Ordinarily, I might just go see Zombieland: Double Tap, enjoy myself, and not even bother writing a review, but it seems like a lot of people, even big fans of the original movie, aren’t that motivated to see the sequel, and I want to do my part to change that (’cause it’s not like Aquaman where it’ll make a billion dollars no matter what).
I’ll keep this all relatively brief, but, first of all, seeing these two films together was the most fun I’ve had at a double feature since I saw both volumes of KillBill on 35mm back in May (which may not seem like a great a length of time, but I go to the movies a lot).
I’m going to go ahead and say that I did not see the original Zombieland in theaters back in the day, because I simply have no memory of going, but I know for a fact that I absolutely ate it up on video (sometimes with proper accompanying snacks for a full taste-o-vision experience), and I’m happy to say that ten years later it still holds up in a big way. Is it the absolute perfection that Shaun of the Dead is? No, but, honestly, despite the fact that they’re both funny and have zombies in them, they’re very different movies, so maybe lay off that comparison, kids.
In re-watching 2009’s Zombieland, what I love most about it is that it’s not so quippy. Like, in another universe there’s a version that’s written and directed by, say, Joss Whedon, where everybody is so clever at every moment, and I would just hate it, but the dialogue in the original is just grounded enough for it to not feel ridiculous.
Secondly, the core four of Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin (at present, all Oscar-nominated and/or winning actors) are a joy to watch in both films, but especially the first one, given that it’s almost exclusively their show for the duration. There’s a real chemistry between them and they all help sell each scene for what it needs to be.
Now, right off the bat, I’ll say that Double Tap goes a little too far in a few places, as sequels are wont to do, but it’s nothing totally unforgivable, and by-and-large the movie is more of the same in a good way (and without relying all that much on blatant callbacks and references).
One factor that immediately distinguishes it from its predecessor is the introduction of more humans (sometimes for good, sometimes not-so-much); but the standout is Zoey Deutch, whose character could easily be extremely irritating if handled just slightly differently, but her performance is so committed that you have to respect it, and, in fact, pound-for-pound she might just garner the most laughs out of anybody.
Really though, what I appreciate most about both Zombielands is that they use the apocalyptic undead to make something entertaining. I don’t care if it’s frightful or funny or both, zombies should be used for entertainment first and foremost. Not for boredom.
So yeah, if you haven’t seen Zombieland in a while (or ever), give it a re-watch, and then go see Double Tap at your local movie house.
I never anticipated that I’d be formally reviewing these two movies, as I’m trying to stick to ground less traveled here, but I had the…experience…of seeing both this past week, and they coaxed almost the exact same reaction out of me: disappointment.
X-Men: Days of Future Past and the new Godzilla are the latest members of a growing and increasingly wearisome club of “big” summer movies whose trailers make them look fantastic, but the movies themselves leave much to be desired (perhaps the most notable example of this from 2013 is Man of Steel, though at least the first half is worth watching). I understand movies are a business, but at this point I’m just tired of all the lies.
So, here I am, reviewing these films that many, many people have seen already, but I want to warn others while they’re still at risk of wasting their time and money.
Directed by Bryan Singer
Written by Simon Kinberg (Screenplay and Story), Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn (Story) Cast: Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Halle Berry, Nicholas Hoult, Ellen Page, Peter Dinklage, Shawn Ashmore, Omar Sy, Evan Peters, Josh Helman, Ian McKellen, Patrick Stewart, Famke Janssen, James Marsden, Lucas Till, Daniel Cudmore, Booboo Stewart, Michael Lerner Soundtrack: John Ottman
I had such high hopes…
Before I get too ahead of myself here, I will point out two scenes in this movie that are quite well done, without spoiling too much (not that it really matters):
1. An action scene that takes place in a famous government building where our heroes have to break someone out. It is the best scene in the film (though not worth the price of admission), and makes great use of Quicksilver (Marvel’s version of The Flash, if you don’t know).
2. A more poignant scene where the two Xaviers (past and future) are talking to one another. It’s the only scene that really connects on an emotional level to any significant degree.
That’s about it. Two scenes.
The basic premise of this movie (we need to fix the past in order to save the future) is interesting enough to keep you going for the lengthy running time; I was never so bored that I just wanted to go to sleep, but there’s a substantial gap between being passively interested and actively invested, and this movie consistently fails to fill it. If I was so inclined, I could complain about lots of things like plot holes, anachronisms, and various other X-Men problems that I know nothing about, but even before all of that, this movie constantly fails to be compelling. I was expecting Days of Future Past to be big and emotional; it is neither of those.
Whatever needs to happen to advance the story happens in short order, leaving very little room for dramatic tension. We need to find the professor? We find the professor. We need to find Eric? We find Eric. We need them to reconcile? They reconcile in two minutes (even though “they’ve never been further apart”). And so on and so forth. Not only that, but they couldn’t seem to figure out an interesting way of delivering mass exposition, which leads to more tedium as a viewer.
Now, again, I know very little about X-Men, and I’ve certainly never read the Days of Future Past storyline in the comics, so I can’t tell you how good of an adaptation the movie is, but, you know what? I know very little about Captain America and S.H.I.E.L.D., and I really enjoyed The Winter Soldier. I know very little about Iron Man, and all three of those movies are fantastic (Iron Man 2 is actually my favorite of the trilogy). All four of the movies I just mentioned work as movies first and worry about the other comic book stuff later, therefore I recommend all of them, but I cannot recommend this new X-Men film (outside of a Netflix/Redbox sort of viewing if you’re that curious). X-Men: First Class had its problems, and I did not recommend seeing it in a theater when it came out, but there are at least some compelling storylines and interesting cinematic goings-on to get you moderately invested; it’s not a total flop. I can’t say the same for Days of Future Past. Ordinarily I’d offer up some sort of suggestion on how to improve the film, but I honestly don’t know about this one outside of having a completely different creative team leading the charge.
Frankly, and this will sound harsh, I think Bryan Singer himself might be the biggest problem here. Now, he did write and direct the first two X-Men films, and they’re solid, I guess (it’s been a while since I’ve watched them), but on the whole I think his career path is much closer to M. Night Shyamalan than his hero, Richard Donner. I suppose based on his original X-Men work he was able to wrangle a lot of creative control for Superman Returns, and that movie suffers many of the same problems as Days of Future Past. Granted, I really enjoyed it when I first saw it in theaters, but I was a younger man, and highly nostalgic for Superman I and II; watching it again though, that movie’s a mess (Lex Luthor wants real estate again, really?), and a good chunk of the running time simply isn’t compelling. I can understand the studio’s desire to return to the guy that put X-Men on the cinematic map, but, at this point, it seems that Bryan Singer is damaged goods, at least for superhero movies.
★★☆☆☆
Directed by Gareth Edwards
Written by Max Borenstein (Screenplay), Dave Callaham (Story) Cast: Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Ken Watanabe, Elizabeth Olsen, Bryan Cranston, Juliette Binoche, CJ Adams, Sally Hawkins, David Strathairn, Richard T. Jones, Victor Rasuk, Jared Keeso
Soundtrack: Alexandre Desplat
The most common comment (and I uttered it myself many a time) I heard in anticipation of Godzilla was, “Bryan Cranston’s in it,” and that is a true statement; Bryan Cranston is in the new Godzilla, and he’s really good in it when he’s in it, but he’s not in it nearly enough to save it.
This movie started off with a lot of promise. In the first 15 minutes or so, we see that Bryan Cranston plays an engineer at a nuclear power plant in Japan who’s concerned about a repeating pattern of seismic tremors (whose origins we as the audience already know something about) that might cause his plant some trouble. Sure enough, he’s right, and the plant suffers a terrible accident as a result of a mysterious earthquake, and, of course, this comes at a great personal cost to our beloved engineer.
BOOM. That’s a great intro, and a great way to get your audience invested into your movie. BUT, they then proceed to almost immediately scrap that for a shift in perspective to a different character. Bryan Cranston’s engineer comes back for a little bit, and you find out what he’s been doing for the past 15 years and it leads to the next plot point, but after that he’s done. See ya never.
This is my first big problem with this film. They get you emotionally invested, but then throw it away and give you characters that you just don’t care about; you can’t care about them, at least not in the same way. The engineer’s character’s arc coulda/shoulda/woulda made up the whole movie, or at least the first half of it. But jettisoning it so quickly into the run time (no matter who was playing him, really) was a huge mistake in the writing; and replacing him with such boring other characters compounds the problem further. Let him hang around a lot longer, and you’ve instantly got a better movie; hands down.
My second big issue is creature design; not so much for Godzilla, he looks alright, I guess, but the other creatures (this is not a spoiler; they’re in the trailer if you look close). They just look so generic, like they got focus-grouped to death or something. I don’t know, they just don’t look interesting or very creative. This is where maybe a little more liaising with Toho would have reaped huge benefits. I mean I know this is a ‘murican Godzilla movie, and I appreciate that they moved the story along more so than a standard reboot, but when your film features giant monsters, those monsters need to be engaging, and they almost completely failed in that respect.
My third and final problematic issue with Godzilla is too much tease and not enough payoff. Say what you want about Pacific Rim (I’m not that high on it myself, but it’s okay), but you can’t deny that they went all out when it came to showing you the monsters. Now I’m not saying Godzilla has to be that explicit, but the title of the movie is GODZILLA. A Godzilla movie should have the payoff of seeing Godzilla doing Godzilla things, and he does, eventually, but even when it’s an all-out brawl, they still cut away and tease you in the midst of it. It doesn’t come as a fully-satisfying payoff; it’s just more frustration at the end of an already frustrating movie.
What’s also frustrating is that they gave this movie to a promising young director, Gareth Edwards (not to be confused with Gareth Evans, who’s making the fantastic Raid series), whose first feature was also a monster movie called Monsters that appears to be much more worthwhile than Godzilla.
Now, is Godzilla a better movie than X-Men: Days of Future Past? Yes. It at least gives you an initial emotional connection, and though you’re largely waiting for something to happen, it does draw you back in a couple of times with legitimate suspense (something X-Men particularly fails to do); not to mention the visuals are much better on the whole. But it’s not good enough to warrant a better rating, unfortunately.
, and all three of those movies are fantastic (Iron Man 2
is actually my favorite of the trilogy
). All four of the movies I just mentioned work as movies first and worry about the other comic book stuff later, therefore I recommend all of them, but I cannot recommend this new X-Men film (outside of a Netflix/Redbox sort of viewing if you’re that curious). X-Men: First Class had its problems, and I did not recommend seeing it in a theater when it came out, but there are at least some compelling storylines and interesting cinematic goings-on to get you moderately invested; it’s not a total flop. I can’t say the same for Days of Future Past. Ordinarily I’d offer up some sort of suggestion on how to improve the film, but I honestly don’t know about this one outside of having a completely different creative team leading the charge.
and II
; watching it again though, that movie’s a mess (Lex Luthor wants real estate again, really?), and a good chunk of the running time simply isn’t compelling. I can understand the studio’s desire to return to the guy that put X-Men on the cinematic map, but, at this point, it seems that Bryan Singer is damaged goods, at least for superhero movies.
series
), whose first feature was also a monster movie called