Twinkies

Rating: 4/10 (14 November 2019)

The success or failure of comedies mystifies me sometimes. Why did "The Hangover," "The Proposal" and "Paul Blart: Mall Cop"--and those are just some of the comedies that outperformed "Zombieland" in 2009--prove profitable at the box office? Personally, I thought bombs such as "Funny People" or "Whip It" (both also from 2009) to be more amusing and interesting. I mean, there've been zombie parodies before, which is also part of the horror spoof genre at large. "Shaun of the Dead" (2004) is an obvious precursor. Perhaps, it's because the material is familiar and because that it's easily consumed is comforting that helps explain its popularity. Movies such as this are, essentially, Twinkies.
After all, part of why "Zombieland" is familiar and readily consumed is because it tells us exactly what it is. There's no hidden subtext here. Their destroying a store selling Native-American-style wares isn't a commentary on zombies reflecting America's past genocide of the country's native inhabitants. Their making fun of obese people isn't satire; they're plain fat jokes. Anyways, there are four characters on three separate quests amid the zombie apocalypse here: the girls want to visit an amusement park, the boy wants sex, and Woody Harrelson is searching for Twinkies. A thrill ride, a rom-com and junk food: that's what "Zombieland" is. But, inside of this, we're shown what the movie aspires to be, which is "Ghostbusters" (1984). Indeed, that film is screened in the middle part as a film-within-the-film, and Bill Murray steals the show in a cameo. This is no "Ghostbusters," though. I may have a heterodox take on that classic comedy, but it's a perverse picture--even sexually and homoerotically so. Four guys sliding down fire poles, waving around their wands while chasing a rainbow of ghosts unleashed from their closet and, then, ending up covered in white goo--c'mon. "Zombieland" is pedestrian by comparison.
Sure, it plays around with a fourth-wall-breaking protagonist narrating in a humorous way, but that's merely the wrapper. It hardly goes far enough to upend its genre in the way the same screenwriters' "Deadpool" (2016) would, or to be as funny as Murray's sardonic quips throughout "Ghostbusters." Instead, we get a thrill ride that's not especially thrilling with the sweetness of romantic comedy thrown in, but, ultimately, it's just junk. Like a Twinkie, it looks stupid enough to promise being funny and is mostly sugary, unfulfilling and bad for you, but it's cheap and accessible. Consuming one of them now and again may not do you great harm, but if your diet consists largely of them, you risk being a fathead.
(Speaking of stupid, does everywhere in Zombieland have a generator? Where do they think electricity comes from? Why do they assume abandoned vehicles will run or have gas--how do they not have problems getting gas? Why do they not worry about running out of bullets? How has spoiled food not made grocery stores biohazards? "Maybe 'Garfield.'" How is Murray not certain of regretting being in that movie?)