A Weak appeal to Popularity and a weak film (contains spoilers)

Rating: 1/10 (13 October 2009)

First off, I love zombies. I grew up watching Romero films with their brilliant social satire and I will readily admit to constructing a Logan Frankenstein lab in my basement, where I study chemistry and biology with the dreamy delusions of infecting the populous with a zombie plague. That being said (prompted by its undeserved popularity and praise) I must also objectively say that Zombieland is a piece of adolescent garbage.
The movie opens to the sweet, sweet voice of Jesse Eisenberg. Ahh, to be blessed with such an instrument of masculine authority... He plays a nerdy character named Columbus (and rightfully so, as Eisenberg is often typecast in such a role and is highly believable to boot). So I sat cringing, waiting for him to stop talking... he doesn't. He literally talks the entire movie, narrating events which require no narration and offering his opinion while you're really just imagining holding his head under water. It's like watching a movie while sitting in a rusty chair that creaks with a high pitched squeal every few seconds as you adjust in your seat, ruining your ability to focus until as far as you're concerned the only thing that exists in this world is that horrible sound. That would be slightly more pleasing than the voice of Jesse Eisenberg.
Initially, Columbus lays down his rules for individual survival, and why he is so effective at it, in a post-apocalyptic, zombie cityscape. There may have been minor laughs during this, certainly not while he was talking as I was imagining what my mouth would feel like on the barrel of a shotgun.
The story jumps around spastically and is unbelievable. I'm willing to forgive this because, in fairness, it isn't aiming to tell a coherent story but rather indulge in the charm of its own scenes.
The lead character breaks his own rules and eventually runs into Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson). With this balance the film aims to offset the effeminate, nasally lead character. At one point it seems like it's working but the narration keeps interjecting.
Tallahassee embodies what the movie is, what it hopes to be, and what it actually is- macho, coolly stylized and charming, but ultimately insulting and dim. In nearly all advertisements he is the selling point, playing a satirical Snake Plissken-esque character. On paper and in short blurbs this is funny and sounds like it could work well. What is most disappointing is how much of an intended, and obviously contrived, selling point he is. This is further evidenced by the character's manufactured (and poorly thought out) catch phrase "time to nut up or shut up," as it is repeated with patronizing disregard for your intelligence.
The next two characters introduced are Wichita and Little Rock, two sisters who outwit the leading males and steal their vehicle. For brief minutes it appears that the movie will almost take a progressive stance in the way it portrays its females. This seemingly progressive standpoint is only surface deep and should be understood for the superficial insult that it is. To understand the movie's actual view of females, simply reference the plot points and what they are literally saying. First, the women take advantage of the men because they are conniving and clever with no moral compass. Of course they are overthrown by the men, as they are physically inferior, but become attached to them anyway. They ultimately make a profoundly stupid judgment call, in a city of zombies... by lighting up an entire amusement park, thereby attracting all the zombies. Of course someone needs to come and save them! Despite being dimwitted, the males are needed to rescue the females (from themselves no less) and are thereby rewarded with bountiful, female loyalty. This is the worst kind of female progression- the patronizing, phallocentric and misogynistic kind.
Parts of the comedy are okay. There are funny moments that are so unmemorable that I've already forgotten them. I'm simply trusting my faulty recollection that they exist at all (that could be the Stockholm syndrome talking). And I also have no problem with the Bill Murray scene as it's likable and fun. Unfortunately, Bill Murray alone is not enough for this film's salvation.
This movie is an appeal to the people. The creators know that if they include enough popular elements and mimic the sensibilities of the target audience, the majority of that audience will eat it up. Someone walking away with a haphazard "oh that was cool and funny as hell" mindset as already dangerously and unknowingly approved of the set of embellished and insulting values that go along with it. I've probably said "patronizing" more than once, it's because that's simply the case. If you didn't feel that way, you may very well be this movie's target audience and the new era of zombie fan boy-- a dim witted, fifteen-year-old male with a short attention span, who will embrace any negative views, advertisements and pop culture garbage that are jammed down his throat, so as long as it's accompanied by trendy humor-- like sugar to help the medicine to go down.