Zombieland Review
At the expense of sidetracking for the most part whenever I take into account the classic value of a movie that's released this entire millennium (if not mostly before it) I first consider the year it was released. For example, this installment, compared to Double Tap. On one hand 2009 doesn’t seem that far away compared to movies that were still being shot on traditional film. And yet that’s just it: Zombieland wouldn’t be shot on digital until Double Tap. That’s not to say digital cameras didn’t start to become popular until 2013, yet they certainly were beginning to be utilized more frequently since the new millennium itself started (case in point being 2010's The Social Network, another movie notable from Eisenberg made essentially with a digital camera despite belonging to a different genre). So what does the year have to do with it? It mostly relies on math and the way we would’ve seen the past now compared to the aforementioned year. To put it in perspective take how many years it was since the first Zombieland was released counting today: 13. It doesn’t seem that far away until you not only place yourself in that exact year but also apply that amount of time going back by subtracting those years: 2009 - 13 = 1996. Although it could be argued that Zombieland has any prominent mid 90s feel (even if Bill Murray may have been better known throughout that decade thanks to Groundhog Day) you can at least agree how its quality has aged almost in the same way as any other good 90s movie you would’ve seen around that time due to its reliance on film if not the way the movie took its time to explore its world the way most mid to late 90s movies did such as Waterworld, The Fifth Element, Dark City, The Matrix, 12 Monkeys, etc. This is especially the case when you apply this process with its sequel, Double Tap, which was released a decade later (2019 - 3 = 2016). 2016 may not seem like much until you remember how digital film began really dominating over traditional film since 2013 and realize how much it shows compared to the first installment. My general point is that this movie made me think about how details like these prove how rewatching a movie from quite some time ago changes mostly because of our perspective and the classic value we acre with it. As for the movie itself it feels unfair to compare it to Shaun of the Dead as it is nothing like the latter past the genres used (as well as the decade released). While it is a few commentaries away from being anything Romero inspired it certainly has a better spirit than most other zombie related films. I certainly enjoyed it for the most part, even if its dry atmosphere and contemplative humor may not be for everyone expecting 50% more zombie carnage in the post-Zack Snyder world which it was released.