Zombieland: Double Tap

(SPOILER ALERT!) Zombieland offers a very decent intro, you cannot help laughing when you see the film's logo, then slowly but surely it leads to the badass finale, which ends with an incredibly funny tribute to the "unnamed ghostbuster". The second film may have some weaker spots, with too much talking, lecturing, shouting or spitting, but all of that is amply made up for by the large number of action and climactic scenes. The award for funniest character goes to the endearingly goofy "blonde from the freezer", and I was also very amused by the "doppelganger" sequence. In the end, it's a weaker four stars, but I can't say I was bored in the cinema, and that's the most important thing in a comedy. (29/10/2019)

In terms of content, this a clearly bad film. Its schematic, weak and sloppy story about the journey of the characters from point A to point B serves only as a necessary link for a series of comedy sketches and action scenes with zombies, all with fluctuating levels of quality. The film of course copies the first Zombieland, but this time it's all much simpler, more straightforward, more predictable and, overall, somewhat worse in all respects. Moreover, after ten years, the main characters have degraded to annoying one-dimensional caricatures. The film is fully aware that they are unbearable, but rather than doing anything about it, it uses these aspects as a source of humour (and builds a panopticon around them of deliberately annoying and exaggerated, demented side characters consisting of personalized stereotypes, so that the main characters appear more sympathetic to the audience). The film is partly saved by a fairly entertaining level of comedy, and in places by the actors, who obviously enjoyed filming it, which the audience can see. Only every third to fourth joke works, but with the huge cadence of gags, it doesn't matter much. (23/10/2019)

The same thing as the first one, really. An entertaining premise and a couple of good formal ideas elaborated into the rumble of the four (five) likeable characters that doesn’t result in anything original. The great cast carry the film on their shoulders again, Flescher adds a few functional ideas, plus a couple of cameos to make things more interesting, and the viewer can kick-back and relax. And even though neither the characters nor the world go anywhere in the end, it’s impossible not to acknowledge that this innocent zombie silliness works surprisingly well – and like the previous, it deserves a strong 3*. (24/12/2019)

With this bunch (including the pink blonde), you wouldn’t be bored even if they just stood around talking at a bus stop. Even so, the screenwriters of the second Zombieland didn’t exactly overwork themselves. The film is a road movie with three stops where something happens just for a moment of amusement, not for moving some elaborate story forward, much less for enriching genre conventions. Even the imaginative pacifist smelting of weapons in Babylon was spoiled by the silly solution of the final problem with the zombie army. It’s okay for watching once, though. (26/11/2019)

Whereas some lenient reviews assert that the second Zombieland offers essentially the same thing as the first one, that is not entirely true. While watching the film, you repeatedly say to yourself that specific scenes and shots are a variation of something from the first film, whether that is slow-motion splatter shots or the characters pushing each other around. But that is merely just mechanical fan service and thus basically the exact opposite of the very essence of the first Zombieland, which became a sensation in its time because it came up with a fresh approach to zombie flicks and managed to transform them into clever entertainment by means of a detached view and genre reflection. The second film, on the other hand, is shocking in its failure to offer anything fresh or original. It is as if the returning filmmakers had suffered a severe case of dementia over the preceding decade and are thus merely repeating what they did last time. Furthermore, whereas the first film had a certain degree of causality and, above all, it managed to build a functional and coherent world, here everything falls to pieces. The result is an unwanted travesty in which the characters find themselves outside of their world, while the new reality lacks any cohesion (which is most apparent in the absolutely dysfunctional and interchangeable environment of the climax). Everything could almost be saved by claiming that this time the filmmakers came up with a brilliant meta concept which, following the example of typically insipid direct-to-video sequels, offers a deliberately cheaper and more shoddily made variation of the original hit, but nothing in the film indicates such a degree of detachmentand conceptuality. (09/11/2019)