Funny ‘Zombieland’ still scares

Zombieland

Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Emma Stone.
Directed by: Ruben Fleischer.
Rating: R for horror violence/gore and language.
Running time: 1 hour, 20 minutes.

It’s that time of year again.

Time for costumes, candy and, oh yeah, horror films.

I am not the scary movie type. I was the one hiding in a corner with a blanket over my head while my friends watched the Chinese version of “The Eye” (you think it’s hard to watch a movie with subtitles, try to do it when you’re not even looking at the screen). But, to be fair, “The Eye” is a legitimate scary movie — at least the Chinese version is; I can’t vouch for the Jessica Alba fiasco.

I can take most slasher films. I actually really enjoy the “Saw” series. It’s the supernatural stuff that gets me, especially ones involving creepy little kids.

But that’s all beside the point. I watched “Zombieland” recently and had to keep myself in check — this was, after all, a comedy.

Doesn’t mean I didn’t jump on occasion. But, for fellow timid moviegoers, this film manages to satisfy the obligatory Halloween viewing without leaving you checking under your bed.

In “Zombieland,” the majority of the population has turned into (shockingly) zombies. The narrator (Jessie Eisenberg of “Adventureland” notoriety) tells the audience that these transformations began after a bad experience with a Mad Cow-diseased hamburger. And it was all downhill from there.

Now, the number of zombies greatly outnumbers that of normal humans. In fact, at the start, the narrator is our only known character, and he introduces us to the world by giving us a few of his most important zombie survival rules.

Rule No. 1: Cardio.

Narrator is a college-aged kid who was studying at the University of Texas when the mayhem struck and is now on his way back home to Columbus, Ohio, to see if his family is still alive.

On his way, he meets a tough, gun-toting, zombie-killing maniac (Woody Harrelson) who agrees to give him a ride in his truck. But, in order to avoid familiarity and, thus, any sort of friendship, he insists on calling the narrator by his destination, Columbus, and he refers to himself as Tallahassee.

Columbus soon discovers Tallahassee’s one weakness: Twinkies. It’s during a foray into a grocery store in search of the spongey snacks that they run into the untrusting Wichita (Emma Stone) and her intelligent 12-year-old sister, Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who are headed to the rumored-to-be zombie-free amusement park Pacific Playland.

“Zombieland” is a fun, offbeat, clever film. Columbus’ “rules,” playing off the horror-flick stereotypes and the hilarious celebrity cameo, are reason enough to watch it.

Woody Harrelson is in a realm of his own in his role and is one of the main sources of the film’s entertainment.

Abigail Breslin also had a shining performance as the mouthy, know-it-all preteen, and it will be interesting to see what future roles she will decide to choose.

The one thing that really gets me is Jesse Eisenberg. I saw him in “Adventureland” too and I just can’t fathom how someone can look, act and talk so much like Michael Cera ("Superbad,” “Juno”) and not be related. It’s like watching someone acting like Michael Cera while he’s acting. But, besides that, Eisenberg did a great job.

And, though I would rather qualify “Zombieland” as the one “scary” movie I need to watch by Halloween, I grudgingly promised my boyfriend I’d watch an actual scary one soon. He may not be so eager to watch another after my fingernails have dug into his arm for an hour and a half.

3 1/2 of 5 stars

‘Devil’ — fun, but superficial (3/5)

The Devil Wears Prada

Starring: Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway, Emily Blunt.
Directed by: David Frankel.
Rating: PG-13 for some sensuality.
Running time: 1 hours, 39 minutes.

Looking for a fun little chick flick? “The Devil Wears Prada” (2006) is it, but not much more.

The movie itself is actually great, but it’s what they left out that plummets this movie back into the realm of typical.

“Prada” follows the course of Andy Sachs’ (Anne Hathaway) assistant tenure under the indomitable Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep), editor-in-chief of Runway, the nation’s leading fashion magazine.

Andy makes no mistake — she doesn’t fit into this world of makeup, dressup, overbearing stress and 10-inch waists. But, as she tells Miranda at her interview, she’s smart.

After landing the job, Andy struggles to keep up in the fast-paced life of fashion and New York City, only to realize that her best efforts aren’t good enough. She seeks help from a fellow assistant, the conceited and pompous Emily (Emily Blunt), and from the magazine’s creative director, the harsh but kind-hearted Nigel (Stanley Tucci), but eventually realizes that the only person who can help her at her job is herself.

Andy undergoes a physical transformation to better fit in to the crowd of Runway and to show Miranda her serious intentions, and it isn’t long before she begins a mental and emotional change as well, sending her life careening into a pile of trendy handbags and designer scarves.

One aspect that David Frankel absolutely nailed was the casting. Every actor was sublime in her role. Meryl Streep simply is the boss from hell, but she also brings a sense of depth to Miranda that makes her seem like a real person rather than a horrific compilation of everything awful in a superior. Too, Anne Hathaway is the perfect go-to actress for a naive girl who undergoes a transformation.

The movie’s absolute scene stealer, however, is Emily Blunt. I had seen her before in “The Jane Austen Book Club,” and I look forward to a long and productive career from her.

One of the movie’s central themes of women in the workplace was insightful and refreshing.


Throughout high school and college, and now with my first “real” job, I have always been a work-oriented girl — and, through trial and error, have learned how work and life can never be truly separated. “Prada” shows the integration of life and work, and how one must be careful to not allow one to overcome the other.

In “The Devil Wears Prada,” the movie manages to capture an abhorrent work environment and yet keep the tone of the film light and fun. But, in doing so, many things fell by the wayside.

The most noticeable issue (as could be expected in a movie regarding the fashion industry) is weight. Nigel tells Andy that her size 6 is now considered a “size 14,” and there are countless insinuations about her size being a detriment throughout the script, including Miranda flat out calling her “fat.”

The movie addresses clothes as being a superficial element, but barely brushes on the absurd and unhealthy weight loss that so many in the industry feel forced to do. And even Andy celebrates becoming a size 4 near the end of the movie. With so many people, even those in the film’s target audience, struggling with weight issues and the feeling of self-consciousness, this should have been a point of higher value.

Too, the reconciliation between Andy and her boyfriend seemed lacking. Andy’s boyfriend, Nate, had a greater presence than I was expecting — up until the end. In fact, here her other friends who had been made to seem important in Andy’s life and as sources of love and support are inexplicably missing as well.

But, for its weaknesses, “Prada” was a fun watch and offered some neat insights into the fashion industry.

3 of 5 stars

Marvel’s ‘Iron Man’ nothing to be wary about (4/5)

Iron Man

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges.
Directed by: Jon Favreau.
Rating: PG-13 for some intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence, and brief suggestive content.
Running time: 2 hours, 6 minutes.

In keeping with my superhero flick kick (and also because it was next on my boyfriend’s Netflix list), I finally had the opportunity to watch the much-acclaimed “Iron Man.”

And, thankfully, it didn’t disappoint.

Last week’s “Wolverine” threw me for a bit of a loop, and I simply didn’t know what to expect from comic adaptations anymore. But there’s no point in comparing the two, really. “Iron Man” blows “Wolverine” out of the water in any imaginable instance. Thank goodness.

First, Robert Downey Jr. was the perfect actor for the intelligent, womanizing, self-serving, pompous jerk-turned-unlikely-hero Tony Stark (a.k.a. Iron Man).

The humor that Downey brings to the role complements the film excellently and is a constant undercurrent through the movie. The script in itself had decent pacing, and though the beginning seems to drag a bit after an awesome start, you’ll quickly find yourself re-immersed.

The basic plot follows weapons inventor Tony Stark through his realization of what his work truly does to the world and his attempt to right his wrongs — and how else to accomplish this goal but to don an astonishingly technologically advanced supersuit.

It’s a fun movie that introduces some sobering topics but never takes itself too seriously. Instead, it’s a great foray into adventure, action and comedy.

Perhaps what makes this movie stand out from the others is that the hero doesn’t start out as someone “good.” He makes his living off of, essentially, killing others. Most comic book heroes start off good. It’s the villains who do the changing — sometimes from normal, well-adjusted people to crazed madmen. But Tony Stark is different, and it’s refreshing. His self-realization is the driving force behind the Iron Man character.

Although the comics in themselves are about four decades old, the movie studio wisely moved the timeline of “Iron Man” from the Vietnamese war to the trials in Afghanistan and the Middle East, helping the film to feel contemporary and to better pull in the audience. Besides, if Robert Downey Jr. were traipsing about the jungle again, I’d wonder where he’d left his blackface makeup from “Tropic Thunder.”

Behind the camera, director Jon Favreau (“Elf,” “Zathura”) shows his immense capabilities, and I hope we see much more of him in the future.

Rest assured, fellow wary comic-adaptationists, “Iron Man” is “Marvel”-ous.

4 of 5 stars

Lame ‘Wolverine’ fails to impress (2.5/5)

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston.
Directed by: Gavin Hood.
Rating: PG-13 for intense sequences of action and violence, and partial nudity.
Running time: 1 hour, 47 minutes.

That’s it. Hollywood has gone too far with the adaptations.

As a young writer, I used to envision my stories being converted to theatrical masterpieces. And now I can only groan as story after story, comic book after comic book gets torn apart and mutilated in the name of “blockbuster.”

Why take a story already known and loved and completely change it in the hopes of making a profit off steadfast fans who only feel beguiled and cheated?

I’ve never been a big comic book reader, but I understand the depths of characterization and nuanced plotline built over the decades of a comic’s life.

If all you had to go on was “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” you’d never even give the series a second chance.

The biggest question I was left with after renting “Wolverine” was an enormous “Why?” The first three X-Men movies were enjoyable enough and easy to follow.

Then you watch this one.

Not only does “Wolverine” cast itself in a horrific light, but it makes you question the other three as well. It has enough plotholes to drive a tractor trailer through and, from my understanding, totally maims characters’ relationships with each other. For example, turning Wolverine and Sabretooth into brothers.

The things that disappointed me most about this movie were:

• The supporting cast. There was a lot of potential here that was just plain flushed away. Although the movie is focused on one character, there are so many brief introductions that could have been expanded to give the film much more depth. Even Victor Creed’s character was lacking, turning him into a mindless villain.

• The cheeseball action sequences.

• Gambit. I was very excited to see what his character would be like (he was one of my favorites to play in the Sega Genesis version of X-Men) and ended up (surprise surprise) heavily disappointed.

• Kayla Silverfox. I had no love for her whatsoever, and I’m generally considered to be a sap.

• The wolverine and the moon story. It’s a trifle compared to the others, sure, but as far as I’m aware wolverines don’t howl at the moon.

• Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool. Normally, I like Ryan Reynolds. And he actually does a fine job in his role. But he’s just one of those actors who will always be himself in my eyes and not the character he is portraying. Not really his fault, probably mine for countless viewings of “Waiting...” and “Just Friends.”

• Will.i.am. Yeah, seriously.

The positives of this movie, though few and far between, include Hugh Jackman’s performance (which was good considering what he had to work with) and the inclusion of Dominic Monaghan (“The Lord of the Rings,” “LOST”). Granted, Monaghan’s character was one of those shortchanged, but it was a thrill just to see him.

Unfortunately, there is a “Deadpool” movie planned for 2011 (in which Reynolds will star, as he will in the other 2011 superhero movie “The Green Lantern”...that’s right, kids, Van Wilder is going to be the Green Lantern). I see no swift end in sight for these plummeting superhero movies. As with “Spiderman,” had they just left it at 1 and 2 it could have been a fine duology, but they just had to go for that third one. And don’t even mention “Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.”

“Wolverine” could have been awesome. Instead, it’s just another lame offering from Hollywood.

2 1/2 of 5 stars

One-dimensional ‘9’ falls flat (3/5)

9

Starring: Elijah Wood, John C. Reilly, Jennifer Connelly.
Directed by: Shane Acker.
Rating: PG-13 for violence and scary images.
Running time: 1 hour, 19 minutes.

“9” had a lot of potential.

Its unique visual style is nothing short of amazing. The look of the characters themselves is enough to draw in the audience.

Unfortunately, these should not be the sole aspects that keep an audience interested through the film’s short running time. But, in the case of “9,” it almost is.

It goes without saying that most of the characters are one-dimensional. In fact, that’s almost the point. But it comes across as shallow and not at all as the profound plot device the creators intended.

“9” came on the heels of the successful “Coraline,” both produced by Tim Burton and under the oversight of Focus Features, and actually the very beginnings of both movies are exceptionally similar.

But where “Coraline” excelled in ingenuity and the exploration of a dark fantasy, “9” just leaves its audience wanting.

The movie takes place after the destruction of mankind. Before his death, a scientist created nine “stitchpunks” (as director Shane Acker calls them) because, he says, “life must go on.”

Each of the stitchpunks is made from piecing together various bits of fabric and material (zippers, camera lenses, canvas, etc.) and has a numeral hand-painted on its back.

When 9 awakens, he finds himself apparently alone in a desolate and bleak world. After leaving the dead scientist’s room, he soon finds the other stitchpunks, as well as a terrible, metallic dog-like monster.

Each of the stitchpunks has its own unique traits:

1: The oldest and leader of those stitchpunks that have not struck out on their own. His favorite sayings include “We have rules” and “Questions are pointless.” Blames 9 for many of the events that transpire after 9 awakens.

2: An old inventor who is fascinated with creating things.

3 and 4: Shy twins who live by themselves in a library. They soak up all of the knowledge they can and, lacking the ability to speak, are able to use their eyes as projectors.

5: A healer and a mechanic, 5 is also a devoted friend as seen with his attitudes toward 2 and 9.

6: Possibly insane, 6 draws the same forms on paper after paper. Lives with 1 but is mostly in a world of his own.

7: The “female” of the group, 7 is the warrior. She has abandoned 1’s ways of avoiding the metallic monster and instead seems to take it upon herself to try and destroy that which attacks the stitchpunks.

8: 1’s personal bodyguard, 8 is mean and seemingly clueless.

9: 9 is the character who most leans toward having any sort of depth. He is the “seeker of truth” and is very curious and sincere.

Like “District 9,” “9” began as a 10-minute short film created by Acker. This short film can be found on YouTube under the title “9,” but don’t watch it if you intend to watch the feature film. Watch it as a supplement instead. This short film has an astounding similarity to the feature film, but, while it may work as a 10-minute artistic venture, it just doesn’t function as well as a full-length motion picture.

A major problem with this film is the apparent lack of a target audience. I think here they tried to be the next “Finding Nemo” and appeal to people in all age groups, but somehow “9” just didn’t work out that way. Its fantastical elements, animated style and simple script would largely lend itself to younger viewers; however, the PG-13 rating and nigh-terrifying imagery would leave that crowd with nightmares. But the movie just doesn’t push enough boundaries to be that appealing to the older crowd, either.

It’s a wonderfully creative, imaginative idea. Unfortunately, the end product falls far short of the intended target.

Plenty to love about ‘(500) Days’ (4.5/5)

(500) Days of Summer

Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Zooey Deschanel.
Directed by: Marc Webb.
Rating: PG-13 for sexual material and language.
Running time: 1 hour, 35 minutes.

Right at the start, the narrator tells us that “(500) Days of Summer” most definitely is not a love story.

And, though you’re made aware of the fact from the beginning and maybe repeat it to yourself throughout the hour-and-a-half film, it does seem suspiciously like a love story. A romantic comedy, perhaps, or maybe even a nuanced “dromance” (dramatic romance).

But it’s not. Not really.

In the end, in its most basic form, “(500) Days of Summer” is about human relationships. More specifically, of a breakup. It’s about how the relationship of a boy (Tom Hansen — played by the impeccable and suddenly mature Joseph Gordon-Levitt of “3rd Rock from the Sun,” “Angels in the Outfield” and “10 Things I Hate About You” fame) and of a girl (Summer Finn — delightfully portrayed by the fun and quirky Zooey Deschanel whom you may know from “Elf,” “Yes Man” and “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”) begins, builds and gradually falls apart.

Tom is a young greeting card writer with aspirations for architecture and true love. When Summer becomes an assistant at the card company, Tom is immediately smitten. Her charm and winning smile, coupled with her love for the band The Smiths, is more than enough to push Tom over the edge.

Tom’s architectural tendencies give him the strength to conceptualize, visualize and construct something out of nothing. So when the relationship with the “love of his life” starts crumbling to the ground, Tom is left grasping with little understanding to Summer’s mindset.

Screenplay writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber made a risky but invaluable decision to not tell the story chronologically. Instead, the film skips about to different aspects of the relationship, revealing a bit near the breakup, a bit when they first meet, a bit during the best of times and a bit during the worst of times.

This nonlinear storyline heavily contributes to the film by forcing the audience to become more invested in the emotions of the characters rather than waiting for the “grand ending” just before the credits roll.

It would be very easy to hate Summer. Despite immediately telling Tom that she does not believe in love and is not looking for a serious, committed relationship, it wouldn’t take much to think that Summer was using him. After all, how could she not see how crazy in love with her Tom is?

But Deschanel’s performance leaves you loving Summer almost as much as Tom does.

The complexities of love as shown in Tom and Summer’s relationship are juxtaposed against the greeting cards they work to produce. The cards are flat and superficial. They are someone else’s words, used out of obligation. It’s no wonder Tom and Summer soon have a problem communicating.

An added bonus to this movie is the soundtrack. The light, unconventional sounds of Deschanel-esque Regina Spektor complement the film and Deschanel’s character beautifully. Too, director Marc Webb’s background of music videos lend a fresh feel to the film (and actually, Webb directed two of Spektor’s music videos).

This film was opened in limited theaters in July but was finally released in mainstream cinemas last Wednesday.

Deschanel and Gordon-Levitt also participated in Webb’s promotional “Bank Heist” skit, which can be found on YouTube under the name “(500) Days of Summer [Bank Dance].” It has little (if anything) to do with the actual movie, but will give you a taste of the fun attitude in the film complete with a song that Deschanel herself sings.

4 1/2 of 5 stars

Rachel’s top 10 school flick picks

The alarm goes off at an inhumane 6 a.m.

And that’s just the beginning.

After a hectic day of teachers, peers, coaches, homework, parents and more homework, a couple hours of unwinding is just what you need before starting it all over.

Here’s a list of my 10 favorite school-focused movies. From the guilty pleasures (“Bring it On”) to the sentimental favorites (“The Breakfast Club”), these movies are sure to get you geared up for classes, get your parents nostalgic, and, at the very least, let you forget about that 10-page paper you’ve been putting off.

“10 Things I Hate About You” (PG-13, 1999)
No, I’m not talking about the TV series. I’m talking about the original, creative, modern take on Shakespeare’s never-ending iambic pentameter. In particular, a comedic high school version of “The Taming of the Shrew.”

“Back to the Future” (PG, 1985)
OK, so I’m cheating a bit — this movie doesn’t necessarily focus on school. But, it does center around a high-school-age teen who time travels to when his parents are his age. Besides, there are some school scenes. Anyway, this adventure movie captures a lot of the wonder and creativity associated with youth. It’s a classic for a reason.

“The Breakfast Club” (R, 1985)
Of course. Nothing like a detention movie to get the kids ready for back to school. But really, the film’s dissolving of clique barriers and stereotypes set a precedent for high school movies.

“Bring It On” (PG-13, 2000)
I didn’t lose my mind — yet, anyway. If you see “Bring it On: In it to Win it” on next year’s list, then you should worry. But this movie’s cheesiness and utter superficiality gives those of us who were never cheerleaders a good laugh while hopefully showing the real cheerleaders that they don’t have to fit the stereotype.

“Cheats” (PG-13, 2002)
In my opinion, one of the most underrated movies. “Cheats” has never gotten the recognition it deserves. Based on a true story (which makes the film even better), the story follows a group of boys who cheat their way through school. A hilarious movie and definitely one to watch.

“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” (PG-13, 1986)
Who hasn’t needed a mental health day? Ferris Bueller has been a teen hero for decades with his devil-may-care attitude and general lack of respect for school authority.

“Mean Girls” (PG-13, 2004)
It’s every girl’s nightmare: To see her friend become one of the “popular kids” and subsequently ignore her existence. But what if you were put in that situation? Would you be able to resist the perks of popularity and disentangle yourself from the web of drama?

“Mr. Holland’s Opus” (PG, 1995)
A bit of a different tone from the others on this list, “Opus” focuses on an aspiring pianist who becomes a music teacher to pay the bills — only to realize that the short-term gig has become a full-time career. Sentimental and inspiring, “Opus” shows the difference a dedicated teacher can make in students’ lives, and also the inspiration the teacher can derive from those same students.

“Remember the Titans” (PG, 2000)
Another sentimental favorite, this true story follows the trials and triumphs of a struggling interracial football team in Virginia in the 1970s. I’m not normally a football fan, but “Titans” transcends the typical sports movie to view the contested school and town through the reflective lens of the team.

“Superbad” (R, 2007)
Parents beware: Vulgarity abounds in this comedy, but it is one of the most hilarious movies I’ve seen, not to mention its place quite near the top of my favorites list. Michael Cera and Jonah Hill capture the awkwardness of high school beautifully. Forget “Napoleon Dynamite”; “Superbad” is relatable and at times painfully honest, but always ceaselessly entertaining.