropolitan areas in the world can't find the money.
Cablevision has been fighting this war for the last week in the most annoying way. Every time you turn on the cable box, it aoutomatically takes you to their proaganda station. It's a station where they make their case against ABC with a loop of a person telling you why ABC is evil for asking for what they are asking. Who cares if you really don't want to hear it or you have programmed the TV to come on to a certain channel for a reason. You will hear what Cablevision has to say whether you like it or not.
The argument the make is the typical double-talk and half-truth gobbledygook that most corporations doing spin control use. They make a point that ABC is asking for an extra $40 million for their rights. That sounds like a lot, right? Well, it actuially comes down to about $1 per household. Now, if my math is correct, that means Cablevision is in about 40 million homes. Let's say the average cable bill in these homes is $40 per month. I'm sure some pay less, some pay more, but lets make that an average. That means that Cablevision make $1.6 billion (with a "B") a year. And they are moaning about a paltry $40 million?
The next argument is that ABC wants the money to help pay their executives' high salaries and bonuses. Because, you know, executive getting paid a lot is unpopular in Obama's America or something. But Cablevision isn't run by a family in Brooklyn. It's not like Dad got a good deal on a whole lot of cable wiring in the 70s and decided to open a cable company. It's not like today Mom does the books, the son does the instalations, and sissy does customer service. Cablevision is a multi-billion dollar company. The partly own Madison Square Garden, Radio City Music Hall, the Fuse Network, The New York Knicks, The New York Rangers, and Clearview Cinemas. I'm sure their executive get big salaries and bonus just like ABC.
The next thing they come up with is that ABC wants a raise to make up for their flagging theme parks. The funny thing is, they never mention Disney, ABC's parent company, by name. I wonder why.
But the same can be said for why Cablevision doesn't want to pony up the dough. Take the Knicks for example. They are having a rotten season and people haven't been coming to games. How do I know this? Because I keep getting barraged by e-mail containing special offers to come out to games. They can't give the seats away. I'd think ticket sales for the Knicks have to be doing far worse than ticket sales for any of the Disney parks.
The best part about this is that Cablevision is making it out like they have our best interests in hand. Like, they are fighting this because so they don't have to raise or charges. Which would have worked if we got our cable bill lowered or prorated because HGTV & Food Network were off the air. But the bill didn't go down to my knowledge. So, they charged us the same amount for January even though we were down two channels. Yeah, they are more interest in profit margins than their customers.
Now, I know what many of you are thinking: Bill, you have other options. No, I don't really. I live in a condo that prohibits satellite dishes be installed on its roof because, I quote, they don't want the condo to "look like the Bronx." So that leaves out DirecTV and Dish network. Verizon FIOS doesn't come here either, so that's out. And since the condo is one big concrete block, going the antenna route is not going to work either. We can get no stations in here without going through cable. So I'm pretty much stuck.
Grrr.
The wife and I used a surprise offer of baby sitting to become two of the last people on Earth to see Avatar. Granted, I am sure that we are not the very last, but whoever that is they should win a prize or something. Like 1% of the gross.
On a visual level, the film is brilliant. It is world building on a level never before seen. Yes, many of the alien animals have mirror on out planet, but all of them are well designed and look weird and unique.
The story, however, is rather pedestrian. It's you basic "man goes undercover, finds love on the other side, realizes that he might be working for the bad guys, has a change of heart" with a preachy eco-friendly subplot attached. The characters aren't all that well defined. The pacing is a bit off. It's still a good movie, but not perfect by any means.
Zombieland is really two movies, one good, one kinda bad. Luckily, the good half is so great it makes up for the failings of the other half.
The film tells the story of a world overrun by zombies. Apparently, Mad Cow disease was way more fatal here than it was in real life. Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), a video game playing virgin college student, trying to get to his Ohio home from his college in Texas. Along the way, he meets up with Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), a man who is after two things;killing as many zombies as he can and the last twinkie on Earth. Both men meet up with two grifter sisters named Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) and they all travel to California together.
Since it is a zombie comedy, people compare this film to Shaun of the Dead. But it really isn't the same. Zombieland is more nihilistic. The laughs are here, but it's more about survival than anything else. You get the feeling that these people are the only ones left on Earth.
The direction is great and innovative. Slow-motion is this film's friend, and is used for the zombie stripper sequence (yes, there is a zombie stripper in this film) and other places. Columbus comes up with rules, and the words of the rules appear on screen and interact with the action that is going on. And there is a cameo by a huge movie star playing himself in the middle, and the fact that he is written into the script is a bold movie by the writers.
The gore content is amped up to a high level, as you would expect from a zombie film. A zombie actually breaks a leg in half to drink the marrow. That is impressive. And these are the fast running zombies, which some zombie fans do not like.
Of course, there are flaws, major flaws. The rules involving how people succumb to the disease is never truly explained. In one scene, Columbus comforts a neighbor who was bitten. She naps for a few minutes, yet wakes up a zombie. So, you get the idea it takes a bit of time to turn. But in the opening credits, a bunch of kids, a bride on her wedding day, and, yes, the stripper who appears to be at work are all shown as being zombiefied, and the change seems to have happened almost instantaneously. This confusion might not seem like all that big of a deal, but it is a bit concerning to fans of the genre.
Tallahassee spends half the movie being a badass zombie killer. This, of course, makes him a cool character and one we root for. He has a bunch of character quirks that define him as they do all the other characters. However, halfway through the movie, he gets a flashback that adds an air of tragedy to his backstory. This changes the whole dimension of the character, his motivations and why he does what he does. he becomes more fleshed out and more believeable. He goes from a kickass zombie slayer to a tortured human being and his character goes from being a fun diversion to being the best part about the whole movie.
Unfortunately, the other characters, even Columbus, doesn't get the same treatment. Even though Columbus is our narrator and our focal point, we are drawn more to Tallahassee because we know more about him.
And the film's climax is brought about by a tactic that I find very annoying, the one Roger Ebert calls "The Idiot Plot". It's where the plot would not be advanced if the characters do not act like idiots. It is established that the zombies are attracted to light and sound. So, what do two of what were the smartest characters in film up to this point do? They break in to an abandoned Disneyland-esque amusement park and turn on all the rides, providing a lot of loud music, gear rattling and flashing lights to attract the zombies. In other words, they acted like idiots.
But even this was not enough to ruin my overall feeling towards the movie. The parts that worked and showed wit and inventiveness were enough to push to like it in spite of all its flaws.
